Re:Writing books can *never* be against the DMCA
on
Hacking the XBox
·
· Score: 1
So how'd 2600 lose their linking case then? From what I understand, they only DISCUSSED DeCSS
They provided a direct link to the compiled program, as I understand it. Now, do I think 2600 should have lost the case? Hell no. Is providing a link to the compiled executable the same as writing a book? Nope...not yet. I guarantee you that 'content providers' like microsoft are trying to make it the same, though. Then they'll go after the websites, then the forums....it sounds ridiculous until it happens, just like all of humanity's greatest follies.
Re:Writing books can *never* be against the DMCA
on
Hacking the XBox
·
· Score: 1
I mean, would it kill you people to read the thing?
No, but where's the knee-jerk reactionism in actually READING the thing? It's much easier to halfway pay attention to what others are saying (or to vague recollections of what people may have said) and respout it, only slightly more wrong than whoever they're parroting.
now, i may well go and mod my xbox, but i realize that I am doing it illegally and realize that legal action against me is possible.
Can I bring legal action against you for trolling? No reasonable person could ever believe that modding a legally purchased xbox would be illegal, or that microsoft has some sort of powers to declare that it is with an EULA. Remeber, just because it's a contract doesn't mean it's legal, or binding, or legally binding. microsoft could just slip 'and I agree to turn over all monies and property in my posession to microsoft immediately' somewhere in its 543765436 page EULA, and start declaring that all your asset are belong to MS. Obviously that wouldn't fly in a court of law. Don't assume that because something is written in legalese that it is legally binding.
What is unethical about hurting yourself? I agree that hurting others with your possessions is poor form, from an ethical standpoint, but why do you put hurting only yourself in the same category? I'm not trying to contradict you or flame you, I'm honestly curious.
yeah and since they are paying for the software with the cost of the initial computers and then spending additional funds on more MS stuff, paying double as was said, thats just more of our tax money going to no use at all...
Would you care to provide proof of this? At the military base where I work, they did not get double copies of anything, in fact, they get price breaks on the machines (which do come preinstalled with operating systems only, but which are imaged with software and then branded with the *licenses* they're buying) which make them no more expensive than someone paying full dell price and getting a crapload of bundled software they paid for but will never use. I'd like to see some hard data on this 'paying double' thing. I know it *sounds* like something easy to make fun of the gov't about, but is it *true*?
It seems what you want is to literally pave over everything. Voila'. No more congestion. Also no more parks, no more farms, no more open spaces...
No, that isn't what I want. It isn't what I said. I didn't say 'let's pave 80% of the country' I simply said 'traffic does not grow to fill available roadways' That isn't even *close* to the same thing.
How about an even *more* elegant solution? Matter transmission. I'd say that has about an equal chance of happening as people voluntarily reducing their own tranportational usage. I mean, I'd settle for less cars on the road...but matter transmission would be *so* much cooler.
God & Faith are believing in the otherwise unbelievable simply because society dictates that is *right*.
Hmm. Is anything truly unbelieveable? Does anyone have the full spectrum of knowledge that exists? Of course not. A flashlight would be unbelieveable to a Roman. Does that mean we shouldn't believe in flashlights?
All species on a boat! lol...
Change that to 'all species' genetic material cataloged and coded in a single giant freezer' and it isn't quite so laughable...and really it's just a different viewpoint on how it *could* happen. I'm obviously not saying that such a thing exists, just that it really isn't a huge leap to believe it's possible. I'm not claiming that anything *did* or *did not* happen, btw, just saying that I can say the same thing in a different way to create different connotations and insinuations, just like you did.
We're all decended from Adam & Eve (btw women are evil otherwise we'd still be the lovely garden).
Hmm. Well, we're all descended from some common point originally. I dunno if they were called Adam and Eve. As for women being evil, I rather took that story to mean 'those who con you are evil' rather than 'those who get conned (both adam and eve, according to the story) are evil' also, and this is just me, it seems rather a paradox. Adam and Eve were forbidden the fruit from the tree of knowledge which would have saved them from trusting in Luficer...perhaps the fall was not avoidable? Maybe that's the *true* lesson of that story....or then again, perhaps I've gotten it completely wrong. I don't claim to have the answer.
Religion is the fear of the unknown personified by allowing people to buy their way to some groovie place in the sky.
You really don't know too much about religion, do you? Either that, or you are *intentionally* misrepresenting all religions in order to make a point you could not make otherwise.
If a person tried to sell this shitty writing in any other way besides "religion" people would see right through it.
What shitty writing are you referring to? I was unaware there was a 'all religon book' that included every religion and was sold to the masses. Perhaps you are saying that all religious writing is shit? If so, you, sir, are very close-minded.
Unfortunately most people cannot accept that they are worthless in the grand scheme of things without becoming a depressed individual.
On what do you base the assumption that people are worthless 'in the grand scheme of things'? How can someone be worthless in a 'grand scheme of things' if there *is* no 'grand scheme of things'? If there *is* a 'grand scheme of things', isn't that what religions are supposed to address?
Clearly you dislike 'religion', although I'm fairly certain from your post that you assume all religions are Christianity or are similar. This isn't a very enlightened point of view, and minimizing others' beliefs without even attempting to understand them is illogical. If you wish to believe that an entire universe sprang from nothing, for no reason, with no purpose, please go ahead, but I'd like to know why that belief is any more or less ridiculous than any religon.
I think the point here is that no one knows for sure *what's* out there. Many people have theories, and those theories are going to remain unproven until death, where your personal theory will either be proved, disproved, or changed in some unknown way. I don't claim to know what happens when we die, and anyone that does is probably lying. I know what I *believe*, but accord no more weight to that than what anyone else believes. In the absence of proof, any theory which fits the facts may be correct. Remember that many forward thinkers have been called insane, have been ridiculed, and have been later vindicated. Humans can fly. The Earth isn't flat. Here there be no monsters. Rotten meat doesn't magically turn into maggots. Saying things like this during their respe
an alternate way to work twice a month. Every other Wednesday, for instance.
