Well, I'm sorry that your musical tastes are so limited that you only like enough music to fill "a 10th of an iPod". I know several people who have 100GB+ music collections; they don't amass crap for the purpose of "being in the club", they do it because they love music and like to listen to lots of it.
I doubt very much it would work against something like the RIAA because of the nature of most p2p software. I don't think that using a private home as an analogy works. If you're sharing files via p2p; it's anything *BUT* private. I think that this might be a better way of describing it (note that i'm pretty bad at coming up with analogies):
Instead of a private home, imagine if you took your music collection downtown to an outdoor area with thousands of other people doing the same, set up a table with a list of your music, and allowed anybody to make a free copy of any song on any CD there. That's how most p2p software works: anybody can look, anybody can search among the "tables" for music they want. Now imagine that Bob is tired of people making copies of his music instead of buying the CDs from his store. So he heads to this area to look around for people sharing copies of CDs that he sells, and that should have been bought from his store. He then notes table #, and Bob files a lawsuit against the people at those tables for distributing copies of his CDs. Now imagine that you've put up a sign on your table saying "IF YOU ARE FROM BOB'S CD STORE YOU CAN'T LOOK AT MY TABLE". Seems pretty silly, doesn't it? Now IANAL but I doubt very much that such a sign would hold any legal weight, any more so than an MOTD or banner etc saying something similar.
Most p2p software that people use for copyright infringement is designed so that you're making the contents of your shared directory open to anybody else running the software. If you don't want people looking at the music collection you've made publicly available on your computer, then don't make your music collection available to everybody (or don't use software that does). I could see people having a defense if the RIAA actively broke into their computers looking for music; but this isn't the case. Another poster here had a good suggestion: If you're going to share music (that you don't have distribution rights to), go do it in a public place with loads of people around, utterly naked. I think that description would give most people a good idea of just how much privacy they can expect when using p2p software to violate people's copyrights.
They're not actually breaking into anybody's computers; they're accessing public shared folders. While some programs may share folders that those who own the computer do not want shared; they're still up in public for everybody to access.
It was my understanding that banners and MOTDs that read "IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF ($GOVERNMENT_ENTITY|*AA), (YOU CANNOT USE THIS SITE|DOWNLOAD ANY FILES|PROSECUTE ITS MEMBERS|ETC)" had as much legal weight as some people's e-mail signatures that state that "only the intended recipient may read this, if this was not meant for you delete it, etc etc". That is to say: none whatsoever.
...that lying in open court is just a bit more illegal than copyright infringement. Besides, they're not suing downloaders (as far as i know), just the uploaders; I doubt that actually owning the CD would do you any good.
do you run an sshd? I've seen a lot of brute force attempts on users like root and test of late. Seems I'm not the only one. Just firewall 'em out and get on with the rest of your day.
"...still have his right to care about his reputation and not be publicy ridiculized by a bunch of people who has not grown (sometimes mentally) up yet. Your freedom to say things about him stops exactly at the start of his rights to a fair treatment and to not be humiliated."
What the hell are you talking about, exactly? "Rights to not be humiliated"? What nation do you live in that gives its citizens a right to not be humiliated? The same with a "rights to a fair treatment". Here in America, where I'm from and whose laws I'm basing my statements from; you have a right to state your opinion about somebody or something, as long as its not slanderous or libelous, which only a judge in a courtroom can decide. For example, I will now state my opinion that you are an asscandle. That is a pretty fair statement, I think. That statement is not slander, because it was not spoken; nor is it libelous unless a judge decides that I had knowledge that you are in fact not an asscandle, and I made that statment maliciously.
I know of no "right to care about one's reputation" either, but I will agree with you that people generally expect to be able to defend their reputation. The gentleman in question was at one point called a "shyster". Let's see what dictionary.com has to say about that:
shyster n. Slang: An unethical, unscrupulous practitioner, especially of law.
