Yes, he has DMD, a disease that progressively destroys all the muscles in the body. They replaced his heart, but at age 15, he is already incapable of walking and soon enough his diaphragm will stop working. Yes, they can artificially ventilate him, but then you get a body that does nothing but lay down with tubes poking from each hole (and I do mean each and every hole). All this until he is lucky and gets pneumonia and dies (no sarcasm). I cheer for the progress this transplantation (or should it be "implant"?), but from an ethical point of view, I think it just brought more suffering to the kid. Of course, it's the boy's and family's decision, but if I were in their position I wouldn't do it.
In order to get statuary damages, you need to go through some kind of legal process - be it a law suit or just a fine by the regulatory body (i.e. FCC). By admitting their wrongdoing promptly and offering instant refund, they managed to prevent this process. A user can still file a law suit claiming statuary damages, but most (all) wouldn't bother.
So on the blue corner we have Verizon, a mega-corp. out to make a buck. By definition, everything they do is evil. On the red corner we have the FCC, a government agency and as such incompetent and wrong-doing by default. Looks like we have a tie.
I mean people, we have a company that charged incorrectly (I'll even admit, based on what is written on this thread - indecently). People complained, the FCC checked on this and Verizon responded by refunding people. I'd say that for once the system worked - someone X did bad, someone else (Y) corrected him and then X did the right thing and gave the money back. I say cheers!
First of all, great post and I hope someone will mod you up, you deserve it. Finally one post that passes an idea clearly without being full of useless, hyperbolic adjectives. Second, I see your point. I guess I am optimistic. I don't think for a moment that the legislative branch always has the citizens' best interests before their eyes. Sadly enough, corporate interest drive many laws in many countries, mine and yours included. I sincerely think that the judiciary branch is in a better shape, it's just that it is forced to work with whatever laws are passed by the legislative branch; no way around it. I agree that when things are falling apart all around us, sometimes people need to resort to (more-or-less) violent and/or illegal measures. I also agree that big changes are made of many small ones and it is a tough mission deciding when these small changes have crossed the line. There is no magic formula and no right-or-wrong answer (although since we are on/. - I am right!). Each person with his own set of ideals after understanding the issue thoroughly, has to decide where this line is for him and what to do when it is crossed. I guess this is why we have so many different opinions on this thread. Basically it all boils down to whether we say the current situation is bad enough to justify using desperate measures. I started writing on this thread feeling the situation is not there yet. Although I still think this way, I can see why people will see things differently. Since I am not a US citizen I appreciate that my view on this issue is limited.
As you can see, I didn't write the original post, I was just responding to what, I believed, was a bad mod. I usually try not to respond to how people mod my comments (even if I think they are underrated:) ). Although what you said is correct, I believe the person who modded it Troll was offended by the in-your-face comment that stated "In a democracy, you don't always get what you want". I don't have proof (or citation), just a gut feeling.
I wrote that you are the one being responsibly for dealing with the DDoS. Still, all that you said regarding #1 can be applied to your job as well: You haven't been volunteered; you've been trained, etc. The difference is that I still think that working in the bomb squad is a more stress-prone job. I mean, you are walking around a building that may have a bomb in it that may explode any minute, regardless of your level expertise. Your training only matters when (if) you find the bomb.
Hey man, with all due respect this is a law suit handling (alleged) copyright infringement cases. We might disagree with their methods, but from this to say that they are "trafficking in human misery, violating civil rights and liberties..." is taking it a bit too far. They are doing what the laws (enacted in a totally democratic way) have allowed them to do. There are many laws that violate civil rights - I may not drive whatever vehicle I like without a permit; there are things I am not allowed to say (Slander); I may not build my house wherever I want; and many more - we accept them because we believe the benefit to society as a whole outweighs the harm to the individual. Maybe current copyright laws are not balanced and hurt the individual too much, but I don't think they justify equating organizations that use these laws to much more harmful examples from the past. Using your logic, I can organize actions similar to the ones described in TFS against the IRS because they are stealing my money, and damn the law!
So in actuality in both cases we did the same - we called the professionals to handle it: The bomb squad in the bomb threat and you in the DDoS. Two points to think about: 1) Who do you think is more stressed, you or the person who is potentially going to handle a live bomb (he doesn't know it is a prank call until after he searched the whole building)? 2) I believe all the other people (i.e. the non-pros) might be more stressed and maybe harmed (physically) by a bomb threat than a DDoS (especially in this case when all that was harmed was one shitty web site, but let's stay on a generalized level).
