USA, please meet Europe. Europe, please meet USA. Europe, I gotta tell you something about this USA. This dude has have a problem with "slippery slopes". Anytime s/he can identify a slippery slope between "reasonable behaviour A" and "unreasonable behaviour B", there is an overwhelming urge to avoid even "reasonable behaviour A". So its no use suggestion that there is "reasonable behaviour" if ol' USA can see a way to connect that with "unreasonable behaviour". The other thing you should know before you set up a data? This USA dude is way into laws and social structures based on rights. You might find that strange. Sometimes, strange is cool. Sometimes, strange is strange. You decide. Have fun. --p (from the edge of europe to the edgy USA)

Paul Davis wrote: So if there's a law for the right to enslave a man I can claim it and still say I value freedom? Sorry, I don't get it. But I'm here to learn and understand as best as I can. c. -- www.cesaremarilungo.com

Hi! Alle 18:33, sabato 11 marzo 2006, Paul Davis ha scritto: But there is something that is not an "arbitrary lines". There are absolute values, like importance of human beings etc. You simply cannot put these values into discussion, because they are the foundation of social living (and not only that...). The new-age idea that "everything is relative" or what else it's spelled in English, is not appliable, IMO, to human beings, otherwise everything crumbles. This is why there are laws against racism, sexism, slavery, violence etc. in all the countries, given that the freedom to think differently cannot exceeds the bounds of social livings: say what you want, but you ca't do it if it's inhuman. And we have to accept that, while conception of mankind etc. can differ from culture to culture, those absolute values remains the same. Example: female mutilations in Africa. They are practiced sometimes by mothers to their own daughters, since they thinks it's right. Should they be _free_ to think, I'm sure they would recognize that this is a dishuman practice, to be banned as soon as possible, because it goes against the simplest idea of human being. They say that they are content of these practices? They are, only as we are content when people agree with us: that is, we feel that we are well inserted in a given community (think of boys that commit crimes in order of being accepted by friends etc.). So, it's relativism again, and it would destroy itself and the surrounding world: if everything is relative, even the idea that everything is relative should be relative, so nothing is sure etc. etc:) Sorry for the OT! Byez! Carotinho ___________________________________ Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB http://mail.yahoo.it

Cesare Marilungo wrote: Let me get this right - we are not free to discuss these values? This is your culturally conditioned assumption, not an absolute. Personally I would probably be happy to hang out on a site where Sexism and Racism are censored, however, this is not Anarchy, this is Socialism. The problem is, that different people have different interpretations of what constitutes 'Racist' or 'Sexist' - I have been accused of Racism for calling my friends 'Pakis' or my brother & sister 'half-caste', which I think has more to do with fashion than human rights. I also call my brother & sister my 'siblings' which is apparently technically incorrect, but, with all due respect you can swivel on my technical incorrectness :) they're MY family. I guess it's all relative . ;p The new-age idea This is not true. I think you've just insulted their culture. Genital mutilation is horrible in my opinion, but how about we consider male circumcision or purdah. Many people make these choices out of free will and from an informed position. What would happen if someone suggested banning these things? They would be accused of Racism. I'm sure they would recognize that this is a I tend to subscribe to the relativistic position. But I'm not sure about that. I defend my and other people's right to make up our own minds on these issues. I'm sure if there was a nice pat solution we'd have given it a decent shot by now. cheers, tim hall

On Tue, 2006-03-21 at 11:42 +0000, james(a)dis-dot-dat.net wrote: That's it! No more circumlocutorysesquapedalianism ;-) -- Jan 'Evil Twin' Depner The Fuzzy Dice http://myweb.cableone.net/eviltwin69/fuzzy.html "As we enjoy great advantages from the invention of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours, and this we should do freely and generously." Benjamin Franklin, on declining patents offered by the governor of Pennsylvania for his "Pennsylvania Fireplace", c. 1744

On Wed, 2006-03-22 at 08:33 +0000, james(a)dis-dot-dat.net wrote: It means beating around the bush by using large words ;-) -- Jan 'Evil Twin' Depner The Fuzzy Dice http://myweb.cableone.net/eviltwin69/fuzzy.html "As we enjoy great advantages from the invention of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours, and this we should do freely and generously." Benjamin Franklin, on declining patents offered by the governor of Pennsylvania for his "Pennsylvania Fireplace", c. 1744

