Hardly insightful. Any version of Linux can be configured to automatically scan for other storage devices in about 3 seconds. This is trivial. The hotel proxy is another issue, but that is what encryption is for, so yes, they could capture your encrypted messages, but good luck decrypting them.
This would be easy to deal with. The hard part is getting hotels to install the diskless boxes in the first place.
Try to boot it without your flashdrive installed the first time perhaps? Or run fdisk as soon as it does boot to see if there are any other drives that the hardware detects? Or kudzu? Use a screwdriver if you must, but don't put it in your carry on luggage.
Author probably never tried to take his Windows XP disk and boot in different box with different mainboard, video and network card...
Piece of cake. Just install flashdrive, answer Yes and NO alot, reboot 12 times, download two drivers each time, then call for authorization to activate your computer yet again. Setup time would be less than two hours each time. This is much better than bringing your own laptop....
This is referring to a computer with NO operating system at all. You have to provide everything, it's completely diskless, just a usb port. If they did anything, it would have to be at the proxy or some kinda tftp boot.
Having a whole operating system on a flash drive isn't that unusual. I have been using Knoppix for years, like a million other people. The flashdrive would just be faster and smaller, and you could write to it and save some files if you chose to.
I didn't read his comment as anti environment at all. Anti-enironmental-wacko, yes.
Many of the fringes of the evironmental movement (including some relatives of my own) have the mistaken idea that anyone that disagrees with them doesn't care for the environment at all. There is no room for disagreement about degrees of the problem, or solutions.
What is worse, particularly with the Babs comment, is the celebrities who are self appointed experts and think everyone else should drive Yugos, while THEY continue to drive big SUV's. They are celebrities, after all. Let the little people drive the crappy little cars. The hypocracy is amazing.
There is a difference in a Conservationist and an Environementalist, although both are concerned about the environment. One example: A Conservationist will say it is fine to allow hunting as long as it is managed properly and you can maintain a healthy population. An Environmentalist will not allow hunting because it is "wrong", meanwhile the animal population will swing wildly up and down because natural preditors are gone.
Of course the most obvious example is the forest fires in California. When we allowed cutting, we didn't have all this brush and dead trees, or these kinds of fires. Not allowing any management does more damage than actively allowing people to use the resources.
Welcome to America. Please note, we don't have debtors prisons, so if you owe lots and lots of money, bill collectors may call, but no one is going to put in you "federal pound me in the ass prison".
This is one of the things we swore we would no longer tolorate when we broke off from England. That and blood pudding.
Keep in mind, there have been too few get the Avian Flu for the statistics to be even remotely useful. Accorinding the WHO, about 39 of 52 people who have contracted it have died. This means that about.0000008% of the entire world population has contracted it, and about.000000848% of the entire world population has died from it. This is not exactly the same as the 1918 "Spanish Flu" pandemic.
This absolutely does NOT mean that 60% of the people who would get it in a pandemic would die. To even use the 60% number is totally insane considering the insignificant sample we are talking about, UNLESS you are honest enough to mention the miniscule numbers that have been infected so far, to put it in perspective. Otherwise, it is just pure fear mongering.
So to put it in perspective, it has only infected a very small tiny number of people, and it has killed 60% of them, thus the potential for deadliness is real, but the sample is too small to be of any statistical significance.
Ok, I am not a doctor, but as I understand there are two ways to be protected from a virus:
You get it (or a dead version of it in a flu shot), so you get an immunity to it, you are not likely to get it again. or:
Your ancestors get it, it wipes out 90% of them, so natural selection means you are less likely to get killed by it. I don't think that viruses would normally apply to natural selection. Maybe. I dunno.
I am guessing you are SOL, and would be just as likely to get it since immunity isn't passed down like DNA.
I have a post farther down with links that does the math, so I won't post it here again, but the risk is very real.
I am not against them working with the virus, but this sucker spreads so fast, they need extra ordinary steps to contain it. We don't want the guys in charge of security at Los Alamos to be in charge at this lab, that is for sure.
People mentioned how we work with the plague, etc. but those are not nearly as contagious as this is, even if they have a higher mortality rate. And virus do mutate. We simply don't want this one getting back out in the wild.
The mortality rate was estimated at 2.5% to 5% of the population, not those that were infected. Only 20% of the population was infected, making the mortality rate closer to 14% to 28% of those infected. Basically, if you got it, you more than 1 in 5 chance of dying.
