perhaps the liscences have not been terminated.
Sasktel told me that they were terminating the liscences, but hell, they have been wrong before.
what i'm pretty sure of, is that they CAN terminate the liscense.
here's something i felt lucky about (windows 98 eula)
Termination.
Without prejudice to any other rights, Microsoft
may terminate this EULA if you fail to comply with
the terms and conditions of this EULA.
In such event, you must destroy all copies of the SOFTWARE
PRODUCT and all of its component parts.
* * *
4. COPYRIGHT.
All title and intellectual property rights in and to the SOFTWARE PRODUCT
(including but not limited to any images, photographs, animations, video,
audio, music, text, and "applets" incorporated into the SOFTWARE PRODUCT),
the accompanying printed materials, and any copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT
are owned by Microsoft or its suppliers. All title and intellectual
property rights in and to the content which may be accessed through use of
the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is the property of the respective content owner and
may be protected by applicable copyright or other intellectual property
laws and treaties. This EULA grants you no rights to use such content. All
rights not expressly granted are reserved by Microsoft.
including, unless otherwise stated negativeley somewhere where i missed,
the right of microsoft to cancel specific induvidual's ability to hold liscences, and if they have cancelled it, or modified the agreement , you must surely be in violation of the licence by using it, and must terminate. or something.
are you that stupid or are you trying to not see the light here.
civil disobedience has been going on since the days of moses. just recently has it gotten a name and the qualities you describe, but so long has there been civility, authority, and a reason to stay alive/not follow the authority, there has been reaction against the authority in this manner.
some civil dissobedience will get you jailed, some killed, and some will land you with a meaningless slap on the wrist. Emmanuel goldstein i seem to remember going to a sort of civil-dissobedience-sit-in-sort of thing and coming back on the air after being arrested, with no charges, after the authority in the matter knew that it was in the wrong. to classify all civil disobedience sooo specifically you miss the bigger picture, this is about a reaction that happens when authority, self-awareness and a structure of action determining rules or laws coexist, if i even have a broad enough scope on the matter.
you are definitely right, in calling it a witch hunt. over at the kult there is a specific ferocity,keeping us together, keeping us united, and keeping those of us who are pissed off with a venue to vent at(namelessly, nambla, and child porn sites and those who back them)
but mabye all this activity against such a force also has an echo behind it producing people more attracted to this sort of thing. I can't speak for myself here (i have discussed myself as a particular case elsehwere in this thread) but if day in day out a person thinks about child porn(man we are going to kill those child porn bastard satans!) its still in your head, day in, day out. and that's got to mess you up, in my opinion.
even just the idea. the idea of rape. the idea of molestation. a person, in my opinion is never the same after coming to understand even the basic precepts of these ideas... i can imagine an actual *rapist* or something with no understanding that females have feelings or the like...breaking apart if they ever came to understand what they actually do(women aren't people, after all, right?)
anyways, so, disregarding the justification of the witch hunt, does it change the personality of it's participants? does the acknowledgement of rape by millions of feminist twist the concept of man, love, and life? does the existance of child porn change normal sexuality? does the existance of a taboo'ed subject cause greater interest in it?
and if so, what is the nature of the effect/greater interest?
you would be RIGHT in calling it a taboo. damn rights its a taboo.
I want to know, if there is any relationship between the amount of nudity not shown on television, the keeping ideas and references to sex away from our children, the constant reinforcement "sex with children is bad" "sex with children is bad" 'if your not 21 you shouldn't even be thinking of sex', 'don't look or think about anything that has no clothes, those thoughts are dirty' that everyone in this thread(to my knowledge) seems to acknowledge exists...with the VAST UNDENIABLE urge in SO MANY PEOPLE to go out and look for child porn on the internet. even if 0.1% of all those searches on my computer came from people who actually went out and tried to rape children, that's fucking scary.
once i saw someone, somewhere suggest that we should make child porn legal, open the internet to all the sick and crazy things in the world, and help people accept the fact that they are, indeed, fucked up. give money to child porn sites to host banners "looking at child porn? need help? call this number 1800-addicted-to-crack sort of thing. or mabye not even that far, but slowly, as a world-community, leveraging ourselves away from our primal, biological urges that are obviously destructive to not just children, but the society as a whole(as we definitley have something against them, why don't we formulate a plan that does not mean denying urges, and thus strengthening the dialectic against us, or whatever). i'm not sure if he was completely right in his thinking, but mabye there needs to be some thought on this. thoughts?
