It's ummm...not free...most libraries are publically(READ: you, your taxes). That's like saying that the roads we drive on should be allowed to crumble cause they are 'free'.
And...honestly, are you an idiot? This isn't about kids and porn. That's the point. It's about Kids and Adults and legitimate non-pornographic information being censored.
If you wanna give up you rights...fine, Id be more than happy to take control.
How about: SHOULD A PARENT BE A PARENT AND SUPERVISE THEIR CHILDREN? Is it really bad to shoot the hundreds(thousands?millions?) of incompetent people reproducing?
Read your last paragraph over and over. That's the point. And they not only don't do a "good job". They do a downright pathetic job. No filtering software out there is putting out a quality product. And none of them will show you how/why/who they block. Until the methods are open and misblocks are at a highly acceptable limit..and means to remove misblocks are present...then and only then should filtering software be in place.
You wouldn't want airbags going off in your car just because you acidentally tapped a curb. In fact, the law protects us from that...shoddy products. Same should be true with software..specially critical software such as this.
Yes...but a kid can go into the bookstore if there are other things besides porn. You can't assume the 12 year old is there to buy the porno, and if he attempts to...thats when you stop him. Not before.
Why should adults have any more access to legitimate information than underage people? That's just completely ignorant. Lets brainwash the kids some more...lets shelter them and produce another generation of drones who can't think for themselves. Youd think after all the school shootings people like you would learn.
If a parent is soooo concerned about their child then they should do their job, take responsibility and pay attention to what their kids are reading, watching, listening to, eating, drinking and fucking.
Sure, post rules...I will too..You will only be allowed to access peacefire.org. Sounds fun.
And I'm not one for subsidizing your pathetic views on the world and your boring hobbies at my dollar. Why should you choose how one chooses to lead their life?
Imposing your morals on others is a very sad thing indeed...because you see, I in turn will impose my beliefs onto you..and you really wouldn't want that, now would you? Didn't think so.
Get out of your little bubble you call utopia, dry yourself off and recount the various slashdot articles about companies using opensource code and not releasing the changes.
Big companies don't care. They believe they can get away with it, as long as people don't know. Specially since the gpl has yet to be tried in court(Or isn't it right now?).
pacman and space invaders are legal in and of themselves...copying illegally is another matter. I was addressing filesharing in general..and fair use if moderately specific...not actual content, or specific trading.
Actually, Marijuana has become legalized for "medicinal" use in several states. And though it's a work in progress...it is happening. Also, a number of states have very low penalties for marijuana possession of low, personal quantities. We are talking 50$ fines here. Why? Because people realize how ignorant it is to ban a substance like that. You would think the gov't would've learn from prohibition that attempting to eliminate things like drugs...creates *MORE CRIME*. Not vice-versa. And that legalization makes regulation that much easier. Not to mention use safer. Just look at the quality of alcohol compared to the old cotton gins.:P
And by the way...you analogy is quite off. Filesharing would be the pipe. A pipe can be used to smoke tobacco, or marijuana. Unless you are using it to smoke marijuana it is perfectly legal. Same with filesharing technologies. As long as there is ONE, legitimate, common use...itself will stay legal.
Filesharing is more along the lines of consumer rights, copyright holders rights, etc, etc. And not criminal actions. YES, copying things can be a crime..but the majority of laws regarding these issues are civil, not criminal and the criminal laws are only there to enforce a handful of the civil laws. It's a FAR cry from any war on drugs. The war on drug's intention is not to protect idividual people from frying their brains, but to protect society from them and the activities they bring. As opposed to filesharing being to protect specific entities from other entities, and not society as a whole.
