I agree. But when they are watching me and I do not know it, or I cannot watch them, I am being violated.
no, you aren't. "being watched" consists of collecting photons that are reflected off of you. once those photons leave you, they are no longer yours, and you have no say over them or what someone else does with them.
No one here yet has managed to put to words just exactly how and why it is different than just being watched by someone else on the street, but we all know that it is different.
"we all know"? don't presume to speak for others, and claim that your view is universal, it isn't! i could care less if a camera or a person is watching me.
i couldn't possibly agree with you more. i happen to live in the us, and i absolutely despise bush, cheney, ashcroft and rumsfeld (not that the democrats are much better). i do what i can to undermine the authority of the federal government and corporate america, which i consider to be the enemy of humanity, not just the enemy of americans. many of my friends feel the same way as i do.
if i travel abroad in the near future, i will likely introduce myself as being canadian, i am so sickened and embarassed by what america has become.
But you have obviously never had to get in or out of a car while severely handicapped (partially or totally paralyzed, advanced parkinsons, multiple sclerosis, multiple joint replacement, etc.) Often people with these disabilities require specially designed cars or vans with lifts, special doors, etc. They often require assistance. So they need extra space and properly oriented spaces for safety. Likewise getting across the entire parking lot is indeed an ordeal for them - they need spaces close up. Have you ever tried escorting a severely mentally handicapped person across a mall parking lot? What do you really know about the human condition? From your remarks I would say less than zero.
how is it possible for a human to "know less that zero" about the human condition? are you being stupid on purpose? or are you attempting to replace reason with insults?
the handicapped are not the only ones who "need spaces close up", everyone does. get over your feelings of self-importance.
I agree that far too many people park in these places when they do not need them. I often re-park my van after dropping off my mother and/or son so that someone else who needs it can use the spot for loading/unloading. Perhaps someday someone will no longer be able to stomach these handicapped space poachers and we will have some sensible violence. George deserved what he got;-)
so, you're saying you support violence as a means of resolving problems. i have no sympathy at all for you.
I for one think things like handicapped parking spaces, building/sidewalk ramps, handicapped restrooms/drinking fountains, public braille signs, and automatic doors are great.
i agree that most of these things are great, but they should be done voluntarily if they're on private property.
the one thing i don't agree with is handicapped parking. firstly, there's way too many of them, at least where i live, compared to the handicapped population. i'd estimate that there's a car with a handicapped plate in 1-2% of the handicapped spots at any given time. the rest of the time they are either empty, making parking harder for everyone else, or else filled with non-hc plated cars, meaning the spots are reserved for people who don't care about the rules or anyone else.
but there's a more basic problem with handicapped only parking spots - it basically says that handicapped people are special and should recieve special priveleges that no one else can. there's something intrinsically wrong with that. i agree that the handicapped should have equal (not extra) rights, and should be able to lead normal fulfilling lives like everyone else, but to accord them special priveleges by law out of a misplaced sense of pity sends the wrong message, and is a mistake.
Because what you do with your private property often affects others. For example, there is a individual in D.C. shooting people. He is clearly using his private property (gun) in the manner he wants.Using your logic we shouldn't care that he is doing this.
just because you can be a total moron doesn't mean you SHOULD.
Long ago, a science fiction writer (I don't remember who, unfortunately) wrote a short story about a society which tried to equalize everything for everybody. If you were too fast, you wore weights to slow you down. If you were too smart, you wore a device that randomly made a loud noise and startled you out of your train of thought.
sounds like "harrison bergeron" by kurt vonnegut. an excellent story, made into a tv-movie in 1995, also very good: http://us.imdb.com/Title?0113264
"Innocent until proven guilty" and "right to a trial by jury of your peers"
unless, of course, the "war on terrorism" is invoked, in which case you can be held in jail indefinitely without being charged, even if you're an american citizen like jose padilla.
so, you're saying that even though berman and other bribe-takers in congress don't care about how they look as far as selling their votes to the highest corporate bidder, but he is worried about his image with a handful of techies? i'm more inclined to think that he realizes the lack of support for the bill and how it's not going to be passed in its present form.
Erm, they make a program for pirating movies and music.
and you use a computer for hacking, you drive a car for running people over, and use a knife for stabbing people. i guess that makes you immoral and untrustworthy, as well.
Do you think they'll give a damn that something else they do is seen as stealing?
copyright infringement is copyright infringement, it's not stealing. just because the riaa says it is doesn't make it so, don't be the riaa's ass-puppet.
i'm going to be seeing koyaanisqatsi oct 13 in san francisco with the philip glass ensemble orchestra playing the score of the film live. apparently they're doing a tour, coming to about a dozen cities in america in october in conjunction with the release of the 3rd of the trilogy. tour dates/locations can be found here:
http://www.koyaanisqatsi.org/events/events.php there's other info on koyaanisqatsi.org, as well.
