If encryption becomes popular then I can see the point the police are making but why would people using P2P start using encryption to start the cycle?
If everyone on P2P started encrypting the transportation it would make no difference because the arrests and letters to pay or else have not been caused by MITM sniffing.
If P2Pers start encrypting all files you have to have some method of getting the password out to everyone and that would require some club or private site and once you have that it is easier to get a legal right to inspect and copy all infomation on that site. Such a site would have email address and other information about the users, so if anything this is something that P2Pers would avoid.
The only place P2P where encryption would work is with blocking the IP address of the people sharing but that would require some central site that routes the traffic so it is not really P2P anymore.
I don't really understand in depth how P2P works so what am I missing here?
Provided they are following standard government security procedures for such sites it will not matter if they are broken into since the only info the server are items that have been approved for release to the public.
President Obama was injected in a public display, but how can you be sure it was the same vaccine they are giving to everyone else.
The military are all required to get the flu injection, and this year the H1N1. Congress is optional, don't know if many did.
I have a contract for my net connection that says what I can do and can't do if that contract is broken then I legal action.
But you are skipping the main item, there is no example of a company going out there and blocking a one site in favor of another. if you don't understand why the government should not block free trade until there is a need so be it.
Better then Germany, I pay around 60EUR for 2M up and down. The only thing cheap is that I could upgrade to 16M for around 10EUR more, if it was available in my area.
And once it actually starts happening then is the time to pass the law. Currently the guidelines and the threat of a law are preventing companies from enacting all these rumors while they it leaves inventors who are thinking of new ideas or new services can ignore them without a worry.
Until there is a problem or something beyond a bunch of people sitting around saying their may be a problem something in the future, this just a move by the FCC to get themselves in a place they have no business and probably cripple future ideas.
And the courts stopped Comcast under existing laws, so why the need for new laws that will just cause problems in the future when something does start happening?
In the event that companies do start charging major sites to carry the traffic then yes it should be passed. Until then they are passing laws that will give more examples of the government controlling what is on the Internet and does not solve a problem for the consumer.
I want more competition in the marketplace, I want a ISP(or series of ISP) that cater to gamers and delays P2P and videos during prime gaming hours.
And if there were examples of this you would get some support but right now it is not a problem so any laws would cause more problems, see CAN-SPAM.
The 2005 guidelines are great and should be kept and maybe modified(4 years is a long time for the Internet), but they should be kept as a trip wire and if companies do start disregrading them then FCC or Congress should clamp down.
McCain is right, one of the few times, and this would affect free markets and should be stopped.
As various free market groups have put out there is no evidence or even examples of a problem. Until there is an example or even a discussion of a company going to implement something like this* there is no reason for greater government takeover of the Internet or wireless. The only thing we are going to see from any proposal at this time less inovation and something like the CAN-SPAM law that will make it harder to get a need law passed if something does happen.
*Some people having been saying that things like the international Kindle are examples that a net neutrality law needs to stop. Sorry I am not counting blocking pictures as something that ISPs should be blocked from providing.
Microsoft actually did something similar close to a decade ago.
During COMDEX,Las Vegas, they rented the little white church to have thier geek party, back when they where fun. Part of the show was they had females who would marry anyone who wanted and Microsoft would pay for the annulment the following day.
This is for the FCC proposal. NPR had a recent interview where he used the port example one the more positive terms of stopping ISP from blocking certain ports. As for the government making a law for not blocking user wanted ports just look at CANSPAM.
At least get the liberal talking points correct it is 3% for Medicare and 20-25% for private insurances, some places use 12% for private but the 2-3% for Medicare is constant.
According to the CBO for 2001-2005 Medicare admin costs were 24% higher on average per person then private insurances.
Also Medicare does not have to worry about little things like taxes or even fraud. Regina Herzlinger, Harvard Business School, has a study that shows that 10-20% of private insurance admin overhead goes into fraud prevention Medicare does not care since it is not thier money. Also Dartmouth researchers have shown that around a third of Medicare's spending goes to medical procedures that are not needed.
So if you are going to allow yourself to be used aleast be correct and use that 3% figure. Also the insurance that is used by federal employees, and that the Democrates are not giving up for themselves is private insurance.