Who regulates this? Who makes sure that enough people take unpopular days? How would a ~15% reduction virtually eliminate traffic?
Building more roads to combat congestion is like buying a bigger belt to combat obesity. Traffic, much like data, increases to fill the available space. Not until a certain road becomes too much of a hassle or takes too long do people look at alternative routes to work.
Um. Your analogy is seriously flawed. Belts do not combat obesity. You do not buy a belt to combat obesity. You do, however, increase the number of roads to relieve congestion. (I know you were trying to say that increasing roads is as wrong for relieving traffic as buying a belt would be to fight obesity. I'm simply correcting you. More roads = less congestion. Belt != less obesity)
If you think traffic magically grows to fill available roadways, build a 6-lane highway between two sub-10,000 person towns in west texas. See how much traffic 'grows to fill the available space.' Having more roads is not going to magically make more cars appear. If the country were 80% roads, there would not be traffic filling them. People with nonsensical ideas like yours are the reason traffic in my beloved Austin went from not too bad to horrific in just 10 years. The population increased by about 35-40% but the road system barely increased at all. In fact, several times bypass/mass transit solutions were introduced to the city council, but were never approved for 'environmental' reasons. So, in order to save the environment, the average time I spent on the highways trying to get to work and back home went from about 10-15 min to over an hour. Thanks, guys. I'm sure that's doing *wonders* for the environment. Get a clue, man, people don't look for alternate routes because you give up too much control. You can't rush home in the middle of the day if your kid is sick...you can't decide to take in a movie right after work....you can't run errands until you drop off all your ride partners/get off the bus/get dropped off...you can't pick your music, you can't adjust the air....if you're on a bus, you run the risk of being pickpocketed or vomited upon (both of which have happened to me more than once on austin's award-winning capital metro system)... these are things that aren't factors when you're driving your own car. People will put up with an hour longer commute if they can control it.
I doubt it. It's a volunteer dept. Believe me, any town that has a volunteer fire dept. is small enough that everyone knows everyone else's business...and suing a local vfd is not smart, because then when your house is on fire, you're on your own. VFDs are great, and work well, and you have to pay for them *somehow*.
(Maybe make one of the requirements for the program "No accidents in the last 5 years")
I'd support this, except I'd make that "No at-fault accidents in the last 5 years" This last insurance policy I got was the first in 5 years to be reasonably priced. This is because, a bit over 5 years ago, a moron drove on the wrong side of the street, then swerved into me while I was parallel parked, waiting for someone. Because of this, my insurance went up over 200% no matter which company I called. It really pissed me off that even though I had *no* part in causing the accident, I *had* to pay 200% more, because insurance is required by my state. No one at any insurance company would acknowledge that my rate was higher than before, even the company I was with at the time. It was really frustrating.
Riiigght, because no town has ever set their speed limits unnecessarily low.
Preach it. I live in TX, and there are a lot of tiny little towns on highways where the speed limit goes from 70/75 to 30 in a *very* short period of time. This will of course be in the middle of nowhere, and while they're required to step down the speed, it goes 70/75 directly to 55 to 35. If you're checking out the scenery, it's easy to miss the single 'reduced speed ahead' sign, which is usually obscured by trees/other signs. You may not even be able to see anything but two gas stations, yet you gotta slow down to 35. It's pretty ridiculous, especially when a town that size has 2 or 3 cop cars hanging out on each end of the town, right next to those 55mph signs. I'm sure they care about my safety! That's it.
Again, in case I haven't made this clear enough, he isn't catching hell because he's a man who was caught gambling, which as you say is perfectly legal. He's catching hell because he wants Americans to meet a high standard of morality and then its revealed that he doesn't meet that standard himself.
Um. Anyone can say as loud as they want how they want you to run your life. People do it all the time, from every side. It's up to *you* to make up your own mind. If bennet tells you to do something, and you do, don't blame *him* for it. Also, some people find dancing to be immoral, does that mean that bennet should be against this perfectly legal activity just because hes 'a general in the morality army'? you still haven't fully explained to my satisfaction what makes gambling immoral to bill bennet. I still haven't seen any hard evidence of that. Don't give me some 'invisible platform' that he has to support. There are LOTS of things that *some people* think are immoral, that other people don't. dancing, drinking, playing cards (for fun *or* profit) celebrating halloween...i don't see you saying that he should also be against *those* things. so please, list for me the entire 'moral platform' in written form, which has bill bennet's signature on it, and includes gambling. either that, or don't force someone to support a position *you* think they should, even though there's no LOGICAL reason that he should. You want him to be a hyporcite SO DAMN BAD that you don't give a shit what makes sense and what doesn't. Just saying 'he tries to make people live a moral life' doesn't mean he's automatically against some legal activity. I understand that you don't like him. That's fine. He's just not a hypocrite, and using the word wrong doesn't make *him* look bad. As I *am* a Libertarian, I obviously support his right to say whatever he wants to. You should understand that to me, denying *anyone* the right to say *anything* is repugnant. Now, if bill bennet starts *physically forcing* people to change their lifestyles, then I'll have something to say against him. However it's not repugnant to me that he wants to have opinions on how people should live their lives. I also have opinions on that. It's when you go from *saying what your opinion is* to *forcing people to live like your opinion* that I have a problem with it. Why does everyone assume that I'd be against free speech just because I don't like the guy's politics? He's never held anyone else to a standard of not gambling. He has held himself to a standard of not doing drugs (as far as we know) and not cheating on his wife, and not beating up weaker people...things he's spoken out against. Find him doing something he has publically denounced, and then he will be a hypocrite. Asserting that he is against gambling just because he's against other things is fucking retarded. I'm sorry, but it is. That's like saying that someone who is against abortion is also against nosejobs. I mean, maybe they are, but it doesn't logically follow that they *must be*. Why is it fair for you to attribute to mr bennet things he hasn't done? If he murdered someone....if he robbed someone....if he was found in a whorehouse....if he had an illegal drug problem....these are all things that would make him a hypocrite. Find me some evidence of those, and I'll scream it as loud as anyone. However, mislabelling people and using the wrong words to insult them just makes *you* look close-minded, and is wrong.
