Did none of you read the PDF? The expert report says that the hard drive provided to him was *not* the one used to share the files. He doesn't discuss his methodology in any detail, but it's reasonable enough. He states that, based on his analysis of the hard drive that the machine was directly connected to the internet (not via a router), which is easy enough to tell from the IP address assigned, and that it does not and did not have Kazaa (apparently the p2p program used) on it.
From the other links, it sounds like they're claiming that his isn't the hard drive they wanted, from the machine they wanted, and that they're trying to get access to the sons hard drive based on that. Assuming that the expert isn't totally incompetent and/or lying, he's right. If this hard drive is from the machine that had the IP addresses in the subpoena from Verizon (he says he has access to the Verizon information, but not whether or not the IPs match up), then you have a pretty airtight dismissal - no evidence of sharing, lets go home.
If they're trying to claim that the son probably brought his machine over, you're going to have to rely on legal arguments rather than technical ones. It's certainly possible that he did, but I don't know enough about the law to say whether that matters in a case like this. The case is against her, not her son, so can't you argue for dismissal on that alone?
If they're claiming that you gave them some totally unrelated drive, you're going to need to document where that drive came from. I assume you have all your ducks in a row with regards to the chain of documents and evidence for that drive. If you don't, then someone screwed up along the way and someone is going to pay for it - probably your client and her family. That's not something interrogation of this witness will help you with - his analysis of the drive is probably correct. What he's saying is that he didn't find the evidence the RIAA wants on the drive, so prove that's the drive they asked for and go home.
use the theory of evolution to try to prove there is no God.
\Nobody with the slightest knowledge of science has ever done this. You can't logically disprove the *existence* of God anyway, although you can make a very convincing logical argument that it doesn't matter if he exists or not. The existence of God, as something which by definition cannot be tested, measured, or understood is outside the limits of science. It's the domain of philosophy and mythology.
Information theory says information can not be created, only lost. Entropy is forever increasing. So where did the original order and information come from?
It says no such thing. It'd be trivially wrong if it did, as order emerges from chaotic systems constantly.
Pretty much every fight scene is done this way. It's rare (more common now with the influence from Hong Kong stunt men, who were way more hardcore, but still rare) for there to be actual contact in fight scenes, except in carefully blocked closeups. Perspective and camera angles, along with foley, are used to give the impression of a hit. It's most obvious in older films, like old westerns of course, but you can see it even in the most recent blockbusters. One of ways you rate the quality of action choreography and cinematography is how well you can hide the fact that the stuntmen are swinging to miss each other.
Of course, if you're actually familiar with martial arts it's easy to tell even if the camera angles are perfect and the sound effects are impeccably timed - many of the fancy acrobatic leaping aerial moves so common these days simply can't be done if you hit something.
You're subscribing to a common misconception of 'evolution'. Evolution is not the process of "bettering", where there's some ultimate "perfect" form. It's just a process of change. A disease which kills everyone with green eyes will select against people with green eyes and green eyes will disappear from the gene pool. That's evolution in action - the gene pool has changed. If the "green eye" gene is linked to something that is important, like the "digest milk" gene, it probably won't be eliminated entirely and if the disease is eradicated green eye color will resurface.
Remember, individuals don't evolve. *Populations* evolve, when pressures (there are more mechanisms than natural selection at work, too) cause certain traits to be selected for or against. Negative pressure is still pressure.
I don't believe that "let the market sort it out" is a valid response to pretty much anything, but you clearly do, so I'm wondering why you simultaneously believe that the market should sort it out without regard to the fact that the existence of the GPL v3 is the very action of the market sorting it out.
The idea that it shouldn't be done because it's not a total solution is clearly a fallacy - the existence of the GPL v3 won't preclude any other solutions to the DRM issue. Rejecting a solution to a specific problem (use of free software in a DRM context that eliminates the end-user advantage of using free software) because it doesn't solve a general issue is just throwing a tantrum.
