BearShare comes with a bundled copy of SaveNow. The installer explicitly mentions this. Removing it is as simple as killing the process and running the SaveNow uninstaller from Add/Remove Programs, and doing so has no impact on BearShare's usability. I'm no fan of these bundled apps, but this is far from spyware and even malware is a stretch. BearShare is extremely up-front about exactly what is going to be installed, that's a lot more than you can say for many of these apps.
I wouldn't think it'd be too hard to find a bent IT guy to give advice on security, encryption, what can be recovered from a hard drive etc.
Hmm.. you're right..
Hello, mafia! For $250K/year, I am an IT guy who can give advice on security, encryption, what can be recovered from a hard drive etc. In addition to IT, I enjoy pasta, Chianti, parmigiano, and pitted olives (preferably all in one night). Salary is negotiable if you can provide an "Italian woman," something I keep hearing about but, being a geek, haven't figured out the details of just yet.
Once you login, you can launch an instance of Solitaire from within your remote webtop. I expect the MS-fanbois to jump all over this one even though it comes from Sun...
I didn't mean to offend, Ian. I'm a developer myself, and I damn well understand "testing." I'm just still curious as to the improvements that 0.7 offers. Should I donate again to get you off my back?;)
I wasn't responding to the Freenet Project website, I was responding to the Slashdot story. Something tells me that this particular Slashdotting was premature, but that tends to be the way it goes for Freenet; Slashdottings, as much as others may welcome them, are typically a bad thing for the Freenet network. If nothing else, we'll get new users. For awhile. We can only see how the network handles the next few days worth of influx.
Don't take it personally, man. Like I said, I'm not a hater. Diebold memos, Windows source (pfft), Freenet has been a great auditorium, and I'm still a believer.
When you first start Freenet 0.7 your node will not know any other nodes on the network, you need to connect to other nodes, at least three. Ideally you should find people you trust that are already part of the Freenet 0.7 network and connect to them, but if that isn't possible in the early stages of the Freenet 0.7 network you can try connecting to the irc server irc.freenode.net and join the channel #freenet, to see if anyone will connect to you.
In other words, if you want to use Freenet 0.7, you really ought to know 3 other people who are already using Freenet 0.7. Considering there are maybe 200 people on this planet who are currently using Freenet 0.7, good fscking luck.
But if you don't know three people who are using Freenet 0.7, hop on IRC (which is not the least bit anonymous) and see if some random stranger will give you their noderef. Random people who don't know each other exchanging noderefs over IRC provides what advantage over the prior Freenet implementation, exactly?
I don't know 3 other meatspace people who use Freenet, much less Freenet 0.7. I can't imagine that trading noderefs with some random person on IRC is any more secure than maintaining a node on 0.5.
I'm no Freenet hater, I've been running it for years and I've made several donations. Freenet showed me the "Diebold Memos" and other interesting items. I'm just looking for a plain-English explanation as to how 0.7 is an improvement over the prior Freenet implementation.
One of the reasons I like the Preview feature is that I often find myself in a situation like this:
Last week I found a great website about $TOPIC_X. I didn't bookmark it because I didn't think it was worth saving, but now I'd love to find it again. Problem is, I can't remember the name of the site, or the precise search term I used to find it. But if I saw it again, I'd recognize it...
Click through to 20 different sites looking for the right one... Or hover over some preview icons and find it right away?
First it was the domestic wiretap issue; the administration not only didn't deny doing it, they flat-out flaunted it. Now they want to put unmanned drones in the air to watch God-knows-what. There's no longer even a pretense, a facade, even the slightest attempt to hide the surveillance society.
I thought that actions like appropriating the military for civilian law enforcement, spying on US citizens within the US, etc. were illegal. Why doesn't anyone seem to give a shit anymore?
For many years, I had the screen name "File" on AOL. I don't know where exactly the convention comes from, but apparently, lots of people are used to CCing a copy of their emails to "File" in order to save a local copy. On AOL, the mail system has quasi-LDAP built in; if whatever you place into the CC field is a valid AOL screen name, that screen name becomes a CC recipient. And so, tons of people would try to carbon copy their emails to a local file by typing "File" into the CC field, and it would wind up in my inbox.
