Freedom is speech is for all Americans - not just for the ones I or you agree with.
You are incorrect in your assumptions. You are inferring that the intent of this kid was to harm the DDoS targets freedom of speech. They never lost their freedom of speech. Even if the site was temporarily down for a week, for that theoretical week their freedom of speech was still extant and valid.
This is very true. It pains me so much that it is the case. I do not know of any thing that could be done about this, either. If I were President, I would pardon and commute more sentences than every President in history combined. The pardon was included in our constitution, and many state constitutions, as a balancing act against an imperfect judicial system. Nowadays, people consider a pardon a "gift", as if it were something to be given around Christmastime by the king (President/Governor)... and this is the way it is typically done.
I find this very easy to believe. I take it you are a smart person, at least I'll presume so given you comment on Slashdot forums. Given that, I'm somewhat disappointed that you don't believe that this could happen.
Please Google "war on drugs" and you'll find plenty of horror stories such as this.
Five years for what Kevin Mitnick was extremely excessive. Two and a half years for DDoS is extremely excessive.
You should also ask yourself, if a DDoS deserves two and a half years, then what does a burglary warrant? If you look it up, you'd be surprised at how long a person goes to jail for robbery.
butlerm is absolutely correct. 3G and 4G are not "standards", they are marketing terms. They have no right or authority, nor should they, to define marketing terms. The reason they shouldn't is because labeling the wimax technology as "4G" does absolutely NOTHING as a standard. A standard is something that helps two disparate entities communicate, for example it allows the manufacturers in Taiwan to create handsets that are compatible with the networks of Europe. Why in the heck are the ITU interested in the marketing of the HSPA+ technology, which is superior to the previous "generation" of 3G technologies?
"For WiMax operator Clearwire, the 4G label denotes an advancement beyond 3G networks, Clearwire spokesman Mike DiGioia said. "
Right... and when I advertise my penis as being 12 inches long on various dating sites, what I really mean is that it is bigger than six inches.
Well, um, yeah... everyone knows that's what it means.
On a side note, the ITU has no business defining marketing terms like "4G". They should only be defining standards to help disparate entities communicate, and applying a marketing label like "4G" to a group of technologies does nothing of the sort.
THANK YOU. There have been many upgrades to the technology that was 3G, and these idiot bureaucrats are simply wrong in stating that 4G = 3G + 1. There have been more than one "generation" of technological upgrades. They have not defined any "standards" that will ease communication between separate entities at all.
So what. Apparently T-Mobile is releasing a faster network than the previous 3G network, a process which I guess takes at least a year (I don't know how long it really takes). Sprint also released a network upgrade before this that was an improvement over 3G. Last month some guys in Switzerland just decided what 4G means... LAST MONTH. There's already been new generations of technology since 3G. I mean, wtf, if the technology won't be around for FIVE more years, what are all the upgrades to the networks that will happen in those 5 years be called? By the time the technologies that the guys in Switzerland call 4G comes to fruition, there will likely be many "generations" of upgraded technology and speeds since 3G. I don't see why everyone on the planet needs to change what they call things because of those guys. Not that I'm against standards, I'm just against the way and why this "standard" was decided... it's an artificial marketing term that means nothing, which doesn't actually help standardize communications between any entities, and in my opinion, just isn't correct because there are many "generations" between what they call 3G and 4G.
So what they're saying is that the hackers will take your bank account credentials, AND your picture so they can print the credit card with it! Sweet, where do I sign up?
1. Reading over the comments, it seems everyone didn't like the finale to Battlestar Galactica, or BSG. Why? I mean, other than that silly part about travelling a trillion trillion miles to an alien planet with aliens that had 99% compatible DNA, the rest of it was great. Sad, interesting, cool, exciting, surprises, it was great and had all the ingredients of a good final episode.
2. Nobody likes Caprica? I thought it was very interesting about how AI which becomes so similar to humans and it thinks its human, it was exploring all these cool ideas about that such as religion.
