Re:That's a very poorly constructed argument.
on
New Cyberlaws
·
· Score: 1
Puritanical morals anyone?
So you're saying it should be illegal for me to take a bong hit/drink a couple beers and then walk down the street? That somehow by doing that I am endangerig the moral fiber of this country? Gimme a break (and some credit)
(BTW I am all for making it illegal to drive, cars are very deadly)
Re:Was is meant to be a joke?->Canada less clueles
on
New Cyberlaws
·
· Score: 1
Otherwise why would you waste your time doing such ridiculous stuff?
Yea, why would I want to have choices or anything. If the people living before me have decided that something was ridiculous why should I even think about it. Obiously someone (in this case you) knows better than I do.
I don't think any of your other arguments hold much water either. Defending a two-party system?!
The day that you lose a love one or more due to drug you will realize that drugs is an issue that will not go away and that we as parents will support our government in keeping those drug dealers out of business.
Support the gov. by building dealers new jails? Thanks but no thanks. How 'bout removing the onus of illegality? Then those crazy druggies won't have to kill to get the money they need to stay high.
We also need more laws to protect stupid businesses. What, you didn't pay attention and somebody bought your URL. You should sue them. What your product sucks and doesn't sale. You should sue them. IT IS NOT THE GOVERNMENTS RESPONSIBILITY TO LEGISLATE STUPIDITY. Although they do a hell of a job trying.
I'm adding the links to my page too. There are a number of good information sites to link to The Marijuana Policy Project, and NORML are good places to start.
You can also checkout Yahooka for a search engine type site.
Don't be afraid to test laws you think are wrong (I know this isn't law yet), and if you do go to court the Internet is absolutely amazing at drumming up grass-roots support (at least until the governmet makes that illegal too;-)
To quote MLK somewhat out of context "one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws".
The Beastie Boys also had something to say on the subject: "You gotta fight! For your right! To paaaarrty."
Re:That's a very poorly constructed argument.
on
New Cyberlaws
·
· Score: 1
Of course your post could cost Rob, what, like $10.000 and three years in jail.
Rob: But it clearly states that we are not responsible for posts!?
Cop: And the law clearly states that if you link to one of these sites you go to jail.
I know what will solve the problem, more lawyers (note: "lawyers" should be in bright green to reflect it's acidicly sarcastic purpose)
Re:That's a very poorly constructed argument.
on
New Cyberlaws
·
· Score: 1
Troll or stupid, can't tell....
I'm sure the Bar Association of America (or it's real world equivelent) would love such legislation.
Re:Free information, anyone?
on
New Cyberlaws
·
· Score: 1
Exactly. How is it that the "We need more jails for all our prisoners" arguments never quite crosses with the "We need more laws to control the criminals" philosophy.
More laws = more criminals. I'd like to see a study on 1)how many jailed criminals are there for possession/sale of controlled substances. and 2) how many jailed criminals are there for crimes committed obtaining money to buy said controlled substances.
Making things illegal makes them expensive. It DOES NOT NOR EVER WILL make them impossible to get. As Governer Ventura put it "as long as there is a demand there will be a supply." The only way to make progress is to attack they demand. I think that would work with a better presentation of the facts and the realities of drug use, not trying to destroy those facts as this legislation would attempt.
Personally I'd like to see all drugs legalized, and then controlled either through licensed distributors and licensed buyers (make them controlled not illegal) or some other "so crazy it just might work" idea, maybe after taking classes and signing a waiver (i.e. "I hereby do take responsibility for my own actions and the consequences thereof.)
Anybody who has read about or is familiar with the criminalization of marijuana would know what a complete farce it was. "Marijuana freak goes on killing rampage in suburban school" That's how they scared people into criminalization. This is possible only by CONTROLLIG THE INFORMATION about such activities.
With all this said I have but one thing left to say...VOTE GADDAMMIT! (know where you stand and don't be afraid to stand your ground)
Re:More perverted than American Pie? Puh-leaze :)
on
New Cyberlaws
·
· Score: 1
Leader of the free world starts to sound stupider and stupider (yes, I know...) as I see more legislation like this being passed (halfway) and more clueless controllig politicians.
Re:More perverted than American Pie? Puh-leaze :)
on
New Cyberlaws
·
· Score: 1
Not to mention the fact that said teenager was a figment of somebody's imagination, later filmed as a actor in a studio.
Speaking as a different than normal geek (I was in a frat. and played football in college) MOST girls are hornier than hell if you care to find out. The thing to do is the exact same thing as when trying to figure out a system, trial and error. Practice makes perfect, or at least gives you a better chance. Taking the first step makes the second a lot easier, ad inifinitum.