Now, add the fact that we are entirely more mobile, and it would be devistating. We have not had a disease that spreads this quick since then, and if it was gotten lose, it would likely expose 2/3 of the population of the planet before we knew what hit us. Fortunately, we have better medicine now, but even if we reduced the mortality by 75%, you are looking at:
~20% of exposed died in 1918 vs 5% now 360mil exposed in 1918 vs. 4 billion now. 50,000 died in 1918 vs 200 million now.
200 million dead, potentially. Not guaranteed, not high, not low, just realistic potential.
Yea, I say we be really freaking careful how we handle this virus. Obviously, this is more easily spread than SARS or anything else we have seen since 1918, and even if the fatality rate was wrong by a full factor, and just.5% died, that would still be 20 million dead.
You might laugh, but I do this! I figure, if I own the disk, I should be able to have a archive copy, and it easier to torrent one than to make my own mp3. We are only talking about a dozen CDs converted. I make copies of my CDs to put in the car, since I don't like keeping the good copy in a hot vehicle, but that is seperate and just as legal.
So I can say that I have some downloaded MP3s to play on the computer, but I bought the CD first.
Actually, Uncle Orsen writes for the Rhino Times, an independent conservative newspaper here in Greensboro, North Carolina (a free weekly that gets better numbers than the for-pay newspaper here). You pick them up any any decent bar or eatery. Quite big for a free paper.
His style is always like that, but he's actually pretty easy to read once you get used to that. He writes like some people talk. Or think.
He's kind of a mix of the non-irritating parts of Andy Rooney, and the uncle you wished you had growing up. Ultra practical. And yes, he reviews everything, from movies to new cars to restaurants to new TVs.
Very interesting indeed. Cases I had read about in the industry over the last few years were not as specific as this. They had addressed manufacturer's rights, but didn't touch on the concept of making rules prior to accepting dealers vs. coercing them afterward.
I am not sure how this applies to Apple since I do not know their exact legal position or if they are accepting coop money (like you, I doubt it), thus, would have to concede the point. It does, however, raise some other interesting but unrelated issues for me personally. Thanks.
Obviously, the people who should be facing legal action are the ones who are actually engaged in illegal filesharing.
Um, many of the accused don't even know what P2P is, including this 41 year old mother living on disability payments.
If the RIAA wants to sue someone for infringement, fine. But do it LEGALLY. Not using spyware. Not using mass extorsion to pay for your tactics. By serving notice, getting lawyers, going to court, and letting jury of peers decide the facts in this CIVIL SUIT. Instead, they use tactics that make any mafia boss proud.
Even IF the woman did infringe, this doesn't excuse the fact that their methods are CRIMES. Even if she DID download copyrighted music, her actions were NOT crimes, they are civil infringement. "If" doesn't even matter at this point. The ends do not justify the means, especially in a simple copyright infringement suit with no evidence.
If she was a crack smoker that was SELLING the songs for a profit to underage illegal aliens it would not matter: The acts the RIAA did would still be illegal and are a gross violate of privacy rights of the innocent. They have already committed crimes against her and tens of thousands of others, before she even knew what RIAA is an acronym for.
So yes, personal responsibility. But the RIAA has to take personal responsibility for committing crimes in the course of trying to gather evidence for a civil suit as well.
Again, in the examples I gave, the manufacturer doesn't dictate the selling price, only the advertising price, forcing other dealers to sell below cost. I made this clear. If you want the best deal, you have to show up at the store.
I see your point how a manufacturer can't dictate the actually minimum selling price, which isn't something I would do anyway, and isn't what I advocated.
Recording companies can, however, dictate how their products are advertised. Technically, even with all this discussion, they CAN require that ALL online music stores do not advertise their products for less than $2 each, to protect the "integrity of the pricing model". They can NOT single out Apple, they can't get together with other record companies to agree on the price.
I am not a paralegal (although I was in that line of work many years ago) but this is the problem with the internet, as the laws are fuzzy as applied to this unique medium, and precident is lacking. The same place you would advertise, you would sell at, ie: the website. Newspapers and TV aren't that way. (phone, perhaps, but that is still different). This, to me, is what makes it a bit fuzzy. The closest medium I can think of that would parallel is telemarketing, whereas both advertising and sales happen within the same medium. I don't, however, think it is a very good comparison.
