Fun fact: Whoever gets elected has been able to decide what “lies” and “bulls***” are for the longest time, well before current day.
Fun fact #2: lies and bullshit are legally protected from government action in the United States. This was done specifically because the government cannot be trusted with the power to decide who gets to say what.
My hope is that the Biden Administration can tackle enough lies and bullshit and do enough damage to the folks spreading it that we never get another Trump situation again.
And my hope is that we do not cede the Biden administration that kind of power, because it will definitely be used to nefarious ends sooner or later. My bet would be very soon.
Neutering the ability for far-right reactionaries to get elected is a good thing. Disarming fascists of their tools and resources is a good thing.
How can you be completely sure the effort will be 100% successful, such that no fascists ever come to power? Because if they do, you will have handed them the tools to utterly and permanently suppress all dissent. And you won't have any standing to complain about it, because it's exactly what you wanted.
Perhaps you have forgotten how many things they tried to do were thwarted, either by the courts or by other means. Trump is an authoritarian, but his term was not a dictatorship, as much as he wanted it to be.
Regardless of what the Biden Administration or the Democrats do, the fs like Project Veritas and the politicians they support will do all they can to tear the fing country apart, and are doing all they can right now to tear the f***ing country apart
And giving the government the power to decide who is deserving of rights and who is not is just going to help that process along. I mean, that's the whole point of the Constitution. I don't understand how you can be in favor of such a thing unless you think the US, or at least the concept of democracy and rule of law in the US, needs to be destroyed completely.
Sounds like they made a mistake in thinking the license was GPL compatible when it isn't. That is an issue with many different licenses existing with slightly different terms. I am skeptical that it's a common issue but it does happen.
“We are unable to release a binary due to licensing restrictions” is more common than it should be.
Release a binary of an open source package/project? Nothing stopping you, go right ahead. Release a binary of your own software? If you're violating an open source license, then yeah that's by design. You should not be allowed to release that binary (or anything else) without complying with the license. Is there a third thing that you mean by that?
Not being able to combine everything into one simple package is a huge stumbling block.
What restriction are you talking about? You can combine anything you want, as long as you follow the license(s).
Incompatibility in licensing is why Linux isn’t install and go.
I don't know what you mean. Download a distro, install, and go. If you need more software, install it. It's that simple.
Dependencies. And dependant dependencies.
Dependency managers manage that for you. If you install something, and it has dependencies, it will install those too.
And you can’t get that at this repository because of blank that we don’t like.
If you're at the level of what repository something is at, you're probably a software developer and should be able to deal with this stuff. Normally you just go to the package manager and search for a program.
Track down every separate aspect and build from source.
Again, not a licensing issue. That's just people not choosing to release binaries.
Re: Re: Re: Re: concern should be on the other direction
They can publish whatever they want under this order, except privileged material.
Not sure you're getting my point. The NYT should not be bound by this privilege. The judge is extending attorney-client privilege to someone who is not the attorney. The client (who holds the privilege) has no relationship with the Times. IANAL but I don't see how that gag order is legal.
It’s not uncommon to be looking for a solution and come across a bit about ‘we can’t do a binary because the 43 licences don’t line up’.
What do you mean by "do a binary"?
If you can grasp what I’m trying to say. Copy left has become just as heavy controlled as right.
I don't think I can. You seem to be complaining that many projects only release source and not binaries (which is true). But what does that have to do with "heavy control"?
That isn't how law enforcement is supposed to work. You're free to jump to conclusions based on what you think about them, but the FBI should not. And that's what this story is about.
If PV is a grifter, then any partisan actor anywhere asking for money to support their partisanship is also a grifter. That’s a direct comparison of equals.
No, it's really not. Grifting involves deception. Having a political viewpoint and asking for money isn't grifting.
Why in the world is the FBI involved in this at all?
I would say it's a clear demonstration of the two tier legal system. Imagine the reaction from the local police if you reported your daughter's diary was stolen, let alone the FBI.
