But I don't think its necessary to reach that conclusion in order to go after the proxy provider any more than it is necessary to equate a drug mule to a licensed Bus Line like Greyhound.
The difference is more like people borrowing each others cars which just happened to contain some pot that belonged to someone else "I'm just transporting it for them, I didn't know what was in the box".
Greyhound is a common carrier, your car is simply not.
I don't see how this is any different than TOR. Somebody has to be the exit node and that somebody is going to be hassled quite a bit by the authorities
First - I am the 'responsible party' for my ISP connection. Regardless of whether I'm proxying for other people or doing the torrenting myself, they still come to MY house to ask questions. Just ask any TOR exit node operator.
Second - in the obligatory car analogy, if my car is seen as the getaway car from a bank robbery, they're going to come talk to me about where I was at the time. If I had reported my car stolen or I have a rock solid alibi to my whereabouts I'm not going to be charged.
I'm responsible for the actions of something under my control, be it a car or an internet connection. The key question is am I LIABLE for those same actions.
A license plate like an IP address alone is not enough to identify an individual. The circumstances become very very important. Most specifically the obvious differences between civil crimes like most copyright infringement and criminal ones like the above bank robberies.
because of his promise to completely socialize health care
You don't get everything you want, that's called compromise. I too would have liked full on socialized medicine. Perhaps in time.
it really didn't do anything good for anyone who doesn't own an insurance company.
Spoken like someone who isn't on the margins of society. Can't be cut from your insurance for costs, denied for pre-existing conditions, children stay on parents till 26 etc. All are massive benefits to those who don't own insurance companies.
anti-American
If you have a better term for describing their thought process and actions during the Obama presidency, I'm all ears.
Think NDAA
Uh, Bush had them too. He just didn't codify into 'print' what he was doing, but he was doing all of it pretty much.
PATRIOT Act renewal
Somehow the 'renewal' makes it worse? Again, do you seriously believe the Dems would do this on their own?
attacks on the 2nd Amendment (yes, that counts)
Only if you can come up with *any* of these so called 'attacks' prior to Newtown?
rampant prosecutorial abuse
Two words, Alberto Gonzales and three more "I don't recall".
the straight-up assaults by police on peaceful protestors
A direct line from the war on terror fear-mongering started under Bush. Doesn't excuse it but pinning that on Obama? Not so much.
the increase in deportations
Uh, we're deporting 'criminals' aren't we? Not illegals, but illegals who commit crimes. Somehow this is bad?
the President's personal hit list
Uh, you're claiming Bush didn't have the exact same thing?
which has included at least one American citizen; an American citizen who was executed summarily, with not even a semblance of due process.
two more words. Jose Padilla.
We are a damn sight better than we were. We haven't started any ridiculous wars in 4 years. We helped topple a couple dictators without shedding any blood. Bush? not quite so good.
If only there was something in the Constitution on how to deal with political infighting...oh yeah SCOTUS and appointed judges.
Not perfect, but a far sight better than blatant political manipulation. Would you have fights over the appointments? you bet, and we do now over SCOTUS. But the politics of courts and judges are a world of difference compared to pure politicians.
So you'd be ok with letting South Korea be run over by the North? Because it would happen in a heart beat without our support. Or perhaps Russian/Chinese control of the Middle East or pretty much the rest of the globe?
not wanting to start pointless wars
His party is the one who did that...Obama opposed it. Dems are tarred with not having the spine to stand up to the GOP fear-mongering but do you really think the Dems would be out starting wars? Seriously?
supporting 1st, 2nd and 4th Amendment rights and opposing the expansion of TSA, Patriot Act, stop the indefinite detention of American citizens
See Liberty'O'Clock'
wanting to reduce federal spending and balance the budget
Nice platitude. How about specifics? It's hard. When asked "if a child of an illegal alien is brought to a hospital and needs treatment, do you treat the child?" His response was a five minute monologue on his various crazy theories. In the immortal words of Jon Stewart: "I'm sorry, the correct answer was 'Yes'".
legalize marijuana and stop the war on drugs, or support gay marriage and other civil rights for gays
I dunno, I voted for the Dems and got Healthcare out of it. Unfortunately I also got a GOP minority that has flat out admitted they only intended to stop Obama, not actually govern. Seriously, the night of his 1st inauguration the GOP brain trust met and decided the term would be spent solely opposing anything Obama supported.
Only thing more amazing that that bit of anti-American politicizing is the fact that they admitted it on record!
Does anyone really believe the Dems would have instituted the pseudo secret police state we have now on their own? Granted Obama and Dems have kept it mostly so they get strikes for that, but we're a boatload better now than in 2008.
