It is unlikely. But what's wrong with it? Last I heard, talking to people was legal... This encroaches on your freedom how exactly? They find that you arn't a domestic right wing terrorist and go home. Big deal. Unless of course you are a domenstic right wing terrorist, and then, well, You Have Something To Hide:).
Oh, I read 'must' as 'might' the first time. Your point is now silly and retarded, not just unlikely. As long as its an after-the-fact check, ie, I can buy it, but, they might investigate why afterwards, that's fine. Just don't get between me and my Ammonium Nitrate, man!!
Half and half. Your tree analogy doesn't make any sense here, because your liberties are not being encroahced upon, unless you consider 'the right to keep all information about myself secret' one of your fundamental freedoms. This is not the government wanting to plant a tracking chip under my skin so they can keep tabs on me. As I read the article, it's essentially purchasing a warehouse of publicly available/purchasable information from a company that provides it as a service, instead of setting up the facilities to do it themselves.
I guess it's my complete faith in that wonderful word government, but, why would you care unless you have something to hide? Would you rather they were doing it in secret? (Well, OK, they are anyways) Information from credit bureaus, marketers and regulatory agencies. Yep, I can see how the government has no business using that information! If you really want to eliminate any and all government intrusion into your life, there are two simple options. The first one is to kill yourself (Then, even if they intrude, you won't care, you'll be dead!) or, you can move to some desolate wasteland and live off your own wits. I just can't understand this innate paranoia you people seem to associate with the government collecting information. Do *I* like it? I really wouldn't care, as long as they stayt within the bounds of the law, at least for the stuff they do in the open
For you see, what they do out of the open is very very bad. So bad, that if I were to tell you, they'd kill me. Hey, maybe I should submit a story on that... 'Government will kill me if I talk', from the 'just-because-youre-paranoid-dont-mean-theyre-not- after-you dept'! Sure, yeah. I'll get working on writing that. This turned out being a little longer than I'd though. Oh well. Settle down, this won't harm you in the least. And if it does, you probably had it coming.
Unless you're a retard, you've made the conclusion that it's impossible for censorware to keep all of the little demons out. Pornography, and other such 'evil' things will continue to get through due to sheer volume. And of course, in turn, some valid educational material will be blocked. But really, what it's about is this.
Little Johnny walks into his school library, sits down and goes to some random pornographic site that somehow isn't being filtered out. Little Johnny's parents find out and are outraged. They go to the school asking how such a travesty could happen. The school blames the filtering software instead of inadequate supervision. It's all about shifting the blame that might happen away from the schools, and onto some large software multinational. But anyways, as for selling information to advertisers, ask yourself why you care. Do you refuse to have a debit card or somesuch because you're suuuure that some evil bad man is tracking your every purchase with it? Maybe they are. Even if they are, why do you care? Only someone that believes they matter in the Grand Scheme of Things would care, and, to be blunt, I'm not one of them, and chances are you arn't either. If you are somehow, especially while still in school, that's nifty...
But, to get back to my original point, learn to live with it. It's there for a reason. It's circumventable. If you can't, you probably don't deserve to:).
Actually, I'm currently involved in a project to create the most decadent toilet ever.. It uses jsut over 20 Gallons of water per flush, and in the process kills an african elephant, a baby seal and several tigers. We plan on marketing them to people with a wanton disregard for the environment. If you would like more information, please post a message below... Estimated cost of this toilet is just under $120million, and that's with a 10 year supply of wildlife to fuel it. Did I mention it also has a diesel generator incase the power goes off?
And your analogy fails to draw a correct parallel. There IS something intrinsically dangerous about an unsafe automobile, there is NOT with an insecure computer.
Having an insecure machine is not going to cause problems as that is its nature. It will sit doing nothing wrong until someone makes a conscious effort to exploit it. An unsanfe vehicle, however, will cause problems without someone exploiting it for the purpose of causing problems.
