Yes but "this story" is about a 12 year old getting sued for something illegal (and later settling). The story is not that a 12 year old was being sued under bullshit laws that shouldn't exist. That story would cause the media to lose money in the long run.
That's because the media has no incentive to report on the other side of the issue. The media makes its money through copyright, and they're not about to give anti-copyright people a voice. That would be fair and balanced....
No, the gov't will just use taxpayer money to buy (licenses for) the software. That way not only can we have censorship, but companies with stupid patents can make millions of dollars.
Well they may be picking names at random, but they still see the names of the potential defendants before they file suit. If one of the random names turns out to be Bill Gates, they'll just skip over to the next name on the list (which could be a 12 year old child, of course). Sure, some rich people are more famous than others, but I have a feeling they at least do a preliminary check to see who they are suing. Plus, keep in mind, they bought the laws and the laws are on their side. There's not much to defend. A wealthy defendant has deep pockets, and remember, at the end of the day all the RIAA cares about is money (and there's nothing innately wrong with caring about money, don't get me wrong).
Britney Spears, Christina, Jessica Simpson etc. Ok, maybe they are "barely legal" but regardless, the RIAA makes most of its money by selling images of half-naked children. And the younger they look, the better they sell, and the more support they get from the recording industry. Shit, madonna just stuck her tongue down one of their throats on TV the other day. Death to kiddie porn! Death to the recording industry!
Even better... let's see who supported/introduced this "Protecting the Children from Peer to Peer Pornography Act of 2003".. Shall we?
Mr. PITTS (for himself, Mr. JOHN, Mr. SULLIVAN, Mr. PENCE, and Mr. DEMINT) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce
Pitts, Joseph R. - REPUBLICAN
Pence, Mike - REPUBLICAN
DeMint, Jim - REPUBLICAN
John, Christopher - DEMOCRAT
Sullivan, John - REPUBLICAN
So, it seems this is a bi-partisan bill, with primarily GOP support. I expect you to join the democratic party today. And since when do religious zealots not pass laws? Remember the Defense of Marriage Act? A law was just introduced the other day to make it "not unconstitutional" (never mind the obvious stupidity of a law stating such a thing.... either amend the constitution or shut the fuck up) to display the 10 commandments on gov't property. And sine we've become a rule by majority country (screw the minority; it's not protected anymore b/c it doesn't speak for the majority!) it will pass.
What the hell are you talking about? Every evil copyright bill is supported by one democrat and one republican. You think Orin Hatch doesn't have a few "fuck the consumer" bills under his belt? Look closer. This issue is not a partisan one; an equal amount of democrats and republicans are bought and paid for. If you want to look at it from a more partisan viewpoint, the democrats support hollywood and "artists" (thus copyright protection) and the republicans support big business (thus copyright protection). Your right to "steal" (aka freely use) music and movies is not represented by either party. As far as I know, it's not even vocally represented by any 3rd parties. When freedom of speech and freedom to make a profit collide, the latter always wins. As is the case with copyright.
"Governments should not be in the position to decide who the winners are," Robertson [MS] said. Yep. That's why they shouldn't be making and enforcing copyright laws. Let the market, not the laws (and threat of suit thereunder) decide whose business model is best. If there is no market for your product, go sell lemonade.
In our society, children are considered glorified pets, and the sole way to ensure your policy gets implemented is to say (not prove or show, mind you) that without your policy, the children are in danger. Kiddie porn "hurts" children (via the "market" theory) and now that kiddie porn and p2p have been used in the same sentence, unless someone comes up with a theory about how getting rid of p2p would hurt children (and hurt them more than a proficient means of transferring kiddie porn), this is the beginning of the end.
Note: how would James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, et al. feel about america having software programs that are illegal to run (and probably even to possess)? Shit, even Hamilton is rolling around in his grave right now. Horrible. Also, expect both Democrats and Republicans to support this bill evenly, because the RIAA buys them evenly. $20 says it passes.
Anyone know what the difference is? Electrochromatic is the word car companies typically use to describe the auto-dimming rear-view mirrors. Dictionaries seem to only define electrocromic. Odd. Is electrochromatic just a made-up word that sounds better than the proper one? Sorta like disenfranchise (not proper) vis a vis disfranchise?
