It's always worked in the past, right? What a bunch of fucking bullshit. Know what else? We won't have to fire a single shot against China, ever, because they continue to perpetrate crap like this, there's eventually going to be a civil war over it. Human beings don't like being treated this way, and they can't jail the whole billion-plus of them -- not even by making the whole country into a prison -- which is essentially what they're trying to do. I don't care WHAT culture you're from, you can't make me believe that you LIKE being treated like a prisoner.
*shrug* it's all going to be a moot point anyway, isn't it? Nobody with half a brain is going to give that site any business. It's going to be the DivX of the audio world.
What hack? Almost EVERY sound card has the capability of recording and playing back simultaneously, and I think you could even use the recorder that comes with Windows.
So what's to keep me from making an analog copy of the song when I play it back? I'm assuming that you'd get at least MP3 quality, if not AAC quality from this so-called "rental", and any WAV-quality recording I make at the baseband analog level is going to be at least as good as any MP3, perhaps better (no loss of highs or lows). Then all I have to do is compress it in whatever format I want and upload it to whatever devices I want to. So, this is another stupid, pointless idea that won't solve any of their so-called problems with piracy, now will it? What a bunch of dumbasses..
Old and busted: Company XYZ sues for patent infringement of commonly used technolgy. New hotness: It's an Asian company this time, not some asshats here in California. Slashdot: They're competing for Al Gore's crown as "inventor of der interwebs".
Please read what you quoted more carefully. I said, "you can't legislate morality". I meant that literally: you can't make laws that force people to hold the same moral standards as someone or some group. An extreme example of what I'm talking about is when a government endorses an official "state religion" and censures anyone who does not comply.
We keep making the same mistakes over and over again. There are things you can't legislate, like morality and common sense, for instance. Protection of so-called IP shouldn't be legislated, it should just be understood. On the other side of the equation are people who likewise keep making the same mistakes over and over again: they have no proper sense of scale when it comes to many things; rather than just stopping at "fair use", they have to blow it all out of proportion and start thinking things like "hey, I can make 10,000 copies of this CD and sell them and make all sorts of money and not have invested much of anything!". Wrong!
There shouldn't have to be complicated laws concerning IP, it should be very simple:
* If you profit from it, you have to pay the price; if you don't profit from it, you shouldn't have to pay extra.
* You can copy it, but only for your own private use; if you give it to someone else, you're risking having to pay a price.
* If you're attracting attention to yourself (i.e. you're being excessive) then you get in trouble.
Things like P2P could be construed as "being excessive" in my book. If you're giving away music to people on the other side of the planet that you haven't met and never will meet (and who you can't even communicate with because you speak a different language even), then that might be considered excessive. If you're copying a CD for your 5 best friends then that's not anywhere near as excessive. If you're making mix CDs and selling them then you're an idiot who's being excessive and you'll get what you deserve. If you're digitally recording a TV show and burning it to DVD so your freinds who don't get that channel can watch it, that's OK. If you're compiling a whole season of a show and selling DVDs of it on the internet, then you're going to find yourself in trouble with the law. If you burn a copy of a game for a friend who can't afford it because he's a student and is scratching to get by, then what's the big deal? If you're a warez dude and you're cracking that game and letting thousands of complete strangers download it to show how cool you are, then you're a moron and you get what you deserve when they break your door down. I could go on and on but I think I make myself clear?
They can legislate anything they want. They can even attempt detection and complete blockage of any bittorrent and gnutella network activity. Like TFA, someone will come up with something else, and they'll try to block THAT, and so on and so forth. They may as well just pull the plug on the internet and make it government-only then -- but wait, we'll just go back to SneakerNET then, won't we?
MEMO TO WORLD GOVERNMENTS: You can't stop the signal. Stop wasting taxpayer money.
Get two decent 802.11g access points that can be set up as a bridge, two high gain directional antennas, two 802.11 amplifiers, and whatever cabling and hardware you need to set them up. At 500m, you shouldn't have to work too hard to get the antennas pointed straight at each other.
..and here's the proof (as of just a few minutes ago), courtesy of the Glasnost test:
Is BitTorrent traffic on a well-known BitTorrent port (6881) throttled?
* 2 out of 2 BitTorrent transfers were interrupted while uploading (seeding) using forged TCP RST packets. It seems like your ISP hinders you from uploading BitTorrent traffic to our test server.
* The BitTorrent download worked. Our tool was successful in downloading data using the BitTorrent protocol.
* There's no indication that your ISP rate limits your BitTorrent downloads. In our tests a TCP download achieved minimal 713 Kbps while a BitTorrent download achieved maximal 720 Kbps.
Is BitTorrent traffic on a non-standard BitTorrent port (4711) throttled?
