>>>don't share files you have no legal right to share.
I'll stop when the copyrights have an expiration date, such that works fall into the public domain. Until that happens the copyright holders are in direct violation of the American People's Authority, which supersedes all other laws, and also the constitutional requirement of a LIMITED copyright.
I suspect the moment the U.S. goes to war, I mean a REAL war, and loses access to loans from other countries like europe, the government will collapse under its own weight and no longer be able to buy weapons or pay soldiers to continue the fight. As happened to Rome in the later half of the 400s.
Because I don't WANT some fbi agent somewhere loading-up Freenet, looking at his screen, and saying, "Hmmmm C64love is sharing a copy of Commonsense and other revolutionary-era materials." I don't like being spied on. That's the whole reason why I would use a censorship-resistant, anonymous system.
Or you could just have the 50 State governors meet together, propose the amendment, and then submit it to their state legislatures for ratification. You can bypass the Congress completely.
>>>And what about strange things that people do while on drugs that quite possibly endanger others?
We already have laws to imprison those persons. Just because marijuana is decriminalized, doesn't mean it's okay to DUI or physically assault your neighbors. In fact if marijuana ever is decriminalized (like in California) it will be strictly regulated as a prescription drug, along with other dangerous drugs like vicodin, prozac, and morphine.
>>>What if I don't want health insurance? Why can't that be my business, and not yours?
Precisely. If I don't want health insurance, and prefer to die young and pretty, that's MY business not yours.
Those config files get erased over time. For example there's no remaining record that I downloaded Star Wars Episode 2 five years ago using Azureus, since both the movie and *.torrent were deleted..... but maybe this new law will require Azureus to keep that information indefinitely. "Ahhh I see this guy downloaded SW2 on 11/05/2004. Got him."
the term "peer-to-peer file sharing program" means[...] to designate files available for transmission to another computer to transmit files directly to another computer; and to request the transmission of files from another computer.
Well, that's basically "using the internet"
WOW that was really informative. Thanks. Now everybody raise their hands if they still think government is good and trustworthy? (looks around). Yeah me neither. This act sounds like it will seriously hamper my use of my computer.
What's wrong with decriminalizing marijuana? It's my body and if I want to kill myself using weed (or alcohol or tobacco or overeating), that MY business, not yours.
Yes I'm sure the European Union will be most-happy when the U.S. sends an ICBM to destroy (for example) the Piratbyran office in Sweden. We may discover that the EU has a strength never revealed as they come cruising across the Atlantic, defeat D.C., and add 50 new colonies to their organization.
Ahhh smack! Yes I think you've finally discovered the hidden agenda behind this bill. The U.S. government has systematically been stripping-away the right of anonymity, and Freenet's entire purpose is to keep files anonymous and out-of-government's prying eyes. This bill effectively kills the project by making Freenet illegal.
And open a new one where the FBI (or RIAA investigators) can simply "ask" the program, "What files were shared?", get a convenient generated list, and find all the evidence they need to make your day in court miserable.
So is spyware is already "banned" by privacy laws, why do we need this separate P2P legislation? Sorry I can't help being skeptical. The Patriot Act included things nobody knew about, and discovered later after passage, and I'm wondering if this P2P bill has similar "gotchas" hidden inside of it. Like:
- "We caught you P2Ping the latest Linux distro. Per U.S. law we are required to suspend your account until you agree not to use P2P." - MSN
TV productions are being produced in 1920x1080, so why upgrade to a new 4096x2304 standard if there's no content at that level? I'll stick with Bluray.
And as for downloading HD videos instead of buying HD Blurays, with ~100 gig caps imposed by internet providers, that's not really an option.
Yeah but the interest on that debt exceeds the devaluation rate of the dollar, so the overall wealth you owe to somebody else is still climbing higher-and-higher.
Here's a good place to start:
AMENDMENT __: "The enumerated rights and privileges apply only to individuals."
QED no more free speech, privacy, or other rights would apply to corporations. The individuals inside the corporation would still have rights, but not the corporation itself, which make it easier to regulate it, audit it, and restrain its power.
I think it's funny how people grab the "commerce clause" and say it gives Congress the power to do anything it wants. If this what the authors originally intended? No.
