Sounds to me like you just want to be a good little anarchist and rub dirt on our "corrupt capitalistic system." In that case, go get 'em, Lenin!
Do you really think you're accomplishing anything by attempting to impose your brittle little moral system on an incompatible world? Reading over all of your comments in this thread, you sound delusional.
Wake up and smell the coffee - whether you like it or not, the world doesn't function the way you think it should. Might makes right, and in a confusing turn of events the plebeians have the power to copy bits. We do not require justification. You aren't going to talk us out of it.
It's likely this will all end. Everything will be locked down, no one will have privacy or discretion. We probably have at least our lifetime before that happens, though. Enjoy your little corner of history!
Laziness is the greatest virtue of all. It is mother of all inventions. Those who claim that it is a sin, are those who want to strive backwards into the middle ages.
I wonder about that. From my experience, lazy people do not invent anything. Do you mean the existence of laziness causes (non-lazy) people to invent? If so, I can see your point, but I think those people would be productive anyway. Truly enterprising and creative people invent because they can.
Laziness and impatience are the building blocks of invention and enterprise.
Think about it this way: how much time and energy will you spend digging through the couch cushions to find the TV remote, rather than walk across the room? You invest the energy now so that later you can sit on your ass and flip channels in peace. Many inventors and programmers work for the same reasons.
Half of my lawn died and need to be replaced with fresh sod. I need it before it deteriorates further causing damage to my property. But I can't afford that right now. Should I sneak out into a nursery and take the sod I need?
Of course not, you would be depriving the nursery of a physical item, and therefore be stealing.
Think of it this way. I car dealer gets me inside a car, to give it a try in the parking lot just to get a feel for it (try it before you buy it). But I take off with it. Weeks later you come back with the money saying "if you thought I was stealing it, that's bullshit. I had to take it then because I really needed it (wanted it). It just took a while to get the money."
Again, you completely fail to capture the issue with your flawed car analogy. Physical item, depriving owner, theft.
This is simply not the black-and-white issue you claim it is, no matter how long or loudly you rail against it. Now I'm not saying that piracy is 100% right - but copying bits is never in the same category of "wrong" as stealing a car.
The argument has been made that The Pirate Bay is facilitating copyright infringement. They aren't stealing, and they aren't infringing copyright themselves.
The issue isn't "proximity to any (alleged) crime". If prostitution were legal in the US, craigslist would be in legal trouble because they'd be stepping on corporate toes.
Once you establish that the FCC has the power to regulate the internet, even if the initial regulation is something you approve of, you're likely to find they start using that newly established power in ways you most decidedly do not approve of.
Calling in the government to deal with something that is really only a potential (rather than actual) problem at this point is liable to end up being a long term loss for internet freedom.
Setting aside the falibility of a slippery-slope argument, the worst the US can do is shoot its own networks in the foot. The rest of the world will just shake their heads and go on while we (continue to) secure ourselves behind the Great Red White and Blue Wall.
Let's get real, the US government already believes it has the power to regulate the internet. This isn't new. The FCC has long been a thorn in the side of free speech. Should we discourage regulation that tries to secure the speech of our future?
You've been downmodded because psychology isn't one of the acceptable subjects to delve into on/. Safer to stick to computers, I guess.
Actually, I'm pretty sure it's the false "liberals treat Obama as a religious figure" meme. It's a talking point of certain elements of the right wing of US politics - some lockstep hand-wavy trolling.
Mildly insightful before I got to that point. Always sad to see an interesting observation degenerate into partisan hackery.
blah blah going against the intent of the law blah blah moral justification blah pirate bay isn't allowed to ignore the licenses and copyright of blah.
1. TPB doesn't violate copyright, period. 2. Copyright laws in their current implementation are ethically gray at best. 3. Breaking the "spirit" of an ethically ambiguous law is ethically neutral, at worst. 4. Your face.
Whether your $20 for a CD goes $18 to the artist, or $0.10 to the artist, won't affect P2P changes much, I submit.
Perhaps, but I think that's a false dichotomy. A more accurate comparison is "$20 album, $0.40 to the artist" vs "$6 album, $5 to the artist".
Overpriced and pricefixed content is a large part of people's willingness to infringe. If albums cost five or six bucks, people that stopped buying CDs 10-20 years ago would start buying again.
I'm tellin' ya guys: ask around. Watch an episode of Glenn Beck where he shows entire clips of these people claiming Mao and/or Stalin to be their political idols.
Speaking of Glenn Beck, has he finally come out and denied these horrible allegations against him? I, for one, really love the guy. I really don't understand why he wouldn't categorically deny his involvement in the rape and murder of that poor woman in 1990.
I mean, I love Glenn Beck. And I'm afraid for him!
I suspect with competition the price will be about the same, but the bandwidth you get for that price will go up. In fact, I would wager that 50 Mbps would start to be come common for 20 bucks a month pretty.
You do realize that the providers already there will charge the new companies to use their pipes, right? Best case scenario is you get the same bandwidth for maybe a couple bucks less a month.
No, I think you're missing the point here. A couple of bucks less a month, maybe. But add to that an end to unscrupulous behavior that bad actors like Comcast and Time Warner have demonstrated repeatedly.