Cesare Marilungo wrote: Yeah sorry, bad quoting. I'm struggling a bit with Thunderbird. Probably going back to Kmail soon. :( cheers, tim hall

Hi Tim, This is completely off-topic, but I feel as though I should say something... tim hall wrote: I think that we have to draw a line somewhere between things which are simply cultural differences, and things which shouldn't be allowed, regardless of culture. Sometimes a culture needs to change. As a much-abused example, one might have argued that slavery was once part of the culture of many places. However, this simply isn't reason enough to allow the slavery to continue. Similarly, people frequently use the argument "But it's traditional" to support all sorts of things (in particular, I'm thinking of fox hunting in south-west England). Personally, I love history and tradition, but I do not think that this argument automatically outweighs others. Male circumcision isn't the same thing as "female circumcision". The genital mutilation inflicted on girls is often nothing less than barbaric. This link seems relevant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_circumcision Regards, Michael

Hi! Alle 07:50, martedì 21 marzo 2006, tim hall ha scritto: Well, no, there are values one can't discuss... otherwise, there wouldn't be anything to build something upon. And if there's something universal, that's the respect for human beings. The way it can be achieved can be thought of in the strangest manner, and diffferent civilizations have done so for ages (that's the reason why they are different), but as Michael TD Nelson pointed out in another mail, tradition and history doesn't automatically means rightful: something is arguable and something else is not. The assumption that there's something absolute is not cultural, it's simply the base of thought. Without this, you couldn't even say anything, there would be no knowledge, no science. There must be a truth, something stable, even if one can argue which it is, and that happens because we are basically free, and it explains why we are so different etc. But negating the base of thought means negating ourselves. Byez! Carotinho ___________________________________ Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB http://mail.yahoo.it

On Sat, 2006-03-11 at 19:19 +0100, Carotinho wrote: Yes, and one such absolute value is "free speech". Lee

--- Cesare Marilungo <cesare(a)poeticstudios.com> wrote: That is correct. I stand for your right to say anything you want whether it be racist or sexist does not constitue an exception. I argue for your right to speak out against anything you find objectionable including racism and sexism. I stand in defense of your freedom to speak your mind. If you do not allow someone to be sexist or racist then you value your judgment as being greater than freedom. And to excersize your judgement requires you to assume power over another human. I do not require governance to deal with racism in speech. I affirm my strength as a free thinking human without laws that control me and put you into a position of power. I am born with dignity, I want to keep it and use it. Do you think individuals lack the ability to speak against racism? What does your calm have to do with anything? Is that a threat in cloak; be careful or I'll lose my calm and unleash my special brand of hell upon you. If that's the case and you support the governance of free speech then you are exactly the kind of person I fear and fight. If that statement is to say, I'm trying to remain calm in order to discuss something then we freely debate. It's not within my power to interpret your meaning as it applies to the interests of this community and to construct a fuckin' rule. It is your opportunity and right to make your meaning clear and known to everyone. This isn't the greatest example of U.S. free speech in practice but it's an example. Ron __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Cesare Marilungo wrote: And it surely hurts to be labeled as a dumbass by people you respect for what they've done and for how inspiring they've been with their work. c. -- www.cesaremarilungo.com

On Sat March 11 2006 11:16, Cesare Marilungo wrote: I value freedom a great deal, and if one of my songs someday happens to contain visceral allusions to semen on someone's face, or a redneck antagonist killing an Asian character (would that make my song racist toward Asians, or toward rednecks?) then that's the way it's going to be. Jamendo can kiss my American ass as well. I don't think impeaching this one service's terms of use impeaches the concept as a whole, though. They can do what they want, but I'd rather just put my music out there on the web. It's not like it's going to be popular enough to cost much in terms of bandwidth... I use way more bandwidth with my Mandrake RPM repository than any of my bits of music have ever used. Marketing can be done through things like myspace or CC music aggregation sites or whatever's replaced mp3.com (note: talking about marketing my own music here, not marketing free music as an ideal which I think will run up against people's actual reasons for listening to music.) Rob