To quote the Author of the Constitution James Madison - "For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity." (Federalist 41) He further clarifies: "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." (James Madison, Letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792)
Any who interpret the commerce clause to allow $1500 fines for individuals or $4000 fines for families, who do not buy health insurance, gives Congress the virtually unlimited power over everything.
Wow... you used one strawman argument after another. I don't think we should go back to the 1776 government (which was the Articles of Confederation) or even the 1800 government (the Constitution plus 10 amendments). I never even suggested that idea.
What I said, which you can reread for yourself, is that the United States should operate more like the European Union. The central government has a limited list of powers, and all the rest are reserved to the member states. If the EU proposed to provide central healthcare, it wouldn't be able to just pass legislation - it would have to propose a treaty, have the treaty debated by the 30 member states, and then passed.
In the EU power comes from the states upward, and that's how the U.S. should operate too. Don't just pass healthcare - make it an amendment to the Constitution as ratified by the states. Follow the process laid-out in the supreme law.
The difference is that if a person says, "You can trust me to use my crayons responsibly," then turns-out to be a liar and scribbles on his desk... all he's done is damage the desk.
But if that same person says, "I can drive and cellphone at the same time," and it turns-out to be incapable of that task, and kills a person... well now you've killed a person.
BTW:
I saw a woman on tv crying because her 5-year-old daughter was run-over by a texter. The driver didn't even know what had happened, but stopped because she heard a "thump" and thought she'd run-over a pothole. The child had extreme brain damage and eventually died. How do you say "I'm sorry" for that? You can't.
Actually it's a little of both: - People who voted for Obama are disappointed because the reforms are happening too slowly. - People who did not vote Obama are disappointed because they see the national debt rising from 10 to 20 trillion by 2016, and they think the reforms are moving too fast.
Aside-
I don't have a problem with Congressionally-provided healthcare, but it should follow the proper process. First a proposed amendment to give Congress the power, than debate in the 50 state legislatures, than approval to add it to the Constitution. The process should mirror the same or similar process that would be used over in the European Union - approval for Centrally-provided healthcare comes from the States upward, not from the central government downward.
During the Bush years Madam Pelosi encouraged the anti-war protesters by saying, "It's good. It's free speech." This year Madam Pelosi said about the anti-governmentcare protesters, "They are UNamerican and should be silenced."
Hmmm. She was correct the first time; incorrect the second. What's changed is that when people support Pelosi's view (antiwar) than it's free speech, but when people are against Pelosi's view (progovernmentcare) than it's unamerican.
>>>It is not your right to [complain], it is your obligation to [complain].
- corrected by the United States Council against Hate Speech .
>>>It is not your right to complain, it is your [retractable privilege] to complain.
- corrected by the Federal Truthfulness in Writing Division .
>>>It is not your right to [provide positive reinforcement], it is your retractable privilege to [provide positive reinforcement].
- corrected by the Federal Bureau of Politically-correct Speech .
>>>It is not an [individual right] to provide positive reinforcement, it is a retractable [collective societal privilege] to provide positive reinforcement.
- corrected by the Constitution Commission of the Supreme Court .
>>>....
- Free speech privilege revoked due to numerous complaints from your fellow citizens. The desires of the community outweigh your rights as the individual. We live in a civilized society.
Yes true, but we also wrote a Constitution with a limited list of powers, and that Constitution is supposed to act as a shackle to restrain the government, but the government functionaries like to pretend that document doesn't exist. That alone is reason enough to be angry.
Actually I think it's kinda sad, because my country is heading directly towards a Zimbabwe paradox. "I have a million dollars; I'm rich!" "You mean you *were* rich. Today a million dollars only buys a small car." "Oh."
Slashdot Mirror
>>>don't share files you have no legal right to share.
I'll stop when the copyrights have an expiration date, such that works fall into the public domain. Until that happens the copyright holders are in direct violation of the American People's Authority, which supersedes all other laws, and also the constitutional requirement of a LIMITED copyright.
I suspect the moment the U.S. goes to war, I mean a REAL war, and loses access to loans from other countries like europe, the government will collapse under its own weight and no longer be able to buy weapons or pay soldiers to continue the fight. As happened to Rome in the later half of the 400s.
