As long as it's limited to actual driving and not "sitting at a red light while texting" which I'm afraid would get caught up in this.
It would work like drunk driving -- you'd get busted for calling someone on the phone while sitting in your non-running car in your own driveway, on the theory that you were in control of the vehicle.
We really need to make sure people understand that ALL wealth comes from government. Government makes sure your employees are educated instead of brain-dead religious morons, that roads/trains/airports exist to deliver your products to customers, that the banks holding your money don't have disappearing bank accounts, and on and on.
Proof that it is not better: Many people have died who have nothing to do with the conflict. This continues to happen. Ethically speaking, this is worse. Ergo, it is not better. It may have a different balance of rights and wrongs. But it has wrongs that would not exist the other way, so it is not better.
Your last statement is a non sequitur, so your proof is invalid.
Perhaps 560 as suggested in the article, and 561 for censorship implemented by the final server (e.g. a server in the US forbidden to deliver certain content to Iranian IPs)
560 Censorship
The server, while acting as a gateway or proxy, received a request it is not legally permitted to gateway or proxy.
561 Censorship
The server received a request it is not legally permitted to fulfill.
Actually, that was pretty much OBL's exact rationale - supporting oppressive regimes in Saudi Arabia and Israel, not a 'knee-jerk leftist response'.
Yeah, poor and oppressed Osama bin Laden. Give me a break.
Apparently you don't bother to read why folks actually hate you, but rather use it to tilt at windmills and attack strawmen.
I might also consider that 1) People who hate me might LIE about why they hate me. 2) Even if I know why those people hate me, they might be unjustified in their hate; the actions of mine that aroused their ire might have been justified.
"They" is the wrong word to use here. "They" would not gloat, for example. Terrorists would gloat. Citizens would be happy, except in those cases (crushingly brutal regimes a la Syria, corrupt politicians a la Egypt) where they were not.
Terrorists would gloat. Citizens would see the terrorists as stronger and more effective as a result. More citizens would then join them.
Either way, it is provably wrong to think that the solution of going in and reducing people to wet chunks is a better one than standing back and acting in more difficult, less dramatic ways.
Because drones don't take any risk with themselves - no human pilot - but take BIG risks with the lives of people on the ground - collateral damage is very common in drone strikes - they are widely seen as a "Coward's Way of Fighting" in the countries in which they are used (Afghanistan, Pakistan et cetera). This in turn helps various "undesirable" organizations to recruit many new people, to fight the "Western Cowards killing our Countrymen with Aerial Toys". ----------> In short, drone strikes make the local population hate you, and help the enemy recruit new ground troops. That simply isn't a great formula to bet on over the long run...
So they'd be happy if we went in with human-piloted planes and killed enemies that way? No, of course not. They'd hate it just as much, and when they managed to shoot down such a plane they'd parade the pilot or his mutilated body around in anti-American rallies.
Maybe they'd be happy if we sent in special operations forces to do the work on the ground? Nope, that pisses them off too, witness the killing of Osama bin Laden.
Then maybe they'd be happy if we just left them, and all our enemies that they're harboring, alone? Nope, that would show weakness, they'd gloat about their untouchability on Al Jazeera, and they'd step up their attacks.
Fact is, they're not going to be happy no matter what we do.
Good points. A fundamental question after 9/11 was "Why do they hate us?" The knee jerk response was "They hate us because we are free and wealthy and they hate freedom and wealth". But a truer answer is more likely "They hate us because we fund their oppressors and so have contributed to their relative unfreedom and poverty".
No, that's not a truer answer; that's just a knee-jerk leftist response instead of a knee-jerk jingoist response. Doesn't make much sense, since the only freedom they're interested in is the freedom to oppress others.
Thus we have ironies like people creating nuclear missiles to fight over oil fields
Nobody has created a nuclear missile to fight over oil fields. Nukes in the US were created first to fight against Nazi Germany (too late), then Imperial Japan, then as a deterrent against Soviet Russia, and later China as well. Nobody, not even North Korea's Kim, wants to get into a nuclear war where someone else can nuke back.
Legitimacy allows a person to live one's life transparently... without any necessity whatsoever to keep something secret because it might be perceived as as wrong by society.
Downloading television shows isn't perceived as wrong by most of society; it's illegitimate in that it's illegal, not societally unacceptable. The things you have to conceal and the things which are illegal aren't the same, though there is a lot of overlap between them.
I do not advocate that people should not be entitled to privacy, only that people who are acting responsibly do not do things, even in private, that if something should happen that it ever did become public, they would not be prepared to be held accountable for.