If they want people in office that would deny rights and protection of the law to women, LGBTQ+ people, immigrants, black people, and more, then frankly Project Veritas doesn’t deserve those rights and protection of the law.
Fortunately that is not how the Constitution is written. Personally I don't want the government deciding who gets the rights and who doesn't.
The right to attorney-client privilege is protected, deservedly so.
Yes, but it's attorney-client privilege, not newspaper-public figure privilege. If there is anyone who violated the privilege it's the attorney. If the information was obtained without the attorney's knowledge or consent, then whoever got it may have done so illegally. If the Times didn't have anything to do with that action, then I don't know of a legitimate legal means to prevent them from publishing it.
In fact, anyone who wished to make use of ‘re3’ and ‘reVC’ could not do so without already possessing copies of GTA 3 and Vice City, games that Take-Two stopped making available for purchase on its online stores.
In case anyone else is wondering like I was, this is because they only uploaded the source code, and the game will not run without the assets (models, textures, etc).
There's an argument to be made that it's better to let people interested in it have all the fake child porn they want so there might be less demand for the real thing, and thus fewer children being abused. But there are zero plus or minus zero politicians who want to campaign on a platform of improved accessibility of child porn.
The legislative branch has already abdicated their oversight role, and now the judicial branch is declining to check law enforcement either. So we're left to just hope the executive branch doesn't violate our rights. I can't imagine how that could go wrong.
On the post: Yes, Even If You Think Project Veritas Are A Bunch Of Malicious Grifters, FBI Raid Is Concerning
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Fun fact #2: lies and bullshit are legally protected from government action in the United States. This was done specifically because the government cannot be trusted with the power to decide who gets to say what.
And my hope is that we do not cede the Biden administration that kind of power, because it will definitely be used to nefarious ends sooner or later. My bet would be very soon.
How can you be completely sure the effort will be 100% successful, such that no fascists ever come to power? Because if they do, you will have handed them the tools to utterly and permanently suppress all dissent. And you won't have any standing to complain about it, because it's exactly what you wanted.
On the post: Yes, Even If You Think Project Veritas Are A Bunch Of Malicious Grifters, FBI Raid Is Concerning
Re: Re: For your own sake, that's why
Perhaps you have forgotten how many things they tried to do were thwarted, either by the courts or by other means. Trump is an authoritarian, but his term was not a dictatorship, as much as he wanted it to be.
And giving the government the power to decide who is deserving of rights and who is not is just going to help that process along. I mean, that's the whole point of the Constitution. I don't understand how you can be in favor of such a thing unless you think the US, or at least the concept of democracy and rule of law in the US, needs to be destroyed completely.
On the post: Yes, Even If You Think Project Veritas Are A Bunch Of Malicious Grifters, FBI Raid Is Concerning
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But you're ok with whoever gets elected getting to decide what is "lies" and "bullshit". You really can't see how that would be an immediate disaster?
On the post: Trump Given 30 Days To Have His Social Media Site Comply With Open Source License
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wrong license
Sounds like they made a mistake in thinking the license was GPL compatible when it isn't. That is an issue with many different licenses existing with slightly different terms. I am skeptical that it's a common issue but it does happen.
On the post: Trump Given 30 Days To Have His Social Media Site Comply With Open Source License
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wrong license
Release a binary of an open source package/project? Nothing stopping you, go right ahead. Release a binary of your own software? If you're violating an open source license, then yeah that's by design. You should not be allowed to release that binary (or anything else) without complying with the license. Is there a third thing that you mean by that?
What restriction are you talking about? You can combine anything you want, as long as you follow the license(s).
I don't know what you mean. Download a distro, install, and go. If you need more software, install it. It's that simple.
Dependency managers manage that for you. If you install something, and it has dependencies, it will install those too.
If you're at the level of what repository something is at, you're probably a software developer and should be able to deal with this stuff. Normally you just go to the package manager and search for a program.
Again, not a licensing issue. That's just people not choosing to release binaries.
