no, your logic is incorrect on that. if i am sending out packets on a modem that cause me to send information via the satellite to myself, that is abuse of their satellite, and is comandeering it, which is wrong. IF (note, that is an IF) someone with legitimate access to request information from that satellite chooses to download something and i pick it up and also save it without requesting the packets myself, there is nothing wrong with that since they are broadcasting it over a wide area and indeed on my reciever. You cannot win this arguement, diablo. The subject is too abstract to allow normal property laws to apply.
it's not a matter of strict law...it a matter of de facto law. If the person is not coming to get it, there is no risk in taking what has been abandoned. If I know that Golfer X is not coming to get his mishit ball, there is no reason I should not take it. same goes for signals sent one way onto my land.
no it isn't. the difference between a beacon type transmission for the cell phone to find the tower and a blanket satellite transimission is that i can use the beacon to find the tower all i want without being a subscriber. These serve telephone numbers, which are a limited resource, and are two-way one-on-one devices. Digital television transmissions are not a limited resource, and are broadcast in a manner that they can be equally utilized by anyone who recieves them with the proper equipment without harming anybody else. I know you are going to try to say it hurts the service, which is not necessarily true. if the service is not available in the area, for example, but they still paint your land with their signal, obviously they lose nothing from you using that one way signal.
2) it relies on people not being assholes about limited resources. Very much like communism, it looks great on paper but lousy in reality, and therefore would require some sort of laws in regard to it.
3) satellite transmissions are not a limited resource. DirecTV would lose nothing save for a subscription i would not have bought anyway should I choose to utilize it.
So to sum it up, limited resources, particularly those of a natural persuasion, do need some sort of rules governing their diversion or dispensation. Signals are a human construct which are presently being exploited under law with no real benefit of prohibiting their use by the citizenry without paying said corporation, especially in areas where the service is not sold.
no, in one of my other posts i made a statement that this they are intentionally painting the whole land with, without one specific target. If a cell phone happens to have to beam something through my land to get to a tower, it is different simply because it is specifically sent to one target (despite it being sent to a radial area, the objective of this connection is one tower rather than many who subscribe). Cell phones, like email, are a targeted transmission which are intended for a single recipient. it is the difference between broadcasting constantly and sending a single transmission for a rather limited amount of time.
so to put this in analogous terms, i would allow someone to cut across the lawn of my corner lot, but i wouldn't allow them to pitch their tent there and only do anything for me if i paid them to.
It is indeed unauthorized. I did not authorize it. And i am an idiotic bastard for not caring whether a service I do not care about exists? I do not like TV, and I do not feel that their service benefits society. I do not expect them to run satellites to transmit content at all. They do that of their own volition. If they are going to use it to shower signals upon my land, I will do with that signal what I will. Flaming me will get you nowhere, and does not change my opinion that there is little true value in their service that cannot be gotten by free means otherwise.
I also noticed that you didn't really read that post. because my remarks about being sent to a specific person covers cell phones as well. And re: the wallet, it is not my responsibility to return the wallet if you left it there, though because I am a nice person I would likely check it for ID so i could contact the owner. If you leave something purposely on my lawn without my knowing whose it is or why it is there, it is not instantly my duty to do as you wish me to. I could pick it up and chuck it in a trash can without even opening it if i cared to, and that would not be stealing. It would be your loss due to your own gross negligence of your property, for which I would not be liable.
Once again, I must post another rebuttal to your retarded impression of property law. You behave as if it is the right of the companies to control what I do with what flies through my property. I disagree, and consider any unauthorized material on my land, be it physical or frequency-based, to be fair game for my use. So unless they care to encrypt it a little better, I'll use it if I care to. NOTE: i do not watch TV or care whether DirecTV stands or falls. OK, I lied. I would prefer they fall, simply because they are on the intellectual property side of the arguement.
as well as people like you giving humans a bad name. Your rolling over like a two dollar whore at the idea that a company should be able to run information through my house without allowing me to make use of it without paying me for it is absurd. Grow a spine.
no, i am quite afraid your analogy is flawed on a fundamental level. If you drop your wallet on my lawn, and I take it, then it is only stealing if you do not come back looking for it and I fail to give it to you. If your dog shits on my lawn, and I use that shit to fertilize my garden, is that stealing? to fix your analogy, DirecTV has a dog that shits on everyone's lawn, and then asks people to subscribe to their shit, but does not let everyone do so regardless of their lawn shitting. If a dog shits on my lawn, i will do as I see fit with that fecal matter. If you broadcast over a wide area, don't get upset when someone picks up that signal. If your encryption doesn't keep them out, get better encryption if thats what concerns you. Just because you encrypt something you broadcast (as opposed to a focused transmission like email), it doesnt make it your God-given right to let only those you want to read it to read it.
Last time I checked, that was taxation without representation, which is unconstitutional. I am not represented by any state outside Texas. If a company in Texas wants to tax my online order, fine. But there is no justification constitutionally for me to pay a California sales tax for example.
well, the US constitution has a clause that prevents taxation without representation...last time I checked I am not represented in the state of California, or the state of Colorado, or the state of Delaware, for example.
now i'm going to have to go back to being pissed that I had to do this, right when i got used to having it there and was fine with it now that i was safe.
