I've received promotional text messages from my phone company on my cell phone for which I have not been charged, so it is within the realm of possibility that standard text messaging rates will not apply to these messages.
If the average user shares song X 1000 times, then the average user downloads song X 1000 times. Who the hell downloads a given song 1000 times?
That doesn't make sense. More like if the average user shares song X 1000 times, then the average user has an average of 1000 friends. So who the hell has a thousand friends? More like the artist has a thousand fans who like song X and download music. And they're still not likely to all download from one person.
BitTorrent is a unique player in the P2P realm. I usually mean things like the original Napster, Kazaa, and Limewire applications which present themselves as servers to each other and act as clients to each other where the roles are more clearly defined.
BitTorrent instead pulls little pieces of the same file from multiple sources. I really should make myself familiar with the protocol as it may indeed require some rethinking on my part over whether uploading and downloading can even apply at all. I should also become more familiar with how NNTP servers propagate their feeds to each other for the same reason. And how an FTP client can instruct two servers to send files between each other without the client being a recipient or sender of the data.
How does requesting parts work under BitTorrent? Assuming all members of the swarm know what parts of the file each member has, does the client pick a member and say, "give me part x" and pull it or does the swarm just see that he is incomplete and push random parts to him to fill him up?
As the protocol gets more complicated, it becomes a thought experiment to determine the right terminology. Consider for example this classic crime puzzle (you may have seen it in an episode of Homicide: Life on the Street. A body is at the base of a building with a fatal shotgun blast. Through the course of investigation, it is conclusively proven that the victim was attempting suicide by jumping from the building, but during the fall he was shot dead before impact. Is it still suicide, or is it homicide? The shot hastened his death, but if he was going to die anyway from his previous act, it wouldn't be a homicide. Except the jumper hit an awning on his way down which would have preserved his life if not for being shot. So it's homicide. However, the shot was not deliberate, it was accidental. The person who fired the shotgun did not know it was loaded, and in fact never loaded it. He'd use the gun to threaten his wife, squeeze off an empty round, and from the excitement they would then have sex. It was a game of role-play they'd do to make their sex life more exciting. But again, neither he nor she loaded the gun. The gun was loaded by their son, who knew about this game they'd play and intended for his father to shoot his mother, whom he hated and had a sizable life insurance policy on. He couldn't kill her and collect on the policy, but if his father did, he could. An attempted homicide which claimed not the son's intended victim but another. Even with the wrong victim, it becomes the son who committed homicide on the jumper. But the son had loaded the gun months ago and his parents hadn't used it to spice up their sex life. Despondent over his failed plot, he jumped from the building, upon which he was shot by the gun he had loaded intending for his father to shoot his mother and instead shot him before hitting the awning. It could be said he was guilty of his own murder. Homicide: Life on the Street elected to call it "suicide avec torque: suicide with a twist".
Except it isn't that complicated after all. The user that opened the.torrent file started with nothing and ended up with something. That user is a downloader, he is downloading the file. Even though over time he becomes a seeder of from parts-of to the-whole-of the file, that seeding is traditionally defined as serving. It is unbidden by the user. Even if he stops the transfer and restarts it with the file in place, he's only restarted his action as a server. He's no longer downloading, but others are downloading from him.
Sine qua non: without which not. Without someone initiating the transfer, no transfer takes place. If I don't drop the match, the gas station doesn't explode. Upload and download attach that initiator in their meanings. Sure, they're technical meanings. They are technical terms.
Now imagine a different system. Two nodes--we can call them peers--connect to each other and transfer data between them until both nodes contain the s
Or light reflecting off a mirror and so creating another copy of a copyrighted work! Reproduction I say!
No, that's more like creating another performance of the work for an unintended audience. You're just changing the direction of the vector of the photons, not duplicating them.
Even assuming that the words "upload" and "download" once upon a time meant what you are insisting they mean, this is not the case today. Uploading is sending, downloading is receiving. Anything else is pointless pedantry over outdated definitions.
You make me weep for the state of our education system.
Uploading is pushing away, downloading is pulling towards, and you can't push something with a rope no matter how many pulleys you use.
You're buying from a machine, but the machine is not the seller.... The people who stock the machine aren't selling to the machine.
These positions are contradictory; pick one.
As I said, the original analogy was deeply flawed. To upload or download is not analogous to selling and buying. It's right there in the conjunction: "or", not "and".
I accept that the majority gets it wrong. That doesn't make it right. Dictionaries describe usage, not necessarily correct usage. See the mutually contradicting definitions of "moot".