It's kinda like how a knife is an OK thing, except when someone breaks into your home and cuts up your children with it. You certainly wouldn't liken 'someone coming into your hose and stabbing you with a knife' with 'driving an unsafe car,', would you? To sum up, an insecure machine poses no intrinsic threat to the world unless someone decides to exploit it, just the same as my house poses no intrinsic threat if I leave the door open, but then if someone runs in and start shooting from my second floor window because it has a nice view of the park, then would you be so quick to blame me? Let the attacker take responsibility for his actions, please.
Linux being the advanced, easy to use piece of software that it is, I can't think of a better use for it. And, what's more, you'll introduce these kids to a concept they'll be able to carry with them allt hroughout their lives, 'RTFM'. Why, it may even motivate some of the little tykes to read. I whole-heartedly recommend Slackware as the distribution you should use because of the name. That and 'packages' are for sissies. apt-get is just another way of saying 'I don't like doing anything, please put me on the dolly and roll me down to McDonald's. But I digress.
as for software, there's tons of stuff you can give the kiddies to play with. Like gcc. And emacs.
'You won't mind us poking around... unless of course you have something to hide'. Now, I think that's perfectly fair. Search his locker for fun. NFS mount his harddisk and see if he's storing child/goat pornography. Find out what he's really doing when he's 'working late'. No wonder that last Latte tasted funny. But really, What kind of privacy to employees need? Of course, routine strip searches might not work in your favour, ask, well, people don't like strip searches. Except those that do, so you could try to amass a staff of perverts.
But I digress. I should be pontificating on that wonderous subject of privacy in the office. Well, do your employees have something to hide? Has John been asking about 'when the privacy policy will be in'?. If so, maybe you should do a cavity search before Section II.445 says 'NO cavity searches without a warrant'. I watch Law & Order you know. It's sickening what they get away with, all beause they 'need a warrant', or they 'beat out the confession', or they 'didn't adhere to proper corpse handling procedures.'. Just sick.
And you know where a fine programme such as Law & Order gets its ideas, right? Real life. So let's have an upstanding privacy policy. In fact the employees should assume they're being monitored anyways. After all, anything they keep private could be degrading the company service. Do you really want to sacrifice $$$$$ for 'employee privacy' and funny tasting Lattes? I certainly wouldn't. But that's me, I'd put profits befopre my employees, after all, they're a dime a dozen, especially if I'm not running a business that requires thought, such as a sweat shop.
You know, I don't want to go off on a tagent here, but, have you considered modelling your workplace after a sweatshop? I'm sure there are many fine corporations that can attest to their power and efficiency... And no icky crap about 'employee privacy' to worry about...
Or you could just employee trained monkeys, rendering the whole thing moot...
Too bad? So, with whom should Napster be concerned? It's one thing for a government to censor me, that's wrong, it's another for a corporation to say it doesn't want to be associated with nazis, something I'd understand completely. If it offends you, however, that Napster has decided something like this, perhaps you can go somewhere that is more accepting of pure, hatred, there's nothing that precludes that!
ybdeActually, the idea was to amuse myself, writing it did, and so did reading his response. But, amusement aside, his point really only becomes valid if we have wishy-washy rules about 'too much' and 'not enough'. Hows about, I eat what I can afford and want, being most happy if they're mutually accomadating, and you do the same. Do I 'need' a huge steak? No. I'm sure I could survive on a nourishing paste made solely from vegetables. But would I be as happy? I really don't think so. If I can and want to eat anything, it's not for you to say that's wrong. You can say 'Boy, I'd never do that because I'm a morally upright mofo', but don't you dare say I'm not morally grounded, because I am!
And in future, please attempt to be more funny when replying to stuff like the above. I laughed at the other reply to my response. Now it was funny.
Oh, and one more thingy.