* our sole understanding of the world is through our senses, and consiousness(riddled by subconsiousnesses, which are fairly simple)
if it is knowable, then p must exist such that Pt -> Q where Pt is a premis, or set of premises who's concequence is the existance of god (Q).
let Pt and Rt be indestinguishible from eachother to our failable, deceivable senses, such that Pt is what is required and what we, the experiencing beings think we are experiencing, and Rt be what is actually occuring.
there must always at a time be a R such that we are experiencing P, and it is only through thought that we come to a greater understanding of R, from less and less primative versions of R called P.
for example when i see this monitor, i see it as a box around 14 inches that changes the arrangement of its colour as i type with my hands, when in reality what i see is systems of changing electrons(if that) in my head, and what's happening in the outside of my mind could be damn near everything, up to but not excluded to floating in a body vat matrix style.
so when we say Pt->Q Pt Therefor Q we are given an unsound argument, for all Pt, because Premis #2 is false, because we do not have Pt. we only have Rt, and since Rt does not equal Pt, for all Pt and Rt(see definition of Rt above), we can never get Q.
likewise it also does not follow that you can prove the inexistance of god in the same manner.
P->Q notP therefor ? where ? is any conclusion is a logical error.
actually i was hoping to do some magic hocus pocus Goedel-Escher-Bach style poking at the systems of logic, language, and human(collective and singular) understanding itself, and it's inability to deal with such concepts as "god"...but i cant' seem to come up with anything descent. i mean SURE i can SAY that all axiom based logical systems have such holes, but do i even know of one such whole that is for certian, a hole? i mean, i've heard the axiom of choice(whatever it is), is one, but do i really understand why?
it appears the real proof i want has yet to be written.
said differently, we cannot be certian Pt is Rt, unless we allready know the awnser to the question, and worse, we cannot know that even this is true without said awnser, or this, or this, ad infinitaem!
did i even get a smile for my efforts?
Re:Professional journalists, scientists, managers.
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1
i don't know, i seem to remember at least one of my former boss's talking to me about ufo's, and trying to convince me they exist. at least.
and i don't watch 60 minutes, or cnn, although the people i know who watch tv watch more "Space channel" and "discovery" features on ufo's than "News".
the us government i'm not sure about, partially because i'm a canadian and don't care what the us government thinks, partially because that's a lot of effort to get into(i don't read the entire library of canada, either). but i could try to look at that, although i think in my closet is a philosophy journal that discusses the entire ufo thing(discounting it as fraudulent, of course).
for every two years, support one more year of your software. Microsoft would be supporting stuff back to around win 3.1. this way, software producing entities want to think really hard before they release a -stable version, to ensure that it is what they will want for a long time, plus, it encourages more and more such forward planning, as time goes onward, and of course leaves room (if gpl is involved) for progress to happen via forks.
why do i say this? because the longer you are in existance, the more you should be able to handle supporting backwards compatibility and forwards-looking in this way. i don't expect people to be able to support everything, but as time goes on, mabye we can expect more support.
on the other hand, microsoft can rot in hell, so i really don't care what they do with their liscence/software...because sooner or later they will go bankrupt, and be over-turned as a company,...mabye not within my lifetime, but eventually, but open software will always remain if it is needed.x
isn't there a stanza that requires that when microsoft wishes to terminate the liscence you must destroy all copies of said software(windows 98) and delete it off your hard drive? i mean, really who actually reads and follows eula, but isn't this a reason to switch somewhere else? I Thought that microsoft had cancelled all the win98 liscences long ago, mabye about a year ago, but if i was mistaken and they are doing it just now, perhaps that could be right too(i was trying to set my modem/internet account up with local telco sasktel, and they told me that they would not even set an account up for me unless i had something higher than windows 98...and i was running either dos shell on top of MSDOS 6.2 or windows 3.1...).
i have came across a LOT of people who have "publicly" anounced that they are being disobidient, and ignoring whatever law, because the law is either stupid, harmful, broken, or whathaveyou. on the order of at least a good five hundred or so. and that's not including slashdot, and that's really only the people that I have come in contact with. granted, that's not everyone in the world,.. and granted at least half of them eventually break down and then go back to being a happy little prozac consumer type...but there are a LOT of people out there who are doing it because it is the Right Thing to do. it is their duty, however to convince the rest of the people who think they are doing the wrong thing, that they are actually doing the right thing.
