Yes, and "We the people" elect people who appoint people who hire people to make these restriction. So technically if such restrictions are put in place, it is still the people's wishes.
Of course some people will get around it, but that is not the point. A few people using Napster would not be a problem, it is the fact that so many people are using it. Napster is so dangerous because as long as you know what a mouse is, you can use it. If only technically adept people are using up too much bandwith because they can get around it, then it wont be that much of a problem.
And by the way, almost all colleges pay for their internet acces with grants, not the student's fees.
>>Not directly, they DO however pay for their room & board. If a network connection is a part of that room, you've paid for it.
So by your logic electric bills, phone bills, water bills, and heating bills should be payed for by your landlord. The electric lines, phone lines, water pipes, and heaters are already in the apartment, so you shouldnt have to pay any more than just your rent.
And anyway, dorm rooms do not work like apartments, or else they would be alot cheaper. Colleges pay for many of the expenses that dorm rooms entail with grants and such. The fees that students have to pay do not cover the full fees of the dorm room, let alone the internet connections. The colleges are nice enough to give you the internet connection, so they have to ability to regulate it as they see fit.
>>Define abnormal. If large numbers of people are using the same amount of bandwidth as you, your use IS normal.
True, so if a majority of the college students are using napster, then your argument makes sense. But if that ever happened then napster would definetly banned. The network is there for the same reason the dorms are there, to allow the students to live and do their school work near the college.
Do you actually believe any of that garbage that you are posting, or are you just bored today and are getting in a good laugh. Students do not pay for their internet connectivity. That money largely comes from grants or research. If I was renting an apartment and my landlord gave me a free internet connection via T3, I would comply with any resrictions he imposed.
He who pays the bills makes the rules. It's slightly interesting because at final analysis, it's the same students who want the bandwidth who pay the bill payer.
Actaully, the tuition that universities charge does not pay for very much of what the school purchases. Most of any college's money comes from grants and the products of research.
On the contrary, joining your military *IN PEACETIME* validates your morality more than any other time. Almost the only thing that makes great nations fall is by sitting back on their laurels (sp?). Look at what happened to the Romans. You must keep your peacetime military almost just as prepared as your wartime military. And all of these PR stunts that you talk about are just that. The governments needs to show that our military can still kick the shit out of anybody, and they need to keep our military trained. It is when the Romans ran out of people to fight that their nation crumbled. That is why we need to invent an enemy to fight until a new one comes along.
Thanks for typing all of that out, it saved me a whole lot of time. This is one anonymous coward that should be moderated up. But just to add something, I think that Napolean was more instrumental than Charles the Great in starting The Great War. Napolean caused many other countries to band together to stop him, causing the intense nationalities that caused The Great War. But I see your point of view too. In fact, I think that simply our new ability to communicate is what truly caused it. Nothing has caused more wars than communication.
While it was true that WWII was caused mostly by the harsh armistice treaty after WWI, I think the previous poster was referring to the fact that WWI was not caused mostly by economic reasons. It was initially caused by them, but the battles would have stayed small and in the balkans if not for the extreme nationalistic pride of the european nations.
What in the hell are you talking about? That is like saying that it is your fault for dying in a car accident because you got in a car. And for your information, World War I was not fought mainly for economic reasons. Yes they were present, but The Great War was mainly fought because of nationalistic pride. Without that the only fighting would have been in the Balkans.
Well, it is true that slow drivers do HELP cause the accidents. If everyone went 100 miles an hour on the interstate there would be much less accidents. While I do not think that people driving no less than the speed limit are at fault, they do help cause the accidents.
I think that you need to read repeat the subject of your own post. I specifically said that what really matters is what other people think is endangering people's lives. If most people think that speeding in country roads endangers lives, then it is a valid law that does not infringe on your rights.
Yes, if you are the *I* then it is different. If that is the case then you are no longer able to have a rational opinion on the subject. It is the same reason why psychologists cannot work with people they have an emotional involvement with. Your opinions would then be clouded with your own experiences and you wouldnt be able to look at the big picture. Believe it or not, it is a moral thing to kill one innocent person to save the lives of two innocent people.
At first I started to laugh at this post, but then I realized that you might actually be serious. You actually believe that since you pay taxes that it is your road? Does that mean since I pay taxes which helps pay for the military that I have the ability to wage my own war? You do not have the right to drive, and you sure do not have the right to speed. Dont get me wrong, I speed most of the time and I think speeding is a bogus law, but the police still have the right to give me a speeding ticket. And you are correct, it is your life, but if you are ingaging in an act that people believe brings unnecissary (sp?) risks to other people or their property then you no longer have the right to go threw with that act. I do not believe that speeding causes that much of a risk, but most people do, so there isnt anything you or me can do about it. So speed if you like but dont complain when you get a ticket because you deserve it.