Its that he's telling other people how they should [live] their lives.
I'm sorry. It's just so damn funny to me that you say this like it's the ultimate evil. Anyone can tell me how to live my life. However, I have the ultimate responsibility *for* that life. People have been telling me how to live my life for years, in school, in print media, in church, on tv....politicians have been doing it forever. Every protestor, every talking head, every commercial is telling you how to live your life, or at least a certain part of it. That's just how it is. If yo
Even if the virus sends the information to the logs, it doesn't mean the entry will be read.
Hmm. It would seem that you are either not an admin, or not a very good one. Also, it's a bit silly to tell me that a message that doesn't exist using a protocol not determined wouldn't be read. How do you know? It hasn't happened yet. I would be surprised if it ever did.
and your silly "Orrin Hatch can call for whatever the hell he wants to." statement.
Whatever. Read the Bill of Rights to understand why senator hatch can call for whatever he wants to. Now, he wasn't *proposing legislation*. I didn't say he has the right to make whatever fucking law he wants. He can, however, express any fucking opinion he cares to, wherever he cares to, and if it affects his political career, that's his problem.
He's a senator and supposed to represent the people.
Well, he obviously doesn't represent YOU, but perhaps you can give me some hard data suggesting that no one in his state agrees with that opinion of his.
He shouldn't call for things which are contrary to the rights of the people,
Of course he shouldn't. That doesn't mean he *can't*. It also doesn't mean he *shouldn't be allowed to*. Now, he never actually proposed this idea as legislation, which you are clumsily trying to insinuate that he did, or would, and which has nowhere been indicated to my knowledge.
He can't just call out for any law he wants
He can have any opinion he wants on any law that doesn't exist. He can call for a law to make everyone under 55 a minor. That doesn't mean it's ever going to get written into law. There's a big fucking difference between saying 'i would support law x' and 'law x is now on the books'.
Unless I misunderstood the article, he made this statement in a Senate meeting. You know, where they make laws.
Yeah. Part of the 'making' is drafting and introducing a bill. How many times do I have to say that this hasn't happened yet before you actually understand it?
Also go to opensecrets.org, and look up Hatch's contributors. You'll see why he has turned anti-p2p and pro-DRM.
As I've said many, many, many, many times before, I DON'T LIKE SENATOR ORRIN HATCH. Ok? got it now? I don't like him, but I'll defend his right to say whatever he wants, especially as him saying stupid shit like this is what is going to get him de-elected, if anything will. There's too much needless censorship in our country as it is, because everyone's so afraid to offend someone. He's perfectly free to be offensive, and you're perfectly free to vote against him, or encourage those in his state to do so.
Its the opninion of the morality industry that it is evil. And as one of the primary generals in that industry, yes that damn well makes Benet a hypocrite. Wether or not he specifically ranted on the subject is irrelevant. You don't hold yourself up as a paragon of virtue and lecture others and then excuse your own actions by saying shit like "well, I never said that marrying your 14 year old cousin was immoral, so you can't complain when I do it!" Same thing goes for gambling.
I didn't realize that bennet was a general in the morality army. You are asserting that mr bennet supports a position, even though he *never* has, and that it's expected and right. Well, I'm afraid that I don't like your generalization. You can say that someone who advocates 'morality' is *more likely* to be against gambling, but there's no logical reason why bill bennet should be anti-gambling. it's legal. here's a more appropriate analogy: say that someone is against heroin, cocaine, pcp, and weed, but not against alcohol. This isn't hypocritical, because alcohol, like gambling, is *legal*. Why should someone have to support the same positions as someone else on every issue? I am a Libertarian, but that doesn't mean I agree with EVERY item on the Libertarian platform, and no, that damn well does NOT make me a hypocryte. Guilt by association...that's bad form, sir.
How I understand his statements, he said the virus should pop up two warnings on the computer which is running. The computer which contained the infringing material was a server, and who says those warnings have to be specific enough so the user will know what the cyberterrorist claims to be infringing. It's unlikely anyone will see any warnings "displayed" on a server, many servers don't even have video cards!
Yeah. Admins never get any kind of error reporting or logging on servers cause servers might not have video cards! OMG! How do they know if it's even running?/sarcasm Obviously he isn't very technically inclined. That doesn't mean that no messages could be seen on a server. That's just silly. Especially 'because they don't have video cards'. Please.
His "law" will most likely be screwed up. That was my point. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with Hatch being a hypocrite, but it does illustrate how he is wrong and how your limo analogy was way off.
His "law" wasn't a "law", it was an "opinion", and I have been told that everyone has them, and that they all stink. Well, his sure did, from my point of view, but that doesn't mean he's a hypocryte. Why can't people understand that I'm not defending his stupid idea; criticize his opinion all you want, just don't call him a hypocryte *on this issue*; if you have an actual instance of it, as I've seen inklings of elsewhere in these comments, and go to town. Making fallacious arguments doesn't make senator hatch look bad. If you weren't calling him a hypoctye, as you say, then why bother responding to my post? I didn't say he was a good guy, or anything, I just said he wasn't a hypocryte *on this issue*, so if you agree that he isn't, why agree with me in a disagreeable fashion?
I didn't say he had to build his own computer. I said he needed to illustrate in some way that he had some understanding of computers before he start suggesting legislation concerning them (my comment about him building his own web site was a less direct way of getting that point across.) Is that an unreasonable position to you? To put it back into your own analogy, shouldn't a lawmaker have some sense about how cars work before they pass legislation concerning cars? That's a closer analogy to what I said originally. You're exaggerating to muddy the valid point I was making.
Given that and the name-calling, I suspect you know that and don't care and are responding because the idea of criticizing Hatch's idiocy bothers you for some reason.