i'm skeptical...i don't really know one way or the other what kind of story is really behind all that stuff...but most people around here get their ideas from the television and the idea of UFO's is not taboo...but as real as possible. this includes a lot of geeks, too.
kiddy porn rambling blah
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
i think i'm due for a statement on it (a lot of people around me have been talking about it...)...
firstly, women have changed in the past hundred or so years. some say it's due to hormones in beef, but whatever the cause, 12-18 year old women are PHYSICALLY roughly equal to 18-24 year old women of the past. full breasted, full form, women.
they have all their secondary sexual characteristics and are in some if not most cases indestinguishible from other women.
however, the law still treats them like little girls. once again, technology and the human species have outpaced law.
especially in the united states where you have to be like 21 or something before you can be in porno(what the fuck? most women i know lose their virginity i'd estimate at or before 17. and some of the more slutty way before that. 21 for legality sake is just plain retarded. theres a lot of temptation between 16 and 21, especially in a sex-crazed culture like the one we have(woo) )
in the meanwhile, rape, and things glorifying the rape of children, and things glorifying sex with children, and predetorial sex, and above all predatorial rape sex with children, all on film and for profit just turns my stomach. can someone please tell me one reason why something like this is not a Bad Thing? and by children i mean not-even-trying-to-make-the-girls-seem-like-women...i mean exploiting whatever biological trigger there is in some men to be sexually attracted to children, FOR PROFIT.
if anything can be inspired by this, is that if you have no morality but that of the dollar, predatorial rape sex with children on video for profit is inevidible, and since this is in some way wrong(axiom?), pure capitalism(the morality of the dollar), is also to that extent wrong, and incomplete.
i think if you REALLY wanted to probe into what people find offensive, you wouldn't look at something that MIGHT be okay, when it boils down to it (secondary sexual characteristics are more important than law...it is in their name that the law was likely written).
another tangeant on this, is it also depends how old the male is.
when i was 16 i had some porn with 15-17 year old women in it. when i was 18 i found those files and saw them as "way too young", and deleted them.
now that i'm 21 files i saw when i was 18 seem too young. this is important to notice(after all, wasn't there someone in your grade that you would have given anything to fuck? like grade 5? 6?)
the last interesting thing to note, is that i once had limewire or something installed, and it kept track of how many and which files were downloaded off my hard drive while connected to the gnutella network. day in, day out, i had something like 100x more downloads of a file called "childporn.mp3" than anything else. this scares the fuck out of me. what was the file? it was a rant by sean kennedy, saying about how he would kill and otherwise incite mass suffering on people who (make/host) child porn. or something.
what is in you that makes you so certian that it is "perhaps knowable" that "god" does or does not exist? and why is it a problem that agnostics claim ignorance, when they know they are defeated?
and to stay on topic, agnostic will raise quite a few of those same eyebrows. keep in mind, during all of this, that most people are stupid, and a lot of people are very nervous. threatening the massive pillar that they base all their knowledge on (god) by questioning it in the slightest way,
of course the real massive pillar is themselves, but since most people put all their faith in god, (and they do), you are actually questioning them, and threatening them with confusion and the possibility of insecurity and impotency should you be correct.
there are many reasons to make something illegal.
discouragement is one of these reasons, and it may even be the main one, but it isn't "the whole point"
here's a question for you...what happens(or has happened) when there are just SO MANY BOOKS out there, that even IF you could somehow read through them, by a short way in you would become bored with them, because there is only SO MUCH you can do with books.
and ditto with movies. what happens when it's all been done? and everyone's bored of the reruns?
are we doomed to a "the metamorphasis of prime intellect" as a best-case scenario?
btw, i'm just trying to play devils advocate:D
is this a significant event at all?
why are you spending so much? pool your resources(i mean, obviously a project of that magnitude will have the support of a lot of people), and expect to gain nothing (except mabye reputation) from the project. after all, what is more important, making money, or having your name as part of the crew that put together a timeless edition of lord of the rings that will set the benchmark for movies to come for a good century?
i remember not too long ago sitting on a 386 running windows 3.1, connected to the internet and reading slashdot on a dialup 33.6 modem, thinking to myself that i wished that there were more freedom of information along the lines that the above poster was saying. Convinience does not push this idea or give it any credibility. if this were 50 years ago, and computers were the size of large buildings, i would still believe the same things, for one. mabye there are roads left to travel. i can't download or view movies, because i can't afford a computer that could do that, but i do hope that one day, everyone can do this(just like, i hope that one day, everyone will have enough to eat, a place to stay so they dont' freeze to death, etc). i would say, that wishing everyone a better life is far more of a moral/ethical standpoint than whatever greed filled self destructive worldview your pushing.
