Oh, yes. All the problems of the Internet were brought upon us because people misbehaved, and had nothing to do with corporate lockdown, monopolization and commercialization.
On the other hand, people using an untraceable connection for illegal activity that should not be illegal, or to simply dodge existing criminal activity against them (ie, warrantless wiretapping), is very awesome.
Are you prepared to give any actual arguments, or just the usual antipiracy trolling bullshit? We've all endured the whinging of the media corporations and their astroturfers for years. Offer something real to support the idea of enforcing copyright in ways that are against the public interest or just stop trying.
Because it's absolutely inconceivable that that person is hauling manure for a farm and keeps spare gas in the car in case he runs out and can't get to a gas station.
Oh! So you're an antipirate troll. Okay. It's pretty obvious since, you know, the topic at hand is not file sharing. But hey, any chance to attack those evil, nasty pirates, right?
I would trust an ISP run by the Pirate Party more than I would trust an ISP run by, say, Comcast. The Pirate Party seems to be much more interested in defending peoples' freedoms than the telcos are.
-the health and physical well-being of my family and neighborhood are far more important than your so-called 'right' to download content of questionable legality
Those who trade liberty for safety deserve neither.
When two people get together, discuss a crime, and plan its commission, those two people have committed the crime of conspiracy. Even if they never get around to actually doing what they have planned, or if they are caught before they are able, they can still be prosecuted under conspiracy law.
In most states, an individual cannot be prosecuted for conspiracy unless at least one of the people involves as taken an overt action toward carrying the plan out. For example, if two people talk about robbing a bank, but never do anything to move the plan forward, neither can be charged with conspiracy. If, however, one of the partners obtains a bank floor plan for the institution they plan to rob, both can be charged for conspiracy to commit robbery.
By definition of this citation, blogging about committing a crime is not conspiracy to commit a crime.
No, it's not. It's like watching a store for illegal activity, then going in and asking the guy behind the counter who has been inside. Of course, stores don't keep logs of who walks in... *hint*
You left out the "on the mail servers" part of his post. Meaning that the filtering is done for incoming email to the ISP itself, not traffic in general.
Surrender your rights to us! We'll protect you from the child rapists and the pirates and the terrorists! Did I say that clearly enough? There are terrorists! TERRORISTS! Are you frightened enough yet to let us watch and control everything you do?
How does that have anything whatsoever to do with the topic at hand? It's not illegal to blog about how you're going to shoot up the school; you're only committing a crime if you actually do it. Freedom of speech is a bitch.
Windows: 1. Assemble a list of apps you want. 2. Pull up your browser of choice. 3. Search your favorite search engine for one of these apps. 4. Find a download link that looks legitimate. 5. Download the installer. 6. Run it as administrator (enter password here -if- one is set). 7. Tell Windows that, yes, you want to run this executable. 8. Click "Next" a whole bunch, or alternately configure various installation settings. 9. Repeat steps 3-8 for each app on the list.
Ubuntu: 1. Assemble a list of apps you want. 2. Pull up the Software Center. 3. Search for the name of one of these apps. 4. Click "Install" (enter password here). 5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 for each app on the list. Password entry is only required for the first app.
It doesn't take a stroke of brilliance to see which of the two processes for program installation is more user-friendly, more convenient, and offers better system security.
Having to download and install each program individually is nowhere near "as easily accessible" as using Ubuntu's software repositories to automatically do the same thing.
One of the top results is a thread on the Ubuntu forums asking whether MS Word works via Wine. The majority of the responses fall into: "Why use MS Office when you can use OpenOffice?"... If that's the kind of support people get from the community, then it's no wonder Linux can't gain desktop mindshare.
Yeah, because it's ridiculous that Ubuntu users would suggest a free alternative that runs natively on the system and, for the average user, provides adequate functionality compared to the proprietary, non-native software that requires you to screw around with Wine to run.
I am a dual booter between Windows and Linux - and the ONLY feature I really want in Ubuntu is the Window preview from Windows 7. The rest you can keep:)
If you install Compiz's settings manager from the repositories, you can turn on a plugin that does exactly that. It's aptly named Window Previews under Extras and its settings are configurable.
Notice-and-notice is better than a notice-and-takedown system. In notice-and-notice, the ISP simply passes any letters on to the subscriber, instead of taking down the content by default in response to the letter. The subscriber and the letter sender can then settle the issue. Notice-and-notice is harder, as far as I understand it, to abuse in the name of censorship than notice-and-takedown is.
