Just to help you think about it --- corporations are nothing more than groups of individual citizens. A group of citizens has as much Constitutionally-granted rights and freedoms as an individual citizen. I stand corrected, but only mostly:) A bit of digging turned up Ohralik V. Ohio, which did essentially find that while corporations are protected, they are not afforded the same level of protection as citizens.
Music is mostly for adolescents. Eventually you'll grow out of it, like the rest of us over-30s. Y'all go ahead and mark him troll. Me, I'll just pity the poor sod.
I think it largely depends on the negotiating abilities of the author (or agent); and the quality of the work. Much like any negotiation, if the writer is willing to walk away, he can often get better terms. I realize that this isn't always the case - new writers have a harder time with it unless they are producing work of superb potential; but I suspect that to be the exception rather than the rule.
I just can't believe CPA's make up their own formulas. (OK, honest CPA's.) And since these formula's
GAH! I can't take it any more! You don't make a word plural by adding an apostrophe "s"! Unleash the dogs of war. Every man's destiny. CPAs make up their formulas! Is that so bloody hard?! I see otherwise intelligent, educated people making this mistake more and more often, and I'm terrified that it will become accepted. The other day, I caught myself doing it -- now I lie awake at night, afraid to sleep for I know that the "'s"es will return in my dreams.
So, uh, right. Sorry about that, had to get it off my chest. Carry on.
Nope. Matter of perspective, I suppose. Have done both linux and windows development, I find Windows to be far more consistent. Of course there are exceptions on both sides, but they are exceptions.
Can I just say, "Holy crap!"? On the surface, my first response was - "Huh. Actually, that sounds pretty cool. I'm tired of getting Windows installs with all the extra shit I don't want."
Then I put on my developer hat, and reached the aforementioned "holy crap" conclusion. The best thing that Windows has going for it from a development perspective is its consistency. (I know enough people disagree with this, but just let it ride for argument's sake.) What I mean by that is that you know, for a target OS version, exactly what is available to you. If you have Windows 2000+, various security APIs work. If you have win98+, various common controls are available, etc.
This obviously isn't ideal, but it does work well; and IMO it makes Windows easier to develop for than Linux (yes, I've done both). You know exactly what to expect for a given version of the OS, and for most of the functionality you want, you don't have to worry about a large number of external dependencies.
Now... enter subscription components. Let's say I build something that expects to use the Mail API that MS provides. Oops! the customer hasn't subscribed to the mail option! Does MS get the call? Nope, but I sure do...
Why? It's their name servers, they are a private company and they can choose what they want or don't want on their name servers and any other servers, and they are not bound by law to provide service to anyone or everyone. The fact is, the US constiution only protect against censorship from the government ("Congress shall make no law..."). Privately held companies cannot be accused of censorship in the legal sense.
Well - there are a couple parts to that. I didn't mention censorship in the context of government or the constitutionality of it; that's a different beast entirely. Censorship can (and does) exist outside the context of government. If I write a letter to the editor and have it published in my local newspaper, only to find that they deleted the most controversial portion of my letter, it's been censored. Of course it's not legally actionable, but it/is/ still censorship.
As to the other aspect: Insofar as NS (and any other registrar) is basically acting on behalf of IANA, I strongly suspect that their agreement with IANA prevents this. This isn't a matter of legality or legislation, but the terms under which they are permitted to act on behalf of IANA as a registrar.
Perhaps if we hired citizens working at minimum wage or more there would be more money floating around with the consumers to allow higher fruit prices, perhaps, as well, we give these citizens benefits so they pay less in health care allowing them to have more disposable income. Then say we charge these workers an income tax so the government can get a little more done, and a little less debt. Then just imagine if removing the illegal labor we free some burden from hospitals and schools so people paying this said tax get some benefits. a) where does the money come from to pay 3x current salaries plus extra on top of that for employer portion of social security and medicaid?
b) at minimum wage, you get all of your tax money back. Sometimes more, if you have kids. This means that it would actually cost the government more in administrative overhead to have illegals receiving minimum wage and paying tax
c) Now we're back to the first question. Where does the money come from to start paying minimum wage, which is - in the end - several times what is being paid now?
