And its my opinion that someone who people who repeatedly, knowingly, constantly take other peoples hard work for free, again and again and again,with zero intention of ever paying for it, or giving a shit about the effects of what they do, deserve what they get.
pure and simple.
I knowingly, contantly, take other peoples hard work for free, again and again and again! I listened to the radio and when a commercial came on, I CHANGED THE CHANNEL! Wha ha ha ha ha! Whenever I watch tv, I intentionally avoid commercials, EVERY DAMN TIME! I borrow books from the library, watch movies at friends houses, borrow thier games and use open source software and none of those guys ever see a single dime from me! I am EVIL! I am a dirty rotten stinky theif and I deserve what I get!
Natural rights (also called moral rights or inalienable rights) are rights which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or polity. In contrast, legal rights (sometimes also called civil rights or statutory rights) are rights conveyed by a particular polity, codified into legal statutes by some form of legislature, and as such are contingent upon local laws, customs, or beliefs. Natural rights are thus necessarily universal, whereas legal rights are culturally and politically relative. source
The answer to most of the rest of your questions is "no". source
You sign up for a plan without a contract and you will pay the full retail price for the phone and same monthly price for a plan that a customer with a contract has. Wireless plans are designed so that part of the monthly plan goes toward the purchase of the phone, so by paying full price for a phone and plan you are not coming out ahead. You get to switch carriers whenever you want? Great! Except you'll have to buy a new phone, which will cost more than the contract penalty would have.
...and striving for a balance in copyright/patent law will never work. Copyright started out with a reasonable term and scope. It has steadily and gradually pushed out to the obnoxius abuse of law and culture that it is now. Having a copyright system will always encourage rent seeking behavior. Copyright holders will fight tooth and nail to extend and expand it. They are still doing that now even with the draconian policies they have managed to buy/coerce from our law makers. The only solution is to eliminate it all together.
Also, the idea that people will stop creating art if they can't controll the distribution of it is absurd. People have always created art and always will. We might not get the blockbuster movies that we do now, but having recently been subjected to the travesty that is "Transformers: 2", I think that could be a good thing.
What I would like to know is what is going through the mind of the jury? Who are these people who seem to think that copyright infringement is serious enough to ruin this woman's life over? They don't have children or grandchildren who download or upload music to other people? My experience with infringing copyright began when I was in elementary school and would make my own mix tapes. I would either use a double deck tape player to copy specific songs from other collections or I would stay next to the radio to quickly press the 'unpause' button when a song I liked came on. Sometimes I would *gasp* give copies of the tapes to my friends. Did they never do that? How did the RIAA find all those humorless technologically impaired corporate drones and get them all on the same jury. Seriously: What the hell?
You probably should have continued to the next paragraph, too:
However, we can't confirm that coverage is in effect in all those states today. Also, some soft-tone coverage is limited, in time or other respects. For example, according to the NANCE report, emergency service in Oklahoma is mandated for only 30 days following the suspension of service. In Ohio, the period is only 14 days.
There was only one instance of each method even attempted, as far as I can determine. Both of them were foiled. Were there any successful attacks using those two methods prior to the implementation of the shoe removal and no liquids security measures? Have they caught anyone even trying? If not, then the current practice of having passengers remove their shoes and the banning of plum jam are unnecessary.
I canceled DirecTV a month ago. I get my tv through eztv.it and Torrent Episode Downloader (TED). I have two XBOX's (original, not 360) that I've loaded XBMC onto. I get movies through thepiratebay and Netflix. I don't have the fastest internet speed in the world, just 1.5mb, but it seems to work just fine for everything I want to do.
Before I got rid of Dtv, I had paired it with ReplayTV, which we loved. We watched a reasonable mix of live and recorded tv. I might still be with Dtv and replaytv if replaytv had been allowed to continue to innovate and hadn't been litigated out of existence. I just couldn't stand the picture anymore from the replay on the new tv, couldn't bring myself to getting dtv's comparatively crippled dvr, and building two dvr's using Mythtv or whatever was just too expensive and too much trouble.
Child porn laws should exist as a way to keep adults from hurting children. Not to give adults yet another way they can hurt kids. This whole thing is moronic in the extreme.
Those people are homosexual, not exactly the kind of people you want working for you if you're looking for smart people...
Those people are black, not exactly the kind of people you want working for you if you're looking for smart people...
Those people are women, not exactly the kind of people you want working for you if you're looking for smart people...
Those people are athiests, not exactly the kind of people you want working for you if you're looking for smart people...
Those people are Jewish, not exactly the kind of people you want working for you if you're looking for smart people...
Those people are Swedes, not exactly the kind of people you want working for you if you're looking for smart people...
Have you ever considered that your opinions may be considered bigoted?
Yeah, not really. She can't stop them from calling her the first time. The most she could do is stop the blockheads from calling her repeatedly. There is no way to preemptively block the morons who call her thinking she's the scammer. Those guys are going to usually going to call her once and then never again, and there will always be a fresh crop of idiots to call her as long as the spoofer is using her phone number.
