chadhulbert - Slashdot User

South Carolina Seeking To Outlaw Profanity 849

Posted by samzenpus on Wednesday January 14, 2009 @07:07PM from the f@#k-those-f@#king-f@#kers dept.

MBGMorden writes "It looks like in an act that defies common sense, a bill has been introduced in the South Carolina State Senate that seeks to outlaw the use of profanity. According to the bill it would become a felony (punishable by a fine up to $5000 or up to 5 years in prison) to 'publish orally or in writing, exhibit, or otherwise make available material containing words, language, or actions of a profane, vulgar, lewd, lascivious, or indecent nature.' I'm not sure if 'in writing' could be applied to the internet, but in any event this is scary stuff."

Shuttleworth Says Canonical Is Not Cash-Flow Positive 304

Posted by CmdrTaco on Thursday October 30, 2008 @11:02AM from the can't-say-i'm-surprised dept.

eldavojohn writes "Mark Shuttleworth, the millionaire bankroller who keeps Ubuntu going strong, has revealed 'Canonical is not cash-flow positive' just as version 8.10 (Intrepid Ibex) of the popular Linux distribution is released today. In a call, he said he 'had no objection' in funding Canonical for another three to five years. He did say, however, that if they concentrated on the server edition of Ubuntu that they could be profitable in two years."

Comment Property Rights are a Separate Issue (Score 1) 543

by chadhulbert on Thursday July 31, 2008 @12:48PM (#24419085) Attached to: Google Says Complete Privacy Does Not Exist

The couple is seeking compensation for devaluation of their property and mental stress that resulted from Google's actions. The legality of Google's action or presence on the road is a completely separate matter and not part of their claim (according to the article).

That said, Google's not in any trouble at all. If private property is open to the public the owner cannot claim an individual is trespassing without first informing the individual their presence is unwanted and giving that individual an opportunity to leave.

Further, it is unreasonable to believe that one's property will not be photographed simply because it lies on a private road. What if their neighbors collectively photographed the property from every angle and sold the pictures to Google?

Slashdot Top Deals