My point being that when I was in that position it most certainly would not have been economically reasonable to purchase either of those products.
If you weren't able to even pay the licenses for the servers, how in heck were you planning on paying the royalties? And if you weren't streaming any copyrighted materials, what makes you think this bill has anything to do with you?
I don't see how replacing use of pirate windows with use of linux is a win for MS.
Microsoft wants to reduce piracy. If people start selling Linux instead of pirated Windows CD's, then Microsoft is successful in what they are trying to do. If Microsoft is successful, that is a win for them.
I suppose if they try to stop Windows from being pirated, and it just causes more people to pirate Windows, that would be a losing effort for Microsoft. But the parent post said that the vendors were selling Linux instead of pirated Windows CD's, so for this example, the sale of pirated CD's is decreasing.
Spam would be one person trying to send an email to hundreds of people, not hundreds of people trying to send an email to a few people each.
I thought spam was sending *unsolicited* email? Certainly this would meet the definition of being unsolicited. Does the fact that it is a lot of email going to a few people instead of a lot of people make it any less unsolicited?
Well, how about they do away with anonymous voting?
I've never seen more people in support of getting rid of anonymous voting then I have on slashdot in response to electronic voting. Paper receipts, my foot.
No, Actually this bill is designed to inhibit. Try reading the article again. This bill will stop ISPs from providing better QoS to different providers.
If I understood correctly, we could have a nationwide vote, everyone leaves with a piece of paper with a number printed on it, and can take that number home and verify that their vote was correctly counted on the internet (where public lists of votes are posted), while the whole system remained anonymous. It looked like election fraud could be completely eliminated.
There only one problem. In the US we believe in a secret ballot. I don't think that a super majority of Americans are willing to give that up. Even if it would make the elections easier to validate.
I mean, one the one hand the killing of civilians is despicable; the Bush adminsitration should be ashamed for every report of an Iraqi civilian death.
America does not target civilians directly. The insurgents do. Is it clear who should be ashamed? Our response should be retaliate harshly to every insurgents attack against us and innocent civilians. Only then will the killing of civilians, which is a despicable act, be stopped.
I want to make sure we understand that I'm not challenging you with the above statemnt that I'm unaware of the evidence for Osama offering Clinton a way out;
I understand. I appreciate your dialoguing with me.
Now, onto your question. OBL never offered Clinton a truce. That's telling because one does not typically offer a truce if they are not threatened. I, for instance, would not offer you a truce now because you do not pose a threat to me. However, if we were in a duel to the death and you were about to run me through, I would probably try offer a truce.
Now OBL offered a truce before, in 2004. It was rejected by Britain. No surprise there. But, as I said, it's telling that there is no report of OBL offering a truce during Clintons term. What do we see that Clinton did?
In 1996, OBL was in Sudan. Sudan had wearied of him and was wanting to turn him over to someone else. This claim is generally accepted as legitimate that they had the where with all to do so. But, according to this report, "The official, asking not to be identified, said that although bin Laden had terrorist credentials in 1996, the United States did not have enough evidence for his indictment and dropped plans to capture him."
Ok, so Clinton passed. But what happened next? According to Wikipedia, OBL was alledged to be involved in the bombings of 3 US Embassies and in response "Clinton also signed an executive order authorizing bin Laden's arrest or assassination." But by this time it was too late, the last 2 years of Clinton's term was not enough to stop OBL.
8 months after President Bush's inauguration, OBL commenced his next and last attack on American soil. Really his last attack against American targets anywhere. For the last 4 years President Bush has been putting pressure on OBL. Granted, President Bush has not done in 4 years what President Clinton was not able to do in 2 years, but there's no saying that Clinton would have been able to do it within 4 years either. But what we do know is that President Bush has been taking out his organization and squeezing his elaborate terrorist networks, as well as put pressure on regimes that harboured terrorists and of course capturing Saddam and fighting terrorism in Iraq. Now we find OBL playing the truce card. Coincidence? I don't think so.