It's not that I don't see anything beyond my own existance, it's all about my pleasure vs. someone else's survival. Quite frankly, that doesn't do it for me. I'm sorry. I really am. I wish I could be like you, taking a vow of poverty for the common good. Oh... What's that you say, you havn't? So it's the thought that counts? You don't subsist on the bare minimum, enabling you to maximize the number of poor you can feed? Oh. In that case, get off your high horse!
What's wrong with eating a steak the size of a toilet seat? I don't want to get off on a rant here, but what if I was hungry? It's not like it would go to waste. It's one thing if I take a single bite, then throw the rest to the dog, even though that is acceptable, after all, I'm sure a lot of American dogs eat better than these starving Afric refugees you speak of.
But, is it really wrong for me to desire a toilet bowl filled with cooked meat and potatoes? I don't think it is. That's like saying to the A frican refugees that they can no longer have something that they happen to have because there are some even less fortunate people over on the corner. If they wanted toilet meats, they could come over here like the rest of us did. I mean, it's not like we really populated North America quickly last week. We've been building up a land of Toilet-Sized steaks for quite a while. And meal portions are increasing. I'm waiting for my local McDonald's to introduce the 'Veal McNugget'. It's essentially an entire calf deep fried and server with a tart dipping sauce.
So whqt else can we do but consume? I'd be skeptical of any man that doesn't want to eat a steak the size of a toilet seat. That's like saying 'no, don't put a bag on my Picasso, I'm just going to throw it out anyways.'. It's just like that. You have it so much better than African refugees, and yet you complain that some people have it even better than you do perhaps? Maybe you cannot afford toilet steaks? I suspect that is so. Even if it's not, maybe you're a vegitarian or, god forbid, a vegan.
But, sir, my real question is why you have such a problem with the American Dream being to 'consume as much as possible'. I mean, nothing precludes those African Refugees from coming over here and starting a business, you know, nothing fancy, maybe an astrology shop. Then they can build up to a nationwide chain and afford toilet-sized steaks and potatoes AND maybe a couple of cokes for those cute girls at the bar. I suspect you really don't want the African Refugees to suceed, because then you have no one to look to and talk about how badly they have it. Living for your own hapiness isn't good enough, you have to piss and moan about how other people are unhappy too.
Erm, I took what he said to indictate that the MP3s on the ISP's server would be the only copies. (for whatever reason.) Then it makes more sense and the analogy makes quote a bit of sense.
I'm a little confused as to why they arn't allowed to look at your files without your permission. The fact that it's their hardware that you're putting your files on does in fact matter. Unless of course the TOS stipulates that they will not look at your files, as both parties should be bound by such a document. But really, that'd be a silly thing to do. So, is this some moral imperative, or an actual matter of law... IANAL, but, it would seem to me it's at my peril I use a hosting service. If I don't want them to see what I'm putting there, I can encrypt it...
Yes, I'd love to live in a country where I can't sell a service under terms I dictate! Gee wiz, when will people realize that commerce and life in general run more smoothly with a government dictating what I can and cannot do?
Everyone does indeed have a right to privacy. If you want to keep mp3s on your home computer, of course an ISP shouldn't be deleting them. But when they're on said ISP's hardware, it's included in their TOS that they do not allow them, that's not an invasion of privacy. That's called them enforcing their rights. Oh, wait, I forget, business don't have rights, why do they need them, they're just out to trample your rights and make your life a living hell whilst sucking the life-blood from society. By the way, I have some wonderful ocean-front timeshare condos in Nevada you might want to look at....
No, it's the same as giving your Mona Lisa to someone that stipulates 'if we find this painting contains a square, we'll rip it up'. Your painting has a square. Too bad. Should've read more carefully. Section 4.1.5 of their TOS. If you don't like it, inform them they won't get your business because you disagree with their policy. Watch them not care. Buy hosting elsewhere. Stop being stupid.
I've read the article, and I guess I just don't understand the wonderous thing that is the American legal system, but, what exactly is wrong with this?
The suit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, centers on a policy called ``minimum advertised pricing'' (MAP), under which the labels subsidized advertising for retailers that agreed not to sell CD's below a minimum price determined by the labels.
