I don't know the technical aspects of this unfortunately, but before I went out the country last year I went to get tuberculosis and some other shots at a local public clinic--they had special lights there in the waiting room (up on the ceiling and always on) that were designed to get rid of bacteria like you say.
LAN Party? Laptops are really no good for lan parties for the most part (as was proven to me in terribly anti-climactic fashion last week). 3D cards change so fast, that most of my friend who had (univ requirements) to buy laptops last year already can't play recent games on them (Neverwinter nights, wc3, to name a few). At least make sure you're not getting some crappy no name 4mb card (or an s3:) 3d card in your laptop if you want it for gaming use.
The theft (using the correct defintion of the word, as presented by every publicly available, referenced dictionary in this thread) of these users computer equipment from the FBI is a 'feature' we've inherited from some of the very unconstitutional operating procedures given to us by the War on Drugs and the Reagan administration, and is basically an end run around the law (and the constitution) to punish the offendors even though no criminal charges are being filed.
A good point, let's see how this runs out--it's possible that they believe the users acted in some kind of concerted effort, and are maybe to look for who started it, etc. Unfortunately, the government moves in mysterious ways, and we can't know what's going to happen yet.
Finally, as to the law, the law does not define theft the way you do (at least not here in the United States), courtroom antics and rhetoric aside. Copyright violation is not defined as theft under the law, it is defined as copyright violation, which is something different, and it is defined differently for a reason. The same is true of patent violation... in other words, the law does not recongnize the so-called "theft" of ideas, it instead recognizes the temporary restriction of their dissemination (or use, depending on which portion of IP law the idea is being hoarded under).
The use of the word "theft" in all of these contexts has no legal foundation (at least in the United States)... it is merely newspeak rhetoric by concentrated intersts used for propoganda purposes to promote their own agendas, both in and out of the courtroom. It is not codified into law, or even recognized by any of the publicly available dictionaries quoted here.
You are correct here--Copyright and patent piracy is generally not considered theft--another area of IP is though, and that is trade secrets. Trade secrets aren't tangible (just making sure we're on the same level). I'm sure the DOJ, probably Bar association, legal publishers, and any number of web sites discuss IP theft if you want me to back this up.
I again offer to quote the OED entry as it's more or less indisputable, but if you want to use another dictionary...from dictionary.com:
stealing: To take (the property of another) without right or permission
where property can is defined as "a. Something owned; a possession..[snip].. c. Something tangible or intangible to which its owner has legal title: properties such as copyrights and trademarks."
Bandwidth is something bought, and therefore owned. It's intangible and fits the definition of property. So given these definitions of steal, and property, it seems clear that something intangible CAN be stolen. And taking more than the bandwidth you paid for is very clearly without right or permission.
Bandwidth is a numerical measure, not an object (material or immaterial) that can be stolen.
This is simply not true. When you uncap your modem you receieve more bandwidth. You are becoming more of a load on the cable company, depriving the company of the bandwidth that they bought, and depriving other users as well. Bandwidth is not simply a number, it is a resource that is bought and sold--as a commercial item, it can be stolen. When you take that extra bandwidth, other people can't--you're depriving them.
Just to recap, bandwidth is something that is bought and sold. When you take more than you buy, the person selling to you has less to sell--you are depriving them of additional income from either you (for buying more bandwidth) or from other users.
By your definition of stealing as strictly material, if someone hacks my bank account and transfers money, I've had nothing stolen--it was digital money.
If you dishonestly turn the heat down in the winter are you stealing temperature?
If you dishonestly set off the fire alarm in a school or building, are you stealing the school or building? Are you stealing 'time.'
Once again, just like your canal example, these are irrelevant and don't connect to the matter at hand. Here's another off topic argument: If I'm paying you by the hour to work for me, and you don't ever work but only browse webpages, are you stealing from me? Yes!