It is my opinion that filing lawsuits against a message board because some of its members said things you didn't like to hear is the action of a shyster lawyer. Despite what you seem to think, people (at least here in America) do have a right to state their opinion, which generally includes ridiculing people, most especially when their actions are deserving of ridicule. Unless its slanderous or libelous (which only a judge can decide), at which point they're open to legal action.
Your freedom to say things about him stops exactly at the start of his rights to a fair treatment and to not be humiliated. It is my opinion that you sir, are an asscandle. Possibly a fucktable as well, depending on your reaction to this post. So sue me.
i've been wanting to build a beefy fileserver for a while, and i really like the idea of cutting back on power consumption. what motherboard did you eventually go with, and what'd you think of it?
Except the problem is that whining on/. is not going to do anything to increase awareness. Bitching about nearly anything here is preaching to the choir. Writing one's congressman is increasing awareness. Passing out fliers/etc is increasing awareness. Posting rants on Slashdot about how the FBI/RIAA/MPAA/etc is evil is not going to do anything to help us reach this "critical mass" of people. I agree that airing of grievances in a public forum is essential to democracy; but airing grievances to people who know full well that the Patriot Act/etc is a bad thing does nothing to help matters any. If you want to increase awareness, go tell 5 of your friends (those who do not read Slashdot) why you think $issue_of_the_day is important. Explain to them why it matters, and make them aware of how it affects everybody's lives.
Many other sites are currently serving content of questionable legality If that isn't a case of the pot calling the kettle black I don't know what is. Have a look here, at the episodes of the show that Mister McGaughey kindly put up on his site for download. I certainly do not see this as a case of busting fansites; it seems to me that the MPAA has a legitimate complaint here.
How he has interpreted the feelings of the show's creators/actors does not matter; their feelings and opinions count for nothing if they don't hold the copyrights to the show (which they clearly do not).
Perhaps the FBI did step over the line here, but from reading the Patriot Act (which you can find here) one can see that the FBI is simply using the tools they've been given to bust the bad guys (the ranks of which this gentleman belongs to). If you feel that the Patriot Act is a bad thing, write your congressman. Join the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation. But don't sit here on Slashdot and bitch, you're not changing anything.
I don't see a subscriber * next to your name, so why should they have to answer to you?
I understand its a common courtesy and all, but I for one am glad I got *some* kind of notice. I'm used to sites being down for a few hours, and THEN coming back up with a "hey we went down for maintenance, etc etc" message.
i added the following to the 'trusted sites' group:
https://v4.windowsupdate.microsoft.com/en/default. asp
http://v4.windowsupdate.microsoft.com/en/default.a sp
(after having unchecked the require ssl box) seems to work fine for me, though i think i'll stick with mozlla for the time being
Driving a (civillian) Crown Victoria is what probably kept me from a massive speeding ticket a few weeks back. I was driving to visit a friend, doing well over 85 MPH (that's as high as the speedometer goes, it felt like +100 MPH though) in a 65 MPH zone. I was driving along, minding my own business, when I drove underneath an overpass and blew right by the state trooper waiting on the other side. SO busted. Or so I thought. I quickly slowed down and prepared to accept my (richly deserved) speeding ticket...until I looked in the rearview mirror and noticed the State Police car hadn't moved at all.
I get the feeling that the Crown Victoria (looks a lot like an unmarked police car) I was driving saved my sorry ass.
As many other people have pointed out, this is not something that the average slashdotter is going to want to have. But this is will be a great thing for the clueless. The average person who wants to browse the web and get email, who has no clue about setting up and locking down a proper network will love this. Now all they have to do is plug it in and go, Comcast takes care of the rest. I would rather have comcast controlling the routers/waps of the clueless. Ideally, they'll do things like monitor for abuse and worm traffic, and kick offenders offline until its fixed. This is not something Comcast is forcing on its users, its a service that is going to make things better for the customer as well as for the rest of the internet. From what the article says, its entirely optional. Wouldn't you rather have the networks of the people most likely to get infected with the latest worm/spyware/whatever be monitored by somebody who actually has a clue (as much clue as Comcast has, at least..)? Stop fighting new technology just because you wouldn't use it.
it was my understanding that a laptop display only ran at 60hz, and it was not possible to disable vsynch. i dont game on my laptop, and i've no way of testing this, would somebody please confirm or deny?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I'm sorry that your musical tastes are so limited that you only like enough music to fill "a 10th of an iPod". I know several people who have 100GB+ music collections; they don't amass crap for the purpose of "being in the club", they do it because they love music and like to listen to lots of it.