I told my girlfriend, the biggest reason I can't get into it is because I already know how it ends. It's a timeless classic. People build robots. Robots get big, mean and eventually out of control. They fight with the humans. The humans fight back. There's years of pouting where they live on different planets, and then the robots get their revenge. Big explosions, almost everyone dies. Subplots. Subplots. Subplots. The survivors go run off and find another planet, and start over yet again.
Every story ever told has already been told. It's all in the telling. And of COURSE you know how it ends, you've already seen BSG! This sarcasm is not fulfilling to a happy, successful life, IMHO.
What was wrong with the finale? Other than the fact that "this alien species a trillion trillion miles away's DNA is 99% equivalent to ours", I thought it was great. And quite sad, too.
God, I really hate it when people repeat this oft-quoted, but incorrect, piece of trivia. The United States of America is a democracy. A democracy is a form of government where citizens elect their government. Yes, there are more details than this (i.e. the government is a republic, it is not a direct democracy, we have states, etc.). And of course, there are many types of democracies. But the United States of America is a democracy. A republic and a democracy are not mutually exclusive.
Well where's the damn solution? I hate having to change the volume every 7-12 minutes, then 2-5 minutes after that, in an endless cycle. I can't go to sleep at night. I, no lie, TRIED BUYING a TV one month ago with this feature, and the guy at the store had no idea what I was talking about.
I've been waiting for the free market to solve the problem. It hasn't yet. So if a regulation comes along, that (importantly!), doesn't restrict our freedoms, then I'm all for it.
P.S. Technically this law does restrict the freedom of the TV/cable/advertisers, but in the same way that a dairy farmer is restricted in his or her freedom from selling you milk that has been left out in the sun for a week.
BTW I mean to say, bullshit about free-market, I am pro-free-market and I can't wait for this legislation so I can finally go to sleep at night. When some people think "free market" they mean the literal anarchy version where there's no legislation at all, such as against tainted milk, which is not what any sane person in the world would want. So I still support "free market" and think this law is fine; it's regulation, NOT a restriction of consumer options.
Bullshit. The free market failed. The fact is that commercials play too loudly SUCKS, it is a HORRIBLE PROBLEM (maybe I exagerrate, not on the top of the list of the worst problems in life, but still). The free market should have taken care of this. Consumers would either 1. watch channels where that doesn't happen, or 2. Television companies would have produced TVs by now which take care of the problem. Well, that hasn't happened, and the free market failed.
Yes, I know the subject is a little controversial. I hate it when legislators make laws based on their current whims. I have a libertarian streak in me (but I'm not a Libertarian, but anyways), and I don't like legislators giving me or someone else useless rules and regulations.
HOWEVER, in this case I feel the free market failed the end users. Some of you are making fun of this and about how remote controls already let you control the volume. In recent years, the volume difference between the actual programming and the commercials is so great that me and my partner have to change the volume at every commercial. It's startling when a commercial comes on, and very difficult to watch TV at night when one of us is trying to go to sleep. The free market theoretically should have worked out to where the end user wants this feature, and it will appear. This could be in terms of people only watching channels which don't turn up the volume during commercials. Or in other cases people could have purchased TVs which automatically normalize the volume to a certain level. Well, both of those things don't actually exist in mass market (that I know of... I know some of you will be quick to point out that there are TVs which do have volume normalization, but I just bought a TV and none of the TVs that I were looking at had the feature, so even if it does exist it isn't in most TVs).
Sometimes there are things that the market doesn't handle on its own. This is one of them. And I can't wait for these damn commercials to return to normal volume. Regardless of your own opinions on how much of a problem it is, to some people like us, it makes watching TV unbearable at night.
Firstly, I feel great about all the software I pirate, except I'm a linux user who doesn't own a smartphone. Funny that.
Touche. But the attitude is the same as a PC user who pirates. I can't say anything about YOU personally because I don't know you.
Apart from Apple's powerful marketing, the fact the iPhone has tens of times more market share than Android, and the fact that iPhone users are likely from wealthier backgrounds than Android users, I'm sure the iPhone market is a perfect control group to compare the Android market to.
