Wow! Now I can bring my own pr0n collection with me all the time, and I can use it...
Wait, no, I can sure watch it, but I certainly won't be able to use it!!!
For the love of god, the state should NOT be a cash redistribution machine; it should NOT be large, and it should NOT be powerful.
First of all, there is no god. That is a concept that has been feisted upon the masses by the powerful to insure that they stay docile and obedient.
Second, the State has a duty that everyone can lead a decent life. This means that it has to make sure no one gets swindled by anyone, be it a bank, an employer or a scammer.
The economy is NOT a zero sum game. Just because someone is rich does not mean that they accumulated their wealth by the exploitation of the "unrich" (is that the new politically correct term? I should probably start using it, lest the "tolerant" masses stone me for being "intolerant").
With the barriers to entry that the rich are putting all over the place to prevent competition from entering the markets, the Economy is starting more and more to turn into a zero-sum game.
The time when an entrepreneur can pursue an opportunity is long gone, not thanks to increased government regulation, but thanks to anticompetitive trade practices that are effected by the larger and larger conglomerates that swallow more and more of the Economy every day.
I have grown weary of standing by while my fellow Canadians rally for a larger, more powerful government. How many times must we walk down this path until we finally accept it leads nowhere.
We know and have seen where the opposite (less and less State) goes towards: we see it daily at work in the USA, a place where the rich and powerful trample the unrich into meaningless pulp.
Well, I suppose as the old saying goes "a government that steals from Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul." Just remember my fellow citizens, do not rest until those with high incomes have LESS money than those on low incomes.
Typical bourgeois poppycock. Their propaganda aims only towards the elimination of the State so it will stop preventing them from abusing consumers and the public. Ask yourself: when a rich man asks for something, does he do it for everybody's sake or merely for his own? When you're greedy enough to have accumulated a vast fortune, your motivations are rather crystal-clear.
(There are definitely too much yankee moderators around here; well, you can't win against me, you've go so many moderator points but I have unlimited postings. Reposted account some asshole right-wing yankee moderating this as a troll).
The National post is jumping the gun. It's owners, for sure, would like to see the end of anonymity (for unrich people, of course), but the Courts haven't decided yet that the ISPs should hand on a silver platter the information about the file sharers.
The canadian privacy laws have been passed to protect the citizens who, actually, vote for the government, so the government better listen to the people.
But again, the National Post is just a wet-dream from those rich people who are trying to eliminate the State so they can profit off the unrich people unhindered.
The National post is jumping the gun. It's owners, for sure, would like to see the end of anonymity (for unrich people, of course), but the Courts haven't decided yet that the ISPs should hand on a silver platter the information about the file sharers.
The canadian privacy laws have been passed to protect the citizens who, actually, vote for the government, so the government better listen to the people.
But again, the National Post is just a wet-dream from those rich people who are trying to eliminate the State so they can profit off the unrich people unhindered.
The government should invest all the money for consumer protection in consumer education and programs to inform the public; do away with regulation; let the market make decisions.
Are you crazy? The bourgeois will never let this happen!!!
I am currently in tepid water. A police officer who has no jurisdiction whatsoever where I live is currently investigating me for allegedly promoting violence against a particular spammer and criminal proxy-abuser (proxy hijacking is specifically a crime here).
That police officer has repeatedly attempted to contact me (as a rule, I never volunteer any information to law enforcement), and has gone so far as to obtain some personal information about me. Turns-out that the ISP caved-in to his demands and provided some information about me, in clear violation of legal procedure and current privacy laws.
This is no different from a cracker obtaining passwords/access through social engineering.
Furthermore, the officer has repeatedly attempted to have me contact him tough threatening e-mail messages.
My question is: should there be stiff penalties towards law-enforcement officers who manage to illegally and without due process of law get information about ISP subscribers, especially if they are well outside their police department jurisdiction?
All this makes we wonder just how much good ol' roll-over-and-take-it-up-the-ass Videotron logs about their customers..
That's because Videoetron belongs to Pedaleau, which is the offspring of the late Pedaleau, a Quebec version of Rupert Murdoch. In addition to Videoetron, Pedaleau also 0wn5 several music outfits. Hence the bending over backwards to big music.
No matter what technology it uses, neural nets, b-trees, recursion, tinkertoy logic, smell-emitting diode, leaky junction zener transistor, steam-powered aeolipiles, it only automagically presses delete, which is a pretty lame way of fighting spam.
It's a lame way of fighting spam, because, we STILL have to pay for the fucking spam bandwitdh; we STILL have to pay for the goddammed disk space used by the spam; we STILL have to pay for the bloody time lost transmitting the spam; we STILL have to pay for the extra ISP infrastructure to carry those spams.
Naaah. Spammers should be eradicated from the Internet, and the best way to do so is to completely BLOCK networks who host spammers (no matter what service), in order to force the collateral damage to whine to the ISP or simply vote with their feet.
Shaw's true reason is not that they CARE about their customer's privacy, but rather that their network infrastructure is so fucked-up that they are simply unable to keep logs properly...
Diplomatic communications between embassies and the homeland are encrypted. And to make sure they're not vulnerable to decryption, information is continuously transferred. However, when there is no information to be transmitted, random garbage is sent.
So, what we need to do is to flood the Internet with random garbage; let the FBI sift through that!!!
Oh, wait! This system already exists: it's called USENET!!!!
Unless the media is protected by encryption or similar copy protection of any kind. The american DMCA prevents circumvention of copy protection, even if you have a legitimate right to make copies, you have no right to bypass copy protection.
So what? The DMCA is powerless mere inches beyond the US border.