The copyright laws are on their side because they paid for those laws. That's all. That doesn't make them morally right or justified in their actions. They can call downloading "stealing" or "shoplifting" all day long; that doesn't make it so.
that's where this is going. they'll put the weather and other important sections on CDROM and stick a shrinkwrap license on it, depriving you the right to do... well... anything with it. That's the whole point here.
everyone has the power to communicate with another person via telephone, email, or snail mail. Abusing that power is what direct marketing is. It's not something I don't like, it's something everyone doesnt like, even those few direct marketers we've seen get spammed via email or snail mail. Nobody likes it for any length of time. Look how many people signed up for the do not call list. At one point i recall 10 people a second were signing up. When China does a DOS attack on our computers, it is electronic/"cyber" terrorism. I don't see how that's terrorism if what the DMA does is not. Nobody likes it, it bothers everyone who is a recipient, nobody other than the terrorists support it, it costs our economy millions of dollars (namely spam), and everyone wants it to stop. It's terrorism. A non-lethal form of terrorism, I'll grant you, but terrorism nonetheless.
Ok not to be a nitpicky jackfuck, but isn't "if" and "where" as used in this context (to use linux or not) the same thing? "Where" is referring to what situations/setups make for a proper place to run linux. "If" is just another way of saying that. For example: Where your servers are important to you and you can't afford the downtime associated with microsoft products, linux is for you. OR -- If your servers are important to you and you can't afford the downtime... then linux is for you. Same thing. Even if you take "where" to mean a purely geographical location (e.g. linux is proper in arizona) another way of phrasing that is "if you are in this geographical location then linux is proper."
My point is "where" is no more narrow than "if" when you are talking about linux making sense to run and not making sense to run. Thus going from "if" to "where" means nothing vis a vis the advancement of linux.
Going from "if" to "when" is, however, a statement that does have meaning. Maybe that's what they meant here? Going from if you should run linux to when you should run linux mean eventually, you should be running linux. /nitpick off
my dictionary has other definitions for "violence" which seem to fit better than that one. "Abusive or unjust exercise of power" is how I would label their actions as violence.
I think "violence" is broad enough to encompass sending penis and tit spam to everyone 1000 times a day. Calling me during dinner is violence against humanity. It's like walking up to a person and throwing a bucket of diarrhea on their face -- violence doesn't have to involve guns or blood. If any rational human wouldn't want it done to them, it's violence when so done. Most of what they do is unlawful, and if it's not technically unlawful that is only the result of powerful lobbying agencies, not social mores. I stand by my statement that the DMA is a terrorist organization. Their goal is to make sure you cannot be left alone in your home or place of work.
A good technical solution and an act of bad censorship are not mutually exclusive descriptions. Yeah, one has the word good and the other has the word bad, but those adjectives modify different things. In other words, AOL's actions can be both a good technical solution and an act of bad censorship. For example, the attacks on September 11th were a good technical solution to killing lots of people one considers to be "infidels" but also a very bad, evil, horrible act. Point: your dichotomy is false. If you're gonna bash the colletive slashdot mindset, do so in an intelligible way.
I'm not saying make a party illegal because of their beliefs, I'm saying this group, the DMA, is like a kiddie porn ring with a 3-letter acronym. Or a better example is a warez group. RiSC, Razor1911, PWA, etc. It's not the beliefs of the group which make it illegal, it's the purpose of the association. Warez groups are illegal because, by definition, they pirate software. The Direct Marketing Assoc, much the same, exists solely to terrorize people. That is why the group is a criminal enterprise. RICO laws should be used to shut them down if the government is too scared to use the Patriot Act.
The only difference between al Queda and the DMA is that the DMA has paid lobbyists working in washington.
There is no way to fight direct marketing as long as it is legal. Unlisted numbers don't work. Trust me, I have one. The National Do Not Call list will not work either. This is like telling israelis they can stop Hamas by wearing bulletproof vests when they leave the house. Unfortunately it doesn't work that way in real life.
Commercial speech is indeed protected by the first amendment, but a content-neutral time/place/manner regulation such as forbidding direct marketing only entails intermediate scrutiny, and considering the destruction direct marketing is causing on our lives and environment, a complete ban would pass intermediate constitutional scrutiny without a sweat. There will still be plenty of legal forums for advertising. Just not our homes or places of work.
