On a more serious note, how can meta-mod work on a comment that hasn't been moderated? I thought the purpose of meta-mod was to moderate the moderators, not get free mod points.
"What if the RIAA anonymously pays consultants? There are plenty of people out there writing exploits who would love a regular paycheck, especially a fat one."
"What if whoever the RIAA hires fakes their source IP?"
I doubt the RIAA could manage to find anyone intelligent enough to forge ip headers. If they did, I'd imagine it wouldn't be too terribly difficult for ISP's to work together and backtrack the actual packets flowing through the routers.
"Unfortunately, the loophole is that the RIAA can keep generating IP's out the wazoo, creating a whack-a-mole [tuxedo.org] type of situation."
Not quite. In this situation, the whack-a-mole game has been modified so that steel plates are welded over holes where the mole has previously appeared. Judging by IPv4's limited IP space, and our reckless usage of said limited space, I'd say it's simply a matter of time before the RIAA is SOL. Start by blocking their netblock; that should keep them scratching their heads for a few months.
"So..restricting Internet use is OK if you're restricting people you don't like?"
Hello, this is your ISP.
We have reviewed your previous post to "slashdot.org" and have determined that you are unhappy with any restriction of internet use. We apologize for our mis-understanding of your needs and have currently removed all restrictions for your account. Please note, that your email account now has 12,392 mail messages on our mail server. 12,385 of them appear to be spam or "mass-mailer" viruses, however we have not blocked them as per your request. Thank you, valued customer.
Oh, I forgot - liberal you say? Well, the American Conservative Union (the same people who fought to have Ashcroft appointed to AG) are now sorry they ever supported him. So feel free to call them a bunch of stupid liberals as well. Thanks, and you have a nice day:)
An anonymous reader writes "AMD is expected to announce a new chip to compete with arch-rival Intel. An overview of the new CPU can be seen here, and some more information is available on Anandtech. Go AMD!" I just can't wait to see the prices on them! UPDATE: 08/11 17:00 GMT by T: This might be a re-post, as we have word that AMD working on a K8 processor, which will run at around 2 - 3GHZ.
Worked up over this issue? No, I'm worked up over all of it; the "Patriot Act", the surveillance, the virtual strip searches at the airports, the violations of almost every amendment in the Bill of Rights (except for the second, they seem to really want us to all have guns). Reno's failure in Waco was no moreso than the FBI's and ATF's failure. Kidnapping the cuban children? First of all, I only remember hearing about 1. Secondly, she was working according to law. It's not her job to decide which laws are ok to enforce and which ones aren't. Ashcroft seems to think it's his job to decide which parts of the Constitution make his job too difficult, and should therefore be ignored.
"What does Bush have to personally do with the closing of the Statue of Liberty? Sounds like something to take up with the National Park Service if you ask me."
Funny you should say that, because I said the same thing. I talked to the folks at the information kiosk and they said that Bush ordered a bunch of momuments closed off, and the Statue of Liberty is the only one he has yet to order re-opened. Don't ask me why, but according to them, he's the only one who can make the decision to re-open it.
If this turns out half as bad as it looks, I'm all for a new American Revolution. Worked in 1776, I think it'd work now if we actually educated the public about this bullshit.
Go ahead and arrest me, Ascroft, you totalitarian son of a bitch, you'll have to do me like you did Padilla; have the military hold me in a brig without bringing charges, 'cause I a'int done a damn thing wrong. Or maybe I should just start looking around for another country. This country is great, but I'm starting to wonder whether the public at large is populated by morons or people too scared to come out of their bunkers. Freedom is something you have to want and want bad. It's incredibly delicate, and we're seeing it torn apart before our eyes. 1984? I don't think so. I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees. If America is populated by pussies, then just let me know and I'll find another place to live where they actually want their freedom. Sept 11 was an attack on our way of life. Judging by the way things have gone the last 11 months (patriot act, data mining, warrantless arrests, detention of American CITIZENS without a trial/lawyer/grand jury, etc) I'd say they kicked our asses. Cower in the dark if you like, but I will never call you a patriot. I was at the Statue of Liberty today, and it was still closed; you can't go inside. Why? The people of America are too scared to tell Bush to re-open it. What does it say when the people of this country are barred from entering our greatest symbol of freedom? What the hell does that say?
I'd hate to see all the entertainment industry waste all that money on bribing so many of our nation's lawmakers without anything to show for it.
Seriously folks, when are we as a nation going to say enough is enough with this legal corporate bribery? Can anyone please explain the practical difference between bribery and massive "donations" ? I'm reminded of a remark made by George Carlin, who said "this country was bought and sold years ago". Was he right?