MABYE its impossible, and there can never be, on account of physical constraints, convinient, free transfer of movie/audio data. but until we are 100% sure of this, i intend to continue with the goal of helping make it work better.
mabye this iteration will not succeed. mabye it will fall out of favor with the public, and it will be forgotten. but in 100 years, when computers are much, much more advanced, and wireless data transfers, and other stuff is way easier to accomplish, we had better be ready for this meme to revitalize,.. given the right input it is inevidible.
what the hell are you talking about? i am not guilty at all downloading mp3s. oh wait, because the ones i download are one of the following
A) Independant/small scale Musicians who want their sound out.
(i downloaded apoptygma berzerk's mp3 off their website, for example)
B) really f'king good, to the point that i will go out and buy the artists album when i get the chanse(i have every one of jewel's albums that i can get my hands on...)
C) rare and or bootlegs that you just can't buy.(rocked, by rape, for example)
i will never feel guilty downloading music off the net.
now,
imagine a world where the industry that deals with distrobution does not have the ability to send swat teams into teenagers bedrooms. this is the world that i see and if people out there have to do some currently illegal actions to bring it to actuality, then all the power to them.
i personally try to avoid downloading copyrighted material(even though downloading said copyrighted works is legal here, in canada, allegedly), because I DONT WANT TO HEAR THAT SHIT. i will feel better as an induvidual if i have developed a style of my own(as a musician) independant of the big labels and their filth. and the further i distance from them as i increase my skill, the more credible as an alternative to them i become. after all, sure it'd be great if i were as good as led zepplin, pink floyd or trent reznor...
but what if i took a turn and became something so new that nothing compared?
and i can tell you right now, that i feel a HELL of a lot more guilty when i go into a HMV and feed the MPAA/RIAA money through CD sales, than when i download off the net. and you should too. dont' shop at hmv, and don't buy cds from the riaa at all. but hey, everyone has a breaking point, but make sure to feel guilty when you finally break down and buy that album, after all, you are funding terror tactics by doing so.
we are on a public forum, and he did just stand up and publicly state why he is doing this. whats your point? oh and guess what, theres some three hundred million people out there that broke the law, while hiding behind their activity and for it the industry has at least something on their radar. i think it's accomplished quite abit(hell, cd prices are half what they used to be. its almost affordable, at 20$ per cd now)
however, much like energy lost to heat, there is always going to be time lost to necessarry events. the advantage of science, and to a lesser extent the open source movement, is that we can appreciate these events as they are, and attempt to work around them.
can you imagine the process of getting a picture of somewhere in china a thousand years ago? it would have probably meant travel by foot or horse, through warring states, to arrive and pay a local painter to do a pseudodescent version...now its a matter of getting on an airplane, and bringing a digital camera. everything takes less time, and it should...why not expect to reduce further the time that is lost.
especially when you consider that we are all going to die...and unless you don't want to be alive (which makes sense...), you should be aware of at least most of your time alive so that your entire life does not just flicker past in a bunch of boring television sequences.
and it looks like you are attempting to get around the "wasted"ness of the time by multitasking and interpreting your time-events differently(as benifit instead of loss)...but you could be doing more stuff, at once...imagine, doing three or four obscure freebsd installs instead of just that one at one time...why not? why let your time be taken up by one?
you are mistaken. YOU know its bad, I know its bad, but most people don't care. dont assume that just because you know something that the public all know it as well.
your example of said jewish settlers was a good example...
i think that a little something has happenned to the jewish people since then...namelessly the halocaust.
has anything changed? mabye not, i suppose.
but i at least want to think that there is another option that has been forged in the past 75 years, whether they take it or not.
i keep thinking that there is an inexhaustible resource in the world: unemployed geeks.
while on one hand, the Open Source movement seems to capitalize on this group fairly well... perhaps we can motivate all unemployetd geeks to do something in unison? what do you think?
Slashdot Mirror
perhaps the liscences have not been terminated.