Lower cost. Better service. Potential for innovative competition. Yeah, I'd call that a good description of "best case scenario" in anyone's book. What is your objection?
Yes, and where do you live? If you live in a place like LA or NYC (which have higher cost of living and as a result pay way more), then even at $50 / month you're still paying WAY less of your income for internet than people living in the rest of the country paying $25 / month.
So wait, hang on. It is more expensive to deploy infrastructure in areas with lower population density - therefore it is more expensive to consume services in dense population?
If it is cheaper to provide a service in an area, yet that service is more expensive, then competition is required. You seem to be suggesting the opposite, perhaps as an irrational impulse to argue with someone that disparages the US.
I think an evaluation of the facts may be beneficial.
No, but 100% of all those services aren't paid for with tax money. That's why you pay for things with fees.
Which in my mind is the real crime here. I wonder what fraction of a percentage of the US military budget would allow us to publish these documents on gold leaf?
If you installed GPS on your car, and then published your driving habits online, I'm not convinced you'd have a right to complain based on a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Then again, agencies, departments, and branches of government are not private citizens, either. And yes, I think their actions should be both freely-available and in bulk-searchable form.
I am sure nothing bad will happen. I mean they only want government healthcare for the best of reasons.
I assume this is a troll? Public-run insurance isn't exactly the same thing as giving your medical records to the federal government. They aren't deploying IRS agents to administer your colonoscopy (it just feels that way sometimes).
Slashdot Mirror
No spluh, that is the model with by far the biggest market!
Quiet, you cheap french harlot!
Doesn't look like something you'd find on the Innernette!
http://trickfist.com/funny-vids/the-innernette.html
They are even offering versions without the normal preservative (which contains a mercury adduct that has concerned some people).
What mercury-based preservative are they using now?
On an unrelated note, I've stopped eating plants out of a concern for magnesium poisoning and meat out of a concern for iron poisoning.
That's fine for you, but I've started taking mercury supplements, because my doctor said I wasn't getting enough in my diet.
Link tot he actual article please! No one cares about your buddy's brilliant blog.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/health/17chen.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1
Sounds to me like you just want to be a good little anarchist and rub dirt on our "corrupt capitalistic system." In that case, go get 'em, Lenin!
Do you really think you're accomplishing anything by attempting to impose your brittle little moral system on an incompatible world? Reading over all of your comments in this thread, you sound delusional.
Wake up and smell the coffee - whether you like it or not, the world doesn't function the way you think it should. Might makes right, and in a confusing turn of events the plebeians have the power to copy bits. We do not require justification. You aren't going to talk us out of it.
It's likely this will all end. Everything will be locked down, no one will have privacy or discretion. We probably have at least our lifetime before that happens, though. Enjoy your little corner of history!
Laziness is the greatest virtue of all. It is mother of all inventions. Those who claim that it is a sin, are those who want to strive backwards into the middle ages.
I wonder about that. From my experience, lazy people do not invent anything. Do you mean the existence of laziness causes (non-lazy) people to invent? If so, I can see your point, but I think those people would be productive anyway. Truly enterprising and creative people invent because they can.
Laziness and impatience are the building blocks of invention and enterprise.
Think about it this way: how much time and energy will you spend digging through the couch cushions to find the TV remote, rather than walk across the room? You invest the energy now so that later you can sit on your ass and flip channels in peace. Many inventors and programmers work for the same reasons.
dont go stealing it and try to rationalize it.
Again with the theft? Copying bits is still not theft. Maybe if you keep saying it, some day it will be true.
But not today.
Get a grip.
Half of my lawn died and need to be replaced with fresh sod. I need it before it deteriorates further causing damage to my property. But I can't afford that right now. Should I sneak out into a nursery and take the sod I need?
Of course not, you would be depriving the nursery of a physical item, and therefore be stealing.
Think of it this way. I car dealer gets me inside a car, to give it a try in the parking lot just to get a feel for it (try it before you buy it). But I take off with it. Weeks later you come back with the money saying "if you thought I was stealing it, that's bullshit. I had to take it then because I really needed it (wanted it). It just took a while to get the money."
Again, you completely fail to capture the issue with your flawed car analogy. Physical item, depriving owner, theft.
This is simply not the black-and-white issue you claim it is, no matter how long or loudly you rail against it. Now I'm not saying that piracy is 100% right - but copying bits is never in the same category of "wrong" as stealing a car.
Get a grip.
The Pirate Bay is stealing
No.
The argument has been made that The Pirate Bay is facilitating copyright infringement. They aren't stealing, and they aren't infringing copyright themselves.
The issue isn't "proximity to any (alleged) crime". If prostitution were legal in the US, craigslist would be in legal trouble because they'd be stepping on corporate toes.
That is all.
AKA Doctor of Being Unemployed, Crushed by School Debt, But At Least Everyone Hates You
Bitter? Me? Nah...
I don't hate you, pumpkin.
Once you establish that the FCC has the power to regulate the internet, even if the initial regulation is something you approve of, you're likely to find they start using that newly established power in ways you most decidedly do not approve of.
