I'm not the guy who posted above. But, my wife does read slashdot. Granted we met in college in our second year CS courses. So, yes, some folks do have wives that read slashdot. Infact, I pity some of my other friends from college that did not get wives that are from a similar field as they.
The situation is somewhat like spending more money on America's #4 killer, as opposed to numbers 1 and 2 combined...
I am not too much of an expert in flight and such, so I don't want to comment there. Also, not to take issue with the above either, as I am not a doctor either. But the logic here is not fully thought out.
There are a couple reasons that research goes on at multiple levels, whether the most extreme or the least extreme.
The above logic is complained about often in computers too. For instance, people who will say that we should research more into high speed large storage instead of processor speed, because the bottle neck is at the getting data to the processor, not the processor.
Some research is more expensive than others, or someone has a clever idea and moves in that direction. Research is good, whether is it going to solve one persons problem or a million people's problem. Another advantage of research in one particularly easy area is that you might find applicable details that work in another area.
Just a prespective you may want to keep in mind. Another is that you are not the one spending your money on creating ice sensors, someone else is. And they evidently feel it is worth spending money there instead of being a pilot training facility.
I don't think he needs to worry about how to get higher google ratings. I think he needs to find a way to keep his kid from finding out "Mutley Sleeps" will bring up his baby pictures.
I for sure would aquit a child for killing his parents for doing such a foolish thing.
I can picture in highschool, thanks mom and dad, all the kids are jealous of me for having the highest google pagerank for "Mutley Sleeps."
So the next guy will download another copy where the artist doesn't get a penny for. And then two of his friends will download, for which the artist will not get a penny for...
You know the FBI warning you used to have to FF> through with VCRs?
We are down to the question of is copyright good or bad?
I would argue that copyright is good to a certain degree because by enforcing a limited-time monopoly encourages first the creation of works and secondly encourages the creators to have to continue to create works.
The state we are in currently is that copyright has been extended to a far to long period of time. Were copyright at a maximum 5 years beyond the last publish date or something of that nature society would benefit. As copyright has currently ballooned to beyond your lifespan it does not fulfill the second benefit of copyright.
I doubt that we differ that much in our view here, only in practice. You see, I do not share (violate copyright of music or software) because it is wrong. However, I also do not purchase CDs and in general support the business practices of the companies that abuse copyright also (now there are exceptions when the content is truly worth it to me to purchase). But again, that is the point, if I do not feel something is worth the asking price I do not get it.
Instead of weaseling around what is copyright infringement and what is not, I would avoid the whole situation and not do things even in the gray area.
I think you have misunderstood me, or atleast I was unclear. I do not think that p2p should be illegal in any manner. However, as the one sharing the file you have become either an accomplice or facilitator to a crime.
As far as making copies for a friend which have been stolen, that is an issue with his insurance company. For scratched or damaged media, you can get a replacement copy from the distributor, but this will probably cost a certain amount for replacement. In both these instances you do not get your music instantly, but it is the legal path to take.
In either instance you may not get what you want and are just out the CD. For instance, a while ago I had my car broken into and had a checkbook and some andes candies (mmmMmmMMMmMMMmm) stolen. I will never get my andies candies back. Life is like that. I have also spilled a soda onto one of my favorite tapes many years ago, I didn't get another copy from the distributor, but then again, I was the one to bust the original. I could have made a copy of the original and kept the original tape safe sure.
However, it would be wrong and illegal for me to make 20 copies and leave them in a box at my garage sale saying "free for the taking". That is essentially what you are doing by sharing copyrighted material with p2p apps.
As far as the gun stuff goes, its off topic, but having your guns not put away is complete stupidity. There are certain responsibilities with gun ownership that you accept. I would find you negligent if you left your loaded gun outside (even on your own property) and someone took the gun to commit a crime. While not guilty of the crime of the crime that the perpetrator commited, you were still negligent in your ownership.
Seeing as I think civil disobedience was one of the better ideas developed lately, I'm pretty much likely to support any user who shares just about any file.
I would admire your belief if you truly lived it. Go share some files and then call the police and let them know you are breaking a law. Make sure you are forced to defend yourself. Stand up for your rights.
However, I doubt you are really painting a target on yourself and willing to lay your life down for your cause. How much do you truly believe? Enough to go to jail? Enough to be sued for kilo-dollars? Or just enough to sit quietly back and share files and rail on slashdot?