The only 'fair' thing is to remove politics from the district drawing process altogether. Not easy or simple, but Money and Political District Drawing are 2 things that quite literally are a direct threat to our governmental system.
Uh, because you don't want someone doing it to you? How is that not rational? Life is better when we aren't worried about being killed...
Given that human rights are a codification of canon law, it's plainly obvious where the actual human rights come from : directly from the bible.
Uh, the bible was relatively 'late' in the human game. So before that there were no 'laws'? Ever heard of Hammurabi's Code? I.e. the very first set of 'laws' written down?
While I agree it's fair to say that modern laws are sourced from religious bases, it's also something common to pretty much all religions. Be nice to one another, be honest, care for your neighbor, etc.
They are HUMAN laws that HUMANs put into religion, not the other way around.
There are some people with physical or mental handicaps that will require more resources than they can produce and are thus a drain on society. From a purely analytical view, they hurt more than they help.
We help because one misstep off a curb and it's us who are now unproductive.
There can be cold hard facts that having a society that helps *everyone* is a more productive society than one that culls anyone who happens not to be 'productive' by some arbitrary measure.
Or it could just be that we're human and we help people. The cold hard fact is if we get hurt, we would like people to help us, so we help the less fortunate.
What I don't see on their site is how many milk jugs are needed for X inches of filament. Anybody have any idea on the volume of the source requirements?
Slashdot Mirror
you are probably protected by the same DCMA provisions that protect the ISPs
No you aren't. The DMCA defines common carriers and end users aren't part of that definition.
But I don't think its necessary to reach that conclusion in order to go after the proxy provider any more than it is necessary to equate a drug mule to a licensed Bus Line like Greyhound.
The difference is more like people borrowing each others cars which just happened to contain some pot that belonged to someone else "I'm just transporting it for them, I didn't know what was in the box".
Greyhound is a common carrier, your car is simply not.
Can we get a mod of "Needs more Tinfoil"?
I don't see how this is any different than TOR. Somebody has to be the exit node and that somebody is going to be hassled quite a bit by the authorities
It's two issues.
First - I am the 'responsible party' for my ISP connection. Regardless of whether I'm proxying for other people or doing the torrenting myself, they still come to MY house to ask questions. Just ask any TOR exit node operator.
Second - in the obligatory car analogy, if my car is seen as the getaway car from a bank robbery, they're going to come talk to me about where I was at the time. If I had reported my car stolen or I have a rock solid alibi to my whereabouts I'm not going to be charged.
I'm responsible for the actions of something under my control, be it a car or an internet connection. The key question is am I LIABLE for those same actions.
A license plate like an IP address alone is not enough to identify an individual. The circumstances become very very important. Most specifically the obvious differences between civil crimes like most copyright infringement and criminal ones like the above bank robberies.
Actually not, I'm happy to include all races in my fun making of the South.
Well bless your heart...
Racist? Seriously?
It's a tongue in cheek slam on the luddite South...which is majority WHITE.
Yeah but you're S.L.O.W.
;-)
And your downloads take a long time too!
Arkansas, Georgia, Texas, Louisiana, South Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee, Mississippi, Florida, Kentucky, Alabama and Oklahoma
Is it just me or has the internet seemed a little smarter on average for the last few days...
because of his promise to completely socialize health care
You don't get everything you want, that's called compromise. I too would have liked full on socialized medicine. Perhaps in time.
it really didn't do anything good for anyone who doesn't own an insurance company.
Spoken like someone who isn't on the margins of society. Can't be cut from your insurance for costs, denied for pre-existing conditions, children stay on parents till 26 etc. All are massive benefits to those who don't own insurance companies.
anti-American
If you have a better term for describing their thought process and actions during the Obama presidency, I'm all ears.
Think NDAA
Uh, Bush had them too. He just didn't codify into 'print' what he was doing, but he was doing all of it pretty much.
PATRIOT Act renewal
Somehow the 'renewal' makes it worse? Again, do you seriously believe the Dems would do this on their own?
attacks on the 2nd Amendment (yes, that counts)
Only if you can come up with *any* of these so called 'attacks' prior to Newtown?
rampant prosecutorial abuse
Two words, Alberto Gonzales and three more "I don't recall".
the straight-up assaults by police on peaceful protestors
A direct line from the war on terror fear-mongering started under Bush. Doesn't excuse it but pinning that on Obama? Not so much.
the increase in deportations
Uh, we're deporting 'criminals' aren't we? Not illegals, but illegals who commit crimes. Somehow this is bad?
the President's personal hit list
Uh, you're claiming Bush didn't have the exact same thing?
which has included at least one American citizen; an American citizen who was executed summarily, with not even a semblance of due process.
two more words. Jose Padilla.
