I don't see it as depressing either - I look forward to sitting on the porch yelling at those dumbass kids to get off my damn lawn that I bought and paid for with my own blood, sweat and tears while walking uphill both ways to the home and garden store.
Basically, it's them against us, and I don't plan on losing to some stupid kid.
I disagree, but only on a technical point. I would say the next generation hates what the previous generation becomes. It puts the proper emphasis on the rebellious nature of youth, and the idea that each generation seeks some sort of stability on it's own terms.
Basically, our kids just want to destroy our peaceful lives.
It wasn't libel until it was published - if I tell you, even in a letter or a fax, that so-n-so is a complete tool who eats human children for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, it still remains a private communication. If you or I choose to publish the letter about the child-eating third party, then it may be libel, but then again, it could be just opinion, which isn't libel if it's not published as a stated fact, which is very difficult to prove.
By the same token, if I send you a letter claiming you chow on children, it isn't libel. If you publish the letter, you do so of your own volition, but it doesn't meet the standard for libel because the originator of the information (me) did not publish it in a public forum.
Retired Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., who wrote the Sullivan decision, defined it as "knowledge that the [published information] was false" or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." In other words, public officials no longer could sue for libel simply by proving that something that had been broadcast or printed about them was false. Now they would have to prove that a journalist had knowingly printed false information while making little, if any, attempt to distinguish truth from lies.
and...
American courts also have ruled that various kinds of published information are generally immune from libel charges. For example, it is almost impossible for a writer to be found guilty of libel if the writing deals with opinions rather than facts. "Under the First Amendment, there is no such thing as a false idea," the Supreme Court said in a 1974 libel ruling.
So, JT is being a tool about this (my opinion) but neither he nor PA has committed any sort of libel. I doubt PA's lawyers would let them at this point, considering that legal threats should be taken very seriously, no matter how spurious the claim may be.
just make laws that forbid companies from supplying such assistance to those regimes
You realize it's just as easy to use Free Software to do the same sort of thing, right? So, should the same law also apply to developers who create software for Linux and Unix? Either way, commercial or free, tools are being created and used.
I think it's more a case of myopia than anything else. Your average salesperson isn't going to know who or what Myanmar is (to be honest, I couldn't place it immediately, either) - they probably aren't dealing with Myanmar itself, but rather some overseas company who's doing the actual sales and integration, who never mentioned anything about where the software was going to end up.
While companies should behave ethically, it's a bit of a stretch to say they should track their product usage from cradle to grave. After all, there are Free Software products out there that are supposedly just as good as Outlook at scheduling tomorrow's round of executions for Crimes Against The State.
I'd rather space agencies sent real scientists rather than some worthless millionaire with a bunch of excess cash and no other real function, but since our governments seem more interested in funding The War on $Concept than advancing the boundaries of human knowledge, we're stuck with it.
The "people" in Gitmo would kill you in a heartbeat!
Really? And how did you divine that - on your special wavelength from God? The people in Guantanamo haven't been tried in a court of law (not that they likely ever will be, either). They have no access to the evidence against them and no way to refute it. Hell, they're not even legally prisoners according to international conventions, which we, at one time, agreed to follow.
Unless you want to go back to expensive telephone calls.
Which is not necessarily a bad thing - it forces them to put money back into the economic system by way of the phone company, which is far more expensive than the internet.
Couldn't some of the same arguments about anonymous information be said about the Internet as a whole?
Absolutely - a good rule-of-thumb when using the internet is: "don't believe everything you read". It's best to have multiple sources for any sort of information, preferably those with some sort of documentation to back up their claims.
Which is the major problem I see with Wikipedia: little or no sourcing of claims. Submitters are not required to prove their bona fides to submit or edit information in Wikipedia and not much of an attempt at attribution of claims.
Re-read the article. As I understand it, copying for "personal use" would be made illegal. Whether or not it should be illegal is immaterial to this particular discussion - this is about what the law states.
It's interesting to note that the government claims it won't pursue those who break the copying law for personal use. Isn't it the duty of Government to pursue those who break it's laws? While the people might seem to have a right to break those laws they feel are unjust, I wasn't aware that this was an ability granted to the Government.
It would appear that we don't have too many options for "doing something about it". We could take up arms, but the government is better armed than most people, and those who are willing to fight in defense of rights are smaller than those willing to bear arms to support the government (unless it's for the right to bear arms). We all seen how effective acts of terrorism are. Plus, there has to be something better than killing off the people you're trying to persuade.
All of the power is with the Republicans right now and they've shown that they don't actually believe in the Constitution, unless it's for Republicans, nor do they care about the people, unless the people are rich or think like they do.
I, like many, don't have much investment in this country, and so, I would gladly get the hell out, except that I don't have much investment in anything else to allow me to afford to get the hell out.
