"It provided justification for an unjust military action."
That statement says loads about you, but we'll addresss that at end of post.
"The Taliban acted in the same way that France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Norway or any other reasonable country would have in the case of Osama Bin Laden."
Bullshit. All of the Western intelligence agencies knew what Bin Laden was up to. Those countries would have arrested him THEMSELVES. THEN they would have debated turning him over to us.
"...if the US was willing to provide proof that he had done something wrong."
More bullshit. The Taliban, an illegitimate government to everyone but Pakistan, was joined at the hip to Al Qaida, much like the IRA is joined at the hip to Sinn Fein. The Taliban was the ruling force at home. Al Qaida was the activist force abroad. Same people, same goals, different focus.
"We bombed them for no good reason."
Tell that to the families of the dead in New York.
"The international community was largely silent because no one wanted to risk the wrath of the US after ~3000 of our citizens were violently killed in a terrorist attack."
The international community was largely silent because we stepped up to do what should have been done a long time ago. I've got news for you; governement from London, to Moscow, to Tokyo were breathing a sigh of relief and thanking our ambassadors for going in and taking the Taliban out before Al Qiada came to THEIR country.
"The Taliban was a horrible regime, but they were not a threat in any way to the immediate security of the US."
Except for giving aid, shelter, a homebase, and resources to an organization that was actively killing our citizens?
"Their beliefs were not too much different than those of the Orthodox or Hasidic Jews that we have here"
*Thumbs through history books* Hmmm. That's funny. I can't seem to find any references to Orthodox or Hasidic Jews engaging in the mass murder of Americans. Can't seem to find any demands for a worldwide orthodox jewish government, by the sword if neccessary. That makes them just a TAD different from Islamic fanatics that seem to love to take our lives and blow up our buildings (and ships, let's not forget the U.S.S. Cole)
I think you're just another knee-jerk anti-war guy. I think that makes you a jerk and an asshole, but hey, this is America. You can be those things. So say whatever you want. But if you're going to reference George Carlin ( "All those brown people..."), you should include his post 9-11 revisions; "survival first, these people are trying to kill us. I'm even willing to work with the federal government to prevent that"
You can debate whether we should be in Iraq. But to condemn our actions against the Taliban/Al Qiada in Afghanistan??? Please.
"You moron, did you even READ anything?" The whole thing. And several other articles on HavenCo. And several articles on Sealand.
"Why don't they have customers? Because it's easier to host the content on US soil!"
Umm, it's easier to host in fucking Zambia than to do it this way. Of COURSE it's easier to host in the US.
"These people are not "flaunting the laws of other countries.""
Setting up a company to host sites to escape the grasp of other governments isn't flaunting their laws? This was clearly Lackey's intent, even if he wasn't allowed to follow through.
"They are trying to provide a "Haven" (duh) where certain kinds of content can be hosted without fear of reprisal by backward, fascist-style governments."
Fascists...you mean like, all other major governments? Because that's who HavenCo wanted to shield potential clients from. This is a company that was trying to attract pyramid schemes and copyright violaters from the start. That was their core business plan. It was doomed from the get-go, like it or not, admit it or not.
"STFU, you uninformed idiot" I wouldn't give you the pleasure, fuckwad. If you want to support Anarchy-Utopian schemes, go right ahead. But you're a fool for believing something like this could EVER work, and I hope no one is ever naive enough to give you their money.
Is anyone really shocked this company is going under? Let's see....let's start a company whose aim is to make money by flaunting the laws of othr countries by offering you a place where you can do pretty much anything for a price. Then let's taunt said countries in the press . Then headquarter that company on a glorified gun turret in the north sea, while "Prince Roy" makes decrees in a "country" about as big as a basketball court....
Yeah, the millions should be flowing in any day now.
I'm only surprised at two things.....that Britain hasn't sent Royal Marines to storm this place and kick out that nutcase, and that people actually thought this business would work in the first place.
And since when is a relativly small man-made object a "country"?
On a small network I manage, I find NET SEND (with the dotNETSender GUI frontend) and Winpopup on old 9X machines is a simple solution that users easily understand. And this kind of instant messaging is good for brief comments when you don't want to be placing phone calls all over your offices, or waiting for email answers (especially when you just want to ask a short, simple question, such as "Got that file ready?"). The message pops right up on thier screen, so you know they'll notice it.
IM in most situations is bad, just a time waster (IRC is a huge productivity killer; almost as bad as slashdot:P ), and things like AOL IM tend to be for personal use, also easily abused. I'd only use IM for restricted situations. Of course, the NET SEND option is only practical for smaller networks. If you have larger organizations, something like a Jabber server or Exchange Messaging Service is your best bet.
Look at Charter Broadband's EULA....it's states that Charter can take action for "excessive bandwidth usage". The EULA doesn't specify what excessive is, but you can bet they'll set it as low as they can get away with.
Try dotNETSender; it's a GUI front end for the NET SEND command, it's simple (works pretty much like the old winpopup of 9X), and takes just a little configuring. It's perfect if you have a small network without any Exchange-based messaging servers. From my expierience, expecting non-power users to adapt to using the command line (net send in particular) is a futile hope. This makes it glaringly easy for quick workgroup messaging, and it pops right up in their screen; no way to miss it.
All you need is the.Net framework (which you can get through Windows Update or on Microsoft's site) and the "demo" program the author lists here. The source (in C#) is even available for you budding.Net coders; best of all, it costs nothing.