Um. No. He doesn't have to be able to build a web page to have a 'general idea' of how computers work. Just as he wouldn't have to design the interior of a car to have a general idea of how *it* works. I was simply pointing out that no one can reasonably expect every senator to know everything about everything. However, he can still make an uninformed comment if he wants to. It doesn't make him a hypocryte, which is what *you* said. You made a fallacious argument and got busted, and now you claim I'm exxagerating to muddy your point. Bullshit. Your point was crap. I have no problem with people criticizing senator hatch. I have a problem with people making nonsensical arguments to do it. I'm sure he has a general idea of how computers work, as in enough to use one for very basic uses, just like most people use their cars for very basic uses. As I said before, it would be *nice* if senators knew a lot about every facet of american life, however it's not *reasonable* to expect it. That was my point. To sum up: 'building a web page' != general idea of how computers work. senators don't know *everything* about *everything*, and yet they still have to make laws somehow. No one is seriously suggesting that senator hatch's opinion would be written into law. That is all.
That's pretty much irrelevant. Thats like a drug czar who rants about the terrible dangers of cocain, marajuana and meth but is revealed to have a big heroin habit.
Only if it's your opinion that gambling is evil. I would rather compare it to someone who doesn't like lemons, doesn't like limes, but does like oranges. what's logically incorrect about that?
I didn't hear Hatch saying it would be okay for the people at Milonic Solutions Ltd. to destroy the US Senate's servers. Nor should he be allowed to permit them. Yet his statement suggested they can. Don't you see the problem?
I also didn't hear anyone give him two warnings, after which he is still noncompliant. To be a hypocrite, he would have to have received the warnings, and then averted the destruction of his computer. If he refuses to have the software licensed, then he is a hypocrite. If he merely didn't know that his webmaster pirated software, he *ISN'T* being a hypocrite because he specifically included a provision (his ignorance of the effectiveness of the provision he provided, of course, also does not qualify him as a hypocrite, merely ignorant in that area) to warn offenders. *That's* what I meant. *That* is why your argument fails. Now, if in a few days, his software is both not licenses properly and still on his website, then let the accusations fly. I'll even join you. (Mind you, I don't like the senator at all, but using fallacious logic to argue against him is counterproductive. There's no NEED to make stuff up, he's done quite enough that's actual factual to need to make anything up or spin it.)
This only goes to show further how out-of-touch and un-informed Hatch really is about computers. He should be making no laws governing their usage until he can build his own fucking web site.
You are so full of shit. Should senators not be able to make laws regarding auto safety until they can build their own fucking car? You're a moron. Sure, it would be *nice* if our elected representatives were experts on every single facet of technology/industry/art/education/everything else. It's just not very feasible. Besides, web sites aren't the only things computers can be used for. Shouldn't he have to learn how to code, too? And how to rush in de_dust? and how to make that really complex powerpoint presentation? Bah.
A patriot is a terrorist who's on our side; a terrorist is a patriot who's on their side
Simplistic yet slightly amusing sayings? sure.
'A conservative is a liberal who just got mugged; a liberal is a conservative who just got arrested'
'If you're not liberal before the age of 25, you have no heart. If you aren't a conservative after the age of 25, you have no brain.'
Just cause something's neat and catchy doesn't mean it's an absolute truth. (yes, I apply that to myself too, there's nothing *wrong* with neat, catchy little sayings or pithy quotes.)
i like feeding trolls. every time you respond to a 'mensa babe' (read as high-school dropout fat guy) post, you are feeding a troll. I am proud to have 'mensa babe' on both my foes and freaks list. This is not for 'mensa babe', but for people that don't read comment histories before replying. I'm not saying you shouldn't respond, cause it can be fun, just know you're feeding a troll when you do.
Bill Bennet cannot credibly author a "Book of Virtues" in adult and children's editions, make $25,000 a speech daily, and then point out that most people gamble and private lives are nobody's business.
Nice try. Bill Bennet has never ever spoken out against gambling. His partner in a think tank, Jack Kemp, has, but then Jack Kemp doesn't have a known gambling proclivity. Now, had you said that it's hypocritical for someone who supports the 'war on drug users' to say that private lives are nobody's business I would have backed you, but the gambling thing is just plain wrong and does not help your position.
Likewise, Orin Hatch cannot insist that a few infringements of a few tunes are evil enough to justify a government official's call for destruction of personal property without due process and simultaneously argue that he should be forgiven for not studying a licensing agreement
Orrin Hatch can call for whatever the hell he wants to. This is just silly, people. If a senator's mechanic had installed a stolen part in the engine of his limo, without the senator's knowledge, that wouldn't mean the senator would all of a sudden be pro-theft. Now, had someone found an unlicensed copy of windows on the senator's *personal machine*, you would be correct, but I would not support *any* law that would hold me accountable for what my web designer did.
You know the saying, "It's better to remain silent and be thought an idiot that to open your mouth and remove all doubt".
Nope. Don't know that saying. Did you mean 'than'? Because it's pretty easy to be wrong. It happens to all of us frequently. Nice of you to criticize someone's minor mistakes while making one yourself. I'm sure you're not an idiot. You simply made a mistake. It happens. Would you care to provide evidence of Mr. Quayle's delusions? Perhaps provide some evidence that he is psychotic? No, you'd rather believe what you're spoon-fed by media idiots. I certainly have doubts about Mr. Quayle's status as an idiot. I know one thing for sure: I'd rather have a conversation with Mr. Quayle than with someone who presents baseless, unsubstantiated defamation of a person he's never met just to make himself look better. How about having some positions you can back up? Oh wait...that would be too difficult. It's so much easier to insult people 'that' (sic) it is to do real research.
I agree. I wonder just how many people are going to bend the device far enough to snap it. Will there be refunds for people who "flex" it too far?
Uh. Do you get a refund if you 'flip' your flip phone all the way over until it touches in the back? Do you get a refund if you jam your stylus through your PDA screen? Do you get a refund for being a complete and total idiot? Of course not. Yeesh. 'Hulk bent tiny map too far! Hulk want refund!'