This is merely another step in social evolution - it may be happening much faster than anyone thought it would, but it would happen (or something like it, or perhaps something different would happen) eventually. Things change - we live in a time of great social upheaval and changes in our lifestyles and social connections will be happening now throughout the rest of our lives.
I don't see this as a problem, but rather a change that we either adapt to and survive, or fail to adapt to and don't.
I think an even better tactic would have been to tell the mobile operators where they could shove it.
If Apple comes out with a great product, people will buy it - witness the iPod, which carries a commanding lead on the market, despite the high price vs. number of features.
In this day and age, there is no reason to kow-tow to mobile operator demands, since it is so easy to bypass them and sell directly to consumers, who can easily insert their own SIM cards. By doing so, Apple would have been able to put in the features we wanted rather than what they were allowed to do.
Furthermore, Apple can bank on their "rebellious" image if the operators raise a stink about it, or try to block the phone in various ways.
This is a failure on Apple's part to capitalize on their ability to rebel against established rules.
The key to international security is to show that you are willing to fight those who threaten you
I would say the key to National Security is being able to fight those who threaten you. So far, we're not doing so good against Bin Laden. That's not to say that we won't improve in the future, but right now, it appears that the ball is in his court.
It probably has to do with Canada's attempts to provide universal health care, the apparent lack of religious extremists and gun nuts, as well as the apparent air of politeness.
Whether or not those things actually exist or not, the appearance is there which makes it an attractive option for escapists.
I'd be out of here myself, but coming up with the $100K+ to make yourself an attractive proposition for foreign emigration is next to impossible given my current financial standing.
Maybe if you identified yourself instead of hiding behind the mask of AC, I might consider it, but for now, you look to be no more than another useless troll.
The other possibility is to use some sort of intermediate layer such as ADODB to relieve some of the problems associated with specific platform issues. These have their own sets of problems, but we don't live in a perfect world.
Re:Stop Wasting Our Time With Wannabe BSD Licences
on
OpenOffice Goes LGPL
·
· Score: 1
I just do not get why people keep telling me BSD is superior, when it obviously does not fit my needs.
For the same reason that people keep proselytizing the GPL. It's a choice and everyone assumes everyone else is a moron who made the wrong one.
That's also somewhat the norm in the graphic design world (although not necessarily in the web design world). A piece of design work represents not only the client but the designer and as a result, the designer has a say in what happens to the work. A lot of it depends on how snippy the designer gets about the contract.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see it as depressing either - I look forward to sitting on the porch yelling at those dumbass kids to get off my damn lawn that I bought and paid for with my own blood, sweat and tears while walking uphill both ways to the home and garden store.
Basically, it's them against us, and I don't plan on losing to some stupid kid.
most young people become what they hate
I disagree, but only on a technical point. I would say the next generation hates what the previous generation becomes. It puts the proper emphasis on the rebellious nature of youth, and the idea that each generation seeks some sort of stability on it's own terms.
Basically, our kids just want to destroy our peaceful lives.
I don't know about the extortion claims, but would it be possible to nail him for false advertising, for reneging on his $10K offer?
By the same token, if I send you a letter claiming you chow on children, it isn't libel. If you publish the letter, you do so of your own volition, but it doesn't meet the standard for libel because the originator of the information (me) did not publish it in a public forum.
So, give up your baby-chomping ways and read this: Libel Law in the United States.
The relevant section in question are thus:
and
So, JT is being a tool about this (my opinion) but neither he nor PA has committed any sort of libel. I doubt PA's lawyers would let them at this point, considering that legal threats should be taken very seriously, no matter how spurious the claim may be.
just make laws that forbid companies from supplying such assistance to those regimes
You realize it's just as easy to use Free Software to do the same sort of thing, right? So, should the same law also apply to developers who create software for Linux and Unix? Either way, commercial or free, tools are being created and used.
I think it's more a case of myopia than anything else. Your average salesperson isn't going to know who or what Myanmar is (to be honest, I couldn't place it immediately, either) - they probably aren't dealing with Myanmar itself, but rather some overseas company who's doing the actual sales and integration, who never mentioned anything about where the software was going to end up.
While companies should behave ethically, it's a bit of a stretch to say they should track their product usage from cradle to grave. After all, there are Free Software products out there that are supposedly just as good as Outlook at scheduling tomorrow's round of executions for Crimes Against The State.
I'd rather space agencies sent real scientists rather than some worthless millionaire with a bunch of excess cash and no other real function, but since our governments seem more interested in funding The War on $Concept than advancing the boundaries of human knowledge, we're stuck with it.
The "people" in Gitmo would kill you in a heartbeat!