I have the opposite problem to this "Tiller's Law": I read way more than I converse, so quite often pronounce words incorrectly! I was going to give examples but it's just too embarrassing. If I'm talking to someone I always know I've done this because their face freezes and then smile ever so slightly.
I often have that problem myself - though as often as not, it turns out that conversational partners don't know the words/at all/...
Actually, I was mistaken - I had assumed these two particular stories to be mid-career works, but they were in fact early - these are what I was thinking of when I made the comment:
Of course, nearly all of Heinlein's work is good stuff, and it's interesting to watch his own beliefs as expressed through his work change and broaden over the years.
Heh. Apparently the person who modded me flamebait felt it should not be free speech - probably because of the emotionally weighted words and phrases I deliberately chose. (Mid-career Heinlein should be required reading before being allowed to mod... )
I have kept my domains at NSI for over a decade just because I was too lazy to move them to a better registrar, but in light of this they are losing my business immediately. THis was not in their capacity as a registrar, but in their capacity as the hosting service provider for this particular web site.
The Web site where Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders was promoting his not-yet-released anti-Quran film has been suspended by its U.S. hosting service, Network Solutions
NS has reserved the right to control what people can use their servers for - because in this instance, they are operating in capacity as the web site host. The people making the video agreed to this limitation when they signed up. NS is just working within their own not-unreasonable interpretation of their ToS. If the ToS policy is too broad, then it's up to the site owners to receive clarification before signing up for the service. At this point, there is absolutely nothing stopping the owner from taking their business elsewhere (which is exactly what they/should/ do her).
NS is no longer providing the service that these people wish even though they acknowledged the possibility to start with; so they should be taking their business elsewhere -- free market at its finest.
Now, if NS was acting in their capacity as a registrar/root DNS provider, then it can rightly be called censorship. But this? Just a web host deciding it doesn't want to host a certain type of content.
who gives a fuck if it tells you to go out and punch a muslim? that's free speech Not in the US. Directly provoking violence is not protected speech. Dude, go punch your mom. And a muslim. And a buddhist. Then go kill the President.
So, uh... how is that not free speech? Telling someone to commit violence is a far cry from actually inciting violence.
This story is a straw man fallacy used to attack the Bush Administration for the Patriot Act that allows domestic spying to capture terrorist suspects. Or you could be just a little, tiny bit paranoid?
Most likely because someone doesn't like my opinions on Slashdot or some other web site and decided to give me a hard time about it Maybe a just a bit?
Misinformed blogger makes a flamebait article that reads like ex-lover's childish rant complete with doomsday threats and with a inflammatory headline, the 'editor' doesn't do any editorial work and the hundreds of misguided comments below will just bash on MS and earn insightful, informative and interesting mod points. Also, this will be repeated in the comments in other articles as the gospel truth because most people don't even RTFA, forget about actually seeing if there is a grain of truth in it. In other words, just another day on Slashdot. Phew. Bitter much?
Slashdot Mirror
I could be wrong, but I think corporations are not afforded any constitutional rights to begin with.
"Wikileaks is down from too much traffic. Here, let me link to it from the frontpage of slashdot, that'll help!"
I think it largely depends on the negotiating abilities of the author (or agent); and the quality of the work. Much like any negotiation, if the writer is willing to walk away, he can often get better terms. I realize that this isn't always the case - new writers have a harder time with it unless they are producing work of superb potential; but I suspect that to be the exception rather than the rule.
It does. And the author chooses to sell it, often in exchange for a lump sum payment and continuing royalties.
So have I -- and no, I'm not ;)
You made me briefly paranoid, thinking that I had committed such a grammatical sin in my previous post.
