Well, sorry. I apologise for a small slipup, thus proving that all possible arguments I can make are invalid.
If I perform an action, with an intended result, and the result happend, then I have caused the result to happen. This changes it from advice to a deliberate attempt to block IP addresses, and is not just advice. That's just a cowards argument from people who don't want to take accountability for their actions. SPEWS lists IP addresses with an intention that they should be blocked, causing them to be blocked.
As for choice - The people who are blocked have no say in the matter. They don't even have an accountable organisation to contact, and if they do complain, then a typical result is that they get penalised even more heavily.
I'm surprised that anyone does still use SPEWS. There are much better solutions from organisations that are not a bunch of amateurs.
This argument only works if you're 10 years old, and start kicking, and blame anyone who walks into your foot for it.
SPEWS lists addresses because they think ISPs should block them. If nobody blocked them, they wouldn't bother listing them. Hence, SPEWS listing causes web addresses to be blocked. Therefore, SPEWS blocks sites, and does not "only give advice".
I see lots of comments in the forum like 'spews blocked my server'. Spews did no such thing. Spews is listing their provider.
They list it on a list that is used to determine which servers to block, for the sole purpose of causing said servers to be blocked.
Since their actions have the aim and result of blocking servers, I think your argument that they're not is somewhat lacking.
When your provider is listed by spews, it's time to move away. You are supporting your provider, which is supporting spammers.
When your provider uses SPEWS it's time to move away. SPEWS blocks too many legitimate emails to be worthwhile. The community hates being blocked as spam a lot more than it hates spam.
This is so that ISPs will either learn to take ALL complaints seriously
But will have the effective result of everyone treating SPEWS less seriously.
ISPs have their own processes for dealing with complaints. Sometimes these are inadequate, but SPEWS seems to consider themselves the sole authority on the matter. They are not. They're just a bunch of jumped up nerds with way too much power, and rapidly falling credibility.
Sometimes you have a choice between the lesser of two evils, what if you had to choose a solid impact or a steep drop off a cliff?
I'd expect an anti-crash mechanism to incorporate an anti-fall off cliff mechanism.
How about if you needed to push something with your vehicle?
Like what? I can't think of any situation where I've ever wanted to push something with my car.
Assistance equipment is generally OK, but anything that uses autonomous cannot cover every situation.
Once again, I'm assuming technology exists to cope with any possible situation. Perhaps I should have been more specific. Given a technology that can prevent all collisions, and can be demonstrated not to cause accidents, that technology would be mandatory. I suspect that the inability to use your car as a bulldozer would generally be considered a price worth paying to reduce the number of accidents on the road.
Shooting someone in broad daylight is a crime too, but you don't see the Government outlawing guns.
But they do regulate them. And the use of cars, and most of the other odds and ends that can be used to facilitate crimes.
So should car-makers make it so that cars won't run into solid objects
Yes! If someone came up with this technology, it would become mandatory within a few years.
or better yet; make it so that cars are unable to drive off of pavement?
There are legitimate reasons that people ay choose to do this one though.
Never treat the public like criminals, before they've even been given the chance to choose. East Germany acted that way. They even had a prison fence.
Well, the crime rae in East Germany was probably lower than in the west. But aside form that, they're only treating the segment of the population that acts like criminals as though they're criminals. Yes, I agree that it's a little excessive since there are a few legitimate uses, but personally, I don't feel my right to print money is violated, since I never considered I had that right.
Forgery is a serious crime. Not only does it defraud people, but it destabilises the economy. If there was anything like as much forgery as there is commercial piracy, the nation would probably be bankrupt.
Did we forget about the SDMI Challenge (April 21st, 2001)? I felt the chill.
Sigh. Always with the SDMI.
You'll always get some idiot trying to apply an inappropriiate law. They backed down when they realised they didn't have the slightest hope of success.
I could really do with a small PC with a decent graphics card. Considering this has perfectly adequate network, sound and usb, I don't really have a need for a PCI slot for a while.
I've got a theory about Superhero shows - You need to keep the focus away from the superhero.
Spiderman and Superman are about the duality between them and their alter egos. Batman has always been about the villains. The X-Men is blatantly a metaphor for just about any form of discrimination.
Most new superhero shows seem to involve a superhuman guy fighting crime, with no interest outside of that. They don't seem to last very long.
Sci-fi fans have higher expectations from series these days. We just don't like episodic television. Lost in space was over 30 years ago.