Again, using Troll as a substitution for disagree. What the parent wrote is absolutely correct (factually). You may not agree with the situation or you would prefer to do something else, but to mod him Troll just because he pointed out reality, c'mon! (Yes, I know: "this is/., I must be new here")
Yes, but I don't know any one who will get a panic attack from a DDoS, whereas hospitals regularly see a spike in ER admissions due to panic and related disorders when there is a threat of a terrorist action. A bomb threat can cause real damage to people. A DDoS causes financial losses, but, usually, no physical damage to the people involved. Just to clarify, DDoS is also illegal and I believe it's wrong, but it is not as bad as a bomb threat. Sorry, real (i.e. not digital) life still trumps in my book.
Filing a law suit is a legal way to claim what you believe is rightfully yours. You can say that it is not theirs, or that the law should be changed, or whatever. However it may be, right now they are working within the boundaries of the legal system. You want it to changed - fight fire with fire, don't use illegal means (and yes, calling in a bomb threat is illegal).
No, you believe they are doing enough evil to warrant a bomb threat. Since the whole issue of copyright infringement is still in hot debate all over the world, claiming that anyone not supporting your side is a bit self-centered. I personally think that what they are doing is wrong, but since it is still such a debatable issue, I accept that some people think otherwise without them being the Devil's little helpers. Or maybe that just don't care so much about the issue. Since we are talking about copyright infringement lawsuits and not mass murder, I believe we can allow for some difference in opinion... And that is why using techniques such as bomb threats is bad (in my book). If we were talking about some organization that was doing something that is clearly wrong (e.g. using children's blood to make party cocktails), then I wouldn't object to using such measures.
You understood his sentence as a way to excuse violence against some causes. I understood it in a different way: Slashdotters are ready to accept such acts as bomb threats when they are aimed at law-firm that "hunt down" copyright infringers, but if it was a bomb threat against something that Slashdotters usually (as a hypothetical homogeneous group) support (e.g. abortions) their opinion might have been different. Yes, his wording was a bit provocative, but since it was used to uncover the hypocracy of some of the comments here, I don't thing it deserves the Troll designation.
If I say to you that I will "kick the shit out of you", is it violence? I was just threatening, not really hitting you. Of course, it depends on context and intent, but you catch my drift. BTW, using FTFY implies that you know what I mean better than I do, which is quite arrogant and this is why I refrained from using it in my original post.
It is sometime frustrating when having to deal with American and Western-Europeans (sorry for the generalization to come), that you realize they really do not understand what it is to deal with terrorism. In the late-1990's when there was a series of terrorist attacks in Israel, people were afraid to leave their home, they didn't go on buses (because there were many suicide attacks on buses) and many did not go out except for work. I had a girlfriend (yes, yes this is/.) that nearly had a panic attack when I went on a bus. My example is from Israel, because that's what I know, but it surely is relevant to many other places (Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Belfast in the '90s). I know people that after 9/11 were glad that least now the Americans will understand what it is to have a terrorist attack on their homeland (sorry, not trying to Troll, just reporting hearsay). So, no, it's not like people can just "get on with their life" that easy. In place that have had many terrorist attacks a bomb threat is taken seriously by everyone involved.
Lets face it, there really hasn't been a single incident where a bomb threat was called in and carried out.
I beg to differ. This is just off the top of my head (Since I'm Israeli, I remember this incident). I'm sure there were other incidents throughout history, usually when a terrorist group wanted to perform an act that would be publicized, but with minimal damage to human lives.
I think there is small difference between supporting the Nazi war machine and being a secretary in a law-firm dealing with copyright infringement lawsuits. And yes, you have won the Godwin award for this thread. Congratulations, you have a choice of a teddy bear or $10 coupons to Nazi-R-Us superstore.
Well, this argument can extend to any piece of equipment and any action, because every tool can be used for good and evil and any action can have positive and negative outcomes. Scissors and bombs alike can be used for good stuff and for terrorists attacks. I guess the amount of regulation you put around something depends on the probability that it can be used for bad purposes. Scissors - Really useful tools that for them your 0.001% statistics is probably correct, and maybe even an overestimation, thus we allow their unregulated use. Bombs - Really useful tools that are more commonly used for malicious purposes. I don't want to pull numbers out of the hat, but I guess 0.001% is a low estimate, that together with their high potential for damage, require that we regulate them.
Back to my original topic: The logic applied above can be used to assess how we react to an "innocent" bomb threat. In a group of people with more extreme ideals, who have shown to be men of action, there is a higher chance to find a nutcase and thus I expect law enforcement agencies to respond to this "prank" more seriously. Actually this is classical Bayesian probabilities - in the Operation Payback group you have a higher pre-test probability of finding a nutcase than in the general population.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, he has DMD, a disease that progressively destroys all the muscles in the body. They replaced his heart, but at age 15, he is already incapable of walking and soon enough his diaphragm will stop working. Yes, they can artificially ventilate him, but then you get a body that does nothing but lay down with tubes poking from each hole (and I do mean each and every hole). All this until he is lucky and gets pneumonia and dies (no sarcasm).