I can't begin to describe the various hilarities I witnessed over the years. Wish I still had the screen name; alas, it was hijacked a few years ago when someone called up impersonating me, and all the AOL support fuckwits were willing to do was cancel the account. Their loss.
Maybe I'm just on the same brainwave as the submitter, but it seems like a lot of folks are missing (what I perceive to be) the point. This guy admins a bunch of Linux machines. He does so from a Windows desktop, using a Windows SSH client like Putty or SecureCRT. He has some aliases that he likes to use on Linux; say like a couple of my favorites:
alias h='history | grep -i' alias nmap='nmap -v -O -sS'
Now, he doesn't want to have to login to 1200 different machines and edit 1200 different.bash_profiles and manually add these aliases 1200 times. He also doesn't have permission to deploy a script to all 1200 servers to set these aliases up for him automatically. What he wants is a way to setup his aliases in his local Windows SSH app, and have them dynamically applied to any server he logs into.
(I don't mean to pick on you Stevey, yours was just the comment I was at when I thought "wait a minute, everyone seems to be mis-grokking the question.")
Now, he has to work within the structure. And, within the structure, scripts can probably be deployed.
The submitter explicitly mentioned that he doesn't have the pull to get a script deployed across all 1200 servers. If your first thought is "why the hell not, if he's an admin who needs to manage all of these machines?," then I generally tend to agree.
The IP addresses listed in the snipet above are both part of IANA-reserved ranges for internal use.
Hence the "Update 9:08 p.m.: This is not the available data. This is the internal stream as we ran the program. We're not going to show any of the data we actually found and in the image below, you're not going to get any useful data. We'll show the actual contents of the packets if the subcontractor denies the existence of the information" on that page.
You have an amazing residential connection that most of us would drool over, you have it at a discount, and you live in a nice part of town. The problem seems to be solved. If you can afford to rent where you do, you can most likely afford to get a dedicated server at a colo facility (it sounds like maybe that's what you've done?). If you don't like the idea of running everything yourself, look into managed hosting; you'll pay extra for the support.
I'm not going to name names, but if you haven't yet, shop around for dedicated servers. You can find a decent 1-2GHz system with 512MB-1GB RAM and at least 100GB HD, with 1000+ gigs bandwidth, for $100 a month, probably better (dedicated, not managed). It's not going to be the uberbox that your home machine is described to be, but from the sound of things, you don't need anywhere near that much power for your purposes. Austin is a tech hotbed, look local and you can likely find a sweet colo bargain.
If you don't want the extra expense, just continue to run your own server off your phat fiber connection. If Grande blocks incoming SMTP, smarthost from your employer (you set up your local MTA to listen on a weird port; you set up your employer's MTA to act as your MX and forward messages to you on your weird port). That's the extent of employer involvement that I'd ever recommend, and even that, only with their express permission.
Others have given a number of reasons and anecdotes as to why you're better off running things yourself. You don't want your employer controlling your primary identity on the internet, ever. You could live without email for a few days if you had to find a new smarthost, but it would sure suck if you suddenly found yourself locked out of everything. I could be hosting my various personal websites for free where I work, because we've got a number of dedicated servers with space left over. I choose to pay for my own hosting, even after 3 years with the company and no plans to leave. You never know what tomorrow's going to bring, and your employer should never be in a position to fuck with your personal life.
Back to your original question, which is better, running your own personal server or letting someone do it for you? Running it yourself, hands-down. If you don't feel capable, take the time to learn, even if it means gradual knowledge over a period of years. Judging by some of the stuff you've already setup, you're not afraid of the command line and you're not afraid of manuals. Between these two, you can and should do anything you want. The result will be doubly rewarding; not only will you be in control of your own personal realm, you'll also have admin skills that can contribute to future employment.
here are some more unconstitutional laws: Requiring ID at the movie theater to verify age. Requiring ID when buying alcohol Requiring ID when buying cigarettes Requiring ID when buying firearms Requiring ID in order to get a drivers licence and so on and so forth.
