From what I could tell, it sounds like the Supreme Court agrees that they get the same protections that anyone else does. The poster I was replying to seemed to suggest that religious groups get some kind of special protections...
That's a pretty good point, but I wouldn't necessarily say forever. Ideally, after being exposed to someone (no pun intended) who has a high ethical standard, if there is communication going on in the relationship, she would begin to understand that having some kind of material goods is not always responsible, when taking those goods causes suffering for others. Hopefully she would learn and grow. And hopefully, she would engage in self-examination. Why does she want a diamond ring? "Because that's how everyone else does it" is not a very good answer. Neither is "because the DeBeers commercial said I should get one".
Yeah, Sealab 2021, Aqua Teen Hunger Force, The Brak Show, and Harvey Birdman Attorney at Law, are my 4 favorite shows on TV now. Incidentally, I am sharing.avis of all the episodes of all 4 shows on Gnutella. You can find the links for them here: ATHF, HBAL, SL21, and BRAK. But don't tell Ashcroft!
"Note that clients like Qtrax and Shareaza allow leaves with limitless numbers of [super nodes]," wrote BearShare's Falco in the GDF. "This incredibly selfish behavior causes a flood of query traffic. Although it maximizes results for the local user, it impacts the network greatly. If every client behaved like Qtrax, Gnutella would surely fall."
Why does he claim that Shareaza allows limitless numbers of supernodes? Shareaza DOES NOT support more than 10. You can enter any number in Shareaza options, but anything over 10 gets dropped.
Is he just misinformed on this issue? Or is he just jealous that Shareaza has a better app and he is losing market share to them?;)
and in an effort to give Xolox users faster downloads, its programmers had configured the program to frequently "re-query" the network to check for desired files.
Unfortunately only Shareaza ( www.shareaza.com ), and, IIRC, Bearshare, have implemented file queueing. It's like giving out a paper ticket at the deli, instead of asking the person behind the counter every 5 seconds if they're ready for you, you can just ask them at normal intervals (60 sec default for shareaza), because your spot in line is guaranteed, and there's no real advantage in asking more often.
No, it is not stealing, and I just explained why. If you're going to misuse terms, you may as well call it murder.
I do understand the nature of what I'm doing, that I'm d/ling copyrighted works without compensating the copyright holders.
But regardless, this is a fairly small percentage of what I use p2p for. Your main point was that there's no legitimate use for P2P, and I provided you with 3 legitimate uses.
You read it again and then as another poster said find me a legitimate use for P2P that overshadows the illegitimate uses. Disregard his numbers (99? 1?) and get to his point. Tell me one thing anyone is doing with this technology that doesn't involve stealing someone elses stuff and you have a case.
You are misusing the word "stealing". If I take a loaf of bread from you, you no longer have the bread to eat. That is stealing. If I make a copy of a copyrighted work you have, you still have the copyrighted work, so that is NOT stealing.
As far as legitimate uses, I'll repeat what I told Opie:
Movies and songs that I've legally purchased on another medium (VHS or casette tape) as it saves me the effort of having to convert these media to digital format.
TV shows, like Futurama, Simpsons, etc., that are on cable for free. Much like Tivo, this allows me to watch a show when I want to, and not when some network exec decides it should air.
Programs like Star Office 5.2, which Sun used to offer for free on its web site but no longer does.
I do sometimes d/l copyrighted material. I used to buy CDs, etc, and then when the xxAA started bribing congresspeople to pass laws like DMCA, etc, I decided enough is enough, and I will do what I can to make sure as little of my $ as possible ends up in their coffers. If such organizations disregard and attack my fair use rights, I will disregard and attack their copyrights.
It is not true at all. Most Palestinians are simply caught in the middle.
I would like to believe that, but I wonder if that's the case. As I understand it, Palestinians are taught in school that Israelis are their mortal enemies, and that the greatest thing one can accomplish in life is to sacrifice onself to kill as many Israelis as possible.
I know that at least some people on both sides are being reasonable and trying to work for peace, but not having lived there I don't know what the ratios are of people who agitate for war to those that work for peace. Do you know?
Movies and songs that I've legally purchased on another medium (VHS or casette tape) as it saves me the short cut of having to convert these media to digital format.
TV shows, like Futurama, Simpsons, etc., that are on cable for free. Much like Tivo, this allows me to watch a show when I want to, and not when some network exec decides it should air.
Programs like Star Office 5.2, which Sun used to offer for free on its web site but no longer does.
