Air will kill people dead [sic] as well if injected instead of inhaled.
Is it funny?
Does it make you think?
Is it enjoyable?
Yes. Of course, YMMVG on all three points.
In his most recent book, Liberty and Justice for Some, Glenn Greenwald posits that the flagrant, unpunished, lawlessness in high places which is currently destroying democracy in the United States started with Ford's pardon of Nixon. The other half of Greenwald's argument is that for everyone else, there is no liberty or justice because the government is no longer obeying the Constitution or following due process.
The subject of this Slashdot article is a perfect example of the second half of Greenwald's argument. In a few short words the GP neatly tied it with the first half. That's why, for me, it was funny and enjoyable and it made me think.
The GP said:
when the government does it, that means that it is not unreasonable.
Richard Milhous Nixon (who was forced to resign from the presidency of the United States due to his many flagrantly illegal acts) said:
Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.
Please don't speak for me and please don't include me in the group "everyone". I don't think the GP was being fucking retarded and counterproductive. Even though this is Slashdot, the GP's wit was not lost to all readers.
Microsoft here. You remember all the nasty, sneaky, dirty tricks we've pulled over the years? Well, our latest trick is to make front groups who claim our competitors are now using those same tricks.
Well I think they meant viral.
I wish I had mod points for you.
Our current crop of crap blog software would die. And good riddens.
Many riddens died
He most certainly was aiding the enemy, [...]
If you are talking about the current president (or the previous president) and the endless extra-judicial drone wars and the endless extra-judicial war crimes and the endless extra-judicial incarcerations then I completely agree with you. These actions always create more enemies than they destroy. Without these actions and without the US support of hated dictators around the world, there would be no need for the fictitious war on terror.
OTOH, Bradley Manning was trying to let the American people know about some of these atrocities committed in their name and with their tax dollars. Without disclosures like this, all the bad stuff done by the US government stays secret and will never be stopped. Is that really the path you want to take?
If you have already given up on the Constitution and the rule of law, then sure, Manning needs to be punished in order to maintain the power of the lawless US government in order to "keep us safe". For people who still think Democracy can only live and thrive under the rule of law then Manning acted as a selfless patriot. He put himself in a position of great physical and psychological danger in order to try to protect Democracy in the USA.
The atrocities and abuses he exposed are extremely damaging to the US. The acts themselves are far more damaging than the exposure of the acts to the American people. The people who are on the receiving end of the attrocites, (and/or their loved ones) already know about them. That's why they keep fighting back. If the types of behavior Manning exposed are not curtailed then the so-called war on terror will never end. Even as a society, you are only as sick as your secrets.
From the 2nd fine article:
If you feel "wrongly accused" then there is a $35 'review fee' to see precisely what you are accused of. It's refunded if you win, but if the Copyright Alert System is so sure of itself then why charge at all? Why not let individuals know what they are accused of without this stipulation that the fee is to stop "frivolous appeals?"
You actually have to pay money to see what this non-government cabal is accusing you of? It costs them next to nothing to tell you what the exact accusation is. It's just a few more bytes in the warning email or in a web page linked to by the email. I could maybe understand having to pay a fee to contest the charges but it is truly Kafkaesque to have to pay a fee just to find out what the charges are.
Functions are for the most part not copyrightable, but the creative expression of the overall program may be.
The powers of evil are trying to make APIs copyrightable. APIs consist of function declarations.
Their evil plan is to destabilize the entire software industry by making it illegal for people who are not working for large corporations to program. The Armageddon they're striving for with their stupid patent wars against Google will look like small potatoes once they're allowed to copyright APIs. Patents only last 20 years. In the USA copyright is forever. While allowing APIs to be patented may be evil, it is far less evil than letting them be copyrighted.
Of course, in order to destabilization the entire software industry they are trying to trick some stupid judges into believing that Judge Alsup's well reasoned ruling which maintains the status quo would destabilization the entire software industry. Alsup is far from stupid. Let's hope some of his wisdom rubs off on the judges in the higher courts who read his ruling.
Shame on all of the people who are trying to hoodwink the nation with this nonsense. Especially shame on Eugene Spafford who really should know better. I had no idea he turned to the dark side.
And what about when the people doing this purchase a dozen subsidized phones, unlock them and resell them, and then simply refuse to pay the fee for breaching the contract? Or what if they use a fake credit card for the initial purchase? Or use a valid credit card, then simply stop paying it and leave the CC company and the carrier to try to chase after them with collection agencies to get, at most, pennies on the dollar?
Are you fcking serious? They will get royally screwed just like when serfs anywhere try to get a little bit of money back from the rich.
There are plenty of things to worry about in the world but one of the few things we don't have to worry about is the ability of large corporations to put the screws to the little guy. Look at the robo-signing fiasco. Thousands of people (or more) have lost their homes and all the investment they put into them without ever having missed a payment.
The very last thing we need is yet another way for large corporations to screw the average person.
Someone wanting an unlocked phone can simply buy an unlocked phone. All of the carriers happily sell them. This is just about people wanting a free discount.
Yes, as long as everyone has perfect foresight of what will happen in the future and how their contract will get changed without their consent then what you say may be true. OTOH, in the real world this makes about as much sense as your concern about giving corporations yet another means of screwing individuals.
Isn't Google making money via advertising on youtube with all the posted videos that are infringing on copyrights?
"Oh noes! Google is teh evil because they don't take down enough YouTube videos."
Previously on Slashdot:
"Oh noes! Google is teh evil because they take down too many YouTube videos".
Give me a break.
No CAT Scan, MRI or Cancer drugs would have been invented without patents to give the inventors time to make their years of investment back by a period of exclusivity.
I call bullshit. I helped work on MRI in the early 1980's in a university lab that was government funded. Likewise, I met someone at my university who was working on CAT scans in the 1970's (I asked about his very large stack of punch cards at the computer center). He was also government funded. For both of these innovations, the early work was done with public funding.
Clearly both CAT scans and MRI were invented long before they were patented. The early years of research to bring these inventions to fruition were mainly funded by the taxpayers. Why should one corporation get a monopoly on the fruits of this publicly funded research long after the inventions were actually invented?
You seem to be saying that ordinary laws passed by Congress supersede the Constitution. This is just as disturbing as the OP's observation.
Well, technically it is possible - but you don't get much of a video stream with only a handful of bits per second.
We can do much better than a handful of bits per second with acoustics (yes, IAaUAE) but it is still not enough to watch the Superbowl in real-time.