I would be more than glad to copy and paste the entire OED entry--it's rather large though in its entirety, but just ask and I will. Getting free OED access is one of the good things about going to a university with too much money for its own good:)
Incidentally since you didn't comment on it, I again assume that we're debating on a purely hypothetical level here? Because it is quite clear what the law says and has said about this issue (and not just in America). As another immaterial theft example that is quite well grounded in law _historically_ as well as today, try intellectual property theft (again, one of the examples in the OED using "steal" is "1824 SCOTT St. Ronan's xxvii, You not only steal my ideas,..but [etc.]..No man like you for stealing other men's inventions."..stealing of ideas is an old, and very legal concept)
I get the feeling you are either being deliberately obtuse here, or the misapplication of the English language the content cartels have subjected you to all these years has truly made you incapable of applying the correct, dictionary definition of the words "theft" or "stealing." ..
It isn't theft.
It is unauthorized access to privately owned information
You can make bold statements like these all you want, and you can spout your anti-company rhetoric and how I've been brainwashed into not using the "dictionary definition" all you want--and yet I note you couldn't refute a single point in my argument INCLUDING my citation of the Oxford English Dictionary since you now seem to want to deal in the realm of facts and definitions.
And btw, I assume you're making this argument as purely hypothetical? Because from this occurrence's terminology and "cable theft" as a term, it's pretty clear what the actual legal system thinks of these issues.
Let me use another real world analogy that should clear this up:
If you are a shipping company using the limited capacity of, say, the Panama or Suez canal, and you have a contract that allows you to send 5 ships a day through the canal for a particular price, and you decide to slip 10 ships through instead, have you stolen the canal?
The problem with your examples are that they don't apply at all to the matter at hand. You make the connection that "oh, the internet is kinda like the panama canal, so ergo, bandwidth is a canal, and all laws which apply to a canal apply to bandwidth--the physical aspects make no difference irrelevant." And on a side note, you make an incredibly spurious jump from stealing capacity to "stealing the canal". If that's what I was claiming for cable modems I would have said that you are "stealing the cable wire".. the physical aspect is irrelevant in this argument--no one is claiming that the cable modem abusers physically stole anything. And in your canal scenario, you would certaintly be robbing the canal owners (do you agree?). I also disagree with your fundamental assertion that capacity cannot be stolen.
Using simple wellfounded definition, stealing is "To take or appropriate dishonestly (anything belonging to another, whether material or immaterial)" (OED if you find fault with it..). When you uncap your cable modem you are taking..dishonestly..something immaterial, belong to someone else. When you uncap your modem, you're taking more bandwidth than you paid for--you are using more capacity than you agreed to, depriving others of their capacity, and using capacity that would otherwise be the cable companies to sell--this seems a clearcut case of theft to me.
Do you agree that using a cable descrambler to get extra channels is stealing? Because it's the exact same thing.
I would worry less about "newspeak" of corporations and focus more on logic.
You are so wrong it's obscene. When you signup with an ISP, what do you get? You get an internet connection, and X amount of bandwidth. You have BOUGHT that bandwidth, it's yours... If you take more than that it's stealing.
It's the same with tv...if you watch tv channels you haven't paid for..it's stealing.
If you listen to mp3z of songs you don't own and aren't being given out for free..it's stealing
This is very simple stuff..bandwidth is not some magical happy resource that exists in infinite quantities, neither is it misuse of equipment such as in your pathetic car example. You're taking BANDWIDTH which you have not paid for--bandwidth is a thing, and bandwith is not free. It's plain and simple misunderstandings of legal and language common sense which truly results in muddy thinking.
It's no wonder that Europe and Japan create fancy new technology and implement it left and right (maglev trains, alternative fuel cars, etc), while America sticks to inventing weapons of war, new food additives, and new ways to patent/copyright information so that nobody can use it - cause new technology requires new ideas and change, and if even the geeks can't accept the color of their money changing, imagine something that could actually be disruptive.
This is such bullshit. Why is it so chic to be anti-American right now? I would bother refuting your brainless argument if it wasn't so clearly a typical of present day anti-american sentiment.
If you want to know who makes tech people need, just look at import/export numbers--compare your european utopia of choice to the american hellhole, and be pleasantly surprised.