Nothing quite as futile as carrying on an argument with an AC, but I've pretty much decided to make this a/. Fri., so here goes...
You're stupid. (oh wait, that was your argument...)
Yea I guess we should let advertisers say pretty much anything, and then pull the "just kidding" when they have to pay up. Then we could get marketers selling all sorts of wondrous things by saying "It's faster, more stable, plays more games, and works better" when in fact they are selling smoke and mirrors. Lets put the burden of proof on the consumer, it's not like they are paying for anything right?
If you're trying to get someone's attention in our over advertised state you have to go over the edge, giving away a Harrier is definitely over the edge. Saying you're giving away a Harrier, and then not doing it, is trying to get the benefit without the cost, i.e. cheating.
(Sorry to be so argumentative, but it's Friday, been a long week, and this is cheaper and more fun than therapy)
This is the part where I felt they were stepping around the issue. It doesn't say what it will play, only that it won't play "illegally copied SDMI music". Which is basically any MP3 or other file that doesn't meet their guidelines, at least from me reading (and knowing that they want to crush MP3)
If you read it, you'll also notice that it is a software upgrade needed to play SDMI files after phase II, so you have to software upgrade your hardware to keep it working. This gives TOTAL control back to these companies. Also there is no mention of what you can or cannot play in phase III or IV. Since they are using a mandatory (if you want to keep playing new music) upgrade process, additional more restrictive phases are very likely.
SDMI is bad. (but only if you're into consumer rights)
B.S. Pepsi should have said specifically "this is a joke". They didn't. After I saw that commercial there was definitely some question as to whether or not it was real (No I am not an idiot, just saying "reasonable doubt", were it to apply to this case, exists). Advertisers take too many liberties in establishing their hooks, Pepsi should cough up the prize or it's cash equivelent, just for being so stupid. Expecting "Joe" to know how much a jump jet costs is ludicrous. My guess is that Pepsi has much better lawyers.
I did, I want you to quote me where it says "After Phase II you will still be able to play all illegally or legally obtained MP3 files."
I don't think you can find it, they have stepped around it quite nicely.
Another quote: 3Q: How does SDMI benefit consumers? A: SDMI participants share a common goal: a satisfying consumer experience. With the major music, consumer electronics and technology companies supporting SDMI, consumers will have access to a variety of SDMI-compliant music, software and hardware. "
Sorry I just don't buy it. Limiting choice and keeping prices high are not a "satisfying consumer experience". And that's why they'll lose, I won't buy it, he won't buy it, and hopefully most people won't buy it, and it'll die. Find the music you like, listen to the music you like, buy the music you like. Don't let anyone tell you what kind of music you like. It's about choice. It's about freedom.
Looks like SDMI is making progrss and thats not good.
For those of you who don't understand it, this is my take: You buy a Digital Music Player (PMP), its MP3 compliant and SDMI compliant. It plays all your MP3s and whatever else format it supports. --cut to 18 months later-- A hardware triggered event takes place inside your player that only allows "legal" MP3s or other formats. Unless they have the watermark, they just won't play.
This is how those is control wish to remain so. SDMI limits the freedoms of the consumer, and does it quite underhandedly, I would even say illegally.
If anyone sees a problem with my interpretation please enlighten me, thanks.
Tell your friends to tell their friends "SDMI sucks".
They are good, well-founded rules. I expect the theatres to enforce them, and I decry Katz as irresponsible and infantile for his advocating that children attempt to circumvent them.
Good-well founded rules, created in an environment free from social distress and screaming christians (coalitioners)
The simple fact is that this law was a knee jerk reaction to an event that had nearly *nothing* to do with what it tries to prevent. It was signed into law by our moral leader, Pres. Clinton, to stem the tide of rampaging "Won't someone please think of the children"ers. It is a horrible law that limits the freedoms in a country that more and more thinks of itself, incorrectly, as the land of the "free".
Treating kids like unthinking, unfeeling, "I am what I see" sponges only leads them to act like it. Treating them like intelligent, responsible, accountable adults does the same.
Unfortunately corporations controlling things is what you get in a capitalist democracy. Especially a large one. It's caused by the need for vast amounts of money to get the name recognition necessary to win an election. So you go to the "people" with vast amounts of money, corporations. Thus, you are beholden to the folks that _really_ got you elected, not the people that voted to get you elected. Anyone follow that? It's why I'm chanting "Jesse in 2004", if for no other reason than to shake up a stagnant system.
