> My point is there are alternatives to paper for secure documents
That's true, but I would think that most of the documents to be destroyed are previous to PCs taking off as they did. I work at a hospital, but none of our medical records were on disk until a few years ago. Still, we have to destroy documents more than a certain # of years old -- therefore, paper shredding is still needed. Burning is much more effective, however.
I agree with your post, but Innocent until proven guilty is for criminal cases. Civil cases (lawsuits) just require burden of proof (jury is >50% sure), not 100% proof. I understand you may know this already, I just wanted to point this out, as IUPG is a common phrase used to mean absolute proof.
> It's not every day that one sees a quote from Ralph Wiggum translated into another language.
Not only is it in spanish, but it is translated very badly! Do I get extra cool points for not being any good at speaking Spanish (despite the 4 years total that I lurnt it)?;)
> I see P2P as a backlash (albeit an unconscious one on the part of most people) against overly restrictive copyright laws
I think I disagree with you (although subconsciously I may not:). I'm not saying anything about whether downloading Copyrighted Music is good or bad (I think it's neither, but that's another story), but I think most people use P2P because it is novel. They don't THINK (or at least, didn't until recently) about who owns the songs, who is or isn't getting paid. They see this music is available for download, they know they like the music, but don't want to spend time &/| money to go and get it at the store. They get it because they want to hear the music, not because they're trying to "stick it to the man" subconsciously.
Of course, as with everything else, this is my opinion and I could be WAAAAY off.
> the penalties are much less, even though shoplifting actually hurts more people.
Well, no, you shouldn't teach that to kids. If they are smart enough to figure it out on their own, great! If not, that means fewer people stealing the CDs that are rightfully mine to steal!
(Just to let you know, this is not a disguised statement of my feelings on the subject, just a bad joke)
> these SAME old arguments about P2P and/or theft appear DAILY on slashdot now and its e-x-t-r-e-m-e-l-y boring.
Thank you for coming out and saying that. We've all read the same arguments over & over, yet I'm not reading anything I haven't read before. Unless something really interesting comes up, there should be no +mods, although there will be, because Mods moderate when they agree, not when they think it's important.
> people have already mentioned a lot of plausible reasons (vacation (summer)
Hmm, that's an interesting idea -- we've heard of Univ. students being targetted by the RIAA, since they share large numbers of files over the network links that go into their homes (dorms) where they spend the most time, usually. They go home & go back to 56K, ergo no more file sharing. I think you just found the error in their thinking. Very good.
> There are big steps missing in the story of evolution that scientists can't fill in
There are even bigger steps missing in the story of religion that the leaders of the respective religions can't fill in. At least not without relying completely on a book written by people a long time ago.
Scientists have looked at the evidence in many, many ways. They have come up with a reasonable explanation for the evidence they have without filling in the spaces with God. Just because there is missing information does not mean the whole theory is flawed, just that there are unknowns in it.
> When will these IDIOT web designers get a clue and at least supply a "HTML ONLY" or "Text Version" link
Maybe there's something wierd with my account, but why does this have a score of 0? That's a perfectly valid question. I've asked the same thing MANY times before, except I usually swear a lot more when it happens.
There are way too many people out there who call themselves web designers, but they don't know dick about HTML. They make a 20TB Flash file and stick it in Dreamweaver -- presto, a web site! Yeah right.
> They do? I'm not disagreeing, but I've never heard of this.
Yeah, many FM and AM stations increase their wattage at night. The way I understand it is that they do this so that they can get a larger coverage area while the FCC is "asleep."
There's a Country music festival (I've never been there) called "Jamboree In The Hills" in my area (coming up soon, actually) that is based off of Jamboree USA, which is broadcast at pretty regular power, but at night, supposedly, it can be heard in southern Canada (I live in the northern panhandle of WV) due to the power boost. This has caused JITH to be a big attraction for Canadians (who knew they liked country music *shrug*).
Of course, I believe the range is also dictated in large part by weather -- If there is low, consistent cloud cover, the signal goes much further (or is it on a totally clear night? I can't remember).
