Oh, and for us IE6 users, there are ways around getting to blocked sites. It's called changing the user agent and/or version reply in the registry. You know, for such blocked sites such as www.myspace.com or www.target.com.
Boy! Do you know little about the web...
I tried your "trick" with gmail, but I couldn't get the regular interface to work. After a while trying different things, my browser crashed. Maybe I did put the wrong user-agent?
A behavior stereotype is usually based on the behavior of some of the members of a group. The bad thing is that, being a stereotype, it is blindly applied to all members of the group. It has nonetheless a grain of truth.
See? For it to be issued from a grain of truth doesn't make it good. It's still bad.
You know a stereotype is based - usually - on the behavior of the majority of a group. In other words, the fact that you have two counter examples doesn't prove any more your point than the OP did his. Not mentioning that one of your examples actually gives credibility to his point.
Note that I'm not taking a side here - yet. Just pointing out you made a very poor job at debunking the OP.
The three strikes law actually doesn't involve the judiciary system at all, except in a completely automated way. No judge or any other human being is being told anything. The music producers are entirely all-powerful to cut the internet to any french citizen.
I agree with you, it's just bells and whistles since they can't abuse it too much, but still! There was a time where their main business was to produce music!
And all that to try to go against human nature. This will cease at some point, and 200 years from now people will look at this fight laughing their asses off "They tried to monitor all communication!! " "Ah ah ah ah ! How dumb can you be !!! ah ah ah !!!"
It is their view that we are also entitled to their opinion that is the problem.
Isn't it funny to bring such a universal way of communication to your people to censor it afterwards? Anyways, the internet is not like TV, in that you cannot control the sender of the information. This move will just push a little further the accessibility of various anonymisation programs and cryptography, and they won't be able to track what people say anymore, let alone whet they can access.
If anything, the pursuit of the pirates by the *AA has brought us insight in that area.
At the core, the Internet is a bunch of pipes allowing information to flow. In other words, allowing people to communicate. Nothing less and nothing more.
This information can be novel ideas, a credit card number or HD movies, but in the end it becomes a stream of bits that goes through said pipes.
People are not entitled to communication over the internet, at least not yet. But if this goes down the drain, as the copyright supporters want it to, it will be the end of the internet. But this cannot be done from a technical standpoint - there is such a thing as unbreakable cryptography. It also cannot be done through law enforcement - there is such a thing as unbreakable cryptography, again, and I don't see a country putting a sizeable part of their population in jail for communicating through encrypted means. Moreover, there are plenty of ways to communicate an undetectable message, although pretty much all of them involve a huge overhead in terms of the message size vs the number of bytes transmitted.
Again. Progress is here, right in front of us. I don't think any party has the means to stop it. But as always, some parties have the stupidity to try, and have the means to slow it down, with huge collateral damage in the process. But they couldn't care less.
All in all, I'm not claiming it is a good or a bad thing. I'm claiming it's the way it is and the majors have better get prepared to live with it instead of trying to fight it. It will be a much more productive endeavor for everyone.
1 is not an engineering problem. But 1 is irrelevant, because of 2.
2 can be summarized into "Do people have the right to communicate freely and with an expectation of privacy in said communication". So, if you want to stop the piracy over the internet, the only way is to forbid people to communicate over the internet, or to track whatever they do, in other words, to shut down the internet or monitor it. Shut down is not going to happen, as the internet is now a sizeable part of every developed country economy. And moniroting ain't going to happen either, because the basis for e-commerce is that you can get your VISA card number through secretly. And if you want to stop piracy at all, you need to forbid people to communicate. Not going to happen either.
Note that at any point I never claimed that "People have a right to copy any and everything they please". What I'm claiming is that in order to remove this right, you also need to remove the right to communicate. Which ain't going to happen, no matter how hard you want to.
The point being that there probably should be an attempt made to hinder online piracy in some way. We can't just let it spiral completely out of control, to the point where it's no longer lucrative to produce anything.
You see, the problem with copyright supporters is that they believe this to be true. I don't think it will. I know plenty of people buying their music from Amazon or iTunes. And they are tecchies. It's just more convenient. It took them 10 years, but they made something easier that pirating.
And this is the key point. Because nobody is going to stop piracy. It is crazy to think so. Because stopping piracy means stopping privacy. Because pirating is just communicating.
