"Then we consider the final day of protests, where the groups that advocated the destruction of public and private property came out to play. These are people, some of whom have been trained so that they can 'fight back' when the Police come to break them up.
The Police HAVE to come break them up. You can't allow people to go around destroying property. These people then say they have to "defend themselves" from the Police. Then, you get the mob mentality. Other people join the violence because they can. And some of these people have the gall to say that they are in the right."
Absoloutely none of which applies to our Mr. ShapeShifter.
When it is MUCH simpler to encrpyt your eMail than it is to secure your phone communications - why not just HIDE anything you don't want the
FBI to see?
Or hide everything, including the innoculous. Right now encrypting some things and not others might be a red flag. But what do you do when you're tasked with monitoring national security and everyone is guilty.
Actually, PGP hasn't been cracked to anyone's knowledge.
Somewhere there is a brown-haired individual. He's wearing pressed pants and a tie with a strawberry jelly-doughnut stain on it. He's wishing his badge wasn't digging into his ass so much, and he's laughing his balls off reading this post. =)
Perhaps I should blame the FBI for choosing a menacing sounding name like "Carnivore," but certainly their intentions are not to destroy or harm. The FBI is a very major government organization paid for by our tax dollars. I may not agree with their moves all the time, but I trust that they are only concerned about the best interest of our country. Why would they go out of their way to harm the very citizens who keep them running?
I agree. Governments never break their own laws in the name of overzealous law enforcement. No country would ever, ever do something as silly as turning it's army against the very people that pay for it. We've never had a politician use the FBI to obtain damaging information about their political rivals. Police don't shove toilet plungers up people's asses and they certaintly don't use their influence to quash others in the department from testifying against them if they had.
Oh, and Santa is compiling his list - you might want to get cracking.
Uh, oh! Did I say "free speech?" Another point of irony:/. rants constantly about free speech, yet when someone with access to a large-access
forum makes a statement we/.ers don't like, we immediately start demanding that he be banned, not be allowed to make his statements, he needs to
be shut up, he has no right to say what he wants to say.
Nonsense. Telling a news agency that an agent of thiers is displaying incredibly biased and falacious journalism is not a breach of free speech and I will take what they report with a grain of salt as a result.
I'm all for Moody having the right to say whatever he'd like, but as long as he's under syndication and ABC opts to carry him, I'm going to tell ABC what I think of their journalism.
This is not censorship. This does not fall under the right to free speech. You have a right to speak. You do not have a right to be heard.
I don't know that I agree. I see the point you're making, but I've been reading slashdot for about 1.5 years now and never heard of of Moody (well, I heard his name mingled with his book, which I know nothing about). So reading his article - a vile mix of thinly veiled agenda and just incredibly shoddy journalism - really put him in perspective.
I am, however, a zealot. I agree with Stallman when he says that open source is better even if it doesn't work as well.
listen, buddy. let me fight my battles as a i see fit.
I'm all about letting you not only voice your opinion but follow through with it. I'm simply questioning where you draw the line and how you plan on being accurate in the first place.
I'm completely serious, I'm interested in hearing what you have to say.
Not really. I'm quite sure a bag of Doritoes won't fare very well, but flour could tolerate some *insidious* pressure. Oils. And once you mooshed those apples up good, you've got precisely what you need for a kick-*** pie.
I just had this discussion with my uncle today. Says his machine keeps locking up, I explain the hideous memory management courtesy of MS. He asks if I can hook him up with my neato OS (GNU/Linux). I explain that Linux involves some elbow grease coupled with the occasional guttaral scream. He would rather deal with the lockups.
And I'm okay with that. Linux isn't for everyone. I don't care if it takes over the world, though I wouldn't mind if it did. I just care that it's an option.
I've yet to hear a persuasive argument as to why intellectual property is a good idea. The best I get is "because if not the creator will be fscked."
Intellectual property is a concept designed for nothing but a profit motive. I can't help but think that if you removed copyrights then the only people making music would be those who loved it. Imagine life w/out Brittney or nSync, or anyone else who had to be beaten into our heads. Oh, the horror.
"yeah, but there are those of us who don't buy Sony products because of the war crimes they committed in WWII. They forced chinese and korean slaves to work for them until they died. I will pay a few bucks more to protest their immoral past."
