Okay, we've all been reading/. for quite some time and know damn well that OS comparisons and OS flame wars go nowhere fast.
Yes. Fedora, SuSE and Mandrake approach Linux differently. So what? So does Gentoo and thirty other distros at least one person on earth "swears by".
Let's lay to rest the distribution game and start working together for one common goal: Linux that works well enough to replace a desktop OS in business, one that a COO has confidence in.
This distro squabbling is what's holding Linux back. After all, isn't Open Source for us all and not for specific distros?
The FCC is the only federal government agency that is above constitutional law:
)It's a governmental agency created by congress. )The FCC censors what we say. )The FCC is above the law. )The first amendment says "Congress shall make no laws..." (you know!)
Why hasn't called Shenanigans on the FCC and congress?!?!?!?!?
Respondent, a nationally known minister and commentator on politics and public affairs, filed a diversity action in Federal District Court against petitioners, a nationally circulated magazine and its publisher, to recover damages for, inter alia, libel and intentional infliction of emotional distress arising from the publication of an advertisement "parody" which, among other things, portrayed respondent as having engaged in a drunken incestuous rendezvous with his mother in an outhouse. The jury found against respondent on the libel claim, specifically finding that the parody could not "reasonably be understood as describing actual facts . . . or events," but ruled in his favor on the emotional distress claim, stating that he should be awarded compensatory and punitive damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting petitioners' contention that the "actual malice" standard of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, must be met before respondent can recover for emotional distress. Rejecting as irrelevant the contention that, because the jury found that the parody did not describe actual facts, the ad was an opinion protected by the First Amendment to the Federal Constitution, the court ruled that the issue was whether the ad's publication was sufficiently outrageous to constitute intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Held: In order to protect the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern, the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit public figures and public officials from recovering damages for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress by reason of the publication of a caricature such as the ad parody at issue without showing in addition that the publication contains a false statement of fact which was made with "actual malice," i.e., with knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard as to whether or not it was true. The State's interest in protecting public figures from emotional distress is not sufficient to deny First Amendment protection to speech that is patently offensive and is intended to inflict emotional injury when that speech could not reasonably have been interpreted as stating actual facts about the public figure involved. Here, respondent is clearly a "public figure" for First Amendment purposes, and the lower courts' finding that the ad parody was not reasonably believable must be accepted. "Outrageousness" [47] in the area of political and social discourse has an inherent subjectiveness about it which would allow a jury to impose liability on the basis of the jurors' tastes or views, or perhaps on the basis of their dislike of a particular expression, and cannot, consistently with the First Amendment, form a basis for the award of damages for conduct such as that involved here. Pp. 50-57.
797 F. 2d 1270, reversed.
REHNQUIST, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BRENNAN, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, AND SCALIA, JJ., joined. WHITE, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, post, p. 57. KENNEDY, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner Hustler Magazine, Inc., is a magazine of nationwide circulation. Respondent Jerry Falwell, a nationally known minister who has been active as a commentator on politics and public affairs, sued petitioner and its publisher, petitioner Larry Flynt, to recover damages for invasion of [48] privacy, libel, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The District Court directed a verdict against respondent on the privacy claim, and submitted the other two claims to a jury. The jury found for petitioners on the defamation cl
It's crap like this that's preventing me from buying an HDTV set.
I honestly believe that this will take years to clear up. People who buy a set and tuner now are going to be S.O.L. because technologies change every three months with new mandates rendering all our newly purchased stuph useless.
I won't get an HDTV set until 2099 when they've finally stopped fighting about technology.
Slashdot Mirror
Where's "AnimeFu Linux" with all the blue-haired girls? =)
Yes. Fedora, SuSE and Mandrake approach Linux differently. So what? So does Gentoo and thirty other distros at least one person on earth "swears by".
Let's lay to rest the distribution game and start working together for one common goal: Linux that works well enough to replace a desktop OS in business, one that a COO has confidence in.
This distro squabbling is what's holding Linux back. After all, isn't Open Source for us all and not for specific distros?
This is my $0.02.
Why does all the links have to stream on port 8000 or above? Of course, I can't see them at work because of this.
Where are the port 80 mirrors?!
We'll just add the following Javascript into websites:
//
var userAgent = navigator.userAgent;
var MSIEIndex = userAgent.indexOf("MSIE");
if (userAgent.indexOf("Win") != -1 &&
userAgent.indexOf("MSIE") != -1 &&
userAgent.substring((MSIEIndex + 5),(MSIEIndex + 8)) >= 5.5)
window.location.replace("IE_BAD.htm");
and let those still using IE suffer.
I tried to get to the sub500.com site and received this message:
The page cannot be displayed
There are too many people accessing the Web site at this time.
Please try the following:
* Click the Refresh button, or try again later.
* Open the sub500.com home page, and then look for links to the information you want.
HTTP 403.9 - Access Forbidden: Too many users are connected
Internet Information Services
Technical Information (for support personnel)
* Background:
This error can occur if the Web server is busy and cannot process your request due to heavy traffic.
* More information:
Microsoft Support
Wait... They're running Windows as a web server?!?!?! What gives?
The FCC is the only federal government agency that is above constitutional law:
)It's a governmental agency created by congress.
)The FCC censors what we say.
)The FCC is above the law.
)The first amendment says "Congress shall make no laws..." (you know!)