Slashdot Mirror
So how'd 2600 lose their linking case then? From what I understand, they only DISCUSSED DeCSS
They provided a direct link to the compiled program, as I understand it. Now, do I think 2600 should have lost the case? Hell no. Is providing a link to the compiled executable the same as writing a book? Nope...not yet. I guarantee you that 'content providers' like microsoft are trying to make it the same, though. Then they'll go after the websites, then the forums....it sounds ridiculous until it happens, just like all of humanity's greatest follies.
I mean, would it kill you people to read the thing?
No, but where's the knee-jerk reactionism in actually READING the thing? It's much easier to halfway pay attention to what others are saying (or to vague recollections of what people may have said) and respout it, only slightly more wrong than whoever they're parroting.
now, i may well go and mod my xbox, but i realize that I am doing it illegally and realize that legal action against me is possible.
Can I bring legal action against you for trolling?
No reasonable person could ever believe that modding a legally purchased xbox would be illegal, or that microsoft has some sort of powers to declare that it is with an EULA. Remeber, just because it's a contract doesn't mean it's legal, or binding, or legally binding. microsoft could just slip 'and I agree to turn over all monies and property in my posession to microsoft immediately' somewhere in its 543765436 page EULA, and start declaring that all your asset are belong to MS. Obviously that wouldn't fly in a court of law. Don't assume that because something is written in legalese that it is legally binding.
...NOT hurting myself...
What is unethical about hurting yourself? I agree that hurting others with your possessions is poor form, from an ethical standpoint, but why do you put hurting only yourself in the same category?
I'm not trying to contradict you or flame you, I'm honestly curious.
yeah and since they are paying for the software with the cost of the initial computers and then spending additional funds on more MS stuff, paying double as was said, thats just more of our tax money going to no use at all...
Would you care to provide proof of this? At the military base where I work, they did not get double copies of anything, in fact, they get price breaks on the machines (which do come preinstalled with operating systems only, but which are imaged with software and then branded with the *licenses* they're buying) which make them no more expensive than someone paying full dell price and getting a crapload of bundled software they paid for but will never use. I'd like to see some hard data on this 'paying double' thing. I know it *sounds* like something easy to make fun of the gov't about, but is it *true*?
It seems what you want is to literally pave over everything. Voila'. No more congestion. Also no more parks, no more farms, no more open spaces...
No, that isn't what I want. It isn't what I said. I didn't say 'let's pave 80% of the country'
I simply said 'traffic does not grow to fill available roadways' That isn't even *close* to the same thing.
How about an even *more* elegant solution? Matter transmission. I'd say that has about an equal chance of happening as people voluntarily reducing their own tranportational usage. I mean, I'd settle for less cars on the road...but matter transmission would be *so* much cooler.
God & Faith are believing in the otherwise unbelievable simply because society dictates that is *right*.
Hmm. Is anything truly unbelieveable? Does anyone have the full spectrum of knowledge that exists? Of course not. A flashlight would be unbelieveable to a Roman. Does that mean we shouldn't believe in flashlights?
All species on a boat! lol...
Change that to 'all species' genetic material cataloged and coded in a single giant freezer' and it isn't quite so laughable...and really it's just a different viewpoint on how it *could* happen. I'm obviously not saying that such a thing exists, just that it really isn't a huge leap to believe it's possible. I'm not claiming that anything *did* or *did not* happen, btw, just saying that I can say the same thing in a different way to create different connotations and insinuations, just like you did.
We're all decended from Adam & Eve (btw women are evil otherwise we'd still be the lovely garden).
Hmm. Well, we're all descended from some common point originally. I dunno if they were called Adam and Eve. As for women being evil, I rather took that story to mean 'those who con you are evil' rather than 'those who get conned (both adam and eve, according to the story) are evil'
also, and this is just me, it seems rather a paradox. Adam and Eve were forbidden the fruit from the tree of knowledge which would have saved them from trusting in Luficer...perhaps the fall was not avoidable? Maybe that's the *true* lesson of that story....or then again, perhaps I've gotten it completely wrong. I don't claim to have the answer.
Religion is the fear of the unknown personified by allowing people to buy their way to some groovie place in the sky.
You really don't know too much about religion, do you? Either that, or you are *intentionally* misrepresenting all religions in order to make a point you could not make otherwise.
If a person tried to sell this shitty writing in any other way besides "religion" people would see right through it.
What shitty writing are you referring to? I was unaware there was a 'all religon book' that included every religion and was sold to the masses. Perhaps you are saying that all religious writing is shit? If so, you, sir, are very close-minded.
Unfortunately most people cannot accept that they are worthless in the grand scheme of things without becoming a depressed individual.
On what do you base the assumption that people are worthless 'in the grand scheme of things'?
How can someone be worthless in a 'grand scheme of things' if there *is* no 'grand scheme of things'? If there *is* a 'grand scheme of things', isn't that what religions are supposed to address?
Clearly you dislike 'religion', although I'm fairly certain from your post that you assume all religions are Christianity or are similar. This isn't a very enlightened point of view, and minimizing others' beliefs without even attempting to understand them is illogical.
If you wish to believe that an entire universe sprang from nothing, for no reason, with no purpose, please go ahead, but I'd like to know why that belief is any more or less ridiculous than any religon.
I think the point here is that no one knows for sure *what's* out there. Many people have theories, and those theories are going to remain unproven until death, where your personal theory will either be proved, disproved, or changed in some unknown way. I don't claim to know what happens when we die, and anyone that does is probably lying. I know what I *believe*, but accord no more weight to that than what anyone else believes. In the absence of proof, any theory which fits the facts may be correct.
Remember that many forward thinkers have been called insane, have been ridiculed, and have been later vindicated.
Humans can fly. The Earth isn't flat. Here there be no monsters. Rotten meat doesn't magically turn into maggots. Saying things like this during their respe
an alternate way to work twice a month. Every other Wednesday, for instance.
Who regulates this? Who makes sure that enough people take unpopular days? How would a ~15% reduction virtually eliminate traffic?