Nonono, it took 3.5 terabytes of storage to make the movie. Remember: If the word "terabyte" can be used in conjunction with a story, it must be news for nerds.
LOLOLOLOL!
But seriously, I'd like to see more new for hippies on slashdot...
agreed. but there's always smokedot: http://smokedot.org/
i don't know much about farc, but even assuming it is a "terrorist organization" (and that depends heavily on how you choose to define the phrase), i still reserve the right to link to their website, and i support anyone else's right to do the same.
saying that we should not be able to is about as intelligent as saying someone accused of a crime shouldn't have the right to a lawyer.
so, just what do you need all those CDRs for? you don't happen to use them to violate copyright laws, do you? explain yourself, please speak in to the microphone.
Probing my ports (hehe, not as fun as it sounds) is not quite legal. It doesn't matter that he is a private person/company (at least as far as criminal prosecutions go). There is no probable cause to search my 'premises'.
you seem to go by the naive notion that the police uphold the law. typically, once they've decided they don't like you, they will make up some creative interpretation as to why they really do have probable cause. but don't worry, they're the police. they're here to help.
You're probably right. And I'm almost ready to disconnect Kazaa anyone, due to the shit quality of mp3's people are sharing.
suggestion: use gnutella instead of kazaa. share.ogg instead of.mp3.
the way shareaza is currently implemented, there are 2 security options, accept connexion or deny connexion.
they don't necessarily know that they are being blocked, however. on gnutella, many clients don't have the option of letting you browse a host's files like you can on kazaa. even the clients that do let you do this (like shareaza), it's configurable, so the user might simply have allow host browsing turned off.
run shareaza (gnutella) and install the shareaza security update, get the magnet: link here: http://bitzi.com/lookup/ZYNHYUHEI3VQHUJTTT5 UOZZMUZ 7ADXKA.B3GVXM74XKME5FPIREMVW3YKTW42JSN6FYQO2HI
or, if you want to do this yourself, here's the info: 209.204.130.0 netmask 255.255.132.0 (baytsp) 209.122.130.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 (baytsp)
the first block (209.204)seems to be the one they're using, my security manager shows 58 hits there with none on the second block.
and when you share mp3s of songs that you just ripped/downloaded, what exactly are you relinquishing??? that's right, nothing
That's untrue. I'm relinquishing bandwidth. But that's irrelevant. I said SELLING involves relinquishing the property in question. Sharing is not selling, nor am I receiving $ for doing so.
where does logic enter into your argument?
It doesn't. I'm simply stating my values and/or opinions.
but making copies of it, and distributing it without making any sort of acknowledgement or payment to the artist (don't confust that with the record industry, fuck them) responsible is just plain wrong
When I copy the CD and clearly label who the artist is, that IS an acknowledgement. I've never copied a work and tried to take credit for it as my own.
If you want to argue that copying a song without paying the artist is wrong, explain why.
Saying it's "just plain wrong" is simplistic, to say the least. You've stated your own belief, without any rationale or justification. Is such a statement supposed to mean anything to me?
I am a Libertarian I don't believe in music piracy I do believe in P2P. I disagree with how the RIAA/MPAA is trying to solve their problem.
I agree with you on all 4 counts. However, I do not consider P2P filesharing of copyrighted works to be piracy. The notion that a company can sell me a CD, and then claim to still have ownership of the music on it, and to still have a right to tell me what I can do with it, is absurd. Selling something involves giving it up, relinquishing a claim to it.
Piracy, as I see it, is the use of others' copyrighted works for commercial gain without their permisson. It is reasonable for the government to give a monopoly to creators of IP as an incentive to create, but the current laws in the US go too far, taking away peoples' liberties with respect to such legally obtained IP works in an effort to inflate demand for such works.
Slashdot Mirror
you misunderstood me. let me clarify the statement: i could care less whether it's a camera watching me or whether it's a person.
I agree. But when they are watching me and I do not know it, or I cannot watch them, I am being violated.
no, you aren't. "being watched" consists of collecting photons that are reflected off of you. once those photons leave you, they are no longer yours, and you have no say over them or what someone else does with them.
No one here yet has managed to put to words just exactly how and why it is different than just being watched by someone else on the street, but we all know that it is different.
