Thank you for the condescending attitude, and for contributing absolutely nothing constructive, and giving no indication whatsoever that you have any problem with the present soul-crushing status quo. Have you given any thought to what will happen to the needy when the trillions of dollars of debt accumulate to the level of total collapse of the economy?
oh, you like it therefore it deserve and [sic] exception?
No. Bullshit. It doesn't belong because it's different in principle. Try logical thinking, just for once.
except that doesn't work. You end up with rotting food.
Bullshit. Techniques for packaging food to last at room temperature for quite a few years are well perfected. Try looking at the "best by" dates on canned soups, vegetables, and other food. Look into how long MRE's and survival food last. The problem is not technology and what is possible; it's tiny minds like yours.
they [apartments used for welfare] are not huge expensive
Wake up and read straight. I didn't say huge and expensive; I said hugely expensive. The state where I live pays fat landlords thousands of tax dollars a month for each apartment and hotel/motel room in which are put up fat cows who pump out babies every nine months in order to get paid monthly more for each baby. There is no reason why it should cost anywhere near that much. Barracks not good enough for you? Too damn bad. Pay for your own damn house. I'm not talking about squalor here; I said there would be privacy; and the places don't have to be dirty and falling down, but the purpose is SHELTER, not pampering.
You're [sic] plan simply creates a lifestyle that doesn't go anywhere.
Oh, but the present arrangements do? No, it's your closed mind and your lurid imagination that are rebelling. It's a safety net that is not built to foster rampant abuse and runaway waste like the present one. It is to supply genuine needs in a caring spirit and effective manner, sustainably, without bankrupting society so you end up losing the safety net. And it wouldn't crush ambition the way current programs do. Obviously I would have policy designed to foster a rich set of jobs and contract work offerings to post for the large majority who would be willing and able to take advantage of them. Instead, present policy is framed to ruthlessly exterminate ambition and jobs.
The status quo you appear to be so satisfied with lets recipients squander their EBT handouts on liquor and junk foods. Mine addresses that problem. Your status quo lets welfare recipients live in comfort many working people can't manage. My solution addresses that. Your status quo covers the destitute and leaves the working people to their own devices. My solution addresses that.
So, the two significant parties in de facto control, and their support structure (including special interests, massive donors, and the press, en masse) conspire to create artificial barriers to entry, yet you don't call that a conspiracy?
OK, I'll take that under advisement if that is the consensus definition of the term. I was visualizing "system" as something designed, not as "thing that exists".
But we need a better answer than the one you offer, which boils directly down to "In order for the USA to stop being a two party system, it has to stop being a two party system". WHY is it a two party system, when almost no other significant country is a two party system? Wikipedia has to drill down all the way to Jamaica and Malta to find other examples of out-and-out two party systems.
Yes, I see where it is going. Balance. How could anyone object to such accountability? You take free stuff which is intended to fill a defined function, you shouldn't be looked down on, but you should be accountable. Actually, and this is important, I would provide the free stuff in such a form that the very concept of "misuse" never arises. See below.
First, one correction though. Building and maintaining public roads is an obvious legitimate government duty for all the benefit of all the people. It doesn't belong with the other categories you mention. It is not propping up some of the people by taking wealth from other people. And it is NEVER anyone's business where anyone else travels and with whom they associate.
Now, before you jump to understandable conclusions, I fully agree with social welfare. In fact I probably go far beyond what almost anyone proposes. In my opinion nutrition, shelter, health/dental/vision/hearing, and a VERY modest, completely discretionary, cash retirement and disability income should all be provided at no cost or duty whatsoever and with no means testing to EVERYONE, paid from highly graduated general tax receipts. But not handled the way they are now. Nutrition would be made available from well selected stocks, not in the form of cash/food stamp/EBT handouts to use at the spoiled whim of the recipient. Shelter would not be in the form of hugely expensive apartments. Oh no, so sorry. Think more like barracks, but with reasonable provision for privacy and safety.
