Furthermore, 699 instances of attempted obfuscation had allegedly been detected in which two of the letters of the word 'the' had been reversed in order to spell 'teh'.
In a countersuit, CSO magazine accuses SCO of violating the DMCA by
breaking the encryption used to obfuscate the word 'the'.
Sorry you felt insulted. But then, in another
way, I'm glad. I'm glad you think enough of
yourself and your country to take offense when
somebody implies you haven't read the constitution.
Asshole.
(grin!) Guilty as charged.
For me, this isn't a hypothetical discussion.
I'm sorry; much of my comment was directed at "Eric Ass Raymond", but I still
bristle at the mentality (admittedly a numerical majority in this country)
which turns the Constitution on its head.
Rights cannot be given or received. They can be "abridged," or interfered-with.
A government may pass laws which make the free exercise of my rights a crime
punishable by death, but only death can remove my right to exercise my rights.
I assert that "rights", within the context of the Constitution,
are granted by the "laws of Nature, and Nature's God." They are
inalienable, an inherent part of our
existence as free-willed human beings.
I have the right to communicate. Nobody can take
away that right, short of cutting my throat.
I have the right to defend myself (keep and bear arms.) Nobody can take
away that right, short of killing me. If dangerous criminals in
maximum-security prisons manage to obtain weapons, then it is well-nigh
impossible to deny them to the people at large.
I have many other rights, which are inherent to any free-willed, thinking
creature. Governments are not free-willed, thinking creatures. They have
no natural powers by virtue of existence. They have only those powers that we grant them
by our willingness to "go along with it." Those powers may be vast
(inconceivably greater than the founding fathers could have imagined) but
they are not "rights." The government does not have a morality; it does not
have a conscience; it does not have life.
At one time, I enlisted in the United States Navy. In some small way, I suppose
I implicitly supported the U.S. Goverment's ability to wage war. But in so doing,
I did not give up (or even delegate) my right to defend myself. Nobody in the U.S.
government swore an oath to defend me. Quite the reverse, I swore an
oath to defend the U.S. Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
(Sadly, its most dangerous enemies are domestic, these days.)
The wording of the Constitution does not say that the government derives its powers
by virtue of the people surrendering/relinquishing/delegating/granting their
God-given rights to it, by proxy or otherwise.
The Constitution says that the government "derives its just powers from the consent of
the governed."
Aw, forget it. I'm wasting my time. I shouldn't expect you to actually read the
Constitution. After all, you're a network engineer, not a constitutional scholar.
But I applaud Dan Bernstein and the EFF, and I spit my distain at the
cowardly scum who denied them their rightful victory.
According to the Constitution (not that it means anything, these days) governments don't have "rights." They have "powers" which are granted to them in order to secure the "rights" of the people, which rights are "inalienable."
The word "inalienable" means "cannot be taken away."
The word "secure" does not mean the same thing as "grant". Governments can grant privileges but they cannot grant rights.
According to the constitution, governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Historically, the use of "prior restraint" has never been viewed as a "just power."
To paraphrase the conversation between DJB and GOV:
DJB: I wrote some information and would like to publish it. If I did, would you prosecute?
GOV: We might. But you should incorporate yourself, hire some employees, pay us some money, and declare yourself a producer of munitions before asking that question.
If that doesn't constitute prior restraint, I don't know what does.
Do terms "eminent domain" and "national security" mean anything to you?
Eminent Domain
The name that governments use
for theft of private property.
National Security
A semantically meaningless phrase which has nonetheless been used as the
justification for more government paperwork than the average man of average
understanding can reasonably hope to understand within his lifetime.
{do something intelligent...} Watch how fast the government would use its right to declare it in its eminent domain and prevent you from publishing it. Freedom of speech has limits even in the USA, no matter how much you'd like to believe otherwise.
Although I don't disagree with your conclusions,
I'd like to make a few ad-hominem observations.
Your speech is typical of the prevailing
socialist mindset. Like many brainwiped
propagandites, you believe that governments have
rights, whereas individuals don't.
The only thing that has changed, really,
is that the autocrats have learned from history
to perform their encroachments more slowly, to
avoid inciting rebellion.
Thoughts and ideas are not free to disseminate if they are a threat to the national security. That was always the basis
behind the government's actions. How has that changed recently?
I think the appropriate answer is, "not much," despite the fact that we fought a little war over that very issue a couple of hundred years ago.
And she was so good that you felt the need
to practice at 5am just to beat her?
You wouldn't ahem! still have her
phone number, would you?
JUST KIDDING!
Re:The GIMP New Web Site
on
GIMP goes SVG
·
· Score: 1
OT, but does anybody know what software they are using?
I looked at the HTML output and
concluded that it might be plone, but mmmaybe
that's just my prejudice showing.
OT, but does anybody know what software they are using
on mmmaybe.gimp.org ? I looked at the HTML output and
concluded that it might be plone, but maybe
that's just my prejudice showing.
