How does that even make sense? Downloading is a TYPE of distribution. Whoever's hosting is obviously breaking the law unless they have permission from the copyright holder, are the copyright holder.
And obviously, if you're doing bittorrent, you're both a downloader AND a host distributing the torrent to the other peers.
So Bittorrent (of copyrighted works that you don't have permission to distribute) is apparently illegal in Finland, then?
I signed up for gmail, and after logging into the account about four times, and having sent all of maybe a dozen emails, all of which went to personal friends, started receiving spam messages. Currently it's a trickle, something under 1 spam message per day, and they've all been caught by gmail's spam filter, but for some reason I still find it annoying to see ANY spam. I don't get spam at all on my fastmail accounts, and have been using them as my everyday mail account for better than a year now.
If so, that'll make it *harder* for software to be returned.
But how can they enforce that? Say I buy software for someone else, as a present. I'm not the End User; I'm a consumer. The End User decides I didn't buy them what they wanted for whatever reason... how can they return it? Doubtless, the EULA that I supposedly had to read and agree to prior to purchase will forbid returns. So how can my friend get a refund for this unwanted present?
I guess the answer is, friends don't buy friends commercially licensed software...
Back in February, HP was advertising the laptop deal that I bought... Mobile Athlon XP 2500+, 256MB PC 2700 SDRAM, 40GB HDD, 1024x768 15" LCD screen, 24x CD-RW/DVD-ROM, no WiFi built in, $699 after $400 in rebates. I've seen nothing cheaper in the past year, and anything else I've seen at $699 had a Celeron-M 330 processor, which my Athlon XP blows right out of the water. I bought a 802.11g PCMCIA card for $30 and a 512MB SODIMM from Crucial for $100, and a $30 case to carry it in, and it's been a great little laptop for me. I'd take it over this sub-$500 Linspire job, anyday. I run XP Pro and SuSE on my HP ze4610us and I really couldn't be happier for what I got, best value for the dollar.
I seem to remember reading way back in the day that Space Invaders - Pac Man era arcade games outgrossed Hollywood, and by a significant margin. Is this really news?
Brainless Manager: Where's my deliverables! We're past our due date!
Rosegarden Developer: It'll be done when it's done. I never promised you a--DOH! Uh, I'll get those deliverables to you by noon, sir. <grumbles>stupid project names</grumbles>
Non-violent crimes can also be threatening to life.
Consider environmental laws. Break these laws, say dumping huge amounts of waste improperly. This is a danger to many lives. Yet it is not violent.
Consider CEOs raiding the company treasury and running off with millions, the company ruined, the pensions gutted, thousands of people unemployed, the company unable to function, customers and creditors alike screwed. And probably the CEO is able to avoid prosecution on some technicality, and is free to keep his money and commit the same act again and get away with it. This cripples society, inhibits progress, and may lead to suffering and even death.
A criminal hacker using a computer could do similar things to bring down a company and leave many ruined lives in the wake.
I am not advocating death penalty for credit card info theft and electronic breaking and entering. But 9 years doesn't seem all that unreasonable to me, either.
This is not a hacker trying to be some kind of activist and save society from Lowe's or from the evil credit card companies.
The original parent of this thread made a statement to the effect that the 9-year sentence showed that the legal system is biased toward greed over life. How is this so? I gather that the parent is insinuating that Lowe's is a greedy corporation, and is so greedy that they're even willing to take 9 years of someone's life away "just" because they tried to steal the company's credit card transaction data. That's bullshit.
The criminal who received the sentence was clearly greedy. How is hacking Lowe's to steal credit card info life affirming? If a 9 year sentence for hacking Lowe's shows that the courts favor greed over life, then hacking Lowe's must be the Life side of the Greed vs. Life court case. I can accept that corporate business represents Greed. So how does hacking for credit card info represent Life?
Answer: it doesn't. The criminal gets what he deserves. 9 years for stealing potentially thousands of dollars and causing millions of dollars worth of hassles for the victims of the credit card fraud seems just fine. That it was a first-time offense, or that the attempt failed is hardly relevant. It's the severity of the crime and the intent that matter.
Enron is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. Enron isn't a computer crime, exactly, but it's a good example of a non-violent crime. Ken Lay ought to be up for the death penalty (if we're going to have a death penalty in this country) but instead he's walking around free, still quite wealthy, and in his wake there are thousands of ripped off employees and angry customers. If you don't think Enron didn't destabilize the country, you don't understand the scope of the damage it caused.
A single hacker messing around with the right financial data can ruin the lives of thousands or millions of people, causing more harm in aggregate than a even a few murders.