Mark well, I would attach no stigma whatsoever to any of the above social welfare, and the way I would make sure no stigma accrues is that I would make it ALL universally distributed. If someone does not choose to pick up his nutritional goods, or occupy his shelter, or use the free health services, that is his business, and the goods and shelter and health services will remain in the pool, but he doesn't get to label those who do partake in their societal RIGHTS as less than him.
Are you mad? Welfare, pensions (largely social security), education, and health care account for 60% of Federal spending in FY 2012. Defense is 24%, and EVERYTHING ELSE is 16%
But of course the USA does not have a "two-party political system". There is nothing in the Constitution about political parties at all. And there is in fact a richness of parties (see the list of so-called minor parties underneath the majors). The only problem is nobody votes for any of them except R and D. I fantasize that it would be far better to have no parties at all, but I recognize that you can't outlaw them without making a mockery of liberty (freedom of association, anyone?).
It would be interesting to hear substantive ideas on why no parties beyond R and D ever gain traction at the national level in the USA. The most obvious possibility is that there is a sinister conspiracy between R and D or at some level of shadow control above the parties. It is difficult to imagine a more evil and treasonous act than subverting the political system itself.
Of course. Why would anyone imagine otherwise? If Bin Laden made a video about how to cultivate roses, or how to bake bagels, or a condemnation of what he sees as injustice, or a rant against the beliefs of the Amish, or making fun of redheads or of mother and apple pie, I doubt anyone would be much bothered by it except as an indication that an otherwise known psychopath might be still alive and at large.
You don't get off by narrowing down the no-no to a "direct quote of a call to violence", though. If he incites to violence, he doesn't necessarily have to say the words "go forth ye faithful and murder the incarnates of satan". He could whip a mob to frenzy in the same way Hitler did, by casting his bete noir as subhuman and responsible for all the ills and tribulations of his particular Favored Ones, to such an extreme as to be an unmistakable incitement to violence. In the same way, you can't get off by standing and gesticulating and screaming in a crowded theater "OH MY GOD NO! WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE! RUN!" instead of "FIRE" - even though it is a true statement of fact. Everyone hearing the screams IS going to die - and everybody else presently living is going to die as well - just not today.
What to you think a "terrorist message" is? It's not a message on any topic by terrorists. It's a message which is terrorist in nature, or in direct furtherance of terrorist activities. Not just lampooning some lunatic belief.
those anti-west videos posted by Muslim extremists?
No, it will not, because populations in the west do not riot and murder people if there are videos they find offensive. Maybe if their team loses a football game...
As others have noted, rossdee asks the right question, then gives factually the wrong answer. Everyone embarrasses themselves on occasion. It's one way we learn and grow.
If this prophet's good name, and his followers' happiness, depend on the prohibition of criticism and dissent, and putting down disbelievers and those who believe differently, then to hell with both of them.
Yes, it's not the film, it's their evil, sick society. However...
"Education" is not inherently a bright, shiny magic bullet. Education and brainwashing are so closely related in principle that you can't tell them apart. The course material has to be wisely selected and presented in the proper manner and in the right atmosphere. The PHILOSOPHY of learning must be inculcated. Finally, and most importantly, the philosophy of life and moral self conduct must be developed, and school cannot do this alone.
If they are under religious instruction to hate and do evil to those not of their own faith, that is education OF A SORT.
In the end you can send two kids to the same classes in the same school, and one will develop into a fine growing human, and the other will turn into an evil, brooding bully with a chip on his shoulder. The latter will more than likely turn out that way because of a sordid home life, and association in free time with other evil, sullen SOBs.
[elaborate but idiosyncratic list of Windows versions that were "successful" and those that weren't]
Are you on crack?... I ran NT 3.51 with full SMP on a dual PII-266 box back when that was a hot rig
Agreed; NT 3.5 and 3.51 were wonderful. Actually I used NT 3.1 big time from the day it came out and thought it was great. The story was, NT 3.1 was too slow. I was using it on 486-25 and 486-33 uniprocessor and didn't think so, and I bet if you [could] install it on today's hardware the speed would be stunning. But 3.5[1] was even faster and fixed some crash bugs. I did like 4.0 very much too, minus the silly crap like Active Desktop. After that, 2000 and on, things went downhill badly as the face they put on the system was dumbed down and resource requirements ballooned.
