www/philosophy words-to-avoid.it.html po/survei...

[GNUN]

CVSROOT:        /web/www
Module name:    www
Changes by:     GNUN <gnun>     14/01/23 22:28:31

Modified files:
        philosophy     : words-to-avoid.it.html 
        philosophy/po  : surveillance-vs-democracy.it-en.html 
                         surveillance-vs-democracy.it.po 
                         words-to-avoid.it-en.html words-to-avoid.it.po 

Log message:
        Automatic update by GNUnited Nations.

CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/words-to-avoid.it.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.52&r2=1.53
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/surveillance-vs-democracy.it-en.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.2&r2=1.3
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/surveillance-vs-democracy.it.po?cvsroot=www&r1=1.15&r2=1.16
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/words-to-avoid.it-en.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.46&r2=1.47
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/words-to-avoid.it.po?cvsroot=www&r1=1.93&r2=1.94

Patches:
Index: words-to-avoid.it.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/words-to-avoid.it.html,v
retrieving revision 1.52
retrieving revision 1.53
diff -u -b -r1.52 -r1.53
--- words-to-avoid.it.html      17 Jan 2014 18:30:56 -0000      1.52
+++ words-to-avoid.it.html      23 Jan 2014 22:28:30 -0000      1.53
@@ -336,21 +336,23 @@
 <p>
 Alcuni usano il termine &ldquo;lucchetti digitali&rdquo; per fare
 riferimento, criticandola, alla gestione digitale delle restrizioni (DRM),
-ma questo termine non evidenzia correttamente il problema.</p>
-<p>
-I lucchetti non sono necessariamente un'ingiustizia. Tutti probabilmente
-possediamo lucchetti, e le corrispondenti chiavi o codici; che li si trovi
-utili o inutili, certamente non sono opprimenti: li possiamo aprire e
-chiudere.</p>
+ma questo termine non evidenzia correttamente i motivi per cui la tecnologia
+DRM è malvagia. Chi ha adottato questo termine non ci ha riflettuto
+abbastanza.</p>
+<p>
+I lucchetti non sono necessariamente sbagliati o opprimenti. Tutti
+probabilmente possediamo lucchetti, e le corrispondenti chiavi o codici; che
+li si trovi utili o inutili, certamente non sono opprimenti: li possiamo
+aprire e chiudere.</p>
 <p>
 La tecnologia DRM è invece un lucchetto messo a voi da qualcun altro che non
-vi dà la chiave: è più simile a delle manette che a un lucchetto. Quindi
-meglio parlare di &ldquo;manette digitali&rdquo; anziché di &ldquo;lucchetti
-digitali&rdquo;.</p>
+vi dà la chiave: è più simile a delle <em>manette</em> che a un
+lucchetto. Quindi è più chiaro parlare di &ldquo;manette digitali&rdquo;
+anziché di &ldquo;lucchetti digitali&rdquo;.</p>
 <p>
 Varie campagne di opposizione hanno scelto di usare l'infelice termine
 &ldquo;lucchetti digitali&rdquo;; per correggere l'imprecisione, dobbiamo
-evitare di seguirli nella scelta di questo termine. Potremo dare supporto a
+ripetere insistentemente la correzione. Noi come FSF potremo dare supporto a
 campagne contro i &ldquo;lucchetti digitali&rdquo;, se siamo sostanzialmente
 d'accordo con la causa; ma quando capiterà sostituiremo il termine con
 &ldquo;manette digitali&rdquo;, spiegandone le ragioni.</p>
@@ -901,7 +903,7 @@
  <p><!-- timestamp start -->
 Ultimo aggiornamento:
 
-$Date: 2014/01/17 18:30:56 $
+$Date: 2014/01/23 22:28:30 $
 
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>

Index: po/surveillance-vs-democracy.it-en.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/po/surveillance-vs-democracy.it-en.html,v
retrieving revision 1.2
retrieving revision 1.3
diff -u -b -r1.2 -r1.3
--- po/surveillance-vs-democracy.it-en.html     20 Jan 2014 23:28:33 -0000      
1.2
+++ po/surveillance-vs-democracy.it-en.html     23 Jan 2014 22:28:30 -0000      
1.3
@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@
 confirmation.  We need to reduce the level of general surveillance,
 but how far?  Where exactly is the
 <em>maximum tolerable level of surveillance</em>, which we must ensure
-is not exceeded?  It is level beyond which surveillance starts to
+is not exceeded?  It is the level beyond which surveillance starts to
 interfere with the functioning of democracy, in that whistleblowers
 (such as Snowden) are likely to be caught.</p>
 
@@ -487,7 +487,7 @@
 
 <p>Updated:
 <!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2014/01/20 23:28:33 $
+$Date: 2014/01/23 22:28:30 $
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>
 </div>

