It'd have to be *more* damage resistant, at that price. With flash drives up to 64GBs at a reasonable price, and growing all the time, and no word on if these are reusable, requiring a specific drive, etc etc. It'd be a hell of an uphill battle. Probably worse than Blu-Ray's got.
Not particularly. Even encrypted, they would still know where it was sent from, and where it ended up. However, I'm not particularly against working on improving encryption protocols and spreading their use now, as hedge against the time when infrastructure's in place to actually store the content currently only being monitored.
Did you read TFS even? They don't care about content. They just care about from, to, and how long. And a few other things. Encryption wouldn't solve any of that. The only thing that would would be using proxies for on the Internet, and then VoIP for calling. Does Skype on the iPod Touch work, with a proxy? Hmm....
Yeah. Because the British Government totally would have just had that money laying around in their back pockets, and in no way would have had to get the funds by raising taxes.
Whether it works or not has never, and probably will never, been the issue. The only important thing is they're able to say "It isn't our fault, we are trying, and we will keep trying. Those people who are saying what we're doing is wrong only want the terrorists to win." Remember, to their minds, it isn't a debate. There is no weighing of pros and cons. The politicians want to keep their jobs, so they need to be seen to be doing something, even if that something fails. Because if a project fails, unless there is _massive_ fallout, beyond wasted cash, it's just abandoned, but can still be pointed to as an example of working on the problem.
In fact, to be a pessimist, it's probably better for a solution to fail than to succeed. If you fail, you can keep working on the same problem. If you actually manage to fix the problem, people are going to expect you to work on a new problem, and have the old one stay fixed, for at least a while.
You almost have a point, except that the boss in this case has already rejected the idea, thus by your own admission, you'd shrug your shoulders and do it, in which case, we'd never hear about it. Ideally, this really should have been submitted sans context. Just a simple "Which is better for a commercial network, DIY cable or purchased?"
You're helping a bunch of people partake of the works of others without their consent.
Different laws in different places, sir. It's not illegal to share music in Canada due to the media levy. So technically, as long as I stay to the audio portions of TPB, I'm completely within the law of my country, complete with consent. TPB is not responsible for the laws of the land of its users, only of where it's based. Is it wrong that they want to be charged, tried, and sentenced based purely on that law, and not on the agenda of parties purported to be neutral?
Think you mean Interpol, there, buddy. American Feds aren't going to have much jurisdiction. I think most people would settle for an official rebuke of the judge for not recusing on the appearance of impropriety.
Google knows TPB content violates US copyright law, and people in the US accessing it are likely breaking said law. But they're not blocking it from showing up on their search engine. They're freely allowing people to find it. Better charge them next, under that philosophy.
If there were a sound legal theory behind their points
Well, since I doubt a single person here followed every day of TPB trial and is fully versed in Swedish law, of course we can't present a sound legal theory. All we can do is point to the person who WAS there every day, and who is supposed to be versed in the law, and say "We don't believe him capable of impartiality in this matter. We would like this redone, and with someone who will weigh everything equally, and apply the law as it should be."
I've seen people use the metaphor of a judge being in favour of harsher murder penalties in a capital trial, but that's faulty. There's precedent for the application of the death penalty in murder trials. A more accurate analogy would be the judge handing down a death penalty for grand theft auto. There's a crime committed, but the law was probably applied improperly to get that ruling. In this case, as people have pointed out, under Swedish laws, accessories cannot receive harsher penalties than the primary commissioner of a crime. However, there was no primary listed, charged, or sentenced as part of TPB trial, thus immediately making the sentencing suspect.
Also, remember, the mere *appearance* of impropriety is supposed to make a judge excuse himself from judging a case. Obviously, since it's a story in Sweden, there's the appearance, making him ethically suspect. If a separate judge finds the same in a retrial, I'll accept the verdict. But currently, this verdict doesn't even pass the laugh test of legitimacy.
Um, actually, from personal experience, there have been numerous times I've downloaded a movie or CD, enjoyed it, then gone out to purchase it. Most common with movies, but if Amazon allowed individual track purchases in my country, I'd do that a lot more as well.
Hell, I don't have cable, so I'll download a TV show I like, then pick up the season compilation when it comes out, for the bonus features, if nothing else. Your argument fails on the basic premise of trying to predict behaviour over too large a sample with not enough evidence to support it.
Seriously though, if the guy is unwilling to admit his own potential bias, you can be damned sure he DID force anyone with potential bias to recuse themselves. After all, it's easier to hide if you're by yourself.
an obscenely bloated, broken, overpriced software package that has caused havoc and pain across the continent.
Hey! My company uses Peoplesoft software! I'm... I'm...
Yeah, you're right. God forbid anything goes off the rails here. The only way to fix it is pretend nothing went wrong, and then fake the next thing to compensate.
I've seen this basic format of joke several times on the site since I joined very recently. Is there some original time it was used that it's in reference to, or is it just one of those things that keeps cropping up?
Wait, I am missing something. In the US doesn't the prosecution have to have a defendent before they can start preceedings?