Oh, no, in spite of the fact that this man is in need of a kidney dialasis machine, he can still run rings around some of the best trained troops in the world inside a closed network of caves.
When I look at the wanted posters in my community I see a whole slew of suspects that are on the loose. Maybe you live in a little bubble world where all suspects are apprehended and detained immediately. However, I and other Americans don't. The fact that OBL hasn't been captured doesn't mean that President Bush hasn't been doing all he can to stop OBL. It is very apparent that President Bush is extremely focused on protecting America from OBL.
The only person who had the opportunity to detain OBL that we know of was Clinton. And Clinton let OBL go. If I had a choice of someone who could have taken care OBL and didn't, or someone who hasn't yet been able to detain OBL but is keeping the pressure on, I know who I would chose. Who would you choose?
-Brent
PS. How many times did OBL propose a truce when Clinton was president? Think about it.
Clinton had the opportunity to *assassinate* Osama Bin Laden not capture him.
[If] Bush was truly the "security" President instead of the "Safety Dance" President, bin'Laden would be dead and his head rotting on a pike somewhere in Afghanistan.
I don't know, that sounds a lot like assissination to me. I think the only person lost here is you. My point is, of course, that Clinton had the opportunity to do something, anything really, with OBL, and chose to do nothing. We can only thank ourselves that President Bush won the election in 2000 and chose to do something about OBL after 9/11, which was the last straw.
Or, we might have been talking about the trial of Osama bin'Laden at the World Court at Den Haag for crimes against humanity. Or both.
Yeah, too bad Clinton let OBL go, isn't it? If he would have prosecuted OBL when he was given the opportunity we wouldn't be dealing with this now, would we? OBL would have been in jail and harmless. But no, Clinton decided that it was better to let OBL go and let the next president deal with OBL. And as a result of that, a mere 8 months after Clinton left office we lost 3000 *innocent* American lives.
We could have been talking about a trial now if Clinton would have only taken OBL when he was given the opportunity. Now we've lost over 5000 lives and counting because Clinton failed and let OBL go. We can only thank those proud Americans who voted for President Bush that we have not had 5 more years of failed policies like Clinton, Gores, and Kerrys.
If the DOJ are not doing a criminal investigation, why do they have more rights to get the information that they want, when if I were to jump up and down asking for access from MSN, AOL, or Yahoo, I would just be told to go away?
There is a reason that we have a court system in America and not mob rule. You may not understand the delicate difference, however it is very important. It also explains why the DOJ can get the records and you sadly can't.
I do not have a problem with them having access, as long as I can have access too. If they get away with this, next time I am left doing a research paper on the popular searching trends of people, I want them to open there databases up to me, too.
Well, get a subpoena and you can write a legal brief also.
Just drop it, and do your best in whatever situation you are in, and you'll be fine.
That's an old line. It's used against everyone to keep them in their place. How many people told the slaves to just "drop it" and do the best in what whatever "situation" they were in? And how many people did *not* just drop it and did something to right the situation? We don't make any progress or a better society by "dropping it."
Sorry, even though I can't change anyone's mind, I can work to help society progress. Just like not everyone attitudes were changed when slaves were free, so there are more people and ideas that need to be freed today without waiting for everyones attitudes to change. It took over a hundred years to fight for the same rights for blocks as white, but we as a society didn't drop it.
We've got a lot more progress to make in society. It will take time, and people will be kicking and screaming. But I'm not going to quit until I've done all I can.
Really? Is it right to criticise people for being black, as long as you don't discriminate against them? I guess so, according to your logic. But that wasn't my point.
See the parent of my reply for context. My point was that we still use the same associations to attack people now as we did 75 years ago. Has anything changed? No, just the people we discriminate against.
I bet that in most of the world, equating black people with monkeys is either unknown as an expression of racism, or something people stopped doing in the 1940s or so.