I had a big rant detailing all the hypocrisy and conflicting opinions you've stated, but I think I'll just settle for this: explain please exactly how the GPL v3 is *not* a market based solution to the problem, exactly as you are stating.
Bear in mind that nobody is obligated to assume the new version of the GPL, that access to software under old versions of the GPL is still available, that (unlike DRM) the GPL is neither mandated or given special treatment by the law and that the people developing, advocating, and adopting the new GPL have absolutely no power other than market force to drive its adoption.
Also please explain how in your world it's okay and acceptable for manufacturers to put DRM on devices and leave it up to consumers and "the market" to handle it, but its not okay for authors of GPL software to do *exactly the same thing*.
IMO, the shareholders (and the free marketeers) can suck it. It's not like you didn't know that telecos were heavily regulated when you invested. If government interference pisses you off, maybe you shouldn't be in a heavily regulated industry to begin with.
No, the U.S. does not have a problem with nudity, though I think we would be better off if more of our population did. (I assume you mean public or publicized nudity, since I've never heard of anyone who had a problem with nudity in and of itself.)
This must be willfull ignorance. Despite the fact that "public nudity" and scanty clothing is becoming more accepted, American culture is stull much less comfortable with it than they are with good old fashioned violence. Witness the fact that all forms of entertainment recieve higher ratings for sexual content and nudity than they do for violence, such as the game mentioned in this article.
If you really examine your history, you will observe that cultures become more barbaric as they do away with their inhibitions.
The word you're looking for is decadent, not barbaric.
Inhibitions keep us from doing things that would otherwise get us killed, like jumping off of a building without a parachute just because the ride down will be fun.
No, that is self preservation. Inhibitions are what keep you from doing it *with* a parachute.
Besides the health risk of constantly exposing your privates to the elements, vulnerability to disease, etc.
There's nothing risky about not wearing pants that isn't risky about not wearing clothes in general. There aren't floating 'disease germs' that will attack your wee-wee if you don't wear underwear. This sort of made up bullshit "medical" advice is exactly why some people *do* have a problem with "nudity in general".
If the media be representative of the entire population, then any attempt at regulating morals is a complete hypocritical joke.
Any attempt at regulating morals *is* a complete hypocritical joke. It's also sadly common amongst a certain breed of insecure, repressed, power hungry person who is so uncomfortable with himself and his humanity that he needs to control everyone, not just himself (or herself. English needs better non-gendered nouns). It's right there in the Genesis as you mention above, although apparently you don't grasp the implications. Adam and Eve felt *shame* for their nudity.
Nonetheless, there are some of us who don't want to pass on to future generations that sex should be casual or that self-control is a weakness.
Self control isn't a weakness. But repression is. Look at the history of our culture and your religion.
For those of us who claim to follow the God of the bible (and the even fewer who act like it), this is a minority stance (especially on any internet forum). I don't expect everyone to adopt it.
You don't expect everyone to adopt it, but you're perfectly happy with attempting to legally mandate it?
Still, it is unfair to completely reject an idea just because someone with religious values agrees with it.
I do no such thing. However, I do reject an idea when its only supporting foundation is those same religions values. Your only non-religious mention here are ambiguous medical dangers if you walk around naked, a total falsehood. Do you have any non-religious support for the dangers of informed, mature, casual sex? Are you aware that the rate of sexual predation is higher among members of your religion than among others? That as our acceptance of nudity, pornography, and sexual freedom has raised so too has sexual equality?
Thats just another way of saying "I'm no good at my job". Whether you feel appreciated by your corporate overlords or not, you're a customer facing part of the company and you are therefore every bit as important to PR as sales. Even more so in a large way - anyone calling tech support *already has a problem* and your attitude and ability to solve that problem are a *huge* PR influence.
Did you RTFA? I don't know the person involved and I don't know the guild, but it is explicitly described as "GBLT friendly", not as "GBLT only". It's certainly possible that they restricted membership to people who were openly gay, but there is no indication in the article that they did so.