I would contend that a court would see the primary purpose of the site as advertising, thus the record companies would be able to say "you can't advertise the price as 99 cents", even if they can sell it for 99 cents at that page. (ie: no 99c on the front page, only the product page.) Yes, we have reduced this to what may seem as acedemic to everyone except us, but THIS is what would be argued in a court of law.
I didn't say I would LIKE this finding, but this is what I think would happen. As long as people have a choice of where to buy their music, and they can buy it from many different places, and many different record companies, I think a judge would be hard pressed to interfere, as the "harm" to the consumer isn't as great as the manufacturers rights, in this particular case. Or at least, it could very easily be argued. We obviously disagree on what the outcome would be (but not should be), so we will have to let a judge decide;)
As to the manufacturer's right to limit advertised price (but not sale price), I still stand by my previous statements, as they do not apply to the above in the examples I gave.
They should have just stuck with crushing the P2P makers, and let the nerds carry on about the importance of placing responsibility where it belongs.
As overrated as your comment is, I will bite:
So they should go after Bram Cohen, the creator of bittorrent, because "everyone knows there is no legitimate use for bittorrent", right? Or go after eDonkey creator Jed McCaleb. After all, it's not the users responsibility, its the creator. Just like if you shoot me with a.357, it isn't your fault, it's Smith and Wesson's. They made the weapon, you just used it.
Of course, there are more than a few legitimate uses for P2P software. This is like going after Linus Torvalds, Richard Stallman, and Bill Gates, because they created and contributed to the operating systems that allow computer crimes to happen in the first place.
I mean, if there was no operating systems, there would be no computer crime, right? Just like if no author made P2P software, no one would illegally share files. (um, I am being sarcastic if you haven't caught up yet...)
They can go after the people who are infringing their copyrights, but they are currently breaking more laws than the users by intentionally breaking and entering into their computers (and perfectly innocent people's computers) and using extortion against people who think may have infringed, without providing any proof.
If you people learn one thing today, make it this: COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT IS A CIVIL MATTER, NOT A CRIME. Spying on people and extorsion, however, IS a crime.
What you are missing is the big picture: The RIAA is trying very hard to make using any P2P system either illegal, or at least viewed as completely illegitimate. It is fighting a distribution SYSTEM, not copyright issues.
The problem with this is I personally like bittorrent (just one P2P method) and hope to see it incorporated into many other programs, particularly online gaming. This would make downloading the typical 150mb patches much easier than "waiting in line 20 minutes" at the typical gamer site, while being pounding about subscribing.
I also use it to download Linux and BSD distributions, as well as other software, legally. There are often bittorrent links here on slashdot for videos, etc. from sites who don't have the bandwidth to stand a slashdotting.
The real pisser is they are using flatly illegal tactics to do this, first by spying on people, second by extortion. Copyright infrincement isn't a crime, it's a matter for the civil courts. What the RIAA is doing, however, IS criminal in all 50 states.
They are wholesale extorting money from people, with no physical evidence, and using a threat of litigation to make them give money. An amount that is cheaper than a retainer for a lawyer, I might add, to insure it is "in their best interest" to just comply and fork over a few thousand to make the problem go away. This is akin to the mob selling you "insurance, so no one will burn your house down". If the FIAA was actually interested in justice, they would allow the cases to actually go to court, instead of hiring some collection agency goons.
Saying the RIAA is worried about the musicians being denied royalties is like saying SCO wants to protect their intellectual property. Yes, you can say it, but we both know its a load of crap. Like SCO, they just see this as both a way to prevent people from competing with thier distribution, and make a few bucks on the side.
I never called it a planet, or a moon. I contend that an object that is circling anything can simply be a captured asteroid, even if the object that captured it is yet another asteroid. No conflict here.
Slashdot Mirror
Lemme guess, you're a Windows user, right?
Hardly insightful. Any version of Linux can be configured to automatically scan for other storage devices in about 3 seconds. This is trivial. The hotel proxy is another issue, but that is what encryption is for, so yes, they could capture your encrypted messages, but good luck decrypting them.
This would be easy to deal with. The hard part is getting hotels to install the diskless boxes in the first place.
