Could the argument be made that the threat of terrorism (especially nuclear terrorism) compares to the threat Lincoln faced? What do you think about that argument?
What is the right balance between freedom and protection? During the Civil War Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus (not just for "foreign combatants" either). He also ordered Confederate sympathizers held without trial. His view was that he was doing what was necessary to preserve the Union. I invite those who read this post to do a bit of searching on Lincoln's handling of personal freedoms during the Civil War, compare his actions with President Bush's, and then tell me what you think. Is it ever justified to limit personal freedoms (even though guaranteed by the Constitution) in time of war? Lincoln was reviled by many (most as you would expect in the South, but many in the North). Why do we now see him as one of our greatest presidents? What is the difference between what Lincoln did during the Civil War and what President Bush is doing right now?
God can't be disproved because science has no way of disproving the existence of God. Furthermore, man's discovery of the workings of the processes you have mentioned in no way proves that there is not a God. It cannot be proved that there is not a God who designed these processes and continues to sustain them. Science can only learn about what can be seen and verified.
I would like to see the Open Invention Network try to buy this patent from them. But then again, it's only in force until December of 2008. Still, it could make these this suit go away. On the other hand, it's probably best to defeat it in court if possible.
Was she being charged with downloading the songs? Or was it making the songs available on her computer for others to download? I'm thinking it is the latter. In that case, she is not being fined for the value of one song, but the fine is an attempt to compensate the plaintiff for the value of the files she distributed to others.
I don't think Jane Q. Public is the troll here. I think the troll is "probably" the AC who posted the story, and then hung around to argue about "free speech."
What is wrong with comparison shopping? For example, do you think it's wrong to go to a car dealership and get information on different models, prices, features, and then buy from the dealer that has the best price? Or would you just buy a car from the first dealer you go to because he had to go to the trouble of putting a sticker on the car with its descriptive information?
I understand your compassion and desire to see people compensated for their work, but have you really thought through what you are saying? I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me under such a plan as you are advocating, copying a phone number from a telephone book would become copyright infringement. Do you really want to go there?
Let me ask you, how were the police supposed to know what he was going to do if they let him up? I think by that time he had lost his chance to leave on his on volition.
He could easily have saved himself by calming himself down. Apparently you heard something I didn't in the video because all I heard was the police telling people to get away (for their own protection and so as not to interfere with what was happening).
You seem to be making a statement that this young man was arrested for using his First Amendment Rights. But are you sure that was the case? The police may have simply intended to pull him away from the mike because they thought he was being disrupted (or even because they had been asked to intervene). If he had complied, maybe they would have taken him out to the hall, told him to cool down, and sent him home. That is not an arrest. However, Mr. Myer did not comply with the requests of the police. As another poster here pointed out Mr. Myer seemed to be the one escalating the incident. He was not arrested for what he said at the microphone but how he acted after being asked to leave.
Slashdot Mirror
Hi, thanks for you post. Could you help me out with a link to President Lincoln's later thoughts on his habeas corpus suspension that you have cited?
Could the argument be made that the threat of terrorism (especially nuclear terrorism) compares to the threat Lincoln faced? What do you think about that argument?
What is the right balance between freedom and protection? During the Civil War Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus (not just for "foreign combatants" either). He also ordered Confederate sympathizers held without trial. His view was that he was doing what was necessary to preserve the Union. I invite those who read this post to do a bit of searching on Lincoln's handling of personal freedoms during the Civil War, compare his actions with President Bush's, and then tell me what you think. Is it ever justified to limit personal freedoms (even though guaranteed by the Constitution) in time of war? Lincoln was reviled by many (most as you would expect in the South, but many in the North). Why do we now see him as one of our greatest presidents? What is the difference between what Lincoln did during the Civil War and what President Bush is doing right now?
God can't be disproved because science has no way of disproving the existence of God. Furthermore, man's discovery of the workings of the processes you have mentioned in no way proves that there is not a God. It cannot be proved that there is not a God who designed these processes and continues to sustain them. Science can only learn about what can be seen and verified.
does anyone have any guesses as to what software/code they will be willing to release under these terms?
I think he was making a joke. Should have been modded funny.
That would defeat the purpose wouldn't it? ;)
I think that just means no one has posted yet. When you see that it's your opportunity to be the first to say something.
I would like to see the Open Invention Network try to buy this patent from them. But then again, it's only in force until December of 2008. Still, it could make these this suit go away. On the other hand, it's probably best to defeat it in court if possible.
Ok, if it's "whichever is later," then wouldn't the expiration be counted 17 years from when it was granted in 1991, making it expire in 2008?
Actually SCO vs. IBM involves copyrights, not patents. SCO accused IBM of wholesale copying of code.
a Limited User account on XP are you vulnerable to this?
Actually its, "All your bases are belong to us."
what the author's plan for using these devices in education is?
Was she being charged with downloading the songs? Or was it making the songs available on her computer for others to download? I'm thinking it is the latter. In that case, she is not being fined for the value of one song, but the fine is an attempt to compensate the plaintiff for the value of the files she distributed to others.
Actually, I don't think OpenSuse is covered by this agreement.
Actually, just off the top of my head, I can think of two allies that supported us and sent troops to Vietnam-- Australia and South Korea.
I don't think Jane Q. Public is the troll here. I think the troll is "probably" the AC who posted the story, and then hung around to argue about "free speech."
It hasn't been deleted. Just marked down to -1 territory.
Somebody was hurt in making it. The person who thought of it in the first place.
What is wrong with comparison shopping? For example, do you think it's wrong to go to a car dealership and get information on different models, prices, features, and then buy from the dealer that has the best price? Or would you just buy a car from the first dealer you go to because he had to go to the trouble of putting a sticker on the car with its descriptive information?
I understand your compassion and desire to see people compensated for their work, but have you really thought through what you are saying? I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me under such a plan as you are advocating, copying a phone number from a telephone book would become copyright infringement. Do you really want to go there?
Let me ask you, how were the police supposed to know what he was going to do if they let him up? I think by that time he had lost his chance to leave on his on volition.
He could easily have saved himself by calming himself down. Apparently you heard something I didn't in the video because all I heard was the police telling people to get away (for their own protection and so as not to interfere with what was happening).
You seem to be making a statement that this young man was arrested for using his First Amendment Rights. But are you sure that was the case? The police may have simply intended to pull him away from the mike because they thought he was being disrupted (or even because they had been asked to intervene). If he had complied, maybe they would have taken him out to the hall, told him to cool down, and sent him home. That is not an arrest. However, Mr. Myer did not comply with the requests of the police. As another poster here pointed out Mr. Myer seemed to be the one escalating the incident. He was not arrested for what he said at the microphone but how he acted after being asked to leave.