Your problem is that you fundamentally misunderstand the concept of a *multiplayer* game. It's not "escapist" any more than playing basketball down at the park is escapist, and "real life" issues are just as valid in WoW as they would be on a basketball court. Gay this and fag that is as annoying in WoW as nigger this and nigger that is at a park. If you want escapism, do it with either solo or with a carefully selected group of other people.
Blizzard, by the way, (and this may change but I doubt it will) does not generally police channel speech, and GMs are incredibly slow to respond to even extremely outrageous actions. So "report people using the word gay" is hardly a reasonable answer. Actively attempting to create an environment that is more friendly is a totally acceptable reaction. I've belonged to a guild were were didn't allow trash talk or l33t speak on guild channel. Thats more or less the same thing as the guild in TFA was doing.
There's no such thing as intuition. Something is intuitive if you already know it, and it's not otherwise. Try installing and creating databases in Oracle without reading any documentation and no previous experience to draw on some time, I'd like to hear how that goes for you.
Stupid and trivially false. The technology to be continuously connected is barely 20 years old, and yet somehow we managed to survive without our doctors always having pagers. It's *convenient* for them. And it might be more cost effective - when you can page a doctor wherever, you don't have to employ as many of them. But it's hardly essential.
It predates the internet considerably. This same concept was used to prosecute pornography that was distributed via mail order - magazines and girly photos - as far back as the 1920s. All you had to do was order one to some little county in the bible belt with a conservative judge.
The really funny thing is that the logical fallacy is actually "beggars the question", meaning to deprive it of worth. The phrase was corrupted into "begs the question", which doesn't make any sense, so people started to use it in a way more consistent with it's literal meaning.
Not "most religions". Like... 3 - the judeao-christian ones. And Jews are only prevented from making loaning with interest to other Jews. Incidently, this is one of the major reasons for anti-Semitism in Europe and the root of the conspiracy theories about Zionist Banks.
It's not a myth and you're an idiot for thinking it is. Nobody ever said that a high cost of entry was a *total* barrier to competition. It's just a signfigiant one, that has a very real and very powerful chilling effect on competition. Hand waving and deciding that no matter how inefficent a market might be, it'll always get better because "someone will innovate something" is ridiculous.
I'm trying to figure out why you feel that is a compelling argument. I have no trouble whatsoever drawing that parallel. Children are citizens too, and I don't see politically subversive blogs being any more or less deserving of free speech than porn.
That is because Nautilus uses the gstreamer backend to create thumbnails. If you used the standard gstreamer backed Totem instead of the Xine one it would work.
provide a better way of passing options to Xglx, and with the -accel params I no longer have the "smoothing" issues I had before, and peformance is much faster. Xine video is still messed up, but glxgears (and hopefully other OpenGL) work.
I just (< 2 hours ago) updated my Breezy install to Dapper and installed the compiz and xlgx packages from universal. It works fine on my GeForce3 (which is quite a bit more card than your GF2G, but also lacks pixel shaders). There are some issues, as is to be expected. There is a noticable "smoothing" effect when using any of the compiz transitions as anti-aliasing is applied - I'd expect this to be the sort of thing pixel shaders could help. Under Xlgx, OpenGL just doesn't work, period - either I get a blank screen (glxgears, for example) or it flat-out refuses to run. Also, whatever Xine does for video doesn't work correctly under Xlgx (which is odd because I thought it used XVideo, and gstreamer works great), theres all sorts of drawing glitches and graphical corruption.
Playing with the rotating cube (ctrl+alt+click) is *awesome*.
The sitting President doesn't have any wartime powers, because this isn't wartime. He's claiming this authority as neccesary for the defense of the United States, not in the prosecution of a war, which is a harder legal sell.
The current claim is that since Congress authorized the President to "take all reasonable actions" - or whatever the exact quote is - to do some ridiculous unstated thing, that they've essentially granted their warmaking authority (as well as a ton of other authority) to the President. Of course, this doesn't touch all the "war" authority used (by many Presidents, including Clinton) prior to this one.