"we all know"? don't presume to speak for others, and claim that your view is universal, it isn't! i could care less if a camera or a person is watching me.
i couldn't possibly agree with you more. i happen to live in the us, and i absolutely despise bush, cheney, ashcroft and rumsfeld (not that the democrats are much better). i do what i can to undermine the authority of the federal government and corporate america, which i consider to be the enemy of humanity, not just the enemy of americans. many of my friends feel the same way as i do.
if i travel abroad in the near future, i will likely introduce myself as being canadian, i am so sickened and embarassed by what america has become.
From the tone of your message I doubt you care.
;-)
if i didn't care, why would i bother to post?
But you have obviously never had to get in or out of a car while severely handicapped (partially or totally paralyzed, advanced parkinsons, multiple sclerosis, multiple joint replacement, etc.) Often people with these disabilities require specially designed cars or vans with lifts, special doors, etc. They often require assistance. So they need extra space and properly oriented spaces for safety. Likewise getting across the entire parking lot is indeed an ordeal for them - they need spaces close up. Have you ever tried escorting a severely mentally handicapped person across a mall parking lot? What do you really know about the human condition? From your remarks I would say less than zero.
how is it possible for a human to "know less that zero" about the human condition? are you being stupid on purpose? or are you attempting to replace reason with insults?
the handicapped are not the only ones who "need spaces close up", everyone does. get over your feelings of self-importance.
I agree that far too many people park in these places when they do not need them. I often re-park my van after dropping off my mother and/or son so that someone else who needs it can use the spot for loading/unloading. Perhaps someday someone will no longer be able to stomach these handicapped space poachers and we will have some sensible violence. George deserved what he got
so, you're saying you support violence as a means of resolving problems. i have no sympathy at all for you.
I for one think things like handicapped parking spaces, building/sidewalk ramps, handicapped restrooms/drinking fountains, public braille signs, and automatic doors are great.
i agree that most of these things are great, but
they should be done voluntarily if they're on
private property.
the one thing i don't agree with is handicapped
parking. firstly, there's way too many of them,
at least where i live, compared to the handicapped
population. i'd estimate that there's a car with
a handicapped plate in 1-2% of the handicapped
spots at any given time. the rest of the time
they are either empty, making parking harder for
everyone else, or else filled with non-hc plated
cars, meaning the spots are reserved for people
who don't care about the rules or anyone else.
but there's a more basic problem with handicapped
only parking spots - it basically says that
handicapped people are special and should recieve
special priveleges that no one else can. there's
something intrinsically wrong with that. i agree
that the handicapped should have equal (not extra)
rights, and should be able to lead normal fulfilling lives
like everyone else, but to accord them special
priveleges by law out of a misplaced sense of
pity sends the wrong message, and is a mistake.
Because what you do with your private property often affects others. For example, there is a individual in D.C. shooting people. He is clearly using his private property (gun) in the manner he wants.Using your logic we shouldn't care that he is doing this.
just because you can be a total moron doesn't mean you SHOULD.
Long ago, a science fiction writer (I don't remember who, unfortunately) wrote a short story about a society which tried to equalize everything for everybody. If you were too fast, you wore weights to slow you down. If you were too smart, you wore a device that randomly made a loud noise and startled you out of your train of thought.
sounds like "harrison bergeron" by kurt vonnegut. an excellent story, made into a tv-movie in 1995, also very good:
http://us.imdb.com/Title?0113264
"Innocent until proven guilty"
and
"right to a trial by jury of your peers"
unless, of course, the "war on terrorism" is invoked, in which case you can be held in jail indefinitely without being charged, even if you're an american citizen like jose padilla.
so, you're saying that even though berman and other bribe-takers in congress don't care about how they look as far as selling their votes to the highest corporate bidder, but he is worried about his image with a handful of techies? i'm more inclined to think that he realizes the lack of support for the bill and how it's not going to be passed in its present form.
Who gives a damn about the Libertarian model?
i do.
It doesn't work. It's as doomed as Marxism.
on what basis do you make this claim? wishful thinking?
Oppressive government is evil, but no government is infinitly worse.
libertarianism is not anarchy. if you don't understand the difference, don't comment on it.
Erm, they make a program for pirating movies and music.
and you use a computer for hacking, you drive a car for running people over, and use a knife for stabbing people. i guess that makes you immoral and untrustworthy, as well.
