Read my other posts - Speeding in, say, a residential area that looks safe as you don't see anyone right now, that's more of a tricky issue. It's also where I was going with the example but it kinda came out wrong.
No, that's not wrong (IMHO), but it doesn't really illustrate the point that people bend the rules *even when the effect is deleterious to others* if they don't perceive the (potential)harm as being very close to them or the possibility of being caught as low.
Your weed example there is a good example of a fucked up law.
It is interesting reading, but it doesn't get around the bootstrap problem, just mentions you need to know at least one other node to get started.
Fair enough, it's not magic, I was just wondering if someone had come up with another way yet. This lends itself to either centralised server attack - if you use a known (web)server to bootstrap, or slow network growth if connection details need to be passed between people.
I said - you are getting the fruits of their labour without adhering to their terms.
That is the moral case I'm making. If you disagree that obtaining the fruits of someone's hard work without adhering to their terms and conditions (be they monetary, attribution, opening of derivative works, etc etc) is 'bad', why then that's up to you.
That's your opinion, man, and everyone is entitled to one. I don't see that the world would work without some form of IP protection (that's the utilitarian aspect), and I do believe that limited term IP ownership is entirely 'good' as so many people put effort into intangible things that do have value to others.
Well, given that pretty much any distributed botnet is going to consist of compromised machines whose owners don't know about it... I'm pretty sure there are laws in most western nations preventing unauthorised access and use of computer systems now. Creating and maintaining a botnet is illegal, so hiring one to do your DDoS dirty work will likely be covered too.
I suppose it was a bad example, but the thinking behind it was more that breaking the speed limit in some places puts you in more risk of injuring or killing a pedestrian, even if the road seems empty.
I agree that if you're really only endangering yourself then the law shouldn't have much of a say.
My point is that there's room for a moral discussion even if we discard the emotive and inaccurate 'theft' or 'stealing' terms.
That said, yes I do believe it's wrong to infringe copyright on recent (>~20 year old) articles because you're obtaining the fruits of someone else's labour without permission or accepting their terms. This applies to everything from printed media to GPL'd FOSS.
No, I don't give a crap that you haven't deprived them of their copy. That just means it's not 'theft' or 'stealing', it doesn't make it right.
God I'm tired of hearing this stupid fucking argument.
JUST BECAUSE IT'S NOT THEFT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S OK.
Now, can we please use the right words? These are different phenomena. FFS. Copyright infrigingement can be both illegal and morally wrong without being the same things as "stealing".
So please, get it through your thick skull. When talking about the consequences of copyright infringement it doesn't help the discussion to confuse and pollute the language.
"The claim is, the hypocrisy is so blatant, its painful to read all these posts with completely irrational justification of why one crime is okay but another crime, a second crime, in response to the first crime, is somehow the worst thing to ever hit the Internet and is completely deserving of our ire while the first is to be celebrated."
Where are all these posts? I don't see them.
As someone else already said, two wrongs don't make a right. And that statement is absolutely correct. The problem is, as usual, one wrong doesn't make a right no matter how ineptly and unintelligently others attempt to justify the behavior.
So because one wrong doesn't make a right the second wrong is justified and therefore two wrongs do make a right? That's some damned fine mental gymnastics there buddy.
Why do you find people decrying DoS so hard to take? It's bad for internet as a whole, increasing the amount of useless or malicious traffic massively. It affects innocent people by clogging the tubes at the ISP, or the upstream ISP. It affects lots and lots of people that aren't involved in piracy in the first place. It's a stupid response. It's worthy of 4chan and certainly comes out of the same immature mentality.
"And yet, that's EXACTLY what pirates claim justifies their vigilantism - they don't like the pricing, ignoring that pricing has long met their demands, so they seek their own justice by stealing."
And copyright infringement is... wait for it... also an illegal activity!
What pirates, or this company, have to say about the ethics of their actions is completely irrelevant. vigilante justice is not allowed because it gets disproportionate and results in feuds and wars and collateral damage, much like DoS.
"And yet piracy is cheered on as a god given right to steal because of a glorified sense of self entitlement which is all too often disguised behind dumb, inept, and hypocritical excuses."
By whom? Most people I know that pirate wholesale don't think of it as a god given right, just something they can get away with so they will. Your mistake is in trying to engage people who copy stuff by attacking their characters, which will inevitably result in irrational argument and a lot of hypocritical self justification as they still like to think of themselves as "good people". Exactly the same as what happens if you raise the environment issue.
And when it comes down to it people still find it hard to believe that swapping a few bits around from in front of your screen either has a victim or could possibly be anything illegal. It's not like you went out and shot someone.
"Moral people" as you would like describe them are extremely, extremely rare. Most people bend the rules in their favour, especially when there's little to no chance of being caught and they don't perceive anything bad happening from their actions.
You never exceeded the speed limit on an empty road?
Not just that but unless India has a law going by the name DMCA, he's using US law, from a base in India to warn sites that could be anywhere else to remove their material, then DoSing them.
It's not just bad, wrong and (in some jurisdictions) criminal, it's fscking nuts!