I don't think that the Founding Fathers ever anticipated that anyone would have the balls to get up in front of the country and act like we were at war, say we were at war, use authority restricted to time of war, extend authority in the grounds that it was neccesary to support a war, all without actually declaring war. I don't know if they anticipated one branch of government actively reducing it's authority and granting it to a different branch (as this Congress did) either.
Slashdot Mirror
Did none of you read the PDF? The expert report says that the hard drive provided to him was *not* the one used to share the files. He doesn't discuss his methodology in any detail, but it's reasonable enough. He states that, based on his analysis of the hard drive that the machine was directly connected to the internet (not via a router), which is easy enough to tell from the IP address assigned, and that it does not and did not have Kazaa (apparently the p2p program used) on it. From the other links, it sounds like they're claiming that his isn't the hard drive they wanted, from the machine they wanted, and that they're trying to get access to the sons hard drive based on that. Assuming that the expert isn't totally incompetent and/or lying, he's right. If this hard drive is from the machine that had the IP addresses in the subpoena from Verizon (he says he has access to the Verizon information, but not whether or not the IPs match up), then you have a pretty airtight dismissal - no evidence of sharing, lets go home. If they're trying to claim that the son probably brought his machine over, you're going to have to rely on legal arguments rather than technical ones. It's certainly possible that he did, but I don't know enough about the law to say whether that matters in a case like this. The case is against her, not her son, so can't you argue for dismissal on that alone? If they're claiming that you gave them some totally unrelated drive, you're going to need to document where that drive came from. I assume you have all your ducks in a row with regards to the chain of documents and evidence for that drive. If you don't, then someone screwed up along the way and someone is going to pay for it - probably your client and her family. That's not something interrogation of this witness will help you with - his analysis of the drive is probably correct. What he's saying is that he didn't find the evidence the RIAA wants on the drive, so prove that's the drive they asked for and go home.
\Nobody with the slightest knowledge of science has ever done this. You can't logically disprove the *existence* of God anyway, although you can make a very convincing logical argument that it doesn't matter if he exists or not. The existence of God, as something which by definition cannot be tested, measured, or understood is outside the limits of science. It's the domain of philosophy and mythology.
Information theory says information can not be created, only lost. Entropy is forever increasing. So where did the original order and information come from?
It says no such thing. It'd be trivially wrong if it did, as order emerges from chaotic systems constantly.
Pretty much every fight scene is done this way. It's rare (more common now with the influence from Hong Kong stunt men, who were way more hardcore, but still rare) for there to be actual contact in fight scenes, except in carefully blocked closeups. Perspective and camera angles, along with foley, are used to give the impression of a hit. It's most obvious in older films, like old westerns of course, but you can see it even in the most recent blockbusters. One of ways you rate the quality of action choreography and cinematography is how well you can hide the fact that the stuntmen are swinging to miss each other. Of course, if you're actually familiar with martial arts it's easy to tell even if the camera angles are perfect and the sound effects are impeccably timed - many of the fancy acrobatic leaping aerial moves so common these days simply can't be done if you hit something.
You're subscribing to a common misconception of 'evolution'. Evolution is not the process of "bettering", where there's some ultimate "perfect" form. It's just a process of change. A disease which kills everyone with green eyes will select against people with green eyes and green eyes will disappear from the gene pool. That's evolution in action - the gene pool has changed. If the "green eye" gene is linked to something that is important, like the "digest milk" gene, it probably won't be eliminated entirely and if the disease is eradicated green eye color will resurface.
Remember, individuals don't evolve. *Populations* evolve, when pressures (there are more mechanisms than natural selection at work, too) cause certain traits to be selected for or against. Negative pressure is still pressure.