It's the "ex parte" portion of the proceedings that's important to that. It allows them to proceed against people not originally named, and not present, etc. It's basically a scum move on their part.
No, I'm not being "overly simplistic". You did not state your point clearly enough because you focused on business. Your point apparently is that the First Amendment does not protect the right to send unsolicited email.
I'm fairly certain most of us here were clever enough to make the extrapolation without it being pointed out in such a ham-handed manner. I know I knew that anything a corporation isn't allowed to do, a regular person usually isn't. There are of course rules governing things which they are allowed to do that an individual would find impossible, or nearly impossible, but by and large, if I can't do it, they can't. If they can't, I cannot.
For anyone considering pulling the ol' "Here's a counter-example card", note my use of "usually," and "by and large", thus already allowing for those cases, so no, you haven't foiled me.
Businesses can never, and never have, spoken. Speech comes from a human. All commercial speech has originated from a human. The distinction between private and commercial speech is a meaningless, nebulous, distinction.
Except for the existence of the "corporate veil" which prevents individuals from being sued for certain actions carried out by a business. That's a fairly meaningful distinction. That's why you get companies regularly "going out of business," then reopen in exactly the same place, with the same owners, just a new name. They shed all liability for previous practises. That would include things "spoken" in the corporate name, such as warranties, advertising, and contracts.
It seems rather irresponsible to simply assume "The Chinese" are interested in the NYPD at all. It could just be a few random people, some of which are Chinese. Why assume the government has any knowledge at all? Do people automatically assume a US-based hacker ring has the blessings of the US government? It's probably easier to operate in China currently. With massive population densities in some areas, you can fade in to the background, and with the areas where there's no one, a generator and satcom connection make it a real PITA to find you.
Well, it says "more" common, thus allowing for the possibilty of it being common, currently. But for one, there's the IWF's blacklist, ISPs shaping and throttling traffic is filtering by a slightly broader definition, schools block whatever content they feel like, etc etc.
Agree or disagree with any of the preceeding examples, they're all examples of filtering.
Wow. Thanks for telling me how I feel. My eyes are opened, and the sun shines in....Wait. No. You're wrong. I don't give a crap if they're armed or not. You'll note I said "In their minds." That means I was explaining THEIR reluctance to use guns. Personally, I'd slap a few rockets and chain guns on the boats, and have every crew member need to qualify on a shooting range to police standards.
Slashdot Mirror
It'd have to be *more* damage resistant, at that price. With flash drives up to 64GBs at a reasonable price, and growing all the time, and no word on if these are reusable, requiring a specific drive, etc etc. It'd be a hell of an uphill battle. Probably worse than Blu-Ray's got.
Not particularly. Even encrypted, they would still know where it was sent from, and where it ended up. However, I'm not particularly against working on improving encryption protocols and spreading their use now, as hedge against the time when infrastructure's in place to actually store the content currently only being monitored.
Did you read TFS even? They don't care about content. They just care about from, to, and how long. And a few other things. Encryption wouldn't solve any of that. The only thing that would would be using proxies for on the Internet, and then VoIP for calling. Does Skype on the iPod Touch work, with a proxy? Hmm....
Yeah. Because the British Government totally would have just had that money laying around in their back pockets, and in no way would have had to get the funds by raising taxes.
Oh wait.
Whether it works or not has never, and probably will never, been the issue. The only important thing is they're able to say "It isn't our fault, we are trying, and we will keep trying. Those people who are saying what we're doing is wrong only want the terrorists to win." Remember, to their minds, it isn't a debate. There is no weighing of pros and cons. The politicians want to keep their jobs, so they need to be seen to be doing something, even if that something fails. Because if a project fails, unless there is _massive_ fallout, beyond wasted cash, it's just abandoned, but can still be pointed to as an example of working on the problem.
In fact, to be a pessimist, it's probably better for a solution to fail than to succeed. If you fail, you can keep working on the same problem. If you actually manage to fix the problem, people are going to expect you to work on a new problem, and have the old one stay fixed, for at least a while.
I think you mean "Really good one" sir.
You almost have a point, except that the boss in this case has already rejected the idea, thus by your own admission, you'd shrug your shoulders and do it, in which case, we'd never hear about it. Ideally, this really should have been submitted sans context. Just a simple "Which is better for a commercial network, DIY cable or purchased?"
You're helping a bunch of people partake of the works of others without their consent.
Different laws in different places, sir. It's not illegal to share music in Canada due to the media levy. So technically, as long as I stay to the audio portions of TPB, I'm completely within the law of my country, complete with consent. TPB is not responsible for the laws of the land of its users, only of where it's based. Is it wrong that they want to be charged, tried, and sentenced based purely on that law, and not on the agenda of parties purported to be neutral?
Think you mean Interpol, there, buddy. American Feds aren't going to have much jurisdiction. I think most people would settle for an official rebuke of the judge for not recusing on the appearance of impropriety.
Better than being borked.
Google knows TPB content violates US copyright law, and people in the US accessing it are likely breaking said law. But they're not blocking it from showing up on their search engine. They're freely allowing people to find it. Better charge them next, under that philosophy.