You're missing the point altogether. Someone else has already pointed out that purchasing tickets at the movie theater is an entirely different situation, regulated not by law but by theater chains. However, it does play along with the rest of your fallacy.
If you go to a store and attempt to purchase alcohol, or cigarettes, or a firearm, and they request your ID, you can refuse to provide it, and walk away unharmed. If you go to the DMV and attempt to obtain a drivers' license, and they request your ID, you can refuse to provide it, and walk away unharmed.
If you spend $600 booking an airline ticket, and they don't ask you for ID (they don't, trust me), then you show up at the airport and they do ask you for ID, then you ask under what authority they're acting, and they refuse to tell you, stating that it's "the law," but that they can't provide you with a copy of that law, and that no, they aren't going to refund your $600, you can walk away, but you have been harmed. You're out $600, you aren't going to make your destination, and you can't get a reasonable explanation as to why. The airline blames the government, but they can't provide a copy of the law; the government blames the airline, and they won't provide a copy of the law, either.
That's what John Gilmore is pissed about, and it's incredibly unfortunate that he's been ruled against.
Next thing you know, there will be a secret law that forbids "posting to an internet discussion forum using anything but your real name." After all, the Constitution doesn't spell out your right to post to Slashdot using a pseudonym, so you wouldn't mind such a secret law, right, c6gunner?
Um, because you can arrest him when he shows up. That's my whole point. Obviously just checking your ID won't do anything *by itself*. The logical extension of checking the ID is arresting them if you know that the person is probably up to no good.
I think that you miss the entire point.
Most if not all of the 9/11 hijackers had valid identification. Those IDs were issued by the United States government. Those individuals showed up to board some flights, and they did so. Nobody arrested them "when they showed up," even though, as we later found out, several of them were already known to law enforcement as being "up to no good."
If people who are already on the radar of law enforcement can board a plane with no problem, then what does checking everyone's ID accomplish?
Are you trying to say that, prior to 9/11, they didn't ask for your ID at the airport? Are you saying that, prior to 9/11, they didn't go through that rigamarole about "has your luggage left your possession? has anyone placed anything into your luggage?" If so, I imagine that you don't fly very often.
That's 2 charges for 1 act. It would be like having laws against murduring someone while wearing pants. If you wore pants when you murdered them, you'd get an extra 5 years.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks this is ridiculous. The impetus behind this practice is obvious; they charge you with 10 things, knowing that they can't necessarily prove any of them beyond a reasonable doubt, but hoping that one of the charges will stick. The problem is that many times, all of them stick, and some poor schmuck goes away for decades over a simple crime.
The last time I was called for jury duty, the case involved the following scenario:
A guy gets pulled over for speeding; I don't remember the numbers but he wasn't speeding by that much. It starts out as a routine traffic stop. For whatever reason, the cop decides to search his car. The cop finds an unregistered handgun in the console, and arrests the guy.
In a nutshell, dude had a gun that isn't registered. The list of charges went something like this:
Unlawful possession of a firearm Unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon Possession of an unregistered firearm Possession of an unregistered firearm by a convicted felon Possession of an unregistered firearm in a motor vehicle Carrying a concealed firearm without a permit Carrying a concealed firearm by a convicted felon Carrying a concealed firearm in a motor vehicle without a permit...etc
(Oddly enough, the traffic violation was never pursued)
There were like 10 charges for essentially the same crime - having an unregistered gun in his car. The fact that he had a prior felony conviction pretty much doubled the charges, as each offense was seconded as the same offense "by a convicted felon." What bothers me, very deep down, is that they didn't just charge him with having an unregistered gun in his car. They charged him with having an unregistered gun, with having it in his car, with carrying it, with carrying it in his car, ad nauseum.
Why is there a law against "carrying" the firearm in your car if there's already a law against "possessing" the firearm in your car? Why was he charged with "carrying" when the gun was in his console, and not on his person? And why does carrying or possessing the gun in your car warrant charges on top of carrying or possessing it, period?