Where does this judge live? The MPAA, RIAA, and BSA have been doing this for years, now, no? And as far as I know, no US judge has called them out when they cite their "research" as background information in a court case.
I don't think MPAA or RIAA has been suing anyone on patents grounds yet.
First, I didn't read the AC's comment. Then I thought the FP in question was pretty relevant to the quality of the summary. Not a troll in my view and I explained why.
Of course, it depends your point of view I guess. My post was probably badly worded.
Of course, but we're not talking about Gnome or KDE here, but about Linux. AFAIK, Gnome is not yet an OS.
Ah, and try to launch ghostview in a KDE or Gnome envionment and watch everyone struggle to understand how you're supposed to scroll. Or an xterm. That's where Linux falls short. All this shit shouldn't even be in the repos. But then the whole platform would be worthless becauss there would be so many apps missing.
Ok, then Linux if worse but in the other way. You can mount every fucking directory as a partition and you won't be better off. Apps in Linux also store stuff all over the place./opt/var,/usr, etc. The ability to mount those as separate partitions only serves the power user which doesn't need this kind of service anyways.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, and for us IE6 users, there are ways around getting to blocked sites. It's called changing the user agent and/or version reply in the registry. You know, for such blocked sites such as www.myspace.com or www.target.com.
Boy! Do you know little about the web...
I tried your "trick" with gmail, but I couldn't get the regular interface to work. After a while trying different things, my browser crashed. Maybe I did put the wrong user-agent?
Right, it came out all wrong. Apologies.
*go proof-read next post*
A behavior stereotype is usually based on the behavior of some of the members of a group. The bad thing is that, being a stereotype, it is blindly applied to all members of the group. It has nonetheless a grain of truth.
See? For it to be issued from a grain of truth doesn't make it good. It's still bad.
You know a stereotype is based - usually - on the behavior of the majority of a group. In other words, the fact that you have two counter examples doesn't prove any more your point than the OP did his. Not mentioning that one of your examples actually gives credibility to his point.
Note that I'm not taking a side here - yet. Just pointing out you made a very poor job at debunking the OP.
The three strikes law actually doesn't involve the judiciary system at all, except in a completely automated way. No judge or any other human being is being told anything. The music producers are entirely all-powerful to cut the internet to any french citizen.
I agree with you, it's just bells and whistles since they can't abuse it too much, but still! There was a time where their main business was to produce music!
And all that to try to go against human nature. This will cease at some point, and 200 years from now people will look at this fight laughing their asses off "They tried to monitor all communication!! " "Ah ah ah ah ! How dumb can you be !!! ah ah ah !!!"
But now it is pissing me off.
Because you need to feed the trolls. The trolls being the *AA (your localized version of course)
In France, we have the tax, the long terms, the three strike law. Soon, they'll have more power than the government itself.
It is their view that we are also entitled to their opinion that is the problem.
Isn't it funny to bring such a universal way of communication to your people to censor it afterwards? Anyways, the internet is not like TV, in that you cannot control the sender of the information. This move will just push a little further the accessibility of various anonymisation programs and cryptography, and they won't be able to track what people say anymore, let alone whet they can access.
If anything, the pursuit of the pirates by the *AA has brought us insight in that area.
In the long run, it'll be good.
At the core, the Internet is a bunch of pipes allowing information to flow. In other words, allowing people to communicate. Nothing less and nothing more.
This information can be novel ideas, a credit card number or HD movies, but in the end it becomes a stream of bits that goes through said pipes.
People are not entitled to communication over the internet, at least not yet. But if this goes down the drain, as the copyright supporters want it to, it will be the end of the internet. But this cannot be done from a technical standpoint - there is such a thing as unbreakable cryptography. It also cannot be done through law enforcement - there is such a thing as unbreakable cryptography, again, and I don't see a country putting a sizeable part of their population in jail for communicating through encrypted means. Moreover, there are plenty of ways to communicate an undetectable message, although pretty much all of them involve a huge overhead in terms of the message size vs the number of bytes transmitted.
Again. Progress is here, right in front of us. I don't think any party has the means to stop it. But as always, some parties have the stupidity to try, and have the means to slow it down, with huge collateral damage in the process. But they couldn't care less.