Washington: Project Freelancer had one last resort failsafe: a high power E.M.P. that can wipe out all the A.I. in this facility. Now that the Meta is here we have a chance to take them all out at once and put this entire project out of commission. Grif: What's an E.M.P.? Washington: It's an electo-magnetic pulse. It wipes out all circuitry and computers it touches. It will destroy the A.I.- Simmons: Oh, you mean an Emp. Sarge: Yeah, I was just about to say. Sounds like he's talkin' 'bout an Emp. Washington: Emp? That's not how you say it. Sarge: That's how most people say it. "Emp." Washington: No, they don't. Church: I say it that way. Washington: It's initials for Electro, Magnetic, Pulse. That's E.M.P. Grif: Right. Which spells Emp. Durr. Washington: We don't have time for this. You're wrong. Simmons: Why don't we take a vote? Washington: A vote? No. No vote, you're just wrong. There's no vote, it's E.M.P. Caboose: Not very democratic. Washington: Being wrong isn't a Democracy.
You are wholely and completely incorrect. In common parlance, uploading means you are sending data and downloading means you are receiving data. There is no other definition, common or otherwise that is correct.
Then why have the words upload/download and just say send and receive? What is the purpose of having them if their definitions do not differ in any way? Have you thought for a moment why the root of the words is "to load"?
Which would you rather be done: load the ship or unload the dock? The latter may just get you a bay full of tea.
Bad analogy. A vending machine purchase is still a purchase and therefor it is still a sale.
The analogy started bad by comparing to buying and selling. They weren't analogous to start with, so obviously any analogy drawn from that will be similarly flawed.
Meaning that while the term upload doesn't appear, uploading is the only activity here that's relevant to copyright law.
Serving, not uploading. And the RIAA's "making available" argument wasn't even about serving, it's about creating a temptation for others to download as if it were a deliberate invitation instead of a result of the modus operandi of the software. It could easily apply to failing to secure your CD collection in your home.
It's like making it illegal to cool the pie you bought(*) on your open windowsill as it may tempt someone else to take it(**) on the basis that the seller of the pie was able to take it.
What they should be prosecuting is the server operator's action of downloading from another. The evidence is publicly available on their own server. Oh, except that they don't know whether they were illegally downloaded or legally locally ripped, since ripping is also a function of many of these P2P applications.
Perhaps they should be suing the makers of the ripping software for not tagging the files with the identity of the ripper so that if they ever left the server the person in possession could be prosecuted. Or just for shipping software preconfigured to permit outside access by unauthorized persons. (iTunes doesn't even automatically open ports in the firewall to share with other devices on your LAN.) But would the RIAA even have standing if the software makers were instead locksmiths selling defective locks to owners of CD collections?
(*) Or rather paid for an implied license for personal consumption only as First Sale Doctrine is not being applied. (**) For purposes of reverse-engineering the recipe.
By that rationale, the verb "upload" has no meaning and shouldn't even exist.
Only if you limit your scope of possible applications of the words to the context of peer-to-peer file transfers where uploading need not occur. FTP on the other hand does engage in uploading. A user sending a "get" command initiates a download and a "put" command an upload. That is long established. Also, a user posting a message to USENET does so by uploading it to an NNTP server. Submitting data from a form uploads that data to the web server, especially if also sending a file. I'm uploading this message to slashdot's server, and since you're reading it, you've downloaded it.
But none of that needs to exist for P2P to function, nor in any application which has dual roles as both client and server. You wouldn't need both in FTP either if you had command line access to every server and every server ran a client installed. (FTP even has an extra mode where you can transfer files from one server to another without the data passing through the client! There's no up or down in that.)
However, one must acknowledge that it does exist, therefore it does express an existing concept, and that is the concept of sending data to a remote computer.
The computer need not be remote. It can be the local computer acting a server controlled by a remote client. It can even be the same computer (ftp 127.0.0.1, typically to another account on the same machine, necessary if you don't have shell access to both accounts or don't want to mess with chmod and chown), though generally P2P doesn't bother returning results you already have (nor do you generally want to download that which you already have). It might not be implemented in a particular application, but that doesn't negate the concept, nor its existence in other applications.
You send, the remote computer passively accepts, this is uploading. The remote computer makes data available, you take the initiative to retrieve it, this is downloading.
Are you dense? Every bit you download was uploaded by someone else. You might as well say "there are all these people buying, but nobody is selling!" That's the same kind of nonsense. No one can buy anything without someone to sell it.
The terms are not analogous, but I'll humor it for you.
You can buy from vending machines, but there's nobody in that machine selling to you. You're buying from a machine, but the machine is not the seller. It is a vendor operating autonomously on the behalf of the seller according to the rules in its configuration that says you must provide metal disks in certain combinations of sizes and quantities for it to release the product (later uniform pieces of paper with certain magnetic properties in their ink). The people who stock the machine aren't selling to the machine.
When you are downloading via P2P, you are also also downloading from a machine called a server. Instead of money, it only requires a properly formed request from your client and will autonomously provide the requested content. The method by which the P2P server is stocked with files is not uploading. It instead is stocked by its other role as a client communicating with other servers, instructing them to serve.