Reform is needed, communication is needed, education is needed, and VOTE GADDAMMIT! If people here spent half as much time researching candidates and picking the ones they want as they did bitching about the ones they have...they would save half their wasted time.
The problem is the one of the fat and happy man. Being that because he is fat and happy he doesn't give a shit about what else happens, especially to "other" people, as long as he stays fat and happy....right up until the time his heart bursts.
I agree with this one. Linux most definitely CAN reach the ease of use that Windows advertises. There are a huge number of WinX users that are savvy enough to use and abuse linux that haven't taken the plunge yet. Install is not that difficult, actually I had a recent install Tuesday where I formatted a drive and then started from scratch with both OSes (win95->98, RH5.2). After RTFM, I had very little trouble with the Linux install although I had to restart on a bad 95 install. The test officially ended when I could load/. over my DSL line. End result linux was as easy or easier to install from scratch as windows IMHO. The problem (for me) came afterwards and I needed to get stuff done, back to more reading. I learned windows the same way, but that was back when I was 15-17 and had lots of afternoons and evenings to spend learning. Anyway, the final point comes down to pre-installation. If you sell a box that is pre-configured with web access, e-mail, word proc, a getting started manual, it would be as easy to use as windows. Act as the pre-configured ISP. charge a bit for tech support, and you've got a business plan.
Of course all of this is useless in the actual developers don't feel the need to cater to the masses (read: make things simple), but then again we now have commercial vendors who can *gasp* pay open source programmers to build all those widgets and wizards we all love so much.
Wrap-up: I think Linux will take over the desktop, developers/resellers willing.
Just because the news media portrays us all as twisted psychos on the edge of reality, doesn't mean we all are. Sure, maybe when I play Quake, but after that I'm just some dude. Our sensationalist news organizations portray a very different and scary world than the one outside, and they do it for ratings, no other reason. While this may help their bottom line, it warps the perspective of viewers (esp. over a long time)
The FBI needs to chill the f*ck out and quit relying on wiretaps to get info. I can't even imagine some of the stuff that has been done in my name for my National Security.
Slashdot Mirror
Puritanical morals anyone?
So you're saying it should be illegal for me to take a bong hit/drink a couple beers and then walk down the street? That somehow by doing that I am endangerig the moral fiber of this country? Gimme a break (and some credit)
(BTW I am all for making it illegal to drive, cars are very deadly)
Otherwise why would you
waste your time doing such ridiculous stuff?
Yea, why would I want to have choices or anything. If the people living before me have decided that something was ridiculous why should I even think about it. Obiously someone (in this case you) knows better than I do.
I don't think any of your other arguments hold much water either. Defending a two-party system?!
The day that
you lose a love one or more due to drug you will
realize that drugs is an issue that will not go
away and that we as parents will support our
government in keeping those drug dealers out
of business.
Support the gov. by building dealers new jails? Thanks but no thanks. How 'bout removing the onus of illegality? Then those crazy druggies won't have to kill to get the money they need to stay high.
We also need more laws to protect stupid businesses. What, you didn't pay attention and somebody bought your URL. You should sue them. What your product sucks and doesn't sale. You should sue them. IT IS NOT THE GOVERNMENTS RESPONSIBILITY TO LEGISLATE STUPIDITY. Although they do a hell of a job trying.
I'm adding the links to my page too. There are a number of good information sites to link to The Marijuana Policy Project, and NORML are good places to start.
;-)
You can also checkout Yahooka for a search engine type site.
Don't be afraid to test laws you think are wrong (I know this isn't law yet), and if you do go to court the Internet is absolutely amazing at drumming up grass-roots support (at least until the governmet makes that illegal too
To quote MLK somewhat out of context "one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws".
The Beastie Boys also had something to say on the subject: "You gotta fight! For your right! To paaaarrty."
Of course your post could cost Rob, what, like $10.000 and three years in jail.
Rob: But it clearly states that we are not responsible for posts!?
Cop: And the law clearly states that if you link to one of these sites you go to jail.
I know what will solve the problem, more lawyers (note: "lawyers" should be in bright green to reflect it's acidicly sarcastic purpose)
Troll or stupid, can't tell....
I'm sure the Bar Association of America (or it's real world equivelent) would love such legislation.
Exactly. How is it that the "We need more jails for all our prisoners" arguments never quite crosses with the "We need more laws to control the criminals" philosophy.
