I'm not asking on a moral ground, but could a Lawyer actually get that to court?
probably not if the judge has any sense at all.
There's a fundamental difference between a DoS or DDoS attack and the so-called/. effect. In the first two cases, the attacks generally come from remote controlled machines or zombie machines and is instigated by a very few number of people, or even just one person. In the case of the/. effect, each and every viewing of the webpage is deliberately instigated by a separate human being.
While most analogies of/. suck, I'll add one more: It's somewhat akin to the difference between a half dozen people chaining themselves to the entrance of a Starbucks and stopping people from entering as a means of protesting globalization and a couple hundred people all trying to get in at once because a radio DJ points out that they're selling double-shot mochas for a penny each.
because a gun doesn't have any use other than to kill someone. kazaa can be used for legal, useful purposes, it's just that some people misuse it.
yeah right... that's the same thing the RIAA & MPAA say about P2P applications.
No wait, you say... P2P applications have many legitimate uses, it's just that the illegal ones get all the attention. And even if they are more numerous, there are still legitimate uses...
Are you really so obtuse that I have to spell out how the EXACT SAME THING applies to guns?
protection doesn't count, since if _everyone_ was like you, the threat your gun would present would be nullified
Since I don't own a handgun, I may be speaking out of turn, but you're missing the point of a handgun. The purpose of carrying a handgun for protection is not to give you an advantage. (That would require an assumption that the criminals don't have guns...) Instead the purpose is to level the playing field. If a burly rapist meets a 5'5" petite woman on the street, gets who has the advantage. Give the woman a handgun, and you level the playing field as much as possible.
Also, the guns also favour whoever is most numerous. A man walking attempting to take hostages in a grocery store will run into serious problems if a substantial number of his victims are carrying guns. As soon as he turns his back on one of them...
I believe the expression is... "God created all men, Smith&Wesson made them equal"
Shouldn't you consider the harm that a product can cause as well? I'd rather face an angry man carrying a laptop with Napster than a agressive guy with a gun.
Sure. When you're doing SENTENCING! That's why nobody's suggesting that we execute people for swapping files illegally. You don't decide whether or not something is illegal based on the harm it causes. By that logic, shoplifting relatively inexpensive items should be legal.
Just out of curiosity though... How can you be an active member of a shooting club if you don't own a gun? Oh, and there's a much simpler way to put up a barrier against criminals purchasing legal guns. (Do a criminal record check...)
when ther govt. says that cannabis contains more harmful stuff than a cigarette they use un-filtered tobacco joints for their study so *of course* it will be worse!
uh... dude? You're saying that the govt. is rigging the studies against cannabis by using unfiltered tobacco cigarettes? That makes no sense. Putting a filter on the cigarettes would only make them less harmful...
that's 'cause our government is too chicken to decide what it thinks about weed. I'm pretty sure that the federal government wants to legalize it, but are too afraid to actually take a stand on an issue. (Never let principle stand it the way of votes).
Personally, I don't want it generally legalized, but I dislike this nancying around the issue almost as much. I hate politicians who won't tell me what they believe...
maybe that was the original concept, but it's an idea that's been destroyed over time.
the government can indeed arrest someone on "church" property without the church's consent. (Waco Texas would be the best example of this)
and how does exempting a religious organization from taxes stop them from enforcing religious views? I would think that this comes from the part of the US constitution that says that the government cannot establish an official religion. (not American, so I don't know the exact clause).
Waving the carrot of tax free status gives the government much more control over a religion than simply taxing them.
Whatever the original reasons, tax free status is a liability today and should be abolished.
Atheism is a non-belief, not "belief of nothing". Yes, there is a difference.
BZZT! WRONG!
Non-belief is agnosticism. As in, "I do not know that there is a God, neither do I know that there is not a God".
Atheism is the specific belief that God definately does not exist. As in "I know that God does not exist".
This means that agnosticism is a intellectual stance, while atheism is a faith. (Because believing something without positive proof requires a leap of faith).
This is why I think that "tax exempt" status for religious organizations should be eliminated.
Why should the government decide what is a religion and what isn't? And since when is money essential to faith?
Jesus does not need tax-exempt status to save the lost. (And he did say to pay your taxes). Tax-free status for religions is just a way to encourage money-making, morally corrupt organizations like the so-called "church" of scientology masquerade as a religion.
.
I'm sure that I'll get flamed by people with all kinds of absurd scenarios about the satellites going offline, batteries dying, and interference from migratory waterfowl. So be it. If someone mounting a wilderness expedition can't be trusted to pack batteries and spares for their equipment, then they need to stay home and watch National Geographic Explorer on television.