We always operate on the fact that everybody needs to know that there's a 55 mph speed limit. That's called a standard.
Last time I checked, the 55 MPH speed limit was acknowledged to be a bad idea and repealed, and if not, then Texas sure doesn't seem to care...
and if that's standardization then I have the ass of a boar. Yet again, last time I checked, the vast majority of cars in the United States are capable of driving both above and below 55 MPH, and do not actually require roads to operate (though it is recommended)
And to further debunk the arguement, the 55 MPH was not a 'standard' in that it was a 'regulation', and that anybody could break it without risk of more than a traffic ticket, there were no technological barriers. Then there's always the fact that a state could legally have a higher speed limit in those days, they simply wouldn't get federal transit maintenance money if they didn't.
Please move your hole-filled arguements over to the sink now, jack...i have some pasta to drain.
he'll sue you. that song and dance routine was in a musical that should have been public domain by now if Congress were competent at making copyright last a 'limited amount of time'
that's funny...i thought you were doing a study on the methodology of trolls and flamebait, though i suppose you have your studies covered on that without any volunteers at all!
Gnucash has been around for a bit longer than that...I used it on RH 7.x for a year before 8 even came out...then I switched to Gentoo anyway, but still...
So, maybe the UK could restrict access to just professional lobbyists, it works very well in the US.
Works well for who? I don't see how it helps the average joe citizen who wants to get his point across unless he donates money somewhere. Corporations have tons of cash to throw at it. So if Jimmy Lobbyist has more access than Joe Sixpack, thats a problem. repetition and filtering be damned. It is the duty of a representative democracy to represent those they are representative of, and if they aren't willing to take into account every email and letter and fax and phone call they get in their decisions, then it's a stone's throw away from not having elections at all, especially when you consider that when voting the only two candidates who generally have a chance is a lesser of two evils situation.
"on the things that all slashdotters love: 'the Total Information Awareness project, online activism, file sharing, and the prospect of a digital counterculture.'"
a slashback with only one article attatched to it. how novel.
Slashdot Mirror
no, your logic is incorrect on that. if i am sending out packets on a modem that cause me to send information via the satellite to myself, that is abuse of their satellite, and is comandeering it, which is wrong. IF (note, that is an IF) someone with legitimate access to request information from that satellite chooses to download something and i pick it up and also save it without requesting the packets myself, there is nothing wrong with that since they are broadcasting it over a wide area and indeed on my reciever. You cannot win this arguement, diablo. The subject is too abstract to allow normal property laws to apply.
it's not a matter of strict law...it a matter of de facto law. If the person is not coming to get it, there is no risk in taking what has been abandoned. If I know that Golfer X is not coming to get his mishit ball, there is no reason I should not take it. same goes for signals sent one way onto my land.
no it isn't. the difference between a beacon type transmission for the cell phone to find the tower and a blanket satellite transimission is that i can use the beacon to find the tower all i want without being a subscriber. These serve telephone numbers, which are a limited resource, and are two-way one-on-one devices. Digital television transmissions are not a limited resource, and are broadcast in a manner that they can be equally utilized by anyone who recieves them with the proper equipment without harming anybody else. I know you are going to try to say it hurts the service, which is not necessarily true. if the service is not available in the area, for example, but they still paint your land with their signal, obviously they lose nothing from you using that one way signal.
two problems with that:
1) yes, that is my model of property rights.
2) it relies on people not being assholes about limited resources. Very much like communism, it looks great on paper but lousy in reality, and therefore would require some sort of laws in regard to it.
3) satellite transmissions are not a limited resource. DirecTV would lose nothing save for a subscription i would not have bought anyway should I choose to utilize it.
So to sum it up, limited resources, particularly those of a natural persuasion, do need some sort of rules governing their diversion or dispensation. Signals are a human construct which are presently being exploited under law with no real benefit of prohibiting their use by the citizenry without paying said corporation, especially in areas where the service is not sold.
no, in one of my other posts i made a statement that this they are intentionally painting the whole land with, without one specific target. If a cell phone happens to have to beam something through my land to get to a tower, it is different simply because it is specifically sent to one target (despite it being sent to a radial area, the objective of this connection is one tower rather than many who subscribe). Cell phones, like email, are a targeted transmission which are intended for a single recipient. it is the difference between broadcasting constantly and sending a single transmission for a rather limited amount of time.
so to put this in analogous terms, i would allow someone to cut across the lawn of my corner lot, but i wouldn't allow them to pitch their tent there and only do anything for me if i paid them to.
It is indeed unauthorized. I did not authorize it. And i am an idiotic bastard for not caring whether a service I do not care about exists? I do not like TV, and I do not feel that their service benefits society. I do not expect them to run satellites to transmit content at all. They do that of their own volition. If they are going to use it to shower signals upon my land, I will do with that signal what I will. Flaming me will get you nowhere, and does not change my opinion that there is little true value in their service that cannot be gotten by free means otherwise.