They're not Arabic numerals. Arabic speaking countries for the most part use their own numbering system, which in some cases looks somewhat similar to ours. 1 is a vertical slanting line, 4 is a backwards 3, 5 is a o shaped 0, 6 is a slanting 7, 0 is a period, etc. it is true that the general base 10 numbering system came through arabic hands to Europe (from India), but our letters in their current form aren't arabic. Calling them arabic is like calling our letters hieroglyphics (we got ours from the Romans, who got theirs from Etruscans, from Greeks, from Phoenicians, ROUGHLY from hieroglyphics)
We know a good bit--we know that the NSA develops there own version of linux. We also know that DARPA gives funding to FreeBSD for the same sort of thing--secure computing. These are just two examples I can think of off the top of my head--I'm sure there are plenty more.
Then you call microsoft and get a new one--they have a specific phone number setup for this (it's referenced in the XP install procedure I would believe). I'd also be curious if you have any anecdotal evidence of this ever happening (warez stealing keys from indivudals).
The stolen keys are for instance OEM keys that are bulk licences, not individual users.
Since perl doesn't have a main function per se, you can't change the parameters the same way you would a C program. OTOH, I'm quite sure that timtowtdi stands and there is at least some other way to refer the argc and arv:)
With full 3D conventions here now, can a holodeck really be that far off?
Is it some unofficial rule that the last sentence in a story (either of the submitter or the posters making) has to be incredibly banal and idiotic?? This one about takes the cake...yeesh.
Patents must be held by individuals, not corporate entities
Ok, so my team makes a patentable discovery, and we are granted a patent. Then, we break off from our company and start a new company and refuse to allow our former company access. Is this fair? The former comapny DID fund the project.
Bnetd won't matter when Warcraft3 comes out because then people can buy it to play instead, of pirating the beta--which is like 99% of the interesting in bnetd at the moment.
I'm certainly not getting anything for free from Network Solutions.
And in this case you're upholding a business contract. I don't know, is it illegal to buy a house or a car with bogus id and personal information? If it is, it certaintly should be illegal here.
Are you suggesting that the government should pass criminal penalties up to five years in prison for lying? To Network Solutions, to Yahoo, to your girlfriend, to anyone?
i think the the network solutions case is different from yahoo one. i don't know the full story in regards to ns, nor how similar lies are treated in other industries (ie, buying a house or a car). I'd have to find out that before making a decision.
I may be mistaking your tone, but are you saying that making it illegal to give bogus information is a bad thing? My opinion is, is you're getting something for free in rreturn for your information, you should be required to hold up your end of the deal...again, no one is forcing you to use these free products and services.
Well, if you're looking for criticisms for gimp, i'll say, as an intermediate user of both gimp and ps, I find gimp infinitely harder to use...unlike you, I think the interface of PS is MUCH better than gimp, and takes much much less getting used to. Just because it hasn't changed much doesn't mean it's bad--if it ain't broke don't fix it. Other than the interface, there are lots of small things I have problems with--the cut/copy/paste features of gimp aren't up there with photoshop. One small example--in PS, if I make a selection and copy, and then do new document, the new document is sized to start with the right dimension...not so in GIMP. It's the polish that I find GIMP lacking.
Better legacy app support. Legacy app suport is MUCH better in XP. Hell, I've even had some old dos games run with full sound support that I never even could run in win95 under XP.
I've got an SV24 (with a celeron 1000) that does an excellent job of sitting on a shelf in my closet (dorm room) serving files and running the occasional quake/half-life/etc game. Nice sexy little box, and GREAT for portability.
If it wasn't quite so loud (get a Centaur CPU, no fan! also, some people have modded the power supply fan) it would make a great little computer for acting as a portable DVD/VCD player.
One thing it could REALLY use is a handle on the top...would be perfect for carrying.
Slashdot Mirror
They are not out to topple the government, maybe you should read up on their movement.
I don't know the technical aspects of this unfortunately, but before I went out the country last year I went to get tuberculosis and some other shots at a local public clinic--they had special lights there in the waiting room (up on the ceiling and always on) that were designed to get rid of bacteria like you say.