Really? And how did you divine that - on your special wavelength from God? The people in Guantanamo haven't been tried in a court of law (not that they likely ever will be, either). They have no access to the evidence against them and no way to refute it. Hell, they're not even legally prisoners according to international conventions, which we, at one time, agreed to follow.
Unless you want to go back to expensive telephone calls.
Which is not necessarily a bad thing - it forces them to put money back into the economic system by way of the phone company, which is far more expensive than the internet.
It might not be as bad as all that, though, if you start to ask the question: how often do people surf outside their own native language?
This is going to hurt foreign countries worse than it's going to hurt the U.S.
Why just on the internet?
Because that's what the original question was about.
Couldn't some of the same arguments about anonymous information be said about the Internet as a whole?
Absolutely - a good rule-of-thumb when using the internet is: "don't believe everything you read". It's best to have multiple sources for any sort of information, preferably those with some sort of documentation to back up their claims.
Which is the major problem I see with Wikipedia: little or no sourcing of claims. Submitters are not required to prove their bona fides to submit or edit information in Wikipedia and not much of an attempt at attribution of claims.
Re-read the article. As I understand it, copying for "personal use" would be made illegal. Whether or not it should be illegal is immaterial to this particular discussion - this is about what the law states.
It's interesting to note that the government claims it won't pursue those who break the copying law for personal use. Isn't it the duty of Government to pursue those who break it's laws? While the people might seem to have a right to break those laws they feel are unjust, I wasn't aware that this was an ability granted to the Government.
It would appear that we don't have too many options for "doing something about it". We could take up arms, but the government is better armed than most people, and those who are willing to fight in defense of rights are smaller than those willing to bear arms to support the government (unless it's for the right to bear arms). We all seen how effective acts of terrorism are. Plus, there has to be something better than killing off the people you're trying to persuade.
All of the power is with the Republicans right now and they've shown that they don't actually believe in the Constitution, unless it's for Republicans, nor do they care about the people, unless the people are rich or think like they do.
I, like many, don't have much investment in this country, and so, I would gladly get the hell out, except that I don't have much investment in anything else to allow me to afford to get the hell out.
So, any other brilliant ideas?
This is merely another step in social evolution - it may be happening much faster than anyone thought it would, but it would happen (or something like it, or perhaps something different would happen) eventually. Things change - we live in a time of great social upheaval and changes in our lifestyles and social connections will be happening now throughout the rest of our lives.
I don't see this as a problem, but rather a change that we either adapt to and survive, or fail to adapt to and don't.
I think an even better tactic would have been to tell the mobile operators where they could shove it.
If Apple comes out with a great product, people will buy it - witness the iPod, which carries a commanding lead on the market, despite the high price vs. number of features.
In this day and age, there is no reason to kow-tow to mobile operator demands, since it is so easy to bypass them and sell directly to consumers, who can easily insert their own SIM cards. By doing so, Apple would have been able to put in the features we wanted rather than what they were allowed to do.
Furthermore, Apple can bank on their "rebellious" image if the operators raise a stink about it, or try to block the phone in various ways.
This is a failure on Apple's part to capitalize on their ability to rebel against established rules.
The key to international security is to show that you are willing to fight those who threaten you
I would say the key to National Security is being able to fight those who threaten you. So far, we're not doing so good against Bin Laden. That's not to say that we won't improve in the future, but right now, it appears that the ball is in his court.
It probably has to do with Canada's attempts to provide universal health care, the apparent lack of religious extremists and gun nuts, as well as the apparent air of politeness.
Whether or not those things actually exist or not, the appearance is there which makes it an attractive option for escapists.
I'd be out of here myself, but coming up with the $100K+ to make yourself an attractive proposition for foreign emigration is next to impossible given my current financial standing.
Maybe if you identified yourself instead of hiding behind the mask of AC, I might consider it, but for now, you look to be no more than another useless troll.
I won't damn you for running Windows. You are to be commended for running Slackware.
But curse you for running SCO products.
It would help the readers more if the question was of a nature that the readers could actually implement.
This question reads like someone just hasn't had inclination to do their own research and wants a cheap way out of it by asking around.
Insert pointless comment about the believability of Beowulf clusters of collapsing stars.
The other possibility is to use some sort of intermediate layer such as ADODB to relieve some of the problems associated with specific platform issues. These have their own sets of problems, but we don't live in a perfect world.
I just do not get why people keep telling me BSD is superior, when it obviously does not fit my needs.
For the same reason that people keep proselytizing the GPL. It's a choice and everyone assumes everyone else is a moron who made the wrong one.
That's also somewhat the norm in the graphic design world (although not necessarily in the web design world). A piece of design work represents not only the client but the designer and as a result, the designer has a say in what happens to the work. A lot of it depends on how snippy the designer gets about the contract.