Another good point, and well stated. To more simply put things into perspective, Microsoft has nothing to gain and everything to lose by using the DMCA in this case. And they have nothing to lose, and a small bit to gain by publicly stating that they will in fact not use the DMCA in this case. Hey, if nothing else, it got them into a story on the front page of a website where a quarter of a million IT pro's read every day.
"it would be inappropriate to ask MIT to withhold the paper."
If they were doing the right thing, they'd simply say, "we don't feel it's appropriate" or "we do not believe we would be within our rights to.."
The language used assumes that Microsoft is the sole arbitor of what is or is not appropriate. Read between the lines; it's not supposed to jump out at you. This isn't something we usually don't see from Microsoft, in that it's subtle (unlike their new licensing).
In 800A.D., Charlemagne was crowned by the pope, which showed that the pope had the power to put Charlemagne in charge. Microsoft is simply saying, "you are able to publish this information only because we, the generous and wonderful empire of Microsoft allow it." For them to come out and openly state that they will allow it to be published serves only to make them appear ever more powerful to the general public, in that they make the subtle claim of having power over free speech.
Perhaps they would have won in court and silenced this person, but the flaws he speaks of would have still made it to the net pretty quickly. If they had lost the court battle, the flaws would have been released to the public in about the same amount of time. Either way, Microsoft comes off looking like free speech-killers (Read, bad PR) and the flaws are published. By not challenging release of the information, (and doing so about as publicly as possible), they appear powerful, yet merciful. (Read, good PR).
Unless I'm mistaken, Microsoft did something right here; at least something that's right for them - doesn't make a difference for us.
Speed of light... decreasing... E=mc^2.... E... decreasing.... m... another form of E... m... decreasing... cosmological constant.. not constant; decreasing... less matter, less energy... Both Big Bang theory versions incorrect, the universe is neither expanding infinitely, nor is it periodically collapsing and expanding.... One Big Bang, matter/energy dissipates.. Conservation laws gone... Universe... will soon be gone...
"While civil disobediance has it's place, it's not as a cover to simply break any law with which you disagree."
Anyone trying to use it as a "cover" doesn't understand what civil disobediance is. The entire idea is to be arrested publicly and to have a public trial in which you can state your firmly held beliefs against a certain law or practice. Anyone who says they're practicing civil disobediance while trying not to get arrested has no concept of the term. The civil rights groups of the 50's and 60's who practiced civil disobediance were often arrested (amoung other things) or otherwise detained; and they continued doing what needed to be done despite this fact. Must you exhaust all legal remedies before civil disobediance becomes justifiable? Not if you expect things to be resolved in your lifetime. Court battles, appeals, appeals (did I mention appeals? Hello M$) etc can drag on for upwards of 20 years or more. An aggregious offense should be outright fought with any and all non-violent means available. A massive protest or display of disobediance may sometimes speed up the legal remedy when they're used in conjunction with one another.
Personally, I find what has happened between Hollywood and Congress in the past 5 years to be absolutely intolerable, and I fully support any non-violent measure to fight back. Fight back in court; fight back with your votes; fight back with your abilities on a computer; fight back with whatever voice you have. A quarter of a million people read this site alone daily, and probably the vast majority agree that the DMCA, the entertainment industry, and Congressmen whose pockets are lined with DisneyDollars have gone way too far. If each one of use made ourselves heard in every way available to us (such as those listed above), imagine what change we could command. I'm not talking about some silly hacker army bringing the internet to a crawl, I'm talking about 250,000 human being making their voices heard online AND offline. I'd like to say let's unite behind the EFF, but their track record isn't so hot; although I applaud them for fighting the good fight. We're getting close to crunch time here, where it's decided one way or another what kind of country our kids are going to live in - 'cause it isn't looking like it's going to be the same one in which I was born. And I'm not just talking about the copyright laws; I'm referring to all of it - including the copyright laws.
Assuming I hold a single copyright then, and assuming a massive P2P network (the internet) is being used to distribute my content, can I therefore engage in widespread DDoS attacks against major internet sites? Better yet, assuming I see a copy of my copyrighted work on a.gov or.mil site; I can DDoS the hell out of the legally, right?
Those in power really ought to think (or have someone think for them) before they open that wide contraption from which so much foolishness and BS spews.