I guess we just will agree to disagree. Glad that it didn't fall into ad hominem attacks and the like, good luck.
LAN Party? Laptops are really no good for lan parties for the most part (as was proven to me in terribly anti-climactic fashion last week). 3D cards change so fast, that most of my friend who had (univ requirements) to buy laptops last year already can't play recent games on them (Neverwinter nights, wc3, to name a few). At least make sure you're not getting some crappy no name 4mb card (or an s3 :) 3d card in your laptop if you want it for gaming use.
The theft (using the correct defintion of the word, as presented by every publicly available, referenced dictionary in this thread) of these users computer equipment from the FBI is a 'feature' we've inherited from some of the very unconstitutional operating procedures given to us by the War on Drugs and the Reagan administration, and is basically an end run around the law (and the constitution) to punish the offendors even though no criminal charges are being filed.
A good point, let's see how this runs out--it's possible that they believe the users acted in some kind of concerted effort, and are maybe to look for who started it, etc. Unfortunately, the government moves in mysterious ways, and we can't know what's going to happen yet.
Finally, as to the law, the law does not define theft the way you do (at least not here in the United States), courtroom antics and rhetoric aside. Copyright violation is not defined as theft under the law, it is defined as copyright violation, which is something different, and it is defined differently for a reason. The same is true of patent violation ... in other words, the law does not recongnize the so-called "theft" of ideas, it instead recognizes the temporary restriction of their dissemination (or use, depending on which portion of IP law the idea is being hoarded under).
... it is merely newspeak rhetoric by concentrated intersts used for propoganda purposes to promote their own agendas, both in and out of the courtroom. It is not codified into law, or even recognized by any of the publicly available dictionaries quoted here.
The use of the word "theft" in all of these contexts has no legal foundation (at least in the United States)
You are correct here--Copyright and patent piracy is generally not considered theft--another area of IP is though, and that is trade secrets. Trade secrets aren't tangible (just making sure we're on the same level). I'm sure the DOJ, probably Bar association, legal publishers, and any number of web sites discuss IP theft if you want me to back this up.
I again offer to quote the OED entry as it's more or less indisputable, but if you want to use another dictionary...from dictionary.com:
stealing: To take (the property of another) without right or permission
where property can is defined as "a. Something owned; a possession ..[snip].. c. Something tangible or intangible to which its owner has legal title: properties such as copyrights and trademarks."
Bandwidth is something bought, and therefore owned. It's intangible and fits the definition of property. So given these definitions of steal, and property, it seems clear that something intangible CAN be stolen. And taking more than the bandwidth you paid for is very clearly without right or permission.
Bandwidth is a numerical measure, not an object (material or immaterial) that can be stolen.
This is simply not true. When you uncap your modem you receieve more bandwidth. You are becoming more of a load on the cable company, depriving the company of the bandwidth that they bought, and depriving other users as well. Bandwidth is not simply a number, it is a resource that is bought and sold--as a commercial item, it can be stolen. When you take that extra bandwidth, other people can't--you're depriving them.
Just to recap, bandwidth is something that is bought and sold. When you take more than you buy, the person selling to you has less to sell--you are depriving them of additional income from either you (for buying more bandwidth) or from other users.
By your definition of stealing as strictly material, if someone hacks my bank account and transfers money, I've had nothing stolen--it was digital money.
If you dishonestly turn the heat down in the winter are you stealing temperature? If you dishonestly set off the fire alarm in a school or building, are you stealing the school or building? Are you stealing 'time.'
Once again, just like your canal example, these are irrelevant and don't connect to the matter at hand. Here's another off topic argument: If I'm paying you by the hour to work for me, and you don't ever work but only browse webpages, are you stealing from me? Yes!