Im glad someone else is finally as smart as I am. Since science failed a few times and only succeeded a thousand times more, it isnt worth the risk. Will you help me petition for the banning of all computers also since they can be used as guidance systems for bombs? It isnt worth the risk that someday we may create an artificial intelligence that could maybe take over the world.
Good thing there are so many evil people and corporations in the world, or else I may have to start blaming innocent businesses and governments for all of the world's problems.
Talk about lying, or at least not knowing anything about what you are talking about. My father uses these Genetically Modified crops in his fields and he has had great yields ever since. This year's yield is more than he could have ever hoped for with "natural" seeds. That means he makes more money and your food prices go down. Who cares if it doesnt help the poor countries, it isnt hurting them either.
You forget that thousands of years ago, back before even the Egyptian Empire, all humans were in what we consider poverty. Every human on the planet went day to day wondering if they would have enough food the next day. Civilization changed that. Do not blame businesses or governments just because they couldn't help everyone. That is like thinking Oscar Schindler (sp?) was an evil man because he didnt save every Jew in Germany.
How can you not like Jim Carrey if you have never seen any of his movies. While I agree that his roles in Batman and Ace Ventura were as bad as they come, he was great in Liar Liar and The Truman Show. I cant stand how people formulate opinions based on things they know nothing about. It is just like when people regard all hackers as law breaking vigilantes (sp?) instead of making the distinction between crackers and hackers.
He said comedic legend, not artistic legend. As a comedian, Carey is just as funny if not funnier than Kaufman was. Kaufman regarded his acting as more of an artistic expression, not just comedy. Carey, on the other hand, knows that he is a comedian an works at being just that. Therefore, as a pure comedian, Carey has accomplished much more than Kaufman did IMHO.
And you better thank all of the people who do use their computers for game machines. Without them you wouldnt have your brand new athlons or 20 GB hard drives.
What are you talking about? What does innovation have to do with being Person of the Year? Bill Gates created the largest and most influential corporations since AT&T, and this doesnt qualify him? I dont like him any more than you do, but that doesnt detract from what he has accomplished. It is very much like Hitler, while I dont condone anything he did you cannot dispute that he was a very influention leader.
I do agree about Steve Jobs though. He would be in the same calibre as Bill Gates if it wasnt for the fact that he screwed his company over royally. But as it stands he is about as qualified as Bill Clinton for Person of the Year.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, and "We the people" elect people who appoint people who hire people to make these restriction. So technically if such restrictions are put in place, it is still the people's wishes.
Of course some people will get around it, but that is not the point. A few people using Napster would not be a problem, it is the fact that so many people are using it. Napster is so dangerous because as long as you know what a mouse is, you can use it. If only technically adept people are using up too much bandwith because they can get around it, then it wont be that much of a problem.
And by the way, almost all colleges pay for their internet acces with grants, not the student's fees.
>>Not directly, they DO however pay for their room & board. If a network connection is a part of that room, you've paid for it.
So by your logic electric bills, phone bills, water bills, and heating bills should be payed for by your landlord. The electric lines, phone lines, water pipes, and heaters are already in the apartment, so you shouldnt have to pay any more than just your rent.
And anyway, dorm rooms do not work like apartments, or else they would be alot cheaper. Colleges pay for many of the expenses that dorm rooms entail with grants and such. The fees that students have to pay do not cover the full fees of the dorm room, let alone the internet connections. The colleges are nice enough to give you the internet connection, so they have to ability to regulate it as they see fit.
>>Define abnormal. If large numbers of people are using the same amount of bandwidth as you, your use IS normal.
True, so if a majority of the college students are using napster, then your argument makes sense. But if that ever happened then napster would definetly banned. The network is there for the same reason the dorms are there, to allow the students to live and do their school work near the college.
Do you actually believe any of that garbage that you are posting, or are you just bored today and are getting in a good laugh. Students do not pay for their internet connectivity. That money largely comes from grants or research. If I was renting an apartment and my landlord gave me a free internet connection via T3, I would comply with any resrictions he imposed.
He who pays the bills makes the rules. It's slightly interesting because at final analysis, it's the same students who want the bandwidth who pay the bill payer.
Actaully, the tuition that universities charge does not pay for very much of what the school purchases. Most of any college's money comes from grants and the products of research.
Actually, willy only was killed 3 times, one for each of the episodes on the holloween show.
On the contrary, joining your military *IN PEACETIME* validates your morality more than any other time. Almost the only thing that makes great nations fall is by sitting back on their laurels (sp?). Look at what happened to the Romans. You must keep your peacetime military almost just as prepared as your wartime military. And all of these PR stunts that you talk about are just that. The governments needs to show that our military can still kick the shit out of anybody, and they need to keep our military trained. It is when the Romans ran out of people to fight that their nation crumbled. That is why we need to invent an enemy to fight until a new one comes along.