It's just insane. There ought to be a "greatest common denominator" law that says if you get charged with multiple things, the jury can only find you guilty of the single most severe charge they believe you are guilty of.
The thing is though that if you can get past the 2D isometric graphics, UO is still more advanced after 8 years than WoW is today.
For me, this isn't something to get past; I love the isometric view as opposed to the 3D client, or even the clients of other games. I've been a UO player since 1999, and while I haven't played in many months, I still keep my account paid up. I guess it's force of habit. Twice now I've sold off my accounts on eBay for a nice profit, and sworn UO off forever. And I always came back eventually.
The next time I get "the itch," it will be far easier to jump back with a current account (and house, and gold, and possessions) than to start anew. And that's worth the monthly fee to me, even as I do nothing with it. I learned my lesson the first two times; selling your accounts and houses and whatnot is a bad move in the long run. I wish I'd never sold my original accounts; if I still had them, I'd be a veritable gazillionaire in a land full of billionaires.
But as long as EA is handing out discounts, hey, how about something for the multi-year loyal MMORPG customers who have paid the fees month in and month out, and purchased the necessary upgrades. That's all I'm sayin'.
Where's the price cuts for, say, Ultima Online? I'd rather see some discounts in the MMORPG space - current or not - than in the console arena, but I imagine that since the client base for MMORPGs is fairly constant (PC users), they won't drop the prices there. Oh well, perhaps better luck next time.
How do they know what is on her computer? Did they raid her house for a civil suit, or do they have some sort of remote monitoring software?
They performed a search of some P2P network, looking for people sharing a given file. They then recorded the IP address, timestamp, and filename of each result. Most likely, this was done via an automated process. Finally, they subpoenaed the ISP for the customer information corresponding to the IP address and timestamp they'd recorded.
The RIAA's Achilles heel is that they do not actually download the file and verify its contents. This is why they've taken action against innocent people in the past; for example, they went after a professor named Usher for allegedly sharing songs by the rap artist Usher, because the word "Usher" appeared in the shared file names. The MPAA went after some GPL'd TCL code, claiming that it was X-Files episodes, even though the file was barely 100KB. These organizations employ others to spider P2P networks looking for violations, then they shoot first and ask questions later.
This is the exact case that defense lawyers - or defendants with no other choice but to act as their own lawyers - should be making. The RIAA sued this woman because an IP address that was (maybe) associated with her ISP account was (maybe) sharing a file with a title that (maybe) was related to someone else's copyrighted material, but (may or may not have) actually contained anyone else's copyrighted material. That's a lot of maybes, and we're still operating under the assumption that the RIAA and the ISP both had impeccably accurate data.
If I were her lawyer, I'd make a video showing me creating a ~3MB file comprised of random data, naming it to reflect a popular song, sharing it on several P2P networks, searching for it and finding my own file in the results, then watching, perhaps over several days, as people downloaded my bogus file. Exhibit A: video evidence proving that a filename does not a copyright infringement make.
If I were the RIAA, I'd start actually downloading the files that are supposedly being shared, playing them to verify that the contents are as advertised, and recording _that_ on video. Unfortunately for them, it's a bit difficult to automate that.
Slashdot Mirror
BearShare comes with a bundled copy of SaveNow. The installer explicitly mentions this. Removing it is as simple as killing the process and running the SaveNow uninstaller from Add/Remove Programs, and doing so has no impact on BearShare's usability. I'm no fan of these bundled apps, but this is far from spyware and even malware is a stretch. BearShare is extremely up-front about exactly what is going to be installed, that's a lot more than you can say for many of these apps.
BTW, I haven't RTFA but BearShare is still alive and kicking and you can even still download the installer. As long as people still have the client, the RIAA hasn't "shut down" anything.
But which wastes more of your bandwidth? Which one costs you money? You may not be seeing all the spam you get, but you're paying for it.