Our Senate is appointed, not elected, so campaign funding on that front isn't really viable. Although out-and-out bribery could still be a possibility.
This is what is good with the canadian senate: they don't do what people want, but what is good for the country.
In a company I once worked for was a rather nice fellow who worked in the Accounts Payable department. It was discovered that he would have checks issued for as many times as an invoice arrived. Apparently some vendors noticed this and items were paid for as many as 4 times. That they knew what was going on and didn't report it back suggests ethics is a broad problem. Many refused to return the money once it was revealed they had collected multiple times.
Reminds me of that jewish joke:
Pappa, what is "business ethics"???
Oh, my son, this is a very important concept. Hmmm, let's see. Suppose a customer left the store and dropped a $20 bill on the floor and did not notice. This is when business ethics comes into play: should you tell your partner or not???
I'm Aircrew in the Air Force on the C-17 Globemaster. We have pilots who are in charge of a 320 million dollar airframe but can't figure out Outlook. We just got E-Pubs and with it pages of documentation on how to burn a CD using WinXP. If they went to Linux we'd have major problems. Most people would be reduced to a corp of Patrick Ewings. They'd all be bumbling around the flight deck bumping into one other.
If that's the kind of army with what the US is attempting to conquer the world, I suddenly feel all warm and fuzzy inside...
Slashdot Mirror
Better be ruled by lawyers than by police.
Wow! Now I can bring my own pr0n collection with me all the time, and I can use it...
Wait, no, I can sure watch it, but I certainly won't be able to use it!!!
Second, the State has a duty that everyone can lead a decent life. This means that it has to make sure no one gets swindled by anyone, be it a bank, an employer or a scammer. With the barriers to entry that the rich are putting all over the place to prevent competition from entering the markets, the Economy is starting more and more to turn into a zero-sum game.
The time when an entrepreneur can pursue an opportunity is long gone, not thanks to increased government regulation, but thanks to anticompetitive trade practices that are effected by the larger and larger conglomerates that swallow more and more of the Economy every day. We know and have seen where the opposite (less and less State) goes towards: we see it daily at work in the USA, a place where the rich and powerful trample the unrich into meaningless pulp. Typical bourgeois poppycock. Their propaganda aims only towards the elimination of the State so it will stop preventing them from abusing consumers and the public. Ask yourself: when a rich man asks for something, does he do it for everybody's sake or merely for his own? When you're greedy enough to have accumulated a vast fortune, your motivations are rather crystal-clear.
The National post is jumping the gun. It's owners, for sure, would like to see the end of anonymity (for unrich people, of course), but the Courts haven't decided yet that the ISPs should hand on a silver platter the information about the file sharers.
The canadian privacy laws have been passed to protect the citizens who, actually, vote for the government, so the government better listen to the people.
But again, the National Post is just a wet-dream from those rich people who are trying to eliminate the State so they can profit off the unrich people unhindered.
The canadian privacy laws have been passed to protect the citizens who, actually, vote for the government, so the government better listen to the people.
But again, the National Post is just a wet-dream from those rich people who are trying to eliminate the State so they can profit off the unrich people unhindered.
If so, you are a SPAMMER.
That police officer has repeatedly attempted to contact me (as a rule, I never volunteer any information to law enforcement), and has gone so far as to obtain some personal information about me. Turns-out that the ISP caved-in to his demands and provided some information about me, in clear violation of legal procedure and current privacy laws.
This is no different from a cracker obtaining passwords/access through social engineering.
Furthermore, the officer has repeatedly attempted to have me contact him tough threatening e-mail messages.
My question is: should there be stiff penalties towards law-enforcement officers who manage to illegally and without due process of law get information about ISP subscribers, especially if they are well outside their police department jurisdiction?
No matter what technology it uses, neural nets, b-trees, recursion, tinkertoy logic, smell-emitting diode, leaky junction zener transistor, steam-powered aeolipiles, it only automagically presses delete, which is a pretty lame way of fighting spam.
It's a lame way of fighting spam, because, we STILL have to pay for the fucking spam bandwitdh; we STILL have to pay for the goddammed disk space used by the spam; we STILL have to pay for the bloody time lost transmitting the spam; we STILL have to pay for the extra ISP infrastructure to carry those spams.
Naaah. Spammers should be eradicated from the Internet, and the best way to do so is to completely BLOCK networks who host spammers (no matter what service), in order to force the collateral damage to whine to the ISP or simply vote with their feet.
Shaw's true reason is not that they CARE about their customer's privacy, but rather that their network infrastructure is so fucked-up that they are simply unable to keep logs properly...
Diplomatic communications between embassies and the homeland are encrypted. And to make sure they're not vulnerable to decryption, information is continuously transferred. However, when there is no information to be transmitted, random garbage is sent.
So, what we need to do is to flood the Internet with random garbage; let the FBI sift through that!!!
Oh, wait! This system already exists: it's called USENET!!!!
I was with a friend, going to his home; when he got there, he emptied his mailbox full of junk mail: Goddammed paper spam!!!
Pappa, what is "business ethics"???
Oh, my son, this is a very important concept. Hmmm, let's see. Suppose a customer left the store and dropped a $20 bill on the floor and did not notice. This is when business ethics comes into play: should you tell your partner or not???
You're the one who sounds like the salesdroid. Only a salesdroid has such a blatant misunderstanding on how the Internet works.
- Follow the money
- Block networks who let spammers send traffic on them, no matter if it's SMTP, DNS, FTP or HTTP
Once a few big guys find themselves turned into intranets, they'll start paying attention.