Actually, there are ALREADY more Android users than iPhone users. And the number is just going to grow. However, you are absolutely correct about the fact that iPhone users are more affluent.
Finally, there is no indication that illegal copies equal to lost sales -- let me say that in a different way: there is no indication that piracy equals to even one lost sale. Unless someone can provide some evidence that piracy has any negative effect on the market, then it's a molehill as far as I can see (and as far as legislators etc should see, but that's a different story).
This is a bullshit answer that people fighting against piracy always come up against. You can't EVER prove this statement one way or another. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability I worry that this discussion will go into a different rant about this, though. I know that there is a degree of levels about how to compare piracy for a given "group" of software (i.e. Microsoft Office and Adobe Photoshop, vs. cheap games). What I am absolutely sure about is that when it is easier to put pirated software on your computer than legitimate, there are many people who would have normally purchased the software will pirate. The problem that is being addressed in the article is that Google's marketplace is very susceptible to piracy, and it is killing the economy of the marketplace and app developers. As of now, the process of having an iPhone and then purchasing apps is easier than having an Android phone and purchasing apps. You seem to be indicating that piracy on Android is irrelevant, and there is no evidence otherwise. I strongly believe, although I can't call this a "fact", that the iPhone marketplace is evidence otherwise.
And although it isn't relevant to the conversation, I think it would be fair to admit that I myself have pirated software on a PC for various reasons, although I would no longer do so now (I'm 29). (well, I guess just one reason: money. Maybe one could argue that the times that I download pirated software to circumvent DRM on games that I have validly purchased... hello E.A.... is legally piracy, but that doesn't kill the economy of the games market)
Hey, thanks! Although I probably would have researched this more once I got to the point of releasing it (which I'm hoping to do before Christmas when people will be getting new phones), you have lifted my spirits!:)
Slashdot Mirror
Freedom is speech is for all Americans - not just for the ones I or you agree with.
You are incorrect in your assumptions. You are inferring that the intent of this kid was to harm the DDoS targets freedom of speech. They never lost their freedom of speech. Even if the site was temporarily down for a week, for that theoretical week their freedom of speech was still extant and valid.
This is very true. It pains me so much that it is the case. I do not know of any thing that could be done about this, either. If I were President, I would pardon and commute more sentences than every President in history combined. The pardon was included in our constitution, and many state constitutions, as a balancing act against an imperfect judicial system. Nowadays, people consider a pardon a "gift", as if it were something to be given around Christmastime by the king (President/Governor)... and this is the way it is typically done.
I find this very easy to believe. I take it you are a smart person, at least I'll presume so given you comment on Slashdot forums. Given that, I'm somewhat disappointed that you don't believe that this could happen.
Please Google "war on drugs" and you'll find plenty of horror stories such as this.
Five years for what Kevin Mitnick was extremely excessive. Two and a half years for DDoS is extremely excessive.
You should also ask yourself, if a DDoS deserves two and a half years, then what does a burglary warrant? If you look it up, you'd be surprised at how long a person goes to jail for robbery.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/fuck-everything-were-doing-five-blades,11056/
butlerm is absolutely correct. 3G and 4G are not "standards", they are marketing terms. They have no right or authority, nor should they, to define marketing terms. The reason they shouldn't is because labeling the wimax technology as "4G" does absolutely NOTHING as a standard. A standard is something that helps two disparate entities communicate, for example it allows the manufacturers in Taiwan to create handsets that are compatible with the networks of Europe. Why in the heck are the ITU interested in the marketing of the HSPA+ technology, which is superior to the previous "generation" of 3G technologies?
Right ... and when I advertise my penis as being 12 inches long on various dating sites, what I really mean is that it is bigger than six inches.
Well, um, yeah... everyone knows that's what it means.
On a side note, the ITU has no business defining marketing terms like "4G". They should only be defining standards to help disparate entities communicate, and applying a marketing label like "4G" to a group of technologies does nothing of the sort.
