I never questioned your freedom to be a bigot. Only pointed out that you were one. Feel free to hate whoever you want. I hate bigots...you hate gay people oh...and spiders.
People like you make me sick. You are the kind that will create laws to equalize people.
Yeah what an awful ideal. Giving all people the rights accorded to only a select few. I suppose minorities and women don't deserve rights either.
That is NOT freedom jackass, that, is communism.
Communism is most certainly not freedom for all. From dictionary.com:
communism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kmy-nzm) n.
1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
So threatening to fuck their asses isn't a problem?
At what point did I say that threatening to fuck people in the ass wasn't a problem? You don't have to be gay to say that. I had a problem with him saying "Big Gay Al" and using the fact that the boss was gay, fat, and a crossdresser as evidence supporting a shitty job.
If we replaced the transvestite with a 200lbs quarterback who threatened to rape everybody would you feel better?
Um...no...same problem different stereotype. Doesn't matter who says that. Threatening to rape people is wrong. Doesn't matter if you're fat or thin, gay or straight, wear a dress or pants.
Really? Explain this to me...how does liking men instead of women, and prefering to wear a dress make you unstable?
Behavior that indicated he was unstable was constantly switching his demands, threatening to do people in the ass, having people searched, and hiring incompetents. Doesn't matter if he's a gay crossdresser or not, straight people who wear nice suits can and often do, do similar things.
If he were just gay and wore a dress there shouldn't have really been a problem...unless of course he's a bigot.
Sounds like a job that would be problematic if you were a bigot.
What difference does it make if they were a 300lb crossdresser?
It's one thing to complain about your boss' lack of competence or crappy attitude. It's another to be a complete prick and complain about factors that don't really influence their management capability (i.e. being fat, gay, and dressing in female clothing).
Let's see...you're married, went to college, and don't have kids.
I'd say you're much more well-off financially than many.
I'm certainly not insinuating that you're Donald Trump or something, but to say you aren't well-off financially is a load of crap.
Single people with no education and a few kids are most likely not well off. If you can afford an iPod while meeting all your other financial obligations, you're doing ok.
Running out of gas and dying are in no way related, neither are segway failures and auto deaths. Exactly how do you think comparing segway failures to auto deaths substantiates a claim that people run out gas less frequently than segways fail?
People die in cars because there is a lot more energy in the system...i.e. cars travel fast. I imagine if a segway's top speed were over 100 mph you'd see a lot more segway deaths. I'd even be willing to bet it'd be more than 1 per 7 million traveled miles.
For example according to the NHTSA in the US, motorcycle deaths were 33.4 per 100 million miles in 2001. That's a good deal more than 1 per 7 million.
Granted Segways are not motorcycles. However, I think it's a reasonable approximation given a segway that was used in a manner consistent with the way cars are used and as such went as fast and in similar conditions. Segways weight less than motorcycles, but I think it's safe to say that a high speed accident involving a segway would not be good for you.
You simply cannot compare a person tooting around town at 10 mph on their segway, to cars that go much faster than that in different conditions (i.e. freeways).
BTW where did you get your stats? 1 per 1.3 million miles per day? What does that mean? Per day? What difference does it make?
According to the NHSTA in the US, it was 1.5 deaths per 100 million miles traveled in 2002 (all traffic including motorcycles, collisions with pedestrians, etc). Don't know the rate for other countries or worldwide...certainly not 1 per 1.3 million though.
Don't forget that netscape blew it by not keeping up. Netscape 6 didn't come out until way after IE surpassed Netscape 4 in functionality. Happened when IE4 came out.
Why do they have to be sure of the content? They don't have to be sure to sue you...they may not win but they can still sue.
What would doing this accomplish? By filling the network with files filled with random crap, you're hurting the network (i.e. if everyone did this the network would be useless) thus helping the RIAA.
If the RIAA sues you, you are the one inconvenienced, not them. I personally wouldn't want to have to go to court with my computer just to say, "Ha Ha!"
Even if you don't hire a lawyer, going to court is expensive. People have to take time off work to go to court. This in and of itself makes it cost prohibitive for many.
Also we're talking about civil cases here not criminal cases. They don't have to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that you're guilty. They just need a preponderance of the evidence. This means that they just have to show that their position is more likely than yours.