Thanks for typing all of that out, it saved me a whole lot of time. This is one anonymous coward that should be moderated up. But just to add something, I think that Napolean was more instrumental than Charles the Great in starting The Great War. Napolean caused many other countries to band together to stop him, causing the intense nationalities that caused The Great War. But I see your point of view too. In fact, I think that simply our new ability to communicate is what truly caused it. Nothing has caused more wars than communication.
While it was true that WWII was caused mostly by the harsh armistice treaty after WWI, I think the previous poster was referring to the fact that WWI was not caused mostly by economic reasons. It was initially caused by them, but the battles would have stayed small and in the balkans if not for the extreme nationalistic pride of the european nations.
What in the hell are you talking about? That is like saying that it is your fault for dying in a car accident because you got in a car. And for your information, World War I was not fought mainly for economic reasons. Yes they were present, but The Great War was mainly fought because of nationalistic pride. Without that the only fighting would have been in the Balkans.
Well, it is true that slow drivers do HELP cause the accidents. If everyone went 100 miles an hour on the interstate there would be much less accidents. While I do not think that people driving no less than the speed limit are at fault, they do help cause the accidents.
I think that you need to read repeat the subject of your own post. I specifically said that what really matters is what other people think is endangering people's lives. If most people think that speeding in country roads endangers lives, then it is a valid law that does not infringe on your rights.
Yes, if you are the *I* then it is different. If that is the case then you are no longer able to have a rational opinion on the subject. It is the same reason why psychologists cannot work with people they have an emotional involvement with. Your opinions would then be clouded with your own experiences and you wouldnt be able to look at the big picture. Believe it or not, it is a moral thing to kill one innocent person to save the lives of two innocent people.
At first I started to laugh at this post, but then I realized that you might actually be serious. You actually believe that since you pay taxes that it is your road? Does that mean since I pay taxes which helps pay for the military that I have the ability to wage my own war? You do not have the right to drive, and you sure do not have the right to speed. Dont get me wrong, I speed most of the time and I think speeding is a bogus law, but the police still have the right to give me a speeding ticket. And you are correct, it is your life, but if you are ingaging in an act that people believe brings unnecissary (sp?) risks to other people or their property then you no longer have the right to go threw with that act. I do not believe that speeding causes that much of a risk, but most people do, so there isnt anything you or me can do about it. So speed if you like but dont complain when you get a ticket because you deserve it.
Do you realize how few places actually have these hospitable climates that you mention? Hardly any.
That doesnt mean you have a right to drive, since you can take a bus or train or cab.
Im glad someone else is finally as smart as I am. Since science failed a few times and only succeeded a thousand times more, it isnt worth the risk. Will you help me petition for the banning of all computers also since they can be used as guidance systems for bombs? It isnt worth the risk that someday we may create an artificial intelligence that could maybe take over the world.
Good thing there are so many evil people and corporations in the world, or else I may have to start blaming innocent businesses and governments for all of the world's problems.
Talk about lying, or at least not knowing anything about what you are talking about. My father uses these Genetically Modified crops in his fields and he has had great yields ever since. This year's yield is more than he could have ever hoped for with "natural" seeds. That means he makes more money and your food prices go down. Who cares if it doesnt help the poor countries, it isnt hurting them either.
You forget that thousands of years ago, back before even the Egyptian Empire, all humans were in what we consider poverty. Every human on the planet went day to day wondering if they would have enough food the next day. Civilization changed that. Do not blame businesses or governments just because they couldn't help everyone. That is like thinking Oscar Schindler (sp?) was an evil man because he didnt save every Jew in Germany.
Who cares about doing something new? He is funny, and that is all that matters.
How can you not like Jim Carrey if you have never seen any of his movies. While I agree that his roles in Batman and Ace Ventura were as bad as they come, he was great in Liar Liar and The Truman Show. I cant stand how people formulate opinions based on things they know nothing about. It is just like when people regard all hackers as law breaking vigilantes (sp?) instead of making the distinction between crackers and hackers.
He said comedic legend, not artistic legend. As a comedian, Carey is just as funny if not funnier than Kaufman was. Kaufman regarded his acting as more of an artistic expression, not just comedy. Carey, on the other hand, knows that he is a comedian an works at being just that. Therefore, as a pure comedian, Carey has accomplished much more than Kaufman did IMHO.
And you better thank all of the people who do use their computers for game machines. Without them you wouldnt have your brand new athlons or 20 GB hard drives.
What are you talking about? What does innovation have to do with being Person of the Year? Bill Gates created the largest and most influential corporations since AT&T, and this doesnt qualify him? I dont like him any more than you do, but that doesnt detract from what he has accomplished. It is very much like Hitler, while I dont condone anything he did you cannot dispute that he was a very influention leader.
I do agree about Steve Jobs though. He would be in the same calibre as Bill Gates if it wasnt for the fact that he screwed his company over royally. But as it stands he is about as qualified as Bill Clinton for Person of the Year.