That's too bad, because such a principle is at odds with reality. There's always been things which are "don't ask, don't tell", things which many people do but would subject them to shunning or punishment (by others who do the same or similar things) if they were to be made public. Hypocrisy isn't limited to individual actions. I don't like it much myself, but to fail to recognize it is folly.
However, downloading TV shows isn't in that category. It's malum prohibitum -- something which does not violate societal standards, but is merely against the law.
I simply put it forward that for programs on network TV, the illegitimate avenue for acquiring content does not hold any *significant* advantages over a completely legal one, unless one has a personal agenda that is specifically geared against patronizing the companies that broadcast such content.
Apparently it does, since ordinary people (not just media-company hating geeks) do use The Pirate Bay and other illegitimate avenues for acquiring content on network TV. If there weren't any significant advantages to doing so, they wouldn't do it.
Some of the excuses you'll find in this list may look familiar.
To claim someone is using an excuse to justify unethical action, you must first establish that the action is unethical. Personally, I don't let either the legislature or Jack Marshall determine what I think is and isn't unethical.
By the way, if I'm getting the shit kicked out of me by a cop or cops at any point in the future (I couldn't imagine why I would be, but there again I don't think King was expecting it either), please, for the love of God, put down the fucking camera and HELP ME!
Not possible. The only way I could help is if I was somehow able to kill or disable all the cops at the scene. Which is rather unlikely. And if I somehow did so, that makes me Public Enemy #1 (and you get to be #2 even if you had nothing to do with it).
They get to beat up JUDGES with impunity, and nobody on the force sees anything. Sure, you can record all this data. The ACLU will do press releases Maybe they'll even get a judgement in Federal court. Won't stop the activity, because the state courts (including the one run by the judge who got judo-chopped) believe in the infallibility of cops.
If you have to ask that question, when legitimate means do exist, then it's clear that you already have a personal agenda that is biased against corporations and media companies for whatever reason.
Not corporations in general. Media companies? Sure.
I asked why *normal* people would bother pirating something from network TV when legitimate means exist. If legitimacy doesn't matter to you, that's your own problem. If you can't see why it might matter to other people, that's also your own problem.
What makes you think "normal" people care about legitimacy (again, aside from fear of getting caught) either? There are any number of ways a BitTorrent copy is better than the various legitimate players (and lack of ads is only one of them -- better resolution, no stuttering, better full screen playing)... even non-geeks appreciate the difference.
My point is that other means probably exist for being able to watch network tv programs that don't involve necessarily sitting in front of the TV while it's on, or even necessarily having a television, and that those means are not particularly inconvenient. More importantly, they are legitimate.
Why does legitimacy matter, given that the definition of "legitimate" is set by utter scumbags? Aside from fear of getting caught, that is. I have a DVR with basic cable). If it misses a show for any reason (whether it be my error, a power outage, local pre-emption, or the cable being out, why shouldn't I just go to BitTorrent?
"Just invented"? It's older than file permissions, it's older than locked doors. Any physical object has built-in limited access that is different from digital works.
The Chinese are not violating THAT sort of access. You can't enter their copy and be in Hallstatt.
Copying and access are closely related in the physical world, but in this case we're talking about access. Some things become more valuable as access to them is increasingly restricted, and access to a specific location is one of them.
The copy is not in the same specific location; it's in China.
Also, if I was the NZ government, I would be asking FedEx some pretty hard questions. Like: "Considering that you helped a foreign power conspire to break NZ law, why should we allow you to continue to work in our country?"
How would FedEx know? You may as well blame Level 3 for illegal export of bits.
First, eliminate any advantages H-1Bs have over US workers. The most important thing to do is to make the visa stick to the employee, not the company. If the employee changes jobs, the visa (and any green card paperwork) moves with him, no restarting anything. If the employee is laid off or fired, he gets to stay if he finds another eligible job within X months. It's often claimed that employers prefer H-1B workers because they're essentially indentured; if they quit for another job, they risk losing the visa and have to re-start any green card paperwork.
Second -- and this one is much harder -- make sure these so-called skilled professionals are skilled. Too often a company will engage a whole bunch of cheap and unskilled H-1Bs from a body shop specializing in the practice, rather than hiring or contracting for a smaller number of much more expensive actual skilled people. There are a lot of skilled H-1Bs, but there's an order of magnitude more phonies.
Obsession with "the NSA" aside, if a US law enforcement entity with a warrant makes a request to a US corporation, that US corporation complies. Because we're, you know, actually a nation of laws.