Yes, anyone worth their salt always carries a backup. That's what a compass is for. Batteries dying is dying or damaging the electronics is not an absurd scenario. (Not sure about the waterfowl though). That's why you never stop carrying paper maps in favour of electronic ones. Simple technology is the most reliable.
worse case scenario is that Internet access becomes expensive in PA with only a few large players providing service.
also, you hurt your argument when you compare kiddy porn to pot. I don't like pot much, but it's certainly a heck of a lot less harmful than child porn...
no I didn't read the law. That doesn't change the fact that your statements are alarmist and without foundation. Also, since I am not a lawyer, I doubt that my reading of the law would convince you anyway. I think it is much more likely that common sense would actually prevail in a situation like this. A judge would look at the situation, realize that the proxy was the conduit (much more so than the ISP) and then do one of two things.
1) Let the ISP off.
2) Let the ISP off with an order that they block the proxy as well.
of course, but the law we're talking about here deals with blocking websites. I was suggesting that blocking websites w/o going after people pushing child porn on P2P networks is not enough.
I find it hard to believe that no one's complaining about the child porn going through gnutella. I'd like to do something about it, but I don't know what. I like P2P, but I'm not comfortable with the idea that I may be helping people distribute child porn (or any porn for that matter), even if it's only by passing along the search requests...
Dear GOD!!!
We don't have a magic bullet solution, so we'd better stop trying at all!!!
you moron, the fact that something is less than perfect doesn't mean it's useless.
moron. if the proxy isn't on the banned list, the ISP isn't violating anything. You on the other hand are. (You're viewing child porn). Go ahead, try this. I DARE you.
don't be ridiculous.
they'll just up the cost to the consumer to cover their butts/cover the cost/make a killing with an excuse.
why would you abandon a market just because of increased costs that apply to EVERYONE? Just charge more.
What about child porn on the various P2P networks?
If I use gnutella without some kind of family filter, even very innocent searches, (well, innocent if we forget about copyright law for the moment) will turn up some truly rancid stuff.
My first ever search for video files on a P2P was on Morpheus (old version), and it was for "Simpsons". It came up with a bunch of files including one describing underage rape or something. Of course I don't actually know that the description was accurate, but that was a search for a Fox cartoon show for crying out loud.
That's why I use Bearshare now. It's not the best gnutella servant, but it does have a very good family filter. (Here's a question though, does my Bearshare servant still pass on requests for porn?)
Going after websites without going after the rest of it is like only going after minivans for speeding...
bad argument. Cable television is classified as an "information service" despite the fact that the cable company doesn't own NBC, ABC, FOX, The weather channel, PBS, etc.
just because someone else makes the content doesn't make them a telecommunications service...
Slashdot Mirror
probably not if the judge has any sense at all.
There's a fundamental difference between a DoS or DDoS attack and the so-called /. effect. In the first two cases, the attacks generally come from remote controlled machines or zombie machines and is instigated by a very few number of people, or even just one person. In the case of the /. effect, each and every viewing of the webpage is deliberately instigated by a separate human being.
While most analogies of /. suck, I'll add one more: It's somewhat akin to the difference between a half dozen people chaining themselves to the entrance of a Starbucks and stopping people from entering as a means of protesting globalization and a couple hundred people all trying to get in at once because a radio DJ points out that they're selling double-shot mochas for a penny each.
I'm no encryption expert, but did you read this article on /. a few days ago?
yeah right... that's the same thing the RIAA & MPAA say about P2P applications.
No wait, you say... P2P applications have many legitimate uses, it's just that the illegal ones get all the attention. And even if they are more numerous, there are still legitimate uses...
Are you really so obtuse that I have to spell out how the EXACT SAME THING applies to guns?
Since I don't own a handgun, I may be speaking out of turn, but you're missing the point of a handgun. The purpose of carrying a handgun for protection is not to give you an advantage. (That would require an assumption that the criminals don't have guns...) Instead the purpose is to level the playing field. If a burly rapist meets a 5'5" petite woman on the street, gets who has the advantage. Give the woman a handgun, and you level the playing field as much as possible.
Also, the guns also favour whoever is most numerous. A man walking attempting to take hostages in a grocery store will run into serious problems if a substantial number of his victims are carrying guns. As soon as he turns his back on one of them...
I believe the expression is... "God created all men, Smith&Wesson made them equal"
Sure. When you're doing SENTENCING! That's why nobody's suggesting that we execute people for swapping files illegally. You don't decide whether or not something is illegal based on the harm it causes. By that logic, shoplifting relatively inexpensive items should be legal.
Just out of curiosity though... How can you be an active member of a shooting club if you don't own a gun? Oh, and there's a much simpler way to put up a barrier against criminals purchasing legal guns. (Do a criminal record check...)
uh... dude? You're saying that the govt. is rigging the studies against cannabis by using unfiltered tobacco cigarettes? That makes no sense. Putting a filter on the cigarettes would only make them less harmful...
that's 'cause our government is too chicken to decide what it thinks about weed. I'm pretty sure that the federal government wants to legalize it, but are too afraid to actually take a stand on an issue. (Never let principle stand it the way of votes).
Personally, I don't want it generally legalized, but I dislike this nancying around the issue almost as much. I hate politicians who won't tell me what they believe...