But we, the tech savvy as you call us, are not sheep to be herded into a music story to pay the insanely high markup your distributor chooses to hit us with. Give me the opportunity to download your music from the web without burning restrictions and at a reasonable price and you'll see piracy and other copying drop like a stone. It's not that we're suddenly demanding more, it's just that we can only now demand a product worth buying. 20 years ago, purchasing the music or listening on the radio were your only options. If the major lables wanted to 'bend their customers over the counter' so to speak, (and they most certainly wanted to) then they would. They chose to do that. They continue trying to do that. The only difference is that we now have other options on the table. So I say to you, either continue herding those sheep you can find into the store to buy the outragously-priced CD's, or try selling everyone a product worth buying. Quality music for a reasonable price will sell like you can't believe. I haven't bought a CD in years, but I'd most certainly choose to pay for a quality, legal music service. Offer me the product and I'll buy it. Continue trying to bend me over the counter, and you won't get a dime from me.
There is almost no other purpose for government. Government is meant to protect you from all dangers, both foreign to your land and domestic. A government is supposed to protect its people from any and all dangers, including but not limited to: invasion by a foreign force, destruction at the hands of a foreign force, natural desasters (by predicting as best as possible, and more importantly, responding with proper manpower and tools to ensure casualties remain as low as possible), from crime (with police forces), and many other things of this nature. Aside from that, the implementation of public policy covers just about every other job of the government. This is commonly called the "will of the people."
"There have been supreme court decisions that say the police are not required to PROTECT ANYONE"
List them. The very idea the police are not required to protect people is absolutely absurd. This is the very reason police forces exist in a society; to ensure the law is not broken, and to investigate when it is broken with the hope of bringing offenders to justice. Look on just about any police car, you will see the phrase "to protect and serve." In any event, list these supposed 'cases', as I cannot possibly see where they would exist. Personally, I look at Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and Dickerson v. United States which both show police requirements to protect rights of citizens. I'm sure there are many other cases to illustrate my point, but these were the two that came to mind.
"They say you're supposed to let the Police/Gov't protect you and that there's no reason to own a gun, yet the police have no obligation to protect you! They're there to solve crimes after the fact, as in AFTER YOU'RE DEAD."
I never said this, in fact I said the opposite. Here, let me quote myself: "That being said, I'd fully support her right to keep a handgun with her, consealed or otherwise, as I believe it's her Constitutional right. (Assuming she's in the USA)." If it's the job of the police only to solve crimes that have already been commited, then why do we have vice squad, sting opperations, undercover officers, etc? If it's only the job of the police to solve crimes, why do cops stop to help people change tires, or call for help if they're having mechanical problems? If their only job is to solve crimes that have already been commited, then why to we have police patrols? If your only job is to solve crimes that have already happened, then all you need to do is sit in the office and wait for the crime reports to come in. But if your job is to stop crimes in progress then you need patrols on the streets so they're close by when someone's in trouble. And here's another one for you, why aren't they called the SBI (state), or the CBI (county) as that would fit more with the FBI. If they're just for investigation, why aren't they called investigators? Here's how Merriam-Webster defines the word "police": supervise the operation, execution, or administration of to prevent or detect and prosecute violations of rules and regulations. To prevent or detect; gee, sounds like sopping crimes in progress to me.
"i>If it weren't for the gun controllers and their ilk, the said above mentioned woman would be able to take her safety into her own hands by carrying a gun she spent the time receiving training to wield properly."
She can buy a gun (after a 5 day waiting period while a background check is done on her, and she can get all the training she wants. Who's stopping her? There's no law that says she cannot be trained to use a firearm. Secondly, assuming she keeps the gun in her purse, what happens if her attacker surprises her and grabs her purse away from her? Certainly the same can be said about a cell phone, but if the attacker gets her cell phone, he can't use it to shoot her.
"So yes it's annoying that cell frequencies will be jammed, but the responsibility to protect a person lies solely on themselves."
I'd love to see what you'd do if a large group of kids with knives and guns were walking steadily towards you and you had no way to get away. I should think you'd be calling for help as you ran away as well, unless, of course, you think you can kill say 20 people before they kill you. Better yet, imagine 20 cops are standing off to the side watching the whole thing. Would you call to them for help? Imagine them getting back in their cars and answering your cries for help with, "not my job, pal, I just investigate crimes. Call me when you're dead." If this is the society you like, then you need to try another country. What you describe is known as 'anarchy'.
"Great social ideas like "it takes a village to raise a child" (bullshit, it takes loving parents) are the product of our increasingly socialist society."