I cheer for the progress this transplantation (or should it be "implant"?), but from an ethical point of view, I think it just brought more suffering to the kid. Of course, it's the boy's and family's decision, but if I were in their position I wouldn't do it.
In order to get statuary damages, you need to go through some kind of legal process - be it a law suit or just a fine by the regulatory body (i.e. FCC). By admitting their wrongdoing promptly and offering instant refund, they managed to prevent this process.
A user can still file a law suit claiming statuary damages, but most (all) wouldn't bother.
So on the blue corner we have Verizon, a mega-corp. out to make a buck. By definition, everything they do is evil. On the red corner we have the FCC, a government agency and as such incompetent and wrong-doing by default.
Looks like we have a tie.
I mean people, we have a company that charged incorrectly (I'll even admit, based on what is written on this thread - indecently). People complained, the FCC checked on this and Verizon responded by refunding people. I'd say that for once the system worked - someone X did bad, someone else (Y) corrected him and then X did the right thing and gave the money back. I say cheers!
First of all, great post and I hope someone will mod you up, you deserve it. Finally one post that passes an idea clearly without being full of useless, hyperbolic adjectives. /. - I am right!). Each person with his own set of ideals after understanding the issue thoroughly, has to decide where this line is for him and what to do when it is crossed. I guess this is why we have so many different opinions on this thread.
Second, I see your point. I guess I am optimistic. I don't think for a moment that the legislative branch always has the citizens' best interests before their eyes. Sadly enough, corporate interest drive many laws in many countries, mine and yours included. I sincerely think that the judiciary branch is in a better shape, it's just that it is forced to work with whatever laws are passed by the legislative branch; no way around it.
I agree that when things are falling apart all around us, sometimes people need to resort to (more-or-less) violent and/or illegal measures. I also agree that big changes are made of many small ones and it is a tough mission deciding when these small changes have crossed the line.
There is no magic formula and no right-or-wrong answer (although since we are on
Basically it all boils down to whether we say the current situation is bad enough to justify using desperate measures. I started writing on this thread feeling the situation is not there yet. Although I still think this way, I can see why people will see things differently. Since I am not a US citizen I appreciate that my view on this issue is limited.
As you can see, I didn't write the original post, I was just responding to what, I believed, was a bad mod. I usually try not to respond to how people mod my comments (even if I think they are underrated :) ). Although what you said is correct, I believe the person who modded it Troll was offended by the in-your-face comment that stated "In a democracy, you don't always get what you want". I don't have proof (or citation), just a gut feeling.
I wrote that you are the one being responsibly for dealing with the DDoS. Still, all that you said regarding #1 can be applied to your job as well: You haven't been volunteered; you've been trained, etc. The difference is that I still think that working in the bomb squad is a more stress-prone job. I mean, you are walking around a building that may have a bomb in it that may explode any minute, regardless of your level expertise. Your training only matters when (if) you find the bomb.
And you know what's sad? This is the closest we came to a car analogy this entire thread. Where has /. sunken these days?
Hey man, with all due respect this is a law suit handling (alleged) copyright infringement cases. We might disagree with their methods, but from this to say that they are "trafficking in human misery, violating civil rights and liberties..." is taking it a bit too far. They are doing what the laws (enacted in a totally democratic way) have allowed them to do.
There are many laws that violate civil rights - I may not drive whatever vehicle I like without a permit; there are things I am not allowed to say (Slander); I may not build my house wherever I want; and many more - we accept them because we believe the benefit to society as a whole outweighs the harm to the individual. Maybe current copyright laws are not balanced and hurt the individual too much, but I don't think they justify equating organizations that use these laws to much more harmful examples from the past. Using your logic, I can organize actions similar to the ones described in TFS against the IRS because they are stealing my money, and damn the law!
So in actuality in both cases we did the same - we called the professionals to handle it: The bomb squad in the bomb threat and you in the DDoS. Two points to think about:
1) Who do you think is more stressed, you or the person who is potentially going to handle a live bomb (he doesn't know it is a prank call until after he searched the whole building)?
2) I believe all the other people (i.e. the non-pros) might be more stressed and maybe harmed (physically) by a bomb threat than a DDoS (especially in this case when all that was harmed was one shitty web site, but let's stay on a generalized level).
Don't tell me what to confuse with what and when, or I will kick your ass all the way back to... Sorry, got carried away :)
Again, using Troll as a substitution for disagree. What the parent wrote is absolutely correct (factually). You may not agree with the situation or you would prefer to do something else, but to mod him Troll just because he pointed out reality, c'mon! (Yes, I know: "this is /., I must be new here")
Yes, but I don't know any one who will get a panic attack from a DDoS, whereas hospitals regularly see a spike in ER admissions due to panic and related disorders when there is a threat of a terrorist action. A bomb threat can cause real damage to people. A DDoS causes financial losses, but, usually, no physical damage to the people involved.