Ethnic as in skin colour? Sure, people whould have a problem. But jokes about drunken Irishmen? Or english people with bad teeth?
Ethnic (ish) stereotypes are still used and still funny. Hell, people make jokes about others who are tall, short, ginger, fat, thin, jocks, geeks, religious, stupid, clever. republican, democrat, old, young.... anything you can think of.
Some of these are genetic, some of them are predispositions, some are choices and some are inconsequential. The fundamental thing being that poking fun at both familiar and the 'other' is just what people do.
In charge... Well you *could* see it like that....
The profit is mostly your banks. VISA make transaction fees but have nothing to do with the debt itself. It's not a crazy legal fiction in any sense, your bank offers you an instrument of debt. Your bank sets the interest rates and credit limits. Your bank ensures the security of the whole thing. VISA is just the comms network and the set of standards that go with it.
They're really not in charge of or responsible for anything much to do with your credit card any more than your google mail account is the responsibility of the backbone providers.
Could be, I haven't been keeping up with the figures. I know that in Germany Firefox recently overtook IE, but it's possible that Germany is an outlier and that it's IE first then Opera in the EU as a whole.
It certainly would be worth the EU's time to protect EU corps from US ones. The optimist in me doesn't want to think like that. The pessimist in me moved to australia about six months back.
Hey, if there's one thing about the USA it's that when you go for something you really go for it. Other countries have surpassed you in the number of fat citizens but nobody, and I mean nobody, just up and goes for it like your fat folk. Same for head-up-assness.
I'm sure there are non-negative examples too... like the space program, hell, back when it was a race the USA decided to damn the consequences and make a concerted push. It's a good quality, albeit with unintended consequences.
That's some mighty fine cynicism there. But I can't find much to pick at. Opera seems a bit small-fry for that sort of a concerted effort though. Hmmm.
Slashdot Mirror
Advice to you if you genuinely work for adobe - make a noscript option. Or even better - just cut out all the scripted elements.
PDFs were and are awesome for one thing only, displaying documents the same everywhere. Active content is a mistake.
Read my other posts - Speeding in, say, a residential area that looks safe as you don't see anyone right now, that's more of a tricky issue. It's also where I was going with the example but it kinda came out wrong.
No, that's not wrong (IMHO), but it doesn't really illustrate the point that people bend the rules *even when the effect is deleterious to others* if they don't perceive the (potential)harm as being very close to them or the possibility of being caught as low.
Your weed example there is a good example of a fucked up law.
It is interesting reading, but it doesn't get around the bootstrap problem, just mentions you need to know at least one other node to get started.
Fair enough, it's not magic, I was just wondering if someone had come up with another way yet. This lends itself to either centralised server attack - if you use a known (web)server to bootstrap, or slow network growth if connection details need to be passed between people.
Uh, yeah, that's what I was talking about! Or the movie industry hiring señor asshat from TFA and him hiring a botnet.
Either way badness and illegality where botnets are concerned AND where DoS is concerned. 2 crimes!
I said - you are getting the fruits of their labour without adhering to their terms.
That is the moral case I'm making. If you disagree that obtaining the fruits of someone's hard work without adhering to their terms and conditions (be they monetary, attribution, opening of derivative works, etc etc) is 'bad', why then that's up to you.
That's your opinion, man, and everyone is entitled to one. I don't see that the world would work without some form of IP protection (that's the utilitarian aspect), and I do believe that limited term IP ownership is entirely 'good' as so many people put effort into intangible things that do have value to others.
Indeed, and they're pretty much all from Anonymous Troll^H^H^H^H^HCoward.
Well, given that pretty much any distributed botnet is going to consist of compromised machines whose owners don't know about it ... I'm pretty sure there are laws in most western nations preventing unauthorised access and use of computer systems now. Creating and maintaining a botnet is illegal, so hiring one to do your DDoS dirty work will likely be covered too.
So how do you find a peer with one of these DHTs? How do you bootstrap the process?
(Genuine question)
I suppose it was a bad example, but the thinking behind it was more that breaking the speed limit in some places puts you in more risk of injuring or killing a pedestrian, even if the road seems empty.
I agree that if you're really only endangering yourself then the law shouldn't have much of a say.
I mean less than around twenty, not greater than around 20.
That's the other point I suppose, I think copyright should be shortened a LOT and that the 'deal' the public gets from it right now is a bad one.
I didn't say it was, I said it can be.
My point is that there's room for a moral discussion even if we discard the emotive and inaccurate 'theft' or 'stealing' terms.
That said, yes I do believe it's wrong to infringe copyright on recent (>~20 year old) articles because you're obtaining the fruits of someone else's labour without permission or accepting their terms. This applies to everything from printed media to GPL'd FOSS.
No, I don't give a crap that you haven't deprived them of their copy. That just means it's not 'theft' or 'stealing', it doesn't make it right.
This company also appears to offer "email marketing services".
I would say that being lying scumbags is probably part of their day to day ops. You're mist likely right. It's a publicity shot.