The idea that it takes a village to raise a child was first conceived in central and southern Africa. I doubt you've checked, but there's no socialism in those areas. There is, however, alot of anarchy and military dictatorships; two things that seem to be appealing to you. Or perhaps you simply fancy yourself a 'cowboy', and long for the period of time shortly after the civil war, mid-west America - often called the 'wild west'. I'm sorry to have to inform you that such a place didn't really exist, and the fantastic stories of the time are no more commonplace than the stories we hear in our modern times. I imagine that in 100 years or so, many people will look back on this time and see things like the LA riots, Sept 11, and other incredible events, and think that's how we actually lived our day-to-day lives. There was never a time where the world was a big 'OK Corale', so there's no need to long for that time's return. I happen to think that our founding fathers would be quite pleased with where we are right now, and I only hope that we, as a society, can come to realize the fact that our freedom is our greatest asset in the war on terrorism, and that it's also the most delicate aspect of our society. Preservation of our freedom is paramount to our survival as a nation.
"Noone teaches the virtue of personal responibility anymore. Why should I bother taking an interest in anyone or anything if no part of life is my responsibility?"
Well, according to you, it's no one's responsibility to look out for one another, even those who are paid to do so (police). Why should you bother? That depends on your view of this country. Those who are unhappy and sit idly by while things get worse are either too lazy to do anything about it, or have given up all hope. Those who stand up for what they believe in, those who bitch and complain constantly to all who will listen and many who won't, and those who fight at every turn to preserve that which they believe is right do so for one reason and one reasonly only - they have faith that their country still has the ability to change, and can still be everything they'd like it to be. I am one of those people. Your life is as much your responsibility as you make it. That you choose to refuse to take responsibility under the guise that society has said you need not take it is nothing more than a 'cop out'.
"Noone teaches the virtue of personal responibility anymore. "
Then be different. If you believe what you say, then you need to take it upon yourself to teach responsibility to anyone you can, especially your children. Teach them to take responsibility for themselves and their actions and you'll have done your part. In any event, if you believe that helping one another to the fullest extent possible is wrong, then you really ought to go live out in the woods. I, for one, believe that all men and women should help one another as much as they possibly can, and I think that if we made it to the point where everyone did as much as possible for each other, we'd all live much fuller, happier lives. A completely isolated person might find that he is content, but he will never find the absolute joy one finds from improving the life of another.
A gun gives those not trained to use it a false sense of security. Her best means of protecting herself would be years of self-defense classes, keeping in shape, and having a way to get assistance as quickly as possible. Barring that, a 911 cell phone call can do one hell of alot. Running around with a gun does little to help her, especially if she's surprised by her attacker. That being said, I'd fully support her right to keep a handgun with her, consealed or otherwise, as I believe it's her Constitutional right. (Assuming she's in the USA).
My comment about laws, guns, and freedom was a general comment about governments, especially post 9/11/01. Specifically, I was referring to the fact that although Israel maintains a huge military force (in terms of civilian to military ratio), and has armed soldiers patrolling all public areas, and has boarder checkpoints, curfews, etc., it still does not enjoy security. I think that's a perfect case study on what does NOT work when fighting terrorists.
(For those of you in Israel, please do not take offence to my comments, as they are in no way meant to degrade or belittle you or your struggle for security. Your government continues, even today, to try using the method which makes the most immediate sense to protect you. Unfortunately, these methods continue to fail on almost a daily basis, and I only hope that your government tries something new which does, in fact, succeed in protecting you. I can only hope and pray that other governments in the world recognize the failures of the Israeli government and learn from them, else I fear we'll all be in the same boat before long.)
What exactly can be done when the 'rules' of spying are not followed? Obviously, the game of intel/counter-intel is so secretive, that open trials for those breaking laws would be next to impossible. Military tribunals are probably unconstitutional for domestic spies. Better yet, how do you prosecute someone whose rule-breaking probably saved hundreds of lives? The overall question here is how does the intelligence community fit in with the ideals of any given country. Obviously, in the USA, this is embodied in our Constitution. So how does the intelligence community fit in with the Constitution, and how can it work effectively without crossing the line into illegal searches and other Constitutional violations?
Slashdot Mirror
Moderation Totals: Overrated=1, Total=1
Damn you RIAA! Quit modding my posts down, heh.
On a more serious note, how can meta-mod work on a comment that hasn't been moderated? I thought the purpose of meta-mod was to moderate the moderators, not get free mod points.
How do they intend to identify the specified IP ranges?"
Easy, use this.
"What if the RIAA anonymously pays consultants? There are plenty of people out there writing exploits who would love a regular paycheck, especially a fat one."
Worried about consultants? Read here.
"What if whoever the RIAA hires fakes their source IP?"