I don't believe that "let the market sort it out" is a valid response to pretty much anything, but you clearly do, so I'm wondering why you simultaneously believe that the market should sort it out without regard to the fact that the existence of the GPL v3 is the very action of the market sorting it out. The idea that it shouldn't be done because it's not a total solution is clearly a fallacy - the existence of the GPL v3 won't preclude any other solutions to the DRM issue. Rejecting a solution to a specific problem (use of free software in a DRM context that eliminates the end-user advantage of using free software) because it doesn't solve a general issue is just throwing a tantrum.
I had a big rant detailing all the hypocrisy and conflicting opinions you've stated, but I think I'll just settle for this: explain please exactly how the GPL v3 is *not* a market based solution to the problem, exactly as you are stating. Bear in mind that nobody is obligated to assume the new version of the GPL, that access to software under old versions of the GPL is still available, that (unlike DRM) the GPL is neither mandated or given special treatment by the law and that the people developing, advocating, and adopting the new GPL have absolutely no power other than market force to drive its adoption. Also please explain how in your world it's okay and acceptable for manufacturers to put DRM on devices and leave it up to consumers and "the market" to handle it, but its not okay for authors of GPL software to do *exactly the same thing*.
IMO, the shareholders (and the free marketeers) can suck it. It's not like you didn't know that telecos were heavily regulated when you invested. If government interference pisses you off, maybe you shouldn't be in a heavily regulated industry to begin with.
This must be willfull ignorance. Despite the fact that "public nudity" and scanty clothing is becoming more accepted, American culture is stull much less comfortable with it than they are with good old fashioned violence. Witness the fact that all forms of entertainment recieve higher ratings for sexual content and nudity than they do for violence, such as the game mentioned in this article.
If you really examine your history, you will observe that cultures become more barbaric as they do away with their inhibitions.
The word you're looking for is decadent, not barbaric.
Inhibitions keep us from doing things that would otherwise get us killed, like jumping off of a building without a parachute just because the ride down will be fun.
No, that is self preservation. Inhibitions are what keep you from doing it *with* a parachute.
Besides the health risk of constantly exposing your privates to the elements, vulnerability to disease, etc.
There's nothing risky about not wearing pants that isn't risky about not wearing clothes in general. There aren't floating 'disease germs' that will attack your wee-wee if you don't wear underwear. This sort of made up bullshit "medical" advice is exactly why some people *do* have a problem with "nudity in general".
If the media be representative of the entire population, then any attempt at regulating morals is a complete hypocritical joke.
Any attempt at regulating morals *is* a complete hypocritical joke. It's also sadly common amongst a certain breed of insecure, repressed, power hungry person who is so uncomfortable with himself and his humanity that he needs to control everyone, not just himself (or herself. English needs better non-gendered nouns). It's right there in the Genesis as you mention above, although apparently you don't grasp the implications. Adam and Eve felt *shame* for their nudity.
Nonetheless, there are some of us who don't want to pass on to future generations that sex should be casual or that self-control is a weakness.
Self control isn't a weakness. But repression is. Look at the history of our culture and your religion.
For those of us who claim to follow the God of the bible (and the even fewer who act like it), this is a minority stance (especially on any internet forum). I don't expect everyone to adopt it.
You don't expect everyone to adopt it, but you're perfectly happy with attempting to legally mandate it?
Still, it is unfair to completely reject an idea just because someone with religious values agrees with it.
I do no such thing. However, I do reject an idea when its only supporting foundation is those same religions values. Your only non-religious mention here are ambiguous medical dangers if you walk around naked, a total falsehood. Do you have any non-religious support for the dangers of informed, mature, casual sex? Are you aware that the rate of sexual predation is higher among members of your religion than among others? That as our acceptance of nudity, pornography, and sexual freedom has raised so too has sexual equality?
Thats just another way of saying "I'm no good at my job". Whether you feel appreciated by your corporate overlords or not, you're a customer facing part of the company and you are therefore every bit as important to PR as sales. Even more so in a large way - anyone calling tech support *already has a problem* and your attitude and ability to solve that problem are a *huge* PR influence.