Building more roads to combat congestion is like buying a bigger belt to combat obesity.
Traffic, much like data, increases to fill the available space. Not until a certain road becomes too much of a hassle or takes too long do people look at alternative routes to work.
Um. Your analogy is seriously flawed. Belts do not combat obesity. You do not buy a belt to combat obesity. You do, however, increase the number of roads to relieve congestion. (I know you were trying to say that increasing roads is as wrong for relieving traffic as buying a belt would be to fight obesity. I'm simply correcting you. More roads = less congestion. Belt != less obesity)
If you think traffic magically grows to fill available roadways, build a 6-lane highway between two sub-10,000 person towns in west texas. See how much traffic 'grows to fill the available space.' Having more roads is not going to magically make more cars appear. If the country were 80% roads, there would not be traffic filling them.
People with nonsensical ideas like yours are the reason traffic in my beloved Austin went from not too bad to horrific in just 10 years. The population increased by about 35-40% but the road system barely increased at all. In fact, several times bypass/mass transit solutions were introduced to the city council, but were never approved for 'environmental' reasons. So, in order to save the environment, the average time I spent on the highways trying to get to work and back home went from about 10-15 min to over an hour. Thanks, guys. I'm sure that's doing *wonders* for the environment. Get a clue, man, people don't look for alternate routes because you give up too much control. You can't rush home in the middle of the day if your kid is sick...you can't decide to take in a movie right after work....you can't run errands until you drop off all your ride partners/get off the bus/get dropped off...you can't pick your music, you can't adjust the air....if you're on a bus, you run the risk of being pickpocketed or vomited upon (both of which have happened to me more than once on austin's award-winning capital metro system)...
these are things that aren't factors when you're driving your own car. People will put up with an hour longer commute if they can control it.
Did the fire dept. get sued into oblivion yet?
I doubt it. It's a volunteer dept. Believe me, any town that has a volunteer fire dept. is small enough that everyone knows everyone else's business...and suing a local vfd is not smart, because then when your house is on fire, you're on your own. VFDs are great, and work well, and you have to pay for them *somehow*.
(Maybe make one of the requirements for the program "No accidents in the last 5 years")
I'd support this, except I'd make that "No at-fault accidents in the last 5 years"
This last insurance policy I got was the first in 5 years to be reasonably priced. This is because, a bit over 5 years ago, a moron drove on the wrong side of the street, then swerved into me while I was parallel parked, waiting for someone. Because of this, my insurance went up over 200% no matter which company I called. It really pissed me off that even though I had *no* part in causing the accident, I *had* to pay 200% more, because insurance is required by my state. No one at any insurance company would acknowledge that my rate was higher than before, even the company I was with at the time. It was really frustrating.
Riiigght, because no town has ever set their speed limits unnecessarily low.
Preach it. I live in TX, and there are a lot of tiny little towns on highways where the speed limit goes from 70/75 to 30 in a *very* short period of time. This will of course be in the middle of nowhere, and while they're required to step down the speed, it goes 70/75 directly to 55 to 35. If you're checking out the scenery, it's easy to miss the single 'reduced speed ahead' sign, which is usually obscured by trees/other signs. You may not even be able to see anything but two gas stations, yet you gotta slow down to 35. It's pretty ridiculous, especially when a town that size has 2 or 3 cop cars hanging out on each end of the town, right next to those 55mph
signs. I'm sure they care about my safety! That's it.
Again, in case I haven't made this clear enough, he isn't catching hell because he's a man who was caught gambling, which as you say is perfectly legal. He's catching hell because he wants Americans to meet a high standard of morality and then its revealed that he doesn't meet that standard himself.
Um. Anyone can say as loud as they want how they want you to run your life. People do it all the time, from every side. It's up to *you* to make up your own mind. If bennet tells you to do something, and you do, don't blame *him* for it.
Also, some people find dancing to be immoral, does that mean that bennet should be against this perfectly legal activity just because hes 'a general in the morality army'?
you still haven't fully explained to my satisfaction what makes gambling immoral to bill bennet. I still haven't seen any hard evidence of that. Don't give me some 'invisible platform' that he has to support. There are LOTS of things that *some people* think are immoral, that other people don't. dancing, drinking, playing cards (for fun *or* profit) celebrating halloween...i don't see you saying that he should also be against *those* things. so please, list for me the entire 'moral platform' in written form, which has bill bennet's signature on it, and includes gambling. either that, or don't force someone to support a position *you* think they should, even though there's no LOGICAL reason that he should. You want him to be a hyporcite SO DAMN BAD that you don't give a shit what makes sense and what doesn't. Just saying 'he tries to make people live a moral life' doesn't mean he's automatically against some legal activity. I understand that you don't like him. That's fine. He's just not a hypocrite, and using the word wrong doesn't make *him* look bad.
As I *am* a Libertarian, I obviously support his right to say whatever he wants to. You should understand that to me, denying *anyone* the right to say *anything* is repugnant. Now, if bill bennet starts *physically forcing* people to change their lifestyles, then I'll have something to say against him. However it's not repugnant to me that he wants to have opinions on how people should live their lives. I also have opinions on that. It's when you go from *saying what your opinion is* to *forcing people to live like your opinion* that I have a problem with it. Why does everyone assume that I'd be against free speech just because I don't like the guy's politics?
He's never held anyone else to a standard of not gambling. He has held himself to a standard of not doing drugs (as far as we know) and not cheating on his wife, and not beating up weaker people...things he's spoken out against. Find him doing something he has publically denounced, and then he will be a hypocrite. Asserting that he is against gambling just because he's against other things is fucking retarded. I'm sorry, but it is. That's like saying that someone who is against abortion is also against nosejobs. I mean, maybe they are, but it doesn't logically follow that they *must be*. Why is it fair for you to attribute to mr bennet things he hasn't done? If he murdered someone....if he robbed someone....if he was found in a whorehouse....if he had an illegal drug problem....these are all things that would make him a hypocrite. Find me some evidence of those, and I'll scream it as loud as anyone. However, mislabelling people and using the wrong words to insult them just makes *you* look close-minded, and is wrong.