>>>rec.arts.tv, alt.tv.stargate-sg1, alt.tv.stargate-atlantis, , rec.arts.sf.tv
Because I don't WANT some fbi agent somewhere loading-up Freenet, looking at his screen, and saying, "Hmmmm C64love is sharing a copy of Commonsense and other revolutionary-era materials." I don't like being spied on. That's the whole reason why I would use a censorship-resistant, anonymous system.
Or you could just have the 50 State governors meet together, propose the amendment, and then submit it to their state legislatures for ratification. You can bypass the Congress completely.
>>>And what about strange things that people do while on drugs that quite possibly endanger others?
We already have laws to imprison those persons. Just because marijuana is decriminalized, doesn't mean it's okay to DUI or physically assault your neighbors. In fact if marijuana ever is decriminalized (like in California) it will be strictly regulated as a prescription drug, along with other dangerous drugs like vicodin, prozac, and morphine.
>>>What if I don't want health insurance? Why can't that be my business, and not yours?
Precisely. If I don't want health insurance, and prefer to die young and pretty, that's MY business not yours.
Those config files get erased over time. For example there's no remaining record that I downloaded Star Wars Episode 2 five years ago using Azureus, since both the movie and *.torrent were deleted..... but maybe this new law will require Azureus to keep that information indefinitely. "Ahhh I see this guy downloaded SW2 on 11/05/2004. Got him."
Yeah but it will also stop us from using FreeNet and other censorship-resistant, anonymous sharing networks. Read more here:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_P2P (generalized description)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(anonymous_data_store)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNUnet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I2P
Maybe this act should be called U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. A.C.T. - An addendum to stop domestic terrorists* via outlawing anonymous internet usage.
*
* somebody who has a copy of the Constitution or a colonial flag hanging in his garage - see http://www.pa-aware.org/who-are-terrorists/domestic-5.asp
the term "peer-to-peer file sharing program" means[...]
to designate files available for transmission to another computer
to transmit files directly to another computer; and
to request the transmission of files from another computer.
Well, that's basically "using the internet"
WOW that was really informative. Thanks. Now everybody raise their hands if they still think government is good and trustworthy? (looks around). Yeah me neither. This act sounds like it will seriously hamper my use of my computer.
What's wrong with decriminalizing marijuana? It's my body and if I want to kill myself using weed (or alcohol or tobacco or overeating), that MY business, not yours.
>>>Track down their IPs. We still have ICBMs.
Yes I'm sure the European Union will be most-happy when the U.S. sends an ICBM to destroy (for example) the Piratbyran office in Sweden. We may discover that the EU has a strength never revealed as they come cruising across the Atlantic, defeat D.C., and add 50 new colonies to their organization.
>>>Makes services like Freenet illegal.
Ahhh smack! Yes I think you've finally discovered the hidden agenda behind this bill. The U.S. government has systematically been stripping-away the right of anonymity, and Freenet's entire purpose is to keep files anonymous and out-of-government's prying eyes. This bill effectively kills the project by making Freenet illegal.
And open a new one where the FBI (or RIAA investigators) can simply "ask" the program, "What files were shared?", get a convenient generated list, and find all the evidence they need to make your day in court miserable.
So is spyware is already "banned" by privacy laws, why do we need this separate P2P legislation? Sorry I can't help being skeptical. The Patriot Act included things nobody knew about, and discovered later after passage, and I'm wondering if this P2P bill has similar "gotchas" hidden inside of it. Like:
- "We caught you P2Ping the latest Linux distro. Per U.S. law we are required to suspend your account until you agree not to use P2P." - MSN
TV productions are being produced in 1920x1080, so why upgrade to a new 4096x2304 standard if there's no content at that level? I'll stick with Bluray.
And as for downloading HD videos instead of buying HD Blurays, with ~100 gig caps imposed by internet providers, that's not really an option.
Yeah but the interest on that debt exceeds the devaluation rate of the dollar, so the overall wealth you owe to somebody else is still climbing higher-and-higher.
>>>terrorizing overpaid CEOs and executive boards with the guillotine.