I think a lot of the confusion here is that the little old lady in the summary is not the one that is receiving the scam calls. She is receiving calls from people the scammer made angry. Her phone company can ID those people, but that won't help her at all. The FBI already knows that caller ID info can be faked. I'm sure they would be very interested in someone impersonating an FBI agent (which is illegal), but that is not what is happening. Spoofing caller ID is not illegal.
Either way her phone company won't be able to do more than identify the angry people calling her, not the spoofer. Example: She is in New York(Verizon), the spoofer is in Idaho(Qwest), and he is trying to scam residents of Georgia(Bellsouth). How is Verizon going to id a call placed on Qwest's lines and terminating on Bellsouth's? She is not receiving the spoofed calls. She is getting calls from people who are angry at the spoofer. Her phone company can do nothing (except change her number).
Now the customer on Bellsouth's network (the person who actually received the spoofer's call) can probably request a call trace (*57 in most area's iirc), and maybe some of them do. But that helps her not at all.
Umm... What exactly is the phone company supposed to do about it? Do they have some kind of special wiring that can detect whether it's her grandkids calling or an angry scam victim? Can they reach their fingers through the lines and stop the scammers from spoofing the old lady's phone number even through the call probably doesn't originate or even necessarily terminate on their lines? Do you really think they have that kind of filtering power? And the FBI. What do they have to go on? They know that someone, somewhere is spoofing her phone number. I'm not sure that is even illegal. So what basis do they have to justify the expense of an investigation?
I've had my email address used by spammers as their return address. I got a lot of angry emails for a while. It sucks. Bad people do bad things and innocent people get hurt. Sometimes you can stop them, sometimes you just have to do your best to shield yourself from the effects. I stopped using that email address. She should change her phone number.
(to the tune of "Lovely Ladies") I smell cell phones, smell them in the air
Think I'll plug my charger in that outlet over there!
I need power for my PDA,
Wish that all these cords I have would finally go away.
That won't happen ever in my day!
On second thought. No. You're right. It would be boring.
Except Nintendo actually (gasp) sells the Wii at a profit:
While Microsoft and Sony have experienced losses producing their consoles in the hopes of making a long-term profit on software sales, Nintendo reportedly has optimized production costs to obtain a significant profit margin with each Wii unit sold. According to the Financial Times, this direct profit per Wii sold may vary from $13 in Japan to $49 in the United States and $79 in Europe.
Slashdot Mirror
I knowingly, contantly, take other peoples hard work for free, again and again and again! I listened to the radio and when a commercial came on, I CHANGED THE CHANNEL! Wha ha ha ha ha! Whenever I watch tv, I intentionally avoid commercials, EVERY DAMN TIME! I borrow books from the library, watch movies at friends houses, borrow thier games and use open source software and none of those guys ever see a single dime from me! I am EVIL! I am a dirty rotten stinky theif and I deserve what I get!
Natural rights (also called moral rights or inalienable rights) are rights which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or polity. In contrast, legal rights (sometimes also called civil rights or statutory rights) are rights conveyed by a particular polity, codified into legal statutes by some form of legislature, and as such are contingent upon local laws, customs, or beliefs. Natural rights are thus necessarily universal, whereas legal rights are culturally and politically relative. source
The answer to most of the rest of your questions is "no". source
You sign up for a plan without a contract and you will pay the full retail price for the phone and same monthly price for a plan that a customer with a contract has. Wireless plans are designed so that part of the monthly plan goes toward the purchase of the phone, so by paying full price for a phone and plan you are not coming out ahead. You get to switch carriers whenever you want? Great! Except you'll have to buy a new phone, which will cost more than the contract penalty would have.
...and striving for a balance in copyright/patent law will never work. Copyright started out with a reasonable term and scope. It has steadily and gradually pushed out to the obnoxius abuse of law and culture that it is now. Having a copyright system will always encourage rent seeking behavior. Copyright holders will fight tooth and nail to extend and expand it. They are still doing that now even with the draconian policies they have managed to buy/coerce from our law makers. The only solution is to eliminate it all together.
Also, the idea that people will stop creating art if they can't controll the distribution of it is absurd. People have always created art and always will. We might not get the blockbuster movies that we do now, but having recently been subjected to the travesty that is "Transformers: 2", I think that could be a good thing.
Yeah, but they do a lot of things that are hard for me to imagine until they do them.
So as someone more informed than the average slashdotter or wikipedian, what's your opinion? Should they be posted on wikipedia, or not?
Nice. I think this is your worst analogy yet! :)
At least wait for a few rebuttle comments before jumping on this troll's bandwagon. Talk about your knee-jerk reactions.
What I would like to know is what is going through the mind of the jury? Who are these people who seem to think that copyright infringement is serious enough to ruin this woman's life over? They don't have children or grandchildren who download or upload music to other people? My experience with infringing copyright began when I was in elementary school and would make my own mix tapes. I would either use a double deck tape player to copy specific songs from other collections or I would stay next to the radio to quickly press the 'unpause' button when a song I liked came on. Sometimes I would *gasp* give copies of the tapes to my friends. Did they never do that? How did the RIAA find all those humorless technologically impaired corporate drones and get them all on the same jury. Seriously: What the hell?