The nine domains for whom my email is the catch-all address receive an average
of a hundred spams a day, but I don't see them, thanks to
a Bayesian filter.
Any spammer who harvests the
email address in my sig
just registers their latest spam so that I (and the
dozen-odd other people who use the same filter) are
that much less likely to see it.
There are sorting algorithms which
exhibit very good average
performance, but which slow down
to their worst-case speed when
given reversed-order input.
It would appear that the process
our brain uses to decipher jumbled
text has a similar limitation.
Even when I knew that the scrambled
text had its internal letters reversed,
it was still harder to read than text
whose internal letters were scrambled
randomly.
A pig is "legal tender," for crying out loud. So is a lump of lead.
All that "legal tender" phrase means is that, if you want to give it and I want to take it, then it's LEGAL. In other words, there's no law forbidding the exchange of Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) to discharge debt. If an employer chooses to pay his employees in cash, and they are also content with that situation, then no law can compel otherwise.
If an employee works under a contract that specifies pay in grams of gold, and the employer decides to substitute FRNs for the gold, then the employer is clearly in default of contract. As long as the employee refuses the FRNs, he can sue for breach of contract and win. But if, on the other hand, the employee voluntarily accepts the FRNs, then the employer is protected by their "legal tender" status. At that point, the employee has no legal recourse, even though the employer has fraudulently substituted worthless scraps of paper for real money.
we do have a little thing called democracy here...
(I should feel dirty for responding to such a blatant display of ignorance, but)
In any "little thing called democracy," the power lies not in the voting, but in the ballots.
Think about it. Parents often give their children the illusion of choice by asking them to pick either of two choices that are equally acceptable to the parent.
So go ahead, vote Democrat or Republican. Either choice will be equally acceptable to those in power. Or do like me and vote Libertarian. I'd rather "throw my vote away" than use it to support the present corruption. But the outcome is certain before the first ballot is issued.
If it's cheaper and easier to walk away with the hardware than to crack in over the wire, then the NETWORK security manager has done an adequate job...
Honestly and no joke, that's how I curb my paranoia. I take a look at the physical security and say, "Well, at least I'm doing better than THAT," and stop worrying so much.
Do you happen to have a link to that recommendation? I'd like a copy for my idiocy files. Blasted incompatible unreliable buggy (unprintable) version of a compiler!
If it's cheaper and easier to break in and steal the physical computers than to hack in over the wire, then the IT security guy has done his job at least.
I use this rule-of-thumb mainly to set limits on my own paranoia...
Okay, so they separate their browser into the base, non-scriptable, free version, and the scriptable, "professional" version. They pay Eolas a kickback for forcing the issue, and watch the cashflow start rolling in.
Well, if you persist in advertising your pet cause, you should at least be willing to defend it. (Though from a libertarian standpoint, it is basically indefensible.) Your choice to advertise in an open debate forum implies both your approval of, and willingness to discuss, that which you are advertising. Actually, you should be honored that people take enough interest to comment. Nobody ever asks me about my sig...
Slashdot Mirror
In a countersuit, CSO magazine accuses SCO of violating the DMCA by breaking the encryption used to obfuscate the word 'the'.
Sorry you felt insulted. But then, in another way, I'm glad. I'm glad you think enough of yourself and your country to take offense when somebody implies you haven't read the constitution.
(grin!) Guilty as charged. For me, this isn't a hypothetical discussion.
I'm sorry; much of my comment was directed at "Eric Ass Raymond", but I still bristle at the mentality (admittedly a numerical majority in this country) which turns the Constitution on its head.
Rights cannot be given or received. They can be "abridged," or interfered-with. A government may pass laws which make the free exercise of my rights a crime punishable by death, but only death can remove my right to exercise my rights.
I assert that "rights", within the context of the Constitution, are granted by the "laws of Nature, and Nature's God." They are inalienable, an inherent part of our existence as free-willed human beings.
I have the right to communicate. Nobody can take away that right, short of cutting my throat.
I have the right to defend myself (keep and bear arms.) Nobody can take away that right, short of killing me. If dangerous criminals in maximum-security prisons manage to obtain weapons, then it is well-nigh impossible to deny them to the people at large.
I have many other rights, which are inherent to any free-willed, thinking creature. Governments are not free-willed, thinking creatures. They have no natural powers by virtue of existence. They have only those powers that we grant them by our willingness to "go along with it." Those powers may be vast (inconceivably greater than the founding fathers could have imagined) but they are not "rights." The government does not have a morality; it does not have a conscience; it does not have life.
At one time, I enlisted in the United States Navy. In some small way, I suppose I implicitly supported the U.S. Goverment's ability to wage war. But in so doing, I did not give up (or even delegate) my right to defend myself. Nobody in the U.S. government swore an oath to defend me. Quite the reverse, I swore an oath to defend the U.S. Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. (Sadly, its most dangerous enemies are domestic, these days.)