Just to clarify, DDoS is also illegal and I believe it's wrong, but it is not as bad as a bomb threat. Sorry, real (i.e. not digital) life still trumps in my book.
I stand corrected, it is a threat of violence - an illegal act in and of itself (assuming intent), just like a bomb threat.
"Happiness is a warm gun" :)
Filing a law suit is a legal way to claim what you believe is rightfully yours. You can say that it is not theirs, or that the law should be changed, or whatever. However it may be, right now they are working within the boundaries of the legal system. You want it to changed - fight fire with fire, don't use illegal means (and yes, calling in a bomb threat is illegal).
I meant more commonly used more malicious purposes than scissors, not more commonly used for malicious purposes vs. useful/good purposes.
No, you believe they are doing enough evil to warrant a bomb threat. Since the whole issue of copyright infringement is still in hot debate all over the world, claiming that anyone not supporting your side is a bit self-centered. I personally think that what they are doing is wrong, but since it is still such a debatable issue, I accept that some people think otherwise without them being the Devil's little helpers. Or maybe that just don't care so much about the issue.
Since we are talking about copyright infringement lawsuits and not mass murder, I believe we can allow for some difference in opinion... And that is why using techniques such as bomb threats is bad (in my book). If we were talking about some organization that was doing something that is clearly wrong (e.g. using children's blood to make party cocktails), then I wouldn't object to using such measures.
No, I'm not.
You understood his sentence as a way to excuse violence against some causes. I understood it in a different way: Slashdotters are ready to accept such acts as bomb threats when they are aimed at law-firm that "hunt down" copyright infringers, but if it was a bomb threat against something that Slashdotters usually (as a hypothetical homogeneous group) support (e.g. abortions) their opinion might have been different. Yes, his wording was a bit provocative, but since it was used to uncover the hypocracy of some of the comments here, I don't thing it deserves the Troll designation.
If I say to you that I will "kick the shit out of you", is it violence? I was just threatening, not really hitting you. Of course, it depends on context and intent, but you catch my drift.
BTW, using FTFY implies that you know what I mean better than I do, which is quite arrogant and this is why I refrained from using it in my original post.
And that is funny, how...?
It is sometime frustrating when having to deal with American and Western-Europeans (sorry for the generalization to come), that you realize they really do not understand what it is to deal with terrorism. In the late-1990's when there was a series of terrorist attacks in Israel, people were afraid to leave their home, they didn't go on buses (because there were many suicide attacks on buses) and many did not go out except for work. I had a girlfriend (yes, yes this is /.) that nearly had a panic attack when I went on a bus. My example is from Israel, because that's what I know, but it surely is relevant to many other places (Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Belfast in the '90s).
I know people that after 9/11 were glad that least now the Americans will understand what it is to have a terrorist attack on their homeland (sorry, not trying to Troll, just reporting hearsay).
So, no, it's not like people can just "get on with their life" that easy. In place that have had many terrorist attacks a bomb threat is taken seriously by everyone involved.
Lets face it, there really hasn't been a single incident where a bomb threat was called in and carried out.
I beg to differ. This is just off the top of my head (Since I'm Israeli, I remember this incident). I'm sure there were other incidents throughout history, usually when a terrorist group wanted to perform an act that would be publicized, but with minimal damage to human lives.
I think there is small difference between supporting the Nazi war machine and being a secretary in a law-firm dealing with copyright infringement lawsuits. And yes, you have won the Godwin award for this thread. Congratulations, you have a choice of a teddy bear or $10 coupons to Nazi-R-Us superstore.
Well, this argument can extend to any piece of equipment and any action, because every tool can be used for good and evil and any action can have positive and negative outcomes. Scissors and bombs alike can be used for good stuff and for terrorists attacks. I guess the amount of regulation you put around something depends on the probability that it can be used for bad purposes.
Scissors - Really useful tools that for them your 0.001% statistics is probably correct, and maybe even an overestimation, thus we allow their unregulated use.
Bombs - Really useful tools that are more commonly used for malicious purposes. I don't want to pull numbers out of the hat, but I guess 0.001% is a low estimate, that together with their high potential for damage, require that we regulate them.
Back to my original topic: The logic applied above can be used to assess how we react to an "innocent" bomb threat. In a group of people with more extreme ideals, who have shown to be men of action, there is a higher chance to find a nutcase and thus I expect law enforcement agencies to respond to this "prank" more seriously. Actually this is classical Bayesian probabilities - in the Operation Payback group you have a higher pre-test probability of finding a nutcase than in the general population.