It was a great editor when I started using iabout 1985, and has grown into an excellent system for controlling any universe you turn it loose on. And it runs on nearly every computer in existance (and many no longer in existence except in museums).

It has been perfected over the decades and I'm not about to start learning new keyboard editing muscle memory now.

It is more powerful without a mouse than any "modern" editor that can be nearly impossible to use without a mouse.

If I need to edit a lot of text, I'll still put away the modern mouse driven editors and fire up Emacs so I can edit for as long a necessary without moving my hands from the keyboard (and having available macro editing help of unlimited power).

Or we went into hiding where you can't find us.

It sounds like if this law passes the Czech programmers who use GPL are screwed anyway.

The goal would be to put some pressure on countries not to do this kind of thing.

I didn't see any posts with any suggestions (no matter how odd) trying to prevent this law from being duplicated in other countries.

I'd like to see some attempt to push back against this law.

I though I saw somewhere an effort to kill the domains of countries that tried to force RIM to give the government unencrypted traffic.

Maybe something like that would work. If nothing is done, the internet could be gutted quickly by national laws like these.

Add a provision to the GPL that says that the Czech Republic or anyone subject to their laws is NOT allowed to use any GPL software. Specifically revoke their license to use or modify or distribute GPL programs. Obviously this could also be added to other open source licenses.

I suspect that this addition to the GPL could be generalized and not use the Czech Republic or any specific country name by describing the type of law that would trigger this provision. However, it might be quicker to add a list of countries forbidden to use GPL programs. This should begin to get the idea across that there is no back door to gutting the GPL.

Also trying to make this provision generic could lead to that countries lawyers trying to find loopholes in the description. It shouldn't be too hard to create a procedure to allow adding or removing a country from a "pariah" list when countries do this sort of crap.

Does anyone know if the new Chrome with embedded Flash puts "Local Shared Objects" (aka Flash SuperCookies or .SOL files) on your machine?

Or has Google removed this scourge from their flash viewer?

Verizon has the following at the bottom of the referenced whitelist page:

  "*Verizon Online reserves the right to restrict access to or from any domain provided at its sole discretion. The information provided to Verizon Online must be wholly correct or the request may be rejected. We cannot guarantee that we will be able to provide a solution that enables you to send or receive e-mail from a restricted source."

What the hell!!!

I thought in order to protect ISP's "not responsible for content" legal stance, they had to be a utility pipe. Sound like they're in the business of value judgements as to which domains they accept email from....

Anybody have any idea how to get Verizon to just put anybody on our manually maintained whitelist we want? Why should Verizon get a say?