" Add some sort of "fee" to our taxes (maybe just on ISPs, more like on everyone) that allows us, as individuals, to use any copyrighted material we want, as long as we don't try to sell it, without robbing the owners of the copyright - cause we are paying them."
Unfortunately, though this would be th easiest of solutions to implement, it would never pass...
-ISP's and their users would complain that it's a "tax", and would fight it to the end.
-Artists with big followings (U2, Garth Brooks, Pink Floyd, etc etc) would complain that this method shortchanges them in revenues. Bands and record companies fight it to the end.
We're not going to get rid of copyright, and we're not going to get rid of DRM at this point either. Instead of splitting our energies and efforts, we should be focusing on getting two things done...
-Lobbying Congress with all of our might to have copyright terms reduced to a reasonable exemption. Either a set term, like 20 years, or the lifetime of the artists. No extensions beyond that.
-Pressuring record companies through a campaign of public relations and a music boycott to get an Apple Store-like solution up for all copyrighted music at reasonable rates, like 99 cents a song. And this pressure should not include copyright violations. That destroys any moral credibility we may have.
Cancel this project now
on
In-Flight Reboot?
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I'm an advocate for a strong defense, and always have been. And advanced weapons programs always have major bugs. I'm a veteran, and I follow defense issure pretty closely. With that said, now I say kill the F-22 program.
Why? It's a problem program. It's been plagued with an abundance of serious unforseen engineering problems from the very beginning. This is just the latest one made public. Past problems have included repeated instances of various parts of the fuesalage (especially some wing and tailparts) cracking. Cost overruns have become endemic. When the ATF program (Advanced Tactical Fighter) was first launched in the mid-80's to find a successor to the legendary F-15 Eagle, the Air Force set a goal of a flyaway cost of no more than 35 million per copy. The cost is now up 200 million a copy, and before it goes into production, the F-22 might cost a quarter of a billion dollars FOR A SINGLE FIGHTER. No matter how rich a nation is, no Air Force in the world can afford to buy such fighters in effective quantities. Not even other Stealth projects have spiraled this far out of control. The F-117 NightHawk stealth fighter (really more of a small bomber), with a small inefficient production run of 64 aircraft, topped out at 61 million per copy.
Granted, not all of the cost overrun problems are the fault of the Air Force or of Lockheed Martin. Congress keeps screwing around with the production schedule, and reducing the total buy, which drives up the cost per aircraft. But Congress has done so in large part for three main reasons:
1- They ask "Do we really need this, or can upgraded F-15's do the job?" This is a valid question as no other nation, friend or foe, has an aircraft that equals the Eagle, save for Russia's SU-27 series of fighters. These have been produced in such small quantities that Congress still debates the need for an Eagle replacement.
2- The number and seriousness of technical problems has made Congress reluctant to commit to the project fully. This crosses party lines, as in the past few years, several powerful Republicans have tried to kill the program on the grounds that the Raptor is a lemon. Democrats seeking money for non-defense programs have joined them.
3- There are serious doubts emerging that the Raptor's massive complexity can ever truly be managed in an efficient manner. There are concerns that, even if the aircraft becomes operational and initial bugs are worked out, the aircraft will be unreliable, becoming what the Air Force calls a "Hangar Queen"; it looks pretty on the floor, but if it can't go up in the air regularly, how good is it? The Air Force has had aircraft before that they REALLY wanted, but turned out to be so expensive and maintenance intensive that they had to be retired early. And excellent example is the B-58 Hustler supersonic bomber, which had impressive performance...when it wasn't broken down. It was retired after only 10 years of frontline service.
""I haven't committed a crime. What I did was fail to comply with the law."- David Dinkins, New York City Mayor, explaining his charges of tax evasion
"I didn't accept it. I received it." - Richard Allen, National Security Advisor to President Reagan, explaining the $1000 in cash and two watches he was given by two Japanese journalists after he helped arrange a private interview for them with First Lady Nancy Reagan
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman" -Bill Clinton, explaining that a blowjob isn't legally sex
"It's not stealing, it's copyright infringment" - Many Slashdot posters, explaing that nothing is actually being taken from copyright holders
All of the above are what my grandparents called Splitting Hairs; the act of using subtlety of language to mask a true act or intention. Bottom line, you know what you really did, no matter what language you use to explain it with.
We're kind of funny here. Actually, we're all about the enforcement of licenses and copyrights, as long as it's our own or something we support. When Linksys uses GPL'd software, alters it, and doesn't release the source, we get our panties in one big wad here. We rightly complain that our rights are not being respected, and the law is being broken.
Copyrights? "Fuck 'em. I want the content. And they can't stop me. And they're Nazis for trying to".
If we want rights to be enforced, perhaps we should start by respecting others?
For the same reason some people (not all) write open source software. For the same reason that some people take their personal time to volunteer for the Red Cross or Goodwill. For the same reason that someone participates in a neighborhood watch. For the same reason the Martin Luther posted the 99 Thesis on church doors.
For the public good. You do it because you think it benefits some sector of the public. Most people can't do it ALL the time, because we like to eat and have homes and be able to buy things occasionaly. But most people have the impulse to volunteer for something worthy from time to time. Most developers do commercial work, copyrighted and proprietary by day, to pay the bills. Some do extra volunteer coding in their spare time, because they want to contribute their skills to the benefit the public at large.