Look, everybody has their own idiosyncratic lists in their mind, according to their own personal viewport. For me, Windows 95, 98, and Me were all crap for suckers, and I never used any of them. Why would I use tinker toys when I had Mack and Caterpillar available to me? I have a feeling you might see that the same way. OTOH, I found Windows 3.0 and Windows for Workgroups to be fine; sure 3.1 was the best if you didn't need networking.
As for DOS compatibility, I stopped using Windows entirely before that got blown. DOS compatibility was certainly perfect through NT 4.0. I wrote a true custom 16 bit pure unextended DOS text screen inventory program some time in the mid 1980s. It is still in use on at least Vista if not 7 (I haven't asked the guy what OS version he is up to lately, but he has no complaints). I wrote the program with pokes to video memory in text mode for best performance. The display and database query speed was blinding even on an original AT, and continues to be blinding even emulated through layers of Windows abstraction.
The only lacking Windows compatibility was ever DOS games, and that is not the same thing as DOS.
AC has an interesting and useful post. I just wish to state that I in no way object to any part of the privacy law.
My issue is with the CONCEPT that an IP identifies an individual, and my concern is with any jurisdiction in the world applying this mistaken idea the other way round, to persecute individuals.
A very good question indeed. And what if the link was to an unindexed page linking to an unindexed page linking to an unindexed page linking to the "bad" item itself? Exactly who would be the naughty party in that case? The chronologically first in the chain? The chronologically last, who completes the chain? The guy putting up the "bad" item in the first place? All of them together? None of them?
What if party A lists the first 5 characters of the link and then links to party B, who lists the next 5 characters, and so on for as many parties as it takes to list the entire link in pieces so it can be copy-and-pasted together by the user? Are all the parties naughty? None of them? Am *I* the naughty party for suggesting the technique right here? What if the pieces are encrypted, and yet another party lists the encryption key? Which one(s) are naughty in that case? What if the link isn't really listed accurately anywhere, even in pieces; what if only clues are listed, like some scavenger hunt?
What if somebody makes a site with AI, to which you pose questions in written language (is it animal? vegetable? does it start with "p"?), and it gives helpful answers so you can finally dope out the link yourself, though it was never actually handed to you?
Oh for gosh sake. It's not a "semi-private" site, whatever that means. The links in question are to publicly readable files sitting on a publicly accessible server - with URLs that inherently exist but which were not publicly discoverable until the links in question were made. Period, end of story. The front page of File Factory states in huge lettering "The easiest way to upload and share your files in the cloud". It's PUBLIC. For an uploaded file to be publicly discoverable and reachable, all that has to happen is for the uploader, or anyone else who knows the URL of the file, to publish a link to it.
And no, "hyperlinks in general" do not have to point to material that is publicly linked already. A link is a link. How do you think the first link gets made? The first link made is just the first link, nothing more; no different from any other link. What if the link in question should be to an otherwise un-indexed page of links put up by a third party or by an open cooperative, none of which links are legally objectionable when the link in question is made? What if then a third or FOURTH party later changes the block of links to make it legally objectionable? Just who is performing the act of publishing in that case? Hmmm?
Does everyone making a link have to exhaustively research the legalities, not only when he makes it, but continue to scrutinize it forever after to make sure nothing changes to make him liable under some stupid law? This case may stand under this interpretation of the law, but anyone with any imagination whatsoever can visualize cases where the whole legal house of cards falls down.
This interpretation of the law is an assault against the foundation of the WWW. If you examine the subject critically, you are forced to the conclusion that the law is struggling to cope with technology that is allowing anyone to see what a mockery the law is. The law has not yet come to grips with the fact that, for the first time in history, any ordinary individual is enabled to enjoy his own image of a Renoir or Michelangelo at no cost, and any individual can pass the enjoyment on to another individual at no cost to either party. You can't artificially hide data or knowledge, and you can't artificially enforce scarcity, when no physical basis exists for either any more.