Do you think they'll give a damn that something else they do is seen as stealing?
copyright infringement is copyright infringement, it's not stealing. just because the riaa says it is doesn't make it so, don't be the riaa's ass-puppet.
kazaa and morpheus aren't open source, i don't believe limewire is either.
i'm going to be seeing koyaanisqatsi oct 13 in san francisco with the philip glass ensemble orchestra playing the score of the film live. apparently they're doing a tour, coming to about a dozen cities in america in october in conjunction with the release of the 3rd of the trilogy. tour dates/locations can be found here:
http://www.koyaanisqatsi.org/events/events.php
there's other info on koyaanisqatsi.org, as well.
Nonono, it took 3.5 terabytes of storage to make the movie. Remember: If the word "terabyte" can be used in conjunction with a story, it must be news for nerds.
LOLOLOLOL!
But seriously, I'd like to see more new for hippies on slashdot...
agreed. but there's always smokedot:
http://smokedot.org/
Baraka takes a less moralizing approach to the imagery
moralizing? that's an active imagination you have there, billy-bob...
Laws should be constitutionally required to be:
1. Clear to any literate person within a standard deviant of the average IQ.
so what kind of deviant are you? a standard deviant or a non-standard deviant?
i don't know much about farc, but even assuming it is a "terrorist organization" (and that depends heavily on how you choose to define the phrase), i still reserve the right to link to their website, and i support anyone else's right to do the same.
saying that we should not be able to is about as intelligent as saying someone accused of a crime shouldn't have the right to a lawyer.
mass of CDRs in my apartment,
so, just what do you need all those CDRs for? you don't happen to use them to violate copyright laws, do you? explain yourself, please speak in to the microphone.
Probing my ports (hehe, not as fun as it sounds) is not quite legal. It doesn't matter that he is a private person/company (at least as far as criminal prosecutions go). There is no probable cause to search my 'premises'.
.ogg instead of .mp3.
you seem to go by the naive notion that the police uphold the law. typically, once they've decided they don't like you, they will make up some creative interpretation as to why they really do have probable cause. but don't worry, they're the police. they're here to help.
You're probably right. And I'm almost ready to disconnect Kazaa anyone, due to the shit quality of mp3's people are sharing.
suggestion: use gnutella instead of kazaa. share
you're welcome.
the way shareaza is currently implemented, there are
2 security options, accept connexion or deny connexion.
they don't necessarily know that they are being blocked,
however. on gnutella, many clients don't have the option
of letting you browse a host's files like you can on kazaa.
even the clients that do let you do this (like shareaza),
it's configurable, so the user might simply have allow
host browsing turned off.
run shareaza (gnutella) and install the shareaza security update, get the magnet: link here:5 UOZZMUZ 7ADXKA.B3GVXM74XKME5FPIREMVW3YKTW42JSN6FYQO2HI
http://bitzi.com/lookup/ZYNHYUHEI3VQHUJTTT
or, if you want to do this yourself, here's the info:
209.204.130.0 netmask 255.255.132.0 (baytsp)
209.122.130.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 (baytsp)
the first block (209.204)seems to be the one they're using, my security manager shows 58 hits
there with none on the second block.
Agreed. I still watch a few tv shows (simpsons, futurama, south park), but those I d/l from p2p, and they're commercial free that way.
and when you share mp3s of songs that you just ripped/downloaded, what exactly are you relinquishing??? that's right, nothing
That's untrue. I'm relinquishing bandwidth. But that's irrelevant. I said SELLING involves relinquishing the property in question. Sharing is not selling, nor am I receiving $ for doing so.
where does logic enter into your argument?
It doesn't. I'm simply stating my values and/or opinions.
but making copies of it, and distributing it without making any sort of acknowledgement or payment to the artist (don't confust that with the record industry, fuck them) responsible is just plain wrong
When I copy the CD and clearly label who the artist is, that IS an acknowledgement. I've never copied a work and tried to take credit for it as my own.
If you want to argue that copying a song without paying the artist is wrong, explain why.
Saying it's "just plain wrong" is simplistic, to say the least. You've stated your own belief, without any rationale or justification. Is such a statement supposed to mean anything to me?
I am a Libertarian
I don't believe in music piracy
I do believe in P2P.
I disagree with how the RIAA/MPAA is trying to solve their problem.
I agree with you on all 4 counts. However, I do not consider P2P filesharing of copyrighted works to be piracy. The notion that a company can sell me a CD, and then claim to still have ownership of the music on it, and to still have a right to tell me what I can do with it, is absurd. Selling something involves giving it up, relinquishing a claim to it.
Piracy, as I see it, is the use of others' copyrighted works for commercial gain without their permisson. It is reasonable for the government to give a monopoly to creators of IP as an incentive to create, but the current laws in the US go too far, taking away peoples' liberties with respect to such legally obtained IP works in an effort to inflate demand for such works.