We are a damn sight better than we were. We haven't started any ridiculous wars in 4 years. We helped topple a couple dictators without shedding any blood. Bush? not quite so good.
If only there was something in the Constitution on how to deal with political infighting...oh yeah SCOTUS and appointed judges.
Not perfect, but a far sight better than blatant political manipulation. Would you have fights over the appointments? you bet, and we do now over SCOTUS. But the politics of courts and judges are a world of difference compared to pure politicians.
advocating the withdrawl of U.S. troops overseas
So you'd be ok with letting South Korea be run over by the North? Because it would happen in a heart beat without our support. Or perhaps Russian/Chinese control of the Middle East or pretty much the rest of the globe?
not wanting to start pointless wars
His party is the one who did that...Obama opposed it. Dems are tarred with not having the spine to stand up to the GOP fear-mongering but do you really think the Dems would be out starting wars? Seriously?
supporting 1st, 2nd and 4th Amendment rights and opposing the expansion of TSA, Patriot Act, stop the indefinite detention of American citizens
See Liberty'O'Clock'
wanting to reduce federal spending and balance the budget
Nice platitude. How about specifics? It's hard. When asked "if a child of an illegal alien is brought to a hospital and needs treatment, do you treat the child?" His response was a five minute monologue on his various crazy theories. In the immortal words of Jon Stewart: "I'm sorry, the correct answer was 'Yes'".
legalize marijuana and stop the war on drugs, or support gay marriage and other civil rights for gays
Again see Liberty'O'Clock'.
I dunno, I voted for the Dems and got Healthcare out of it. Unfortunately I also got a GOP minority that has flat out admitted they only intended to stop Obama, not actually govern. Seriously, the night of his 1st inauguration the GOP brain trust met and decided the term would be spent solely opposing anything Obama supported.
Only thing more amazing that that bit of anti-American politicizing is the fact that they admitted it on record!
Does anyone really believe the Dems would have instituted the pseudo secret police state we have now on their own? Granted Obama and Dems have kept it mostly so they get strikes for that, but we're a boatload better now than in 2008.
One and the same. We're using broad brushes here ;-)
Let us know when you get to something the a GOP president hasn't or wouldn't have done in the same situation...
Ron Paul is a loon. Like a broken clock he's right twice a day, as in Liberty'O'Clock. But other than that, he's quite literally batshit crazy.
The only 'fair' thing is to remove politics from the district drawing process altogether. Not easy or simple, but Money and Political District Drawing are 2 things that quite literally are a direct threat to our governmental system.
Mostly agree, but WBC gives the moderates a much wider field to be extreme and still seem 'moderate'.
Well there was a murder of abortion doctor George Tiller in 2009. Shot and killed at his *church* for the sad irony.
at least they aren't taking hostages, blowing people up or slowly sawing off heads then posting the video online.
Yet...
Dr. George Tiller would tend to disagree with you.
Or just look at the whole list here.
While these aren't Westboro specifically, it's the same side of the coin...
Mod points if I had 'em. Just because they show 'you' a good face doesn't mean they are a 'net' positive force.
so give ONE rational reason not to kill
Uh, because you don't want someone doing it to you? How is that not rational? Life is better when we aren't worried about being killed...
Given that human rights are a codification of canon law, it's plainly obvious where the actual human rights come from : directly from the bible.
Uh, the bible was relatively 'late' in the human game. So before that there were no 'laws'? Ever heard of Hammurabi's Code? I.e. the very first set of 'laws' written down?
While I agree it's fair to say that modern laws are sourced from religious bases, it's also something common to pretty much all religions. Be nice to one another, be honest, care for your neighbor, etc.
They are HUMAN laws that HUMANs put into religion, not the other way around.
There are some people with physical or mental handicaps that will require more resources than they can produce and are thus a drain on society. From a purely analytical view, they hurt more than they help.
We help because one misstep off a curb and it's us who are now unproductive.
There can be cold hard facts that having a society that helps *everyone* is a more productive society than one that culls anyone who happens not to be 'productive' by some arbitrary measure.
Or it could just be that we're human and we help people. The cold hard fact is if we get hurt, we would like people to help us, so we help the less fortunate.
What I don't see on their site is how many milk jugs are needed for X inches of filament. Anybody have any idea on the volume of the source requirements?