So which position do you think is more likely:
1. You simply come in to court and say it wasn't you.
Perhaps you, as you say, say someone else used your machine, transfered 1000s of mp3s to it, and then subsequently used kazaa and uploaded the material for a sustained period of time completely without your knowledge. You present no proof that indicates this (i.e. ironically a hard drive from your machine analyzed by well known security experts showing rootkits installed along with system and ISP logs that corraborate your story over the time frame the RIAA indicates you were sharing; or a witness that says it was them and not you).
2. The RIAA has a stack of paper indicating exactly which tracks were being shared, how long they were shared, and they have logs from your ISP indicating that the ip address associated with the infringement was assigned to you/your account at the time. They may even have logs of when you allegedly downloaded the tracks that were subsequently later allegedly uploaded by you.
It is pretty clear with the current laws that it is unlawful to distribute copyrighted material you do not have the rights to. Without even seeing the evidence do -you- honestly believe that the people the RIAA are suing weren't sharing files? If not, aren't you advocating that people actually lie in court to get out of these cases?
Of course court is about proof not belief...so I ask you:
If forced to make an impartial judgement in the case outlined by the above scenarios, keeping in mind that the RIAA only needs a preponderance of the evidence; which would it be, the RIAA with a mountain of logs linking you to 1000s of counts of copyright infringment or you with no proof at all?
I believe the poster explained this rather well. He's not saying he's forced to buy a TV. He's saying he may -want- a TV but does not want Stinkovision (tm). If the feature catches on he'll be forced to buy a TV with Stinkovision if he wants to watch TV and he thinks that stinks;-P. I agree with them.
I believe there was a similar debacle mentioned with cell phones that come with all the ridiculous worthless features. It's almost impossible to buy a no frills cell phone, so if you want to buy one you are forced to buy one with features you do not want.
The same thing will happen with computers and the "DRM feature".
You see, that is the nature of mass produced items where there's a very large market. You can't tell Sony to make a non-stinkovision TV, and they don't give a crap if you don't buy one because everyone else will.
You know and understand this, you're just being a smart ass. It is as simple as that.
You do know that almost all non-flip, non-closing phones contain a key lock feature right? It typically requires you to hit to buttons at opposite in ends of the phone in succession to disengage or engage. For my nokia it's menu, *. I've never had the phone key lock disengage in my pocket. Plus you don't have to worry about one handed opening and you can always see the screen. In short I think flip phones suck and would never own one.
Also I'd drop SprintPCS they are awful. Like all providers that use the 1800Mhz band, you get crappy reception. Switch to AT&T TDMA (Not GSM it isn't fully rolled out yet) or Verizon CDMA and you should get much better reception and you'll be able to talk to people when inside of big buildings.
Only 3+ days of standby battery life? This is not a redeeming quality. Typical phones these days have 7 - 10 days of standby life. Unless you meant 3+4+ days of standby battery life...
How much talk time do you get, like an hour or something?
The difference is that the article is about people who do not mean to do it and hence get screwed because they get very few bids. I'm sure that on average, labtops receive fewer bids than laptops.
One thing you cannot ignore is that napster brought P2P to the public eye. Sure we'd have P2P networks now, and they probably wouldn't have the RIAA trying to put them down. The reason why is because almost no one would be using them.
I don't like the RIAA tactics, but you have to admit that P2P is forcing them to change their business model. Would iTunes Music Store exist if P2P wasn't so wildly popular? Furthermore would we have access to so many portable music devices if it weren't for the popularity of napster and hence the popularity of digitized music (aka MP3 files)?
Not to mention that P2P gives me hope that one day artists will be able to directly reach their audience without the RIAA.
Fanning was really the first to let the gennie out of the bottle so to speak. You may think Fanning was an idiot for putting out a program designed only to steal music. I think he was pretty smart for putting out a program that finally allowed us to have something to fight the media giants with, and changed the way many people obtain their music. No longer do you have to record crappy quality tracks off the radio, nor do you have to buy 15 songs of crap for $18 to get one song you like.
P2P is a force to be reckoned with and it's because of napster that this is true.
Slashdot Mirror
I never questioned your freedom to be a bigot. Only pointed out that you were one. Feel free to hate whoever you want. I hate bigots...you hate gay people oh...and spiders.
People like you make me sick. You are the kind that will create laws to equalize people.
Yeah what an awful ideal. Giving all people the rights accorded to only a select few. I suppose minorities and women don't deserve rights either.
That is NOT freedom jackass, that, is communism.
Communism is most certainly not freedom for all. From dictionary.com:
communism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kmy-nzm)
n.
1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
Gee...just unprofessional eh?