Hello, mafia! For $250K/year, I am an IT guy who can give advice on security, encryption, what can be recovered from a hard drive etc. In addition to IT, I enjoy pasta, Chianti, parmigiano, and pitted olives (preferably all in one night). Salary is negotiable if you can provide an "Italian woman," something I keep hearing about but, being a geek, haven't figured out the details of just yet.
References available upon request.
Once you login, you can launch an instance of Solitaire from within your remote webtop. I expect the MS-fanbois to jump all over this one even though it comes from Sun...
Sounds to me like Kim Komando. Is SandyB still in on that action?
I didn't mean to offend, Ian. I'm a developer myself, and I damn well understand "testing." I'm just still curious as to the improvements that 0.7 offers. Should I donate again to get you off my back? ;)
I wasn't responding to the Freenet Project website, I was responding to the Slashdot story. Something tells me that this particular Slashdotting was premature, but that tends to be the way it goes for Freenet; Slashdottings, as much as others may welcome them, are typically a bad thing for the Freenet network. If nothing else, we'll get new users. For awhile. We can only see how the network handles the next few days worth of influx.
Don't take it personally, man. Like I said, I'm not a hater. Diebold memos, Windows source (pfft), Freenet has been a great auditorium, and I'm still a believer.
But if you don't know three people who are using Freenet 0.7, hop on IRC (which is not the least bit anonymous) and see if some random stranger will give you their noderef. Random people who don't know each other exchanging noderefs over IRC provides what advantage over the prior Freenet implementation, exactly?
I don't know 3 other meatspace people who use Freenet, much less Freenet 0.7. I can't imagine that trading noderefs with some random person on IRC is any more secure than maintaining a node on 0.5.
I'm no Freenet hater, I've been running it for years and I've made several donations. Freenet showed me the "Diebold Memos" and other interesting items. I'm just looking for a plain-English explanation as to how 0.7 is an improvement over the prior Freenet implementation.
One of the reasons I like the Preview feature is that I often find myself in a situation like this:
Last week I found a great website about $TOPIC_X. I didn't bookmark it because I didn't think it was worth saving, but now I'd love to find it again. Problem is, I can't remember the name of the site, or the precise search term I used to find it. But if I saw it again, I'd recognize it...
Click through to 20 different sites looking for the right one... Or hover over some preview icons and find it right away?
First it was the domestic wiretap issue; the administration not only didn't deny doing it, they flat-out flaunted it. Now they want to put unmanned drones in the air to watch God-knows-what. There's no longer even a pretense, a facade, even the slightest attempt to hide the surveillance society.
I thought that actions like appropriating the military for civilian law enforcement, spying on US citizens within the US, etc. were illegal. Why doesn't anyone seem to give a shit anymore?
For many years, I had the screen name "File" on AOL. I don't know where exactly the convention comes from, but apparently, lots of people are used to CCing a copy of their emails to "File" in order to save a local copy. On AOL, the mail system has quasi-LDAP built in; if whatever you place into the CC field is a valid AOL screen name, that screen name becomes a CC recipient. And so, tons of people would try to carbon copy their emails to a local file by typing "File" into the CC field, and it would wind up in my inbox.
I can't begin to describe the various hilarities I witnessed over the years. Wish I still had the screen name; alas, it was hijacked a few years ago when someone called up impersonating me, and all the AOL support fuckwits were willing to do was cancel the account. Their loss.
Random brainfart: file@aol.com posts to Usenet almost 10 years ago. Yikes, I'm feeling old!
Maybe I'm just on the same brainwave as the submitter, but it seems like a lot of folks are missing (what I perceive to be) the point. This guy admins a bunch of Linux machines. He does so from a Windows desktop, using a Windows SSH client like Putty or SecureCRT. He has some aliases that he likes to use on Linux; say like a couple of my favorites:
.bash_profiles and manually add these aliases 1200 times. He also doesn't have permission to deploy a script to all 1200 servers to set these aliases up for him automatically. What he wants is a way to setup his aliases in his local Windows SSH app, and have them dynamically applied to any server he logs into.
alias h='history | grep -i'
alias nmap='nmap -v -O -sS'
Now, he doesn't want to have to login to 1200 different machines and edit 1200 different
(I don't mean to pick on you Stevey, yours was just the comment I was at when I thought "wait a minute, everyone seems to be mis-grokking the question.")