Sasktel told me that they were terminating the liscences, but hell, they have been wrong before.
what i'm pretty sure of, is that they CAN terminate the liscense. here's something i felt lucky about (windows 98 eula)
Termination. Without prejudice to any other rights, Microsoft may terminate this EULA if you fail to comply with the terms and conditions of this EULA. In such event, you must destroy all copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT and all of its component parts. * * * 4. COPYRIGHT. All title and intellectual property rights in and to the SOFTWARE PRODUCT (including but not limited to any images, photographs, animations, video, audio, music, text, and "applets" incorporated into the SOFTWARE PRODUCT), the accompanying printed materials, and any copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT are owned by Microsoft or its suppliers. All title and intellectual property rights in and to the content which may be accessed through use of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is the property of the respective content owner and may be protected by applicable copyright or other intellectual property laws and treaties. This EULA grants you no rights to use such content. All rights not expressly granted are reserved by Microsoft.
including, unless otherwise stated negativeley somewhere where i missed, the right of microsoft to cancel specific induvidual's ability to hold liscences, and if they have cancelled it, or modified the agreement , you must surely be in violation of the licence by using it, and must terminate. or something.
are you that stupid or are you trying to not see the light here.
civil disobedience has been going on since the days of moses. just recently has it gotten a name and the qualities you describe, but so long has there been civility, authority, and a reason to stay alive/not follow the authority, there has been reaction against the authority in this manner. some civil dissobedience will get you jailed, some killed, and some will land you with a meaningless slap on the wrist. Emmanuel goldstein i seem to remember going to a sort of civil-dissobedience-sit-in-sort of thing and coming back on the air after being arrested, with no charges, after the authority in the matter knew that it was in the wrong. to classify all civil disobedience sooo specifically you miss the bigger picture, this is about a reaction that happens when authority, self-awareness and a structure of action determining rules or laws coexist, if i even have a broad enough scope on the matter.
you are definitely right, in calling it a witch hunt. over at the kult there is a specific ferocity,keeping us together, keeping us united, and keeping those of us who are pissed off with a venue to vent at(namelessly, nambla, and child porn sites and those who back them)
but mabye all this activity against such a force also has an echo behind it producing people more attracted to this sort of thing. I can't speak for myself here (i have discussed myself as a particular case elsehwere in this thread) but if day in day out a person thinks about child porn(man we are going to kill those child porn bastard satans!) its still in your head, day in, day out. and that's got to mess you up, in my opinion. even just the idea. the idea of rape. the idea of molestation. a person, in my opinion is never the same after coming to understand even the basic precepts of these ideas... i can imagine an actual *rapist* or something with no understanding that females have feelings or the like...breaking apart if they ever came to understand what they actually do(women aren't people, after all, right?)
anyways, so, disregarding the justification of the witch hunt, does it change the personality of it's participants? does the acknowledgement of rape by millions of feminist twist the concept of man, love, and life? does the existance of child porn change normal sexuality? does the existance of a taboo'ed subject cause greater interest in it? and if so, what is the nature of the effect/greater interest?
you would be RIGHT in calling it a taboo. damn rights its a taboo.
I want to know, if there is any relationship between the amount of nudity not shown on television, the keeping ideas and references to sex away from our children, the constant reinforcement "sex with children is bad" "sex with children is bad" 'if your not 21 you shouldn't even be thinking of sex', 'don't look or think about anything that has no clothes, those thoughts are dirty' that everyone in this thread(to my knowledge) seems to acknowledge exists...with the VAST UNDENIABLE urge in SO MANY PEOPLE to go out and look for child porn on the internet. even if 0.1% of all those searches on my computer came from people who actually went out and tried to rape children, that's fucking scary.
once i saw someone, somewhere suggest that we should make child porn legal, open the internet to all the sick and crazy things in the world, and help people accept the fact that they are, indeed, fucked up. give money to child porn sites to host banners "looking at child porn? need help? call this number 1800-addicted-to-crack sort of thing. or mabye not even that far, but slowly, as a world-community, leveraging ourselves away from our primal, biological urges that are obviously destructive to not just children, but the society as a whole(as we definitley have something against them, why don't we formulate a plan that does not mean denying urges, and thus strengthening the dialectic against us, or whatever). i'm not sure if he was completely right in his thinking, but mabye there needs to be some thought on this. thoughts?
i am going to try.