Wow. I feel so inadequate after reading that. Where do I turn in my geek card?
You make it sound like drm.
DRM is a feature, not a bug. Without it it would be difficult for content industries as a whole to adapt to changing environment.
I thought we were an autonomous collective.
There was only one instance of each method even attempted, as far as I can determine. Both of them were foiled. Were there any successful attacks using those two methods prior to the implementation of the shoe removal and no liquids security measures? Have they caught anyone even trying? If not, then the current practice of having passengers remove their shoes and the banning of plum jam are unnecessary.
It could be a real problem if your band's name is Drinkspit.com or the like.
I canceled DirecTV a month ago. I get my tv through eztv.it and Torrent Episode Downloader (TED). I have two XBOX's (original, not 360) that I've loaded XBMC onto. I get movies through thepiratebay and Netflix. I don't have the fastest internet speed in the world, just 1.5mb, but it seems to work just fine for everything I want to do.
Before I got rid of Dtv, I had paired it with ReplayTV, which we loved. We watched a reasonable mix of live and recorded tv. I might still be with Dtv and replaytv if replaytv had been allowed to continue to innovate and hadn't been litigated out of existence. I just couldn't stand the picture anymore from the replay on the new tv, couldn't bring myself to getting dtv's comparatively crippled dvr, and building two dvr's using Mythtv or whatever was just too expensive and too much trouble.
You're looking at my gut, aren't you!? Hey! I'm working on it, ok?!
Child porn laws should exist as a way to keep adults from hurting children. Not to give adults yet another way they can hurt kids. This whole thing is moronic in the extreme.
Those people are homosexual, not exactly the kind of people you want working for you if you're looking for smart people...
Those people are black, not exactly the kind of people you want working for you if you're looking for smart people...
Those people are women, not exactly the kind of people you want working for you if you're looking for smart people...
Those people are athiests, not exactly the kind of people you want working for you if you're looking for smart people...
Those people are Jewish, not exactly the kind of people you want working for you if you're looking for smart people...
Those people are Swedes, not exactly the kind of people you want working for you if you're looking for smart people...
Have you ever considered that your opinions may be considered bigoted?
Yeah, not really. She can't stop them from calling her the first time. The most she could do is stop the blockheads from calling her repeatedly. There is no way to preemptively block the morons who call her thinking she's the scammer. Those guys are going to usually going to call her once and then never again, and there will always be a fresh crop of idiots to call her as long as the spoofer is using her phone number.
I think a lot of the confusion here is that the little old lady in the summary is not the one that is receiving the scam calls. She is receiving calls from people the scammer made angry. Her phone company can ID those people, but that won't help her at all. The FBI already knows that caller ID info can be faked. I'm sure they would be very interested in someone impersonating an FBI agent (which is illegal), but that is not what is happening. Spoofing caller ID is not illegal.
Either way her phone company won't be able to do more than identify the angry people calling her, not the spoofer. Example: She is in New York(Verizon), the spoofer is in Idaho(Qwest), and he is trying to scam residents of Georgia(Bellsouth). How is Verizon going to id a call placed on Qwest's lines and terminating on Bellsouth's? She is not receiving the spoofed calls. She is getting calls from people who are angry at the spoofer. Her phone company can do nothing (except change her number).
Now the customer on Bellsouth's network (the person who actually received the spoofer's call) can probably request a call trace (*57 in most area's iirc), and maybe some of them do. But that helps her not at all.
Umm... What exactly is the phone company supposed to do about it? Do they have some kind of special wiring that can detect whether it's her grandkids calling or an angry scam victim? Can they reach their fingers through the lines and stop the scammers from spoofing the old lady's phone number even through the call probably doesn't originate or even necessarily terminate on their lines? Do you really think they have that kind of filtering power? And the FBI. What do they have to go on? They know that someone, somewhere is spoofing her phone number. I'm not sure that is even illegal. So what basis do they have to justify the expense of an investigation?
I've had my email address used by spammers as their return address. I got a lot of angry emails for a while. It sucks. Bad people do bad things and innocent people get hurt. Sometimes you can stop them, sometimes you just have to do your best to shield yourself from the effects. I stopped using that email address. She should change her phone number.
I don't know. It might be ok...
(to the tune of "Lovely Ladies")
I smell cell phones, smell them in the air
Think I'll plug my charger in that outlet over there!
I need power for my PDA,
Wish that all these cords I have would finally go away.
That won't happen ever in my day!
On second thought. No. You're right. It would be boring.
While Microsoft and Sony have experienced losses producing their consoles in the hopes of making a long-term profit on software sales, Nintendo reportedly has optimized production costs to obtain a significant profit margin with each Wii unit sold. According to the Financial Times, this direct profit per Wii sold may vary from $13 in Japan to $49 in the United States and $79 in Europe.