trekjunky

I just heard something about widevine. I downloaded Chrome.deb (Don’t remember the real file name) and extracted libwinevinecdm.so and copied it in many places like ~/.config/Chromium/ and ~/.config/Chromium/Default/ and /usr/lib/Chromium/, but nothing works. What do I need to do?

So there is nobody at the helm steering which stories get told and which ones get bashed? Why then do we hear the cover story about Venezuela instead of what is really happening? The USA sanctions are the cause of Venezuela struggles, not the leader;s fault. All because the leader will not sell its oil to the USA companies at a cheap enough price. Why don't we hear that angle of the story? Because the "Free" press is not free, but bought and paid for.

Well, what do you think about a president who berates the corporate media? Is he right? The corporate media regurgitates what the elite pays them to tell. I seen a video where 17 news people were verbatim, saying the exact same story unedited by anyone except the one who handed them the story. I think the corporate media is a sham, but I don't think it is the president who will fix the problem with corporate media.

Maybe it has been done before and they didn't succeed so you can look at why they didn't succeed and figure out a better way to do it...

Sorry, but you're getting into state and country laws that I don't understand and never studied. Maybe someone else here can answer your questions.

States each have their state constitutions and depending on the state, most likely they have laws against states, counties, cities, villages, etc. from making laws countermanding the United States of America's Constitution. I'm not a constitutional scholar, so take my answer with a grain of salt.

Congress passed laws that say the public has to pay taxes, but there are some people who claim Congress doesn't have the constitutional authority to pass those laws therefore making those laws illegal.

Yes, it is, but it is condoned by society that private/corporate stores have dictatorship rights against those that promote violence against their financial health. Great question! My gut feeling is NO he cannot, but I could be wrong...

Yes it is, but in our society, bosses and parents can act like dictators in their respective environments.

With the Freedom of Religion law, the religious people can do whatever they want as long as they don't hurt anyone. The Congress is BANNED from making laws that puts one religion over another, so the religious can't count on the government to help push their agenda which imo is a great thing. Politics are as bad as religion. They fuel nationalism to give them purpose. They do this with lies. They twist scientific fact to suit their agenda. I would never argue that we have too much freedom, but some would while not understanding that taking away one freedom leads to most freedoms taken away.

I agree that Political truth is much harder to find than scientific truth. Scientific truth is twisted by politics. Scientific truth is many times rejected by the religious. Conspiracy theorists sew fear to get their followers to listen and believe. You say it won't work and I agree nothing is perfect, that's why I also say that the offending posts remain whole but with a warning so that the entity presenting the warning can be checked by peers, and public. I can't think of a better way. Can you?

I'm sorry. My bad. I did not come across clearly. When I was equating pollution to free speech, I was referring to the huge, enormous, problem (disaster) of Tribalism. On platforms like facebook, Tribalism is caused by the god right to censor (block) anyone anytime indiscriminately. It causes the polarization of online groups which infiltrates our culture, society in the real world. In that light, the corporations that inadvertently cause Tribalism have a responsibility to public health. So, changing the block feature would NOT be so cost prohibitive. But it would cure Tribalism. The change can be described as allowing people to ignore a person, but the posts of that person will still be able to be seen by everyone else. People, on some platforms, can delete posts as well which also causes Tribalism. Censoring is NOT a good thing, publicly or privately. Censorship is about control of one person by another. It's WAY PAST time to force the corporations to change the way they approach free speech. If the threat of violence isn't there, then the speech is legally allowed, publicly. Privately, the owner legally can censor anyone anytime, but usually they don't unless they have religious objections to something or someone. The censored person can stand on the public sidewalk in front of the store and the owner can't censor them unless they feel threatened financially, then they can call the police. Then the censored person can go to another place and speak about the first place without repercussion. They can write about it. Censorship is about control of one person over another. That doesn't sit well with me. Censorship is as bad privately as it is publicly. I agree with everything you said except the suggestion to punish the liars. You punish one, then they will go anonymous or use alias after alias. It would be very hard if not impossible to find the perpetrator, let alone punish them. Prohibition never worked. Not with alcohol nor cigarettes nor drugs. And you wan to add free speech to the list of prohibited things.

I'l try to be as detailed as I can on the system I built... ASUS AMD Motherboard with 8 core 64 bit CPU 16 Gig Mem ATI HD Radeon 5700 series HDMI video/sound no SETI running on it Barely using 25% of 3 TB hard drive. Latest Linux Mint Cinnamon The mouse moves, but clicking doesn't work

The two groups need to abide by the law. The law says we have a freedom of religion which also means freedom of non-religion. That means there cannot be a law that promotes one religion over all others. So the religious groups with their religious views do not get to impose their values on the rest of us. It is the fairest way all religions can survive relatively unfettered by the government. Since EACH religion says it is the right one, no One religion can come on top. If a religious person lays forth a secular reason for a rule, then it is okay. But if that religious person lays forth a religious reason for a rule, then that would be putting ONE religion over all others. I would agree IF there were 10,000 platforms each with their following, like Churches. But I equate the harm social platforms are causing by not putting the people first to the corporations who pollute our water and air. Their responsibility to their shareholders do not supersede their responsibility to the public health. First, a copy of the first amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Second, I would like to focus on : Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech ... So, it is interpreted that it does NOT apply to private places as if the private places are sovereign nations. But that is an interpretation. If you look at it, constitutionally, congress is being bound by this law, not the private owners. But what if the private place is big enough to be called a corporation? Don't we have laws saying that corporations cannot pollute are water and air? For corporations to put the public health before the shareholders' needs? When a private entity becomes a public threat, they cannot continue that way.