Its that he's telling other people how they should [live] their lives.
I'm sorry. It's just so damn funny to me that you say this like it's the ultimate evil. Anyone can tell me how to live my life. However, I have the ultimate responsibility *for* that life. People have been telling me how to live my life for years, in school, in print media, in church, on tv....politicians have been doing it forever. Every protestor, every talking head, every commercial is telling you how to live your life, or at least a certain part of it. That's just how it is. If yo
Even if the virus sends the information to the logs, it doesn't mean the entry will be read.
Hmm. It would seem that you are either not an admin, or not a very good one. Also, it's a bit silly to tell me that a message that doesn't exist using a protocol not determined wouldn't be read. How do you know? It hasn't happened yet. I would be surprised if it ever did.
and your silly "Orrin Hatch can call for whatever the hell he wants to." statement.
Whatever. Read the Bill of Rights to understand why senator hatch can call for whatever he wants to. Now, he wasn't *proposing legislation*. I didn't say he has the right to make whatever fucking law he wants. He can, however, express any fucking opinion he cares to, wherever he cares to, and if it affects his political career, that's his problem.
He's a senator and supposed to represent the people.
Well, he obviously doesn't represent YOU, but perhaps you can give me some hard data suggesting that no one in his state agrees with that opinion of his.
He shouldn't call for things which are contrary to the rights of the people,
Of course he shouldn't. That doesn't mean he *can't*. It also doesn't mean he *shouldn't be allowed to*. Now, he never actually proposed this idea as legislation, which you are clumsily trying to insinuate that he did, or would, and which has nowhere been indicated to my knowledge.
He can't just call out for any law he wants
He can have any opinion he wants on any law that doesn't exist. He can call for a law to make everyone under 55 a minor. That doesn't mean it's ever going to get written into law. There's a big fucking difference between saying 'i would support law x' and 'law x is now on the books'.
Unless I misunderstood the article, he made this statement in a Senate meeting. You know, where they make laws.
Yeah. Part of the 'making' is drafting and introducing a bill. How many times do I have to say that this hasn't happened yet before you actually understand it?
Also go to opensecrets.org, and look up Hatch's contributors. You'll see why he has turned anti-p2p and pro-DRM.
As I've said many, many, many, many times before, I DON'T LIKE SENATOR ORRIN HATCH. Ok? got it now? I don't like him, but I'll defend his right to say whatever he wants, especially as him saying stupid shit like this is what is going to get him de-elected, if anything will. There's too much needless censorship in our country as it is, because everyone's so afraid to offend someone. He's perfectly free to be offensive, and you're perfectly free to vote against him, or encourage those in his state to do so.
Its the opninion of the morality industry that it is evil. And as one of the primary generals in that industry, yes that damn well makes Benet a hypocrite. Wether or not he specifically ranted on the subject is irrelevant. You don't hold yourself up as a paragon of virtue and lecture others and then excuse your own actions by saying shit like "well, I never said that marrying your 14 year old cousin was immoral, so you can't complain when I do it!" Same thing goes for gambling.
I didn't realize that bennet was a general in the morality army. You are asserting that mr bennet supports a position, even though he *never* has, and that it's expected and right. Well, I'm afraid that I don't like your generalization. You can say that someone who advocates 'morality' is *more likely* to be against gambling, but there's no logical reason why bill bennet should be anti-gambling. it's legal. here's a more appropriate analogy: say that someone is against heroin, cocaine, pcp, and weed, but not against alcohol. This isn't hypocritical, because alcohol, like gambling, is *legal*. Why should someone have to support the same positions as someone else on every issue? I am a Libertarian, but that doesn't mean I agree with EVERY item on the Libertarian platform, and no, that damn well does NOT make me a hypocryte. Guilt by association...that's bad form, sir.
How I understand his statements, he said the virus should pop up two warnings on the computer which is running. The computer which contained the infringing material was a server, and who says those warnings have to be specific enough so the user will know what the cyberterrorist claims to be infringing. It's unlikely anyone will see any warnings "displayed" on a server, many servers don't even have video cards!
/sarcasm
Yeah. Admins never get any kind of error reporting or logging on servers cause servers might not have video cards! OMG! How do they know if it's even running?
Obviously he isn't very technically inclined. That doesn't mean that no messages could be seen on a server. That's just silly. Especially 'because they don't have video cards'. Please.
His "law" will most likely be screwed up. That was my point. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with Hatch being a hypocrite, but it does illustrate how he is wrong and how your limo analogy was way off.
His "law" wasn't a "law", it was an "opinion", and I have been told that everyone has them, and that they all stink. Well, his sure did, from my point of view, but that doesn't mean he's a hypocryte. Why can't people understand that I'm not defending his stupid idea; criticize his opinion all you want, just don't call him a hypocryte *on this issue*; if you have an actual instance of it, as I've seen inklings of elsewhere in these comments, and go to town. Making fallacious arguments doesn't make senator hatch look bad. If you weren't calling him a hypoctye, as you say, then why bother responding to my post? I didn't say he was a good guy, or anything, I just said he wasn't a hypocryte *on this issue*, so if you agree that he isn't, why agree with me in a disagreeable fashion?
I didn't say he had to build his own computer. I said he needed to illustrate in some way that he had some understanding of computers before he start suggesting legislation concerning them (my comment about him building his own web site was a less direct way of getting that point across.) Is that an unreasonable position to you? To put it back into your own analogy, shouldn't a lawmaker have some sense about how cars work before they pass legislation concerning cars? That's a closer analogy to what I said originally. You're exaggerating to muddy the valid point I was making.
Given that and the name-calling, I suspect you know that and don't care and are responding because the idea of criticizing Hatch's idiocy bothers you for some reason.
