I took European History in college. Due to the subject matter my professor committed a "Godwin" almost every single day. But it WAS history after all - no point pretending it didn't happen.
Anyway to your point -
I don't want to kill the stupid. I only want to protect my life from BEING killed by the stupid (thieves, murderers). If they don't bother me, I won't bother them, but it they attack me, they better be prepared to meet their maker. I will NOT give up my Right to Life without a fight.
That's okay. I'd rather serve jailtime in a Swedish jail than serve time in a coffin. I have a Creator-given Right to Life, and I will protect that life from murderers by whatever means necessary.
Unless Comcast decides you've passed their threshold as a "bandwidth hog" and they impose a temporary speed limit on you. From what I've heard the temporary speed limit is 128k which makes watching hulu.com impossible.
I forgot to mention they also sued JVC's Digital VHS, because it allowed recording of high-definition video straight from broadcast television. JVC responded to the suit by promising to include antipiracy protection. The result made Digital VHS unusable. (You need to have Firewire; how many televisions have firewire? None.)
Almost every time these MAFIAA people sue a new technology (DAT, Digital Cassette, Minidisc, D-VHS) they succeed in killing the new technology, or marginalizing it. With that kind of success rate, why would they stop suing? They're probably hoping they can kill-off Bittorrent too. Like they did to Napster.
Yeah well.... I don't care. Even if guns killed 100% of the time, I still don't think they should be banned. I have a Right to Life and a right to protect it from thieves/murderers.
Even if I have to carry a gun illegally, I will continue to do so. I will NOT walk around like a defenseless sheep waiting to be attacked by the wolves. I will NOT be a photo on the front page about how police found me dead.
>>>I'm hoping that one day there won't be any weapons designed only to kill.
If I had a phaser, I would certainly prefer that over a bullet, but phasers don't exist so I use the next best thing. And don't say we have stun guns; they don't work if your attacker is wearing thick clothing.
(Besides, why does it matter if I kill a murderer or thief who is attacking me? They chose that course of action; let them face the consequences of their stupidity.)
>>>And what if the criminal also had been armed? What if the situation was escalated?
He'd be dead. Which is preferable to having either me or my girlfriend dead (as often happens to unarmed citizens). To quote the founders of the Democrat and Federalist Party, respectively:
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves." - Thomas Jefferson. - "Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion... in private self-defense." - John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, 1787-88
I will Not walk around like defenseless sheep waiting for the wolves/thieves to attack me. This sheep is going to be armed and when attacked, shoot the wolf dead. The Right to Self-Defense (a defense of the Right to Life) is one of our most-important rights.
>>>Conclusion : you want to keep pirating, or simply "surfing free" ? Make sure nobody else in your neighbourhood does it, thereby lowering the rewards of any potential enforcement. Lower the damages. >>>
In other words, grab the download and as soon as it reaches 95% or better, stop it. Don't bother to seed to anyone else (thereby limiting your neighbors access to the illegal movie, tv show, or music). Sounds like a plan.
Actually, I do seed where possible, but since my DSL upload connection is only 3x faster than phoneline dialup, I don't really contribute much.
Correct. Once they have precedent they can stand before an U.S. or EU judge and say, "We won in Australia. You should follow their decision and comply with international law," or something similar.
(Of course I've never understood why foreign law should have any influence on U.S. law - the People's Constitution is the only supreme law that should matter here. What happens elsewhere should be irrelevant.)
Would it be acceptable if I went after the RIAA CEO with a BFG? (Democratic Party Founder Thomas Jefferson says, "...the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants...")
When I needed AdAware to remove a nasty spybot, my bittorrent client was the only thing that worked (because the spybot was blocking browser downloads).
That didn't stop them. Even though they lost the Betamax case circa 1980, they still sued Digital Audio Tape (DAT) and kept it out of America. Then they tried to sue Digital Compact Cassette and Minidisc, which led to inbuilt copy protection of these devices.
They will never stop. They fear losing their jobs and that's one powerful motive.
Even though guns are used for killing 90% of the time, that doesn't change the fact they are still useful. Like when I deterred a thief from stealing my car (last week) or when I rescued my girlfriend from a Philadelphia mugger (about ten years ago). Guns can save lives as well.
Same logic applies to bittorrent. Or blank tapes. Or blank CDs. Yes they are mostly used for piracy, but they also have useful purposes as well, and that's why they remain legal.
TV Band Devices have already been approved. It's only a matter of time until your neighbor has an Ipod or similar internet-capable gadget broadcasting on channels 2 to 51.
Well the placental mammals, like us and almost every other mammal, did not evolve until after the Asteroid event. They've been dominant for about 60 million years.
