Right, but was the East India Company as pervasive and powerful overall as large corporations as a whole are today?
Frankly I think the GP is exactly right: Our laws were not designed to protect us from massive corporate interests. Considering the amount of influence many multinationals have, they are alarmingly free in their abilities to screw people.
Isn't it illegal for MasterCard to knowingly take part in illegal transactions anyway?
Last I checked, buying swag from The Pirate Bay is not illegal. (My meaning is to demonstrate that not every transaction with a file sharing site is necessarily a violation of law.)
Where did he say that he buys pirated content? Maybe he likes to donate to these sites, or buy legitimate merch like t-shirts. Maybe he doesn't care about specific sites at all, but disagrees with the principle that a massive financial corporation can arbitrarily determine what you can and can't spend your money on. Please don't put on your antipirate hat and bash others without a good reason.
What, the fact that I've seen people on Slashdot claim iPods can't play MP3?
You misread my post as well. It is untrue that you cannot play an mp3 on an iPod.
You know, the overwhelming majority of people don't know WTF ogg-vorbis is. So, why would Apple build in support? To keep happy the 0.5% of the population who cares?
Software freedom is important whether you care about it or not.
I'm not in much of a position to easily donate funds to projects like this, but I can (and do) help out by seeding their episodes. Since the release of the first two episodes I've uploaded about 38 GB total for both episodes combined, and I plan to leave the torrent going for a long time.
I'm happy to help in this small way, and the beauty is that anyone who downloads the eps can do the same thing.
I saw your posts in today's net neutrality thread. You must be great fun at parties.
I understand that antipirates can't resist taking any chance they can to bash file sharers, but the parent didn't mention p2p at all. At least try to keep your hate-mongering on topic.
I would download and seed this if I could find a.torrent on their website, but it looks like the only way to watch it that they offer is embedded YouTube videos. The Pirate Bay doesn't have anything either.
> Easy to replace the MBR with a keylogger that sets aside the passphrase to part of the boot track for pickup later, and there are zero defenses against this
I could understand a local attack that does this, but are you saying this could be done remotely? If so, [citation needed] and said citation should not be Windows-centric. (As in, how could someone running Linux be susceptible to the sort of attack that affects the MBR itself?) The question is sincere; I'm quite interested in the answer.
BitLocker is closed-source and supplied by Microsoft. You can't trust it to not have some sort of back door. If you really need good drive encryption, go for TrueCrypt or Linux's ecryptfs tool. Or if not those, something else open-source at least.
> Blocking a route to free speech is the same as being against it.
You must get awful pissed off anytime you are: * Kicked from an IRC channel * Banned from a certain website (or your registration is simply refused) * Blocked on a social networking site * Blocked on an instant messaging service * At work and expected to maintain a level of civility
How dare they violate your right to free speech!
No. Freedom of speech is a guarantee that the government cannot silence people from making their opinions known, regardless of what they have to say. Gene Simmons is not being censored by the government, therefore, Anonymous is not violating his right to freedom of speech. Your post is FUD.
that you found only one misspelling is very good news to my ears.
Unfortunately...
The ban on creative commons works is appalling. You are publicly funded ans thus this shows a deep confilct of interests between you, who supposedly represent the public that fund your programming, and some agreements with private entities to suppress public work. You undermine the work of artists that are thinking ahead and are creating the next generation of thinking, creating and publishing model. As you know dinosaurs are now extincts, I believe you are no longer fit and do not represent our interests. I shall consequently actively lobby for the dismanteling of our once great public broadcaster to my federal representatives unless you correct your awful actions. With all my hearth I hope this will open your eyes.
> Send your concerns to spark@cbc.ca. Slashdotting their mail server would be appropriate.
Um, no? My understanding of the matter is that CBC itself is imposing the restriction on programs such as Spark. I don't think Spark itself is guilty of anything here, so they don't deserve to take any heat.
This anonymous reader just copied the text straight from Michael Geist's post and it gets put on the front page, whereas my submission, which was not copied verbatim from Geist and in fact was originally written by me, is left "pending" and will presumably be rejected for redundancy.
There should be a system wherein duplicate submissions are not marked as "rejected" outright as the term implies that the submission itself was bad; "rejected" is a very negative term. Perhaps "duplicate" or something. As it is now, a submission can be marked "rejected" just because the editor saw another submission first. It has nothing to do with the quality of the writing. I don't want others to look at my submission history and see a large "rejected" percentage simply based off of bad timing.
Well, sure, but all the filing party must say is that they -think- that, all other things having been considered, their copyright has been infringed. No evidence required, just an accusation.
> Child sex offences by an adult tend to be frowned upon in the UK. Okay, one, the guy is nineteen. He might legally be an adult, but he can't realistically be considered an adult in the same sense that a guy in his thirties can be. A nineteen-year-old having sex with a fifteen-year-old, for example, is not as bad as a thirty-year-old doing the same thing.
Two, the guy was only accused of the child exploitation stuff, as I inferred from TFA. No conviction, aside from the jail time for refusing to surrender his password. Innocent until proven guilty.
Or set up a hidden TrueCrypt volume. Essentially you're creating an encrypted storage volume inside an encrypted storage volume (inb4 'yo dawg' jokes) with different decryption keys for both. It's not possible to prove the hidden volume exists unless you enter its key into TrueCrypt. If 'They' shake you down for the key to the volume, just give them the key for the 'outer' volume in which you've stashed some somewhat disturbing but legal porn or something. (I'd love to see the reaction of a police officer who decrypted the outer volume and all it contained was Goatse.)
It's open-source (although its license is a little questionable) and cross-platform. Obviously, free as in beer. http://www.truecrypt.org/
Oliver Drage, 19, of Liverpool, was arrested in May 2009 by police tackling child sexual exploitation.
Well, I guess that makes it okay, then. After all, we can't allow people accused of child sexual exploitation to be free, can we?
On a more serious note, this sucks.
Det Sgt Neil Fowler, of Lancashire police, said: "Drage was previously of good character so the immediate custodial sentence handed down by the judge in this case shows just how seriously the courts take this kind of offence.
"Computer systems are constantly advancing and the legislation used here was specifically brought in to deal with those who are using the internet to commit crime.
"It sends a robust message out to those intent on trying to mask their online criminal activities that they will be taken before the courts with the ultimate sanction, as in this case, being a custodial sentence."
I guess insisting on your privacy is taboo now. Even if you're a good kid, if you refuse to let the police into your private files just on principle, you're boned.
Slashdot Mirror
Right, but was the East India Company as pervasive and powerful overall as large corporations as a whole are today?
Frankly I think the GP is exactly right: Our laws were not designed to protect us from massive corporate interests. Considering the amount of influence many multinationals have, they are alarmingly free in their abilities to screw people.
Isn't it illegal for MasterCard to knowingly take part in illegal transactions anyway?
Last I checked, buying swag from The Pirate Bay is not illegal. (My meaning is to demonstrate that not every transaction with a file sharing site is necessarily a violation of law.)
Where did he say that he buys pirated content? Maybe he likes to donate to these sites, or buy legitimate merch like t-shirts. Maybe he doesn't care about specific sites at all, but disagrees with the principle that a massive financial corporation can arbitrarily determine what you can and can't spend your money on. Please don't put on your antipirate hat and bash others without a good reason.
This is untrue
What, the fact that I've seen people on Slashdot claim iPods can't play MP3?
You misread my post as well. It is untrue that you cannot play an mp3 on an iPod.
You know, the overwhelming majority of people don't know WTF ogg-vorbis is. So, why would Apple build in support? To keep happy the 0.5% of the population who cares?
Software freedom is important whether you care about it or not.
How do you know it's untrue?
You misread my post. The idea that you cannot play mp3s on an iPod is untrue.
I still see people claiming you can't play MP3s on an iPod.
This is untrue, but the fact that I cannot play my .ogg files on my iPod does not endear me to Apple.
Cue rockbox.
Couldn't the same be said of anything involving computers? In other words, isn't your post rather pointless?
I'm not in much of a position to easily donate funds to projects like this, but I can (and do) help out by seeding their episodes. Since the release of the first two episodes I've uploaded about 38 GB total for both episodes combined, and I plan to leave the torrent going for a long time.
I'm happy to help in this small way, and the beauty is that anyone who downloads the eps can do the same thing.
I saw your posts in today's net neutrality thread. You must be great fun at parties.
I understand that antipirates can't resist taking any chance they can to bash file sharers, but the parent didn't mention p2p at all. At least try to keep your hate-mongering on topic.
I would download and seed this if I could find a .torrent on their website, but it looks like the only way to watch it that they offer is embedded YouTube videos. The Pirate Bay doesn't have anything either.
> Easy to replace the MBR with a keylogger that sets aside the passphrase to part of the boot track for pickup later, and there are zero defenses against this
I could understand a local attack that does this, but are you saying this could be done remotely? If so, [citation needed] and said citation should not be Windows-centric. (As in, how could someone running Linux be susceptible to the sort of attack that affects the MBR itself?) The question is sincere; I'm quite interested in the answer.
> bit locker on your drives
BitLocker is closed-source and supplied by Microsoft. You can't trust it to not have some sort of back door. If you really need good drive encryption, go for TrueCrypt or Linux's ecryptfs tool. Or if not those, something else open-source at least.
> Blocking a route to free speech is the same as being against it.
You must get awful pissed off anytime you are:
* Kicked from an IRC channel
* Banned from a certain website (or your registration is simply refused)
* Blocked on a social networking site
* Blocked on an instant messaging service
* At work and expected to maintain a level of civility
How dare they violate your right to free speech!
No. Freedom of speech is a guarantee that the government cannot silence people from making their opinions known, regardless of what they have to say. Gene Simmons is not being censored by the government, therefore, Anonymous is not violating his right to freedom of speech. Your post is FUD.
Didn't Super Mario Bros. (the original) turn 25 last month?
Is the game really older than the console on which it runs?
my iPad Touch... in its second year [of] battery capacity
Really?!
> Well, after copying their interface from Apple
Care to provide a basis for this?
that you found only one misspelling is very good news to my ears.
Unfortunately...
The ban on creative commons works is appalling. You are publicly funded ans thus this shows a deep confilct of interests between you, who supposedly represent the public that fund your programming, and some agreements with private entities to suppress public work. You undermine the work of artists that are thinking ahead and are creating the next generation of thinking, creating and publishing model. As you know dinosaurs are now extincts, I believe you are no longer fit and do not represent our interests. I shall consequently actively lobby for the dismanteling of our once great public broadcaster to my federal representatives unless you correct your awful actions. With all my hearth I hope this will open your eyes.
> Send your concerns to spark@cbc.ca. Slashdotting their mail server would be appropriate.
Um, no? My understanding of the matter is that CBC itself is imposing the restriction on programs such as Spark. I don't think Spark itself is guilty of anything here, so they don't deserve to take any heat.
This anonymous reader just copied the text straight from Michael Geist's post and it gets put on the front page, whereas my submission, which was not copied verbatim from Geist and in fact was originally written by me, is left "pending" and will presumably be rejected for redundancy.
There should be a system wherein duplicate submissions are not marked as "rejected" outright as the term implies that the submission itself was bad; "rejected" is a very negative term. Perhaps "duplicate" or something. As it is now, a submission can be marked "rejected" just because the editor saw another submission first. It has nothing to do with the quality of the writing. I don't want others to look at my submission history and see a large "rejected" percentage simply based off of bad timing.
*sigh*
Well, sure, but all the filing party must say is that they -think- that, all other things having been considered, their copyright has been infringed. No evidence required, just an accusation.
I really like this idea. Can anyone offer a good reason as to why this shouldn't be implemented?
> Child sex offences by an adult tend to be frowned upon in the UK.
Okay, one, the guy is nineteen. He might legally be an adult, but he can't realistically be considered an adult in the same sense that a guy in his thirties can be. A nineteen-year-old having sex with a fifteen-year-old, for example, is not as bad as a thirty-year-old doing the same thing.
Two, the guy was only accused of the child exploitation stuff, as I inferred from TFA. No conviction, aside from the jail time for refusing to surrender his password. Innocent until proven guilty.
Or set up a hidden TrueCrypt volume. Essentially you're creating an encrypted storage volume inside an encrypted storage volume (inb4 'yo dawg' jokes) with different decryption keys for both. It's not possible to prove the hidden volume exists unless you enter its key into TrueCrypt. If 'They' shake you down for the key to the volume, just give them the key for the 'outer' volume in which you've stashed some somewhat disturbing but legal porn or something. (I'd love to see the reaction of a police officer who decrypted the outer volume and all it contained was Goatse.)
It's open-source (although its license is a little questionable) and cross-platform. Obviously, free as in beer. http://www.truecrypt.org/
> Is this the whole 5th amendment thing?
No, because this is in the UK. *shakes head*
Oliver Drage, 19, of Liverpool, was arrested in May 2009 by police tackling child sexual exploitation.
Well, I guess that makes it okay, then. After all, we can't allow people accused of child sexual exploitation to be free, can we?
On a more serious note, this sucks.
Det Sgt Neil Fowler, of Lancashire police, said: "Drage was previously of good character so the immediate custodial sentence handed down by the judge in this case shows just how seriously the courts take this kind of offence.
"Computer systems are constantly advancing and the legislation used here was specifically brought in to deal with those who are using the internet to commit crime.
"It sends a robust message out to those intent on trying to mask their online criminal activities that they will be taken before the courts with the ultimate sanction, as in this case, being a custodial sentence."
I guess insisting on your privacy is taboo now. Even if you're a good kid, if you refuse to let the police into your private files just on principle, you're boned.