Calling in the government to deal with something that is really only a potential (rather than actual) problem at this point is liable to end up being a long term loss for internet freedom.
Setting aside the falibility of a slippery-slope argument, the worst the US can do is shoot its own networks in the foot. The rest of the world will just shake their heads and go on while we (continue to) secure ourselves behind the Great Red White and Blue Wall.
Let's get real, the US government already believes it has the power to regulate the internet. This isn't new. The FCC has long been a thorn in the side of free speech. Should we discourage regulation that tries to secure the speech of our future?
What is it with the idiot, moron, Marxist
This is as far as I got.
The McCarthy era called. They want their red scare back.
Get a grip.
You've been downmodded because psychology isn't one of the acceptable subjects to delve into on /. Safer to stick to computers, I guess.
Actually, I'm pretty sure it's the false "liberals treat Obama as a religious figure" meme. It's a talking point of certain elements of the right wing of US politics - some lockstep hand-wavy trolling.
Mildly insightful before I got to that point. Always sad to see an interesting observation degenerate into partisan hackery.
yeah seriously; you could get a severe dressing down from them
On reflection, I'd be worried they'd give me a belt.
No. TPB lost because of a corrupt judicial process and clear conflict of interest.
I am a TPB supporter, but could someone post some citations that support the claim of a "clear conflict of interest" please?
Never, ever mess with costumers. Those are people you really don't want to get mad.
I disagree, the worst I've ever gotten is a dressing down.
blah blah going against the intent of the law blah blah moral justification blah pirate bay isn't allowed to ignore the licenses and copyright of blah.
1. TPB doesn't violate copyright, period.
2. Copyright laws in their current implementation are ethically gray at best.
3. Breaking the "spirit" of an ethically ambiguous law is ethically neutral, at worst.
4. Your face.
Whether your $20 for a CD goes $18 to the artist, or $0.10 to the artist, won't affect P2P changes much, I submit.
Perhaps, but I think that's a false dichotomy. A more accurate comparison is "$20 album, $0.40 to the artist" vs "$6 album, $5 to the artist".
Overpriced and pricefixed content is a large part of people's willingness to infringe. If albums cost five or six bucks, people that stopped buying CDs 10-20 years ago would start buying again.
Well anyway, I would.
I'm tellin' ya guys: ask around. Watch an episode of Glenn Beck where he shows entire clips of these people claiming Mao and/or Stalin to be their political idols.
Speaking of Glenn Beck, has he finally come out and denied these horrible allegations against him? I, for one, really love the guy. I really don't understand why he wouldn't categorically deny his involvement in the rape and murder of that poor woman in 1990.
I mean, I love Glenn Beck. And I'm afraid for him!
I suspect with competition the price will be about the same, but the bandwidth you get for that price will go up. In fact, I would wager that 50 Mbps would start to be come common for 20 bucks a month pretty.
You do realize that the providers already there will charge the new companies to use their pipes, right? Best case scenario is you get the same bandwidth for maybe a couple bucks less a month.
No, I think you're missing the point here. A couple of bucks less a month, maybe. But add to that an end to unscrupulous behavior that bad actors like Comcast and Time Warner have demonstrated repeatedly.
Lower cost. Better service. Potential for innovative competition. Yeah, I'd call that a good description of "best case scenario" in anyone's book. What is your objection?
Yes, and where do you live? If you live in a place like LA or NYC (which have higher cost of living and as a result pay way more), then even at $50 / month you're still paying WAY less of your income for internet than people living in the rest of the country paying $25 / month.
So wait, hang on. It is more expensive to deploy infrastructure in areas with lower population density - therefore it is more expensive to consume services in dense population?
If it is cheaper to provide a service in an area, yet that service is more expensive, then competition is required. You seem to be suggesting the opposite, perhaps as an irrational impulse to argue with someone that disparages the US.
I think an evaluation of the facts may be beneficial.
User: "Every word you say makes me angrier and angrier."
Parent is not a troll. This is verbatim every conversation I've ever had with comcast support.
Kudos to you, sir and/or madam.
No, but 100% of all those services aren't paid for with tax money. That's why you pay for things with fees.
Which in my mind is the real crime here. I wonder what fraction of a percentage of the US military budget would allow us to publish these documents on gold leaf?
Because the movements of your car are a matter of public record anyway and should be freely available IN BULK SEARCHABLE FORM, right?
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/09/30/1321214/Massachusetts-Police-Cant-Place-GPS-On-Autos-Without-Warrant
Another troll, but I'm bored.
If you installed GPS on your car, and then published your driving habits online, I'm not convinced you'd have a right to complain based on a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Then again, agencies, departments, and branches of government are not private citizens, either. And yes, I think their actions should be both freely-available and in bulk-searchable form.
I'm also in favor of a Corporate death penalty.
Let us give them our medical records
I am sure nothing bad will happen.
I mean they only want government healthcare for the best of reasons.
I assume this is a troll? Public-run insurance isn't exactly the same thing as giving your medical records to the federal government. They aren't deploying IRS agents to administer your colonoscopy (it just feels that way sometimes).