If a US agency (law enforcement or no) with no warrant makes a request to a US corporation, that US corporation (e.g. AT&T) complies. Because if that corporation (e.g. Qwest) resists, their principals end up on the wrong end of an investigation of the sort Cardinal Richelieu made famous ("If you give me six lines..."). Because we're not actually a nation of laws.
This is valuable, because access limitation is inherent. Moreso, if you're talking about access to a resource that is special because it's hundreds of years old, and it's not quite like any other resource.
It's not that China is encroaching on peoples "intellectual property" that's pissing people off, ultimately; it's that they're making an end-run around the access restriction that makes Halstatt valuable. It makes the original city less valuable just by existing.
What is "access" but some form of intellectual property you've just invented? In any case, I'm not sure how you can distinguish it from copyright. If access to the resource is special because it's "hundreds of years old", the new copy is irrelevant; as a copy, it lacks the special quality which makes the original valuable. Just as a modern painter making a very good copy of an old master's painting does not reduce the value of the original or of access to it. If going to the copy is just the same as going to the original (and the actual age doesn't enter into it), then the issue isn't access, it's copying.
The solution is not to come up with ways to stop the students from cheating, the solution is to come up with ways to make education interactive and enjoyable therefore minimizing the desire to cheat on a test (test in themselves is a band-aid solution to this very problem)
As long as there are real consequences for grades, it's important to stop students from cheating. Doing otherwise is not fair to the students who do not cheat, and at worst makes you a sucker if you don't cheat.
I grew up believing in the US as a beacon for freedom and fairness. Okay, so it was the 60's and 70's and given what was going down in South America it was probably all a lie then.
Freedom? Once upon a time, to some degree; it helped to have the likes of Stalin and Khruschev as comparison. Fairness to other countries? Pretty much never.
How would you US citizens feel if you were on the receiving end of Predator drones, cyber attacks and Shock and Awe?
Cyber attacks we get; the well-publicized Aurora attack was almost certainly not the only one. Obviously, we don't like it... but do you really think that if the US government were to foreswear cyber-attacks and mean it, that any other organization interested in attacking that way would refrain from doing so as a result?
I set my phone up to broadcast "IRSAuditor28401938" and took a stroll around the wealthy area of town. Almost as fun as yelling "migras!" at a construction site.
Slashdot Mirror
It would work like drunk driving -- you'd get busted for calling someone on the phone while sitting in your non-running car in your own driveway, on the theory that you were in control of the vehicle.
Thank you, Thomas Hobbes.
Your last statement is a non sequitur, so your proof is invalid.
Perhaps 560 as suggested in the article, and 561 for censorship implemented by the final server (e.g. a server in the US forbidden to deliver certain content to Iranian IPs)
560 Censorship
The server, while acting as a gateway or proxy, received a request it is not legally permitted to gateway or proxy.
561 Censorship
The server received a request it is not legally permitted to fulfill.
Yeah, poor and oppressed Osama bin Laden. Give me a break.
I might also consider that
1) People who hate me might LIE about why they hate me.
2) Even if I know why those people hate me, they might be unjustified in their hate; the actions of mine that aroused their ire might have been justified.
Terrorists would gloat. Citizens would see the terrorists as stronger and more effective as a result. More citizens would then join them.
No, it is certainly not provably wrong.
So they'd be happy if we went in with human-piloted planes and killed enemies that way? No, of course not. They'd hate it just as much, and when they managed to shoot down such a plane they'd parade the pilot or his mutilated body around in anti-American rallies.
Maybe they'd be happy if we sent in special operations forces to do the work on the ground? Nope, that pisses them off too, witness the killing of Osama bin Laden.
Then maybe they'd be happy if we just left them, and all our enemies that they're harboring, alone? Nope, that would show weakness, they'd gloat about their untouchability on Al Jazeera, and they'd step up their attacks.
Fact is, they're not going to be happy no matter what we do.
No, that's not a truer answer; that's just a knee-jerk leftist response instead of a knee-jerk jingoist response. Doesn't make much sense, since the only freedom they're interested in is the freedom to oppress others.
Nobody has created a nuclear missile to fight over oil fields. Nukes in the US were created first to fight against Nazi Germany (too late), then Imperial Japan, then as a deterrent against Soviet Russia, and later China as well. Nobody, not even North Korea's Kim, wants to get into a nuclear war where someone else can nuke back.
Downloading television shows isn't perceived as wrong by most of society; it's illegitimate in that it's illegal, not societally unacceptable. The things you have to conceal and the things which are illegal aren't the same, though there is a lot of overlap between them.