Why hasn't called Shenanigans on the FCC and congress?!?!?!?!?
"Hate" is in the eye of the beholder, it's subjective. What one person calls "Hate", another does not call "Hate."
Start limiting speech now and light your cigar from the flame of the United States Constitution.
Just the thought of censorship makes me cringe. Now you know why I dislike the FCC.
IMHO, *any* signal that is transmitted over the air and into my skull is meant to be freely received.
What is the meaning of a transmitted signal if not to be received?
I don't have a prefs.js file in the /mozilla directory.
Where is it?
I can't wait until the new HD DVDs blue screen! Bye bye Microsoft.
And the UNIVAC1 still wasn't powerful enough for "Windows '51"!
What happens to all the rendered frames once the production is complete?
Is the data warehoused on LTO2 media and never touched again?
Where is it warehoused and why?
All we need is some sharks with frickin' laser beams on their heads and we'll make 'em pay.
"From the Oh!-The-Humanity department....."
Thanks for that refreshing originally-styled newsbyte.
And it'll probably be another 10 years before we see it again when BASIC turns 50?
I hope not.
I want this car in the next version of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas.
Hustler Magazine, Inc. et al. v. Jerry Falwell
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speec h/ hustler.html
No. 86-1278
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
485 U.S. 46
Argued December 2, 1987
Decided February 24, 1988
Syllabus
Respondent, a nationally known minister and commentator on politics and public affairs, filed a diversity action in Federal District Court against petitioners, a nationally circulated magazine and its publisher, to recover damages for, inter alia, libel and intentional infliction of emotional distress arising from the publication of an advertisement "parody" which, among other things, portrayed respondent as having engaged in a drunken incestuous rendezvous with his mother in an outhouse. The jury found against respondent on the libel claim, specifically finding that the parody could not "reasonably be understood as describing actual facts . . . or events," but ruled in his favor on the emotional distress claim, stating that he should be awarded compensatory and punitive damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting petitioners' contention that the "actual malice" standard of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, must be met before respondent can recover for emotional distress. Rejecting as irrelevant the contention that, because the jury found that the parody did not describe actual facts, the ad was an opinion protected by the First Amendment to the Federal Constitution, the court ruled that the issue was whether the ad's publication was sufficiently outrageous to constitute intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Held: In order to protect the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern, the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit public figures and public officials from recovering damages for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress by reason of the publication of a caricature such as the ad parody at issue without showing in addition that the publication contains a false statement of fact which was made with "actual malice," i.e., with knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard as to whether or not it was true. The State's interest in protecting public figures from emotional distress is not sufficient to deny First Amendment protection to speech that is patently offensive and is intended to inflict emotional injury when that speech could not reasonably have been interpreted as stating actual facts about the public figure involved. Here, respondent is clearly a "public figure" for First Amendment purposes, and the lower courts' finding that the ad parody was not reasonably believable must be accepted. "Outrageousness" [47] in the area of political and social discourse has an inherent subjectiveness about it which would allow a jury to impose liability on the basis of the jurors' tastes or views, or perhaps on the basis of their dislike of a particular expression, and cannot, consistently with the First Amendment, form a basis for the award of damages for conduct such as that involved here. Pp. 50-57.
797 F. 2d 1270, reversed.
REHNQUIST, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BRENNAN, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, AND SCALIA, JJ., joined. WHITE, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, post, p. 57. KENNEDY, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner Hustler Magazine, Inc., is a magazine of nationwide circulation. Respondent Jerry Falwell, a nationally known minister who has been active as a commentator on politics and public affairs, sued petitioner and its publisher, petitioner Larry Flynt, to recover damages for invasion of [48] privacy, libel, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The District Court directed a verdict against respondent on the privacy claim, and submitted the other two claims to a jury. The jury found for petitioners on the defamation cl
I'd like to SEE the FCC regulate speech.
The first time someone is prosecuted, they can sue the FCC for violating the First Amendment.
The FCC was created by Congress, is paid for by public funds (taxes), and is controlled by the Government.
I remember reading that "Congress shall make no laws..."
You just won. Congress created it, funded it with public money, and officially the "Government is prosecuting you for your speech."
You can easily sue the FCC into oblivion here, getting rid of all those "indecency rules" that tell me what I can and cannot say in a free country!
It's crap like this that's preventing me from buying an HDTV set.
I honestly believe that this will take years to clear up. People who buy a set and tuner now are going to be S.O.L. because technologies change every three months with new mandates rendering all our newly purchased stuph useless.
I won't get an HDTV set until 2099 when they've finally stopped fighting about technology.
Grand Theft Auto: Cannonball Run Edition
San Andreas?
Personally, I'd like to see some effort put into GTA games that we'd all want to see.
Tokyo.
Hong Kong.
Rome.
Paris. (We'd all have fun with this one because we ALL hate the French.)
and other exotic places.
San Andreas just sounds lame compared to the above listed, don't they?
My screensaver says
emerge -u life
I think that says it all.
Are you sure you want to be listed in a directory like this? Who knows what SCO could do with such as list.
Give the SCO and Microsoft people something to use against us Linux users.
/.
Maybe this was an article that shouldn't have been posted here at
If they'd like to keep up the the "magic" theme, why not a pentagram?
Are they afraid of the Pagans and Wiccans suing them? Nah, they're all tree huggers and won't give a care.