I doubt the RIAA could manage to find anyone intelligent enough to forge ip headers. If they did, I'd imagine it wouldn't be too terribly difficult for ISP's to work together and backtrack the actual packets flowing through the routers.
"Unfortunately, the loophole is that the RIAA can keep generating IP's out the wazoo, creating a whack-a-mole [tuxedo.org] type of situation."
Not quite. In this situation, the whack-a-mole game has been modified so that steel plates are welded over holes where the mole has previously appeared. Judging by IPv4's limited IP space, and our reckless usage of said limited space, I'd say it's simply a matter of time before the RIAA is SOL. Start by blocking their netblock; that should keep them scratching their heads for a few months.
"So..restricting Internet use is OK if you're restricting people you don't like?"
Hello, this is your ISP.
We have reviewed your previous post to "slashdot.org" and have determined that you are unhappy with any restriction of internet use. We apologize for our mis-understanding of your needs and have currently removed all restrictions for your account. Please note, that your email account now has 12,392 mail messages on our mail server. 12,385 of them appear to be spam or "mass-mailer" viruses, however we have not blocked them as per your request. Thank you, valued customer.
Oh, I forgot - liberal you say? Well, the American Conservative Union (the same people who fought to have Ashcroft appointed to AG) are now sorry they ever supported him. So feel free to call them a bunch of stupid liberals as well. Thanks, and you have a nice day :)
An anonymous reader writes "AMD is expected to announce a new chip to compete with arch-rival Intel. An overview of the new CPU can be seen here, and some more information is available on Anandtech. Go AMD!" I just can't wait to see the prices on them! UPDATE: 08/11 17:00 GMT by T: This might be a re-post, as we have word that AMD working on a K8 processor, which will run at around 2 - 3GHZ.
Worked up over this issue? No, I'm worked up over all of it; the "Patriot Act", the surveillance, the virtual strip searches at the airports, the violations of almost every amendment in the Bill of Rights (except for the second, they seem to really want us to all have guns). Reno's failure in Waco was no moreso than the FBI's and ATF's failure. Kidnapping the cuban children? First of all, I only remember hearing about 1. Secondly, she was working according to law. It's not her job to decide which laws are ok to enforce and which ones aren't. Ashcroft seems to think it's his job to decide which parts of the Constitution make his job too difficult, and should therefore be ignored.
"we could always use less undergraduate liberal-because-daddy-is-republican fuckoffs like yourself"
I was educated at the University of Maryland at College Park.
Daddy? Took off when I was about 9.
Fuck-off? Perhaps, but at least I'm passionate about my country.
"What does Bush have to personally do with the closing of the Statue of Liberty? Sounds like something to take up with the National Park Service if you ask me."
Funny you should say that, because I said the same thing. I talked to the folks at the information kiosk and they said that Bush ordered a bunch of momuments closed off, and the Statue of Liberty is the only one he has yet to order re-opened. Don't ask me why, but according to them, he's the only one who can make the decision to re-open it.
If this turns out half as bad as it looks, I'm all for a new American Revolution. Worked in 1776, I think it'd work now if we actually educated the public about this bullshit.
Go ahead and arrest me, Ascroft, you totalitarian son of a bitch, you'll have to do me like you did Padilla; have the military hold me in a brig without bringing charges, 'cause I a'int done a damn thing wrong. Or maybe I should just start looking around for another country. This country is great, but I'm starting to wonder whether the public at large is populated by morons or people too scared to come out of their bunkers. Freedom is something you have to want and want bad. It's incredibly delicate, and we're seeing it torn apart before our eyes. 1984? I don't think so. I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees. If America is populated by pussies, then just let me know and I'll find another place to live where they actually want their freedom. Sept 11 was an attack on our way of life. Judging by the way things have gone the last 11 months (patriot act, data mining, warrantless arrests, detention of American CITIZENS without a trial/lawyer/grand jury, etc) I'd say they kicked our asses. Cower in the dark if you like, but I will never call you a patriot. I was at the Statue of Liberty today, and it was still closed; you can't go inside. Why? The people of America are too scared to tell Bush to re-open it. What does it say when the people of this country are barred from entering our greatest symbol of freedom? What the hell does that say?
I'd hate to see all the entertainment industry waste all that money on bribing so many of our nation's lawmakers without anything to show for it.
Seriously folks, when are we as a nation going to say enough is enough with this legal corporate bribery? Can anyone please explain the practical difference between bribery and massive "donations" ? I'm reminded of a remark made by George Carlin, who said "this country was bought and sold years ago". Was he right?