More laws = more criminals. I'd like to see a study on 1)how many jailed criminals are there for possession/sale of controlled substances. and 2) how many jailed criminals are there for crimes committed obtaining money to buy said controlled substances.
Making things illegal makes them expensive. It DOES NOT NOR EVER WILL make them impossible to get. As Governer Ventura put it "as long as there is a demand there will be a supply." The only way to make progress is to attack they demand. I think that would work with a better presentation of the facts and the realities of drug use, not trying to destroy those facts as this legislation would attempt.
Personally I'd like to see all drugs legalized, and then controlled either through licensed distributors and licensed buyers (make them controlled not illegal) or some other "so crazy it just might work" idea, maybe after taking classes and signing a waiver (i.e. "I hereby do take responsibility for my own actions and the consequences thereof.)
Anybody who has read about or is familiar with the criminalization of marijuana would know what a complete farce it was. "Marijuana freak goes on killing rampage in suburban school" That's how they scared people into criminalization. This is possible only by CONTROLLIG THE INFORMATION about such activities.
With all this said I have but one thing left to say...VOTE GADDAMMIT! (know where you stand and don't be afraid to stand your ground)
Leader of the free world starts to sound stupider and stupider (yes, I know...) as I see more legislation like this being passed (halfway) and more clueless controllig politicians.
Not to mention the fact that said teenager was a figment of somebody's imagination, later filmed as a actor in a studio.
How is that bad. I sensed some disgust in your post. Would you rather they go with NT?
Means more/better jobs for Linux admins, more exposure, better software.
Let them set up two servers, and we'll benchmark cracking protections. Wonder who would win?
(crashing 9 times, laugh, laugh, laugh, cough, laugh)
Speaking as a different than normal geek (I was in a frat. and played football in college) MOST girls are hornier than hell if you care to find out. The thing to do is the exact same thing as when trying to figure out a system, trial and error. Practice makes perfect, or at least gives you a better chance. Taking the first step makes the second a lot easier, ad inifinitum.
AC go home.
/. Fri., so here goes...
Nothing quite as futile as carrying on an argument with an AC, but I've pretty much decided to make this a
You're stupid. (oh wait, that was your argument...)
Yea I guess we should let advertisers say pretty much anything, and then pull the "just kidding" when they have to pay up. Then we could get marketers selling all sorts of wondrous things by saying "It's faster, more stable, plays more games, and works better" when in fact they are selling smoke and mirrors. Lets put the burden of proof on the consumer, it's not like they are paying for anything right?
The Dilbert Zone
Not quite as hip as UF, but still covers the biting corporate stupidity quite nicely. More for lusers than geeks, IMHO, but funny either way.
This thing is 50 points.
This thing is 100 points.
This thing is 250 points.
This thing is 7,000,000 points.
(Did you catch the joke? I missed it)
If you're trying to get someone's attention in our over advertised state you have to go over the edge, giving away a Harrier is definitely over the edge. Saying you're giving away a Harrier, and then not doing it, is trying to get the benefit without the cost, i.e. cheating.
(Sorry to be so argumentative, but it's Friday, been a long week, and this is cheaper and more fun than therapy)
This is the part where I felt they were stepping around the issue. It doesn't say what it will play, only that it won't play "illegally copied SDMI music". Which is basically any MP3 or other file that doesn't meet their guidelines, at least from me reading (and knowing that they want to crush MP3)
If you read it, you'll also notice that it is a software upgrade needed to play SDMI files after phase II, so you have to software upgrade your hardware to keep it working. This gives TOTAL control back to these companies. Also there is no mention of what you can or cannot play in phase III or IV. Since they are using a mandatory (if you want to keep playing new music) upgrade process, additional more restrictive phases are very likely.
SDMI is bad. (but only if you're into consumer rights)
B.S. Pepsi should have said specifically "this is a joke". They didn't. After I saw that commercial there was definitely some question as to whether or not it was real (No I am not an idiot, just saying "reasonable doubt", were it to apply to this case, exists). Advertisers take too many liberties in establishing their hooks, Pepsi should cough up the prize or it's cash equivelent, just for being so stupid. Expecting "Joe" to know how much a jump jet costs is ludicrous. My guess is that Pepsi has much better lawyers.
I did, I want you to quote me where it says "After Phase II you will still be able to play all illegally or legally obtained MP3 files."
I don't think you can find it, they have stepped around it quite nicely.
Another quote:
3Q: How does SDMI benefit consumers?