Events from one episode have to influence future ones. Babylon 5 did this. So did Buffy the Vampire Slayer. The Star Trek franchise managed to learn this in the end with DS9, but now they've totally forgotten. Season 3 has had a couple of references to the Xindi backstory, but really we need more than that. We never get the feeling anything has happened after an episode has finished.
Paramount doesn't even seem to want to try. There were clear signs of a subversive effort to change this in Voyager, with Janeway slowly losing it in Equinox, but then the franchise backed away. At the end of that episode all was forgiven and forgotten. Chakotay decided that going on the Ahab revenge thing and locking him in the brig was only a minor misunderstanding, and they could still be friends.
Personally, I wouldn't mind if the only sites were the not-for-profits, and the ones that can remain profitable without intrusive advertising or subscriptions. I have yet to see a site that I think is worth the hassle of paying for, let alone the cost.
I'd go for Digital Restrictions Mechanism myself. It just seems t flow better. And even if it isn't technically a mechanism, it's not as though it does a good job of management either.
The Guardian article suggests that UK law was influenced by US law in this matter. However, key aspects of the legal status of home recording dates back to a 1970's case where a studio sued the comedian Bob Monkhouse for copyright infringement after they discovered that he showed some of his extensive collection of films to friends.
While it did not legalise time-shifting per-se, it did establish that individuals were entitled to hold and use media for personal use without permission from the copyright holder.
Later on, he commented that he never objected to the existence of the VCR, he just thought that it should be more tightly regulated.
Presumably, he also felt that The Boston Strangler should also have been legalised and tightly regulated, never murdering more than a certain number of people in a given time.
Oh, I see. So I could name a car company "ford", without Ford Motors becomign upset with me. That's nice to know. I'll have to give it a go. Or maybe I'll name it after the town of "Ford".
Anyway, in what special way are individuals names used as business names treated by the legal system?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, sorry. I apologise for a small slipup, thus proving that all possible arguments I can make are invalid.
If I perform an action, with an intended result, and the result happend, then I have caused the result to happen. This changes it from advice to a deliberate attempt to block IP addresses, and is not just advice. That's just a cowards argument from people who don't want to take accountability for their actions. SPEWS lists IP addresses with an intention that they should be blocked, causing them to be blocked.
As for choice - The people who are blocked have no say in the matter. They don't even have an accountable organisation to contact, and if they do complain, then a typical result is that they get penalised even more heavily.
I'm surprised that anyone does still use SPEWS. There are much better solutions from organisations that are not a bunch of amateurs.
The ones who have SOLE authority on the matter are the administrators who CHOOSE to use SPEWS,
Ah. another lot of jumped up nerds with way too much power.
Bullshit.
This argument only works if you're 10 years old, and start kicking, and blame anyone who walks into your foot for it.
SPEWS lists addresses because they think ISPs should block them. If nobody blocked them, they wouldn't bother listing them. Hence, SPEWS listing causes web addresses to be blocked. Therefore, SPEWS blocks sites, and does not "only give advice".
I'd like some sort of distributed list, with a web of trust type mechanism, and an indicion of the spam/email ratio.
I see lots of comments in the forum like 'spews blocked my server'. Spews did no such thing. Spews is listing their provider.
They list it on a list that is used to determine which servers to block, for the sole purpose of causing said servers to be blocked.
Since their actions have the aim and result of blocking servers, I think your argument that they're not is somewhat lacking.
When your provider is listed by spews, it's time to move away. You are supporting your provider, which is supporting spammers.
When your provider uses SPEWS it's time to move away. SPEWS blocks too many legitimate emails to be worthwhile. The community hates being blocked as spam a lot more than it hates spam.
This is so that ISPs will either learn to take ALL complaints seriously
But will have the effective result of everyone treating SPEWS less seriously.
ISPs have their own processes for dealing with complaints. Sometimes these are inadequate, but SPEWS seems to consider themselves the sole authority on the matter. They are not. They're just a bunch of jumped up nerds with way too much power, and rapidly falling credibility.
Sometimes you have a choice between the lesser of two evils, what if you had to choose a solid impact or a steep drop off a cliff?
I'd expect an anti-crash mechanism to incorporate an anti-fall off cliff mechanism.
How about if you needed to push something with your vehicle?
Like what? I can't think of any situation where I've ever wanted to push something with my car.
Assistance equipment is generally OK, but anything that uses autonomous cannot cover every situation.
Once again, I'm assuming technology exists to cope with any possible situation. Perhaps I should have been more specific. Given a technology that can prevent all collisions, and can be demonstrated not to cause accidents, that technology would be mandatory. I suspect that the inability to use your car as a bulldozer would generally be considered a price worth paying to reduce the number of accidents on the road.