To me, that quote says they're alledging that certain labels gave special treatment to retailers that agreed to their terms? How exactly is this wrong? As for prices being 'too high', as defined by whom? How does one correctly price an item? Is 10% profit too much? 200%? 1000%? Perhaps we need legislation dictating just what percentage of profit is acceptable to society!
Isn't this effectively like Coke paying a movie theatre to sell coke, but only if they charge $3 per cup, and in exchange, the theatre is provided money for advertising? I don't see something like that as evil, but mayhaps I'm missing the point!
OK. Not to go offtopic, but, a company only has to sell where it sees fit. If it decides to only sell to one legged blonde haired russians, that should be that company's perogative. However, it may not be a profitable descision. Theft is not legitimized because you can't get it any other way legally through a particular medium... It is not a market need, it is not like the music isn't available in an alternate medium. This boils down to people being self-righteous chanting information wants to be free as a cover for theft.
I think you owe someone an apology. Perhaps it's you that shouldn't breed. He made no mention of Napster storing anything beyond song information an user information.
And the issue of whether people are downloading things from Napster is a largely semantic. They facilitate the distribution of copyrighted material. The 'troll' anonymous coward posts about how people only do this because they won't get caught is quite correct.
No, a VCR can be programmed to turn itself on and tape shows from X to Y, a lot more than display the time. HTML, at best takes contents and reformats them to look pretty.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, I read 'must' as 'might' the first time. Your point is now silly and retarded, not just unlikely. As long as its an after-the-fact check, ie, I can buy it, but, they might investigate why afterwards, that's fine. Just don't get between me and my Ammonium Nitrate, man!!
Half and half. Your tree analogy doesn't make any sense here, because your liberties are not being encroahced upon, unless you consider 'the right to keep all information about myself secret' one of your fundamental freedoms. This is not the government wanting to plant a tracking chip under my skin so they can keep tabs on me. As I read the article, it's essentially purchasing a warehouse of publicly available/purchasable information from a company that provides it as a service, instead of setting up the facilities to do it themselves.
For you see, what they do out of the open is very very bad. So bad, that if I were to tell you, they'd kill me. Hey, maybe I should submit a story on that... 'Government will kill me if I talk', from the 'just-because-youre-paranoid-dont-mean-theyre-not- after-you dept'! Sure, yeah. I'll get working on writing that. This turned out being a little longer than I'd though. Oh well. Settle down, this won't harm you in the least. And if it does, you probably had it coming.
Little Johnny walks into his school library, sits down and goes to some random pornographic site that somehow isn't being filtered out. Little Johnny's parents find out and are outraged. They go to the school asking how such a travesty could happen. The school blames the filtering software instead of inadequate supervision. It's all about shifting the blame that might happen away from the schools, and onto some large software multinational. But anyways, as for selling information to advertisers, ask yourself why you care. Do you refuse to have a debit card or somesuch because you're suuuure that some evil bad man is tracking your every purchase with it? Maybe they are. Even if they are, why do you care? Only someone that believes they matter in the Grand Scheme of Things would care, and, to be blunt, I'm not one of them, and chances are you arn't either. If you are somehow, especially while still in school, that's nifty...
But, to get back to my original point, learn to live with it. It's there for a reason. It's circumventable. If you can't, you probably don't deserve to :).
Actually, I'm currently involved in a project to create the most decadent toilet ever.. It uses jsut over 20 Gallons of water per flush, and in the process kills an african elephant, a baby seal and several tigers. We plan on marketing them to people with a wanton disregard for the environment. If you would like more information, please post a message below... Estimated cost of this toilet is just under $120million, and that's with a 10 year supply of wildlife to fuel it. Did I mention it also has a diesel generator incase the power goes off?
Jesus christ, 8 machines? I thought the 3 I use was a lot, but, 8? I don't even think I could use them all at once if I wanted to...