The value comes from the knowledge that you're doing something worthy and good, and doing it for the right reasons. I could use my time in a variety of ways, including making money. But I know that when I give blood, I may have just saved a life. CPR instructors know that their efforts may helpy MANY people save lives. Volunteers refurbishing a downtrodden playground know they've helped give kids a better place to play.
Providing open content is no different if you do it for these reasons.
I remember seeing stories about this back in 1985, for fuqs sake. Back then, more than half of the sea had already dissapeared because of mismanagement by the Soviet government. I've seen several referneces to it since then. If I recall correctly, that first story was from National Geographic, but that was a looong time ago, so don't hold me to that.
Very well put comments. Thank you for posting them. A little more honesty like this around here would do this crowd some good.
I've posted before that I'm tired of all of the justifications that people use for piracy. They usually fall into one of two areas.....downloading this music is my right (because it's all about me)or, the record companies are corrupt (the civil disobidience for fun and profit motive).
Let's get something straight here. NOBODY likes the record companies. Not the consumers. Not the Artists. Not the middlemen. But I don't like car dealers either, and you don't see me hotwiring cars off of their lot because I think they're in a corrupt business. The point is that THEIR corruption doesn't justify MY corrupt actions. Or as your mother undoubtedly told you, two wrongs doesn't make a right.
Want to change things? You do have rights. You do have options. Stop buying cd's. Completely. Zero revenue will get their attention quickly. That doesn't mean steal the music and not buy cd's to protest "the man", that means ignore their product completely.
"Oh...nevermind...that would actually require some measure of sacrifice on our parts. Well, fuck that. I don't care about it if I have to give something up myself. It is, after all, all about ME."
And you people complaing about the use of the word "steal".....that's what it is. When you take something that isn't yours, whether it's physical or bits of data over the internet, that's stealing, folks. Saying otherwise is just splitting hairs, the Slashdot equivilant of "I did not have sexual relations with that woman". It may be legally called copyright infringment, but deep down, you KNOW what you're doing.
The game had nothing to do with the stinking ticket sales. Ticket sales sucked because the first movie was abominally BAD. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Looks like the public wasn't in a mood to be a fool.
The first Tomb Raider was the only movie I've ever gotten up and walked out of. I got my money back. It was THAT bad.
The only real surprise here is that the studios actually thought people would pay to see another one.
You're not going to convince anyone in THIS place.
I'll add one thing. I'm getting tired of/., the EFF, et. al. calling it "sharing" or "swapping". It's neither. It's only sharing or swapping if you have the rights to it. Otherwise, it's illegal (with certain small exceptions).
This is, of course, part and parcel of the language war, as both sides manuever to put the debate in terms that will win the public over. And both sides know it. The EFF is going to make this whole business sound as friendly and wholesome as possible ("It's SHARING! How can you be against SHARING, you greedy pig???").
And while people here keep screaming "It's not stealing! It's not THEFT!"....yes it is. When you take something that's not yours, when you don't have the legal right to it, that's stealing. I do wish people would have the balls to just admit that's what they're doing. Some do. Some will tell you they just don't give a fuck. Ironically, I think that makes them better people than the ones trying to justify what they're doing by putting it into a political or economic context ( usually either "music wants to be free or it's a human right, etc, or I'm too poor or the record companies charge too much and music is a human right, etc). At least the "I don't give a fuck crowd are just stealing. The excusers are liars AND thieves.
You think that's paranoid? It's called intelligence gethering. Websites like Slashdot and the EFF have set themselves up as hubs for opposition to the RIAA. And on Slashdot, where you actually post your thoughts, they can track the mood, ideas, and strategies of the opposition. Folks, they'd be stupid NOT to watch this site. It's as old as Sun Tzu, people. "Know Thy Enemy".
Of course, they're still trying to figure out just HOW Natalie Portman and Hot Grits fits into piracy...
While the law may be stupidly worded, this is essentially a Greek affair, and none of the EU's business. Greece IS a democracy, after all. Their citizens can vote out the people that pass these laws. I'm uncomrtable with the EU coming in and saying "nope, we say you can't do this". It's not like this is China or North Korea where the people don't have a real voice of thier own.
You're absolutely right. And because you're right, and it's an unpopular position here, prepare for a massive assault by the trolls that occupy this place.
Metered bandwidth usage would solve a ton of problems IF users were charged seperately for uploading and downloading. The same rate for both, but tracked independantly. This would kill the vast majority of the spam business right away. If pushing that "send" icon meant getting charged for all of the bandwith it takes to send mail to 100,000 addresses, spamming would no longer be a profitable enterprise. If little Junior had to face Dad's wrath for a bandwidth bill in the tens (or even hundreds) of gigabytes, piracy would be way curtailed.
This solution makes tremendous sense, and for many users, would actually cut their internet bills while still affording them access to a high speed connection.
But as I said, look for much wailing and gnashing of teeth here at your suggestion.
" Now if only the RIAA could follow this lead. I don't seen anyone hating disney - oh wait, they're not suing the youth of America."
Rest assured that if movie downloading ever matches the level of music downloading, they will. Disney aggressively protects their copyrights and properties, and was one of the prime movers in getting copyright terms extended.
You sound like an arrogant child that's misbehaved, but is proud of it. And if you are indeed on that list, and do indeed move that much music from your server, and think no one will do anything about it now, you're likely in for a rude shock.
As for your assumptions that no one can do anything to you, allow me point out what they CAN do:
"They can keep sending legal threats, but I will simply ignore them. Arrest warrents?? Pfft. Most cops will not even bother to take someone in for something so stupid."