That's why I joined this forum, because of it's adherence to the principles of free speech. I think that corporations have extra responsibilities to the health of the public and its culture. I am NOT saying LTT needs changes. I am saying that MOST other platforms should emulate LTT's take on free speech. Thanks for the encouragement. Why can't we vote on the rules? The rules should not effect the content of the discourse unless the threat of violence causes censorship. Safety first I guess. When society was comprised mostly of villages, there were many wars because of disagreement. As a civilized society today, we learned to embrace differences though not perfectly yet. Tribalism online has translated to the polarization of political and social groups in the real world creating the fighting villages within the whole society.

Public vs private. I have argued elsewhere that due to the huge, enormous, effect Tribalism has on our culture, we should legally declare some platforms as public places. See I do understand you. Throwing out the word private when that private place entertains millions at any one time seems incongruous. Is a private Church really a public place because so many congregate there at any one time? Is a party store which gets a hundred customers a day or less a private business or a place where the public goes to get items and expects the safety of a public place? Slapping the word "private" on a huge endeavor like an online platform seems out of place. I mean, how big can a private entity get BEFORE it is declared a public place. What about a private concert hall? It's a big place with about a thousand of the public gathering there? With so much of the public there, it seems that it SHOULD be that the rights of the private owner are superseded by the public's right to free speech and safety. I know it is NOT that way now, but I would like to change it. First, a copy of the first amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Second, I would like to focus on : Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech ... So, it is interpreted that it does NOT apply to private places as if the private places are sovereign nations. But that is an interpretation. If you look at it, constitutionally, congress is being bound by this law, not the private owners. But what if the private place contains thousands or millions of the public at any one time. Is it now a public place, or is there no end to the sovereignty of private places?

I hope you find the time to discuss free speech as you seem very confident in your understanding of free speech. Here's two scenarios that may lend to your understanding my capability in hopes of engaging you. 1) An armed man enters a public place yelling everyone needs to be shot. 2) An unarmed man enters a public place yelling everyone needs to be shot. 3) A person enters a public place to incite violence by yelling certain offensive words at people of color. In 1) the offender is threatening violence by pointing his gun, so the public sees him as a criminal and would censor him if they could. He is mixing action with free speech and would be censored to prevent violence. In 2) the offender is spouting obscenities. The public probably wouldn't see him as a criminal, but as a mentally ill man, so again to prevent violent action, they censor him. In 3) The violence incited would be against the speaker, so do we legalize vengeance, or censor the man for his own safety, again to prevent violence. In the private arena, people should learn to respectfully engage with others and realize that the only solution to "irritating" speech is more free speech. MUCH MORE SPEECH should be called irritating instead of offensive. The threat of violence is the driving force to censor, because most times speech like that leads to violence.

I have argued elsewhere that the social media platforms be declared as public places because they have polarized the country. People are now living in bubbles of their liking and excluding indiscriminately all others instead of learning to live with them. Tribalism is a huge problem and the cause is the god right to block anyone anytime on most private platforms. Very good example of violent speech which mixes actions with speech. What if the offender walks in unarmed and starts yelling that all the customers be shot? You wouldn't think he is a criminal but you would think he is mentally ill and remove him BEFORE any violent actions are taken by the offender. So censoring actions seems what you advocate, not censoring speech, wouldn't you say?

When my PC is idle doing SETI@Home for a long time, it appears to lock up. The only remedy is powering down with the power button. This has happened twice in the past week. I know it is NOT the PC overheating as I have a Liquid Cooling System installed and the air flow of the heat exchange system is clear. I have been thinking of installing a desklet that monitors the CPU temperature just in case, but haven't gotten around to it yet. What logs should I view after booting up? How do I view them?

For me it was Spock from Star Trek TOS. I am the son of European immigrants and felt out of place in school. I felt like Spock who had a foot in two different cultures. His was Vulcan and Human. Mine was Macedonian and American. I was born and raised in the USA, but I can speak, read, and write in Macedonian. My American side won, but I cannot deny my other half. I was born a few months BEFORE TOS aired for the first time in 1966, but I saw TOS in reruns as I grew up in the 70's. I was fascinated.

It's about 2 Free Speech issues and how to handle them.