Try to boot it without your flashdrive installed the first time perhaps? Or run fdisk as soon as it does boot to see if there are any other drives that the hardware detects? Or kudzu? Use a screwdriver if you must, but don't put it in your carry on luggage.
Author probably never tried to take his Windows XP disk and boot in different box with different mainboard, video and network card...
Piece of cake. Just install flashdrive, answer Yes and NO alot, reboot 12 times, download two drivers each time, then call for authorization to activate your computer yet again. Setup time would be less than two hours each time. This is much better than bringing your own laptop....
This is referring to a computer with NO operating system at all. You have to provide everything, it's completely diskless, just a usb port. If they did anything, it would have to be at the proxy or some kinda tftp boot.
Having a whole operating system on a flash drive isn't that unusual. I have been using Knoppix for years, like a million other people. The flashdrive would just be faster and smaller, and you could write to it and save some files if you chose to.
Linux. Several versions. Just Google it.
Yea, but you still have to bring your own virus and spyware. It will be years til they provide that.
I didn't read his comment as anti environment at all. Anti-enironmental-wacko, yes.
Many of the fringes of the evironmental movement (including some relatives of my own) have the mistaken idea that anyone that disagrees with them doesn't care for the environment at all. There is no room for disagreement about degrees of the problem, or solutions.
What is worse, particularly with the Babs comment, is the celebrities who are self appointed experts and think everyone else should drive Yugos, while THEY continue to drive big SUV's. They are celebrities, after all. Let the little people drive the crappy little cars. The hypocracy is amazing.
There is a difference in a Conservationist and an Environementalist, although both are concerned about the environment. One example: A Conservationist will say it is fine to allow hunting as long as it is managed properly and you can maintain a healthy population. An Environmentalist will not allow hunting because it is "wrong", meanwhile the animal population will swing wildly up and down because natural preditors are gone.
Of course the most obvious example is the forest fires in California. When we allowed cutting, we didn't have all this brush and dead trees, or these kinds of fires. Not allowing any management does more damage than actively allowing people to use the resources.
not unless you can be convicted of fraudulently running the company into the ground
Then fraud is the crime, not debt.
Welcome to America. Please note, we don't have debtors prisons, so if you owe lots and lots of money, bill collectors may call, but no one is going to put in you "federal pound me in the ass prison".
This is one of the things we swore we would no longer tolorate when we broke off from England. That and blood pudding.
Keep in mind, there have been too few get the Avian Flu for the statistics to be even remotely useful. Accorinding the WHO, about 39 of 52 people who have contracted it have died. This means that about .0000008% of the entire world population has contracted it, and about .000000848% of the entire world population has died from it. This is not exactly the same as the 1918 "Spanish Flu" pandemic.
This absolutely does NOT mean that 60% of the people who would get it in a pandemic would die. To even use the 60% number is totally insane considering the insignificant sample we are talking about, UNLESS you are honest enough to mention the miniscule numbers that have been infected so far, to put it in perspective. Otherwise, it is just pure fear mongering.
So to put it in perspective, it has only infected a very small tiny number of people, and it has killed 60% of them, thus the potential for deadliness is real, but the sample is too small to be of any statistical significance.
Ok, I am not a doctor, but as I understand there are two ways to be protected from a virus:
You get it (or a dead version of it in a flu shot), so you get an immunity to it, you are not likely to get it again. or:
Your ancestors get it, it wipes out 90% of them, so natural selection means you are less likely to get killed by it. I don't think that viruses would normally apply to natural selection. Maybe. I dunno.
I am guessing you are SOL, and would be just as likely to get it since immunity isn't passed down like DNA.
Actually, I am just as morbid. I spent two hours researching different flu bugs and plagues. It is interesting... from a distance.
I have a post farther down with links that does the math, so I won't post it here again, but the risk is very real.
I am not against them working with the virus, but this sucker spreads so fast, they need extra ordinary steps to contain it. We don't want the guys in charge of security at Los Alamos to be in charge at this lab, that is for sure.
People mentioned how we work with the plague, etc. but those are not nearly as contagious as this is, even if they have a higher mortality rate. And virus do mutate. We simply don't want this one getting back out in the wild.
According to Wikipedia, we didn't hit 2 billion until 1927, and they say more about the 1918 outbreak that is pretty interesting. Global population in 1918 was about 1.8 billion.
.5% died, that would still be 20 million dead.