I could go on and on..but I won't. It just saddens me to see people like you who submit so easily. "Face it, we can't win. Just go with the flow, so it doesn't get deeper." Thats bullshit. Our country is screwed up, yes. But the heart of it can still function, but most choose not to use it. Look around, most people are complacent, and will take what is handed to them.
thats exactly what I was thinking. Ive seen quite a few documentarys about that system. It's seek. They do photorecoginition with it. Spotting convicts in a crowd of people automagically. It has little use for prosecuting criminals or protecting(other than scare) citizens, since it's in the most public places as it is...where plenty of witnesses already are...and safety is relatively ok. So it mainly serves as badpeople-tracking. Might as well embed transmitters in everyone.
is exactly why I am minoring in computer science before entering law school. By the time my schooling is done, cyberlaw will be in full force and a legitimate speciality(a-la international law, business law, criminal law, etc, etc). Right now, however, since there are no actual established laws that make any sense(legal or otherwise)..there are few lawyers specializing in that niche....and even fewer cluefull judges. And lord knows the grassroots organizations striving to survive on the net could use em.
are you an idiot? Last time I checked, MP3's are not illegal. Nor are mp3 encoded copyrighted material. Oh wait, unless you can show me the courtcase that established that? Oh, you can't. Didn't think so.
And by the way Mr. Big Brains, cocaine can legally be sold in the US. It's called a pharmaceutical(sp) company. Cocaine is used in surgeries, although not as much as it used to. It's a CONTROLLED substance.
Get your goddamn analogies right people.
Re:Napsters is a Service, not a Product
on
Two-Faced Napster?
·
· Score: 2
thats the fucking point. They don't promote copyright violations last time I checked, now do they? They don't actively participate in the transfer of the materials now do they?
The real analogy is this: I own a bar. Whores like to frequent it and find johns. If one is reported, I remove them. I need not actively police my bar, that's not my job...ethically maybe...legally no. They are merely my patrons. And as long as I reasonably do not promote illegal activities...I'm fine. Same goes for napster.
first off..you are 100% correct...people seem to be slow to understand the fact that the user is responsible. We don't sue gun manufacturers because murderers shoot people(wait, we pretty much did), we didn't sue makers of fertilizer for the OK bombing...etc, etc. Why? Because, the good uses outweigh the bad/illegal ones. We seem to forget that people should/are/hope to be innocent until proven guilty.
It makes me laugh to see these seemingly intelligent people try to pull arguements for napster out of their ass...when the most applicable one is also the easiest to understand.(Albeit the more difficult to use).
mod this up! that is the exact point. And just like cars, performance modifying can cause serious irreversible damage, especially for the unskilled. There are serious, very expensive, risks involved with overclocking. And as far as paying for more MHZ, thats not really the point. Anyone can buy a gigahertz cpu, but to take a lesser cpu, modify and spend $$ to get it to work even better is a show of skill and brings pride. And along the car analogy...anyone can go out and buy a corvette/ferrari/aston martin(fill with preferred sports car), but to take a stock production car and turn it into a performance car takes labor and skill.
Ya. I'll believe it when I see it. And though I do not recommend any storebought system for any of my friends or relatives anymore( I either custom build for them or have them order a custom from comp shopper, VA, etc.) I will pay attention to these.
Four of my relatives have (had) packard bells. I understand that the very nature of their specific market niche is not to the upgrade or tech inclined. They produce a settop box preloaded and not to be dittled with. Fine. Every other pc manufacturer does that. BUT.
Packard bell had always used shitty components, failed to specify components/configs/etc...or even worse, misspecified. Sure, they are not made to really be upgraded..but the least they could do is provide the correct info for the parts. Jumpers were opposite, settings were nonstandard...etc..etc. And though nearly *EVERY* techsupport person I had contact with was extremely friendly and tried their best....it seemed they knew very little of packard bell specifics.(And they admitted it too).
Dont get me wrong...I've seen experiences like this with other pc manufacturers(HP...hmmm another damn packard), but still..when you purchase a product..things shouldn't be so undocument and misrepresented so as to confuse you if you did want to delve further into it.
right now everyone disregards your post because of your stupidity.
To convict someone of a crime (at maximum penalty), you need to show two things: 1. The person did the crime, and 2. The person knew it was a crime. So knowing that what you are doing is bad is *very* relevant. Actually, no. You are confusing knowledge with intent. To convict anyone criminally of a crime at ALL(not even just max penalty)(except strict liability crimes(speeding, negligence), both the act and INTENT must be proven. Granted, if you didn't have knowledge that it was a crime...it'd be hard to intend to commit it. But think of this...say I don't know buying a certain drug is illegal. I still intend to buy it...it was an accident, and therefore a criminal act was committed.