I have to wonder how consistant you are with this line. Do you think the cigarette companies have been immoral in their disinformation, and if so do you refused to by from the numerous food products they output? You are aware of Goodyear's involvement in the Vietnam war and the lives that were lost as a result, right? Are these on your list? I can find quite a few more, this is just for brevity's sake...
I'm not challening your thought process here, just your ability to pull it off.
Actually, I take that back - I do question this logic. How do you discern between a company that isn't killing people because they've become enlightened and responsible and those that don't just because it's not nessesary or politically expedient? God, I hate to sound PC but this sounds awful Eurocentric.
Well, I wouldn't bet my testicles on this never happening, but I can say that I've been using gnapster for about...6 months now (I can place it accurately because I found gnapster thanks to this Slashdot Story in January), and I've never seen it fail to connect to a Napster server for anything other than being too full (which worked a few minutes later). I've not upgraded my gnapster either.
Why is it that every single damned time that Katz writes something, a select group - a disappointingly large, select group - have to kick in with the Katz quips?
If you don't like the man's writing, topics or attitude, don't [bleepin'] read him. I mean, do you want some cheese with that wine?
Hm. I dunno. Couldn't I make a song called "Metallica Won" (in reference to their case vs. Napster)? I don't think that Bree Sharp had to get David Duchovny's (sp?) permission to write her song with the same title.
If the supermarket once sells something slightly illegal, they get a slap on the wrist and are allowed to continue. However, if it's 90% illegal, matters change.
I don't agree with that. Take for example a small vial of chemical(s) that is sold at adult bookstores. It's labelled "head cleaner". It is *never* used for this purpose, it's inhaled during sex. Does a good job at wiping out brain cells too, now that I mention it.
The point being is if the item has a significant, legitimate use (such as allowing unsigned bands to release their work), then it falls under the category of legal.
At least that's my understanding of it. Anyone with a law degree want to dive in on this?
I'm not sure what advantage putting the mp3 on the cd affords you. I mean, it's easy enough to get mp3s from the cd. Why do you want that redundancy of information? Audio compression is still improving, and giving a copy of yesterday's best encoding is not that big a help.
Good point. But I never ripped a CD myself, so I view it (possibly incorrectly) as an unnessesary burden.
I'd have to say that the biggest draws for me is being able to put 400+ songs into a queue, move things around quickly, and let it roll.
This is something you simply can't do with a CD Player. I'd probably start buying CD's again if they:
a) Included the mp3 on the disk and; b) Get the price below $10.
Besides, when was the last time you heard the labels complain about the artists getting fscked? We all know who is squeekin' from the freakin', and if they don't adjust, they'll perish. It's simple.
"That doesn't make a difference. it still comes down to if napster is guilty of illegal music distribution."
What??! No, it does not only come down to the use of napster for illegal purposes! Have you ever FTP'd something? Have you ever played a VHS tape? Have you ever played a cassette? Each one of these are devices that are frequently used to steal music. But since they have substiantial, legitimate purposes, they are legal.
Slashdot Mirror
Thx anyways. =)
.02
My
Quux26
First law of lawyerism, don't sue poor people. - Steve Dallas, Bloom County (I think so anyways...)
.02
My
Quux26
That may not nessesarily be true.
(sorry, I tried a TARGET attribute and it seems to have choked.)
.02
My
Quux26
That may not nessesarily be true.
.02
My
Quux26
Um... No. A decent automobile? I'm serious, tell me.
.02
My
Quux26
Absoloutely none of which applies to our Mr. ShapeShifter.
.02
My
Quux26
You say this like it's a question.
.02
My
Quux26
Or hide everything, including the innoculous. Right now encrypting some things and not others might be a red flag. But what do you do when you're tasked with monitoring national security and everyone is guilty.
Wait, that's already happened. Damn!
.02
My
Quux26
Somewhere there is a brown-haired individual. He's wearing pressed pants and a tie with a strawberry jelly-doughnut stain on it. He's wishing his badge wasn't digging into his ass so much, and he's laughing his balls off reading this post. =)
.02
My
Quux26
I agree. Governments never break their own laws in the name of overzealous law enforcement. No country would ever, ever do something as silly as turning it's army against the very people that pay for it. We've never had a politician use the FBI to obtain damaging information about their political rivals. Police don't shove toilet plungers up people's asses and they certaintly don't use their influence to quash others in the department from testifying against them if they had.