I'm still thinking about what happened yesterday. I just want to clarify two things and then I'll stop these annoying posts. First. I *really* agree with you Ron (and Paul, and Jay) about the importance of freedom of speech. And it's obvious that I must respect this freedom even when somebody says something that I disagree with. I'm still undecided if is right or wrong to ban offensive language by somebody who is trying to build a community of likeminded people. If you invite me at your home, and I start insulting you and your family with racist and sexist words I don't thing you would invite me again. In the same way anybody can start his/her own web community and apply the rules he/she want. In one of my previous messages I even said that I don't see the need of such community, and that having your own web space gives you more freedom anyway. Probably, I misunderstood your complaints. I thought that you were saying that you feel being limited by joining a website that bans offensive languange and dangerous statements made by ignorant people (and to me somebody who is racist in 2006 is way more ignorant than the jamendo crew). If this is true, I still respect you because I see that you're defending something I believe in too. Just consider that racism is growing worldwide. And that this is a *real* danger for any kind of freedom. What I'm trying to say is that I believe that their (the jamendo crew) concerns about this could be sincere and positive, even if there's a contraddiction with the wider idea of freedom we both have. Second. If I could turn back time (as Cher would have said) I wouldn't have used that phrase about loosing my calm. It has been just my impulsiveness and my not so good (ok bad) english writing skills. I'm trying to learn this language by myself to interact with more likeminded people than those I may find here in Italy. To be part of the hacker community. But I've felt offended by your words as well. And *this* is what really triggered my impulsiveness. You offended me as an inhabitant of an european country. We can discuss about if there's really freedom of speech in the United States (vs France) for the rest of our life but I would have liked to keep these aspects away from a list like this. Otherwise, you should call it 'Linux Audio American Users' or 'Linux Audio Land of The Freedom Users'. In this case I would maybe kiss your ass and leave. Cheers, c. -- www.cesaremarilungo.com

Loki Davison wrote: You should come to dinner sometime, and try my mum's cooking. :o) Regards Michael

On Sun, 2006-03-12 at 23:14 +1100, Loki Davison wrote: I was under the same impression before I went to England but there is a restaurant in the Castle Hotel in Taunton that has some of the best food I've ever eaten. On the other hand, I couldn't find a single bit of reasonably tasty food in either Cairns or Sydney (although I'm sure there must be a few decent places in Sydney). -- Jan 'Evil Twin' Depner The Fuzzy Dice http://myweb.cableone.net/eviltwin69/fuzzy.html "As we enjoy great advantages from the invention of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours, and this we should do freely and generously." Benjamin Franklin, on declining patents offered by the governor of Pennsylvania for his "Pennsylvania Fireplace", c. 1744

Hi! Alle 13:14, domenica 12 marzo 2006, Loki Davison ha scritto: LOL!:) Sorry for this waste of bandwith, but I remember when I went to London for a schooltrip, and in a self service I opened my hungry mouth, and innocently bite a big piece of pizza ... with ananas!:) Cannot remember anything more disgusting than that:) Byez! Carotinho ___________________________________ Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB http://mail.yahoo.it

On Sun, 2006-03-12 at 19:17 +0100, Lars Luthman wrote: Pineapple is great, I'll give you that one. But banana?! Dana