...but i cant' seem to come up with anything descent. i mean SURE i can SAY that all axiom based logical systems have such holes, but do i even know of one such whole that is for certian, a hole? i mean, i've heard the axiom of choice(whatever it is), is one, but do i really understand why?
* our sole understanding of the world is through
our senses, and consiousness(riddled by subconsiousnesses, which are fairly simple)
if it is knowable, then p must exist such that
Pt -> Q
where Pt is a premis, or set of premises who's concequence is the existance of god (Q).
let Pt and Rt be indestinguishible from eachother to our failable, deceivable senses, such that Pt is what is required and what we, the experiencing beings think we are experiencing, and Rt be what is actually occuring.
there must always at a time be a R such that we are experiencing P, and it is only through thought that we come to a greater understanding of R, from less and less primative versions of R called P.
for example when i see this monitor, i see it as a box around 14 inches that changes the arrangement of its colour as i type with my hands, when in reality what i see is systems of changing electrons(if that) in my head, and what's happening in the outside of my mind could be damn near everything, up to but not excluded to floating in a body vat matrix style.
so when we say
Pt->Q
Pt
Therefor Q
we are given an unsound argument, for all Pt, because Premis #2 is false, because we do not have Pt. we only have Rt, and since Rt does not equal Pt, for all Pt and Rt(see definition of Rt above), we can never get Q.
likewise it also does not follow that you can prove the inexistance of god in the same manner.
P->Q
notP
therefor ?
where ? is any conclusion is a logical error.
actually i was hoping to do some magic hocus pocus Goedel-Escher-Bach style poking at the systems of logic, language, and human(collective and singular) understanding itself, and it's inability to deal with such concepts as "god"
it appears the real proof i want has yet to be written.
said differently, we cannot be certian Pt is Rt, unless we allready know the awnser to the question, and worse, we cannot know that even this is true without said awnser, or this, or this, ad infinitaem!
did i even get a smile for my efforts?
i don't know, i seem to remember at least one of my former boss's talking to me about ufo's, and trying to convince me they exist. at least.
and i don't watch 60 minutes, or cnn, although the people i know who watch tv watch more "Space channel" and "discovery" features on ufo's than "News".
the us government i'm not sure about, partially because i'm a canadian and don't care what the us government thinks, partially because that's a lot of effort to get into(i don't read the entire library of canada, either). but i could try to look at that, although i think in my closet is a philosophy journal that discusses the entire ufo thing(discounting it as fraudulent, of course).
for every two years, support one more year of your software. Microsoft would be supporting stuff back to around win 3.1. this way, software producing entities want to think really hard before they release a -stable version, to ensure that it is what they will want for a long time, plus, it encourages more and more such forward planning, as time goes onward, and of course leaves room (if gpl is involved) for progress to happen via forks. why do i say this? because the longer you are in existance, the more you should be able to handle supporting backwards compatibility and forwards-looking in this way. i don't expect people to be able to support everything, but as time goes on, mabye we can expect more support. on the other hand, microsoft can rot in hell, so i really don't care what they do with their liscence/software...because sooner or later they will go bankrupt, and be over-turned as a company,...mabye not within my lifetime, but eventually, but open software will always remain if it is needed.x
isn't there a stanza that requires that when microsoft wishes to terminate the liscence you must destroy all copies of said software(windows 98) and delete it off your hard drive? i mean, really who actually reads and follows eula, but isn't this a reason to switch somewhere else? I Thought that microsoft had cancelled all the win98 liscences long ago, mabye about a year ago, but if i was mistaken and they are doing it just now, perhaps that could be right too(i was trying to set my modem/internet account up with local telco sasktel, and they told me that they would not even set an account up for me unless i had something higher than windows 98...and i was running either dos shell on top of MSDOS 6.2 or windows 3.1 ...).
i have came across a LOT of people who have "publicly" anounced that they are being disobidient, and ignoring whatever law, because the law is either stupid, harmful, broken, or whathaveyou. on the order of at least a good five hundred or so. and that's not including slashdot, and that's really only the people that I have come in contact with. granted, that's not everyone in the world,.. and granted at least half of them eventually break down and then go back to being a happy little prozac consumer type...but there are a LOT of people out there who are doing it because it is the Right Thing to do. it is their duty, however to convince the rest of the people who think they are doing the wrong thing, that they are actually doing the right thing.