Did you RTFA? I don't know the person involved and I don't know the guild, but it is explicitly described as "GBLT friendly", not as "GBLT only". It's certainly possible that they restricted membership to people who were openly gay, but there is no indication in the article that they did so.
Blizzard, by the way, (and this may change but I doubt it will) does not generally police channel speech, and GMs are incredibly slow to respond to even extremely outrageous actions. So "report people using the word gay" is hardly a reasonable answer. Actively attempting to create an environment that is more friendly is a totally acceptable reaction. I've belonged to a guild were were didn't allow trash talk or l33t speak on guild channel. Thats more or less the same thing as the guild in TFA was doing.
Stupid and trivially false. The technology to be continuously connected is barely 20 years old, and yet somehow we managed to survive without our doctors always having pagers. It's *convenient* for them. And it might be more cost effective - when you can page a doctor wherever, you don't have to employ as many of them. But it's hardly essential.
It predates the internet considerably. This same concept was used to prosecute pornography that was distributed via mail order - magazines and girly photos - as far back as the 1920s. All you had to do was order one to some little county in the bible belt with a conservative judge.
The really funny thing is that the logical fallacy is actually "beggars the question", meaning to deprive it of worth. The phrase was corrupted into "begs the question", which doesn't make any sense, so people started to use it in a way more consistent with it's literal meaning.
Not "most religions". Like... 3 - the judeao-christian ones. And Jews are only prevented from making loaning with interest to other Jews. Incidently, this is one of the major reasons for anti-Semitism in Europe and the root of the conspiracy theories about Zionist Banks.
It's not a myth and you're an idiot for thinking it is. Nobody ever said that a high cost of entry was a *total* barrier to competition. It's just a signfigiant one, that has a very real and very powerful chilling effect on competition. Hand waving and deciding that no matter how inefficent a market might be, it'll always get better because "someone will innovate something" is ridiculous.
I'm trying to figure out why you feel that is a compelling argument. I have no trouble whatsoever drawing that parallel. Children are citizens too, and I don't see politically subversive blogs being any more or less deserving of free speech than porn.
That is because Nautilus uses the gstreamer backend to create thumbnails. If you used the standard gstreamer backed Totem instead of the Xine one it would work.
If they weren't before, then probably not. But I don't have font problems in either Firefox or Evolution.
The instructions here:
http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=13126 7
provide a better way of passing options to Xglx, and with the -accel params I no longer have the "smoothing" issues I had before, and peformance is much faster. Xine video is still messed up, but glxgears (and hopefully other OpenGL) work.
I just (< 2 hours ago) updated my Breezy install to Dapper and installed the compiz and xlgx packages from universal. It works fine on my GeForce3 (which is quite a bit more card than your GF2G, but also lacks pixel shaders). There are some issues, as is to be expected. There is a noticable "smoothing" effect when using any of the compiz transitions as anti-aliasing is applied - I'd expect this to be the sort of thing pixel shaders could help. Under Xlgx, OpenGL just doesn't work, period - either I get a blank screen (glxgears, for example) or it flat-out refuses to run. Also, whatever Xine does for video doesn't work correctly under Xlgx (which is odd because I thought it used XVideo, and gstreamer works great), theres all sorts of drawing glitches and graphical corruption.
Playing with the rotating cube (ctrl+alt+click) is *awesome*.
I just ( Playing with the rotating cube (ctrl+alt+click) is *awesome*.
The sitting President doesn't have any wartime powers, because this isn't wartime. He's claiming this authority as neccesary for the defense of the United States, not in the prosecution of a war, which is a harder legal sell.
I don't think that the Founding Fathers ever anticipated that anyone would have the balls to get up in front of the country and act like we were at war, say we were at war, use authority restricted to time of war, extend authority in the grounds that it was neccesary to support a war, all without actually declaring war. I don't know if they anticipated one branch of government actively reducing it's authority and granting it to a different branch (as this Congress did) either.