When a library provides a book it provides it under the contract of copyright. Only a single person can have the book at once, so doing, the library is not copying the content. If they want to loan a book multiple times they must purchase multiple copies of the book.
So, if the book is checked out and copied, the one who is copying is at fault.
Now, when a p2p application creates a copy it is actually the server of the file who makes a copy and distributes the copy to the client. The original copy is done by the server which happens to be transmitted to the client.
I know this won't convince you because even if they did go after the folks with the copy you would probably come up with an excuse of why they should go after someone else or something. This is all an exercise in futility because folks just want everything free. When they went after napster you complained they went after the wrong people. Now they go after the wrong people... They will allways go after the wong people cause everyone wants stuff but doesn't want the responsiblity to pay for it.
I would say otherwise. The folks that they can go after are the sharers, downloaders. Why?
Copyright gives exclusivity to distribute the copyrighted content. There for when you share the content via p2p you are doing so illegally. And it is known that you are doing it illegally (which only matters for my second point).
They should not (or atleast put themselves in a risky position of assuming guilt instead of innocence) go after the downloaders because they could potentially own a licensed copy of the content and are simpley getting a digital copy.
In this setup though there would be no providers except from a copyright holder which defeats the purpose of pirating content via p2p.
Personally I think pirating is just a cheap scum sucking bottem feeding kind of thing to do. If you do not believe the content is worth the price that the copyright holder is asking, do not use the content.
If people would use p2p for more non-piracy purposes I think p2p would be vindicated. However, since the majority of p2p users use it to pirate software and music/videos it puts a black eye on all p2p style apps.
For instance, I have used bittorrent for a couple large files that I wanted to get, entirely legally. However, when folks use bittorrent for software piracy it partially invalidates the the usage of bt because it becomes associated with illegal activities instead of legal ones.
Phew... we are always safe, as 6d10 has a range of 6-60. We'll never get up to 700000, or much worse the 820000-829999 range. Google going down would be a grim picture of the world.
Probably because "bad things" only come from the US?
Two possible answers here, either the shuttle uses a different fuel than Russian or ESA rockets or the Russian and ESA rockets also create the same effect, but they don't care to mention it.
My cross country jersey had the bumper sticker on it for a couple races one year. Our CC team would head up to the mountain towards the end of season and do a camp out after a meet, then climb the next morning.
Very cold streams run through there for taking a bath in october. Brrrrr..
I would disagree here. I would say they don't do that because it costs more to install the copper sheilding. I would guess more folks would prefer a faraday around a theater than not. I would also assume they lose a certain amount of business from cell phone users and having to give out new tickets to folks when cell phone users have disturbed the movie.
I wonder why folks modded you insightful here. The cynic in me says they missed the sarcasm you laid down pretty thick and thought they should really get laptops for free.
Yes, but more importantly does it make the vaporwar run faster? I mean, I only need to compile the vaporware once*, where I might run the vaporware many** times.
No, the government should not tax bad behavior. The government should tax evenly across the board. Sin taxes are a terrible idea because they are too subjective.
Re:Truly P2P if SOBIG.G contains the spam message
on
P2P Spam?
·
· Score: 1
Nod. Would it be impossible to require mail to come from a valid MX record though? I don't see why not. A random client machine on the net should not be sending mail. It should only come from a relaying machine (smtp server with a valid MX record). Let the smtp servers decide if you are allowed to send from that server.
Hmmm, as far as simple scripts go, I would agree bourne is the way to go. Like init scripts and such, bourne shell (not bash) is more common and hence a better way to go.
Once you need something more than a quick script I find perl to be a much better way of doing things.
However, I find tcsh to be more friendly for when I am using. As one of my general rules I leave root as bash while my acocunt if setup as tcsh. When I am root I go nuts because the redirecting is slightly different and I prefer ^d to get a list of files instead of tab.
Probably muct of why I prefer tcsh is simpley I have spent more time in it and have setup my environment better for it.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree. I think we need the RIAA running around killing pirates too.
I'm not the guy who posted above. But, my wife does read slashdot. Granted we met in college in our second year CS courses. So, yes, some folks do have wives that read slashdot. Infact, I pity some of my other friends from college that did not get wives that are from a similar field as they.
