I'm surprised and shocked you deigned to comment. Your time being so valuable and all! Surely you have better ways to spend it that denigrating TV and movies on slashdot.
You guys need to read Vernor Vinge. Postulated a microwave powered comm chip small enough to be dusted everywhere. Does little more than push electrons to the next chip. All interconnected and redundant sort of like a wireless network...
Oh and before copyright if you were caught ripping off someone else work, you pretty much had to leave town. So the moral system break down has affected the necessity for copyright protection nearly as much as the proliferation of media in which derivations of your work can be made.
The copyright system was as much a response to new media forms as it was the necessity for protecting your work for your heirs.
Don't know many writers do you. The hope has always been that you will be rewarded for your efforts if not monetarily then by acclaim. Most of them do write hoping that they will make money, even those that self publish. And the result of that acclaim is usually a meal ticket at the tables of the wealthy (well those that can afford to feed more than themselves) who like your work enough to want to talk to you. So your contention is stupid on it's face. You should also educate yourself on the history of the writing profession before you try to set the rewards system for something that you have little apparent use for.
It sometimes takes nearly a lifetime to produce one work of significance that will last long enough for people to fight over the copyright. Why should you not get to be paid for all that unpaid work time required to produce the work. Why should my posterity not benefit from my work as well. If I produce some thing that has that kind of lifetime appeal I want to be able to pass on the profit to my children. You buzzards that want to be able to pick my bones before I'm cold and take my work for free can go piss up a knotted rope.
Love the anti Apple crap. No they are being restricted by the publishers of the books moron!
Geez, people does no one use critical thinking any more. Have we not taught our children to think?
Ahh I see if you don't use whatever yum is I've never heard of it and I use Linux quite a bit. Ooohh I just have to put this out there. What if a group of people got together and wrote some malware and released it with source (binaries to all the "yum" thingies) and put it in the system to automatically update, that would be a quite effective vector for Linux. Yeah have to work on this. A bit of human engineering and my own mal-distribution even released with a package that waits for my orders to activate. Man I'm gonna PWN me some Linux machines!
Ok look there is a cost for privacy. There is no prohibition from concealment here. There is no erosion of rights or privacy. If you are being hidden and committing no crime for which you can be convicted (there are specific ones here) all is well. If you are being hidden and do commit the crimes, and get convicted then yes this would apply because you were hiding while committing this crime. I don't see why people don't understand this it's for god's sake not rocket science. It even allows you the right to be private during the commission of these crimes just that it is going to cost more than if you weren't hiding. I don't see why people are so damned concerned about a sentencing recommendation for a crime they never plan to commit while hiding or not. If you do plan to commit these crimes I don't want to know but you deserve to get everything they can throw at you including the increased sentencing for hiding while doing it.
Geez, Ok look, there is no increased penalty for wearing a mask to commit a crime if you have to wear a mask to get into the environment. There is however a penalty if you further conceal your identity "Deliberately" to avoid being identified while committing a crime in that environment. This sentencing suggestion (guideline) only applies if they can prove you did it with the intent to conceal.
I don't see where this has anything to do with the loss of privacy? you are welcome to use a proxy if you like, they are not outlawed by this suggestion for sentencing. If you commit a crime while enjoying your privacy however we will throw a slightly larger book at you.
But if the one not wearing a mask deliberately had plastic surgery after the crime and then was only caught because of DNA evidence. He deserves to be added to the sophisticated class of criminal and treated harsher.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm surprised and shocked you deigned to comment. Your time being so valuable and all! Surely you have better ways to spend it that denigrating TV and movies on slashdot.
Cyber attack is denial of service doesn't matter much how.
You guys need to read Vernor Vinge. Postulated a microwave powered comm chip small enough to be dusted everywhere. Does little more than push electrons to the next chip. All interconnected and redundant sort of like a wireless network...
It seems to me that they exploited the lack of connectivity pretty well. Yes a cyber attack can be a denial of service even one from a cut line!