The law is an ass, and I'm looking at you, those who make and enforce laws and judge cases. I am not holding members of the public who sit on juries blameless when they immorally convict someone for breaking an evil and immoral law.
even IP addresses (as those can be tied to a specific person in most cases)
I know we're talking about Dutch privacy law in particular here, but that idea is so pernicious, and the mafiAA loves the lie so much, that it should never go unchallenged. So the following is in NO WAY an attack singling out you or your post.
The idea is BULLSHIT. Granted, it does use weasel-wording ("tied to" and "in most cases"), and It may (or may not) be legally recognized and upholdable bullshit, but bullshit is bullshit. The MOST a public IP can identify is a single host, not single person, and generally it only identifies a group of hosts, again not people.
1) Almost all businesses use many-to-one NAT for access by employees and others to public internet. Every desk and every notebook looks like the same IP to the public internet.
2) A large fraction of home users have wireless routers with many-to-one NAT. Any member of the family, and any visitor to the house, is on the same IP. If the wireless is open, anybody passing nearby outside can look like the same IP, whether wired or wireless, and if it's in an apartment or in a house close to other houses, a lot of neighbors can look like the same IP. If the wireless is secure, it could be hacked, with the same result.
3) Even if the subject is some kind of cheap lightweight with a single PC connected direct to DSL or cable, it must be recognized that it is more than likely that the subject has allowed and does allow others (family, friends, visitors on official or casual business or pleasure, etc) to sit in front of the PC and use it.
If "contraband" is traced to the IP, only by invading personal privacy and examining ZE PARERSSS (i.e., forensics on the hosts) can a prima facie case be made that some individual MAY (NOT ipso facto MUST) be at fault for violating an evil, immoral law.
Happy with homing mosquitoes here. You can carry a lot of them. One tenth of a thimble full of blood keeps dozens of them alive for weeks. They are use once and discard. I paint the message on the wing and the receiver just has to use a scanning electron microscope to read it. Only problem I've had is they fly to the wrong place, or the receiver swats them before seeing if there is a message.
I could hug Woz. He's everything Jobs was not, and everything the face of Apple is not. Everything the SYSTEM is not. People like Woz are the reason for what little faith I have in humanity.
Slashdot Mirror
So in other words you have absolutely nothing to counter the SUBSTANCE of Ronald Reagan's statement.
Thank you for the condescending attitude, and for contributing absolutely nothing constructive, and giving no indication whatsoever that you have any problem with the present soul-crushing status quo. Have you given any thought to what will happen to the needy when the trillions of dollars of debt accumulate to the level of total collapse of the economy?
No. Bullshit. It doesn't belong because it's different in principle. Try logical thinking, just for once.
Bullshit. Techniques for packaging food to last at room temperature for quite a few years are well perfected. Try looking at the "best by" dates on canned soups, vegetables, and other food. Look into how long MRE's and survival food last. The problem is not technology and what is possible; it's tiny minds like yours.
Wake up and read straight. I didn't say huge and expensive; I said hugely expensive. The state where I live pays fat landlords thousands of tax dollars a month for each apartment and hotel/motel room in which are put up fat cows who pump out babies every nine months in order to get paid monthly more for each baby. There is no reason why it should cost anywhere near that much. Barracks not good enough for you? Too damn bad. Pay for your own damn house. I'm not talking about squalor here; I said there would be privacy; and the places don't have to be dirty and falling down, but the purpose is SHELTER, not pampering.
Oh, but the present arrangements do? No, it's your closed mind and your lurid imagination that are rebelling. It's a safety net that is not built to foster rampant abuse and runaway waste like the present one. It is to supply genuine needs in a caring spirit and effective manner, sustainably, without bankrupting society so you end up losing the safety net. And it wouldn't crush ambition the way current programs do. Obviously I would have policy designed to foster a rich set of jobs and contract work offerings to post for the large majority who would be willing and able to take advantage of them. Instead, present policy is framed to ruthlessly exterminate ambition and jobs.
The status quo you appear to be so satisfied with lets recipients squander their EBT handouts on liquor and junk foods. Mine addresses that problem. Your status quo lets welfare recipients live in comfort many working people can't manage. My solution addresses that. Your status quo covers the destitute and leaves the working people to their own devices. My solution addresses that.