i'm skeptical...i don't really know one way or the other what kind of story is really behind all that stuff...but most people around here get their ideas from the television and the idea of UFO's is not taboo...but as real as possible. this includes a lot of geeks, too.
i think i'm due for a statement on it (a lot of people around me have been talking about it...)... firstly, women have changed in the past hundred or so years. some say it's due to hormones in beef, but whatever the cause, 12-18 year old women are PHYSICALLY roughly equal to 18-24 year old women of the past. full breasted, full form, women. they have all their secondary sexual characteristics and are in some if not most cases indestinguishible from other women. however, the law still treats them like little girls. once again, technology and the human species have outpaced law. especially in the united states where you have to be like 21 or something before you can be in porno(what the fuck? most women i know lose their virginity i'd estimate at or before 17. and some of the more slutty way before that. 21 for legality sake is just plain retarded. theres a lot of temptation between 16 and 21, especially in a sex-crazed culture like the one we have(woo) ) in the meanwhile, rape, and things glorifying the rape of children, and things glorifying sex with children, and predetorial sex, and above all predatorial rape sex with children, all on film and for profit just turns my stomach. can someone please tell me one reason why something like this is not a Bad Thing? and by children i mean not-even-trying-to-make-the-girls-seem-like-women. ..i mean exploiting whatever biological trigger there is in some men to be sexually attracted to children, FOR PROFIT.
if anything can be inspired by this, is that if you have no morality but that of the dollar, predatorial rape sex with children on video for profit is inevidible, and since this is in some way wrong(axiom?), pure capitalism(the morality of the dollar), is also to that extent wrong, and incomplete.
i think if you REALLY wanted to probe into what people find offensive, you wouldn't look at something that MIGHT be okay, when it boils down to it (secondary sexual characteristics are more important than law...it is in their name that the law was likely written).
another tangeant on this, is it also depends how old the male is.
when i was 16 i had some porn with 15-17 year old women in it. when i was 18 i found those files and saw them as "way too young", and deleted them. now that i'm 21 files i saw when i was 18 seem too young. this is important to notice(after all, wasn't there someone in your grade that you would have given anything to fuck? like grade 5? 6?)
the last interesting thing to note, is that i once had limewire or something installed, and it kept track of how many and which files were downloaded off my hard drive while connected to the gnutella network. day in, day out, i had something like 100x more downloads of a file called "childporn.mp3" than anything else. this scares the fuck out of me. what was the file? it was a rant by sean kennedy, saying about how he would kill and otherwise incite mass suffering on people who (make/host) child porn. or something.
anyways, i think i've rambled enough.
what is in you that makes you so certian that it is "perhaps knowable" that "god" does or does not exist? and why is it a problem that agnostics claim ignorance, when they know they are defeated?
and to stay on topic, agnostic will raise quite a few of those same eyebrows. keep in mind, during all of this, that most people are stupid, and a lot of people are very nervous. threatening the massive pillar that they base all their knowledge on (god) by questioning it in the slightest way, of course the real massive pillar is themselves, but since most people put all their faith in god, (and they do), you are actually questioning them, and threatening them with confusion and the possibility of insecurity and impotency should you be correct.
there are many reasons to make something illegal. discouragement is one of these reasons, and it may even be the main one, but it isn't "the whole point"
here's a question for you...what happens(or has happened) when there are just SO MANY BOOKS out there, that even IF you could somehow read through them, by a short way in you would become bored with them, because there is only SO MUCH you can do with books. and ditto with movies. what happens when it's all been done? and everyone's bored of the reruns? are we doomed to a "the metamorphasis of prime intellect" as a best-case scenario?
:D
is this a significant event at all?
btw, i'm just trying to play devils advocate
why are you spending so much? pool your resources(i mean, obviously a project of that magnitude will have the support of a lot of people), and expect to gain nothing (except mabye reputation) from the project. after all, what is more important, making money, or having your name as part of the crew that put together a timeless edition of lord of the rings that will set the benchmark for movies to come for a good century?