He was talking about the default setting. Mine was originally Google, but now Firefox defaults to Verizon. Apparently his defaults to Abebook's search.
Another facet to consider: TV Band Devices don't have to respect neighboring markets. For example I live in Lancaster PA which is protected, but I can also watch Philadelphia and Baltimore..... and a TVBD is free to broadcast directly overtop those non-local channels.
So I might as well kiss Philly and Baltimore goodbye. No more channels 2, 3, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17, 35, 45, 57, 61, or 65 due to TVBDs using those channels.
Let's see. Approximately 18% or 20 million homes watch television over the air, exclusively. Some by choice, some because they are farmers living in Montana or some other rural state lacking wires, and some because they can't afford a $60 a month cable bill.
If the government discontinued broadcast television and instead subsidized Dish locals-only service to everybody, that would cost $11 a month per home. The total expenditure would be $2.7 billion per year. Are you sure we really want to spend that much money??? Over-the-air television doesn't cost the government anything (because it's already there and working).
BTW:
Cellphones suck IMHO. Yes I like the convenience; it's great to be reachable anywhere (I think?). But the cost of that convenience is around $50 a month. A wired phone only costs $10 a month, and the quality of the sound is better. Being just a poor citizen, I prefer the cheaper option.
Another facet to consider: TV Band Devices don't have to respect neighboring markets. For example I live in Lancaster PA which is protected, but I can also watch Philadelphia and Baltimore..... and a TVBD is free to broadcast directly overtop those non-local channels.
So I might as well kiss Philly and Baltimore goodbye. No more channels 2,3,6,10,11,12,13,17,35,45,57,61, 65.
By the time a distant signal reaches your set, it's only ~10 milliwatts. A 40,000 milliwatt TV Band device can easily overpower that. It's more commonsense (40000>>>10) than any real need for testing.
However if you insist upon tests, the ones performed by NAB and the Cable Association show any TV Band device within 1-2 football fields will overpower a broadcast television station. You'll end-up watching digital hash noise rather than the sports game or the latest episode of "Legend of the Seeker".
Slashdot Mirror
I took European History in college. Due to the subject matter my professor committed a "Godwin" almost every single day. But it WAS history after all - no point pretending it didn't happen.
Anyway to your point -
I don't want to kill the stupid. I only want to protect my life from BEING killed by the stupid (thieves, murderers). If they don't bother me, I won't bother them, but it they attack me, they better be prepared to meet their maker. I will NOT give up my Right to Life without a fight.
That's okay. I'd rather serve jailtime in a Swedish jail than serve time in a coffin. I have a Creator-given Right to Life, and I will protect that life from murderers by whatever means necessary.
Unless Comcast decides you've passed their threshold as a "bandwidth hog" and they impose a temporary speed limit on you. From what I've heard the temporary speed limit is 128k which makes watching hulu.com impossible.
I forgot to mention they also sued JVC's Digital VHS, because it allowed recording of high-definition video straight from broadcast television. JVC responded to the suit by promising to include antipiracy protection. The result made Digital VHS unusable. (You need to have Firewire; how many televisions have firewire? None.)
Almost every time these MAFIAA people sue a new technology (DAT, Digital Cassette, Minidisc, D-VHS) they succeed in killing the new technology, or marginalizing it. With that kind of success rate, why would they stop suing? They're probably hoping they can kill-off Bittorrent too. Like they did to Napster.
Yeah well.... I don't care. Even if guns killed 100% of the time, I still don't think they should be banned. I have a Right to Life and a right to protect it from thieves/murderers.
Even if I have to carry a gun illegally, I will continue to do so. I will NOT walk around like a defenseless sheep waiting to be attacked by the wolves. I will NOT be a photo on the front page about how police found me dead.
>>>I'm hoping that one day there won't be any weapons designed only to kill.
If I had a phaser, I would certainly prefer that over a bullet, but phasers don't exist so I use the next best thing. And don't say we have stun guns; they don't work if your attacker is wearing thick clothing.
(Besides, why does it matter if I kill a murderer or thief who is attacking me? They chose that course of action; let them face the consequences of their stupidity.)
>>>And what if the criminal also had been armed? What if the situation was escalated?
He'd be dead. Which is preferable to having either me or my girlfriend dead (as often happens to unarmed citizens). To quote the founders of the Democrat and Federalist Party, respectively:
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves." - Thomas Jefferson. - "Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion... in private self-defense." - John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, 1787-88
I will Not walk around like defenseless sheep waiting for the wolves/thieves to attack me. This sheep is going to be armed and when attacked, shoot the wolf dead. The Right to Self-Defense (a defense of the Right to Life) is one of our most-important rights.