So, the two significant parties in de facto control, and their support structure (including special interests, massive donors, and the press, en masse) conspire to create artificial barriers to entry, yet you don't call that a conspiracy?
OK, I'll take that under advisement if that is the consensus definition of the term. I was visualizing "system" as something designed, not as "thing that exists".
But we need a better answer than the one you offer, which boils directly down to "In order for the USA to stop being a two party system, it has to stop being a two party system". WHY is it a two party system, when almost no other significant country is a two party system? Wikipedia has to drill down all the way to Jamaica and Malta to find other examples of out-and-out two party systems.
Mod parent up. This is worth discussing on both sides.
Yes, I see where it is going. Balance. How could anyone object to such accountability? You take free stuff which is intended to fill a defined function, you shouldn't be looked down on, but you should be accountable. Actually, and this is important, I would provide the free stuff in such a form that the very concept of "misuse" never arises. See below.
First, one correction though. Building and maintaining public roads is an obvious legitimate government duty for all the benefit of all the people. It doesn't belong with the other categories you mention. It is not propping up some of the people by taking wealth from other people. And it is NEVER anyone's business where anyone else travels and with whom they associate.
Now, before you jump to understandable conclusions, I fully agree with social welfare. In fact I probably go far beyond what almost anyone proposes. In my opinion nutrition, shelter, health/dental/vision/hearing, and a VERY modest, completely discretionary, cash retirement and disability income should all be provided at no cost or duty whatsoever and with no means testing to EVERYONE, paid from highly graduated general tax receipts. But not handled the way they are now. Nutrition would be made available from well selected stocks, not in the form of cash/food stamp/EBT handouts to use at the spoiled whim of the recipient. Shelter would not be in the form of hugely expensive apartments. Oh no, so sorry. Think more like barracks, but with reasonable provision for privacy and safety.
Mark well, I would attach no stigma whatsoever to any of the above social welfare, and the way I would make sure no stigma accrues is that I would make it ALL universally distributed. If someone does not choose to pick up his nutritional goods, or occupy his shelter, or use the free health services, that is his business, and the goods and shelter and health services will remain in the pool, but he doesn't get to label those who do partake in their societal RIGHTS as less than him.
Are you mad? Welfare, pensions (largely social security), education, and health care account for 60% of Federal spending in FY 2012. Defense is 24%, and EVERYTHING ELSE is 16%
But of course the USA does not have a "two-party political system". There is nothing in the Constitution about political parties at all. And there is in fact a richness of parties (see the list of so-called minor parties underneath the majors). The only problem is nobody votes for any of them except R and D. I fantasize that it would be far better to have no parties at all, but I recognize that you can't outlaw them without making a mockery of liberty (freedom of association, anyone?).
It would be interesting to hear substantive ideas on why no parties beyond R and D ever gain traction at the national level in the USA. The most obvious possibility is that there is a sinister conspiracy between R and D or at some level of shadow control above the parties. It is difficult to imagine a more evil and treasonous act than subverting the political system itself.
Of course. Why would anyone imagine otherwise? If Bin Laden made a video about how to cultivate roses, or how to bake bagels, or a condemnation of what he sees as injustice, or a rant against the beliefs of the Amish, or making fun of redheads or of mother and apple pie, I doubt anyone would be much bothered by it except as an indication that an otherwise known psychopath might be still alive and at large.
You don't get off by narrowing down the no-no to a "direct quote of a call to violence", though. If he incites to violence, he doesn't necessarily have to say the words "go forth ye faithful and murder the incarnates of satan". He could whip a mob to frenzy in the same way Hitler did, by casting his bete noir as subhuman and responsible for all the ills and tribulations of his particular Favored Ones, to such an extreme as to be an unmistakable incitement to violence. In the same way, you can't get off by standing and gesticulating and screaming in a crowded theater "OH MY GOD NO! WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE! RUN!" instead of "FIRE" - even though it is a true statement of fact. Everyone hearing the screams IS going to die - and everybody else presently living is going to die as well - just not today.
What to you think a "terrorist message" is? It's not a message on any topic by terrorists. It's a message which is terrorist in nature, or in direct furtherance of terrorist activities. Not just lampooning some lunatic belief.