So you would tolerate that from a straight thin person. I certainly wouldn't.
In either case, would I be concerned that the person would actually carry out the threat? No.
So threatening to fuck their asses isn't a problem?
At what point did I say that threatening to fuck people in the ass wasn't a problem? You don't have to be gay to say that. I had a problem with him saying "Big Gay Al" and using the fact that the boss was gay, fat, and a crossdresser as evidence supporting a shitty job.
If we replaced the transvestite with a 200lbs quarterback who threatened to rape everybody would you feel better?
Um...no...same problem different stereotype. Doesn't matter who says that. Threatening to rape people is wrong. Doesn't matter if you're fat or thin, gay or straight, wear a dress or pants.
That's crap...so if he were straight and said that it'd be ok? If he weren't fat it'd be ok?
That kind of behavior is intolerable regardless of who is saying it.
Really? Explain this to me...how does liking men instead of women, and prefering to wear a dress make you unstable?
Behavior that indicated he was unstable was constantly switching his demands, threatening to do people in the ass, having people searched, and hiring incompetents. Doesn't matter if he's a gay crossdresser or not, straight people who wear nice suits can and often do, do similar things.
If he were just gay and wore a dress there shouldn't have really been a problem...unless of course he's a bigot.
Sounds like a job that would be problematic if you were a bigot.
What difference does it make if they were a 300lb crossdresser?
It's one thing to complain about your boss' lack of competence or crappy attitude. It's another to be a complete prick and complain about factors that don't really influence their management capability (i.e. being fat, gay, and dressing in female clothing).
Let's see...you're married, went to college, and don't have kids.
I'd say you're much more well-off financially than many.
I'm certainly not insinuating that you're Donald Trump or something, but to say you aren't well-off financially is a load of crap.
Single people with no education and a few kids are most likely not well off. If you can afford an iPod while meeting all your other financial obligations, you're doing ok.
er...run out of gas more frequently...doesn't really matter though, my point is the same.
Running out of gas and dying are in no way related, neither are segway failures and auto deaths. Exactly how do you think comparing segway failures to auto deaths substantiates a claim that people run out gas less frequently than segways fail?
People die in cars because there is a lot more energy in the system...i.e. cars travel fast. I imagine if a segway's top speed were over 100 mph you'd see a lot more segway deaths. I'd even be willing to bet it'd be more than 1 per 7 million traveled miles.
For example according to the NHTSA in the US, motorcycle deaths were 33.4 per 100 million miles in 2001. That's a good deal more than 1 per 7 million.
Granted Segways are not motorcycles. However, I think it's a reasonable approximation given a segway that was used in a manner consistent with the way cars are used and as such went as fast and in similar conditions. Segways weight less than motorcycles, but I think it's safe to say that a high speed accident involving a segway would not be good for you.
You simply cannot compare a person tooting around town at 10 mph on their segway, to cars that go much faster than that in different conditions (i.e. freeways).
BTW where did you get your stats? 1 per 1.3 million miles per day? What does that mean? Per day? What difference does it make?
According to the NHSTA in the US, it was 1.5 deaths per 100 million miles traveled in 2002 (all traffic including motorcycles, collisions with pedestrians, etc). Don't know the rate for other countries or worldwide...certainly not 1 per 1.3 million though.
Call a cab and throw it in the trunk...
Don't forget that netscape blew it by not keeping up. Netscape 6 didn't come out until way after IE surpassed Netscape 4 in functionality. Happened when IE4 came out.
Simple...make it work pretty well and integrate it directly into explorer.
Google.
It's currently privately held...if they don't want to sell it, Microsoft can't buy it.
That's actually not a bad idea. If I had mod points today, you would've got'm.
Heck I would love a station that shows different algorithms, or different ways to do things in different languages.
The problem is no one else would.
Why do they have to be sure of the content? They don't have to be sure to sue you...they may not win but they can still sue.
What would doing this accomplish? By filling the network with files filled with random crap, you're hurting the network (i.e. if everyone did this the network would be useless) thus helping the RIAA.
If the RIAA sues you, you are the one inconvenienced, not them. I personally wouldn't want to have to go to court with my computer just to say, "Ha Ha!"
Of course if you're making the judgement you aren't the one the RIAA is going after..you get what I mean though...replace you with "the defendant".
It surprises me how many people think this.
Even if you don't hire a lawyer, going to court is expensive. People have to take time off work to go to court. This in and of itself makes it cost prohibitive for many.