The pumping up of wattage makes a big difference around here, because we are surrounded by hills (they're called mountains, but they ain't) EVERYWHERE and the signal bounces all over the place.
> would they actually have a right to sue someone for accepting it?
Okay, if they are offering the file themselves, as the copyright holder, anyone that downloads it from them would technically be receiving a legal version of it. They couldn't later try to charge for the music already downloaded -- to require payment for something after-the-fact would require a preexisting contract or legal action, which should fail if this were to actually happen.
Of course, this doesn't mean they can't sue you for OTHER songs you downloaded from other people. Because really, if you are downloading one song from the RIAA and you don't know it, you probably have already downloaded songs from others.
But yes, going after the large sharers is a lot easier.
> most people can't even change their default browser...
Browser? Hell, most Windows users can barely change their socks!
(And to prove I'm not only anti-MS:) Most *NIX users can't change their underwear! That would take away from coding time -- plus, who cares about the smell if no one is around to smell it? (Sounds like a tree-in-the-woods type of problem)
Hmmm... I don't think too many Mac users could change their OS, but there's a good reason for that...
Slashdot Mirror
> My point is there are alternatives to paper for secure documents
That's true, but I would think that most of the documents to be destroyed are previous to PCs taking off as they did. I work at a hospital, but none of our medical records were on disk until a few years ago. Still, we have to destroy documents more than a certain # of years old -- therefore, paper shredding is still needed. Burning is much more effective, however.
> an article yesterday titled Picking up the Lumps
Hmm. Wouldn't that be "Picking up the Dumps?
> But does it look like an S?
No, it looks like a Winnebago.
That S-Wing reminds me of Lone Star's Winnebago from Spaceballs :)
> Q: If Bill Clinton is now president@whitehouse.gov, then where do I send email to Hillary?
> A: root@whitehouse.gov.
Now, arguably, you could exchange that with "George Bush" and "Dick Cheney."
> It's called "Innocent until proven guilty".
I agree with your post, but Innocent until proven guilty is for criminal cases. Civil cases (lawsuits) just require burden of proof (jury is >50% sure), not 100% proof. I understand you may know this already, I just wanted to point this out, as IUPG is a common phrase used to mean absolute proof.
> It's not every day that one sees a quote from Ralph Wiggum translated into another language.
;)
Not only is it in spanish, but it is translated very badly! Do I get extra cool points for not being any good at speaking Spanish (despite the 4 years total that I lurnt it)?
> Actually mods mod whats interesting/important. Metamods agree or disagree. Isn't that how it works?
That's the way it's supposed to work, but right now they mod down things that are insightful, but don't agree with their views.
> Would it then be legal under copyright laws to then download/copy the cd frome somewhere/someone else?
According to him, no. In essence, the P2P sharer is then the one who made a backup copy of his CD for you to have.
> It adds teeth to existing laws, because the existing laws obviously aren't acting as a deterrent.
I think those teeth are made of rubber. If the existing laws don't deter, there's a good reason for that. Because people don't think it's wrong.
"What? They're still breaking the law? STOP IT, before I pass another law!"
> but the government shouldn't be used to maintain an unprofitable business model indefinitely.
You mean like the airlines?
> I see P2P as a backlash (albeit an unconscious one on the part of most people) against overly restrictive copyright laws
:). I'm not saying anything about whether downloading Copyrighted Music is good or bad (I think it's neither, but that's another story), but I think most people use P2P because it is novel.
I think I disagree with you (although subconsciously I may not
They don't THINK (or at least, didn't until recently) about who owns the songs, who is or isn't getting paid. They see this music is available for download, they know they like the music, but don't want to spend time &/| money to go and get it at the store. They get it because they want to hear the music, not because they're trying to "stick it to the man" subconsciously.
Of course, as with everything else, this is my opinion and I could be WAAAAY off.
> its not the record industry's fault that you did not protect yourself from theft
No, it isn't. And it isn't your fault for trying to regain what you have already paid for.
> the penalties are much less, even though shoplifting actually hurts more people.