Instead of a private home, imagine if you took your music collection downtown to an outdoor area with thousands of other people doing the same, set up a table with a list of your music, and allowed anybody to make a free copy of any song on any CD there. That's how most p2p software works: anybody can look, anybody can search among the "tables" for music they want. Now imagine that Bob is tired of people making copies of his music instead of buying the CDs from his store. So he heads to this area to look around for people sharing copies of CDs that he sells, and that should have been bought from his store. He then notes table #, and Bob files a lawsuit against the people at those tables for distributing copies of his CDs. Now imagine that you've put up a sign on your table saying "IF YOU ARE FROM BOB'S CD STORE YOU CAN'T LOOK AT MY TABLE". Seems pretty silly, doesn't it? Now IANAL but I doubt very much that such a sign would hold any legal weight, any more so than an MOTD or banner etc saying something similar.
Most p2p software that people use for copyright infringement is designed so that you're making the contents of your shared directory open to anybody else running the software. If you don't want people looking at the music collection you've made publicly available on your computer, then don't make your music collection available to everybody (or don't use software that does). I could see people having a defense if the RIAA actively broke into their computers looking for music; but this isn't the case. Another poster here had a good suggestion: If you're going to share music (that you don't have distribution rights to), go do it in a public place with loads of people around, utterly naked. I think that description would give most people a good idea of just how much privacy they can expect when using p2p software to violate people's copyrights.
It was my understanding that banners and MOTDs that read "IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF ($GOVERNMENT_ENTITY|*AA), (YOU CANNOT USE THIS SITE|DOWNLOAD ANY FILES|PROSECUTE ITS MEMBERS|ETC)" had as much legal weight as some people's e-mail signatures that state that "only the intended recipient may read this, if this was not meant for you delete it, etc etc".
That is to say: none whatsoever.
...that lying in open court is just a bit more illegal than copyright infringement. Besides, they're not suing downloaders (as far as i know), just the uploaders; I doubt that actually owning the CD would do you any good.
I hope the SDK comes out soon, I'd love to try my hand at creating a flashlight tag mod :p
do you run an sshd?
I've seen a lot of brute force attempts on users like root and test of late. Seems I'm not the only one. Just firewall 'em out and get on with the rest of your day.
Check here for details.
What the hell are you talking about, exactly? "Rights to not be humiliated"? What nation do you live in that gives its citizens a right to not be humiliated? The same with a "rights to a fair treatment". Here in America, where I'm from and whose laws I'm basing my statements from; you have a right to state your opinion about somebody or something, as long as its not slanderous or libelous, which only a judge in a courtroom can decide.
For example, I will now state my opinion that you are an asscandle. That is a pretty fair statement, I think. That statement is not slander, because it was not spoken; nor is it libelous unless a judge decides that I had knowledge that you are in fact not an asscandle, and I made that statment maliciously.
I know of no "right to care about one's reputation" either, but I will agree with you that people generally expect to be able to defend their reputation. The gentleman in question was at one point called a "shyster". Let's see what dictionary.com has to say about that:
It is my opinion that filing lawsuits against a message board because some of its members said things you didn't like to hear is the action of a shyster lawyer. Despite what you seem to think, people (at least here in America) do have a right to state their opinion, which generally includes ridiculing people, most especially when their actions are deserving of ridicule. Unless its slanderous or libelous (which only a judge can decide), at which point they're open to legal action.