I also noticed that you didn't really read that post. because my remarks about being sent to a specific person covers cell phones as well. And re: the wallet, it is not my responsibility to return the wallet if you left it there, though because I am a nice person I would likely check it for ID so i could contact the owner. If you leave something purposely on my lawn without my knowing whose it is or why it is there, it is not instantly my duty to do as you wish me to. I could pick it up and chuck it in a trash can without even opening it if i cared to, and that would not be stealing. It would be your loss due to your own gross negligence of your property, for which I would not be liable.
Once again, I must post another rebuttal to your retarded impression of property law. You behave as if it is the right of the companies to control what I do with what flies through my property. I disagree, and consider any unauthorized material on my land, be it physical or frequency-based, to be fair game for my use. So unless they care to encrypt it a little better, I'll use it if I care to. NOTE: i do not watch TV or care whether DirecTV stands or falls. OK, I lied. I would prefer they fall, simply because they are on the intellectual property side of the arguement.
as well as people like you giving humans a bad name. Your rolling over like a two dollar whore at the idea that a company should be able to run information through my house without allowing me to make use of it without paying me for it is absurd. Grow a spine.
no, i am quite afraid your analogy is flawed on a fundamental level. If you drop your wallet on my lawn, and I take it, then it is only stealing if you do not come back looking for it and I fail to give it to you. If your dog shits on my lawn, and I use that shit to fertilize my garden, is that stealing? to fix your analogy, DirecTV has a dog that shits on everyone's lawn, and then asks people to subscribe to their shit, but does not let everyone do so regardless of their lawn shitting. If a dog shits on my lawn, i will do as I see fit with that fecal matter. If you broadcast over a wide area, don't get upset when someone picks up that signal. If your encryption doesn't keep them out, get better encryption if thats what concerns you. Just because you encrypt something you broadcast (as opposed to a focused transmission like email), it doesnt make it your God-given right to let only those you want to read it to read it.
It's good to know the US Government is catching up technologically with the Germans...again...
you imply that this patent will exist. It will only exist in a corrupt system, and survive in the same.
oh yeah...shit.
Last time I checked, that was taxation without representation, which is unconstitutional. I am not represented by any state outside Texas. If a company in Texas wants to tax my online order, fine. But there is no justification constitutionally for me to pay a California sales tax for example.
well, the US constitution has a clause that prevents taxation without representation...last time I checked I am not represented in the state of California, or the state of Colorado, or the state of Delaware, for example.
now i'm going to have to go back to being pissed that I had to do this, right when i got used to having it there and was fine with it now that i was safe.
not all applets support it yet, but everybody loves transparency.
Yeah...especially Nvidia, ATI, and everyone else in the graphics card biz.
*pulls rip cord on his ancient Trident card to get it going again*
We always operate on the fact that everybody needs to know that there's a 55 mph speed limit. That's called a standard.
Last time I checked, the 55 MPH speed limit was acknowledged to be a bad idea and repealed, and if not, then Texas sure doesn't seem to care...
and if that's standardization then I have the ass of a boar. Yet again, last time I checked, the vast majority of cars in the United States are capable of driving both above and below 55 MPH, and do not actually require roads to operate (though it is recommended)
And to further debunk the arguement, the 55 MPH was not a 'standard' in that it was a 'regulation', and that anybody could break it without risk of more than a traffic ticket, there were no technological barriers. Then there's always the fact that a state could legally have a higher speed limit in those days, they simply wouldn't get federal transit maintenance money if they didn't.
Please move your hole-filled arguements over to the sink now, jack...i have some pasta to drain.
he'll sue you. that song and dance routine was in a musical that should have been public domain by now if Congress were competent at making copyright last a 'limited amount of time'
that's funny...i thought you were doing a study on the methodology of trolls and flamebait, though i suppose you have your studies covered on that without any volunteers at all!
cheers, mate
Gnucash has been around for a bit longer than that...I used it on RH 7.x for a year before 8 even came out...then I switched to Gentoo anyway, but still...
An "Outlook/Exchange killer".
Such programs usually prefer to be called "worms"
So, maybe the UK could restrict access to just professional lobbyists, it works very well in the US.
Works well for who? I don't see how it helps the average joe citizen who wants to get his point across unless he donates money somewhere. Corporations have tons of cash to throw at it. So if Jimmy Lobbyist has more access than Joe Sixpack, thats a problem. repetition and filtering be damned. It is the duty of a representative democracy to represent those they are representative of, and if they aren't willing to take into account every email and letter and fax and phone call they get in their decisions, then it's a stone's throw away from not having elections at all, especially when you consider that when voting the only two candidates who generally have a chance is a lesser of two evils situation.
"on the things that all slashdotters love: 'the Total Information Awareness project, online activism, file sharing, and the prospect of a digital counterculture.'"
a slashback with only one article attatched to it. how novel.
I guess that's for consistency...windows leaves all kinds of shit all over your system, so why not your house as well?
God forbid ISPs actually have to secure their servers, and require that users not cause them to become insecure...how barbaric