Yes they will, because it's their job. Police take things like duty and upholding the law seriously, even if they should disagree with it. You're sadly mistaken if you think cops ignore arrest warrants they don't agree with. Cops are professionals.
"I know that what I'm doing is wrong, and I will continue to do it because I know it pisses people off. This is an ideal hobby, especially since it's lower risk, and less time-intensive than pushing dope to kids."
Congratulations. If this is discovered, it can be used as evidence in a court of law. You just 1- admitted guilt, and 2- expressed a lack of remorse for the charge. If you ever did suddenly gain the intelligence to find an attorney, he's going to LOVE this one.
"I simply have plenty of server space and fast connections. I'm doing a public service, and a major disservice to the RIAA/MPAA by moving 100+ Gb a month"
For starters, you can kiss your ISP account goodbye if you're busted. Most of them have prohibitions against this type of activity in their user agreements. If this isn't in there specifically, I'm pretty sure there's a generic "inapropriate behavior" clause that they can use. And it's an inevitability that if these kinds of lawsuits become successful, ISP's will start a "blacklist" of such users to deny them service in order to protect themselves legally.
As for what can be done to you penalty wise, some others here have already pointed them out (garnishment of wages for a judgement, credit rating shot to hell; some companies will fire employess if garnishment papers arrive, and in most states, it's legal for them to do so). Increasingly, when applying for a job, employers will check your credit rating. Good luck on ever purchasing a home if you get into this situation. And while in criminal cases, judges can prohibit certain activities, I don't know if that can be done in civil proceedings. If anyone else out there knows the answer to this, please enlighten us. If this CAN be done in a civil case, look for some judges to prohibit the use of computers and access to the internet. I have my doubts about this one, though.
Finally, judging from your tone, I'm having a hard time deciding what you really are. Are you indeed on that list, and you're just showing monumental stupidity to look "leet" to the/. crowd? Or are you just a liar and a troll, trying to get some attention, and generate some controversy? I'd like to think you couldn't be dumb enough to be the former, but they don't make the Darwin Awards every year for nothing.
The Corel name, and product line, still have reputation enough to make the company a huge asset IF the right buyer comes along and makes good management decisions. Despite the popularity of OpenOffice among private users, most companies aren't going to adopt it, and Sun is having little success in marketing the professional sibling, StarOffice. WordPerfect, Corel Draw, Quattro Pro, and other apps still have good commercial name recognition and respect, and were a company like HP to come along and buy and distribute it, the Corel line could have a fighting chance. HP is already distributing Corel software with it's home-market PCs. If they were to do a true port to Linux of all the Corel line, it could really kick-start the Linux business desktop. And I mean a REAL port, not the Wine-dependant crap Corel was distributing years ago. And if someone like HP were to buy them, the Corel Linux distro wouldn't be a bad idea for a return either. Corel Linux had some nice features, and was Debian based. Much better package management that way. IBM wouldn't be in the market. They've already got one office suite, and are developing another Java-based suite. Sun has StarOffice. But with Corel going REALLY cheap, maybe they could be presuaded to buy anyway. Dare I hope that Apple might even have an interest? Probably not. Outside of the venture capital crowd gunning for it, a company like HP would be Corel's best hope of making a big return. The competition would certainly nice.
Here's another one. Don't break the law. The courts don't give a damn what you think about music or the RIAA. You can think music should be free all you want. That isn't going to change the fact that someone else has the copyright to it, not you. And despite the wailing and gnashing of teeth here, last time I checked, there was no right to copyright infringement of any kind. Just because it's cheap, and easy, and it's music doesn't get you an exemption in the eyes of the law. And don't scream fair use at me either. Distributing a song to 100,000 of your closest friends on KaZaa isn't fair use.
Oh, and I seem to recall most of Slashdot's posters saying "Go after the infringers, not the technology!"
Well, looks like they called the bluff. Now that they're actualy suing individuals, the tune around here seems to have changed.
Nothing like rolling up your sleeves and doing it yourself. You wouldn't neccessarily have to host the downloads themselves, just link to where you CAN download them.
The internet used to be brimming with freeware sites. They haven't completely gone away, but they're dissapearing fast. I mean true freeware sites, not shareware sites, or sites with crippleware.
Maybe it's just me, but I think it's another sign the Net's "free ride" days are over.
They don't promise to answer each and every letter, either. And the President certainly must get even more spam than we do, as widespread as that address is. What makes Slashdot or it's readers so special? God at the whining here.
"He doesn't promise to answer our emails! But we're Slashdot readers! We're Important, damnit!"
We're not any more important than anyone else.
And as far as the bitching about the "pro" and "complaint" mails, that's just to make it easier to sort them. Again, so what? I'm already reading comments on here about the complaints going directly to Ashcroft so *gasp!* all Slashdot readers will be shipped off to Cuba for daring to criticize the President!
Here's a tissue. Shut the fuck up, and step back into the real world.
It's a poorly designed process for mail, but it's not an X-Files conspiracy. Sometimes I think when you sign up for a Slashdot account now, you get your first aluminum foil hat free.
I'd mod you straight up. Thanks for a very good analogy. Now batten down the hatches, and prepare for boarders.... the reactionary little trolls that live on Slashdot are going to come out of the woodwork ripping you as a FUD-spewing tool of the RIAA. Fuck 'em. Keep telling it like it is.
Slashdot Mirror
"It provided justification for an unjust military action."
That statement says loads about you, but we'll addresss that at end of post.