1. Godwin's law is bullshit to begin with, because as a conversation goes on, the probability of any word being said approaches one, whether that word be nazi, hitler, spinach, or pepsi. So Godwin's law sounds spiffy until you realize it applies to any word, not just Nazi or some other evil regime.
2. I am saying the DMA is a terrorist organization. It's not any different than saying the Irish Republican Army is like al Queda. All 3 are terrorist groups. They all terrorize the public to accomplish their goals (independence from Britain, get rid of the infidels, sell products to people who don't want them). It's all about the tactics employed to get one's message out. Calling strangers at their homes to sell them stuff, sending them hundreds of spams a day, and hanging pizza menus on everyone's doorknob is just as antisocial as suicide bombing busloads full of children to bring attention to your cause.
and don't forget it. The DMA is up there with al Queda. It boggles my mind that the DMA is allowed to exist in this country. Child pornography causes less damage and is less offensive than direct marketing (euphamism for directly bothering people incessantly to buy crap that nobody wants, needs, or even desires). If kiddie porn is not protected by free speech (which it is not) then direct marketing should not be, either. I'm not even talking about spam, which of course is not protected by free speech. I mean using telemarketers, door-to-door sales, snail-mail, and sticking fliers on my front door. Buy a billboard, buy a TV commercial (and don't complain when i skip it with Tivo), or buy a newspaper/magazine ad. If you're not willing to do those things, hope your product sells by word of mouth. If it is good and useful, it most likely will. If it's a piece of shit, it doesn't deserve to sell a single unit. In the meantime, the direct marketing association terrorists continue to flock to our mailboxes and front doors, and continue to terrorize us via the phone while we're eating dinner. They should all be nuked.
I'd rather have each item identified by a unique bar code than a unique RFID chip. Bar codes don't broadcast information. Unfortunately I predict the more invasive technology (RFID) will become the industry/worldwide standard.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes but "this story" is about a 12 year old getting sued for something illegal (and later settling). The story is not that a 12 year old was being sued under bullshit laws that shouldn't exist. That story would cause the media to lose money in the long run.
That's because the media has no incentive to report on the other side of the issue. The media makes its money through copyright, and they're not about to give anti-copyright people a voice. That would be fair and balanced....
No, the gov't will just use taxpayer money to buy (licenses for) the software. That way not only can we have censorship, but companies with stupid patents can make millions of dollars.
Well they may be picking names at random, but they still see the names of the potential defendants before they file suit. If one of the random names turns out to be Bill Gates, they'll just skip over to the next name on the list (which could be a 12 year old child, of course). Sure, some rich people are more famous than others, but I have a feeling they at least do a preliminary check to see who they are suing. Plus, keep in mind, they bought the laws and the laws are on their side. There's not much to defend. A wealthy defendant has deep pockets, and remember, at the end of the day all the RIAA cares about is money (and there's nothing innately wrong with caring about money, don't get me wrong).
No, because that's contributory infringement.
Copyright law trumps the first amendment. Everyone knows that.
Britney Spears, Christina, Jessica Simpson etc. Ok, maybe they are "barely legal" but regardless, the RIAA makes most of its money by selling images of half-naked children. And the younger they look, the better they sell, and the more support they get from the recording industry. Shit, madonna just stuck her tongue down one of their throats on TV the other day. Death to kiddie porn! Death to the recording industry!
Even better... let's see who supported/introduced this "Protecting the Children from Peer to Peer Pornography Act of 2003" .. Shall we?
Mr. PITTS (for himself, Mr. JOHN, Mr. SULLIVAN, Mr. PENCE, and Mr. DEMINT) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce
Pitts, Joseph R. - REPUBLICAN
Pence, Mike - REPUBLICAN
DeMint, Jim - REPUBLICAN
John, Christopher - DEMOCRAT
Sullivan, John - REPUBLICAN
So, it seems this is a bi-partisan bill, with primarily GOP support. I expect you to join the democratic party today. And since when do religious zealots not pass laws? Remember the Defense of Marriage Act? A law was just introduced the other day to make it "not unconstitutional" (never mind the obvious stupidity of a law stating such a thing.... either amend the constitution or shut the fuck up) to display the 10 commandments on gov't property. And sine we've become a rule by majority country (screw the minority; it's not protected anymore b/c it doesn't speak for the majority!) it will pass.