EA Cuts Current-Gen Prices
;)
Let's at least mix the subjects around when we're going to get a month-late dupe
Oh great, now Ric Romero has a Slashdot account!
You have an amazing residential connection that most of us would drool over, you have it at a discount, and you live in a nice part of town. The problem seems to be solved. If you can afford to rent where you do, you can most likely afford to get a dedicated server at a colo facility (it sounds like maybe that's what you've done?). If you don't like the idea of running everything yourself, look into managed hosting; you'll pay extra for the support.
I'm not going to name names, but if you haven't yet, shop around for dedicated servers. You can find a decent 1-2GHz system with 512MB-1GB RAM and at least 100GB HD, with 1000+ gigs bandwidth, for $100 a month, probably better (dedicated, not managed). It's not going to be the uberbox that your home machine is described to be, but from the sound of things, you don't need anywhere near that much power for your purposes. Austin is a tech hotbed, look local and you can likely find a sweet colo bargain.
If you don't want the extra expense, just continue to run your own server off your phat fiber connection. If Grande blocks incoming SMTP, smarthost from your employer (you set up your local MTA to listen on a weird port; you set up your employer's MTA to act as your MX and forward messages to you on your weird port). That's the extent of employer involvement that I'd ever recommend, and even that, only with their express permission.
Others have given a number of reasons and anecdotes as to why you're better off running things yourself. You don't want your employer controlling your primary identity on the internet, ever. You could live without email for a few days if you had to find a new smarthost, but it would sure suck if you suddenly found yourself locked out of everything. I could be hosting my various personal websites for free where I work, because we've got a number of dedicated servers with space left over. I choose to pay for my own hosting, even after 3 years with the company and no plans to leave. You never know what tomorrow's going to bring, and your employer should never be in a position to fuck with your personal life.
Back to your original question, which is better, running your own personal server or letting someone do it for you? Running it yourself, hands-down. If you don't feel capable, take the time to learn, even if it means gradual knowledge over a period of years. Judging by some of the stuff you've already setup, you're not afraid of the command line and you're not afraid of manuals. Between these two, you can and should do anything you want. The result will be doubly rewarding; not only will you be in control of your own personal realm, you'll also have admin skills that can contribute to future employment.
Good luck!
If you go to a store and attempt to purchase alcohol, or cigarettes, or a firearm, and they request your ID, you can refuse to provide it, and walk away unharmed. If you go to the DMV and attempt to obtain a drivers' license, and they request your ID, you can refuse to provide it, and walk away unharmed.
If you spend $600 booking an airline ticket, and they don't ask you for ID (they don't, trust me), then you show up at the airport and they do ask you for ID, then you ask under what authority they're acting, and they refuse to tell you, stating that it's "the law," but that they can't provide you with a copy of that law, and that no, they aren't going to refund your $600, you can walk away, but you have been harmed. You're out $600, you aren't going to make your destination, and you can't get a reasonable explanation as to why. The airline blames the government, but they can't provide a copy of the law; the government blames the airline, and they won't provide a copy of the law, either.
That's what John Gilmore is pissed about, and it's incredibly unfortunate that he's been ruled against.
Next thing you know, there will be a secret law that forbids "posting to an internet discussion forum using anything but your real name." After all, the Constitution doesn't spell out your right to post to Slashdot using a pseudonym, so you wouldn't mind such a secret law, right, c6gunner?
Most if not all of the 9/11 hijackers had valid identification. Those IDs were issued by the United States government. Those individuals showed up to board some flights, and they did so. Nobody arrested them "when they showed up," even though, as we later found out, several of them were already known to law enforcement as being "up to no good."
If people who are already on the radar of law enforcement can board a plane with no problem, then what does checking everyone's ID accomplish?