* 2 out of 2 BitTorrent transfers were interrupted while uploading (seeding) using forged TCP RST packets. It seems like your ISP hinders you from uploading BitTorrent traffic to our test server.
* The BitTorrent download worked. Our tool was successful in downloading data using the BitTorrent protocol.
* There's no indication that your ISP rate limits your BitTorrent downloads. In our tests a TCP download achieved minimal 661 Kbps while a BitTorrent download achieved maximal 741 Kbps.
Is TCP traffic on a well-known BitTorrent port (6881) throttled?
* There's no indication that your ISP rate limits all downloads at port 6881. In our test, a TCP download on a BitTorrent port achieved at least 713 Kbps while a TCP download on a non-BitTorrent port achieved at least 661 Kbps.
* There's no indication that your ISP rate limits all uploads at port 6881. In our test, a TCP upload on a BitTorrent port achieved at least 1353 Kbps while a TCP upload on a non-BitTorrent port achieved at least 1403 Kbps.
The "average user" doesn't know speed from a hole in the ground. If their internet experience is slow, they go buy a new computer thinking that it's just old and too slow -- nevermind the fact that it's probably riddled with spyware, trojans, and virii. The "average user" checks their email a few times a week, maybe buys things online once in a while, and their kids look stuff up. They don't even NEED speed, and they don't even NOTICE when it's slow.
I for one won't pay for their version of it, and I know I'm not alone. Furthermore I'll bet you a dollar that their version of it will closely monitor what you're transferring to who, and I'll bet you another dollar that it'll be riddled with spyware to boot.
Re:Meanwhile, I still have issues with BT...
on
Comcast Invests in P2P
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
*nodding* using a tool that was posted here on Slashdot recently I tested for Comcast BitTorrent tampering over the weekend. It came back and said that every single way it could run a test BitTorrent transfer, it was being tampered with by Comcast.
I'm not just talking about gaming, either. If someone creates a "standard" for something, somebody else will come along and find some reason to break the standard. Remember when they tried to standardize C? Yeah, that worked out well didn't it? Besides, so-called "standards" are just as likely to stifle innovation as they are to eliminate compatibility problems -- and I'm sure that isn't lost on AMD, who'd stand to profit greatly if everyone just nodded their heads emptily and said "'K! We'll do it all your way!"
So I guess, judging by this article, that we've eliminated all the industrial sources of waste heat and CO2, and we're all driving electric cars? What a bunch of HORSE SHIT.
Slashdot Mirror
It's always worked in the past, right? What a bunch of fucking bullshit. Know what else? We won't have to fire a single shot against China, ever, because they continue to perpetrate crap like this, there's eventually going to be a civil war over it. Human beings don't like being treated this way, and they can't jail the whole billion-plus of them -- not even by making the whole country into a prison -- which is essentially what they're trying to do. I don't care WHAT culture you're from, you can't make me believe that you LIKE being treated like a prisoner.
*shrug* it's all going to be a moot point anyway, isn't it? Nobody with half a brain is going to give that site any business. It's going to be the DivX of the audio world.
What hack? Almost EVERY sound card has the capability of recording and playing back simultaneously, and I think you could even use the recorder that comes with Windows.
So what's to keep me from making an analog copy of the song when I play it back? I'm assuming that you'd get at least MP3 quality, if not AAC quality from this so-called "rental", and any WAV-quality recording I make at the baseband analog level is going to be at least as good as any MP3, perhaps better (no loss of highs or lows). Then all I have to do is compress it in whatever format I want and upload it to whatever devices I want to. So, this is another stupid, pointless idea that won't solve any of their so-called problems with piracy, now will it? What a bunch of dumbasses..
New hotness: It's an Asian company this time, not some asshats here in California.
Slashdot: They're competing for Al Gore's crown as "inventor of der interwebs".
*facepalm*
Please read what you quoted more carefully. I said, "you can't legislate morality". I meant that literally: you can't make laws that force people to hold the same moral standards as someone or some group. An extreme example of what I'm talking about is when a government endorses an official "state religion" and censures anyone who does not comply.
There shouldn't have to be complicated laws concerning IP, it should be very simple:
* If you profit from it, you have to pay the price; if you don't profit from it, you shouldn't have to pay extra.
* You can copy it, but only for your own private use; if you give it to someone else, you're risking having to pay a price.
* If you're attracting attention to yourself (i.e. you're being excessive) then you get in trouble.
