Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Shitty Court Decisions (Score 1) 321

Why did the rule change?

Because the Librarian was convinced, for a number of reasons, that allowing unlocking was no longer a necessary exemption.

The primary reason cited by the Librarian is, there are an increasing number of phones you can buy that come unlocked. Apple and its carrier partners sell the iPhone 5 unlocked, for example. Google’s Nexus 4 also comes unlocked. T-Mobile has plans to offer more of its phones unlocked. And retailers like Best Buy offer all sorts of unlocked phones. In short, the Librarian decided that there’s no reason to alter the DMCA to allow people to unlock any phone since people can easily buy an unlocked phone nowadays, if they choose to do so.

Furthermore, new court decisions have changed the interpretation of the law. In 2010, the Ninth Circuit court decided in Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc that we cell phone owners do not actually “own” the software running our phones. Instead, we are only “licensing” this software – a key difference – which means that we don’t have a right to alter that software. This also played a role in the Librarian’s decision.

What the fuck!? Yes, the fact that I don't own the copyright to the firmware should prevent me from modifying it and distributing it. But it should NOT prevent me from modifying it on MY hardware without distribution. I should be able to do WHATEVER I WANT with the hardware I purchased. This INCLUDES changing bits here or there. Copyright only applies to redistribution.

This is CLEARLY an example where the industry first bought the congressmen and the president, then wrote the laws in their favor that were passed without anyone in congress reading them, then bought the judicial decision too. FUCK them, unjust laws shall not be enforced.

It's time for a lot more JURY NULLIFICATION to fix this bullshit.

Comment Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership (Score 1) 1232

I think you misunderstand the constitution.

It outlines how the federal government is organized, delineates certain powers granted to the Federal government, then very obviously switches gears in the Bill of Rights and starts to outline everything the federal government does NOT have the power to do.
And just in case they missed anything out, the 9th and 10th amendments to the bill of rights are abundantly clear:

Amendment IX
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Translation: any other rights held by the people and not enumerated within, shall not be denied just because they're not listed here.

And

Amendment IX
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Translation: The federal government can ONLY do what is specifically listed here.

So just because possession of a car is not listed in the constitution, does not mean that the right to travel is not a basic right. Furthermore I see nowhere in the constitution anything that gives the Federal government any power to oversee travel within the USA; given the 10th amendment then, they do not have this power.

Comment Re:things like these (Score 1) 412

Comment Re:I think you missd a word (Score 2) 412

In this case though, what you think is worth 2 shits and an empty jello shot glass. There's been *plenty* of evidence that these attacks were planned before the video was released, based on much more compelling reasons and in some cases the people at the attacks had never heard of the video. So not to put causality aside, if event A was already set in motion before event B even happened... it's hard to blame A on B.

If I put my tinfoil hat on, there are even people who claim the CIA were distributing anti-video posters for people to take to these things.

Comment Re:Really? (Score 5, Insightful) 412

Really? I have a challenge for you. Name me one moral act performed by a religious person that could not have been performed by that person without their religion.

Christopher Hitchens, may he rest in peace, used to pose this to any and all religious people of stature that he met, offered money to anyone who could satisfy this challenge for years and never had to pay up.

Now of course the corollary question, name me an immoral act that was performed because of religion and everybody has answers within seconds.

Morality is innate in humans, put there by natural selection. Religion has no claim on morality.

Of course, evil acts do not require religion, however religion discourages critical thinking in a way that can easily justify immoral acts.

Slashdot Top Deals

Truth is free, but information costs.

Working...