If you worked 3 years at minimum wage jobs that is a good indication that you are not ready for college. I have not worked minimum wage since college but then if you were a dependable worker for anything over a month you got a raise.
States do provide free or mostly free schooling, ie community colleges.
From the amount he owes he has skipped those and decided that something that costs alot more offered a longer term value. So why should that be free or cost almost nothing?
It is illegal only if you use an outside device or group.
Casinos in Nevada can kick you out if they think you are card counting, in other states and countries they cannot kick you out but they can make it harder for you and harass you.
I upgraded to a decent middle/upper home built and overclocked system with a cheap video card when Vista was first released. Using it mainly for gaming and serving virtual servers and frankly besides a newer video card I don't need an upgrade.
I usally did the 2.5/3 year desktop upgrade cycle but I can run modern games with high graphics on a 21 monitor, and don't see a need to upgrade that. Windows 7 is suppose to running faster then Vista, if I decide to upgrade, and I can run multiple virtual machines with memory being the problem.
There is no need for average consumer upgrade if they have purchased anything with a dual code processor, and since a new windows upgrade was a major money point for Dell in the past they must be running scared and you can expect them to make comments like this.
Alot of games on steam come with securom and other copy protection methods.
Such games include: bioshock, fallout 3 and Crysis Warhead.
However EA has released patchs for some of thier games that remove Securom from the steam version.
Also you can also find games with TAGES on steam.
DLC is not required to complete or even play the game. They are extra content that adds to the game.
It is widly known that games are probably going to have exansion packs, and now a days paid for DLC, so that is not the shocker. It is that they are releasing DLC on the day of release and since time probably does not factor into when DLC is release no falso advertisment or selling an incomplete product.
Now if the cover art of the box included pictures of the DLC golem in the party they I would agree since the box is an advertisement of the product and they are showing you something that can only be seen if you purchase something not in the box.
Slashdot Mirror
If encryption becomes popular then I can see the point the police are making but why would people using P2P start using encryption to start the cycle?
If everyone on P2P started encrypting the transportation it would make no difference because the arrests and letters to pay or else have not been caused by MITM sniffing.
If P2Pers start encrypting all files you have to have some method of getting the password out to everyone and that would require some club or private site and once you have that it is easier to get a legal right to inspect and copy all infomation on that site. Such a site would have email address and other information about the users, so if anything this is something that P2Pers would avoid.
The only place P2P where encryption would work is with blocking the IP address of the people sharing but that would require some central site that routes the traffic so it is not really P2P anymore.
I don't really understand in depth how P2P works so what am I missing here?
Provided they are following standard government security procedures for such sites it will not matter if they are broken into since the only info the server are items that have been approved for release to the public.
President Obama was injected in a public display, but how can you be sure it was the same vaccine they are giving to everyone else.
The military are all required to get the flu injection, and this year the H1N1. Congress is optional, don't know if many did.
I have a contract for my net connection that says what I can do and can't do if that contract is broken then I legal action.
But you are skipping the main item, there is no example of a company going out there and blocking a one site in favor of another. if you don't understand why the government should not block free trade until there is a need so be it.
So gang raping is legal, well I guess you learn something new every day.
Better then Germany, I pay around 60EUR for 2M up and down. The only thing cheap is that I could upgrade to 16M for around 10EUR more, if it was available in my area.
And once it actually starts happening then is the time to pass the law. Currently the guidelines and the threat of a law are preventing companies from enacting all these rumors while they it leaves inventors who are thinking of new ideas or new services can ignore them without a worry.
Until there is a problem or something beyond a bunch of people sitting around saying their may be a problem something in the future, this just a move by the FCC to get themselves in a place they have no business and probably cripple future ideas.
Here is the FCC's briefing to the courts on the case.
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293573A1.pdf
It is more likly to be an Enemy List
And the courts stopped Comcast under existing laws, so why the need for new laws that will just cause problems in the future when something does start happening?
In the event that companies do start charging major sites to carry the traffic then yes it should be passed. Until then they are passing laws that will give more examples of the government controlling what is on the Internet and does not solve a problem for the consumer.
I want more competition in the marketplace, I want a ISP(or series of ISP) that cater to gamers and delays P2P and videos during prime gaming hours.