I'll relate this to this: I can post/publish/whatever a paper diagraming how to build a homemade bomb, including *where* to get the materials. It does not mean I necessarily intended for you to do it, and even then it'd be nearly impossible to find one criminally liable. And try proving intent. Just try. Someone said banner ads. DING. That's intent to get the person to the site, not LEAVE! if anything they'd post false mp3 links to get traffic. I doubt the post mp3 links to deliberately violate copyright laws.
then secure the server with specific accounts...or block access to pages without local REFERs. If you have a server open...where requesting a page deep inside is doable...then guess what? it's doable. They need to take steps to protect their so-called content. Allowing access to billions and billions of people doesn't seem to be much protection.
Warfare has changed, that is all. America bombed Hiroshima. That's pretty damn violent. And there is still citizen vs citizen violence...just look at the murder and domestic rates. just because your average beaver isn't chasing each other with a sword at every bad word doesn't mean shit....they are suing, it's the new hip style warfare and hurts you alot more than any punch will. And oh, I love you little kiddies who say shit like "Come say it to my face and Ill knock your teeth out" or whatever. It's pretty damn hilarious...easy to say here, on the internet...hundreds of miles from those you 'threaten'. Those who are weak in their own confidence lash out like that...maybe you know you are ignorant and didn't make much sense? I say this to you: You can raise your fist to strike at me, but it takes mere milliseconds for me to draw, raise and shoot.
you are a fucking moron..Microsoft has more of a monopoly on personal operating software and desktop productivity software than yahoo! will ever have on search engines. Just think of how many search engines are out there, and how easy they are to get to and use. Compare this with your options with Microsoft. Yahoo is successful, one of the few successful webbased companies. They want to provide the best product to their customers(advertisers) by keeping more users..so they improve the backend of the engines. Get the hell over it. Think before you post. This is one of the dumbest posts I've read yet.
Slashdot Mirror
It's ummm...not free...most libraries are publically(READ: you, your taxes). That's like saying that the roads we drive on should be allowed to crumble cause they are 'free'.
And...honestly, are you an idiot? This isn't about kids and porn. That's the point. It's about Kids and Adults and legitimate non-pornographic information being censored.
If you wanna give up you rights...fine, Id be more than happy to take control.
Are you a fucking moron?
How about: SHOULD A PARENT BE A PARENT AND SUPERVISE THEIR CHILDREN? Is it really bad to shoot the hundreds(thousands?millions?) of incompetent people reproducing?
Read your last paragraph over and over. That's the point. And they not only don't do a "good job". They do a downright pathetic job. No filtering software out there is putting out a quality product. And none of them will show you how/why/who they block. Until the methods are open and misblocks are at a highly acceptable limit..and means to remove misblocks are present...then and only then should filtering software be in place.
You wouldn't want airbags going off in your car just because you acidentally tapped a curb. In fact, the law protects us from that...shoddy products. Same should be true with software..specially critical software such as this.
Yes...but a kid can go into the bookstore if there are other things besides porn. You can't assume the 12 year old is there to buy the porno, and if he attempts to...thats when you stop him. Not before.
Why should adults have any more access to legitimate information than underage people? That's just completely ignorant. Lets brainwash the kids some more...lets shelter them and produce another generation of drones who can't think for themselves. Youd think after all the school shootings people like you would learn.
If a parent is soooo concerned about their child then they should do their job, take responsibility and pay attention to what their kids are reading, watching, listening to, eating, drinking and fucking.
Sure, post rules...I will too..You will only be allowed to access peacefire.org. Sounds fun.
And I'm not one for subsidizing your pathetic views on the world and your boring hobbies at my dollar. Why should you choose how one chooses to lead their life?
Imposing your morals on others is a very sad thing indeed...because you see, I in turn will impose my beliefs onto you..and you really wouldn't want that, now would you? Didn't think so.
Get out of your little bubble you call utopia, dry yourself off and recount the various slashdot articles about companies using opensource code and not releasing the changes.
Big companies don't care. They believe they can get away with it, as long as people don't know. Specially since the gpl has yet to be tried in court(Or isn't it right now?).
rotfl...how did this get mod'd up?
pacman and space invaders are legal in and of themselves...copying illegally is another matter. I was addressing filesharing in general..and fair use if moderately specific...not actual content, or specific trading.
Actually, Marijuana has become legalized for "medicinal" use in several states. And though it's a work in progress...it is happening. Also, a number of states have very low penalties for marijuana possession of low, personal quantities. We are talking 50$ fines here. Why? Because people realize how ignorant it is to ban a substance like that. You would think the gov't would've learn from prohibition that attempting to eliminate things like drugs...creates *MORE CRIME*. Not vice-versa. And that legalization makes regulation that much easier. Not to mention use safer. Just look at the quality of alcohol compared to the old cotton gins. :P
And by the way...you analogy is quite off. Filesharing would be the pipe. A pipe can be used to smoke tobacco, or marijuana. Unless you are using it to smoke marijuana it is perfectly legal. Same with filesharing technologies. As long as there is ONE, legitimate, common use...itself will stay legal.
Filesharing is more along the lines of consumer rights, copyright holders rights, etc, etc. And not criminal actions. YES, copying things can be a crime..but the majority of laws regarding these issues are civil, not criminal and the criminal laws are only there to enforce a handful of the civil laws. It's a FAR cry from any war on drugs. The war on drug's intention is not to protect idividual people from frying their brains, but to protect society from them and the activities they bring. As opposed to filesharing being to protect specific entities from other entities, and not society as a whole.
I could go on and on..but I won't. It just saddens me to see people like you who submit so easily. "Face it, we can't win. Just go with the flow, so it doesn't get deeper." Thats bullshit. Our country is screwed up, yes. But the heart of it can still function, but most choose not to use it. Look around, most people are complacent, and will take what is handed to them.
disregard the stupid errors ;)
thats exactly what I was thinking. Ive seen quite a few documentarys about that system. It's seek. They do photorecoginition with it. Spotting convicts in a crowd of people automagically. It has little use for prosecuting criminals or protecting(other than scare) citizens, since it's in the most public places as it is...where plenty of witnesses already are...and safety is relatively ok. So it mainly serves as badpeople-tracking. Might as well embed transmitters in everyone.
is exactly why I am minoring in computer science before entering law school. By the time my schooling is done, cyberlaw will be in full force and a legitimate speciality(a-la international law, business law, criminal law, etc, etc). Right now, however, since there are no actual established laws that make any sense(legal or otherwise)..there are few lawyers specializing in that niche....and even fewer cluefull judges. And lord knows the grassroots organizations striving to survive on the net could use em.
are you an idiot? Last time I checked, MP3's are not illegal. Nor are mp3 encoded copyrighted material. Oh wait, unless you can show me the courtcase that established that? Oh, you can't. Didn't think so.
And by the way Mr. Big Brains, cocaine can legally be sold in the US. It's called a pharmaceutical(sp) company. Cocaine is used in surgeries, although not as much as it used to. It's a CONTROLLED substance.
Get your goddamn analogies right people.
thats the fucking point. They don't promote copyright violations last time I checked, now do they? They don't actively participate in the transfer of the materials now do they?
The real analogy is this: I own a bar. Whores like to frequent it and find johns. If one is reported, I remove them. I need not actively police my bar, that's not my job...ethically maybe...legally no. They are merely my patrons. And as long as I reasonably do not promote illegal activities...I'm fine. Same goes for napster.
Jesus.
first off..you are 100% correct...people seem to be slow to understand the fact that the user is responsible. We don't sue gun manufacturers because murderers shoot people(wait, we pretty much did), we didn't sue makers of fertilizer for the OK bombing...etc, etc. Why? Because, the good uses outweigh the bad/illegal ones. We seem to forget that people should/are/hope to be innocent until proven guilty.
It makes me laugh to see these seemingly intelligent people try to pull arguements for napster out of their ass...when the most applicable one is also the easiest to understand.(Albeit the more difficult to use).
it was a joke you fucking moron
mod this up! that is the exact point. And just like cars, performance modifying can cause serious irreversible damage, especially for the unskilled. There are serious, very expensive, risks involved with overclocking. And as far as paying for more MHZ, thats not really the point. Anyone can buy a gigahertz cpu, but to take a lesser cpu, modify and spend $$ to get it to work even better is a show of skill and brings pride. And along the car analogy...anyone can go out and buy a corvette/ferrari/aston martin(fill with preferred sports car), but to take a stock production car and turn it into a performance car takes labor and skill.
Ya. I'll believe it when I see it. And though I do not recommend any storebought system for any of my friends or relatives anymore( I either custom build for them or have them order a custom from comp shopper, VA, etc.) I will pay attention to these.
Four of my relatives have (had) packard bells. I understand that the very nature of their specific market niche is not to the upgrade or tech inclined. They produce a settop box preloaded and not to be dittled with. Fine. Every other pc manufacturer does that. BUT.
Packard bell had always used shitty components, failed to specify components/configs/etc...or even worse, misspecified. Sure, they are not made to really be upgraded..but the least they could do is provide the correct info for the parts. Jumpers were opposite, settings were nonstandard...etc..etc. And though nearly *EVERY* techsupport person I had contact with was extremely friendly and tried their best....it seemed they knew very little of packard bell specifics.(And they admitted it too).
Dont get me wrong...I've seen experiences like this with other pc manufacturers(HP...hmmm another damn packard), but still..when you purchase a product..things shouldn't be so undocument and misrepresented so as to confuse you if you did want to delve further into it.
dunno
right now everyone disregards your post because of your stupidity.
To convict someone of a crime (at maximum penalty), you need to show two things: 1. The person did the crime, and 2. The person knew it was a crime. So knowing that what you are doing is bad is *very* relevant.
Actually, no. You are confusing knowledge with intent. To convict anyone criminally of a crime at ALL(not even just max penalty)(except strict liability crimes(speeding, negligence), both the act and INTENT must be proven. Granted, if you didn't have knowledge that it was a crime...it'd be hard to intend to commit it. But think of this...say I don't know buying a certain drug is illegal. I still intend to buy it...it was an accident, and therefore a criminal act was committed.
I'll relate this to this: I can post/publish/whatever a paper diagraming how to build a homemade bomb, including *where* to get the materials. It does not mean I necessarily intended for you to do it, and even then it'd be nearly impossible to find one criminally liable. And try proving intent. Just try. Someone said banner ads. DING. That's intent to get the person to the site, not LEAVE! if anything they'd post false mp3 links to get traffic. I doubt the post mp3 links to deliberately violate copyright laws.
what is napster exploiting again? Oh yes....the ability to transfer info between two parties. Wait. Sue the postal company. They deliver kiddie porn.
again...look at his tobacco pipe example.
think before you post
then secure the server with specific accounts...or block access to pages without local REFERs. If you have a server open...where requesting a page deep inside is doable...then guess what? it's doable. They need to take steps to protect their so-called content. Allowing access to billions and billions of people doesn't seem to be much protection.
Warfare has changed, that is all. America bombed Hiroshima. That's pretty damn violent. And there is still citizen vs citizen violence...just look at the murder and domestic rates. just because your average beaver isn't chasing each other with a sword at every bad word doesn't mean shit....they are suing, it's the new hip style warfare and hurts you alot more than any punch will. And oh, I love you little kiddies who say shit like "Come say it to my face and Ill knock your teeth out" or whatever. It's pretty damn hilarious...easy to say here, on the internet...hundreds of miles from those you 'threaten'. Those who are weak in their own confidence lash out like that...maybe you know you are ignorant and didn't make much sense? I say this to you: You can raise your fist to strike at me, but it takes mere milliseconds for me to draw, raise and shoot.
you are a fucking moron..Microsoft has more of a monopoly on personal operating software and desktop productivity software than yahoo! will ever have on search engines. Just think of how many search engines are out there, and how easy they are to get to and use. Compare this with your options with Microsoft. Yahoo is successful, one of the few successful webbased companies. They want to provide the best product to their customers(advertisers) by keeping more users..so they improve the backend of the engines. Get the hell over it. Think before you post. This is one of the dumbest posts I've read yet.
how is it the domain of others? I believe the guy registered it *before* macdonalds...
Oh you mean the name...'macdonald'...man...I know a good number of people with that last name, born long before the fastfood chain....interesting.