Um. No. He doesn't have to be able to build a web page to have a 'general idea' of how computers work. Just as he wouldn't have to design the interior of a car to have a general idea of how *it* works. I was simply pointing out that no one can reasonably expect every senator to know everything about everything. However, he can still make an uninformed comment if he wants to. It doesn't make him a hypocryte, which is what *you* said. You made a fallacious argument and got busted, and now you claim I'm exxagerating to muddy your point. Bullshit. Your point was crap. I have no problem with people criticizing senator hatch. I have a problem with people making nonsensical arguments to do it. I'm sure he has a general idea of how computers work, as in enough to use one for very basic uses, just like most people use their cars for very basic uses. As I said before, it would be *nice* if senators knew a lot about every facet of american life, however it's not *reasonable* to expect it. That was my point. To sum up: 'building a web page' != general idea of how computers work. senators don't know *everything* about *everything*, and yet they still have to make laws somehow. No one is seriously suggesting that senator hatch's opinion would be written into law. That is all.
That's pretty much irrelevant. Thats like a drug czar who rants about the terrible dangers of cocain, marajuana and meth but is revealed to have a big heroin habit.
Only if it's your opinion that gambling is evil. I would rather compare it to someone who doesn't like lemons, doesn't like limes, but does like oranges.
what's logically incorrect about that?
I didn't hear Hatch saying it would be okay for the people at Milonic Solutions Ltd. to destroy the US Senate's servers. Nor should he be allowed to permit them. Yet his statement suggested they can. Don't you see the problem?
I also didn't hear anyone give him two warnings, after which he is still noncompliant.
To be a hypocrite, he would have to have received the warnings, and then averted the destruction of his computer. If he refuses to have the software licensed, then he is a hypocrite. If he merely didn't know that his webmaster pirated software, he *ISN'T* being a hypocrite because he specifically included a provision (his ignorance of the effectiveness of the provision he provided, of course, also does not qualify him as a hypocrite, merely ignorant in that area) to warn offenders. *That's* what I meant. *That* is why your argument fails. Now, if in a few days, his software is both not licenses properly and still on his website, then let the accusations fly. I'll even join you.
(Mind you, I don't like the senator at all, but using fallacious logic to argue against him is counterproductive. There's no NEED to make stuff up, he's done quite enough that's actual factual to need to make anything up or spin it.)
This only goes to show further how out-of-touch and un-informed Hatch really is about computers. He should be making no laws governing their usage until he can build his own fucking web site.
You are so full of shit. Should senators not be able to make laws regarding auto safety until they can build their own fucking car? You're a moron. Sure, it would be *nice* if our elected representatives were experts on every single facet of technology/industry/art/education/everything else. It's just not very feasible. Besides, web sites aren't the only things computers can be used for. Shouldn't he have to learn how to code, too? And how to rush in de_dust? and how to make that really complex powerpoint presentation? Bah.
A patriot is a terrorist who's on our side; a terrorist is a patriot who's on their side
Simplistic yet slightly amusing sayings? sure.
'A conservative is a liberal who just got mugged; a liberal is a conservative who just got arrested'
'If you're not liberal before the age of 25, you have no heart. If you aren't a conservative after the age of 25, you have no brain.'
Just cause something's neat and catchy doesn't mean it's an absolute truth.
(yes, I apply that to myself too, there's nothing *wrong* with neat, catchy little sayings or pithy quotes.)
She's gonna hate us all when she looks at the replies to her post, isn't she? ;)
I doubt it. After all, that's exactly why that troll account exists.
i like feeding trolls.
every time you respond to a 'mensa babe' (read as high-school dropout fat guy) post, you are feeding a troll. I am proud to have 'mensa babe' on both my foes and freaks list. This is not for 'mensa babe', but for people that don't read comment histories before replying. I'm not saying you shouldn't respond, cause it can be fun, just know you're feeding a troll when you do.
Bill Bennet cannot credibly author a "Book of Virtues" in adult and children's editions, make $25,000 a speech daily, and then point out that most people gamble and private lives are nobody's business.
Nice try. Bill Bennet has never ever spoken out against gambling. His partner in a think tank, Jack Kemp, has, but then Jack Kemp doesn't have a known gambling proclivity. Now, had you said that it's hypocritical for someone who supports the 'war on drug users' to say that private lives are nobody's business I would have backed you, but the gambling thing is just plain wrong and does not help your position.
Likewise, Orin Hatch cannot insist that a few infringements of a few tunes are evil enough to justify a government official's call for destruction of personal property without due process and simultaneously argue that he should be forgiven for not studying a licensing agreement
Orrin Hatch can call for whatever the hell he wants to. This is just silly, people. If a senator's mechanic had installed a stolen part in the engine of his limo, without the senator's knowledge, that wouldn't mean the senator would all of a sudden be pro-theft. Now, had someone found an unlicensed copy of windows on the senator's *personal machine*, you would be correct, but I would not support *any* law that would hold me accountable for what my web designer did.
You know the saying, "It's better to remain silent and be thought an idiot that to open your mouth and remove all doubt".
Nope. Don't know that saying. Did you mean 'than'?
Because it's pretty easy to be wrong. It happens to all of us frequently. Nice of you to criticize someone's minor mistakes while making one yourself. I'm sure you're not an idiot. You simply made a mistake. It happens. Would you care to provide evidence of Mr. Quayle's delusions? Perhaps provide some evidence that he is psychotic? No, you'd rather believe what you're spoon-fed by media idiots. I certainly have doubts about Mr. Quayle's status as an idiot. I know one thing for sure: I'd rather have a conversation with Mr. Quayle than with someone who presents baseless, unsubstantiated defamation of a person he's never met just to make himself look better. How about having some positions you can back up? Oh wait...that would be too difficult. It's so much easier to insult people 'that' (sic) it is to do real research.
I agree. I wonder just how many people are going to bend the device far enough to snap it. Will there be refunds for people who "flex" it too far?
Uh. Do you get a refund if you 'flip' your flip phone all the way over until it touches in the back? Do you get a refund if you jam your stylus through your PDA screen? Do you get a refund for being a complete and total idiot? Of course not.
Yeesh. 'Hulk bent tiny map too far! Hulk want refund!'