I would be more than glad to copy and paste the entire OED entry--it's rather large though in its entirety, but just ask and I will. Getting free OED access is one of the good things about going to a university with too much money for its own good :)
Incidentally since you didn't comment on it, I again assume that we're debating on a purely hypothetical level here? Because it is quite clear what the law says and has said about this issue (and not just in America). As another immaterial theft example that is quite well grounded in law _historically_ as well as today, try intellectual property theft (again, one of the examples in the OED using "steal" is "1824 SCOTT St. Ronan's xxvii, You not only steal my ideas,..but [etc.]..No man like you for stealing other men's inventions."..stealing of ideas is an old, and very legal concept)
Well, since the client is windows only as of right now, I'd say that you're out of luck, and do nothing.
I get the feeling you are either being deliberately obtuse here, or the misapplication of the English language the content cartels have subjected you to all these years has truly made you incapable of applying the correct, dictionary definition of the words "theft" or "stealing."
..
It isn't theft.
It is unauthorized access to privately owned information
You can make bold statements like these all you want, and you can spout your anti-company rhetoric and how I've been brainwashed into not using the "dictionary definition" all you want--and yet I note you couldn't refute a single point in my argument INCLUDING my citation of the Oxford English Dictionary since you now seem to want to deal in the realm of facts and definitions.
And btw, I assume you're making this argument as purely hypothetical? Because from this occurrence's terminology and "cable theft" as a term, it's pretty clear what the actual legal system thinks of these issues.
Let me use another real world analogy that should clear this up:
If you are a shipping company using the limited capacity of, say, the Panama or Suez canal, and you have a contract that allows you to send 5 ships a day through the canal for a particular price, and you decide to slip 10 ships through instead, have you stolen the canal?
The problem with your examples are that they don't apply at all to the matter at hand. You make the connection that "oh, the internet is kinda like the panama canal, so ergo, bandwidth is a canal, and all laws which apply to a canal apply to bandwidth--the physical aspects make no difference irrelevant." And on a side note, you make an incredibly spurious jump from stealing capacity to "stealing the canal". If that's what I was claiming for cable modems I would have said that you are "stealing the cable wire" .. the physical aspect is irrelevant in this argument--no one is claiming that the cable modem abusers physically stole anything. And in your canal scenario, you would certaintly be robbing the canal owners (do you agree?). I also disagree with your fundamental assertion that capacity cannot be stolen.
Using simple wellfounded definition, stealing is "To take or appropriate dishonestly (anything belonging to another, whether material or immaterial)" (OED if you find fault with it..). When you uncap your cable modem you are taking..dishonestly..something immaterial, belong to someone else. When you uncap your modem, you're taking more bandwidth than you paid for--you are using more capacity than you agreed to, depriving others of their capacity, and using capacity that would otherwise be the cable companies to sell--this seems a clearcut case of theft to me.
Do you agree that using a cable descrambler to get extra channels is stealing? Because it's the exact same thing.
I would worry less about "newspeak" of corporations and focus more on logic.
Yes, but nothing here has been taken.
You are so wrong it's obscene. When you signup with an ISP, what do you get? You get an internet connection, and X amount of bandwidth. You have BOUGHT that bandwidth, it's yours... If you take more than that it's stealing.
It's the same with tv...if you watch tv channels you haven't paid for..it's stealing.
If you listen to mp3z of songs you don't own and aren't being given out for free..it's stealing
This is very simple stuff..bandwidth is not some magical happy resource that exists in infinite quantities, neither is it misuse of equipment such as in your pathetic car example. You're taking BANDWIDTH which you have not paid for--bandwidth is a thing, and bandwith is not free. It's plain and simple misunderstandings of legal and language common sense which truly results in muddy thinking.
It's no wonder that Europe and Japan create fancy new technology and implement it left and right (maglev trains, alternative fuel cars, etc), while America sticks to inventing weapons of war, new food additives, and new ways to patent/copyright information so that nobody can use it - cause new technology requires new ideas and change, and if even the geeks can't accept the color of their money changing, imagine something that could actually be disruptive.
This is such bullshit. Why is it so chic to be anti-American right now? I would bother refuting your brainless argument if it wasn't so clearly a typical of present day anti-american sentiment.
If you want to know who makes tech people need, just look at import/export numbers--compare your european utopia of choice to the american hellhole, and be pleasantly surprised.