i remember not too long ago sitting on a 386 running windows 3.1, connected to the internet and reading slashdot on a dialup 33.6 modem, thinking to myself that i wished that there were more freedom of information along the lines that the above poster was saying. Convinience does not push this idea or give it any credibility. if this were 50 years ago, and computers were the size of large buildings, i would still believe the same things, for one. mabye there are roads left to travel. i can't download or view movies, because i can't afford a computer that could do that, but i do hope that one day, everyone can do this(just like, i hope that one day, everyone will have enough to eat, a place to stay so they dont' freeze to death, etc). i would say, that wishing everyone a better life is far more of a moral/ethical standpoint than whatever greed filled self destructive worldview your pushing. MABYE its impossible, and there can never be, on account of physical constraints, convinient, free transfer of movie/audio data. but until we are 100% sure of this, i intend to continue with the goal of helping make it work better. mabye this iteration will not succeed. mabye it will fall out of favor with the public, and it will be forgotten. but in 100 years, when computers are much, much more advanced, and wireless data transfers, and other stuff is way easier to accomplish, we had better be ready for this meme to revitalize,.. given the right input it is inevidible.
what the hell are you talking about? i am not guilty at all downloading mp3s. oh wait, because the ones i download are one of the following
A) Independant/small scale Musicians who want their sound out. (i downloaded apoptygma berzerk's mp3 off their website, for example)
B) really f'king good, to the point that i will go out and buy the artists album when i get the chanse(i have every one of jewel's albums that i can get my hands on...)
C) rare and or bootlegs that you just can't buy.(rocked, by rape, for example)
i will never feel guilty downloading music off the net.
now, imagine a world where the industry that deals with distrobution does not have the ability to send swat teams into teenagers bedrooms. this is the world that i see and if people out there have to do some currently illegal actions to bring it to actuality, then all the power to them. i personally try to avoid downloading copyrighted material(even though downloading said copyrighted works is legal here, in canada, allegedly), because I DONT WANT TO HEAR THAT SHIT. i will feel better as an induvidual if i have developed a style of my own(as a musician) independant of the big labels and their filth. and the further i distance from them as i increase my skill, the more credible as an alternative to them i become. after all, sure it'd be great if i were as good as led zepplin, pink floyd or trent reznor... but what if i took a turn and became something so new that nothing compared?
and i can tell you right now, that i feel a HELL of a lot more guilty when i go into a HMV and feed the MPAA/RIAA money through CD sales, than when i download off the net. and you should too. dont' shop at hmv, and don't buy cds from the riaa at all. but hey, everyone has a breaking point, but make sure to feel guilty when you finally break down and buy that album, after all, you are funding terror tactics by doing so.
there is nothing miraculous about working for under 3 dollars an hour.
we are on a public forum, and he did just stand up and publicly state why he is doing this. whats your point? oh and guess what, theres some three hundred million people out there that broke the law, while hiding behind their activity and for it the industry has at least something on their radar. i think it's accomplished quite abit(hell, cd prices are half what they used to be. its almost affordable, at 20$ per cd now)
however, much like energy lost to heat, there is always going to be time lost to necessarry events. the advantage of science, and to a lesser extent the open source movement, is that we can appreciate these events as they are, and attempt to work around them.
can you imagine the process of getting a picture of somewhere in china a thousand years ago? it would have probably meant travel by foot or horse, through warring states, to arrive and pay a local painter to do a pseudodescent version...now its a matter of getting on an airplane, and bringing a digital camera. everything takes less time, and it should...why not expect to reduce further the time that is lost.
especially when you consider that we are all going to die...and unless you don't want to be alive (which makes sense...), you should be aware of at least most of your time alive so that your entire life does not just flicker past in a bunch of boring television sequences.
and it looks like you are attempting to get around the "wasted"ness of the time by multitasking and interpreting your time-events differently(as benifit instead of loss)...but you could be doing more stuff, at once...imagine, doing three or four obscure freebsd installs instead of just that one at one time...why not? why let your time be taken up by one?
simple. disconnect. or use the "away" feature, saying so. whats so hard?
you are mistaken. YOU know its bad, I know its bad, but most people don't care. dont assume that just because you know something that the public all know it as well.
your example of said jewish settlers was a good example...
i think that a little something has happenned to the jewish people since then...namelessly the halocaust. has anything changed? mabye not, i suppose. but i at least want to think that there is another option that has been forged in the past 75 years, whether they take it or not.
i keep thinking that there is an inexhaustible resource in the world: unemployed geeks. while on one hand, the Open Source movement seems to capitalize on this group fairly well... perhaps we can motivate all unemployetd geeks to do something in unison? what do you think?
if i weren't wonderring how i am going to pay next months rent...i would chip in :(