Also we're talking about civil cases here not criminal cases. They don't have to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that you're guilty. They just need a preponderance of the evidence. This means that they just have to show that their position is more likely than yours.
So which position do you think is more likely:
1. You simply come in to court and say it wasn't you.
Perhaps you, as you say, say someone else used your machine, transfered 1000s of mp3s to it, and then subsequently used kazaa and uploaded the material for a sustained period of time completely without your knowledge. You present no proof that indicates this (i.e. ironically a hard drive from your machine analyzed by well known security experts showing rootkits installed along with system and ISP logs that corraborate your story over the time frame the RIAA indicates you were sharing; or a witness that says it was them and not you).
2. The RIAA has a stack of paper indicating exactly which tracks were being shared, how long they were shared, and they have logs from your ISP indicating that the ip address associated with the infringement was assigned to you/your account at the time. They may even have logs of when you allegedly downloaded the tracks that were subsequently later allegedly uploaded by you.
It is pretty clear with the current laws that it is unlawful to distribute copyrighted material you do not have the rights to. Without even seeing the evidence do -you- honestly believe that the people the RIAA are suing weren't sharing files? If not, aren't you advocating that people actually lie in court to get out of these cases?
Of course court is about proof not belief...so I ask you:
If forced to make an impartial judgement in the case outlined by the above scenarios, keeping in mind that the RIAA only needs a preponderance of the evidence; which would it be, the RIAA with a mountain of logs linking you to 1000s of counts of copyright infringment or you with no proof at all?
I believe the poster explained this rather well. He's not saying he's forced to buy a TV. He's saying he may -want- a TV but does not want Stinkovision (tm). If the feature catches on he'll be forced to buy a TV with Stinkovision if he wants to watch TV and he thinks that stinks ;-P. I agree with them.
I believe there was a similar debacle mentioned with cell phones that come with all the ridiculous worthless features. It's almost impossible to buy a no frills cell phone, so if you want to buy one you are forced to buy one with features you do not want.
The same thing will happen with computers and the "DRM feature".
You see, that is the nature of mass produced items where there's a very large market. You can't tell Sony to make a non-stinkovision TV, and they don't give a crap if you don't buy one because everyone else will.
You know and understand this, you're just being a smart ass. It is as simple as that.
Oh please someone do this. I have the patent on stupid patents, so I'll be suing whoever does this.
;-p
BTW...before I get any smart remarks, yes I sued myself.
You do know that almost all non-flip, non-closing phones contain a key lock feature right? It typically requires you to hit to buttons at opposite in ends of the phone in succession to disengage or engage. For my nokia it's menu, *. I've never had the phone key lock disengage in my pocket. Plus you don't have to worry about one handed opening and you can always see the screen. In short I think flip phones suck and would never own one.
Also I'd drop SprintPCS they are awful. Like all providers that use the 1800Mhz band, you get crappy reception. Switch to AT&T TDMA (Not GSM it isn't fully rolled out yet) or Verizon CDMA and you should get much better reception and you'll be able to talk to people when inside of big buildings.
Only 3+ days of standby battery life? This is not a redeeming quality. Typical phones these days have 7 - 10 days of standby life. Unless you meant 3+4+ days of standby battery life...
How much talk time do you get, like an hour or something?
The difference is that the article is about people who do not mean to do it and hence get screwed because they get very few bids. I'm sure that on average, labtops receive fewer bids than laptops.
Yes, people really are that clueless.
One thing you cannot ignore is that napster brought P2P to the public eye. Sure we'd have P2P networks now, and they probably wouldn't have the RIAA trying to put them down. The reason why is because almost no one would be using them.
I don't like the RIAA tactics, but you have to admit that P2P is forcing them to change their business model. Would iTunes Music Store exist if P2P wasn't so wildly popular? Furthermore would we have access to so many portable music devices if it weren't for the popularity of napster and hence the popularity of digitized music (aka MP3 files)?
Not to mention that P2P gives me hope that one day artists will be able to directly reach their audience without the RIAA.
Fanning was really the first to let the gennie out of the bottle so to speak. You may think Fanning was an idiot for putting out a program designed only to steal music. I think he was pretty smart for putting out a program that finally allowed us to have something to fight the media giants with, and changed the way many people obtain their music. No longer do you have to record crappy quality tracks off the radio, nor do you have to buy 15 songs of crap for $18 to get one song you like.
P2P is a force to be reckoned with and it's because of napster that this is true.
Obviously you haven't read any of the Jon Katz articles.