They're not Arabic numerals. Arabic speaking countries for the most part use their own numbering system, which in some cases looks somewhat similar to ours. 1 is a vertical slanting line, 4 is a backwards 3, 5 is a o shaped 0, 6 is a slanting 7, 0 is a period, etc. it is true that the general base 10 numbering system came through arabic hands to Europe (from India), but our letters in their current form aren't arabic. Calling them arabic is like calling our letters hieroglyphics (we got ours from the Romans, who got theirs from Etruscans, from Greeks, from Phoenicians, ROUGHLY from hieroglyphics)
We know a good bit--we know that the NSA develops there own version of linux. We also know that DARPA gives funding to FreeBSD for the same sort of thing--secure computing. These are just two examples I can think of off the top of my head--I'm sure there are plenty more.
As an owner of a tube headphone amplifier I applaud AOpen's move to accomodate the high-end audio enthusiast
Hooray!! You're amplifying crappy on-board audio!! But who cares, it's a TUBE AMP.
Then you call microsoft and get a new one--they have a specific phone number setup for this (it's referenced in the XP install procedure I would believe). I'd also be curious if you have any anecdotal evidence of this ever happening (warez stealing keys from indivudals).
The stolen keys are for instance OEM keys that are bulk licences, not individual users.
Since perl doesn't have a main function per se, you can't change the parameters the same way you would a C program. OTOH, I'm quite sure that timtowtdi stands and there is at least some other way to refer the argc and arv :)
With full 3D conventions here now, can a holodeck really be that far off?
Is it some unofficial rule that the last sentence in a story (either of the submitter or the posters making) has to be incredibly banal and idiotic?? This one about takes the cake...yeesh.
Patents must be held by individuals, not corporate entities
Ok, so my team makes a patentable discovery, and we are granted a patent. Then, we break off from our company and start a new company and refuse to allow our former company access. Is this fair? The former comapny DID fund the project.
Bnetd won't matter when Warcraft3 comes out because then people can buy it to play instead, of pirating the beta--which is like 99% of the interesting in bnetd at the moment.
I'm certainly not getting anything for free from Network Solutions.
And in this case you're upholding a business contract. I don't know, is it illegal to buy a house or a car with bogus id and personal information? If it is, it certaintly should be illegal here.
Are you suggesting that the government should pass criminal penalties up to five years in prison for lying? To Network Solutions, to Yahoo, to your girlfriend, to anyone?
i think the the network solutions case is different from yahoo one. i don't know the full story in regards to ns, nor how similar lies are treated in other industries (ie, buying a house or a car). I'd have to find out that before making a decision.
I may be mistaking your tone, but are you saying that making it illegal to give bogus information is a bad thing? My opinion is, is you're getting something for free in rreturn for your information, you should be required to hold up your end of the deal...again, no one is forcing you to use these free products and services.
Well, if you're looking for criticisms for gimp, i'll say, as an intermediate user of both gimp and ps, I find gimp infinitely harder to use...unlike you, I think the interface of PS is MUCH better than gimp, and takes much much less getting used to. Just because it hasn't changed much doesn't mean it's bad--if it ain't broke don't fix it. Other than the interface, there are lots of small things I have problems with--the cut/copy/paste features of gimp aren't up there with photoshop. One small example--in PS, if I make a selection and copy, and then do new document, the new document is sized to start with the right dimension...not so in GIMP. It's the polish that I find GIMP lacking.
Better legacy app support. Legacy app suport is MUCH better in XP. Hell, I've even had some old dos games run with full sound support that I never even could run in win95 under XP.
I've got an SV24 (with a celeron 1000) that does an excellent job of sitting on a shelf in my closet (dorm room) serving files and running the occasional quake/half-life/etc game. Nice sexy little box, and GREAT for portability.
If it wasn't quite so loud (get a Centaur CPU, no fan! also, some people have modded the power supply fan) it would make a great little computer for acting as a portable DVD/VCD player.
One thing it could REALLY use is a handle on the top...would be perfect for carrying.
Scott
mod this post up so that it can pay for the sins of the numerous "perl is slow" posts that are inevitably going to come