Shooting someone in broad daylight is a crime too, but you don't see the Government outlawing guns.
But they do regulate them. And the use of cars, and most of the other odds and ends that can be used to facilitate crimes.
So should car-makers make it so that cars won't run into solid objects
Yes! If someone came up with this technology, it would become mandatory within a few years.
or better yet; make it so that cars are unable to drive off of pavement?
There are legitimate reasons that people ay choose to do this one though.
Never treat the public like criminals, before they've even been given the chance to choose. East Germany acted that way. They even had a prison fence.
Well, the crime rae in East Germany was probably lower than in the west. But aside form that, they're only treating the segment of the population that acts like criminals as though they're criminals. Yes, I agree that it's a little excessive since there are a few legitimate uses, but personally, I don't feel my right to print money is violated, since I never considered I had that right.
Forgery is a serious crime. Not only does it defraud people, but it destabilises the economy. If there was anything like as much forgery as there is commercial piracy, the nation would probably be bankrupt.
Did we forget about the SDMI Challenge (April 21st, 2001)? I felt the chill.
Sigh. Always with the SDMI.
You'll always get some idiot trying to apply an inappropriiate law. They backed down when they realised they didn't have the slightest hope of success.
I could really do with a small PC with a decent graphics card. Considering this has perfectly adequate network, sound and usb, I don't really have a need for a PCI slot for a while.
I guess it's the next size up for me.
Firstly, as mentioned, the DMCA does not apply to Canada.
Secondly, the DMCA does not apply to mechanisms not used to protect copyrighted data.
Thirdly, the DMCA does not apply if you've been invited to try to break an encryption mechanism.
except without the hot(?) Picard on Alien action.
A lot of people though picard was quite sexy. Really it was hot Riker on alien action though.
I've got a theory about Superhero shows - You need to keep the focus away from the superhero.
Spiderman and Superman are about the duality between them and their alter egos. Batman has always been about the villains. The X-Men is blatantly a metaphor for just about any form of discrimination.
Most new superhero shows seem to involve a superhuman guy fighting crime, with no interest outside of that. They don't seem to last very long.
Sci-fi fans have higher expectations from series these days. We just don't like episodic television. Lost in space was over 30 years ago.
Events from one episode have to influence future ones. Babylon 5 did this. So did Buffy the Vampire Slayer. The Star Trek franchise managed to learn this in the end with DS9, but now they've totally forgotten. Season 3 has had a couple of references to the Xindi backstory, but really we need more than that. We never get the feeling anything has happened after an episode has finished.
Paramount doesn't even seem to want to try. There were clear signs of a subversive effort to change this in Voyager, with Janeway slowly losing it in Equinox, but then the franchise backed away. At the end of that episode all was forgiven and forgotten. Chakotay decided that going on the Ahab revenge thing and locking him in the brig was only a minor misunderstanding, and they could still be friends.
Yeah, but even without tax, the X-Box costs 254.46. Which is about $460. A 199 price point would be a lot more honest taking tax into consideration.
Personally, I wouldn't mind if the only sites were the not-for-profits, and the ones that can remain profitable without intrusive advertising or subscriptions. I have yet to see a site that I think is worth the hassle of paying for, let alone the cost.
If you could serve an ASCII video, the advertisers would love you! Everyone on Slashdot would want to see it.
I'd go for Digital Restrictions Mechanism myself. It just seems t flow better. And even if it isn't technically a mechanism, it's not as though it does a good job of management either.
Why? The guy was a comedy genius. He was fantastic on "Have I got News for You".
The Guardian article suggests that UK law was influenced by US law in this matter. However, key aspects of the legal status of home recording dates back to a 1970's case where a studio sued the comedian Bob Monkhouse for copyright infringement after they discovered that he showed some of his extensive collection of films to friends.
While it did not legalise time-shifting per-se, it did establish that individuals were entitled to hold and use media for personal use without permission from the copyright holder.
Later on, he commented that he never objected to the existence of the VCR, he just thought that it should be more tightly regulated.
Presumably, he also felt that The Boston Strangler should also have been legalised and tightly regulated, never murdering more than a certain number of people in a given time.
Oh, I see. So I could name a car company "ford", without Ford Motors becomign upset with me. That's nice to know. I'll have to give it a go. Or maybe I'll name it after the town of "Ford".
Anyway, in what special way are individuals names used as business names treated by the legal system?
Would a bittorrent mirror be sensible here?
So, is your argument that the term "Ford" has no meaning other than that of a persons name?