Yes, now it is used as an expression of discrimination against those who support Intelligent Design. But that's acceptable, right? Please tell me it is. I mean, that's the whole purpose of the monkey anyways, isn't it?
he DeCSS case: Why did nobody anywhere think to point out that encrypting a file does not prevent it from ebing copied.
Because maybe that wasn't about what the case was about. Maybe the case was more about breaking the CSS encryption then movies being copied. I don't know, but it is worth a thought.
And if companies choose to just provide one set of servers where players can compete if they submit to anti-cheat scanning, and not another set, what is the problem with that?
When I heard there was a press conference between Bram Cohen and the MPAA I thought it would be something neat, like some sort of agreement to explore distributing movies via BT.
You mean you were expecting it might be something neat, like this?
Slashdot Mirror
If you weren't able to even pay the licenses for the servers, how in heck were you planning on paying the royalties? And if you weren't streaming any copyrighted materials, what makes you think this bill has anything to do with you?
BrentMicrosoft wants to reduce piracy. If people start selling Linux instead of pirated Windows CD's, then Microsoft is successful in what they are trying to do. If Microsoft is successful, that is a win for them.
I suppose if they try to stop Windows from being pirated, and it just causes more people to pirate Windows, that would be a losing effort for Microsoft. But the parent post said that the vendors were selling Linux instead of pirated Windows CD's, so for this example, the sale of pirated CD's is decreasing.
BrentThen it's working, isn't it?
BrentYeah, that's a big one for me too! When I use Internet Explorer I don't want any of those outgoing connections to make it through. None!
BrentI thought spam was sending *unsolicited* email? Certainly this would meet the definition of being unsolicited. Does the fact that it is a lot of email going to a few people instead of a lot of people make it any less unsolicited?
-BrentI've never seen more people in support of getting rid of anonymous voting then I have on slashdot in response to electronic voting. Paper receipts, my foot.
BrentNo, Actually this bill is designed to inhibit. Try reading the article again. This bill will stop ISPs from providing better QoS to different providers.
Brent
That's why we need to remove the cap on payroll taxes that is now at $90,000. People like this keep scamming the system.
BrentThere only one problem. In the US we believe in a secret ballot. I don't think that a super majority of Americans are willing to give that up. Even if it would make the elections easier to validate.
BrentAmerica does not target civilians directly. The insurgents do. Is it clear who should be ashamed? Our response should be retaliate harshly to every insurgents attack against us and innocent civilians. Only then will the killing of civilians, which is a despicable act, be stopped.
-BrentI understand. I appreciate your dialoguing with me.
Now, onto your question. OBL never offered Clinton a truce. That's telling because one does not typically offer a truce if they are not threatened. I, for instance, would not offer you a truce now because you do not pose a threat to me. However, if we were in a duel to the death and you were about to run me through, I would probably try offer a truce.
Now OBL offered a truce before, in 2004. It was rejected by Britain. No surprise there. But, as I said, it's telling that there is no report of OBL offering a truce during Clintons term. What do we see that Clinton did?
In 1996, OBL was in Sudan. Sudan had wearied of him and was wanting to turn him over to someone else. This claim is generally accepted as legitimate that they had the where with all to do so. But, according to this report, "The official, asking not to be identified, said that although bin Laden had terrorist credentials in 1996, the United States did not have enough evidence for his indictment and dropped plans to capture him."
Ok, so Clinton passed. But what happened next? According to Wikipedia, OBL was alledged to be involved in the bombings of 3 US Embassies and in response "Clinton also signed an executive order authorizing bin Laden's arrest or assassination." But by this time it was too late, the last 2 years of Clinton's term was not enough to stop OBL.
8 months after President Bush's inauguration, OBL commenced his next and last attack on American soil. Really his last attack against American targets anywhere. For the last 4 years President Bush has been putting pressure on OBL. Granted, President Bush has not done in 4 years what President Clinton was not able to do in 2 years, but there's no saying that Clinton would have been able to do it within 4 years either. But what we do know is that President Bush has been taking out his organization and squeezing his elaborate terrorist networks, as well as put pressure on regimes that harboured terrorists and of course capturing Saddam and fighting terrorism in Iraq. Now we find OBL playing the truce card. Coincidence? I don't think so.