The mortality rate was estimated at 2.5% to 5% of the population, not those that were infected. Only 20% of the population was infected, making the mortality rate closer to 14% to 28% of those infected. Basically, if you got it, you more than 1 in 5 chance of dying.
Now, add the fact that we are entirely more mobile, and it would be devistating. We have not had a disease that spreads this quick since then, and if it was gotten lose, it would likely expose 2/3 of the population of the planet before we knew what hit us. Fortunately, we have better medicine now, but even if we reduced the mortality by 75%, you are looking at:
~20% of exposed died in 1918 vs 5% now
360mil exposed in 1918 vs. 4 billion now.
50,000 died in 1918 vs 200 million now.
200 million dead, potentially. Not guaranteed, not high, not low, just realistic potential.
Yea, I say we be really freaking careful how we handle this virus. Obviously, this is more easily spread than SARS or anything else we have seen since 1918, and even if the fatality rate was wrong by a full factor, and just
Science must progress and if testing with 'real' virii is the answer
I don't question that science must move forward, and this means taking risk. however, I'm a bit at a lose to what, exactly, this is the answer TO?
Always pay with a credit card. Preferably American Express. If it won't play in a standard cd player or computer, it is defective.
Credit card companies are pretty good about charge backs against companies for defective goods.
You might laugh, but I do this! I figure, if I own the disk, I should be able to have a archive copy, and it easier to torrent one than to make my own mp3. We are only talking about a dozen CDs converted. I make copies of my CDs to put in the car, since I don't like keeping the good copy in a hot vehicle, but that is seperate and just as legal.
So I can say that I have some downloaded MP3s to play on the computer, but I bought the CD first.
Actually, Uncle Orsen writes for the Rhino Times, an independent conservative newspaper here in Greensboro, North Carolina (a free weekly that gets better numbers than the for-pay newspaper here). You pick them up any any decent bar or eatery. Quite big for a free paper.
His style is always like that, but he's actually pretty easy to read once you get used to that. He writes like some people talk. Or think.
He's kind of a mix of the non-irritating parts of Andy Rooney, and the uncle you wished you had growing up. Ultra practical. And yes, he reviews everything, from movies to new cars to restaurants to new TVs.
Very interesting indeed. Cases I had read about in the industry over the last few years were not as specific as this. They had addressed manufacturer's rights, but didn't touch on the concept of making rules prior to accepting dealers vs. coercing them afterward.
I am not sure how this applies to Apple since I do not know their exact legal position or if they are accepting coop money (like you, I doubt it), thus, would have to concede the point. It does, however, raise some other interesting but unrelated issues for me personally. Thanks.
Obviously, the people who should be facing legal action are the ones who are actually engaged in illegal filesharing.
Um, many of the accused don't even know what P2P is, including this 41 year old mother living on disability payments.
If the RIAA wants to sue someone for infringement, fine. But do it LEGALLY. Not using spyware. Not using mass extorsion to pay for your tactics. By serving notice, getting lawyers, going to court, and letting jury of peers decide the facts in this CIVIL SUIT. Instead, they use tactics that make any mafia boss proud.
Even IF the woman did infringe, this doesn't excuse the fact that their methods are CRIMES. Even if she DID download copyrighted music, her actions were NOT crimes, they are civil infringement. "If" doesn't even matter at this point. The ends do not justify the means, especially in a simple copyright infringement suit with no evidence.
If she was a crack smoker that was SELLING the songs for a profit to underage illegal aliens it would not matter: The acts the RIAA did would still be illegal and are a gross violate of privacy rights of the innocent. They have already committed crimes against her and tens of thousands of others, before she even knew what RIAA is an acronym for.
So yes, personal responsibility. But the RIAA has to take personal responsibility for committing crimes in the course of trying to gather evidence for a civil suit as well.
Again, in the examples I gave, the manufacturer doesn't dictate the selling price, only the advertising price, forcing other dealers to sell below cost. I made this clear. If you want the best deal, you have to show up at the store.
;)
I see your point how a manufacturer can't dictate the actually minimum selling price, which isn't something I would do anyway, and isn't what I advocated.
Recording companies can, however, dictate how their products are advertised. Technically, even with all this discussion, they CAN require that ALL online music stores do not advertise their products for less than $2 each, to protect the "integrity of the pricing model". They can NOT single out Apple, they can't get together with other record companies to agree on the price.