This should be interesting to check benchmarks with. Now we'll be able to look at Itanium vs. Hammer vs. PPC-64. That might be a bit interesting..
PS. Check out my friend's band on this site. They're called Hat Trick of Misery.
Another good point, and well stated. To more simply put things into perspective, Microsoft has nothing to gain and everything to lose by using the DMCA in this case. And they have nothing to lose, and a small bit to gain by publicly stating that they will in fact not use the DMCA in this case. Hey, if nothing else, it got them into a story on the front page of a website where a quarter of a million IT pro's read every day.
You've got to be kidding...
"it would be inappropriate to ask MIT to withhold the paper."
If they were doing the right thing, they'd simply say, "we don't feel it's appropriate" or "we do not believe we would be within our rights to.."
The language used assumes that Microsoft is the sole arbitor of what is or is not appropriate. Read between the lines; it's not supposed to jump out at you. This isn't something we usually don't see from Microsoft, in that it's subtle (unlike their new licensing).
In 800A.D., Charlemagne was crowned by the pope, which showed that the pope had the power to put Charlemagne in charge. Microsoft is simply saying, "you are able to publish this information only because we, the generous and wonderful empire of Microsoft allow it." For them to come out and openly state that they will allow it to be published serves only to make them appear ever more powerful to the general public, in that they make the subtle claim of having power over free speech.
Perhaps they would have won in court and silenced this person, but the flaws he speaks of would have still made it to the net pretty quickly. If they had lost the court battle, the flaws would have been released to the public in about the same amount of time. Either way, Microsoft comes off looking like free speech-killers (Read, bad PR) and the flaws are published. By not challenging release of the information, (and doing so about as publicly as possible), they appear powerful, yet merciful. (Read, good PR).
Unless I'm mistaken, Microsoft did something right here; at least something that's right for them - doesn't make a difference for us.
Speed of light... decreasing...
E=mc^2....
E... decreasing....
m... another form of E...
m... decreasing...
cosmological constant.. not constant; decreasing...
less matter, less energy...
Both Big Bang theory versions incorrect, the universe is neither expanding infinitely, nor is it periodically collapsing and expanding....
One Big Bang, matter/energy dissipates..
Conservation laws gone...
Universe... will soon be gone...
Brain hurts now
No more thinky today
"I am begining to wonder about the RIAA business plan.
1) Bad PR
2) ???
3) Profit"
2) - lawsuits/congressional pay-offs/not paying artists.
"While civil disobediance has it's place, it's not as a cover to simply break any law with which you disagree."
Anyone trying to use it as a "cover" doesn't understand what civil disobediance is. The entire idea is to be arrested publicly and to have a public trial in which you can state your firmly held beliefs against a certain law or practice. Anyone who says they're practicing civil disobediance while trying not to get arrested has no concept of the term. The civil rights groups of the 50's and 60's who practiced civil disobediance were often arrested (amoung other things) or otherwise detained; and they continued doing what needed to be done despite this fact. Must you exhaust all legal remedies before civil disobediance becomes justifiable? Not if you expect things to be resolved in your lifetime. Court battles, appeals, appeals (did I mention appeals? Hello M$) etc can drag on for upwards of 20 years or more. An aggregious offense should be outright fought with any and all non-violent means available. A massive protest or display of disobediance may sometimes speed up the legal remedy when they're used in conjunction with one another.
Personally, I find what has happened between Hollywood and Congress in the past 5 years to be absolutely intolerable, and I fully support any non-violent measure to fight back. Fight back in court; fight back with your votes; fight back with your abilities on a computer; fight back with whatever voice you have. A quarter of a million people read this site alone daily, and probably the vast majority agree that the DMCA, the entertainment industry, and Congressmen whose pockets are lined with DisneyDollars have gone way too far. If each one of use made ourselves heard in every way available to us (such as those listed above), imagine what change we could command. I'm not talking about some silly hacker army bringing the internet to a crawl, I'm talking about 250,000 human being making their voices heard online AND offline. I'd like to say let's unite behind the EFF, but their track record isn't so hot; although I applaud them for fighting the good fight. We're getting close to crunch time here, where it's decided one way or another what kind of country our kids are going to live in - 'cause it isn't looking like it's going to be the same one in which I was born. And I'm not just talking about the copyright laws; I'm referring to all of it - including the copyright laws.
"What's step 2?"
Pray.
"Columbia University could not be reached for comment."
Ahh, so Princeton is DDOS'ing them?
They're probably just "ensuring the capacity of Columbia's server is adequate to meet tomorrow's demand."