The situation is somewhat like spending more money on America's #4 killer, as opposed to numbers 1 and 2 combined...
I am not too much of an expert in flight and such, so I don't want to comment there. Also, not to take issue with the above either, as I am not a doctor either. But the logic here is not fully thought out.
There are a couple reasons that research goes on at multiple levels, whether the most extreme or the least extreme.
The above logic is complained about often in computers too. For instance, people who will say that we should research more into high speed large storage instead of processor speed, because the bottle neck is at the getting data to the processor, not the processor.
Some research is more expensive than others, or someone has a clever idea and moves in that direction. Research is good, whether is it going to solve one persons problem or a million people's problem. Another advantage of research in one particularly easy area is that you might find applicable details that work in another area.
Just a prespective you may want to keep in mind. Another is that you are not the one spending your money on creating ice sensors, someone else is. And they evidently feel it is worth spending money there instead of being a pilot training facility.
Mainly because they are loosing their secure grip on the market, falling to the listed security issues. :-)
I don't think he needs to worry about how to get higher google ratings. I think he needs to find a way to keep his kid from finding out "Mutley Sleeps" will bring up his baby pictures.
I for sure would aquit a child for killing his parents for doing such a foolish thing.
I can picture in highschool, thanks mom and dad, all the kids are jealous of me for having the highest google pagerank for "Mutley Sleeps."
Yeah, they made a deal with the devil, they deserve to get screwed, and I deserve to get their music for free?
Right, good marketing.
So the next guy will download another copy where the artist doesn't get a penny for. And then two of his friends will download, for which the artist will not get a penny for...
See a pattern?
Copyright also pertains to public presentation.
You know the FBI warning you used to have to FF> through with VCRs?
We are down to the question of is copyright good or bad?
I would argue that copyright is good to a certain degree because by enforcing a limited-time monopoly encourages first the creation of works and secondly encourages the creators to have to continue to create works.
The state we are in currently is that copyright has been extended to a far to long period of time. Were copyright at a maximum 5 years beyond the last publish date or something of that nature society would benefit. As copyright has currently ballooned to beyond your lifespan it does not fulfill the second benefit of copyright.
I doubt that we differ that much in our view here, only in practice. You see, I do not share (violate copyright of music or software) because it is wrong. However, I also do not purchase CDs and in general support the business practices of the companies that abuse copyright also (now there are exceptions when the content is truly worth it to me to purchase). But again, that is the point, if I do not feel something is worth the asking price I do not get it.
Instead of weaseling around what is copyright infringement and what is not, I would avoid the whole situation and not do things even in the gray area.
I think you have misunderstood me, or atleast I was unclear. I do not think that p2p should be illegal in any manner. However, as the one sharing the file you have become either an accomplice or facilitator to a crime.
As far as making copies for a friend which have been stolen, that is an issue with his insurance company. For scratched or damaged media, you can get a replacement copy from the distributor, but this will probably cost a certain amount for replacement. In both these instances you do not get your music instantly, but it is the legal path to take.
In either instance you may not get what you want and are just out the CD. For instance, a while ago I had my car broken into and had a checkbook and some andes candies (mmmMmmMMMmMMMmm) stolen. I will never get my andies candies back. Life is like that. I have also spilled a soda onto one of my favorite tapes many years ago, I didn't get another copy from the distributor, but then again, I was the one to bust the original. I could have made a copy of the original and kept the original tape safe sure.
However, it would be wrong and illegal for me to make 20 copies and leave them in a box at my garage sale saying "free for the taking". That is essentially what you are doing by sharing copyrighted material with p2p apps.
As far as the gun stuff goes, its off topic, but having your guns not put away is complete stupidity. There are certain responsibilities with gun ownership that you accept. I would find you negligent if you left your loaded gun outside (even on your own property) and someone took the gun to commit a crime. While not guilty of the crime of the crime that the perpetrator commited, you were still negligent in your ownership.
Seeing as I think civil disobedience was one of the better ideas developed lately, I'm pretty much likely to support any user who shares just about any file.
I would admire your belief if you truly lived it. Go share some files and then call the police and let them know you are breaking a law. Make sure you are forced to defend yourself. Stand up for your rights.