.
Actually, you're wrong. From the webpage: New: our image recognition algorithm can now determine which of the two cats is entering.
so who classifies it as a cult in this case? Obviously the government. This essentially makes any restriction on arresting people self-imposed.
.
well if you want to you can say that atheism is really agnosticism, but it's just word games.
Atheism is the belief that God does not exist. Plain and simple. As such it requires a leap of faith.
Belief in the existence of God also requires a leap of faith.
Only the assertion that one does not know whether or not God exists requires no leap of faith.
I mean really... how hard is this concept?
If you want to be an atheist, then be one. But don't pussy foot around it and pretend that you're not making a leap of faith on the issue.
.
maybe that was the original concept, but it's an idea that's been destroyed over time.
the government can indeed arrest someone on "church" property without the church's consent. (Waco Texas would be the best example of this)
and how does exempting a religious organization from taxes stop them from enforcing religious views? I would think that this comes from the part of the US constitution that says that the government cannot establish an official religion. (not American, so I don't know the exact clause).
Waving the carrot of tax free status gives the government much more control over a religion than simply taxing them.
Whatever the original reasons, tax free status is a liability today and should be abolished.
.
BZZT! WRONG!
Non-belief is agnosticism. As in, "I do not know that there is a God, neither do I know that there is not a God".
Atheism is the specific belief that God definately does not exist. As in "I know that God does not exist".
This means that agnosticism is a intellectual stance, while atheism is a faith. (Because believing something without positive proof requires a leap of faith).
I can give you a couple of Christian links if you like.
Campus Crusade
Bible Gateway
The reason you don't get /. stories about them is that they don't threaten google with lawsuits for daring to link to people critical of them.
This is why I think that "tax exempt" status for religious organizations should be eliminated. Why should the government decide what is a religion and what isn't? And since when is money essential to faith? Jesus does not need tax-exempt status to save the lost. (And he did say to pay your taxes). Tax-free status for religions is just a way to encourage money-making, morally corrupt organizations like the so-called "church" of scientology masquerade as a religion. .
Yes, anyone worth their salt always carries a backup. That's what a compass is for. Batteries dying is dying or damaging the electronics is not an absurd scenario. (Not sure about the waterfowl though). That's why you never stop carrying paper maps in favour of electronic ones. Simple technology is the most reliable.
also, you can make a compass using a bowl of still water, a blade of grass, and a small sliver of ferrous metal. (like the hand of a watch)
worse case scenario is that Internet access becomes expensive in PA with only a few large players providing service.
also, you hurt your argument when you compare kiddy porn to pot. I don't like pot much, but it's certainly a heck of a lot less harmful than child porn...
well, (un)fortunately I don't live there either.
no I didn't read the law. That doesn't change the fact that your statements are alarmist and without foundation. Also, since I am not a lawyer, I doubt that my reading of the law would convince you anyway. I think it is much more likely that common sense would actually prevail in a situation like this. A judge would look at the situation, realize that the proxy was the conduit (much more so than the ISP) and then do one of two things.
1) Let the ISP off.
2) Let the ISP off with an order that they block the proxy as well.
I think that time will prove me correct too...
fine, if you think I'm wrong you go try it then.
of course, but the law we're talking about here deals with blocking websites. I was suggesting that blocking websites w/o going after people pushing child porn on P2P networks is not enough.
I find it hard to believe that no one's complaining about the child porn going through gnutella. I'd like to do something about it, but I don't know what. I like P2P, but I'm not comfortable with the idea that I may be helping people distribute child porn (or any porn for that matter), even if it's only by passing along the search requests...
Dear GOD!!! We don't have a magic bullet solution, so we'd better stop trying at all!!! you moron, the fact that something is less than perfect doesn't mean it's useless.
moron. if the proxy isn't on the banned list, the ISP isn't violating anything. You on the other hand are. (You're viewing child porn). Go ahead, try this. I DARE you.
don't be ridiculous. they'll just up the cost to the consumer to cover their butts/cover the cost/make a killing with an excuse. why would you abandon a market just because of increased costs that apply to EVERYONE? Just charge more.
If I use gnutella without some kind of family filter, even very innocent searches, (well, innocent if we forget about copyright law for the moment) will turn up some truly rancid stuff.
My first ever search for video files on a P2P was on Morpheus (old version), and it was for "Simpsons". It came up with a bunch of files including one describing underage rape or something. Of course I don't actually know that the description was accurate, but that was a search for a Fox cartoon show for crying out loud.
That's why I use Bearshare now. It's not the best gnutella servant, but it does have a very good family filter. (Here's a question though, does my Bearshare servant still pass on requests for porn?)
Going after websites without going after the rest of it is like only going after minivans for speeding...
bad argument. Cable television is classified as an "information service" despite the fact that the cable company doesn't own NBC, ABC, FOX, The weather channel, PBS, etc.
just because someone else makes the content doesn't make them a telecommunications service...