So you're essentially saying that he shouldn't be able to criticize the recording industry, although he came from a time in which things were very different (the point that you TOTALLY ignored) and the media corporations had powerful monopolies on music. You're saying that he shouldn't be able to say the RIAA and its members are antiquated now that bands can make it without these labels. Where is the logic in what you're saying?
Slashdot Mirror
That doesn't make it okay.
...yuck.
Oh, yes. All the problems of the Internet were brought upon us because people misbehaved, and had nothing to do with corporate lockdown, monopolization and commercialization.
On the other hand, people using an untraceable connection for illegal activity that should not be illegal, or to simply dodge existing criminal activity against them (ie, warrantless wiretapping), is very awesome.
Are you prepared to give any actual arguments, or just the usual antipiracy trolling bullshit? We've all endured the whinging of the media corporations and their astroturfers for years. Offer something real to support the idea of enforcing copyright in ways that are against the public interest or just stop trying.
Because it's absolutely inconceivable that that person is hauling manure for a farm and keeps spare gas in the car in case he runs out and can't get to a gas station.
Oh! So you're an antipirate troll. Okay. It's pretty obvious since, you know, the topic at hand is not file sharing. But hey, any chance to attack those evil, nasty pirates, right?
Are stores required by law to run them?
I would trust an ISP run by the Pirate Party more than I would trust an ISP run by, say, Comcast. The Pirate Party seems to be much more interested in defending peoples' freedoms than the telcos are.
Those who trade liberty for safety deserve neither.
By definition of this citation, blogging about committing a crime is not conspiracy to commit a crime.
No, it's not. It's like watching a store for illegal activity, then going in and asking the guy behind the counter who has been inside. Of course, stores don't keep logs of who walks in... *hint*
You left out the "on the mail servers" part of his post. Meaning that the filtering is done for incoming email to the ISP itself, not traffic in general.
[citation needed]
Patrolling a public street != monitoring or controlling a given person's communication with another given person. Again, freedom of speech is a bitch.
Surrender your rights to us! We'll protect you from the child rapists and the pirates and the terrorists! Did I say that clearly enough? There are terrorists! TERRORISTS! Are you frightened enough yet to let us watch and control everything you do?
How does that have anything whatsoever to do with the topic at hand? It's not illegal to blog about how you're going to shoot up the school; you're only committing a crime if you actually do it. Freedom of speech is a bitch.
Downloading child pornography is a major crime?
It's better to let a guilty man go free than convict an innocent.
Let's compare.
Windows:
1. Assemble a list of apps you want.
2. Pull up your browser of choice.
3. Search your favorite search engine for one of these apps.
4. Find a download link that looks legitimate.
5. Download the installer.
6. Run it as administrator (enter password here -if- one is set).
7. Tell Windows that, yes, you want to run this executable.
8. Click "Next" a whole bunch, or alternately configure various installation settings.
9. Repeat steps 3-8 for each app on the list.
Ubuntu:
1. Assemble a list of apps you want.
2. Pull up the Software Center.
3. Search for the name of one of these apps.
4. Click "Install" (enter password here).
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 for each app on the list. Password entry is only required for the first app.
It doesn't take a stroke of brilliance to see which of the two processes for program installation is more user-friendly, more convenient, and offers better system security.
Having to download and install each program individually is nowhere near "as easily accessible" as using Ubuntu's software repositories to automatically do the same thing.
Yeah, because it's ridiculous that Ubuntu users would suggest a free alternative that runs natively on the system and, for the average user, provides adequate functionality compared to the proprietary, non-native software that requires you to screw around with Wine to run.
If you install Compiz's settings manager from the repositories, you can turn on a plugin that does exactly that. It's aptly named Window Previews under Extras and its settings are configurable.
Notice-and-notice is better than a notice-and-takedown system. In notice-and-notice, the ISP simply passes any letters on to the subscriber, instead of taking down the content by default in response to the letter. The subscriber and the letter sender can then settle the issue. Notice-and-notice is harder, as far as I understand it, to abuse in the name of censorship than notice-and-takedown is.
How silly of me to forget. If I disagree with an antipirate, then that makes me a dirty, evul pirate, and none of my arguments matter.
So you're essentially saying that he shouldn't be able to criticize the recording industry, although he came from a time in which things were very different (the point that you TOTALLY ignored) and the media corporations had powerful monopolies on music. You're saying that he shouldn't be able to say the RIAA and its members are antiquated now that bands can make it without these labels. Where is the logic in what you're saying?