Things like P2P could be construed as "being excessive" in my book. If you're giving away music to people on the other side of the planet that you haven't met and never will meet (and who you can't even communicate with because you speak a different language even), then that might be considered excessive. If you're copying a CD for your 5 best friends then that's not anywhere near as excessive. If you're making mix CDs and selling them then you're an idiot who's being excessive and you'll get what you deserve. If you're digitally recording a TV show and burning it to DVD so your freinds who don't get that channel can watch it, that's OK. If you're compiling a whole season of a show and selling DVDs of it on the internet, then you're going to find yourself in trouble with the law. If you burn a copy of a game for a friend who can't afford it because he's a student and is scratching to get by, then what's the big deal? If you're a warez dude and you're cracking that game and letting thousands of complete strangers download it to show how cool you are, then you're a moron and you get what you deserve when they break your door down. I could go on and on but I think I make myself clear?
MEMO TO WORLD GOVERNMENTS: You can't stop the signal. Stop wasting taxpayer money.
Novaroam is goddamned expensive though!
Get two decent 802.11g access points that can be set up as a bridge, two high gain directional antennas, two 802.11 amplifiers, and whatever cabling and hardware you need to set them up. At 500m, you shouldn't have to work too hard to get the antennas pointed straight at each other.
Is BitTorrent traffic on a well-known BitTorrent port (6881) throttled?
* 2 out of 2 BitTorrent transfers were interrupted while uploading (seeding) using forged TCP RST packets. It seems like your ISP hinders you from uploading BitTorrent traffic to our test server.
* The BitTorrent download worked. Our tool was successful in downloading data using the BitTorrent protocol.
* There's no indication that your ISP rate limits your BitTorrent downloads. In our tests a TCP download achieved minimal 713 Kbps while a BitTorrent download achieved maximal 720 Kbps.
Is BitTorrent traffic on a non-standard BitTorrent port (4711) throttled?
* 2 out of 2 BitTorrent transfers were interrupted while uploading (seeding) using forged TCP RST packets. It seems like your ISP hinders you from uploading BitTorrent traffic to our test server.
* The BitTorrent download worked. Our tool was successful in downloading data using the BitTorrent protocol.
* There's no indication that your ISP rate limits your BitTorrent downloads. In our tests a TCP download achieved minimal 661 Kbps while a BitTorrent download achieved maximal 741 Kbps.
Is TCP traffic on a well-known BitTorrent port (6881) throttled?
* There's no indication that your ISP rate limits all downloads at port 6881. In our test, a TCP download on a BitTorrent port achieved at least 713 Kbps while a TCP download on a non-BitTorrent port achieved at least 661 Kbps.
* There's no indication that your ISP rate limits all uploads at port 6881. In our test, a TCP upload on a BitTorrent port achieved at least 1353 Kbps while a TCP upload on a non-BitTorrent port achieved at least 1403 Kbps.
You, sir, need to be smacked for that comment. Mod down by one, "shameless punster". ;)
But, you fail to recognize that the efficacy of Beer Goggles is inversely proportional to degree of hand/eye (or is it hand/weiner) co-ordination.
..so we're reduced to this, now? *puts bag over head in shame* No wonder the aliens won't openly visit us!
Can't speak for anyone else, but if it gets that bad then I can find a better use for the $110/month I pay the bastards for internet and cable.
The "average user" doesn't know speed from a hole in the ground. If their internet experience is slow, they go buy a new computer thinking that it's just old and too slow -- nevermind the fact that it's probably riddled with spyware, trojans, and virii. The "average user" checks their email a few times a week, maybe buys things online once in a while, and their kids look stuff up. They don't even NEED speed, and they don't even NOTICE when it's slow.
I for one won't pay for their version of it, and I know I'm not alone. Furthermore I'll bet you a dollar that their version of it will closely monitor what you're transferring to who, and I'll bet you another dollar that it'll be riddled with spyware to boot.
*nodding* using a tool that was posted here on Slashdot recently I tested for Comcast BitTorrent tampering over the weekend. It came back and said that every single way it could run a test BitTorrent transfer, it was being tampered with by Comcast.
Nope, they'd force everyone to use XP or later, and leave everyone else out in the cold.
I'm not just talking about gaming, either. If someone creates a "standard" for something, somebody else will come along and find some reason to break the standard. Remember when they tried to standardize C? Yeah, that worked out well didn't it? Besides, so-called "standards" are just as likely to stifle innovation as they are to eliminate compatibility problems -- and I'm sure that isn't lost on AMD, who'd stand to profit greatly if everyone just nodded their heads emptily and said "'K! We'll do it all your way!"
*shrug* their paradigm is rather different than ours is, perhaps this is what's best for them. Who can really tell?
Of those 20%, what percentage also do not have internet access at home? :p
So I guess, judging by this article, that we've eliminated all the industrial sources of waste heat and CO2, and we're all driving electric cars? What a bunch of HORSE SHIT.
How dare you disrespect me like that! My robotic overlord father shall hear of this!
How the hell would you know if it did?