"The Taliban acted in the same way that France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Norway or any other reasonable country would have in the case of Osama Bin Laden."
Bullshit. All of the Western intelligence agencies knew what Bin Laden was up to. Those countries would have arrested him THEMSELVES. THEN they would have debated turning him over to us.
"...if the US was willing to provide proof that he had done something wrong."
More bullshit. The Taliban, an illegitimate government to everyone but Pakistan, was joined at the hip to Al Qaida, much like the IRA is joined at the hip to Sinn Fein. The Taliban was the ruling force at home. Al Qaida was the activist force abroad. Same people, same goals, different focus.
"We bombed them for no good reason."
Tell that to the families of the dead in New York.
"The international community was largely silent because no one wanted to risk the wrath of the US after ~3000 of our citizens were violently killed in a terrorist attack."
The international community was largely silent because we stepped up to do what should have been done a long time ago. I've got news for you; governement from London, to Moscow, to Tokyo were breathing a sigh of relief and thanking our ambassadors for going in and taking the Taliban out before Al Qiada came to THEIR country.
"The Taliban was a horrible regime, but they were not a threat in any way to the immediate security of the US."
Except for giving aid, shelter, a homebase, and resources to an organization that was actively killing our citizens?
"Their beliefs were not too much different than those of the Orthodox or Hasidic Jews that we have here"
*Thumbs through history books*
Hmmm. That's funny. I can't seem to find any references to Orthodox or Hasidic Jews engaging in the mass murder of Americans. Can't seem to find any demands for a worldwide orthodox jewish government, by the sword if neccessary. That makes them just a TAD different from Islamic fanatics that seem to love to take our lives and blow up our buildings (and ships, let's not forget the U.S.S. Cole)
I think you're just another knee-jerk anti-war guy. I think that makes you a jerk and an asshole, but hey, this is America. You can be those things. So say whatever you want. But if you're going to reference George Carlin ( "All those brown people..."), you should include his post 9-11 revisions; "survival first, these people are trying to kill us. I'm even willing to work with the federal government to prevent that"
You can debate whether we should be in Iraq. But to condemn our actions against the Taliban/Al Qiada in Afghanistan??? Please.
"You moron, did you even READ anything?"
The whole thing. And several other articles on HavenCo. And several articles on Sealand.
"Why don't they have customers? Because it's easier to host the content on US soil!"
Umm, it's easier to host in fucking Zambia than to do it this way. Of COURSE it's easier to host in the US.
"These people are not "flaunting the laws of other countries.""
Setting up a company to host sites to escape the grasp of other governments isn't flaunting their laws? This was clearly Lackey's intent, even if he wasn't allowed to follow through.
"They are trying to provide a "Haven" (duh) where certain kinds of content can be hosted without fear of reprisal by backward, fascist-style governments."
Fascists...you mean like, all other major governments? Because that's who HavenCo wanted to shield potential clients from. This is a company that was trying to attract pyramid schemes and copyright violaters from the start. That was their core business plan. It was doomed from the get-go, like it or not, admit it or not.
"STFU, you uninformed idiot"
I wouldn't give you the pleasure, fuckwad. If you want to support Anarchy-Utopian schemes, go right ahead. But you're a fool for believing something like this could EVER work, and I hope no one is ever naive enough to give you their money.
Is anyone really shocked this company is going under? Let's see....let's start a company whose aim is to make money by flaunting the laws of othr countries by offering you a place where you can do pretty much anything for a price. Then let's taunt said countries in the press . Then headquarter that company on a glorified gun turret in the north sea, while "Prince Roy" makes decrees in a "country" about as big as a basketball court....
Yeah, the millions should be flowing in any day now.
I'm only surprised at two things.....that Britain hasn't sent Royal Marines to storm this place and kick out that nutcase, and that people actually thought this business would work in the first place.
And since when is a relativly small man-made object a "country"?
On a small network I manage, I find NET SEND (with the dotNETSender GUI frontend) and Winpopup on old 9X machines is a simple solution that users easily understand. And this kind of instant messaging is good for brief comments when you don't want to be placing phone calls all over your offices, or waiting for email answers (especially when you just want to ask a short, simple question, such as "Got that file ready?"). The message pops right up on thier screen, so you know they'll notice it.
:P ), and things like AOL IM tend to be for personal use, also easily abused. I'd only use IM for restricted situations. Of course, the NET SEND option is only practical for smaller networks. If you have larger organizations, something like a Jabber server or Exchange Messaging Service is your best bet.
IM in most situations is bad, just a time waster (IRC is a huge productivity killer; almost as bad as slashdot
Look at Charter Broadband's EULA....it's states that Charter can take action for "excessive bandwidth usage". The EULA doesn't specify what excessive is, but you can bet they'll set it as low as they can get away with.
Try dotNETSender; it's a GUI front end for the NET SEND command, it's simple (works pretty much like the old winpopup of 9X), and takes just a little configuring. It's perfect if you have a small network without any Exchange-based messaging servers. From my expierience, expecting non-power users to adapt to using the command line (net send in particular) is a futile hope. This makes it glaringly easy for quick workgroup messaging, and it pops right up in their screen; no way to miss it.
.Net framework (which you can get through Windows Update or on Microsoft's site) and the "demo" program the author lists here. The source (in C#) is even available for you budding .Net coders; best of all, it costs nothing.