Murder's bad, don't get me wrong, but the impact of one human being killed vs. the impact of massive computer fraud can be worse. If an economy tanks badly enough, it can destabilize an entire country, resulting in mayhem and more deaths than a lone gunman on a killing spree could "aspire" to.
I'm more worried about non-violent "white collar" crime than I am about petty thuggery and street crime. Computer crime is potentially vastly more dangerous than a single person with a gun could ever be.
Unsubscribe generally does work for legitimate mass mailings, ie the ones you had to sign up for in the first place. It doesn't work for true SPAM, and indeed as others have pointed out, tends to actually make the problem worse.
It's amazing that this is considered "news", but I guess you have to repeat experiments every so often to prove that the theories they provide support for still hold water.
The amount of radiation *generated* by burning coal and oil may indeed be less than the amount *generated* by nuclear fission, for the same amount of energy produced. But, ALL of the fossil fuel radiation is *released* into the atmosphere, whereas the nuclear fission radiation is *contained* unless containment is breached in an accident. Therefore, as long as containment holds, nuclear fission is cleaner and safer than fossil fuels.
Yeah, it's so annoying when they have an actor replace another actor. Like, there have only been 7 Hamlets in the whole of human history, and THAT'S SIX HAMLETS TOO FUCKING MANY! There should have only been ONE Hamlet, and when HE died, they should have stopped making Hamlet productions. This continual resurrection of Shakespeare bullshit is utterly shameless. Robbing the grave for yet another dollar, trotting out the same tired old remakes. The don't even bother writing up new scripts anymore, it's the SAME FUCKING PLAY, AGAIN! When WILL audiences learn?
George Lazenby. I would say the worst, if only because he had his scale way too far on the "Steal your woman" metric. In other words, he looked like a pussy doing the stuff that Bond does. Hell, he gets married for christ sakes. If that doesn't scream, limp wristed fighting style (in the context of Bond that is), I don't know what does./blockquote
Yep, nothing faggier than a man marrying a woman. I'm surprised the conservative MPAA censors allowed that to screen. Well, that's the '70's for you...
Slashdot Mirror
This is guy put the "insane" in "insanely great"
How does that even make sense? Downloading is a TYPE of distribution. Whoever's hosting is obviously breaking the law unless they have permission from the copyright holder, are the copyright holder.
And obviously, if you're doing bittorrent, you're both a downloader AND a host distributing the torrent to the other peers.
So Bittorrent (of copyrighted works that you don't have permission to distribute) is apparently illegal in Finland, then?
I signed up for gmail, and after logging into the account about four times, and having sent all of maybe a dozen emails, all of which went to personal friends, started receiving spam messages. Currently it's a trickle, something under 1 spam message per day, and they've all been caught by gmail's spam filter, but for some reason I still find it annoying to see ANY spam. I don't get spam at all on my fastmail accounts, and have been using them as my everyday mail account for better than a year now.
*Hot chick that designed product not included.
If so, that'll make it *harder* for software to be returned.
But how can they enforce that? Say I buy software for someone else, as a present. I'm not the End User; I'm a consumer. The End User decides I didn't buy them what they wanted for whatever reason... how can they return it? Doubtless, the EULA that I supposedly had to read and agree to prior to purchase will forbid returns. So how can my friend get a refund for this unwanted present?
I guess the answer is, friends don't buy friends commercially licensed software...
Longhorn's not done 'til mozilla won't run?
The OS isn't free. Linspire costs money.
Back in February, HP was advertising the laptop deal that I bought... Mobile Athlon XP 2500+, 256MB PC 2700 SDRAM, 40GB HDD, 1024x768 15" LCD screen, 24x CD-RW/DVD-ROM, no WiFi built in, $699 after $400 in rebates. I've seen nothing cheaper in the past year, and anything else I've seen at $699 had a Celeron-M 330 processor, which my Athlon XP blows right out of the water. I bought a 802.11g PCMCIA card for $30 and a 512MB SODIMM from Crucial for $100, and a $30 case to carry it in, and it's been a great little laptop for me. I'd take it over this sub-$500 Linspire job, anyday. I run XP Pro and SuSE on my HP ze4610us and I really couldn't be happier for what I got, best value for the dollar.
Even more remarkable than a hot girl designing microchips, is the fact that QVC is selling something I would actually buy.
I seem to remember reading way back in the day that Space Invaders - Pac Man era arcade games outgrossed Hollywood, and by a significant margin. Is this really news?
Brainless Manager: Where's my deliverables! We're past our due date!
Rosegarden Developer: It'll be done when it's done. I never promised you a--DOH! Uh, I'll get those deliverables to you by noon, sir. <grumbles>stupid project names</grumbles>
Non-violent crimes can also be threatening to life.