Assuming I hold a single copyright then, and assuming a massive P2P network (the internet) is being used to distribute my content, can I therefore engage in widespread DDoS attacks against major internet sites? Better yet, assuming I see a copy of my copyrighted work on a .gov or .mil site; I can DDoS the hell out of the legally, right?
Those in power really ought to think (or have someone think for them) before they open that wide contraption from which so much foolishness and BS spews.
But we, the tech savvy as you call us, are not sheep to be herded into a music story to pay the insanely high markup your distributor chooses to hit us with. Give me the opportunity to download your music from the web without burning restrictions and at a reasonable price and you'll see piracy and other copying drop like a stone. It's not that we're suddenly demanding more, it's just that we can only now demand a product worth buying. 20 years ago, purchasing the music or listening on the radio were your only options. If the major lables wanted to 'bend their customers over the counter' so to speak, (and they most certainly wanted to) then they would. They chose to do that. They continue trying to do that. The only difference is that we now have other options on the table. So I say to you, either continue herding those sheep you can find into the store to buy the outragously-priced CD's, or try selling everyone a product worth buying. Quality music for a reasonable price will sell like you can't believe. I haven't bought a CD in years, but I'd most certainly choose to pay for a quality, legal music service. Offer me the product and I'll buy it. Continue trying to bend me over the counter, and you won't get a dime from me.
"IT IS NOT THE GOVERMENT'S JOB TO PROTECT YOU! "
There is almost no other purpose for government. Government is meant to protect you from all dangers, both foreign to your land and domestic. A government is supposed to protect its people from any and all dangers, including but not limited to: invasion by a foreign force, destruction at the hands of a foreign force, natural desasters (by predicting as best as possible, and more importantly, responding with proper manpower and tools to ensure casualties remain as low as possible), from crime (with police forces), and many other things of this nature. Aside from that, the implementation of public policy covers just about every other job of the government. This is commonly called the "will of the people."
"There have been supreme court decisions that say the police are not required to PROTECT ANYONE"
List them. The very idea the police are not required to protect people is absolutely absurd. This is the very reason police forces exist in a society; to ensure the law is not broken, and to investigate when it is broken with the hope of bringing offenders to justice. Look on just about any police car, you will see the phrase "to protect and serve." In any event, list these supposed 'cases', as I cannot possibly see where they would exist. Personally, I look at Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and Dickerson v. United States which both show police requirements to protect rights of citizens. I'm sure there are many other cases to illustrate my point, but these were the two that came to mind.
"They say you're supposed to let the Police/Gov't protect you and that there's no reason to own a gun, yet the police have no obligation to protect you! They're there to solve crimes after the fact, as in AFTER YOU'RE DEAD."
I never said this, in fact I said the opposite. Here, let me quote myself: "That being said, I'd fully support her right to keep a handgun with her, consealed or otherwise, as I believe it's her Constitutional right. (Assuming she's in the USA)." If it's the job of the police only to solve crimes that have already been commited, then why do we have vice squad, sting opperations, undercover officers, etc? If it's only the job of the police to solve crimes, why do cops stop to help people change tires, or call for help if they're having mechanical problems? If their only job is to solve crimes that have already been commited, then why to we have police patrols? If your only job is to solve crimes that have already happened, then all you need to do is sit in the office and wait for the crime reports to come in. But if your job is to stop crimes in progress then you need patrols on the streets so they're close by when someone's in trouble. And here's another one for you, why aren't they called the SBI (state), or the CBI (county) as that would fit more with the FBI. If they're just for investigation, why aren't they called investigators? Here's how Merriam-Webster defines the word "police": supervise the operation, execution, or administration of to prevent or detect and prosecute violations of rules and regulations. To prevent or detect; gee, sounds like sopping crimes in progress to me.
"i>If it weren't for the gun controllers and their ilk, the said above mentioned woman would be able to take her safety into her own hands by carrying a gun she spent the time receiving training to wield properly."
She can buy a gun (after a 5 day waiting period while a background check is done on her, and she can get all the training she wants. Who's stopping her? There's no law that says she cannot be trained to use a firearm. Secondly, assuming she keeps the gun in her purse, what happens if her attacker surprises her and grabs her purse away from her? Certainly the same can be said about a cell phone, but if the attacker gets her cell phone, he can't use it to shoot her.
"So yes it's annoying that cell frequencies will be jammed, but the responsibility to protect a person lies solely on themselves."