Shooting them in the head would be easier. I propose we start with the CEO of Comcast's Fraud and Abuse Department. Not convinced? Read more here: http://comcastissue.blogspot.com/search/label/Chat%20with%20Abuse%20Department and keep reading
Here's a good place to start: AMENDMENT __: "The enumerated rights and privileges apply only to individuals." QED no more free speech, privacy, or other rights would apply to corporations. The individuals inside the corporation would still have rights, but not the corporation itself, which make it easier to regulate it, audit it, and restrain its power.
I think it's funny how people grab the "commerce clause" and say it gives Congress the power to do anything it wants. If this what the authors originally intended? No.
To quote the Author of the Constitution James Madison - "For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity." (Federalist 41) He further clarifies: "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." (James Madison, Letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792)
Any who interpret the commerce clause to allow $1500 fines for individuals or $4000 fines for families, who do not buy health insurance, gives Congress the virtually unlimited power over everything.
Wow... you used one strawman argument after another. I don't think we should go back to the 1776 government (which was the Articles of Confederation) or even the 1800 government (the Constitution plus 10 amendments). I never even suggested that idea.
What I said, which you can reread for yourself, is that the United States should operate more like the European Union. The central government has a limited list of powers, and all the rest are reserved to the member states. If the EU proposed to provide central healthcare, it wouldn't be able to just pass legislation - it would have to propose a treaty, have the treaty debated by the 30 member states, and then passed.
In the EU power comes from the states upward, and that's how the U.S. should operate too. Don't just pass healthcare - make it an amendment to the Constitution as ratified by the states. Follow the process laid-out in the supreme law.
The difference is that if a person says, "You can trust me to use my crayons responsibly," then turns-out to be a liar and scribbles on his desk... all he's done is damage the desk.
But if that same person says, "I can drive and cellphone at the same time," and it turns-out to be incapable of that task, and kills a person... well now you've killed a person.
BTW:
I saw a woman on tv crying because her 5-year-old daughter was run-over by a texter. The driver didn't even know what had happened, but stopped because she heard a "thump" and thought she'd run-over a pothole. The child had extreme brain damage and eventually died. How do you say "I'm sorry" for that? You can't.
Actually it's a little of both:
- People who voted for Obama are disappointed because the reforms are happening too slowly.
- People who did not vote Obama are disappointed because they see the national debt rising from 10 to 20 trillion by 2016, and they think the reforms are moving too fast.
Aside-
I don't have a problem with Congressionally-provided healthcare, but it should follow the proper process. First a proposed amendment to give Congress the power, than debate in the 50 state legislatures, than approval to add it to the Constitution. The process should mirror the same or similar process that would be used over in the European Union - approval for Centrally-provided healthcare comes from the States upward, not from the central government downward.
During the Bush years Madam Pelosi encouraged the anti-war protesters by saying, "It's good. It's free speech." This year Madam Pelosi said about the anti-governmentcare protesters, "They are UNamerican and should be silenced."
Hmmm. She was correct the first time; incorrect the second. What's changed is that when people support Pelosi's view (antiwar) than it's free speech, but when people are against Pelosi's view (progovernmentcare) than it's unamerican.
Politician!
>>>It is not your right to [complain], it is your obligation to [complain].
- corrected by the United States Council against Hate Speech
.
>>>It is not your right to complain, it is your [retractable privilege] to complain.
- corrected by the Federal Truthfulness in Writing Division
.
>>>It is not your right to [provide positive reinforcement], it is your retractable privilege to [provide positive reinforcement].
- corrected by the Federal Bureau of Politically-correct Speech
.
>>>It is not an [individual right] to provide positive reinforcement, it is a retractable [collective societal privilege] to provide positive reinforcement.
- corrected by the Constitution Commission of the Supreme Court
.
>>>....
- Free speech privilege revoked due to numerous complaints from your fellow citizens. The desires of the community outweigh your rights as the individual. We live in a civilized society.
>>>Your governement is yours, you elected it.
Yes true, but we also wrote a Constitution with a limited list of powers, and that Constitution is supposed to act as a shackle to restrain the government, but the government functionaries like to pretend that document doesn't exist. That alone is reason enough to be angry.
Actually I think it's kinda sad, because my country is heading directly towards a Zimbabwe paradox. "I have a million dollars; I'm rich!" "You mean you *were* rich. Today a million dollars only buys a small car." "Oh."