And if there were examples of this you would get some support but right now it is not a problem so any laws would cause more problems, see CAN-SPAM.
The 2005 guidelines are great and should be kept and maybe modified(4 years is a long time for the Internet), but they should be kept as a trip wire and if companies do start disregrading them then FCC or Congress should clamp down.
McCain is right, one of the few times, and this would affect free markets and should be stopped.
As various free market groups have put out there is no evidence or even examples of a problem. Until there is an example or even a discussion of a company going to implement something like this* there is no reason for greater government takeover of the Internet or wireless. The only thing we are going to see from any proposal at this time less inovation and something like the CAN-SPAM law that will make it harder to get a need law passed if something does happen.
*Some people having been saying that things like the international Kindle are examples that a net neutrality law needs to stop. Sorry I am not counting blocking pictures as something that ISPs should be blocked from providing.
Sigh kids theses days and thier old fashion ways.
Get modern; use thermite or go home.
Microsoft actually did something similar close to a decade ago.
During COMDEX,Las Vegas, they rented the little white church to have thier geek party, back when they where fun. Part of the show was they had females who would marry anyone who wanted and Microsoft would pay for the annulment the following day.
This is for the FCC proposal. NPR had a recent interview where he used the port example one the more positive terms of stopping ISP from blocking certain ports. As for the government making a law for not blocking user wanted ports just look at CANSPAM.
At least get the liberal talking points correct it is 3% for Medicare and 20-25% for private insurances, some places use 12% for private but the 2-3% for Medicare is constant.
According to the CBO for 2001-2005 Medicare admin costs were 24% higher on average per person then private insurances.
Also Medicare does not have to worry about little things like taxes or even fraud. Regina Herzlinger, Harvard Business School, has a study that shows that 10-20% of private insurance admin overhead goes into fraud prevention Medicare does not care since it is not thier money. Also Dartmouth researchers have shown that around a third of Medicare's spending goes to medical procedures that are not needed.
So if you are going to allow yourself to be used aleast be correct and use that 3% figure. Also the insurance that is used by federal employees, and that the Democrates are not giving up for themselves is private insurance.
If you worked 3 years at minimum wage jobs that is a good indication that you are not ready for college. I have not worked minimum wage since college but then if you were a dependable worker for anything over a month you got a raise.
States do provide free or mostly free schooling, ie community colleges.
From the amount he owes he has skipped those and decided that something that costs alot more offered a longer term value. So why should that be free or cost almost nothing?
However it would be wanted if you asked those same people:
"Should calls to the emergency call center be of the same priority as calls from telemarketers?"
Under the current proposals all ports and message types have to be treated at the same priority, so DoS attack would have the same priority as E-mail.
It is illegal only if you use an outside device or group.
Casinos in Nevada can kick you out if they think you are card counting, in other states and countries they cannot kick you out but they can make it harder for you and harass you.
I upgraded to a decent middle/upper home built and overclocked system with a cheap video card when Vista was first released. Using it mainly for gaming and serving virtual servers and frankly besides a newer video card I don't need an upgrade.
I usally did the 2.5/3 year desktop upgrade cycle but I can run modern games with high graphics on a 21 monitor, and don't see a need to upgrade that. Windows 7 is suppose to running faster then Vista, if I decide to upgrade, and I can run multiple virtual machines with memory being the problem.
There is no need for average consumer upgrade if they have purchased anything with a dual code processor, and since a new windows upgrade was a major money point for Dell in the past they must be running scared and you can expect them to make comments like this.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
Alot of games on steam come with securom and other copy protection methods.
Such games include: bioshock, fallout 3 and Crysis Warhead.
However EA has released patchs for some of thier games that remove Securom from the steam version.
Also you can also find games with TAGES on steam.
EA has already done that.
So what is the term used? Sweets?
DLC is not required to complete or even play the game. They are extra content that adds to the game .
It is widly known that games are probably going to have exansion packs, and now a days paid for DLC, so that is not the shocker. It is that they are releasing DLC on the day of release and since time probably does not factor into when DLC is release no falso advertisment or selling an incomplete product.
Now if the cover art of the box included pictures of the DLC golem in the party they I would agree since the box is an advertisement of the product and they are showing you something that can only be seen if you purchase something not in the box.