All you need is the
" Add some sort of "fee" to our taxes (maybe just on ISPs, more like on everyone) that allows us, as individuals, to use any copyrighted material we want, as long as we don't try to sell it, without robbing the owners of the copyright - cause we are paying them."
Unfortunately, though this would be th easiest of solutions to implement, it would never pass...
-ISP's and their users would complain that it's a "tax", and would fight it to the end.
-Artists with big followings (U2, Garth Brooks, Pink Floyd, etc etc) would complain that this method shortchanges them in revenues. Bands and record companies fight it to the end.
We're not going to get rid of copyright, and we're not going to get rid of DRM at this point either. Instead of splitting our energies and efforts, we should be focusing on getting two things done...
-Lobbying Congress with all of our might to have copyright terms reduced to a reasonable exemption. Either a set term, like 20 years, or the lifetime of the artists. No extensions beyond that.
-Pressuring record companies through a campaign of public relations and a music boycott to get an Apple Store-like solution up for all copyrighted music at reasonable rates, like 99 cents a song. And this pressure should not include copyright violations. That destroys any moral credibility we may have.
I'm an advocate for a strong defense, and always have been. And advanced weapons programs always have major bugs. I'm a veteran, and I follow defense issure pretty closely. With that said, now I say kill the F-22 program.
Why? It's a problem program. It's been plagued with an abundance of serious unforseen engineering problems from the very beginning. This is just the latest one made public. Past problems have included repeated instances of various parts of the fuesalage (especially some wing and tailparts) cracking. Cost overruns have become endemic. When the ATF program (Advanced Tactical Fighter) was first launched in the mid-80's to find a successor to the legendary F-15 Eagle, the Air Force set a goal of a flyaway cost of no more than 35 million per copy. The cost is now up 200 million a copy, and before it goes into production, the F-22 might cost a quarter of a billion dollars FOR A SINGLE FIGHTER. No matter how rich a nation is, no Air Force in the world can afford to buy such fighters in effective quantities. Not even other Stealth projects have spiraled this far out of control. The F-117 NightHawk stealth fighter (really more of a small bomber), with a small inefficient production run of 64 aircraft, topped out at 61 million per copy.
Granted, not all of the cost overrun problems are the fault of the Air Force or of Lockheed Martin. Congress keeps screwing around with the production schedule, and reducing the total buy, which drives up the cost per aircraft. But Congress has done so in large part for three main reasons:
1- They ask "Do we really need this, or can upgraded F-15's do the job?" This is a valid question as no other nation, friend or foe, has an aircraft that equals the Eagle, save for Russia's SU-27 series of fighters. These have been produced in such small quantities that Congress still debates the need for an Eagle replacement.
2- The number and seriousness of technical problems has made Congress reluctant to commit to the project fully. This crosses party lines, as in the past few years, several powerful Republicans have tried to kill the program on the grounds that the Raptor is a lemon. Democrats seeking money for non-defense programs have joined them.
3- There are serious doubts emerging that the Raptor's massive complexity can ever truly be managed in an efficient manner. There are concerns that, even if the aircraft becomes operational and initial bugs are worked out, the aircraft will be unreliable, becoming what the Air Force calls a "Hangar Queen"; it looks pretty on the floor, but if it can't go up in the air regularly, how good is it? The Air Force has had aircraft before that they REALLY wanted, but turned out to be so expensive and maintenance intensive that they had to be retired early. And excellent example is the B-58 Hustler supersonic bomber, which had impressive performance...when it wasn't broken down. It was retired after only 10 years of frontline service.
""I haven't committed a crime. What I did was fail to comply with the law."- David Dinkins, New York City Mayor, explaining his charges of tax evasion
"I didn't accept it. I received it."
- Richard Allen, National Security Advisor to President Reagan, explaining the $1000 in cash and two watches he was given by two Japanese journalists after he helped arrange a private interview for them with First Lady Nancy Reagan
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman" -Bill Clinton, explaining that a blowjob isn't legally sex
"It's not stealing, it's copyright infringment" - Many Slashdot posters, explaing that nothing is actually being taken from copyright holders
All of the above are what my grandparents called Splitting Hairs; the act of using subtlety of language to mask a true act or intention. Bottom line, you know what you really did, no matter what language you use to explain it with.
We're kind of funny here. Actually, we're all about the enforcement of licenses and copyrights, as long as it's our own or something we support. When Linksys uses GPL'd software, alters it, and doesn't release the source, we get our panties in one big wad here. We rightly complain that our rights are not being respected, and the law is being broken.
Copyrights? "Fuck 'em. I want the content. And they can't stop me. And they're Nazis for trying to".
If we want rights to be enforced, perhaps we should start by respecting others?
Why would someone make open content?
For the same reason some people (not all) write open source software. For the same reason that some people take their personal time to volunteer for the Red Cross or Goodwill. For the same reason that someone participates in a neighborhood watch. For the same reason the Martin Luther posted the 99 Thesis on church doors.
For the public good. You do it because you think it benefits some sector of the public. Most people can't do it ALL the time, because we like to eat and have homes and be able to buy things occasionaly. But most people have the impulse to volunteer for something worthy from time to time. Most developers do commercial work, copyrighted and proprietary by day, to pay the bills. Some do extra volunteer coding in their spare time, because they want to contribute their skills to the benefit the public at large.
The value comes from the knowledge that you're doing something worthy and good, and doing it for the right reasons. I could use my time in a variety of ways, including making money. But I know that when I give blood, I may have just saved a life. CPR instructors know that their efforts may helpy MANY people save lives. Volunteers refurbishing a downtrodden playground know they've helped give kids a better place to play.