Hi, I'm just speaking up a bit here since that's the underlying topic of this thread. Cheers, Mark On 3/12/06, Cesare Marilungo <cesare(a)poeticstudios.com> wrote: If you do then you have already decided what the 'like minded' community should look like, what it can do and cannot do. This is a recipe (in my mind) for a community that will not be healthy and grow in the future. It's stagnant from the outset. Consider whether the community is better off being forever limited by the decisions taken. If it is a community for children or closed minded adults who feel the need to be protected then the correct answer is probably different than for a community of open-minded adults looking to grow. would rock & roll have ever happened if the people minding the community would only let classical music play? Let the people who don't like it burn their records. That's their business. But do not stop the new musicians from playing their music and speaking their minds. Consider, please, that the basis of any law to suppress free speech has at its root an assumption that people listening aren't smart enough to figure to for themselves that the 'offensive' speech is really coming from stupid people they don't want to listen to. Give the listener proper credit and pretty soon you find out that not that many people care about what the talker is speaking about. (My opinion/observation anyway...) It's perfectly OK for people spout out stupid stuff as long as it's just words. Consider a recent conviction of some silly 'historian' convicted in Europe for writing a book that stated that the Holocaust never occurred. What's up with that? We need a 'law' that says the Holocaust happened? We know it did. It's amazingly Orwellian thinking to believe that we could ever get to a point where the general world population ever questioned this fact. But the Austrians (I think...) have a law that says you cannot even say the Holocaust didn't happen and convicted a silly person who wrote it in a book. I happen to think this whole affair really make the Austrians, and by association Europeans that don't speak out about this, look rather silly. But then again, I'm in California and it's clear everyone here is out of touch anyway. ;-) That is correct behavior in my mind. First, before I invite you to m home I hopefully know something about you. You are a friend or close acquaintance. I don't invite you unless I'm already sure you are someone I want to spend an evening with. Second, if you did this, but it was only me that heard it, I might tell you I don't like it and ask you to stop, or at least carry on a discussion about it. On the other hand, if you do this in front of my kids then our friendship is almost certainly permanently damaged because you didn't care about my family's feelings. It's a bad evening but it's not the end of the world. I use your behavior to teach my kids about some of the stupid people in the world and never invite you back again. None the less I do not think you should be arrested for this behavior - just unceremoniously dismissed. While I understand and even agree with your distaste for people speaking this way I do not, even in the slightest way, think that people should be prohibited from such speech. Here in America we have lots of people speaking things that I don't like. Republicans & Democrats. (as opposed to republicans and democrats...) People speaking from extremely narrow religious perspectives. Racists of all types. Neo-Nazi's, closed minded Americans, right-wing talking heads on TV. Our country and media is full of this stuff. I cannot stand most of it, and I don't spend my time listening to it, but not for a second do I want anyone to be silenced. Let them talk. As long as it's talk and nothing more then I think they are actually providing a service to the country and world at large. It would be FAR more dangerous to have it all underground until it finally exploded into some sort of war. Just my two cents, Mark

On 3/12/06, dubphil <dubphil(a)free.fr> wrote: Just personal choice. Do you invite every person you see on the street to dinner at your house? Of course not! We all 'self censor' our relationships. It doesn't mean we wouldn't enjoy an evening with some random person on the street. It's just not practical or even of interest to most people. No offense will be taken! How could I not agree with that. It's very sensible. However I see it as 'personal'. I may choose to follow these ideas but I do not force others to follow them. While it may or may not be clear to all readers of a list like this around the world there are areas where we do not have free speech in America. One or two sensible ones are where we are possibly endangering people, such as shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theater. Another would be where someone is inciting people to immediate violence. It's perfectly alright in America, to the best of my knowledge, to advocate for the overthrow of the government. It is not OK to advocate for the violent overthrow of the same government. Here we disagree. Speech in my mind never breaks a taboo. (The U.S. spelling) Speech may make taboos more apparent. Bring them into the light of day. (metaphorically) Speech doesn't break taboos. People do. Here I am not sure of the meaning and I'd like to. Do you speak of the current USA? The current way France is operating? The world in general? Don't be too negative. The pendulum swings over time. That is certain. Certain people, such as George Bush and Osama bin Laden, will eventually go away and be replaced by new faces. It's our job to remain vocal about what we want when that happens. If we don't remain vocal and speak out then we get what we *didn't* ask for! That is often a much larger issue in my mind. Cheers, Mark

Mark says : You point it, the Jamendo guys 'self censor' their project on the basis of their personal choice... Damn ! this worth the kissing of an american ass ? (Sorry, but I can't stand this kind of coarsing language) ok for this it 's true, but Freud has shown that the "subconscious" in healthy (not psychotic) people remains unknown from the conscious... sorry for this psychanalitic disgression... All of them yes ! Sorry I will not developp as this list is not suitable for political debate out of Linux Audio... of course agreed even if we want to believe that Ben Laden is really tracked by Bush instead of beeing protected, but this is another debate not suitable to this list. Regards Philippe

Hi! Alle 15:30, domenica 12 marzo 2006, Mark Knecht ha scritto: Here in Italy we have laws against "apology of fascism", and I think it's the same in Austria: you cannot go out and do eg. the "saluto romano" because it's an offense to common national feelings, and to the foundations of our republic. But this does not prevent us speaking about fascism, or discussing their ideas or valuing the arts of that period etc. So it's not a problem of being able to say what you want or not: there is something that is offending, and if you offend a person, he tends to react...:) The real problem is that there isn't a correspondent "apology of communism", but that's another question!:) Byez! Carotinho ___________________________________ Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB http://mail.yahoo.it