Well, no, you shouldn't teach that to kids. If they are smart enough to figure it out on their own, great! If not, that means fewer people stealing the CDs that are rightfully mine to steal!
(Just to let you know, this is not a disguised statement of my feelings on the subject, just a bad joke)
> these SAME old arguments about P2P and/or theft appear DAILY on slashdot now and its e-x-t-r-e-m-e-l-y boring.
Thank you for coming out and saying that. We've all read the same arguments over & over, yet I'm not reading anything I haven't read before. Unless something really interesting comes up, there should be no +mods, although there will be, because Mods moderate when they agree, not when they think it's important.
> > (c)God Himself
> And of course you don't care infriging his rights?
But God forgives -- RIAA does not.
> people have already mentioned a lot of plausible reasons (vacation (summer)
Hmm, that's an interesting idea -- we've heard of Univ. students being targetted by the RIAA, since they share large numbers of files over the network links that go into their homes (dorms) where they spend the most time, usually. They go home & go back to 56K, ergo no more file sharing. I think you just found the error in their thinking. Very good.
> There are big steps missing in the story of evolution that scientists can't fill in
There are even bigger steps missing in the story of religion that the leaders of the respective religions can't fill in. At least not without relying completely on a book written by people a long time ago.
Scientists have looked at the evidence in many, many ways. They have come up with a reasonable explanation for the evidence they have without filling in the spaces with God. Just because there is missing information does not mean the whole theory is flawed, just that there are unknowns in it.
> When will these IDIOT web designers get a clue and at least supply a "HTML ONLY" or "Text Version" link
Maybe there's something wierd with my account, but why does this have a score of 0? That's a perfectly valid question. I've asked the same thing MANY times before, except I usually swear a lot more when it happens.
There are way too many people out there who call themselves web designers, but they don't know dick about HTML. They make a 20TB Flash file and stick it in Dreamweaver -- presto, a web site! Yeah right.
> They do? I'm not disagreeing, but I've never heard of this.
Yeah, many FM and AM stations increase their wattage at night. The way I understand it is that they do this so that they can get a larger coverage area while the FCC is "asleep."
There's a Country music festival (I've never been there) called "Jamboree In The Hills" in my area (coming up soon, actually) that is based off of Jamboree USA, which is broadcast at pretty regular power, but at night, supposedly, it can be heard in southern Canada (I live in the northern panhandle of WV) due to the power boost. This has caused JITH to be a big attraction for Canadians (who knew they liked country music *shrug*).
Of course, I believe the range is also dictated in large part by weather -- If there is low, consistent cloud cover, the signal goes much further (or is it on a totally clear night? I can't remember).
The pumping up of wattage makes a big difference around here, because we are surrounded by hills (they're called mountains, but they ain't) EVERYWHERE and the signal bounces all over the place.
> > it was at night, so they had the increased power
> FM stations don't reduce power at night, that's the AM band.....
Correct. They increase power.
> would they actually have a right to sue someone for accepting it?
Okay, if they are offering the file themselves, as the copyright holder, anyone that downloads it from them would technically be receiving a legal version of it. They couldn't later try to charge for the music already downloaded -- to require payment for something after-the-fact would require a preexisting contract or legal action, which should fail if this were to actually happen.
Of course, this doesn't mean they can't sue you for OTHER songs you downloaded from other people. Because really, if you are downloading one song from the RIAA and you don't know it, you probably have already downloaded songs from others.
But yes, going after the large sharers is a lot easier.
> I haven't seen anything that would motivate me to switch from OSX
Just as I haven't seen any reason to swith TO OSX, or from Windows, but it's still considered a crime around here anyway.
> most people can't even change their default browser...
Browser? Hell, most Windows users can barely change their socks!
(And to prove I'm not only anti-MS:)
Most *NIX users can't change their underwear! That would take away from coding time -- plus, who cares about the smell if no one is around to smell it? (Sounds like a tree-in-the-woods type of problem)
Hmmm... I don't think too many Mac users could change their OS, but there's a good reason for that...
> 714, geddit?
Wow, as for humor, that's a stretch, but good timing (dating?) on the article posting.