Index: po/surveillance-vs-democracy.it.po
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/po/surveillance-vs-democracy.it.po,v
retrieving revision 1.15
retrieving revision 1.16
diff -u -b -r1.15 -r1.16
--- po/surveillance-vs-democracy.it.po  23 Jan 2014 22:03:28 -0000      1.15
+++ po/surveillance-vs-democracy.it.po  23 Jan 2014 22:28:30 -0000      1.16
@@ -15,7 +15,6 @@
 "MIME-Version: 1.0\n"
 "Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8\n"
 "Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit\n"
-"Outdated-Since: 2014-01-22 19:25+0000\n"
 
 #. type: Content of: <title>
 msgid ""
@@ -45,26 +44,7 @@
 "versione della traduzione italiana è stata pubblicata su Wired.it a dicembre 
"
 "2013]."
 
-# | Thanks to Edward Snowden's disclosures, we know that the current level of
-# | general surveillance in society is incompatible with human rights.  The
-# | repeated harassment and prosecution of dissidents, sources, and
-# | journalists in the US and elsewhere provides confirmation.  We need to
-# | reduce the level of general surveillance, but how far? Where exactly is
-# | the <em>maximum tolerable level of surveillance</em>, which we must ensure
-# | is not exceeded? It is {+the+} level beyond which surveillance starts to
-# | interfere with the functioning of democracy, in that whistleblowers (such
-# | as Snowden) are likely to be caught.
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-#| msgid ""
-#| "Thanks to Edward Snowden's disclosures, we know that the current level of "
-#| "general surveillance in society is incompatible with human rights.  The "
-#| "repeated harassment and prosecution of dissidents, sources, and "
-#| "journalists in the US and elsewhere provides confirmation.  We need to "
-#| "reduce the level of general surveillance, but how far? Where exactly is "
-#| "the <em>maximum tolerable level of surveillance</em>, which we must "
-#| "ensure is not exceeded? It is level beyond which surveillance starts to "
-#| "interfere with the functioning of democracy, in that whistleblowers (such "
-#| "as Snowden) are likely to be caught."
+#. type: Content of: <p>
 msgid ""
 "Thanks to Edward Snowden's disclosures, we know that the current level of "
 "general surveillance in society is incompatible with human rights.  The "

Index: po/words-to-avoid.it-en.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/po/words-to-avoid.it-en.html,v
retrieving revision 1.46
retrieving revision 1.47
diff -u -b -r1.46 -r1.47
--- po/words-to-avoid.it-en.html        17 Jan 2014 18:31:01 -0000      1.46
+++ po/words-to-avoid.it-en.html        23 Jan 2014 22:28:30 -0000      1.47
@@ -375,22 +375,23 @@
 <p>
 &ldquo;Digital locks&rdquo; is used to refer to Digital Restrictions
 Management by some who criticize it.  The problem with this term is
-that it fails to show what's wrong with the practice.</p>
+that it fails to do justice to the badness of DRM.  The people who
+adopted that term did not think it through.</p>
 <p>
-Locks are not necessarily an injustice.  You probably own several
+Locks are not necessarily oppressive or bad.  You probably own several
 locks, and their keys or codes as well; you may find them useful or
-troublesome, but either way they don't oppress you, because you can
-open and close them.</p>
+troublesome, but they don't oppress you, because you are in a position
+to open and close them.</p>
 <p>
-DRM is like a lock placed on you by someone else, who refuses to
-give you the key&mdash;in other words, like handcuffs.  Therefore,
-we call them &ldquo;digital handcuffs,&rdquo; not &ldquo;digital
-locks.&rdquo;</p>
+DRM is like a lock placed on you by someone else, who refuses to give
+you the key&mdash;in other words, like <em>handcuffs</em>.  Therefore,
+the clear way to refer to them is &ldquo;digital handcuffs,&rdquo; not
+&ldquo;digital locks.&rdquo;</p>
 <p>
 A number of opposition campaigns have chosen the unwise term
 &ldquo;digital locks&rdquo;; to get things back on the right track, we
-must firmly decline to follow them in using that term.  We can support
-a campaign that opposes &ldquo;digital locks&rdquo; if we agree on the
+must firmly insist on correcting this mistake.  The FSF can support a
+campaign that opposes &ldquo;digital locks&rdquo; if we agree on the
 substance; however, when we state our support, we conspicuously
 replace the term with &ldquo;digital handcuffs&rdquo; and say why.</p>
 
@@ -927,7 +928,7 @@
 
 <p>Updated:
 <!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2014/01/17 18:31:01 $
+$Date: 2014/01/23 22:28:30 $
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>
 </div>