Your freedom to say things about him stops exactly at the start of his rights to a fair treatment and to not be humiliated.
It is my opinion that you sir, are an asscandle. Possibly a fucktable as well, depending on your reaction to this post.
So sue me.
i've been wanting to build a beefy fileserver for a while, and i really like the idea of cutting back on power consumption. what motherboard did you eventually go with, and what'd you think of it?
Except the problem is that whining on /. is not going to do anything to increase awareness. Bitching about nearly anything here is preaching to the choir. Writing one's congressman is increasing awareness. Passing out fliers/etc is increasing awareness. Posting rants on Slashdot about how the FBI/RIAA/MPAA/etc is evil is not going to do anything to help us reach this "critical mass" of people. I agree that airing of grievances in a public forum is essential to democracy; but airing grievances to people who know full well that the Patriot Act/etc is a bad thing does nothing to help matters any. If you want to increase awareness, go tell 5 of your friends (those who do not read Slashdot) why you think $issue_of_the_day is important. Explain to them why it matters, and make them aware of how it affects everybody's lives.
If that isn't a case of the pot calling the kettle black I don't know what is. Have a look here, at the episodes of the show that Mister McGaughey kindly put up on his site for download. I certainly do not see this as a case of busting fansites; it seems to me that the MPAA has a legitimate complaint here.
How he has interpreted the feelings of the show's creators/actors does not matter; their feelings and opinions count for nothing if they don't hold the copyrights to the show (which they clearly do not).
Perhaps the FBI did step over the line here, but from reading the Patriot Act (which you can find here) one can see that the FBI is simply using the tools they've been given to bust the bad guys (the ranks of which this gentleman belongs to). If you feel that the Patriot Act is a bad thing, write your congressman. Join the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation. But don't sit here on Slashdot and bitch, you're not changing anything.
nuclear waste transport casks
more info
I think he's serious about the other guy not being serious, but are you serious about him being serious about the other guy not being serious?
I understand its a common courtesy and all, but I for one am glad I got *some* kind of notice. I'm used to sites being down for a few hours, and THEN coming back up with a "hey we went down for maintenance, etc etc" message.
i added the following to the 'trusted sites' group:. aspa sp
https://v4.windowsupdate.microsoft.com/en/default
http://v4.windowsupdate.microsoft.com/en/default.
(after having unchecked the require ssl box)
seems to work fine for me, though i think i'll stick with mozlla for the time being
i lied, here's some text
I get the feeling that the Crown Victoria (looks a lot like an unmarked police car) I was driving saved my sorry ass.
That's fine, let's make sure we let the artists know that we dont like this. Vote with your dollars.
have at it
holy shit, somebody on slashdot who has the testicular fortitude to admit to being wrong? welcome to my friends list
Did anybody else give theGuild Wars "E3 For Everyone" promotion a try? If so, what'd you think of the game?
As many other people have pointed out, this is not something that the average slashdotter is going to want to have. But this is will be a great thing for the clueless. The average person who wants to browse the web and get email, who has no clue about setting up and locking down a proper network will love this. Now all they have to do is plug it in and go, Comcast takes care of the rest. I would rather have comcast controlling the routers/waps of the clueless. Ideally, they'll do things like monitor for abuse and worm traffic, and kick offenders offline until its fixed. This is not something Comcast is forcing on its users, its a service that is going to make things better for the customer as well as for the rest of the internet. From what the article says, its entirely optional. Wouldn't you rather have the networks of the people most likely to get infected with the latest worm/spyware/whatever be monitored by somebody who actually has a clue (as much clue as Comcast has, at least..)? Stop fighting new technology just because you wouldn't use it.
it was my understanding that a laptop display only ran at 60hz, and it was not possible to disable vsynch. i dont game on my laptop, and i've no way of testing this, would somebody please confirm or deny?
oh its bs alright.. have a look at the the rules of spam
parent is exactly right.
have a look at the rules of spam