Actually, I meant just what I typed ;)
GAH! I can't take it any more! You don't make a word plural by adding an apostrophe "s"! Unleash the dogs of war. Every man's destiny. CPAs make up their formulas! Is that so bloody hard?! I see otherwise intelligent, educated people making this mistake more and more often, and I'm terrified that it will become accepted. The other day, I caught myself doing it -- now I lie awake at night, afraid to sleep for I know that the "'s"es will return in my dreams.
So, uh, right. Sorry about that, had to get it off my chest. Carry on.
Nope. Matter of perspective, I suppose. Have done both linux and windows development, I find Windows to be far more consistent. Of course there are exceptions on both sides, but they are exceptions.
Can I just say, "Holy crap!"? On the surface, my first response was - "Huh. Actually, that sounds pretty cool. I'm tired of getting Windows installs with all the extra shit I don't want."
Then I put on my developer hat, and reached the aforementioned "holy crap" conclusion. The best thing that Windows has going for it from a development perspective is its consistency. (I know enough people disagree with this, but just let it ride for argument's sake.) What I mean by that is that you know, for a target OS version, exactly what is available to you. If you have Windows 2000+, various security APIs work. If you have win98+, various common controls are available, etc.
This obviously isn't ideal, but it does work well; and IMO it makes Windows easier to develop for than Linux (yes, I've done both). You know exactly what to expect for a given version of the OS, and for most of the functionality you want, you don't have to worry about a large number of external dependencies.
Now... enter subscription components. Let's say I build something that expects to use the Mail API that MS provides. Oops! the customer hasn't subscribed to the mail option! Does MS get the call? Nope, but I sure do...
Well - there are a couple parts to that. I didn't mention censorship in the context of government or the constitutionality of it; that's a different beast entirely. Censorship can (and does) exist outside the context of government. If I write a letter to the editor and have it published in my local newspaper, only to find that they deleted the most controversial portion of my letter, it's been censored. Of course it's not legally actionable, but it /is/ still censorship.
As to the other aspect: Insofar as NS (and any other registrar) is basically acting on behalf of IANA, I strongly suspect that their agreement with IANA prevents this. This isn't a matter of legality or legislation, but the terms under which they are permitted to act on behalf of IANA as a registrar.
b) at minimum wage, you get all of your tax money back. Sometimes more, if you have kids. This means that it would actually cost the government more in administrative overhead to have illegals receiving minimum wage and paying tax
c) Now we're back to the first question. Where does the money come from to start paying minimum wage, which is - in the end - several times what is being paid now?
The proper answer is, "Because God made it that way honey." cf. "Why is the sky blue, daddy?"
I often have that problem myself - though as often as not, it turns out that conversational partners don't know the words
Actually, I was mistaken - I had assumed these two particular stories to be mid-career works, but they were in fact early - these are what I was thinking of when I made the comment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22If_This_Goes_On%E2%80%94%22 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coventry_(short_story)
Of course, nearly all of Heinlein's work is good stuff, and it's interesting to watch his own beliefs as expressed through his work change and broaden over the years.
Heh. Apparently the person who modded me flamebait felt it should not be free speech - probably because of the emotionally weighted words and phrases I deliberately chose. (Mid-career Heinlein should be required reading before being allowed to mod... )
NS has reserved the right to control what people can use their servers for - because in this instance, they are operating in capacity as the web site host. The people making the video agreed to this limitation when they signed up. NS is just working within their own not-unreasonable interpretation of their ToS. If the ToS policy is too broad, then it's up to the site owners to receive clarification before signing up for the service. At this point, there is absolutely nothing stopping the owner from taking their business elsewhere (which is exactly what they /should/ do her).
NS is no longer providing the service that these people wish even though they acknowledged the possibility to start with; so they should be taking their business elsewhere -- free market at its finest.
Now, if NS was acting in their capacity as a registrar/root DNS provider, then it can rightly be called censorship. But this? Just a web host deciding it doesn't want to host a certain type of content.
So, uh... how is that not free speech? Telling someone to commit violence is a far cry from actually inciting violence.
I don't doubt that you got the calls - what I doubt is the connection between your posts to Slashdot (or /most/ other forums) and those calls.