On the post: Yes, Even If You Think Project Veritas Are A Bunch Of Malicious Grifters, FBI Raid Is Concerning
Re: Re: Re: Re: concern should be on the other direction
Not sure you're getting my point. The NYT should not be bound by this privilege. The judge is extending attorney-client privilege to someone who is not the attorney. The client (who holds the privilege) has no relationship with the Times. IANAL but I don't see how that gag order is legal.
On the post: Trump Given 30 Days To Have His Social Media Site Comply With Open Source License
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wrong license
What do you mean by "do a binary"?
I don't think I can. You seem to be complaining that many projects only release source and not binaries (which is true). But what does that have to do with "heavy control"?
On the post: Yes, Even If You Think Project Veritas Are A Bunch Of Malicious Grifters, FBI Raid Is Concerning
Re: Stop with the virtue signaling BS
That isn't how law enforcement is supposed to work. You're free to jump to conclusions based on what you think about them, but the FBI should not. And that's what this story is about.
On the post: Yes, Even If You Think Project Veritas Are A Bunch Of Malicious Grifters, FBI Raid Is Concerning
Re: Re: Re: One last thing, about grifting…
No, it's really not. Grifting involves deception. Having a political viewpoint and asking for money isn't grifting.
On the post: Yes, Even If You Think Project Veritas Are A Bunch Of Malicious Grifters, FBI Raid Is Concerning
Re: Why the FBI?
I would say it's a clear demonstration of the two tier legal system. Imagine the reaction from the local police if you reported your daughter's diary was stolen, let alone the FBI.
On the post: Yes, Even If You Think Project Veritas Are A Bunch Of Malicious Grifters, FBI Raid Is Concerning
Re: Re: Re:
Fortunately that is not how the Constitution is written. Personally I don't want the government deciding who gets the rights and who doesn't.
On the post: Yes, Even If You Think Project Veritas Are A Bunch Of Malicious Grifters, FBI Raid Is Concerning
Re: Re: concern should be on the other direction
Yes, but it's attorney-client privilege, not newspaper-public figure privilege. If there is anyone who violated the privilege it's the attorney. If the information was obtained without the attorney's knowledge or consent, then whoever got it may have done so illegally. If the Times didn't have anything to do with that action, then I don't know of a legitimate legal means to prevent them from publishing it.
On the post: Trump Given 30 Days To Have His Social Media Site Comply With Open Source License
Re: Re: Re: What will happen in 30 days?
It's a great question. What do you have in mind that Congress should do about a contract dispute between two private entities?
On the post: 'GTA' Modding Group Doesn't Fold, Fights Back In Court Against Take-Two, Rockstar
Source
In case anyone else is wondering like I was, this is because they only uploaded the source code, and the game will not run without the assets (models, textures, etc).
On the post: In Big Shift For Apple, Company Makes It Easier For Users To Repair Phones
Re: Re: Security for security sakes
That's just ECA's writing style.
On the post: Content Moderation Case Study: Game Developer Deals With Sexual Content Generated By Users And Its Own AI (2021)
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Right, that's what I'm saying. It may be better to let this not real stuff happen legally, because it's not hurting any children.
On the post: In Big Shift For Apple, Company Makes It Easier For Users To Repair Phones
Re:
If someone orders a kit, how will they know it's for a third party repair shop?
On the post: Content Moderation Case Study: Game Developer Deals With Sexual Content Generated By Users And Its Own AI (2021)
Re: Re:
There's an argument to be made that it's better to let people interested in it have all the fake child porn they want so there might be less demand for the real thing, and thus fewer children being abused. But there are zero plus or minus zero politicians who want to campaign on a platform of improved accessibility of child porn.
On the post: [UPDATED]: Myanmar's Military Junta Sentences American Journalist To Eleven Years In Prison
Burma
A bit of a side question, but why are they calling it Burma, and not Myanmar?
On the post: Supreme Court Takes A Pass On A Chance To Firmly Establish A Right To Record Police Officers
Executive
The legislative branch has already abdicated their oversight role, and now the judicial branch is declining to check law enforcement either. So we're left to just hope the executive branch doesn't violate our rights. I can't imagine how that could go wrong.
Next >>