During the last Hawaiian typhoon/hurricane my internet connection (read usenet connection) was a low capacity feed for where the hams couldn't go.
Yes, the person dialing 911 and getting nothing!
Well this is a pickle, do we allow the creationists to try and claim prior art?
Thousands of people choose to jump off bridges too, There had to be said. Your questionable ethics are really disturbing.
Oh and before copyright if you were caught ripping off someone else work, you pretty much had to leave town. So the moral system break down has affected the necessity for copyright protection nearly as much as the proliferation of media in which derivations of your work can be made.
The copyright system was as much a response to new media forms as it was the necessity for protecting your work for your heirs.
Don't know many writers do you. The hope has always been that you will be rewarded for your efforts if not monetarily then by acclaim. Most of them do write hoping that they will make money, even those that self publish. And the result of that acclaim is usually a meal ticket at the tables of the wealthy (well those that can afford to feed more than themselves) who like your work enough to want to talk to you. So your contention is stupid on it's face. You should also educate yourself on the history of the writing profession before you try to set the rewards system for something that you have little apparent use for.
It sometimes takes nearly a lifetime to produce one work of significance that will last long enough for people to fight over the copyright. Why should you not get to be paid for all that unpaid work time required to produce the work. Why should my posterity not benefit from my work as well. If I produce some thing that has that kind of lifetime appeal I want to be able to pass on the profit to my children. You buzzards that want to be able to pick my bones before I'm cold and take my work for free can go piss up a knotted rope.
Pretty disgusting attitude there Linzeal. I'm glad I'm not the buzzard you are.
Love the anti Apple crap. No they are being restricted by the publishers of the books moron! Geez, people does no one use critical thinking any more. Have we not taught our children to think?
Ahh I see if you don't use whatever yum is I've never heard of it and I use Linux quite a bit. Ooohh I just have to put this out there. What if a group of people got together and wrote some malware and released it with source (binaries to all the "yum" thingies) and put it in the system to automatically update, that would be a quite effective vector for Linux. Yeah have to work on this. A bit of human engineering and my own mal-distribution even released with a package that waits for my orders to activate. Man I'm gonna PWN me some Linux machines!
I Mistakenly SAID NEVER WILL
There fixed that for ya
And deleted by default on all of mine! With great prejudice.
vi is evil and it's use should be outlawed!
Ok look there is a cost for privacy. There is no prohibition from concealment here. There is no erosion of rights or privacy. If you are being hidden and committing no crime for which you can be convicted (there are specific ones here) all is well. If you are being hidden and do commit the crimes, and get convicted then yes this would apply because you were hiding while committing this crime. I don't see why people don't understand this it's for god's sake not rocket science. It even allows you the right to be private during the commission of these crimes just that it is going to cost more than if you weren't hiding. I don't see why people are so damned concerned about a sentencing recommendation for a crime they never plan to commit while hiding or not. If you do plan to commit these crimes I don't want to know but you deserve to get everything they can throw at you including the increased sentencing for hiding while doing it.
Actually using a proxy while jaywalking should get you thrown in jail. But a proxy for spitting on the sidewalk is just gross.
Geez, Ok look, there is no increased penalty for wearing a mask to commit a crime if you have to wear a mask to get into the environment. There is however a penalty if you further conceal your identity "Deliberately" to avoid being identified while committing a crime in that environment. This sentencing suggestion (guideline) only applies if they can prove you did it with the intent to conceal.
I don't see where this has anything to do with the loss of privacy? you are welcome to use a proxy if you like, they are not outlawed by this suggestion for sentencing. If you commit a crime while enjoying your privacy however we will throw a slightly larger book at you.
Damn I was going to reply to this but my reply turned out to be stupider than the posters statement and question.
Give that person a lolipop, why did you bother to post?
Not in the winter in any state where it snows!
But if the one not wearing a mask deliberately had plastic surgery after the crime and then was only caught because of DNA evidence. He deserves to be added to the sophisticated class of criminal and treated harsher.