So, that's 3 legitimate uses right there, IMO.
And yes, I do download some mp3s and programs illegally, but this is probably in the minority (20%?) of my downloads.
slightly OT: The Terrible Secret of Space
on
Economy of Errors
·
· Score: 1
Speaking of really funny sites, I just found one that I find hilarious, it's a flash animation:
Read it again. The poster is saying that ALL P2P use is illegitimate, but 1% of it can be gotten away with due to a technicality. I don't consider that an "excellent start for a discussion", any more than saying "all Palestinians are terrorists" is a good way to start a discussion of how peace can be achieved in the Middle East.
And the best thing is that WE can get rich selling them green technology that allows growth without hurting the ecosystem.
You've just said it yourself, such a plan would be expensive for them, and would benefit mostly us. There's no incentive for anyone to go along with this "deal".
Did you even bother to read what I wrote before replying?
I will spell it out for you again: The insurance rate that a car rental place gets is set when the car is rented. If, after that time, the driver goes outside of those boundaries surrepetitiously, no one knows and the insurance is not affected.
I see now. It's Greenpeace's way of redistributing the wealth of the United States.
It's not about redistributing wealth. When many of today's more industrialized nations were going through their growing pains of entering the industrial age, they polluted heavily using some of the dirtiest coals available because it was the cheapest fuel there was.
Now that other nations are entering that stage of their growth, it would be very hypocritical of post-industrialized nations to say to them that they can't do the same, that they should remain rural and agrarian and should never aspire to a modern society like we have.
If these nations are told that they cannot do what we already did, they will simply laugh at the hypocrisy and not agree to any environmental restrictions. The Greenpeace spokesman is correct, poorer developing nations should be given concessions to bring them to the table.
There's nothing wrong with installing a GPS and activating it when, -and only when-, the car is stolen. What the Budget franchise in question did is far beyond that, and they threw in some fraudulent billing to boot.
You people wave the word contract around like you know what you're talking about.
And you're waving the word Libertarian around like you know what you're talking about.
Defending companies that engage in fraud has nothing to do with being a Libertarian. Calling such a person a Libertarian is as ignorant as calling a knight who went around murdering nonbelievers during the crusades a Christian.
Please, if you don't know what a Libertarian is, don't use the term.
Car rental companies get MUCH better deals for coverage from the insurance companies when they restrict the use of the vehicule to a certain range from the base site.
In some areas if the vehicule is only used in ONE state, then they may have a lower tax bill for the commercial nature of the use for the vehicule.
Think about what you're saying for a minute. The tax bill is based on where the driver AGREES to drive the car. Whether they actually stay within that state doesn't affect the tax bill. People who drive rental cars "out of bounds" do not in any way affect the insurance rate that the rental company gets.
Still... I personally will think twice before renting from budget again.
The real issue here is that the rental company in question is arbitrarily charnging peoples' credit cards with charges they did not agree to pay, nor were they warned about these so-called fees. Budget rental car is committing fraud/theft, so they should be very heavily fined.
As far as your assertion that they were breaking their contract thats something you've assumed. If they want to act on that, it's something that should be proven in a court of law. How do you know someone didnt remove the GPS device, throw it in the back of a friends pickup truck, and it was their friend that did the driving in Texas or where-have-you, with the device re-installed before returning the car?
We could make this so-called war on drugs a real war. We go in to Columbia with some military force and start taking out the cartels. I'm not trolling -- I'm serious. I'm sure our satellites must be able to detect some large drug facilities. We'll just go in there and bomb them.
smart, real smart. If you don't understand why the military is not used in dealing with criminal matters, i suggest you reveiw the past several thousand years of history and find out what's wrong with that idea.
Either we should legalize these drugs or we should fight a full-scale war.
I agree, legalizing "drugs" is the simplest, cheapest, and most powerful way we have of winning the war. The hypocrisy of the government of a supposedly free society dictating to people what they may or may not ingest into their own bodies must be put to a stop!
Slashdot Mirror
From what I could tell, it sounds like the Supreme Court agrees that they get the same protections that anyone else does. The poster I was replying to seemed to suggest that religious groups get some kind of special protections...
If one ISP can restrict RIAA then the next ISP can block, say, access to certain religious sites because they think the sites spread evil thoughts.
ISPs are perfectly within their rights to do so. They are PRIVATE companies.
I can see a better case for religious types, claiming Constitutional protection.
Not even close. The fact that someone wants to spread religious dogma doesn't give them any special right to trespass.