God I'm tired of hearing this stupid fucking argument.
JUST BECAUSE IT'S NOT THEFT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S OK.
Now, can we please use the right words? These are different phenomena. FFS. Copyright infrigingement can be both illegal and morally wrong without being the same things as "stealing".
So please, get it through your thick skull. When talking about the consequences of copyright infringement it doesn't help the discussion to confuse and pollute the language.
"The claim is, the hypocrisy is so blatant, its painful to read all these posts with completely irrational justification of why one crime is okay but another crime, a second crime, in response to the first crime, is somehow the worst thing to ever hit the Internet and is completely deserving of our ire while the first is to be celebrated."
Where are all these posts? I don't see them.
As someone else already said, two wrongs don't make a right. And that statement is absolutely correct. The problem is, as usual, one wrong doesn't make a right no matter how ineptly and unintelligently others attempt to justify the behavior.
So because one wrong doesn't make a right the second wrong is justified and therefore two wrongs do make a right? That's some damned fine mental gymnastics there buddy.
Why do you find people decrying DoS so hard to take? It's bad for internet as a whole, increasing the amount of useless or malicious traffic massively. It affects innocent people by clogging the tubes at the ISP, or the upstream ISP. It affects lots and lots of people that aren't involved in piracy in the first place. It's a stupid response. It's worthy of 4chan and certainly comes out of the same immature mentality.
"And yet, that's EXACTLY what pirates claim justifies their vigilantism - they don't like the pricing, ignoring that pricing has long met their demands, so they seek their own justice by stealing."
And copyright infringement is ... wait for it ... also an illegal activity!
What pirates, or this company, have to say about the ethics of their actions is completely irrelevant. vigilante justice is not allowed because it gets disproportionate and results in feuds and wars and collateral damage, much like DoS.
"And yet piracy is cheered on as a god given right to steal because of a glorified sense of self entitlement which is all too often disguised behind dumb, inept, and hypocritical excuses."
By whom? Most people I know that pirate wholesale don't think of it as a god given right, just something they can get away with so they will. Your mistake is in trying to engage people who copy stuff by attacking their characters, which will inevitably result in irrational argument and a lot of hypocritical self justification as they still like to think of themselves as "good people". Exactly the same as what happens if you raise the environment issue.
And when it comes down to it people still find it hard to believe that swapping a few bits around from in front of your screen either has a victim or could possibly be anything illegal. It's not like you went out and shot someone.
"Moral people" as you would like describe them are extremely, extremely rare. Most people bend the rules in their favour, especially when there's little to no chance of being caught and they don't perceive anything bad happening from their actions.
You never exceeded the speed limit on an empty road?
Well aware but after years of dodging email filters and triggers on other sites it's become second nature.
Not just that but unless India has a law going by the name DMCA, he's using US law, from a base in India to warn sites that could be anywhere else to remove their material, then DoSing them.
It's not just bad, wrong and (in some jurisdictions) criminal, it's fscking nuts!
Well that depends, doesn't it?
Ethnic as in skin colour? Sure, people whould have a problem. But jokes about drunken Irishmen? Or english people with bad teeth?
Ethnic (ish) stereotypes are still used and still funny. Hell, people make jokes about others who are tall, short, ginger, fat, thin, jocks, geeks, religious, stupid, clever. republican, democrat, old, young.... anything you can think of.
Some of these are genetic, some of them are predispositions, some are choices and some are inconsequential. The fundamental thing being that poking fun at both familiar and the 'other' is just what people do.
Well, it's probably also aspirational.
Who wouldn't like to get out side more and do outdoorsy things all the time?
But when it comes down to it, most of us can't be bothered. The women probably want someone to help them achieve that.
In charge... Well you *could* see it like that....
The profit is mostly your banks. VISA make transaction fees but have nothing to do with the debt itself. It's not a crazy legal fiction in any sense, your bank offers you an instrument of debt. Your bank sets the interest rates and credit limits. Your bank ensures the security of the whole thing. VISA is just the comms network and the set of standards that go with it.
They're really not in charge of or responsible for anything much to do with your credit card any more than your google mail account is the responsibility of the backbone providers.
Could be, I haven't been keeping up with the figures. I know that in Germany Firefox recently overtook IE, but it's possible that Germany is an outlier and that it's IE first then Opera in the EU as a whole.
It certainly would be worth the EU's time to protect EU corps from US ones. The optimist in me doesn't want to think like that. The pessimist in me moved to australia about six months back.
Is it Christina Hendricks? 'cos I would totally take back the other wishes. All of them.
Hey, if there's one thing about the USA it's that when you go for something you really go for it. Other countries have surpassed you in the number of fat citizens but nobody, and I mean nobody, just up and goes for it like your fat folk. Same for head-up-assness.
I'm sure there are non-negative examples too... like the space program, hell, back when it was a race the USA decided to damn the consequences and make a concerted push. It's a good quality, albeit with unintended consequences.
That's some mighty fine cynicism there. But I can't find much to pick at. Opera seems a bit small-fry for that sort of a concerted effort though. Hmmm.