I'd love to see what you'd do if a large group of kids with knives and guns were walking steadily towards you and you had no way to get away. I should think you'd be calling for help as you ran away as well, unless, of course, you think you can kill say 20 people before they kill you. Better yet, imagine 20 cops are standing off to the side watching the whole thing. Would you call to them for help? Imagine them getting back in their cars and answering your cries for help with, "not my job, pal, I just investigate crimes. Call me when you're dead." If this is the society you like, then you need to try another country. What you describe is known as 'anarchy'.
"Great social ideas like "it takes a village to raise a child" (bullshit, it takes loving parents) are the product of our increasingly socialist society."
The idea that it takes a village to raise a child was first conceived in central and southern Africa. I doubt you've checked, but there's no socialism in those areas. There is, however, alot of anarchy and military dictatorships; two things that seem to be appealing to you. Or perhaps you simply fancy yourself a 'cowboy', and long for the period of time shortly after the civil war, mid-west America - often called the 'wild west'. I'm sorry to have to inform you that such a place didn't really exist, and the fantastic stories of the time are no more commonplace than the stories we hear in our modern times. I imagine that in 100 years or so, many people will look back on this time and see things like the LA riots, Sept 11, and other incredible events, and think that's how we actually lived our day-to-day lives. There was never a time where the world was a big 'OK Corale', so there's no need to long for that time's return. I happen to think that our founding fathers would be quite pleased with where we are right now, and I only hope that we, as a society, can come to realize the fact that our freedom is our greatest asset in the war on terrorism, and that it's also the most delicate aspect of our society. Preservation of our freedom is paramount to our survival as a nation.
"Noone teaches the virtue of personal responibility anymore. Why should I bother taking an interest in anyone or anything if no part of life is my responsibility?"
Well, according to you, it's no one's responsibility to look out for one another, even those who are paid to do so (police). Why should you bother? That depends on your view of this country. Those who are unhappy and sit idly by while things get worse are either too lazy to do anything about it, or have given up all hope. Those who stand up for what they believe in, those who bitch and complain constantly to all who will listen and many who won't, and those who fight at every turn to preserve that which they believe is right do so for one reason and one reasonly only - they have faith that their country still has the ability to change, and can still be everything they'd like it to be. I am one of those people. Your life is as much your responsibility as you make it. That you choose to refuse to take responsibility under the guise that society has said you need not take it is nothing more than a 'cop out'.
"Noone teaches the virtue of personal responibility anymore. "
Then be different. If you believe what you say, then you need to take it upon yourself to teach responsibility to anyone you can, especially your children. Teach them to take responsibility for themselves and their actions and you'll have done your part. In any event, if you believe that helping one another to the fullest extent possible is wrong, then you really ought to go live out in the woods. I, for one, believe that all men and women should help one another as much as they possibly can, and I think that if we made it to the point where everyone did as much as possible for each other, we'd all live much fuller, happier lives. A completely isolated person might find that he is content, but he will never find the absolute joy one finds from improving the life of another.
A gun gives those not trained to use it a false sense of security. Her best means of protecting herself would be years of self-defense classes, keeping in shape, and having a way to get assistance as quickly as possible. Barring that, a 911 cell phone call can do one hell of alot. Running around with a gun does little to help her, especially if she's surprised by her attacker. That being said, I'd fully support her right to keep a handgun with her, consealed or otherwise, as I believe it's her Constitutional right. (Assuming she's in the USA).
My comment about laws, guns, and freedom was a general comment about governments, especially post 9/11/01. Specifically, I was referring to the fact that although Israel maintains a huge military force (in terms of civilian to military ratio), and has armed soldiers patrolling all public areas, and has boarder checkpoints, curfews, etc., it still does not enjoy security. I think that's a perfect case study on what does NOT work when fighting terrorists.
(For those of you in Israel, please do not take offence to my comments, as they are in no way meant to degrade or belittle you or your struggle for security. Your government continues, even today, to try using the method which makes the most immediate sense to protect you. Unfortunately, these methods continue to fail on almost a daily basis, and I only hope that your government tries something new which does, in fact, succeed in protecting you. I can only hope and pray that other governments in the world recognize the failures of the Israeli government and learn from them, else I fear we'll all be in the same boat before long.)
What exactly can be done when the 'rules' of spying are not followed? Obviously, the game of intel/counter-intel is so secretive, that open trials for those breaking laws would be next to impossible. Military tribunals are probably unconstitutional for domestic spies. Better yet, how do you prosecute someone whose rule-breaking probably saved hundreds of lives? The overall question here is how does the intelligence community fit in with the ideals of any given country. Obviously, in the USA, this is embodied in our Constitution. So how does the intelligence community fit in with the Constitution, and how can it work effectively without crossing the line into illegal searches and other Constitutional violations?