Consider environmental laws. Break these laws, say dumping huge amounts of waste improperly. This is a danger to many lives. Yet it is not violent.
Consider CEOs raiding the company treasury and running off with millions, the company ruined, the pensions gutted, thousands of people unemployed, the company unable to function, customers and creditors alike screwed. And probably the CEO is able to avoid prosecution on some technicality, and is free to keep his money and commit the same act again and get away with it. This cripples society, inhibits progress, and may lead to suffering and even death.
A criminal hacker using a computer could do similar things to bring down a company and leave many ruined lives in the wake.
I am not advocating death penalty for credit card info theft and electronic breaking and entering. But 9 years doesn't seem all that unreasonable to me, either.
This is not a hacker trying to be some kind of activist and save society from Lowe's or from the evil credit card companies.
The original parent of this thread made a statement to the effect that the 9-year sentence showed that the legal system is biased toward greed over life. How is this so? I gather that the parent is insinuating that Lowe's is a greedy corporation, and is so greedy that they're even willing to take 9 years of someone's life away "just" because they tried to steal the company's credit card transaction data. That's bullshit.
The criminal who received the sentence was clearly greedy. How is hacking Lowe's to steal credit card info life affirming? If a 9 year sentence for hacking Lowe's shows that the courts favor greed over life, then hacking Lowe's must be the Life side of the Greed vs. Life court case. I can accept that corporate business represents Greed. So how does hacking for credit card info represent Life?
Answer: it doesn't. The criminal gets what he deserves. 9 years for stealing potentially thousands of dollars and causing millions of dollars worth of hassles for the victims of the credit card fraud seems just fine. That it was a first-time offense, or that the attempt failed is hardly relevant. It's the severity of the crime and the intent that matter.
Enron is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. Enron isn't a computer crime, exactly, but it's a good example of a non-violent crime. Ken Lay ought to be up for the death penalty (if we're going to have a death penalty in this country) but instead he's walking around free, still quite wealthy, and in his wake there are thousands of ripped off employees and angry customers. If you don't think Enron didn't destabilize the country, you don't understand the scope of the damage it caused.
A single hacker messing around with the right financial data can ruin the lives of thousands or millions of people, causing more harm in aggregate than a even a few murders.
Murder's bad, don't get me wrong, but the impact of one human being killed vs. the impact of massive computer fraud can be worse. If an economy tanks badly enough, it can destabilize an entire country, resulting in mayhem and more deaths than a lone gunman on a killing spree could "aspire" to.
I'm more worried about non-violent "white collar" crime than I am about petty thuggery and street crime. Computer crime is potentially vastly more dangerous than a single person with a gun could ever be.
How is hacking into Lowes for credit card numbers a life-affirming value?
How is sentencing a criminal to 9 years in prison for being a greedy fuck bent on stealing people's credit cards anti-life?
Just because you use a computer to commit a crime doesn't mean that you're some kind of hero.
Unsubscribe generally does work for legitimate mass mailings, ie the ones you had to sign up for in the first place. It doesn't work for true SPAM, and indeed as others have pointed out, tends to actually make the problem worse.
It's amazing that this is considered "news", but I guess you have to repeat experiments every so often to prove that the theories they provide support for still hold water.
Or, you can fill em up with tasty goo. Which do you think is the cost skimpingest measure?
That's why I only eat Boston cream donuts. I refused to be ripped off by the sneaky donut manufacturers and their hidden cost cutting!
Quick, someone go get some satellite photos of the server!
The amount of radiation *generated* by burning coal and oil may indeed be less than the amount *generated* by nuclear fission, for the same amount of energy produced. But, ALL of the fossil fuel radiation is *released* into the atmosphere, whereas the nuclear fission radiation is *contained* unless containment is breached in an accident. Therefore, as long as containment holds, nuclear fission is cleaner and safer than fossil fuels.
Thank you, HP for keeping me child-free! I enjoy a nearly stress-free lifestyle and have a ton of disposable income thanks to you!
I can't wait to adblock this...
Yeah, it's so annoying when they have an actor replace another actor. Like, there have only been 7 Hamlets in the whole of human history, and THAT'S SIX HAMLETS TOO FUCKING MANY! There should have only been ONE Hamlet, and when HE died, they should have stopped making Hamlet productions. This continual resurrection of Shakespeare bullshit is utterly shameless. Robbing the grave for yet another dollar, trotting out the same tired old remakes. The don't even bother writing up new scripts anymore, it's the SAME FUCKING PLAY, AGAIN! When WILL audiences learn?