A: SDMI participants share a common goal: a satisfying consumer experience. With the major music, consumer electronics and technology companies supporting SDMI, consumers will have access to a variety of SDMI-compliant music, software and hardware. "
Sorry I just don't buy it. Limiting choice and keeping prices high are not a "satisfying consumer experience". And that's why they'll lose, I won't buy it, he won't buy it, and hopefully most people won't buy it, and it'll die. Find the music you like, listen to the music you like, buy the music you like. Don't let anyone tell you what kind of music you like. It's about choice. It's about freedom.
Looks like SDMI is making progrss and thats not good.
For those of you who don't understand it, this is my take:
You buy a Digital Music Player (PMP), its MP3 compliant and SDMI compliant. It plays all your MP3s and whatever else format it supports.
--cut to 18 months later--
A hardware triggered event takes place inside your player that only allows "legal" MP3s or other formats. Unless they have the watermark, they just won't play.
This is how those is control wish to remain so. SDMI limits the freedoms of the consumer, and does it quite underhandedly, I would even say illegally.
If anyone sees a problem with my interpretation please enlighten me, thanks.
Tell your friends to tell their friends "SDMI sucks".
I guess this is what happens when you leave the contest open to EVERYBODY...
Eternal struggle between good and evil, anyone?
So what penalties are involved in breaking it? Does anyone have a link to the actual edict?
They are good, well-founded rules. I expect the theatres to enforce them, and I decry Katz as irresponsible and infantile for his advocating that children attempt to circumvent them.
Good-well founded rules, created in an environment free from social distress and screaming christians (coalitioners)
The simple fact is that this law was a knee jerk reaction to an event that had nearly *nothing* to do with what it tries to prevent. It was signed into law by our moral leader, Pres. Clinton, to stem the tide of rampaging "Won't someone please think of the children"ers. It is a horrible law that limits the freedoms in a country that more and more thinks of itself, incorrectly, as the land of the "free".
Treating kids like unthinking, unfeeling, "I am what I see" sponges only leads them to act like it. Treating them like intelligent, responsible, accountable adults does the same.
No way, you don't want kids seeing something like Saving Private Ryan before they could actually experience it.
Unfortunately corporations controlling things is what you get in a capitalist democracy. Especially a large one. It's caused by the need for vast amounts of money to get the name recognition necessary to win an election. So you go to the "people" with vast amounts of money, corporations. Thus, you are beholden to the folks that _really_ got you elected, not the people that voted to get you elected. Anyone follow that? It's why I'm chanting "Jesse in 2004", if for no other reason than to shake up a stagnant system.
Reform is needed, communication is needed, education is needed, and VOTE GADDAMMIT! If people here spent half as much time researching candidates and picking the ones they want as they did bitching about the ones they have...they would save half their wasted time.
The problem is the one of the fat and happy man. Being that because he is fat and happy he doesn't give a shit about what else happens, especially to "other" people, as long as he stays fat and happy....right up until the time his heart bursts.
I agree with this one. Linux most definitely CAN reach the ease of use that Windows advertises. There are a huge number of WinX users that are savvy enough to use and abuse linux that haven't taken the plunge yet. Install is not that difficult, actually I had a recent install Tuesday where I formatted a drive and then started from scratch with both OSes (win95->98, RH5.2). /. over my DSL line.
After RTFM, I had very little trouble with the Linux install although I had to restart on a bad 95 install. The test officially ended when I could load
End result linux was as easy or easier to install from scratch as windows IMHO.
The problem (for me) came afterwards and I needed to get stuff done, back to more reading. I learned windows the same way, but that was back when I was 15-17 and had lots of afternoons and evenings to spend learning.
Anyway, the final point comes down to pre-installation. If you sell a box that is pre-configured with web access, e-mail, word proc, a getting started manual, it would be as easy to use as windows. Act as the pre-configured ISP. charge a bit for tech support, and you've got a business plan.
Of course all of this is useless in the actual developers don't feel the need to cater to the masses (read: make things simple), but then again we now have commercial vendors who can *gasp* pay open source programmers to build all those widgets and wizards we all love so much.
Wrap-up:
I think Linux will take over the desktop, developers/resellers willing.
hear, hear brother!
Just because the news media portrays us all as twisted psychos on the edge of reality, doesn't mean we all are. Sure, maybe when I play Quake, but after that I'm just some dude. Our sensationalist news organizations portray a very different and scary world than the one outside, and they do it for ratings, no other reason. While this may help their bottom line, it warps the perspective of viewers (esp. over a long time)
The FBI needs to chill the f*ck out and quit relying on wiretaps to get info. I can't even imagine some of the stuff that has been done in my name for my National Security.