No, it will not, because populations in the west do not riot and murder people if there are videos they find offensive. Maybe if their team loses a football game ...
As others have noted, rossdee asks the right question, then gives factually the wrong answer. Everyone embarrasses themselves on occasion. It's one way we learn and grow.
Yeah, it's all the fault of the "joooooz" and christians. You cretin.
If this prophet's good name, and his followers' happiness, depend on the prohibition of criticism and dissent, and putting down disbelievers and those who believe differently, then to hell with both of them.
So you think CERTAIN information should be free, hmmmm? Information of which you approve.
Yes, it's not the film, it's their evil, sick society. However ...
"Education" is not inherently a bright, shiny magic bullet. Education and brainwashing are so closely related in principle that you can't tell them apart. The course material has to be wisely selected and presented in the proper manner and in the right atmosphere. The PHILOSOPHY of learning must be inculcated. Finally, and most importantly, the philosophy of life and moral self conduct must be developed, and school cannot do this alone.
If they are under religious instruction to hate and do evil to those not of their own faith, that is education OF A SORT.
In the end you can send two kids to the same classes in the same school, and one will develop into a fine growing human, and the other will turn into an evil, brooding bully with a chip on his shoulder. The latter will more than likely turn out that way because of a sordid home life, and association in free time with other evil, sullen SOBs.
Oh, I think his knowledge is just fine. Is yours?
Android != linux
Android is one KIND of linux; one that is severely limited in scope
You can have something that does not support and run Android, but still supports and runs linux just fine.
Agreed; NT 3.5 and 3.51 were wonderful. Actually I used NT 3.1 big time from the day it came out and thought it was great. The story was, NT 3.1 was too slow. I was using it on 486-25 and 486-33 uniprocessor and didn't think so, and I bet if you [could] install it on today's hardware the speed would be stunning. But 3.5[1] was even faster and fixed some crash bugs. I did like 4.0 very much too, minus the silly crap like Active Desktop. After that, 2000 and on, things went downhill badly as the face they put on the system was dumbed down and resource requirements ballooned.
Look, everybody has their own idiosyncratic lists in their mind, according to their own personal viewport. For me, Windows 95, 98, and Me were all crap for suckers, and I never used any of them. Why would I use tinker toys when I had Mack and Caterpillar available to me? I have a feeling you might see that the same way. OTOH, I found Windows 3.0 and Windows for Workgroups to be fine; sure 3.1 was the best if you didn't need networking.
As for DOS compatibility, I stopped using Windows entirely before that got blown. DOS compatibility was certainly perfect through NT 4.0. I wrote a true custom 16 bit pure unextended DOS text screen inventory program some time in the mid 1980s. It is still in use on at least Vista if not 7 (I haven't asked the guy what OS version he is up to lately, but he has no complaints). I wrote the program with pokes to video memory in text mode for best performance. The display and database query speed was blinding even on an original AT, and continues to be blinding even emulated through layers of Windows abstraction.
The only lacking Windows compatibility was ever DOS games, and that is not the same thing as DOS.
Your original post was void of any substance, and now you aren't doing your argument any good at all.
AC has an interesting and useful post. I just wish to state that I in no way object to any part of the privacy law.
My issue is with the CONCEPT that an IP identifies an individual, and my concern is with any jurisdiction in the world applying this mistaken idea the other way round, to persecute individuals.
A very good question indeed. And what if the link was to an unindexed page linking to an unindexed page linking to an unindexed page linking to the "bad" item itself? Exactly who would be the naughty party in that case? The chronologically first in the chain? The chronologically last, who completes the chain? The guy putting up the "bad" item in the first place? All of them together? None of them?
What if party A lists the first 5 characters of the link and then links to party B, who lists the next 5 characters, and so on for as many parties as it takes to list the entire link in pieces so it can be copy-and-pasted together by the user? Are all the parties naughty? None of them? Am *I* the naughty party for suggesting the technique right here? What if the pieces are encrypted, and yet another party lists the encryption key? Which one(s) are naughty in that case? What if the link isn't really listed accurately anywhere, even in pieces; what if only clues are listed, like some scavenger hunt?