Oh, and Santa is compiling his list - you might want to get cracking.
.02
My
Quux26
Nonsense. Telling a news agency that an agent of thiers is displaying incredibly biased and falacious journalism is not a breach of free speech and I will take what they report with a grain of salt as a result.
I'm all for Moody having the right to say whatever he'd like, but as long as he's under syndication and ABC opts to carry him, I'm going to tell ABC what I think of their journalism.
This is not censorship. This does not fall under the right to free speech. You have a right to speak. You do not have a right to be heard.
.02
My
Quux26
I am, however, a zealot. I agree with Stallman when he says that open source is better even if it doesn't work as well.
.02
My
Quux26
I'm all about letting you not only voice your opinion but follow through with it. I'm simply questioning where you draw the line and how you plan on being accurate in the first place.
I'm completely serious, I'm interested in hearing what you have to say.
.02
My
Quux26
Not really. I'm quite sure a bag of Doritoes won't fare very well, but flour could tolerate some *insidious* pressure. Oils. And once you mooshed those apples up good, you've got precisely what you need for a kick-*** pie.
.02
My
Quux26
And I'm okay with that. Linux isn't for everyone. I don't care if it takes over the world, though I wouldn't mind if it did. I just care that it's an option.
.02
My
Quux26
Intellectual property is a concept designed for nothing but a profit motive. I can't help but think that if you removed copyrights then the only people making music would be those who loved it. Imagine life w/out Brittney or nSync, or anyone else who had to be beaten into our heads. Oh, the horror.
Here is an interesting link.
.02
My
Quux26
I have to wonder how consistant you are with this line. Do you think the cigarette companies have been immoral in their disinformation, and if so do you refused to by from the numerous food products they output? You are aware of Goodyear's involvement in the Vietnam war and the lives that were lost as a result, right? Are these on your list? I can find quite a few more, this is just for brevity's sake...
I'm not challening your thought process here, just your ability to pull it off.
Actually, I take that back - I do question this logic. How do you discern between a company that isn't killing people because they've become enlightened and responsible and those that don't just because it's not nessesary or politically expedient? God, I hate to sound PC but this sounds awful Eurocentric.
.02
My
Quux26
ie, food + fuel. Very useful thing to be able to slingshot (either metaphorically or literally) into space, neh?
.02
My
Quux26
Well, I wouldn't bet my testicles on this never happening, but I can say that I've been using gnapster for about ...6 months now (I can place it accurately because I found gnapster thanks to this Slashdot Story in January), and I've never seen it fail to connect to a Napster server for anything other than being too full (which worked a few minutes later). I've not upgraded my gnapster either.
.02
My
Quux26
Why is it that every single damned time that Katz writes something, a select group - a disappointingly large, select group - have to kick in with the Katz quips?
If you don't like the man's writing, topics or attitude, don't [bleepin'] read him. I mean, do you want some cheese with that wine?
Jesus.
.02
My
Quux26
Any lawyers want to jump in on this one?
.02
My
Quux26
I don't agree with that. Take for example a small vial of chemical(s) that is sold at adult bookstores. It's labelled "head cleaner". It is *never* used for this purpose, it's inhaled during sex. Does a good job at wiping out brain cells too, now that I mention it.
The point being is if the item has a significant, legitimate use (such as allowing unsigned bands to release their work), then it falls under the category of legal.
At least that's my understanding of it. Anyone with a law degree want to dive in on this?
.02
My
Quux26
Good point. But I never ripped a CD myself, so I view it (possibly incorrectly) as an unnessesary burden.
.02
My
Quux26
This is something you simply can't do with a CD Player. I'd probably start buying CD's again if they:
a) Included the mp3 on the disk and;
b) Get the price below $10.
Besides, when was the last time you heard the labels complain about the artists getting fscked? We all know who is squeekin' from the freakin', and if they don't adjust, they'll perish. It's simple.
Here's to hoping...
.02
My
Quux26
What??! No, it does not only come down to the use of napster for illegal purposes! Have you ever FTP'd something? Have you ever played a VHS tape? Have you ever played a cassette? Each one of these are devices that are frequently used to steal music. But since they have substiantial, legitimate purposes, they are legal.
[breaking out my cluetrout...]
.02
My
Quux26