THANK YOU. There have been many upgrades to the technology that was 3G, and these idiot bureaucrats are simply wrong in stating that 4G = 3G + 1. There have been more than one "generation" of technological upgrades. They have not defined any "standards" that will ease communication between separate entities at all.
So what. Apparently T-Mobile is releasing a faster network than the previous 3G network, a process which I guess takes at least a year (I don't know how long it really takes). Sprint also released a network upgrade before this that was an improvement over 3G. Last month some guys in Switzerland just decided what 4G means... LAST MONTH. There's already been new generations of technology since 3G. I mean, wtf, if the technology won't be around for FIVE more years, what are all the upgrades to the networks that will happen in those 5 years be called? By the time the technologies that the guys in Switzerland call 4G comes to fruition, there will likely be many "generations" of upgraded technology and speeds since 3G. I don't see why everyone on the planet needs to change what they call things because of those guys. Not that I'm against standards, I'm just against the way and why this "standard" was decided... it's an artificial marketing term that means nothing, which doesn't actually help standardize communications between any entities, and in my opinion, just isn't correct because there are many "generations" between what they call 3G and 4G.
So what they're saying is that the hackers will take your bank account credentials, AND your picture so they can print the credit card with it! Sweet, where do I sign up?
No offence to you, sir or madam, but your statement is an expression of your inexperience, not the technical merits of Java.
1. Reading over the comments, it seems everyone didn't like the finale to Battlestar Galactica, or BSG. Why? I mean, other than that silly part about travelling a trillion trillion miles to an alien planet with aliens that had 99% compatible DNA, the rest of it was great. Sad, interesting, cool, exciting, surprises, it was great and had all the ingredients of a good final episode. 2. Nobody likes Caprica? I thought it was very interesting about how AI which becomes so similar to humans and it thinks its human, it was exploring all these cool ideas about that such as religion.
Did anybody read the article?
No one ever does!
I told my girlfriend, the biggest reason I can't get into it is because I already know how it ends. It's a timeless classic. People build robots. Robots get big, mean and eventually out of control. They fight with the humans. The humans fight back. There's years of pouting where they live on different planets, and then the robots get their revenge. Big explosions, almost everyone dies. Subplots. Subplots. Subplots. The survivors go run off and find another planet, and start over yet again.
Every story ever told has already been told. It's all in the telling. And of COURSE you know how it ends, you've already seen BSG! This sarcasm is not fulfilling to a happy, successful life, IMHO.
What was wrong with the finale? Other than the fact that "this alien species a trillion trillion miles away's DNA is 99% equivalent to ours", I thought it was great. And quite sad, too.
Half of their audience lost interest with the huge break. The other half probably didn't even know the show had started up again.
Oh shit! I didn't know that it started up again!
The United States is a republic, not a democracy.
God, I really hate it when people repeat this oft-quoted, but incorrect, piece of trivia. The United States of America is a democracy. A democracy is a form of government where citizens elect their government. Yes, there are more details than this (i.e. the government is a republic, it is not a direct democracy, we have states, etc.). And of course, there are many types of democracies. But the United States of America is a democracy. A republic and a democracy are not mutually exclusive.
Next time please don't post a story with 4 links. I don't know what to click!
Repeat after me... Iraqis are Arab.
Well where's the damn solution? I hate having to change the volume every 7-12 minutes, then 2-5 minutes after that, in an endless cycle. I can't go to sleep at night. I, no lie, TRIED BUYING a TV one month ago with this feature, and the guy at the store had no idea what I was talking about.
I've been waiting for the free market to solve the problem. It hasn't yet. So if a regulation comes along, that (importantly!), doesn't restrict our freedoms, then I'm all for it.
P.S. Technically this law does restrict the freedom of the TV/cable/advertisers, but in the same way that a dairy farmer is restricted in his or her freedom from selling you milk that has been left out in the sun for a week.
BTW I mean to say, bullshit about free-market, I am pro-free-market and I can't wait for this legislation so I can finally go to sleep at night. When some people think "free market" they mean the literal anarchy version where there's no legislation at all, such as against tainted milk, which is not what any sane person in the world would want. So I still support "free market" and think this law is fine; it's regulation, NOT a restriction of consumer options.