What if somebody makes a site with AI, to which you pose questions in written language (is it animal? vegetable? does it start with "p"?), and it gives helpful answers so you can finally dope out the link yourself, though it was never actually handed to you?
Oh for gosh sake. It's not a "semi-private" site, whatever that means. The links in question are to publicly readable files sitting on a publicly accessible server - with URLs that inherently exist but which were not publicly discoverable until the links in question were made. Period, end of story. The front page of File Factory states in huge lettering "The easiest way to upload and share your files in the cloud". It's PUBLIC. For an uploaded file to be publicly discoverable and reachable, all that has to happen is for the uploader, or anyone else who knows the URL of the file, to publish a link to it.
And no, "hyperlinks in general" do not have to point to material that is publicly linked already. A link is a link. How do you think the first link gets made? The first link made is just the first link, nothing more; no different from any other link. What if the link in question should be to an otherwise un-indexed page of links put up by a third party or by an open cooperative, none of which links are legally objectionable when the link in question is made? What if then a third or FOURTH party later changes the block of links to make it legally objectionable? Just who is performing the act of publishing in that case? Hmmm?
Does everyone making a link have to exhaustively research the legalities, not only when he makes it, but continue to scrutinize it forever after to make sure nothing changes to make him liable under some stupid law? This case may stand under this interpretation of the law, but anyone with any imagination whatsoever can visualize cases where the whole legal house of cards falls down.
This interpretation of the law is an assault against the foundation of the WWW. If you examine the subject critically, you are forced to the conclusion that the law is struggling to cope with technology that is allowing anyone to see what a mockery the law is. The law has not yet come to grips with the fact that, for the first time in history, any ordinary individual is enabled to enjoy his own image of a Renoir or Michelangelo at no cost, and any individual can pass the enjoyment on to another individual at no cost to either party. You can't artificially hide data or knowledge, and you can't artificially enforce scarcity, when no physical basis exists for either any more.
The law is an ass, and I'm looking at you, those who make and enforce laws and judge cases. I am not holding members of the public who sit on juries blameless when they immorally convict someone for breaking an evil and immoral law.
I know we're talking about Dutch privacy law in particular here, but that idea is so pernicious, and the mafiAA loves the lie so much, that it should never go unchallenged. So the following is in NO WAY an attack singling out you or your post.
The idea is BULLSHIT. Granted, it does use weasel-wording ("tied to" and "in most cases"), and It may (or may not) be legally recognized and upholdable bullshit, but bullshit is bullshit. The MOST a public IP can identify is a single host, not single person, and generally it only identifies a group of hosts, again not people.
1) Almost all businesses use many-to-one NAT for access by employees and others to public internet. Every desk and every notebook looks like the same IP to the public internet.
2) A large fraction of home users have wireless routers with many-to-one NAT. Any member of the family, and any visitor to the house, is on the same IP. If the wireless is open, anybody passing nearby outside can look like the same IP, whether wired or wireless, and if it's in an apartment or in a house close to other houses, a lot of neighbors can look like the same IP. If the wireless is secure, it could be hacked, with the same result.
3) Even if the subject is some kind of cheap lightweight with a single PC connected direct to DSL or cable, it must be recognized that it is more than likely that the subject has allowed and does allow others (family, friends, visitors on official or casual business or pleasure, etc) to sit in front of the PC and use it.
If "contraband" is traced to the IP, only by invading personal privacy and examining ZE PARERSSS (i.e., forensics on the hosts) can a prima facie case be made that some individual MAY (NOT ipso facto MUST) be at fault for violating an evil, immoral law.
Happy with homing mosquitoes here. You can carry a lot of them. One tenth of a thimble full of blood keeps dozens of them alive for weeks. They are use once and discard. I paint the message on the wing and the receiver just has to use a scanning electron microscope to read it. Only problem I've had is they fly to the wrong place, or the receiver swats them before seeing if there is a message.
I could hug Woz. He's everything Jobs was not, and everything the face of Apple is not. Everything the SYSTEM is not. People like Woz are the reason for what little faith I have in humanity.