If anything, the Constitution would demand that they be treated equally, and tossed out on their asses just like everyone else that tried to trespass.
Now, true, you can't contract to do something illegal and have the contract be enforcable.
Providing Internet services to route traffic is
NEVER illegal (not yet, anyway), even if it's to
or from a site that the RIAA doesn't happen to like.
That's a pretty good point, but I wouldn't necessarily say forever. Ideally, after being exposed to someone (no pun intended) who has a high ethical standard, if there is communication going on in the relationship, she would begin to understand that having some kind of material goods is not always responsible, when taking those goods causes suffering for others. Hopefully she would learn and grow. And hopefully, she would engage in self-examination. Why does she want a diamond ring? "Because that's how everyone else does it" is not a very good answer. Neither is "because the DeBeers commercial said I should get one".
Yeah, Sealab 2021, Aqua Teen Hunger Force, The Brak Show, and Harvey Birdman Attorney at Law, are my 4 favorite shows on TV now. Incidentally, I am sharing .avis of all the episodes of all 4 shows on Gnutella. You can find the links for them here: ATHF, HBAL, SL21, and BRAK. But don't tell Ashcroft!
"Note that clients like Qtrax and Shareaza allow leaves with limitless numbers of [super nodes]," wrote BearShare's Falco in the GDF. "This incredibly selfish behavior causes a flood of query traffic. Although it maximizes results for the local user, it impacts the network greatly. If every client behaved like Qtrax, Gnutella would surely fall."
;)
Why does he claim that Shareaza allows limitless numbers of supernodes? Shareaza DOES NOT support more than 10. You can enter any number in Shareaza options, but anything over 10 gets dropped.
Is he just misinformed on this issue? Or is he just jealous that Shareaza has a better app and he is losing market share to them?
and in an effort to give Xolox users faster downloads, its programmers had configured the program to frequently "re-query" the network to check for desired files.
Unfortunately only Shareaza ( www.shareaza.com ), and, IIRC, Bearshare, have implemented file queueing. It's like giving out a paper ticket at the deli, instead of asking the person behind the counter every 5 seconds if they're ready for you, you can just ask them at normal intervals (60 sec default for shareaza), because your spot in line is guaranteed, and there's no real advantage in asking more often.
No, it is not stealing, and I just explained why. If you're going to misuse terms, you may as well call it murder.
I do understand the nature of what I'm doing, that I'm d/ling copyrighted works without compensating the copyright holders.
But regardless, this is a fairly small percentage of what I use p2p for. Your main point was that there's no legitimate use for P2P, and I provided you with 3 legitimate uses.
You read it again and then as another poster said find me a legitimate use for P2P that overshadows the illegitimate uses. Disregard his numbers (99? 1?) and get to his point. Tell me one thing anyone is doing with this technology that doesn't involve stealing someone elses stuff and you have a case.
You are misusing the word "stealing". If I take a loaf of bread from you, you no longer have the bread to eat. That is stealing. If I make a copy of a copyrighted work you have, you still have the copyrighted work, so that is NOT stealing.
As far as legitimate uses, I'll repeat what I told Opie:
Movies and songs that I've legally purchased on another medium (VHS or casette tape) as it saves me the effort of having to convert these media to digital format.
TV shows, like Futurama, Simpsons, etc., that are on cable for free. Much like Tivo, this allows me to watch a show when I want to, and not when some network exec decides it should air.
Programs like Star Office 5.2, which Sun used to offer for free on its web site but no longer does.
I do sometimes d/l copyrighted material. I used to buy CDs, etc, and then when the xxAA started bribing congresspeople to pass laws like DMCA, etc, I decided enough is enough, and I will do what I can to make sure as little of my $ as possible ends up in their coffers. If such organizations disregard and attack my fair use rights, I will disregard and attack their copyrights.
It is not true at all. Most Palestinians are simply caught in the middle.
I would like to believe that, but I wonder if that's the case. As I understand it, Palestinians are taught in school that Israelis are their mortal enemies, and that the greatest thing one can accomplish in life is to sacrifice onself to kill as many Israelis as possible.
I know that at least some people on both sides are being reasonable and trying to work for peace, but not having lived there I don't know what the ratios are of people who agitate for war to those that work for peace. Do you know?
I use P2P, and what I download is:
Movies and songs that I've legally purchased on another medium (VHS or casette tape) as it saves me the short cut of having to convert these media to digital format.