That's too bad, because such a principle is at odds with reality. There's always been things which are "don't ask, don't tell", things which many people do but would subject them to shunning or punishment (by others who do the same or similar things) if they were to be made public. Hypocrisy isn't limited to individual actions. I don't like it much myself, but to fail to recognize it is folly.
However, downloading TV shows isn't in that category. It's malum prohibitum -- something which does not violate societal standards, but is merely against the law.
Apparently it does, since ordinary people (not just media-company hating geeks) do use The Pirate Bay and other illegitimate avenues for acquiring content on network TV. If there weren't any significant advantages to doing so, they wouldn't do it.
To claim someone is using an excuse to justify unethical action, you must first establish that the action is unethical. Personally, I don't let either the legislature or Jack Marshall determine what I think is and isn't unethical.
Not possible. The only way I could help is if I was somehow able to kill or disable all the cops at the scene. Which is rather unlikely. And if I somehow did so, that makes me Public Enemy #1 (and you get to be #2 even if you had nothing to do with it).
They get to beat up JUDGES with impunity, and nobody on the force sees anything. Sure, you can record all this data. The ACLU will do press releases Maybe they'll even get a judgement in Federal court. Won't stop the activity, because the state courts (including the one run by the judge who got judo-chopped) believe in the infallibility of cops.
Not corporations in general. Media companies? Sure.
What makes you think "normal" people care about legitimacy (again, aside from fear of getting caught) either? There are any number of ways a BitTorrent copy is better than the various legitimate players (and lack of ads is only one of them -- better resolution, no stuttering, better full screen playing)... even non-geeks appreciate the difference.
Why does legitimacy matter, given that the definition of "legitimate" is set by utter scumbags? Aside from fear of getting caught, that is. I have a DVR with basic cable). If it misses a show for any reason (whether it be my error, a power outage, local pre-emption, or the cable being out, why shouldn't I just go to BitTorrent?
The Chinese are not violating THAT sort of access. You can't enter their copy and be in Hallstatt.
The copy is not in the same specific location; it's in China.
How would FedEx know? You may as well blame Level 3 for illegal export of bits.
First, eliminate any advantages H-1Bs have over US workers. The most important thing to do is to make the visa stick to the employee, not the company. If the employee changes jobs, the visa (and any green card paperwork) moves with him, no restarting anything. If the employee is laid off or fired, he gets to stay if he finds another eligible job within X months. It's often claimed that employers prefer H-1B workers because they're essentially indentured; if they quit for another job, they risk losing the visa and have to re-start any green card paperwork.
Second -- and this one is much harder -- make sure these so-called skilled professionals are skilled. Too often a company will engage a whole bunch of cheap and unskilled H-1Bs from a body shop specializing in the practice, rather than hiring or contracting for a smaller number of much more expensive actual skilled people. There are a lot of skilled H-1Bs, but there's an order of magnitude more phonies.
If a US agency (law enforcement or no) with no warrant makes a request to a US corporation, that US corporation (e.g. AT&T) complies. Because if that corporation (e.g. Qwest) resists, their principals end up on the wrong end of an investigation of the sort Cardinal Richelieu made famous ("If you give me six lines..."). Because we're not actually a nation of laws.
What is "access" but some form of intellectual property you've just invented? In any case, I'm not sure how you can distinguish it from copyright. If access to the resource is special because it's "hundreds of years old", the new copy is irrelevant; as a copy, it lacks the special quality which makes the original valuable. Just as a modern painter making a very good copy of an old master's painting does not reduce the value of the original or of access to it. If going to the copy is just the same as going to the original (and the actual age doesn't enter into it), then the issue isn't access, it's copying.
They already copied New Jersey, I wouldn't be surprised if they also copied Detroit.
Yes, well, that's the point of a degree. Not just education but showing the world you are educated.
As long as there are real consequences for grades, it's important to stop students from cheating. Doing otherwise is not fair to the students who do not cheat, and at worst makes you a sucker if you don't cheat.
Freedom? Once upon a time, to some degree; it helped to have the likes of Stalin and Khruschev as comparison. Fairness to other countries? Pretty much never.
Cyber attacks we get; the well-publicized Aurora attack was almost certainly not the only one. Obviously, we don't like it... but do you really think that if the US government were to foreswear cyber-attacks and mean it, that any other organization interested in attacking that way would refrain from doing so as a result?
I set my phone up to broadcast "IRSAuditor28401938" and took a stroll around the wealthy area of town. Almost as fun as yelling "migras!" at a construction site.
Actually, that's a bit mangled. What was actually popular was "A kill switch for the industry."
RFC5322 already includes Message-Id:, In-Reply-To: and References: