The part where you haven't provided a single instance of theft actually taking place.
Perhaps it is you who need a refresher on what "stealing" means.
If I'm a photographer, and I put pictures that I took up on my web site, that cost me time and money to produce, that I own the copyright to, that I do NOT give anyone else permission to republish without my approval.
There is no "republishing" going on. The only source providing that content is you.
This statement is factually incorrect.
And you deep link a picture from my web site onto your page of "great cool wallpaper for free" that you're using to attract traffic so you can make money with google ads, you're stealing from me. What part of this do you not understand?
The part where you've completely redefined "stealing" to mean "making money by providing a link to content I have provided for free and without restriction on the internet".
It's simply a stupid argument. You had to go out of your way to put this content on the web and you chose the restrictions you would put in place when you did so. If you don't like it, you can stop this "stealing" at any time simply by altering your webserver or simply removing the content. Expecting that law to enforce restrictions after the fact on content you knowingly made publicly accessible is ridiculous.
You're running a server on the internet that was configured to send these people files and now you want the government to break the internet because you're too stupid to set up a webserver.
The argument you're making is simply:
"I don't like it, therefore it should be illegal."
This argument is simply... stupid. There are important techincal differences between what is going on in this case, and spam.
Obviously you don't give a damn about them as you fail to reference ANY of the technical details.
Stealing is stealing. It amazes me that people seem to think digital information is somehow different from property in other formats
Because it FUCKING IS!
Putting up a website without controls is like printing a virtually infinite handbills and putting them in a public place. Now these guys are upset that someone is handing out the location of this stack of handbills? Tough shit.
If you don't like it, don't put your stuff out on the street with a sign that says "Take Me".
the "rootkit" was not developed by any division of Sony
What an absolutely STUPID thing to point out.
If I shoot you in the head do I get off because I didn't design the gun?
Now go ahead. Call me a "fanboi" again.
Grow some balls and hold people responsible for their actions you fucking fanboi!
A private individual would be in jail for TENS of years for doing something like this. Seizing their assets and disbanding them isn't shit. I'm sure there are TONS of criminals who would rather have everything they own seized than spend ten years in prison.
we cannot rush to conclusions that any of the Sony execs
Which is why you simply take down the corporation instead. If companies know this is a real option in the future, you can be damn sure that next time you'll be able to trace it back to the person who gave the order. Corporations understand one thing: money.
If a lack of accountability of their officers becomes a financial risk for them, it will suddenly disappear.
No, what I'm pointing out is that the UCS tries to paint itself as simply that, a "union" of concerned" scientists, when in fact they've had a Liberal Agenda
Perhaps a good way of doing this would be to actually provide credible evidence.
Right now you're just making half-assed assertions based on hearsay from parties that are obviously baised.
No, but then again they at least have the intellectual integrity to say that they are CONSERVATIVE.... unlike a certain disingenuous Union which doesn't identify itself as a Left Wing activist organisation.
Repeat after me: Not everone who disagree with right wing nutjobs is a left-winger.
The argument you're making is simply stupid. It boils down to:
"A group if of the political affiliation that another group pins on it, regardless of things like actual evidence or the stated aims of the group."
Let us assume for the moment that there really was a plot. Instead of a photo-op and a few headlines, the smart thing to do would have been to continue efforts to infiltrate the group
Why bother when you're allowed to torture people?
Given enough time, you get these guys to say anything you want.
Why waste all that effort to find the guilty, when you can just pick someone and beat them until they admit their guilt or agree to testify to someone else's guilt?
So what if the actual terrorists blow up a few more things, it only confrims that you need even more power to persue them!
I'm not necessarily saying that's what happened here, but when you look at the big picture, it sure looks really bad.
Why can't people accept the fact that some people benefited from these new features and didn't have considerably worse stability compared to Win98
Perhaps because that's not a fact, it is merely your opinion and runs counter to the opinion of everyone I know and trust who has had actual experience with winME.
Microsoft's big mistake was releasing WinME as a retail/upgrade product. It should have been an OEM-only product.
Why? You make the implication that it was so buggy and unstable that only large OEM vendors could hope to keep it from crashing like Ted Kennedy with a liquor IV on a crotch rocket. Somehow this doesn't mean that it didn't have "considerably worse" stability? Yeah right.
So which marketing firm are you astroturfing for?
You forgot to plug them:)
Re:I have a hard time believing claims like this
on
Vista the End of An Era?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Windows ME was not a step backwards. It was actually a worthwhile step forwards from Windows 98.
I disagree. Many people out there, given the choice between either win98 or winME would gladly choose 98. There are a variety of reasons, but they pretty much boil down to winME being an unstable POS.
Perhaps this is because MS realized they was no future for that branch, but it doesn't change the bottom line that winME was an "upgrade" you were better off without.
Can you explain to me the difference between a nation with such a philosophy, and an anarchy?
This question was not asked because you honestly cannot see the difference between each man having the ability to defend himself and anarchy.
Speaking your mind and standing up for yourself does not preclude working together as a group, nor the existence of laws and the ability to enforce them.
All of the guys who were cheering Newt Gingrich last week when he said we should revisit our first amendment rights are going to be the loudest in screaming, "But I have a RIGHT to bear arms!!!"
Funny how that works. I believe in BOTH freedom of speech and the right to bear arms.
Unfortuately I'm forced to choose between extremists who like guns, but seek to destroy most of our other freedoms, or well meaning but foolish people who see no immediate use for guns by themselves, therefor they have no problem eliminating them.
If you read the bill of rights as a declaration of national philosophy rather than a legal document, I believe the reasoning becomes a lot more clear:
"We're going to say what we want and we're going to stand up for ourselves."
Gun ownership goes beyond hunting and militias, it also speaks directly towards the concepts of personal responsibility and self-reliance. Even if the crime rate statistics back up banning guns (which they don't), I still wouldn't support it because it's against our national philosophy. (Or at least the philosophy of the country I want to live in.)
As Justice Antonin Scalia put it, "We can all stipulate that the safest societies in the world are totalitarian dictatorships"
That doesn't mean I want to live in one.
It also doesn't hurt that school beatings are pretty much ignored.
It seems to be pretty much the accepted order in American high schools for the jocks to physically threaten and intimidate the other students. It never seems to make the news until one of the smaller guys gets a weapon and starts shooting.
I kind of thought it was common sense that radiation is harmful. I didn't think we still needed studies to prove this.
No, actually it NOT common sense. Go read something besides a friggin comic book.
You are ALWAYS exposed to radiation. The only way you will stop that is to cease to be.
The good news is that much of this radiation is harmless. The bad news it that you won't be getting super powers any time soon.
My point is that nearly all the valid reasons for driving below the posted speed limit are or become obvious to a person following in a fairly short period of time. The frustrating situation is when some jerk is driving inexplicably slow, only to find out when you do get a chance to pass that they're too busy talking on their cellphone to properly control their vehicle.
Driving more slowly than necessary is quite often an indicator that something is wrong inside that vehicle. Then you're trying to guess whether they're distracted, drunk, or disabled. You have to assume they're dangerous and deal with that while also trying to find a safe way to pass.
'socialist entitlement mentality' bit doesn't refer to the music industry
Actually, you could say that it does. These guys are being given a gov't-granted perpetual revenue stream. The gov't *could* make similar laws for plumbers, carpenters and bus drivers, etc. If they did it for everyone, you'd have total socialism.
Anyway, I think the ubiquity of popular music coupled with the absurdly minimal costs of data copying today is what has lead people to feel entitled to music,
It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that many of these artists we're "supporting" are actually dead? And that even if they're alive they very likely aren't receiving money?
Slashdot Mirror
What part of stealing do you not understand?
The part where you haven't provided a single instance of theft actually taking place.
Perhaps it is you who need a refresher on what "stealing" means.
If I'm a photographer, and I put pictures that I took up on my web site, that cost me time and money to produce, that I own the copyright to, that I do NOT give anyone else permission to republish without my approval.
There is no "republishing" going on. The only source providing that content is you.
This statement is factually incorrect.
And you deep link a picture from my web site onto your page of "great cool wallpaper for free" that you're using to attract traffic so you can make money with google ads, you're stealing from me. What part of this do you not understand?
The part where you've completely redefined "stealing" to mean "making money by providing a link to content I have provided for free and without restriction on the internet".
It's simply a stupid argument. You had to go out of your way to put this content on the web and you chose the restrictions you would put in place when you did so. If you don't like it, you can stop this "stealing" at any time simply by altering your webserver or simply removing the content. Expecting that law to enforce restrictions after the fact on content you knowingly made publicly accessible is ridiculous.
You're running a server on the internet that was configured to send these people files and now you want the government to break the internet because you're too stupid to set up a webserver.
The argument you're making is simply:
"I don't like it, therefore it should be illegal."
This argument is simply... stupid.
There are important techincal differences between what is going on in this case, and spam.
Obviously you don't give a damn about them as you fail to reference ANY of the technical details.
Stealing is stealing. It amazes me that people seem to think digital information is somehow different from property in other formats
Because it FUCKING IS!
Putting up a website without controls is like printing a virtually infinite handbills and putting them in a public place. Now these guys are upset that someone is handing out the location of this stack of handbills? Tough shit.
If you don't like it, don't put your stuff out on the street with a sign that says "Take Me".
the "rootkit" was not developed by any division of Sony
What an absolutely STUPID thing to point out.
If I shoot you in the head do I get off because I didn't design the gun?
Now go ahead. Call me a "fanboi" again.
Grow some balls and hold people responsible for their actions you fucking fanboi!
A private individual would be in jail for TENS of years for doing something like this. Seizing their assets and disbanding them isn't shit. I'm sure there are TONS of criminals who would rather have everything they own seized than spend ten years in prison.
we cannot rush to conclusions that any of the Sony execs
Which is why you simply take down the corporation instead. If companies know this is a real option in the future, you can be damn sure that next time you'll be able to trace it back to the person who gave the order.
Corporations understand one thing: money.
If a lack of accountability of their officers becomes a financial risk for them, it will suddenly disappear.
Just because you are an autocrat and govern for the benefit of a restricted circle of oligarchs, it does not mean the people will not like you.
But it DOES mean that you cannot simply assume people are going to honestly tell someone "conducting a survey" what their opinion of the autocrat is.
As you said:
I would strongly suggest you to reconsider this statement.
Right.... 'cause it would be a shame if he got poisoned mysteriously right?
I'm not saying the trademark itself is legitimate, but it certainly provides easily verifyable proof of prior art.
Technically, I think it is trademarked, not patented. 2 different things. I have no clue what the implications may be however.
I would suggest that a registered trademark would be pretty clear documentation of prior art.
No, what I'm pointing out is that the UCS tries to paint itself as simply that, a "union" of concerned" scientists, when in fact they've had a Liberal Agenda
Perhaps a good way of doing this would be to actually provide credible evidence.
Right now you're just making half-assed assertions based on hearsay from parties that are obviously baised.
No, but then again they at least have the intellectual integrity to say that they are CONSERVATIVE .... unlike a certain disingenuous Union which doesn't identify itself as a Left Wing activist organisation.
Repeat after me:
Not everone who disagree with right wing nutjobs is a left-winger.
The argument you're making is simply stupid. It boils down to:
"A group if of the political affiliation that another group pins on it, regardless of things like actual evidence or the stated aims of the group."
Thank you.
Do you have a source for this?
And when plain old boring police work fails, you're up in arms over incompetence.
I don't think ignoring repeated warnings counts as "work".
muslims are too stupid to pull it off.
We'll it certainly didn't help that we trained and financed Bin Laden.
Let us assume for the moment that there really was a plot. Instead of a photo-op and a few headlines, the smart thing to do would have been to continue efforts to infiltrate the group
Why bother when you're allowed to torture people?
Given enough time, you get these guys to say anything you want.
Why waste all that effort to find the guilty, when you can just pick someone and beat them until they admit their guilt or agree to testify to someone else's guilt?
So what if the actual terrorists blow up a few more things, it only confrims that you need even more power to persue them!
I'm not necessarily saying that's what happened here, but when you look at the big picture, it sure looks really bad.
Why can't people accept the fact that some people benefited from these new features and didn't have considerably worse stability compared to Win98
Perhaps because that's not a fact, it is merely your opinion and runs counter to the opinion of everyone I know and trust who has had actual experience with winME.
Microsoft's big mistake was releasing WinME as a retail/upgrade product. It should have been an OEM-only product.
Why? You make the implication that it was so buggy and unstable that only large OEM vendors could hope to keep it from crashing like Ted Kennedy with a liquor IV on a crotch rocket. Somehow this doesn't mean that it didn't have "considerably worse" stability? Yeah right.
So which marketing firm are you astroturfing for? :)
You forgot to plug them
Windows ME was not a step backwards. It was actually a worthwhile step forwards from Windows 98.
I disagree. Many people out there, given the choice between either win98 or winME would gladly choose 98. There are a variety of reasons, but they pretty much boil down to winME being an unstable POS.
Perhaps this is because MS realized they was no future for that branch, but it doesn't change the bottom line that winME was an "upgrade" you were better off without.
Can you explain to me the difference between a nation with such a philosophy, and an anarchy?
This question was not asked because you honestly cannot see the difference between each man having the ability to defend himself and anarchy.
Speaking your mind and standing up for yourself does not preclude working together as a group, nor the existence of laws and the ability to enforce them.
Nationally, the NY Times and other papers of similar weight remain bastions of actual reporting.
As Huey Freeman would put it:
Read Dummy!
The NYT might look great compared to Fox News, but they have been far from exemplary.
Every release of windows since windows 95 has been marginally better.
What about Windows ME?
I think you'd find a lot of people disagreeing with you on that one.
All of the guys who were cheering Newt Gingrich last week when he said we should revisit our first amendment rights are going to be the loudest in screaming, "But I have a RIGHT to bear arms!!!"
Funny how that works. I believe in BOTH freedom of speech and the right to bear arms.
Unfortuately I'm forced to choose between extremists who like guns, but seek to destroy most of our other freedoms, or well meaning but foolish people who see no immediate use for guns by themselves, therefor they have no problem eliminating them.
If you read the bill of rights as a declaration of national philosophy rather than a legal document, I believe the reasoning becomes a lot more clear:
"We're going to say what we want and we're going to stand up for ourselves."
Gun ownership goes beyond hunting and militias, it also speaks directly towards the concepts of personal responsibility and self-reliance. Even if the crime rate statistics back up banning guns (which they don't), I still wouldn't support it because it's against our national philosophy. (Or at least the philosophy of the country I want to live in.)
As Justice Antonin Scalia put it, "We can all stipulate that the safest societies in the world are totalitarian dictatorships"
That doesn't mean I want to live in one.
It also doesn't hurt that school beatings are pretty much ignored.
It seems to be pretty much the accepted order in American high schools for the jocks to physically threaten and intimidate the other students. It never seems to make the news until one of the smaller guys gets a weapon and starts shooting.
This turns reviews from those bosses into:
The only real solution is to have a clueful boss.
I kind of thought it was common sense that radiation is harmful. I didn't think we still needed studies to prove this.
No, actually it NOT common sense. Go read something besides a friggin comic book.
You are ALWAYS exposed to radiation. The only way you will stop that is to cease to be.
The good news is that much of this radiation is harmless. The bad news it that you won't be getting super powers any time soon.
It wouldn't be easy, but this new deal makes a very compelling point that this effort could be justified.
I think you'd have to get everyone possible to sign over their code and the remainder would need to be a cleanroom reimplementation.
Actually, where I live we get tons of snow.
My point is that nearly all the valid reasons for driving below the posted speed limit are or become obvious to a person following in a fairly short period of time. The frustrating situation is when some jerk is driving inexplicably slow, only to find out when you do get a chance to pass that they're too busy talking on their cellphone to properly control their vehicle.
Driving more slowly than necessary is quite often an indicator that something is wrong inside that vehicle. Then you're trying to guess whether they're distracted, drunk, or disabled. You have to assume they're dangerous and deal with that while also trying to find a safe way to pass.
'socialist entitlement mentality' bit doesn't refer to the music industry
Actually, you could say that it does. These guys are being given a gov't-granted perpetual revenue stream. The gov't *could* make similar laws for plumbers, carpenters and bus drivers, etc. If they did it for everyone, you'd have total socialism.
Anyway, I think the ubiquity of popular music coupled with the absurdly minimal costs of data copying today is what has lead people to feel entitled to music,
It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that many of these artists we're "supporting" are actually dead? And that even if they're alive they very likely aren't receiving money?