TV shows, like Futurama, Simpsons, etc., that are on cable for free. Much like Tivo, this allows me to watch a show when I want to, and not when some network exec decides it should air.
Programs like Star Office 5.2, which Sun used to offer for free on its web site but no longer does.
So, that's 3 legitimate uses right there, IMO.
And yes, I do download some mp3s and programs illegally, but this is probably in the minority (20%?) of my downloads.
Speaking of really funny sites, I just found one that I find hilarious, it's a flash animation:
www.jonathonrobinson.com/3.0/web/webtsos.html
I must have watched it like 20 times by now...
Read it again. The poster is saying that ALL P2P use is illegitimate, but 1% of it can be gotten away with due to a technicality. I don't consider that an "excellent start for a discussion", any more than saying "all Palestinians are terrorists" is a good way to start a discussion of how peace can be achieved in the Middle East.
And the best thing is that WE can get rich selling them green technology that allows growth without hurting the ecosystem.
You've just said it yourself, such a plan would be expensive for them, and would benefit mostly us. There's no incentive for anyone to go along with this "deal".
Did you even bother to read what I wrote before replying?
I will spell it out for you again: The insurance rate that a car rental place gets is set when the car is rented. If, after that time, the driver goes outside of those boundaries surrepetitiously, no one knows and the insurance is not affected.
I see now. It's Greenpeace's way of redistributing the wealth of the United States.
It's not about redistributing wealth. When many of today's more industrialized nations were going through their growing pains of entering the industrial age, they polluted heavily using some of the dirtiest coals available because it was the cheapest fuel there was.
Now that other nations are entering that stage of their growth, it would be very hypocritical of post-industrialized nations to say to them that they can't do the same, that they should remain rural and agrarian and should never aspire to a modern society like we have.
If these nations are told that they cannot do what we already did, they will simply laugh at the hypocrisy and not agree to any environmental restrictions. The Greenpeace spokesman is correct, poorer developing nations should be given concessions to bring them to the table.
There's nothing wrong with installing a GPS and activating it when, -and only when-, the car is stolen. What the Budget franchise in question did is far beyond that, and they threw in some fraudulent billing to boot.
You people wave the word contract around like you know what you're talking about.
And you're waving the word Libertarian around like you know what you're talking about.
Defending companies that engage in fraud has nothing to do with being a Libertarian. Calling such a person a Libertarian is as ignorant as calling a knight who went around murdering nonbelievers during the crusades a Christian.
Please, if you don't know what a Libertarian is, don't use the term.
.
Car rental companies get MUCH better deals for coverage from the insurance companies when they restrict the use of the vehicule to a certain range from the base site.
In some areas if the vehicule is only used in ONE state, then they may have a lower tax bill for the commercial nature of the use for the vehicule.
Think about what you're saying for a minute. The tax bill is based on where the driver AGREES to drive the car. Whether they actually stay within that state doesn't affect the tax bill. People who drive rental cars "out of bounds" do not in any way affect the insurance rate that the rental company gets.
Still... I personally will think twice before renting from budget again.
Agreed.
.
The real issue here is that the rental company in question is arbitrarily charnging peoples' credit cards with charges they did not agree to pay, nor were they warned about these so-called fees. Budget rental car is committing fraud/theft, so they should be very heavily fined.
As far as your assertion that they were breaking their contract thats something you've assumed. If they want to act on that, it's something that should be proven in a court of law. How do you know someone didnt remove the GPS device, throw it in the back of a friends pickup truck, and it was their friend that did the driving in Texas or where-have-you, with the device re-installed before returning the car?
.
Sounds like a mostly good idea, although having different fines for calling people over and under 65 is just wrong.
.
simpsons + the prisoner? 2 of my favourite shows, that sounds like a winner. thanks for the info, downloading the episode right now :)
.
Ahahaha! nice sig! :)
.
We could make this so-called war on drugs a real war. We go in to Columbia with some military force and start taking out the cartels. I'm not trolling -- I'm serious. I'm sure our satellites must be able to detect some large drug facilities. We'll just go in there and bomb them.
smart, real smart. If you don't understand why the military is not used in dealing with criminal matters, i suggest you reveiw the past several thousand years of history and find out what's wrong with that idea.
Either we should legalize these drugs or we should fight a full-scale war.
I agree, legalizing "drugs" is the simplest, cheapest, and most powerful way we have of winning the war. The hypocrisy of the government of a supposedly free society dictating to people what they may or may not ingest into their own bodies must be put to a stop!
.