And your analogy fails to draw a correct parallel. There IS something intrinsically dangerous about an unsafe automobile, there is NOT with an insecure computer.
Having an insecure machine is not going to cause problems as that is its nature. It will sit doing nothing wrong until someone makes a conscious effort to exploit it. An unsanfe vehicle, however, will cause problems without someone exploiting it for the purpose of causing problems.
It's kinda like how a knife is an OK thing, except when someone breaks into your home and cuts up your children with it. You certainly wouldn't liken 'someone coming into your hose and stabbing you with a knife' with 'driving an unsafe car,', would you? To sum up, an insecure machine poses no intrinsic threat to the world unless someone decides to exploit it, just the same as my house poses no intrinsic threat if I leave the door open, but then if someone runs in and start shooting from my second floor window because it has a nice view of the park, then would you be so quick to blame me? Let the attacker take responsibility for his actions, please.
as for software, there's tons of stuff you can give the kiddies to play with. Like gcc. And emacs.
But I digress. I should be pontificating on that wonderous subject of privacy in the office. Well, do your employees have something to hide? Has John been asking about 'when the privacy policy will be in'?. If so, maybe you should do a cavity search before Section II.445 says 'NO cavity searches without a warrant'. I watch Law & Order you know. It's sickening what they get away with, all beause they 'need a warrant', or they 'beat out the confession', or they 'didn't adhere to proper corpse handling procedures.'. Just sick.
And you know where a fine programme such as Law & Order gets its ideas, right? Real life. So let's have an upstanding privacy policy. In fact the employees should assume they're being monitored anyways. After all, anything they keep private could be degrading the company service. Do you really want to sacrifice $$$$$ for 'employee privacy' and funny tasting Lattes? I certainly wouldn't. But that's me, I'd put profits befopre my employees, after all, they're a dime a dozen, especially if I'm not running a business that requires thought, such as a sweat shop.
You know, I don't want to go off on a tagent here, but, have you considered modelling your workplace after a sweatshop? I'm sure there are many fine corporations that can attest to their power and efficiency... And no icky crap about 'employee privacy' to worry about...
Or you could just employee trained monkeys, rendering the whole thing moot...
What a time to be out of mod points. Kudos =]
Too bad? So, with whom should Napster be concerned? It's one thing for a government to censor me, that's wrong, it's another for a corporation to say it doesn't want to be associated with nazis, something I'd understand completely. If it offends you, however, that Napster has decided something like this, perhaps you can go somewhere that is more accepting of pure, hatred, there's nothing that precludes that!
And in future, please attempt to be more funny when replying to stuff like the above. I laughed at the other reply to my response. Now it was funny.
Oh, and one more thingy.
It's not that I don't see anything beyond my own existance, it's all about my pleasure vs. someone else's survival. Quite frankly, that doesn't do it for me. I'm sorry. I really am. I wish I could be like you, taking a vow of poverty for the common good. Oh... What's that you say, you havn't? So it's the thought that counts? You don't subsist on the bare minimum, enabling you to maximize the number of poor you can feed? Oh. In that case, get off your high horse!
But, is it really wrong for me to desire a toilet bowl filled with cooked meat and potatoes? I don't think it is. That's like saying to the A frican refugees that they can no longer have something that they happen to have because there are some even less fortunate people over on the corner. If they wanted toilet meats, they could come over here like the rest of us did. I mean, it's not like we really populated North America quickly last week. We've been building up a land of Toilet-Sized steaks for quite a while. And meal portions are increasing. I'm waiting for my local McDonald's to introduce the 'Veal McNugget'. It's essentially an entire calf deep fried and server with a tart dipping sauce.
So whqt else can we do but consume? I'd be skeptical of any man that doesn't want to eat a steak the size of a toilet seat. That's like saying 'no, don't put a bag on my Picasso, I'm just going to throw it out anyways.'. It's just like that. You have it so much better than African refugees, and yet you complain that some people have it even better than you do perhaps? Maybe you cannot afford toilet steaks? I suspect that is so. Even if it's not, maybe you're a vegitarian or, god forbid, a vegan.