>>>Conclusion : you want to keep pirating, or simply "surfing free" ? Make sure nobody else in your neighbourhood does it, thereby lowering the rewards of any potential enforcement. Lower the damages.
>>>
In other words, grab the download and as soon as it reaches 95% or better, stop it. Don't bother to seed to anyone else (thereby limiting your neighbors access to the illegal movie, tv show, or music). Sounds like a plan.
Actually, I do seed where possible, but since my DSL upload connection is only 3x faster than phoneline dialup, I don't really contribute much.
Correct. Once they have precedent they can stand before an U.S. or EU judge and say, "We won in Australia. You should follow their decision and comply with international law," or something similar.
(Of course I've never understood why foreign law should have any influence on U.S. law - the People's Constitution is the only supreme law that should matter here. What happens elsewhere should be irrelevant.)
>>>Go after the crime not the tool.
Would it be acceptable if I went after the RIAA CEO with a BFG? (Democratic Party Founder Thomas Jefferson says, "...the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants...")
When I needed AdAware to remove a nasty spybot, my bittorrent client was the only thing that worked (because the spybot was blocking browser downloads).
Try reading the WHOLE message, okay? Stupid anonymous coward.
That didn't stop them. Even though they lost the Betamax case circa 1980, they still sued Digital Audio Tape (DAT) and kept it out of America. Then they tried to sue Digital Compact Cassette and Minidisc, which led to inbuilt copy protection of these devices.
They will never stop. They fear losing their jobs and that's one powerful motive.
Even though guns are used for killing 90% of the time, that doesn't change the fact they are still useful. Like when I deterred a thief from stealing my car (last week) or when I rescued my girlfriend from a Philadelphia mugger (about ten years ago). Guns can save lives as well.
Same logic applies to bittorrent. Or blank tapes. Or blank CDs. Yes they are mostly used for piracy, but they also have useful purposes as well, and that's why they remain legal.
TV Band Devices have already been approved. It's only a matter of time until your neighbor has an Ipod or similar internet-capable gadget broadcasting on channels 2 to 51.
Those were marsupials, not placentals (like us and 99.9% of other modern-day mammals).
Well the placental mammals, like us and almost every other mammal, did not evolve until after the Asteroid event. They've been dominant for about 60 million years.
Correction:
"By the time a distant signal reaches your set, it's only ~10 [micro]watts. A 40,000 [micro]watt TV Band device can easily overpower that."
He was talking about the default setting. Mine was originally Google, but now Firefox defaults to Verizon. Apparently his defaults to Abebook's search.
Good summary.
Another facet to consider: TV Band Devices don't have to respect neighboring markets. For example I live in Lancaster PA which is protected, but I can also watch Philadelphia and Baltimore..... and a TVBD is free to broadcast directly overtop those non-local channels.
So I might as well kiss Philly and Baltimore goodbye. No more channels 2, 3, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17, 35, 45, 57, 61, or 65 due to TVBDs using those channels.
FOX News is not on broadcast television. FOX News is a cable channel.
Let's see. Approximately 18% or 20 million homes watch television over the air, exclusively. Some by choice, some because they are farmers living in Montana or some other rural state lacking wires, and some because they can't afford a $60 a month cable bill.
If the government discontinued broadcast television and instead subsidized Dish locals-only service to everybody, that would cost $11 a month per home. The total expenditure would be $2.7 billion per year. Are you sure we really want to spend that much money??? Over-the-air television doesn't cost the government anything (because it's already there and working).
BTW:
Cellphones suck IMHO. Yes I like the convenience; it's great to be reachable anywhere (I think?). But the cost of that convenience is around $50 a month. A wired phone only costs $10 a month, and the quality of the sound is better. Being just a poor citizen, I prefer the cheaper option.
I'd buy a car rather than put-up with that crap. A 60mpg Lupo TDI gets decent mileage, and you can buy one used for around $10,000. (~5000 pounds)
Good summary.
Another facet to consider: TV Band Devices don't have to respect neighboring markets. For example I live in Lancaster PA which is protected, but I can also watch Philadelphia and Baltimore..... and a TVBD is free to broadcast directly overtop those non-local channels.
So I might as well kiss Philly and Baltimore goodbye. No more channels 2,3,6,10,11,12,13,17,35,45,57,61, 65.
By the time a distant signal reaches your set, it's only ~10 milliwatts. A 40,000 milliwatt TV Band device can easily overpower that. It's more commonsense (40000>>>10) than any real need for testing.
However if you insist upon tests, the ones performed by NAB and the Cable Association show any TV Band device within 1-2 football fields will overpower a broadcast television station. You'll end-up watching digital hash noise rather than the sports game or the latest episode of "Legend of the Seeker".