Providing open content is no different if you do it for these reasons.
I remember seeing stories about this back in 1985, for fuqs sake. Back then, more than half of the sea had already dissapeared because of mismanagement by the Soviet government. I've seen several referneces to it since then. If I recall correctly, that first story was from National Geographic, but that was a looong time ago, so don't hold me to that.
Very well put comments. Thank you for posting them. A little more honesty like this around here would do this crowd some good.
I've posted before that I'm tired of all of the justifications that people use for piracy. They usually fall into one of two areas.....downloading this music is my right (because it's all about me)or, the record
companies are corrupt (the civil disobidience for fun and profit motive).
Let's get something straight here. NOBODY likes the record companies. Not the consumers. Not the Artists. Not the middlemen. But I don't like car dealers either, and you don't see me hotwiring cars off of their lot because I think they're in a corrupt business. The point is that THEIR corruption doesn't justify MY corrupt actions. Or as your mother undoubtedly told you, two wrongs doesn't make a right.
Want to change things? You do have rights. You do have options. Stop buying cd's. Completely. Zero revenue will get their attention quickly. That doesn't mean steal the music and not buy cd's to protest "the man", that means ignore their product completely.
"Oh...nevermind...that would actually require some measure of sacrifice on our parts. Well, fuck that. I don't care about it if I have to give something up myself. It is, after all, all about ME."
And you people complaing about the use of the word "steal".....that's what it is. When you take something that isn't yours, whether it's physical or bits of data over the internet, that's stealing, folks. Saying otherwise is just splitting hairs, the Slashdot equivilant of "I did not have sexual relations with that woman".
It may be legally called copyright infringment, but deep down, you KNOW what you're doing.
The game had nothing to do with the stinking ticket sales. Ticket sales sucked because the first movie was abominally BAD. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Looks like the public wasn't in a mood to be a fool.
The first Tomb Raider was the only movie I've ever gotten up and walked out of. I got my money back. It was THAT bad.
The only real surprise here is that the studios actually thought people would pay to see another one.
You're not going to convince anyone in THIS place.
/., the EFF, et. al. calling it "sharing" or "swapping". It's neither. It's only sharing or swapping if you have the rights to it. Otherwise, it's illegal (with certain small exceptions).
I'll add one thing. I'm getting tired of
This is, of course, part and parcel of the language war, as both sides manuever to put the debate in terms that will win the public over. And both sides know it. The EFF is going to make this whole business sound as friendly and wholesome as possible ("It's SHARING! How can you be against SHARING, you greedy pig???").
And while people here keep screaming "It's not stealing! It's not THEFT!"....yes it is. When you take something that's not yours, when you don't have the legal right to it, that's stealing. I do wish people would have the balls to just admit that's what they're doing. Some do. Some will tell you they just don't give a fuck. Ironically, I think that makes them better people than the ones trying to justify what they're doing by putting it into a political or economic context ( usually either "music wants to be free or it's a human right, etc, or I'm too poor or the record companies charge too much and music is a human right, etc). At least the "I don't give a fuck crowd are just stealing. The excusers are liars AND thieves.
Oh well, I had too much Karma anyway. Sheilds up!
You think that's paranoid? It's called intelligence gethering. Websites like Slashdot and the EFF have set themselves up as hubs for opposition to the RIAA. And on Slashdot, where you actually post your thoughts, they can track the mood, ideas, and strategies of the opposition. Folks, they'd be stupid NOT to watch this site. It's as old as Sun Tzu, people. "Know Thy Enemy".
Of course, they're still trying to figure out just HOW Natalie Portman and Hot Grits fits into piracy...
While the law may be stupidly worded, this is essentially a Greek affair, and none of the EU's business. Greece IS a democracy, after all. Their citizens can vote out the people that pass these laws. I'm uncomrtable with the EU coming in and saying "nope, we say you can't do this". It's not like this is China or North Korea where the people don't have a real voice of thier own.
You're absolutely right. And because you're right, and it's an unpopular position here, prepare for a massive assault by the trolls that occupy this place.
Metered bandwidth usage would solve a ton of problems IF users were charged seperately for uploading and downloading. The same rate for both, but tracked independantly. This would kill the vast majority of the spam business right away. If pushing that "send" icon meant getting charged for all of the bandwith it takes to send mail to 100,000 addresses, spamming would no longer be a profitable enterprise. If little Junior had to face Dad's wrath for a bandwidth bill in the tens (or even hundreds) of gigabytes, piracy would be way curtailed.
This solution makes tremendous sense, and for many users, would actually cut their internet bills while still affording them access to a high speed connection.
But as I said, look for much wailing and gnashing of teeth here at your suggestion.
" Now if only the RIAA could follow this lead. I don't seen anyone hating disney - oh wait, they're not suing the youth of America."
Rest assured that if movie downloading ever matches the level of music downloading, they will. Disney aggressively protects their copyrights and properties, and was one of the prime movers in getting copyright terms extended.
You sound like an arrogant child that's misbehaved, but is proud of it. And if you are indeed on that list, and do indeed move that much music from your server, and think no one will do anything about it now, you're likely in for a rude shock.
/. crowd? Or are you just a liar and a troll, trying to get some attention, and generate some controversy? I'd like to think you couldn't be dumb enough to be the former, but they don't make the Darwin Awards every year for nothing.