Bullshit. The free market failed. The fact is that commercials play too loudly SUCKS, it is a HORRIBLE PROBLEM (maybe I exagerrate, not on the top of the list of the worst problems in life, but still). The free market should have taken care of this. Consumers would either 1. watch channels where that doesn't happen, or 2. Television companies would have produced TVs by now which take care of the problem. Well, that hasn't happened, and the free market failed.
Yes, I know the subject is a little controversial. I hate it when legislators make laws based on their current whims. I have a libertarian streak in me (but I'm not a Libertarian, but anyways), and I don't like legislators giving me or someone else useless rules and regulations.
HOWEVER, in this case I feel the free market failed the end users. Some of you are making fun of this and about how remote controls already let you control the volume. In recent years, the volume difference between the actual programming and the commercials is so great that me and my partner have to change the volume at every commercial. It's startling when a commercial comes on, and very difficult to watch TV at night when one of us is trying to go to sleep. The free market theoretically should have worked out to where the end user wants this feature, and it will appear. This could be in terms of people only watching channels which don't turn up the volume during commercials. Or in other cases people could have purchased TVs which automatically normalize the volume to a certain level. Well, both of those things don't actually exist in mass market (that I know of... I know some of you will be quick to point out that there are TVs which do have volume normalization, but I just bought a TV and none of the TVs that I were looking at had the feature, so even if it does exist it isn't in most TVs).
Sometimes there are things that the market doesn't handle on its own. This is one of them. And I can't wait for these damn commercials to return to normal volume. Regardless of your own opinions on how much of a problem it is, to some people like us, it makes watching TV unbearable at night.
Firstly, I feel great about all the software I pirate, except I'm a linux user who doesn't own a smartphone. Funny that.
Touche. But the attitude is the same as a PC user who pirates. I can't say anything about YOU personally because I don't know you.
Apart from Apple's powerful marketing, the fact the iPhone has tens of times more market share than Android, and the fact that iPhone users are likely from wealthier backgrounds than Android users, I'm sure the iPhone market is a perfect control group to compare the Android market to.
Actually, there are ALREADY more Android users than iPhone users. And the number is just going to grow. However, you are absolutely correct about the fact that iPhone users are more affluent.
Finally, there is no indication that illegal copies equal to lost sales -- let me say that in a different way: there is no indication that piracy equals to even one lost sale. Unless someone can provide some evidence that piracy has any negative effect on the market, then it's a molehill as far as I can see (and as far as legislators etc should see, but that's a different story).
This is a bullshit answer that people fighting against piracy always come up against. You can't EVER prove this statement one way or another. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability I worry that this discussion will go into a different rant about this, though. I know that there is a degree of levels about how to compare piracy for a given "group" of software (i.e. Microsoft Office and Adobe Photoshop, vs. cheap games). What I am absolutely sure about is that when it is easier to put pirated software on your computer than legitimate, there are many people who would have normally purchased the software will pirate. The problem that is being addressed in the article is that Google's marketplace is very susceptible to piracy, and it is killing the economy of the marketplace and app developers. As of now, the process of having an iPhone and then purchasing apps is easier than having an Android phone and purchasing apps. You seem to be indicating that piracy on Android is irrelevant, and there is no evidence otherwise. I strongly believe, although I can't call this a "fact", that the iPhone marketplace is evidence otherwise.
... is legally piracy, but that doesn't kill the economy of the games market)
And although it isn't relevant to the conversation, I think it would be fair to admit that I myself have pirated software on a PC for various reasons, although I would no longer do so now (I'm 29). (well, I guess just one reason: money. Maybe one could argue that the times that I download pirated software to circumvent DRM on games that I have validly purchased... hello E.A.
Hey, thanks! Although I probably would have researched this more once I got to the point of releasing it (which I'm hoping to do before Christmas when people will be getting new phones), you have lifted my spirits! :)