If there were a sound legal theory behind their points
Well, since I doubt a single person here followed every day of TPB trial and is fully versed in Swedish law, of course we can't present a sound legal theory. All we can do is point to the person who WAS there every day, and who is supposed to be versed in the law, and say "We don't believe him capable of impartiality in this matter. We would like this redone, and with someone who will weigh everything equally, and apply the law as it should be."
I've seen people use the metaphor of a judge being in favour of harsher murder penalties in a capital trial, but that's faulty. There's precedent for the application of the death penalty in murder trials. A more accurate analogy would be the judge handing down a death penalty for grand theft auto. There's a crime committed, but the law was probably applied improperly to get that ruling. In this case, as people have pointed out, under Swedish laws, accessories cannot receive harsher penalties than the primary commissioner of a crime. However, there was no primary listed, charged, or sentenced as part of TPB trial, thus immediately making the sentencing suspect.
Also, remember, the mere *appearance* of impropriety is supposed to make a judge excuse himself from judging a case. Obviously, since it's a story in Sweden, there's the appearance, making him ethically suspect. If a separate judge finds the same in a retrial, I'll accept the verdict. But currently, this verdict doesn't even pass the laugh test of legitimacy.
Um, actually, from personal experience, there have been numerous times I've downloaded a movie or CD, enjoyed it, then gone out to purchase it. Most common with movies, but if Amazon allowed individual track purchases in my country, I'd do that a lot more as well.
Hell, I don't have cable, so I'll download a TV show I like, then pick up the season compilation when it comes out, for the bonus features, if nothing else. Your argument fails on the basic premise of trying to predict behaviour over too large a sample with not enough evidence to support it.
Wishful thinking?
Seriously though, if the guy is unwilling to admit his own potential bias, you can be damned sure he DID force anyone with potential bias to recuse themselves. After all, it's easier to hide if you're by yourself.
an obscenely bloated, broken, overpriced software package that has caused havoc and pain across the continent.
Hey! My company uses Peoplesoft software! I'm... I'm...
Yeah, you're right. God forbid anything goes off the rails here. The only way to fix it is pretend nothing went wrong, and then fake the next thing to compensate.
Ah, Calvin and Hobbes reference. If I could ever find my collections of that, I'd probably have recognized it.
I'm still at 1.5Mb you insensitive clod!
-Rick
I've seen this basic format of joke several times on the site since I joined very recently. Is there some original time it was used that it's in reference to, or is it just one of those things that keeps cropping up?
Wait, I am missing something. In the US doesn't the prosecution have to have a defendent before they can start preceedings?
It's the "ex parte" portion of the proceedings that's important to that. It allows them to proceed against people not originally named, and not present, etc. It's basically a scum move on their part.
No, I'm not being "overly simplistic". You did not state your point clearly enough because you focused on business. Your point apparently is that the First Amendment does not protect the right to send unsolicited email.
I'm fairly certain most of us here were clever enough to make the extrapolation without it being pointed out in such a ham-handed manner. I know I knew that anything a corporation isn't allowed to do, a regular person usually isn't. There are of course rules governing things which they are allowed to do that an individual would find impossible, or nearly impossible, but by and large, if I can't do it, they can't. If they can't, I cannot.
For anyone considering pulling the ol' "Here's a counter-example card", note my use of "usually," and "by and large", thus already allowing for those cases, so no, you haven't foiled me.
Businesses can never, and never have, spoken. Speech comes from a human. All commercial speech has originated from a human. The distinction between private and commercial speech is a meaningless, nebulous, distinction.
Except for the existence of the "corporate veil" which prevents individuals from being sued for certain actions carried out by a business. That's a fairly meaningful distinction. That's why you get companies regularly "going out of business," then reopen in exactly the same place, with the same owners, just a new name. They shed all liability for previous practises. That would include things "spoken" in the corporate name, such as warranties, advertising, and contracts.
Shoot first, shoot everyone?
It seems rather irresponsible to simply assume "The Chinese" are interested in the NYPD at all. It could just be a few random people, some of which are Chinese. Why assume the government has any knowledge at all? Do people automatically assume a US-based hacker ring has the blessings of the US government? It's probably easier to operate in China currently. With massive population densities in some areas, you can fade in to the background, and with the areas where there's no one, a generator and satcom connection make it a real PITA to find you.
Well, it says "more" common, thus allowing for the possibilty of it being common, currently. But for one, there's the IWF's blacklist, ISPs shaping and throttling traffic is filtering by a slightly broader definition, schools block whatever content they feel like, etc etc.
Agree or disagree with any of the preceeding examples, they're all examples of filtering.
Wow. Thanks for telling me how I feel. My eyes are opened, and the sun shines in. ...Wait. No. You're wrong. I don't give a crap if they're armed or not. You'll note I said "In their minds." That means I was explaining THEIR reluctance to use guns. Personally, I'd slap a few rockets and chain guns on the boats, and have every crew member need to qualify on a shooting range to police standards.
Actually, it'd scale quite well, if the navy managed to start picking off pirates in decent numbers.