What the hell are you talking about? Every evil copyright bill is supported by one democrat and one republican. You think Orin Hatch doesn't have a few "fuck the consumer" bills under his belt? Look closer. This issue is not a partisan one; an equal amount of democrats and republicans are bought and paid for. If you want to look at it from a more partisan viewpoint, the democrats support hollywood and "artists" (thus copyright protection) and the republicans support big business (thus copyright protection). Your right to "steal" (aka freely use) music and movies is not represented by either party. As far as I know, it's not even vocally represented by any 3rd parties. When freedom of speech and freedom to make a profit collide, the latter always wins. As is the case with copyright.
"Governments should not be in the position to decide who the winners are," Robertson [MS] said. Yep. That's why they shouldn't be making and enforcing copyright laws. Let the market, not the laws (and threat of suit thereunder) decide whose business model is best. If there is no market for your product, go sell lemonade.
In our society, children are considered glorified pets, and the sole way to ensure your policy gets implemented is to say (not prove or show, mind you) that without your policy, the children are in danger. Kiddie porn "hurts" children (via the "market" theory) and now that kiddie porn and p2p have been used in the same sentence, unless someone comes up with a theory about how getting rid of p2p would hurt children (and hurt them more than a proficient means of transferring kiddie porn), this is the beginning of the end.
Note: how would James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, et al. feel about america having software programs that are illegal to run (and probably even to possess)? Shit, even Hamilton is rolling around in his grave right now. Horrible. Also, expect both Democrats and Republicans to support this bill evenly, because the RIAA buys them evenly. $20 says it passes.
Anyone know what the difference is? Electrochromatic is the word car companies typically use to describe the auto-dimming rear-view mirrors. Dictionaries seem to only define electrocromic. Odd. Is electrochromatic just a made-up word that sounds better than the proper one? Sorta like disenfranchise (not proper) vis a vis disfranchise?
The copyright laws are on their side because they paid for those laws. That's all. That doesn't make them morally right or justified in their actions. They can call downloading "stealing" or "shoplifting" all day long; that doesn't make it so.
that's where this is going. they'll put the weather and other important sections on CDROM and stick a shrinkwrap license on it, depriving you the right to do... well... anything with it. That's the whole point here.
but "where not" (where the condition is not met) there is thus no use for it and it should not be used.
everyone has the power to communicate with another person via telephone, email, or snail mail. Abusing that power is what direct marketing is. It's not something I don't like, it's something everyone doesnt like, even those few direct marketers we've seen get spammed via email or snail mail. Nobody likes it for any length of time. Look how many people signed up for the do not call list. At one point i recall 10 people a second were signing up. When China does a DOS attack on our computers, it is electronic/"cyber" terrorism. I don't see how that's terrorism if what the DMA does is not. Nobody likes it, it bothers everyone who is a recipient, nobody other than the terrorists support it, it costs our economy millions of dollars (namely spam), and everyone wants it to stop. It's terrorism. A non-lethal form of terrorism, I'll grant you, but terrorism nonetheless.
Ok not to be a nitpicky jackfuck, but isn't "if" and "where" as used in this context (to use linux or not) the same thing? "Where" is referring to what situations/setups make for a proper place to run linux. "If" is just another way of saying that. For example: Where your servers are important to you and you can't afford the downtime associated with microsoft products, linux is for you. OR -- If your servers are important to you and you can't afford the downtime... then linux is for you. Same thing. Even if you take "where" to mean a purely geographical location (e.g. linux is proper in arizona) another way of phrasing that is "if you are in this geographical location then linux is proper."
/nitpick off
My point is "where" is no more narrow than "if" when you are talking about linux making sense to run and not making sense to run. Thus going from "if" to "where" means nothing vis a vis the advancement of linux.
Going from "if" to "when" is, however, a statement that does have meaning. Maybe that's what they meant here? Going from if you should run linux to when you should run linux mean eventually, you should be running linux.
my dictionary has other definitions for "violence" which seem to fit better than that one. "Abusive or unjust exercise of power" is how I would label their actions as violence.