-BrentWhen I look at the wanted posters in my community I see a whole slew of suspects that are on the loose. Maybe you live in a little bubble world where all suspects are apprehended and detained immediately. However, I and other Americans don't. The fact that OBL hasn't been captured doesn't mean that President Bush hasn't been doing all he can to stop OBL. It is very apparent that President Bush is extremely focused on protecting America from OBL.
The only person who had the opportunity to detain OBL that we know of was Clinton. And Clinton let OBL go. If I had a choice of someone who could have taken care OBL and didn't, or someone who hasn't yet been able to detain OBL but is keeping the pressure on, I know who I would chose. Who would you choose?
-BrentPS. How many times did OBL propose a truce when Clinton was president? Think about it.
-Brent
Yeah, too bad Clinton let OBL go, isn't it? If he would have prosecuted OBL when he was given the opportunity we wouldn't be dealing with this now, would we? OBL would have been in jail and harmless. But no, Clinton decided that it was better to let OBL go and let the next president deal with OBL. And as a result of that, a mere 8 months after Clinton left office we lost 3000 *innocent* American lives.
We could have been talking about a trial now if Clinton would have only taken OBL when he was given the opportunity. Now we've lost over 5000 lives and counting because Clinton failed and let OBL go. We can only thank those proud Americans who voted for President Bush that we have not had 5 more years of failed policies like Clinton, Gores, and Kerrys.
BrentThere is a reason that we have a court system in America and not mob rule. You may not understand the delicate difference, however it is very important. It also explains why the DOJ can get the records and you sadly can't.
I do not have a problem with them having access, as long as I can have access too. If they get away with this, next time I am left doing a research paper on the popular searching trends of people, I want them to open there databases up to me, too.Well, get a subpoena and you can write a legal brief also.
BrentSo what is it today? Is the Freedom of Information Act good? or bad? Inquiring minds demand to know...
BrentYou sir, are an idiot. First of all, this is a trial. Second, it is a subpoena. Third, it is relevant to the case.
You though seem to be guilty of not reading the article and/or not understanding it.
-BrentI'm sure that there's very few peering customers of Bell South reading slashdot.
-BrentThat's an old line. It's used against everyone to keep them in their place. How many people told the slaves to just "drop it" and do the best in what whatever "situation" they were in? And how many people did *not* just drop it and did something to right the situation? We don't make any progress or a better society by "dropping it."
Sorry, even though I can't change anyone's mind, I can work to help society progress. Just like not everyone attitudes were changed when slaves were free, so there are more people and ideas that need to be freed today without waiting for everyones attitudes to change. It took over a hundred years to fight for the same rights for blocks as white, but we as a society didn't drop it.
We've got a lot more progress to make in society. It will take time, and people will be kicking and screaming. But I'm not going to quit until I've done all I can.
BrentReally? Is it right to criticise people for being black, as long as you don't discriminate against them? I guess so, according to your logic. But that wasn't my point.
See the parent of my reply for context. My point was that we still use the same associations to attack people now as we did 75 years ago. Has anything changed? No, just the people we discriminate against.
BrentYes, now it is used as an expression of discrimination against those who support Intelligent Design. But that's acceptable, right? Please tell me it is. I mean, that's the whole purpose of the monkey anyways, isn't it?
BrentGoogle bought a BIG chunk of Microsoft stock?
-BrentBecause maybe that wasn't about what the case was about. Maybe the case was more about breaking the CSS encryption then movies being copied. I don't know, but it is worth a thought.
-BrentAnd if companies choose to just provide one set of servers where players can compete if they submit to anti-cheat scanning, and not another set, what is the problem with that?
You mean you were expecting it might be something neat, like this?
-Brent