Are you trying to say that, prior to 9/11, they didn't ask for your ID at the airport? Are you saying that, prior to 9/11, they didn't go through that rigamarole about "has your luggage left your possession? has anyone placed anything into your luggage?" If so, I imagine that you don't fly very often.
The last time I was called for jury duty, the case involved the following scenario:
A guy gets pulled over for speeding; I don't remember the numbers but he wasn't speeding by that much. It starts out as a routine traffic stop. For whatever reason, the cop decides to search his car. The cop finds an unregistered handgun in the console, and arrests the guy.
In a nutshell, dude had a gun that isn't registered. The list of charges went something like this:
Unlawful possession of a firearm
Unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon
Possession of an unregistered firearm
Possession of an unregistered firearm by a convicted felon
Possession of an unregistered firearm in a motor vehicle
Carrying a concealed firearm without a permit
Carrying a concealed firearm by a convicted felon
Carrying a concealed firearm in a motor vehicle without a permit
(Oddly enough, the traffic violation was never pursued)
There were like 10 charges for essentially the same crime - having an unregistered gun in his car. The fact that he had a prior felony conviction pretty much doubled the charges, as each offense was seconded as the same offense "by a convicted felon." What bothers me, very deep down, is that they didn't just charge him with having an unregistered gun in his car. They charged him with having an unregistered gun, with having it in his car, with carrying it, with carrying it in his car, ad nauseum.
Why is there a law against "carrying" the firearm in your car if there's already a law against "possessing" the firearm in your car? Why was he charged with "carrying" when the gun was in his console, and not on his person? And why does carrying or possessing the gun in your car warrant charges on top of carrying or possessing it, period?
It's just insane. There ought to be a "greatest common denominator" law that says if you get charged with multiple things, the jury can only find you guilty of the single most severe charge they believe you are guilty of.
The next time I get "the itch," it will be far easier to jump back with a current account (and house, and gold, and possessions) than to start anew. And that's worth the monthly fee to me, even as I do nothing with it. I learned my lesson the first two times; selling your accounts and houses and whatnot is a bad move in the long run. I wish I'd never sold my original accounts; if I still had them, I'd be a veritable gazillionaire in a land full of billionaires.
But as long as EA is handing out discounts, hey, how about something for the multi-year loyal MMORPG customers who have paid the fees month in and month out, and purchased the necessary upgrades. That's all I'm sayin'.
Where's the price cuts for, say, Ultima Online? I'd rather see some discounts in the MMORPG space - current or not - than in the console arena, but I imagine that since the client base for MMORPGs is fairly constant (PC users), they won't drop the prices there. Oh well, perhaps better luck next time.
The RIAA's Achilles heel is that they do not actually download the file and verify its contents. This is why they've taken action against innocent people in the past; for example, they went after a professor named Usher for allegedly sharing songs by the rap artist Usher, because the word "Usher" appeared in the shared file names. The MPAA went after some GPL'd TCL code, claiming that it was X-Files episodes, even though the file was barely 100KB. These organizations employ others to spider P2P networks looking for violations, then they shoot first and ask questions later.
This is the exact case that defense lawyers - or defendants with no other choice but to act as their own lawyers - should be making. The RIAA sued this woman because an IP address that was (maybe) associated with her ISP account was (maybe) sharing a file with a title that (maybe) was related to someone else's copyrighted material, but (may or may not have) actually contained anyone else's copyrighted material. That's a lot of maybes, and we're still operating under the assumption that the RIAA and the ISP both had impeccably accurate data.
If I were her lawyer, I'd make a video showing me creating a ~3MB file comprised of random data, naming it to reflect a popular song, sharing it on several P2P networks, searching for it and finding my own file in the results, then watching, perhaps over several days, as people downloaded my bogus file. Exhibit A: video evidence proving that a filename does not a copyright infringement make.
If I were the RIAA, I'd start actually downloading the files that are supposedly being shared, playing them to verify that the contents are as advertised, and recording _that_ on video. Unfortunately for them, it's a bit difficult to automate that.