Index: po/words-to-avoid.it.po
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/po/words-to-avoid.it.po,v
retrieving revision 1.93
retrieving revision 1.94
diff -u -b -r1.93 -r1.94
--- po/words-to-avoid.it.po     23 Jan 2014 22:03:28 -0000      1.93
+++ po/words-to-avoid.it.po     23 Jan 2014 22:28:30 -0000      1.94
@@ -16,7 +16,6 @@
 "MIME-Version: 1.0\n"
 "Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8\n"
 "Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit\n"
-"Outdated-Since: 2014-01-23 19:55+0000\n"
 
 #. type: Content of: <title>
 msgid ""
@@ -661,16 +660,7 @@
 msgid "&ldquo;Digital Locks&rdquo;"
 msgstr "&ldquo;Lucchetti digitali (Digital Locks)&rdquo;"
 
-# | &ldquo;Digital locks&rdquo; is used to refer to Digital Restrictions
-# | Management by some who criticize it.  The problem with this term is that
-# | it fails to [-show what's wrong with-] {+do justice to+} the [-practice.-]
-# | {+badness of DRM.  The people who adopted that term did not think it
-# | through.+}
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-#| msgid ""
-#| "&ldquo;Digital locks&rdquo; is used to refer to Digital Restrictions "
-#| "Management by some who criticize it.  The problem with this term is that "
-#| "it fails to show what's wrong with the practice."
+#. type: Content of: <p>
 msgid ""
 "&ldquo;Digital locks&rdquo; is used to refer to Digital Restrictions "
 "Management by some who criticize it.  The problem with this term is that it "
@@ -683,16 +673,7 @@
 "DRM è malvagia. Chi ha adottato questo termine non ci ha riflettuto "
 "abbastanza."
 
-# | Locks are not necessarily [-an injustice.-] {+oppressive or bad.+}  You
-# | probably own several locks, and their keys or codes as well; you may find
-# | them useful or troublesome, but [-either way-] they don't oppress you,
-# | because you [-can-] {+are in a position to+} open and close them.
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-#| msgid ""
-#| "Locks are not necessarily an injustice.  You probably own several locks, "
-#| "and their keys or codes as well; you may find them useful or troublesome, "
-#| "but either way they don't oppress you, because you can open and close "
-#| "them."
+#. type: Content of: <p>
 msgid ""
 "Locks are not necessarily oppressive or bad.  You probably own several "
 "locks, and their keys or codes as well; you may find them useful or "
@@ -704,15 +685,7 @@
 "li si trovi utili o inutili, certamente non sono opprimenti: li possiamo "
 "aprire e chiudere."
 
-# | DRM is like a lock placed on you by someone else, who refuses to give you
-# | the key&mdash;in other words, like [-handcuffs.-] {+<em>handcuffs</em>.+}
-# | Therefore, [-we call-] {+the clear way to refer to+} them {+is+}
-# | &ldquo;digital handcuffs,&rdquo; not &ldquo;digital locks.&rdquo;
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-#| msgid ""
-#| "DRM is like a lock placed on you by someone else, who refuses to give you "
-#| "the key&mdash;in other words, like handcuffs.  Therefore, we call them "
-#| "&ldquo;digital handcuffs,&rdquo; not &ldquo;digital locks.&rdquo;"
+#. type: Content of: <p>
 msgid ""
 "DRM is like a lock placed on you by someone else, who refuses to give you "
 "the key&mdash;in other words, like <em>handcuffs</em>.  Therefore, the clear "
@@ -724,21 +697,7 @@
 "Quindi è più chiaro parlare di &ldquo;manette digitali&rdquo; anziché di "
 "&ldquo;lucchetti digitali&rdquo;."
 
-# | A number of opposition campaigns have chosen the unwise term
-# | &ldquo;digital locks&rdquo;; to get things back on the right track, we
-# | must firmly [-decline to follow them in using that term.  We-] {+insist on
-# | correcting this mistake.  The FSF+} can support a campaign that opposes
-# | &ldquo;digital locks&rdquo; if we agree on the substance; however, when we
-# | state our support, we conspicuously replace the term with &ldquo;digital
-# | handcuffs&rdquo; and say why.
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-#| msgid ""
-#| "A number of opposition campaigns have chosen the unwise term &ldquo;"
-#| "digital locks&rdquo;; to get things back on the right track, we must "
-#| "firmly decline to follow them in using that term.  We can support a "
-#| "campaign that opposes &ldquo;digital locks&rdquo; if we agree on the "
-#| "substance; however, when we state our support, we conspicuously replace "
-#| "the term with &ldquo;digital handcuffs&rdquo; and say why."
+#. type: Content of: <p>
 msgid ""
 "A number of opposition campaigns have chosen the unwise term &ldquo;digital "
 "locks&rdquo;; to get things back on the right track, we must firmly insist "