Only the non-born-again-evangelical christian ones.
I think "violence" is broad enough to encompass sending penis and tit spam to everyone 1000 times a day. Calling me during dinner is violence against humanity. It's like walking up to a person and throwing a bucket of diarrhea on their face -- violence doesn't have to involve guns or blood. If any rational human wouldn't want it done to them, it's violence when so done. Most of what they do is unlawful, and if it's not technically unlawful that is only the result of powerful lobbying agencies, not social mores. I stand by my statement that the DMA is a terrorist organization. Their goal is to make sure you cannot be left alone in your home or place of work.
A good technical solution and an act of bad censorship are not mutually exclusive descriptions. Yeah, one has the word good and the other has the word bad, but those adjectives modify different things. In other words, AOL's actions can be both a good technical solution and an act of bad censorship. For example, the attacks on September 11th were a good technical solution to killing lots of people one considers to be "infidels" but also a very bad, evil, horrible act. Point: your dichotomy is false. If you're gonna bash the colletive slashdot mindset, do so in an intelligible way.
I'm not saying make a party illegal because of their beliefs, I'm saying this group, the DMA, is like a kiddie porn ring with a 3-letter acronym. Or a better example is a warez group. RiSC, Razor1911, PWA, etc. It's not the beliefs of the group which make it illegal, it's the purpose of the association. Warez groups are illegal because, by definition, they pirate software. The Direct Marketing Assoc, much the same, exists solely to terrorize people. That is why the group is a criminal enterprise. RICO laws should be used to shut them down if the government is too scared to use the Patriot Act.
The only difference between al Queda and the DMA is that the DMA has paid lobbyists working in washington.
There is no way to fight direct marketing as long as it is legal. Unlisted numbers don't work. Trust me, I have one. The National Do Not Call list will not work either. This is like telling israelis they can stop Hamas by wearing bulletproof vests when they leave the house. Unfortunately it doesn't work that way in real life.
Commercial speech is indeed protected by the first amendment, but a content-neutral time/place/manner regulation such as forbidding direct marketing only entails intermediate scrutiny, and considering the destruction direct marketing is causing on our lives and environment, a complete ban would pass intermediate constitutional scrutiny without a sweat. There will still be plenty of legal forums for advertising. Just not our homes or places of work.
1. Godwin's law is bullshit to begin with, because as a conversation goes on, the probability of any word being said approaches one, whether that word be nazi, hitler, spinach, or pepsi. So Godwin's law sounds spiffy until you realize it applies to any word, not just Nazi or some other evil regime.
2. I am saying the DMA is a terrorist organization. It's not any different than saying the Irish Republican Army is like al Queda. All 3 are terrorist groups. They all terrorize the public to accomplish their goals (independence from Britain, get rid of the infidels, sell products to people who don't want them). It's all about the tactics employed to get one's message out. Calling strangers at their homes to sell them stuff, sending them hundreds of spams a day, and hanging pizza menus on everyone's doorknob is just as antisocial as suicide bombing busloads full of children to bring attention to your cause.
and don't forget it. The DMA is up there with al Queda. It boggles my mind that the DMA is allowed to exist in this country. Child pornography causes less damage and is less offensive than direct marketing (euphamism for directly bothering people incessantly to buy crap that nobody wants, needs, or even desires). If kiddie porn is not protected by free speech (which it is not) then direct marketing should not be, either. I'm not even talking about spam, which of course is not protected by free speech. I mean using telemarketers, door-to-door sales, snail-mail, and sticking fliers on my front door. Buy a billboard, buy a TV commercial (and don't complain when i skip it with Tivo), or buy a newspaper/magazine ad. If you're not willing to do those things, hope your product sells by word of mouth. If it is good and useful, it most likely will. If it's a piece of shit, it doesn't deserve to sell a single unit. In the meantime, the direct marketing association terrorists continue to flock to our mailboxes and front doors, and continue to terrorize us via the phone while we're eating dinner. They should all be nuked.
I'd rather have each item identified by a unique bar code than a unique RFID chip. Bar codes don't broadcast information. Unfortunately I predict the more invasive technology (RFID) will become the industry/worldwide standard.