As for your assumptions that no one can do anything to you, allow me point out what they CAN do:
"They can keep sending legal threats, but I will simply ignore them. Arrest warrents?? Pfft. Most cops will not even bother to take someone in for something so stupid."
Yes they will, because it's their job. Police take things like duty and upholding the law seriously, even if they should disagree with it. You're sadly mistaken if you think cops ignore arrest warrants they don't agree with. Cops are professionals.
"I know that what I'm doing is wrong, and I will continue to do it because I know it pisses people off. This is an ideal hobby, especially since it's lower risk, and less time-intensive than pushing dope to kids."
Congratulations. If this is discovered, it can be used as evidence in a court of law. You just 1- admitted guilt, and 2- expressed a lack of remorse for the charge. If you ever did suddenly gain the intelligence to find an attorney, he's going to LOVE this one.
"I simply have plenty of server space and fast connections. I'm doing a public service, and a major disservice to the RIAA/MPAA by moving 100+ Gb a month"
For starters, you can kiss your ISP account goodbye if you're busted. Most of them have prohibitions against this type of activity in their user agreements. If this isn't in there specifically, I'm pretty sure there's a generic "inapropriate behavior" clause that they can use. And it's an inevitability that if these kinds of lawsuits become successful, ISP's will start a "blacklist" of such users to deny them service in order to protect themselves legally.
As for what can be done to you penalty wise, some others here have already pointed them out (garnishment of wages for a judgement, credit rating shot to hell; some companies will fire employess if garnishment papers arrive, and in most states, it's legal for them to do so). Increasingly, when applying for a job, employers will check your credit rating. Good luck on ever purchasing a home if you get into this situation. And while in criminal cases, judges can prohibit certain activities, I don't know if that can be done in civil proceedings. If anyone else out there knows the answer to this, please enlighten us. If this CAN be done in a civil case, look for some judges to prohibit the use of computers and access to the internet. I have my doubts about this one, though.
Finally, judging from your tone, I'm having a hard time deciding what you really are. Are you indeed on that list, and you're just showing monumental stupidity to look "leet" to the
The Corel name, and product line, still have reputation enough to make the company a huge asset IF the right buyer comes along and makes good management decisions. Despite the popularity of OpenOffice among private users, most companies aren't going to adopt it, and Sun is having little success in marketing the professional sibling, StarOffice. WordPerfect, Corel Draw, Quattro Pro, and other apps still have good commercial name recognition and respect, and were a company like HP to come along and buy and distribute it, the Corel line could have a fighting chance. HP is already distributing Corel software with it's home-market PCs. If they were to do a true port to Linux of all the Corel line, it could really kick-start the Linux business desktop. And I mean a REAL port, not the Wine-dependant crap Corel was distributing years ago. And if someone like HP were to buy them, the Corel Linux distro wouldn't be a bad idea for a return either. Corel Linux had some nice features, and was Debian based. Much better package management that way. IBM wouldn't be in the market. They've already got one office suite, and are developing another Java-based suite. Sun has StarOffice. But with Corel going REALLY cheap, maybe they could be presuaded to buy anyway. Dare I hope that Apple might even have an interest? Probably not. Outside of the venture capital crowd gunning for it, a company like HP would be Corel's best hope of making a big return. The competition would certainly nice.
"These are your options. Pick one"
Here's another one. Don't break the law. The courts don't give a damn what you think about music or the RIAA. You can think music should be free all you want. That isn't going to change the fact that someone else has the copyright to it, not you. And despite the wailing and gnashing of teeth here, last time I checked, there was no right to copyright infringement of any kind. Just because it's cheap, and easy, and it's music doesn't get you an exemption in the eyes of the law. And don't scream fair use at me either. Distributing a song to 100,000 of your closest friends on KaZaa isn't fair use.
Oh, and I seem to recall most of Slashdot's posters saying "Go after the infringers, not the technology!"
Well, looks like they called the bluff. Now that they're actualy suing individuals, the tune around here seems to have changed.
Nothing like rolling up your sleeves and doing it yourself. You wouldn't neccessarily have to host the downloads themselves, just link to where you CAN download them.
The internet used to be brimming with freeware sites. They haven't completely gone away, but they're dissapearing fast. I mean true freeware sites, not shareware sites, or sites with crippleware.
Maybe it's just me, but I think it's another sign the Net's "free ride" days are over.
At least he has the guts to post under his own nick. Or have you been banned for trolling too?
No guts, no glory......coward.
They don't promise to answer each and every letter, either. And the President certainly must get even more spam than we do, as widespread as that address is. What makes Slashdot or it's readers so special? God at the whining here.
"He doesn't promise to answer our emails! But we're Slashdot readers! We're Important, damnit!"
We're not any more important than anyone else.
And as far as the bitching about the "pro" and "complaint" mails, that's just to make it easier to sort them. Again, so what? I'm already reading comments on here about the complaints going directly to Ashcroft so *gasp!* all Slashdot readers will be shipped off to Cuba for daring to criticize the President!
Here's a tissue. Shut the fuck up, and step back into the real world.
It's a poorly designed process for mail, but it's not an X-Files conspiracy. Sometimes I think when you sign up for a Slashdot account now, you get your first aluminum foil hat free.
I'd mod you straight up. Thanks for a very good analogy. Now batten down the hatches, and prepare for boarders.... the reactionary little trolls that live on Slashdot are going to come out of the woodwork ripping you as a FUD-spewing tool of the RIAA. Fuck 'em. Keep telling it like it is.