I am not a paralegal (although I was in that line of work many years ago) but this is the problem with the internet, as the laws are fuzzy as applied to this unique medium, and precident is lacking. The same place you would advertise, you would sell at, ie: the website. Newspapers and TV aren't that way. (phone, perhaps, but that is still different). This, to me, is what makes it a bit fuzzy. The closest medium I can think of that would parallel is telemarketing, whereas both advertising and sales happen within the same medium. I don't, however, think it is a very good comparison.
I would contend that a court would see the primary purpose of the site as advertising, thus the record companies would be able to say "you can't advertise the price as 99 cents", even if they can sell it for 99 cents at that page. (ie: no 99c on the front page, only the product page.) Yes, we have reduced this to what may seem as acedemic to everyone except us, but THIS is what would be argued in a court of law.
I didn't say I would LIKE this finding, but this is what I think would happen. As long as people have a choice of where to buy their music, and they can buy it from many different places, and many different record companies, I think a judge would be hard pressed to interfere, as the "harm" to the consumer isn't as great as the manufacturers rights, in this particular case. Or at least, it could very easily be argued. We obviously disagree on what the outcome would be (but not should be), so we will have to let a judge decide
As to the manufacturer's right to limit advertised price (but not sale price), I still stand by my previous statements, as they do not apply to the above in the examples I gave.
They should have just stuck with crushing the P2P makers, and let the nerds carry on about the importance of placing responsibility where it belongs.
.357, it isn't your fault, it's Smith and Wesson's. They made the weapon, you just used it.
As overrated as your comment is, I will bite:
So they should go after Bram Cohen, the creator of bittorrent, because "everyone knows there is no legitimate use for bittorrent", right? Or go after eDonkey creator Jed McCaleb. After all, it's not the users responsibility, its the creator. Just like if you shoot me with a
Of course, there are more than a few legitimate uses for P2P software. This is like going after Linus Torvalds, Richard Stallman, and Bill Gates, because they created and contributed to the operating systems that allow computer crimes to happen in the first place.
I mean, if there was no operating systems, there would be no computer crime, right? Just like if no author made P2P software, no one would illegally share files. (um, I am being sarcastic if you haven't caught up yet...)
They can go after the people who are infringing their copyrights, but they are currently breaking more laws than the users by intentionally breaking and entering into their computers (and perfectly innocent people's computers) and using extortion against people who think may have infringed, without providing any proof.
If you people learn one thing today, make it this: COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT IS A CIVIL MATTER, NOT A CRIME. Spying on people and extorsion, however, IS a crime.
What you are missing is the big picture: The RIAA is trying very hard to make using any P2P system either illegal, or at least viewed as completely illegitimate. It is fighting a distribution SYSTEM, not copyright issues.
The problem with this is I personally like bittorrent (just one P2P method) and hope to see it incorporated into many other programs, particularly online gaming. This would make downloading the typical 150mb patches much easier than "waiting in line 20 minutes" at the typical gamer site, while being pounding about subscribing.
I also use it to download Linux and BSD distributions, as well as other software, legally. There are often bittorrent links here on slashdot for videos, etc. from sites who don't have the bandwidth to stand a slashdotting.
The real pisser is they are using flatly illegal tactics to do this, first by spying on people, second by extortion. Copyright infrincement isn't a crime, it's a matter for the civil courts. What the RIAA is doing, however, IS criminal in all 50 states.
They are wholesale extorting money from people, with no physical evidence, and using a threat of litigation to make them give money. An amount that is cheaper than a retainer for a lawyer, I might add, to insure it is "in their best interest" to just comply and fork over a few thousand to make the problem go away. This is akin to the mob selling you "insurance, so no one will burn your house down". If the FIAA was actually interested in justice, they would allow the cases to actually go to court, instead of hiring some collection agency goons.
Saying the RIAA is worried about the musicians being denied royalties is like saying SCO wants to protect their intellectual property. Yes, you can say it, but we both know its a load of crap. Like SCO, they just see this as both a way to prevent people from competing with thier distribution, and make a few bucks on the side.
I never called it a planet, or a moon. I contend that an object that is circling anything can simply be a captured asteroid, even if the object that captured it is yet another asteroid. No conflict here.
You must have replied to the wrong message.