However, I doubt you are really painting a target on yourself and willing to lay your life down for your cause. How much do you truly believe? Enough to go to jail? Enough to be sued for kilo-dollars? Or just enough to sit quietly back and share files and rail on slashdot?
When a library provides a book it provides it under the contract of copyright. Only a single person can have the book at once, so doing, the library is not copying the content. If they want to loan a book multiple times they must purchase multiple copies of the book.
So, if the book is checked out and copied, the one who is copying is at fault.
Now, when a p2p application creates a copy it is actually the server of the file who makes a copy and distributes the copy to the client. The original copy is done by the server which happens to be transmitted to the client.
I know this won't convince you because even if they did go after the folks with the copy you would probably come up with an excuse of why they should go after someone else or something. This is all an exercise in futility because folks just want everything free. When they went after napster you complained they went after the wrong people. Now they go after the wrong people... They will allways go after the wong people cause everyone wants stuff but doesn't want the responsiblity to pay for it.
I would say otherwise. The folks that they can go after are the sharers, downloaders. Why?
Copyright gives exclusivity to distribute the copyrighted content. There for when you share the content via p2p you are doing so illegally. And it is known that you are doing it illegally (which only matters for my second point).
They should not (or atleast put themselves in a risky position of assuming guilt instead of innocence) go after the downloaders because they could potentially own a licensed copy of the content and are simpley getting a digital copy.
In this setup though there would be no providers except from a copyright holder which defeats the purpose of pirating content via p2p.
Personally I think pirating is just a cheap scum sucking bottem feeding kind of thing to do. If you do not believe the content is worth the price that the copyright holder is asking, do not use the content.
If people would use p2p for more non-piracy purposes I think p2p would be vindicated. However, since the majority of p2p users use it to pirate software and music/videos it puts a black eye on all p2p style apps.
For instance, I have used bittorrent for a couple large files that I wanted to get, entirely legally. However, when folks use bittorrent for software piracy it partially invalidates the the usage of bt because it becomes associated with illegal activities instead of legal ones.
Phew... we are always safe, as 6d10 has a range of 6-60. We'll never get up to 700000, or much worse the 820000-829999 range. Google going down would be a grim picture of the world.
Probably because "bad things" only come from the US?
Two possible answers here, either the shuttle uses a different fuel than Russian or ESA rockets or the Russian and ESA rockets also create the same effect, but they don't care to mention it.
My cross country jersey had the bumper sticker on it for a couple races one year. Our CC team would head up to the mountain towards the end of season and do a camp out after a meet, then climb the next morning.
Very cold streams run through there for taking a bath in october. Brrrrr..
Since alsa is in kernel now, I assume you did not have to
% emerge alsa-drivers
?
I would disagree here. I would say they don't do that because it costs more to install the copper sheilding. I would guess more folks would prefer a faraday around a theater than not. I would also assume they lose a certain amount of business from cell phone users and having to give out new tickets to folks when cell phone users have disturbed the movie.
I wonder why folks modded you insightful here. The cynic in me says they missed the sarcasm you laid down pretty thick and thought they should really get laptops for free.
Yes, but more importantly does it make the vaporwar run faster? I mean, I only need to compile the vaporware once*, where I might run the vaporware many** times.
*Or 0 times.
**See above.
Freedom of speech allows you to say what you want.
Freedom of speech does not give you the right to redistribute other people's speech.
No, the government should not tax bad behavior. The government should tax evenly across the board. Sin taxes are a terrible idea because they are too subjective.
Nod. Would it be impossible to require mail to come from a valid MX record though? I don't see why not. A random client machine on the net should not be sending mail. It should only come from a relaying machine (smtp server with a valid MX record). Let the smtp servers decide if you are allowed to send from that server.
With electric cattle prods?
Doesn't this already exist (for SMTP)? MX records in DNS serve this purpose don't they?
Hmmm, as far as simple scripts go, I would agree bourne is the way to go. Like init scripts and such, bourne shell (not bash) is more common and hence a better way to go.
Once you need something more than a quick script I find perl to be a much better way of doing things.
However, I find tcsh to be more friendly for when I am using. As one of my general rules I leave root as bash while my acocunt if setup as tcsh. When I am root I go nuts because the redirecting is slightly different and I prefer ^d to get a list of files instead of tab.
Probably muct of why I prefer tcsh is simpley I have spent more time in it and have setup my environment better for it.