Hi! Alle 16:51, domenica 12 marzo 2006, Jan Depner ha scritto: Hey, I'm so pleased and touched to hear these words!:) Eh, violence is something everybody agrees it shouldn't be displayed to our childrens. Sex is different: banning sex is like crying out "I'm a Catholic conservative and reactionary", and besides the educational value of such a ban, it's very "unpopular" in certain ambients to sustain it! If you want to look modern, you wouldn't say you want to ban sex from TV:) (with sex I mean also girls on show that are little dressed and dance in a provoking way, e.g.) Byez! Carotinho ___________________________________ Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB http://mail.yahoo.it

On Sun March 12 2006 06:40, Cesare Marilungo wrote: I don't think we're talking about music with lyrics demeaning the listener. The most common use of censorship I've seen has been applied by people who just don't understand the song, and therefore don't realize the author of the lyrics was writing a character, not his own feelings. To throw out an example that was supposedly offensive to my own personal minority, in the 80's we had Dire Straits: That little faggot in the earring and the makeup? Yeah, buddy, that's his own hair. That little faggot got his own jet airplane. That little faggot, he's a millionaire. You wouldn't believe the shrieking and the crying. Some radio stations bleeped out the word "faggot" and they didn't use it when they played the song at Live Aid. Boy George and others threw big public hissies. To this day, GLAAD (the gay version of the ADL) organizes boycotts of radio stations that dare to air the song unedited. But the song was based on a conversation the songwriter overheard at a furniture store, and was meant to poke fun at people who said things like the above. And then you have current mainstream hip-hop, where the artists throw around the word "nigga" like it's an indefinite article. At the Oscars the other night they had some hip-hop band performing (they later won Best Song) and it was like every other word got bleeped. I have no idea whether that French site would ban them for using racist speech, but if they did, it'd be ironic since the people writing and saying it were black. (On the other hand, the constant use of the words "bitches" and "hoes" is sexist, though again they can be spoken by a character and not necessarily the author or singer of the song.) Racist and sexist lyrics aren't always what they seem to be, and I really think that most attempts to draw the line result in overzealous squelching of actual artistic content. I guess it comes down to a simple question: are they trying to be purveyors of art, or of easily saleable product? Rob

Wha! Whoa! Where? I hope that one's explicit in the RIGHT way... ;) Carlo

On Saturday 11 March 2006 10:50, R Parker wrote: I finally got thru my firewall with azureus, but I'm puzzled as to how it actually works so let me see if my detective in me is on the right trail here. 1. It apparently allocates the full file size for each .ogg in the download 'album' selected immediately. However, I can't see a progress number thats anything but 0.0% for either down or up, and when I look at the files, even a sub 1k text file, its all been zero filled. I do see traffic from the network ok, so am I to assume that this is a 100% random access file transfer method, getting a kilobyte of it here, and another there until finally all the pieces of the puzzle are complete? 2. On the "my torrents" screen, the H entry is a red frownie, and the estimated eta is an infinity sign. Is there anybody fam enough with Azureus to shine some light on this? It makes me nervous to see all that traffic and no results. 3. Also, none of the highlighted links in the help pulldown result in any action whatsoever. Rather hard to fathom when theres no link to the wiki or ?? [...] -- Cheers, Gene People having trouble with vz bouncing email to me should add the word 'online' between the 'verizon', and the dot which bypasses vz's stupid bounce rules. I do use spamassassin too. :-) Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above message by Gene Heskett are: Copyright 2006 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.

On Sun, 2006-03-12 at 16:47 +1100, Loki Davison wrote: Gnome 2.12 is even easier - you just click a torrent link and get a little download dialog, it's completely integrated... Lee

On Sunday 12 March 2006 00:48, Lee Revell wrote: I dunno at this point, when I look at the stats->activity tab, I'm getting a flat line in red at 0 on both graphs, which (red) could be ratio bad, or firewall blocked... Port tests pass though, and as I said, its pre-allocated the drive space. The activity I'm seeing it because bittorrent is also seeding Ubuntu-5.10.iso. I'd forgotten I restarted it after rebooting to 2.6.16-rc6 about 4 hours ago. -- Cheers, Gene People having trouble with vz bouncing email to me should add the word 'online' between the 'verizon', and the dot which bypasses vz's stupid bounce rules. I do use spamassassin too. :-) Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above message by Gene Heskett are: Copyright 2006 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.

lördagen den 11 mars 2006 18.29 skrev Bengt Gördén: Forgot to mention that this is a router, not an end host. -- /bengan