The wording of the Constitution does not say that the government derives its powers by virtue of the people surrendering/relinquishing/delegating/granting their God-given rights to it, by proxy or otherwise. The Constitution says that the government "derives its just powers from the consent of the governed."
Aw, forget it. I'm wasting my time. I shouldn't expect you to actually read the Constitution. After all, you're a network engineer, not a constitutional scholar.
But I applaud Dan Bernstein and the EFF, and I spit my distain at the cowardly scum who denied them their rightful victory.
According to the Constitution (not that it means anything, these days) governments don't have "rights." They have "powers" which are granted to them in order to secure the "rights" of the people, which rights are "inalienable."
The word "inalienable" means "cannot be taken away."
The word "secure" does not mean the same thing as "grant". Governments can grant privileges but they cannot grant rights.
According to the constitution, governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. Historically, the use of "prior restraint" has never been viewed as a "just power."
To paraphrase the conversation between DJB and GOV:
If that doesn't constitute prior restraint, I don't know what does.
Obligatory Silicon Zoo reference
Although I don't disagree with your conclusions, I'd like to make a few ad-hominem observations.
Your speech is typical of the prevailing socialist mindset. Like many brainwiped propagandites, you believe that governments have rights, whereas individuals don't.
The only thing that has changed, really, is that the autocrats have learned from history to perform their encroachments more slowly, to avoid inciting rebellion.
I think the appropriate answer is, "not much," despite the fact that we fought a little war over that very issue a couple of hundred years ago.
You had a sister who played combat with you?
And she was so good that you felt the need to practice at 5am just to beat her?
You wouldn't ahem! still have her phone number, would you?
OT, but does anybody know what software they are using? I looked at the HTML output and concluded that it might be plone, but mmmaybe that's just my prejudice showing.
OT, but does anybody know what software they are using on mmmaybe.gimp.org ? I looked at the HTML output and concluded that it might be plone, but maybe that's just my prejudice showing.
I realize this is supposed to be funny (even though it is modded as "interesting"), but...
Would somebody please explain to me how I can get a 500 Mbps link at absolutely zero cost?
The nine domains for whom my email is the catch-all address receive an average of a hundred spams a day, but I don't see them, thanks to a Bayesian filter.
Any spammer who harvests the email address in my sig just registers their latest spam so that I (and the dozen-odd other people who use the same filter) are that much less likely to see it.
Okay, I've been trolled. After RTFA, I realize that it didn't even mention Mozilla.
I've run Apache and PostgreSQL on a desktop machine, but I wouldn't dare run Mozilla on a server.
There are sorting algorithms which exhibit very good average performance, but which slow down to their worst-case speed when given reversed-order input.
It would appear that the process our brain uses to decipher jumbled text has a similar limitation.
Even when I knew that the scrambled text had its internal letters reversed, it was still harder to read than text whose internal letters were scrambled randomly.
Only if you buy the dumb, out-of-date ones. The trick is to choose books whose information value does not decrease over time.
A pig is "legal tender," for crying out loud. So is a lump of lead.
All that "legal tender" phrase means is that, if you want to give it and I want to take it, then it's LEGAL. In other words, there's no law forbidding the exchange of Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) to discharge debt. If an employer chooses to pay his employees in cash, and they are also content with that situation, then no law can compel otherwise.
If an employee works under a contract that specifies pay in grams of gold, and the employer decides to substitute FRNs for the gold, then the employer is clearly in default of contract. As long as the employee refuses the FRNs, he can sue for breach of contract and win. But if, on the other hand, the employee voluntarily accepts the FRNs, then the employer is protected by their "legal tender" status. At that point, the employee has no legal recourse, even though the employer has fraudulently substituted worthless scraps of paper for real money.
Not that you know of, anyway...
(I should feel dirty for responding to such a blatant display of ignorance, but)
In any "little thing called democracy," the power lies not in the voting, but in the ballots.
Think about it. Parents often give their children the illusion of choice by asking them to pick either of two choices that are equally acceptable to the parent.
So go ahead, vote Democrat or Republican. Either choice will be equally acceptable to those in power. Or do like me and vote Libertarian. I'd rather "throw my vote away" than use it to support the present corruption. But the outcome is certain before the first ballot is issued.
Honestly and no joke, that's how I curb my paranoia. I take a look at the physical security and say, "Well, at least I'm doing better than THAT," and stop worrying so much.
Do you happen to have a link to that recommendation? I'd like a copy for my idiocy files. Blasted incompatible unreliable buggy (unprintable) version of a compiler!
I use this rule-of-thumb mainly to set limits on my own paranoia...
Whatchawannabet?
Well, if you persist in advertising your pet cause, you should at least be willing to defend it. (Though from a libertarian standpoint, it is basically indefensible.) Your choice to advertise in an open debate forum implies both your approval of, and willingness to discuss, that which you are advertising. Actually, you should be honored that people take enough interest to comment. Nobody ever asks me about my sig...