All in all, I'm not claiming it is a good or a bad thing. I'm claiming it's the way it is and the majors have better get prepared to live with it instead of trying to fight it. It will be a much more productive endeavor for everyone.
In my view, you're missing the point entirely.
1 is not an engineering problem. But 1 is irrelevant, because of 2.
2 can be summarized into "Do people have the right to communicate freely and with an expectation of privacy in said communication". So, if you want to stop the piracy over the internet, the only way is to forbid people to communicate over the internet, or to track whatever they do, in other words, to shut down the internet or monitor it. Shut down is not going to happen, as the internet is now a sizeable part of every developed country economy. And moniroting ain't going to happen either, because the basis for e-commerce is that you can get your VISA card number through secretly. And if you want to stop piracy at all, you need to forbid people to communicate. Not going to happen either.
Note that at any point I never claimed that "People have a right to copy any and everything they please". What I'm claiming is that in order to remove this right, you also need to remove the right to communicate. Which ain't going to happen, no matter how hard you want to.
The point being that there probably should be an attempt made to hinder online piracy in some way. We can't just let it spiral completely out of control, to the point where it's no longer lucrative to produce anything.
You see, the problem with copyright supporters is that they believe this to be true. I don't think it will. I know plenty of people buying their music from Amazon or iTunes. And they are tecchies. It's just more convenient. It took them 10 years, but they made something easier that pirating.
And this is the key point. Because nobody is going to stop piracy. It is crazy to think so. Because stopping piracy means stopping privacy. Because pirating is just communicating.
> Oracle has no one to blame but itself
Where does this judge live? The MPAA, RIAA, and BSA have been doing this for years, now, no? And as far as I know, no US judge has called them out when they cite their "research" as background information in a court case.
I don't think MPAA or RIAA has been suing anyone on patents grounds yet.
...it's only fair that other companies pay up if they want to profit from the results of Microsoft's R&D.
You see, the problem with patents is that even if you didn't benefit from Microsoft R&D, you have to pay up. How is that fair?
I read that as "Wifi Free" at first and thought the "wifi causes cancer" nutjobs had won...
But, but ... Wifi causes cancer! Or does it not ? ;-)
Probably at about the same rate as breathing in and out causes cancer.
Of course, but since you don't stop breathing while using Wifi, I'd argue it raises your risk of getting cancer !
Good point actually. Is something wrong in a country where you can't take a leak for free but you can access the internet for free?
Methinks yes. But that's me.
I read that as "Wifi Free" at first and thought the "wifi causes cancer" nutjobs had won...
But, but ... Wifi causes cancer! Or does it not ? ;-)
Https should be sufficient. Or just install a proxy at home and tunnel all your requests to it via ssh. I mean, ther's a shitload of options here.
First, I didn't read the AC's comment. Then I thought the FP in question was pretty relevant to the quality of the summary. Not a troll in my view and I explained why.
Of course, it depends your point of view I guess. My post was probably badly worded.
So, a site dedicated to nerds needs to explain what a GPU is? Are we not nerds anymore?
Of course, but we're not talking about Gnome or KDE here, but about Linux. AFAIK, Gnome is not yet an OS.
Ah, and try to launch ghostview in a KDE or Gnome envionment and watch everyone struggle to understand how you're supposed to scroll. Or an xterm. That's where Linux falls short. All this shit shouldn't even be in the repos. But then the whole platform would be worthless becauss there would be so many apps missing.
Do you see the catch 22 there?
... and cutting out the cable/telephone companies KILLS JOBS.
So that's what killed him. Thanks for the info, I thought it was cancer or something.
Ok, then Linux if worse but in the other way. You can mount every fucking directory as a partition and you won't be better off. Apps in Linux also store stuff all over the place. /opt /var, /usr, etc. The ability to mount those as separate partitions only serves the power user which doesn't need this kind of service anyways.
If you have a serious system admin, it's not going to be a problem for windows either.
You do know that you can have /var as a separate partition, don't you?
Which totally doesn't address the original point, but yes. I know you can have any directory as a partition.
Today, you reinstall from a CD / DVD. Go get a virus that can inject itself into that !
The point of the GP is that it is as meaningless as a backup.
If you give an external drive to your grandma and expect her to keep it safe, the problem is you ;-)
Leave with the drive after the install!