But, sir, my real question is why you have such a problem with the American Dream being to 'consume as much as possible'. I mean, nothing precludes those African Refugees from coming over here and starting a business, you know, nothing fancy, maybe an astrology shop. Then they can build up to a nationwide chain and afford toilet-sized steaks and potatoes AND maybe a couple of cokes for those cute girls at the bar. I suspect you really don't want the African Refugees to suceed, because then you have no one to look to and talk about how badly they have it. Living for your own hapiness isn't good enough, you have to piss and moan about how other people are unhappy too.
BUt I digress.
Have a happy afternoon.
Erm, I took what he said to indictate that the MP3s on the ISP's server would be the only copies. (for whatever reason.) Then it makes more sense and the analogy makes quote a bit of sense.
I'm a little confused as to why they arn't allowed to look at your files without your permission. The fact that it's their hardware that you're putting your files on does in fact matter. Unless of course the TOS stipulates that they will not look at your files, as both parties should be bound by such a document. But really, that'd be a silly thing to do. So, is this some moral imperative, or an actual matter of law... IANAL, but, it would seem to me it's at my peril I use a hosting service. If I don't want them to see what I'm putting there, I can encrypt it...
Everyone does indeed have a right to privacy. If you want to keep mp3s on your home computer, of course an ISP shouldn't be deleting them. But when they're on said ISP's hardware, it's included in their TOS that they do not allow them, that's not an invasion of privacy. That's called them enforcing their rights. Oh, wait, I forget, business don't have rights, why do they need them, they're just out to trample your rights and make your life a living hell whilst sucking the life-blood from society. By the way, I have some wonderful ocean-front timeshare condos in Nevada you might want to look at....
----------
No, it's the same as giving your Mona Lisa to someone that stipulates 'if we find this painting contains a square, we'll rip it up'. Your painting has a square. Too bad. Should've read more carefully. Section 4.1.5 of their TOS. If you don't like it, inform them they won't get your business because you disagree with their policy. Watch them not care. Buy hosting elsewhere. Stop being stupid.
Really, I'd love to see you change your kernel without rebooting!
The suit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, centers on a policy called ``minimum advertised pricing'' (MAP), under which the labels subsidized advertising for retailers that agreed not to sell CD's below a minimum price determined by the labels.
To me, that quote says they're alledging that certain labels gave special treatment to retailers that agreed to their terms? How exactly is this wrong? As for prices being 'too high', as defined by whom? How does one correctly price an item? Is 10% profit too much? 200%? 1000%? Perhaps we need legislation dictating just what percentage of profit is acceptable to society!
Isn't this effectively like Coke paying a movie theatre to sell coke, but only if they charge $3 per cup, and in exchange, the theatre is provided money for advertising? I don't see something like that as evil, but mayhaps I'm missing the point!
OK.
Not to go offtopic, but, a company only has to sell where it sees fit. If it decides to only sell to one legged blonde haired russians, that should be that company's perogative. However, it may not be a profitable descision. Theft is not legitimized because you can't get it any other way legally through a particular medium... It is not a market need, it is not like the music isn't available in an alternate medium. This boils down to people being self-righteous chanting information wants to be free as a cover for theft.
I think you owe someone an apology.
Perhaps it's you that shouldn't breed. He made no mention of Napster storing anything beyond song information an user information.
And the issue of whether people are downloading things from Napster is a largely semantic. They facilitate the distribution of copyrighted material. The 'troll' anonymous coward posts about how people only do this because they won't get caught is quite correct.
Don't breed.
--rmst
That must work out to be rather handy.
I was honestly going to post a comment saying that until I saw you had =]
No, a VCR can be programmed to turn itself on and tape shows from X to Y, a lot more than display the time. HTML, at best takes contents and reformats them to look pretty.