Eventually, the prime stocker of the server is someone who originally ripped content from a CD or DVD. But ripping is neither uploading nor downloading. There's no network involved. For a vending machine, you could call this prime stocker the manufacturer of the vended goods. But, as I said, comparing uploading and downloading to selling and buying is a very poor analogy.
I'm not saying that the operator of the server is without liability. There used to be vending machines for cigarettes. They also sold packets of Wrigley's gum. These machines had no sense of the age of the person making the purchase and would vend cigarettes to kids just as readily as they would vend gum to adults if left unattended. Society tolerated their existence for a long time until they decided more control needed to be exercised and they were removed and a human gatekeeper placed in the transaction capable of determining whether you are a child or an adult and assigned the legal liability of getting it right every time.
Sir, that is not correct. You do not appear to have a solid grasp on the concepts of uploading and downloading data.
No, your sources are wrong (and one of them is broken). Many sources get it wrong in a number of ways, and in turn the applications themselves are getting it wrong. Some define uploading as motion between a lesser machine to a greater one (desktop to mainframe), but the stature of a machine is irrelevant as it would fail to define transfers between equal peers. It also doesn't matter where the user is physically located, nor where the machines are located physically or network-topologically. The terms need meaning even when applied to a loopback connection.
The terms are tied to the client-server relationship. The client makes the request; the server responds to the request. The actions of the client define the direction.
Content is pulled from server by client: Client POV: "I am downloading from you." Server POV: "You are downloading from me."
Content is pushed by client to server (not implemented in P2P): Client POV: "I am uploading to you." Server POV: "You are uploading to me."
In layman's terms: an upload is always a push of data; a download is always a pull. To push does not imply someone else is pulling, nor vice versa.
If one computer makes content available for another computer to pull in, the content originator is the uploader and the content consumer is called the downloader.
You're confusing the roles of a client and server with the actions of uploading and downloading. The content originator is the server and the content consumer is a downloading client. The server would have to be receptive to receiving content pushed from the client to receive an upload, but a server cannot itself be an uploader. The commands emanate from the client.
Hopefully this corrects your impression that originating content for someone else to retrieve (especially over most common P2P networks) is downloading.
I said no such thing. Your subject is the operator of the server. The operator of the server is not downloading, nor is the operator of the server uploading. The only person doing anything is the operator of the client, and that person is downloading. Downloading to their own server, from which others can download.
Dinosaurs is a great analogy - corporate America should really take a lesson from the way that show wrapped things up in the last episode.
Yeah, that wasn't the last episode. There were seven more that only aired in syndication, but the episode "Changing Nature" was the perfect episode with which to end the series' first run.
No, everything you download you also serve. There is no uploading.
You aren't opening connections to other people's computers and pushing files they didn't request into their computers. They are opening connections to your computer and pulling files they did request into their computers. The former is uploading. The latter is downloading. They are separate actions and to use both to describe the same transfer is incorrect usage.
Even the law does not use the words "upload" or "uploader".
The only exception to this is NASA's usage where uploads are to space and downloads are to Earth.
What uploaders? There are downloaders and there are servers, but I'm not seeing any uploaders. Everything is being pulled down; nothing is being pushed up.
.... can I just shoot them if they try to hunt me down? What about a nice EMP blast? And will they be armed? Or will they behave more like searchers from the Chronicles of Riddick?
I was thinking more like They Live.
"And who are you, little fella? Come to show 'em where I am, huh? Not nice!"
It would be preferable not to feed the console directly into the monitor. We have employee monitoring software in use and need to track the usage of the console. So, it seems best to use a capture card along with some type of viewer utility.
That won't be viable. Capture cards can't capture and redisplay fast enough for gaming. Try passing a console's video signal through a TiVo for an example of the problem. You'll need something that will split the video signal.
Luckily, cables are available for most consoles that have both S-Video and Composite connections which output simultaneously. Let the player have the S-Video and record the Composite with whatever system you prefer. Audio splitters are cheap too.
I think it is a toss-up between the years-per-count and the pardon. The former would be redundant with someone who was himself redundant on the pardon issue. I think more likely the pardon. If it were the puppetry, I'd think you'd have gotten a Troll or Flamebait on from someone taking personal offense on behalf of his party.
Personally, with Dick Cheney, I never thought I'd see the day when I'd miss Dan Quayle, but there it is. But with Sarah Palin, I have to ask: do I miss Quayle that badly?
Now that will probably get me a Flamebait, so I'm not gonna use my Karma Bonus.
Rather it's when the inflowing matter creates so much heat it clears out all the remaining matter in the area. Creates a "dry galaxy" (their term, not mine). So nothing left nearby for it to suck in and thereby grow.
Yeah, but it should still have an immense gravitational pull and drag matter into its area of influence again, flare up again, and self-extinguish again, effectively "sparking" repeatedly. It doesn't just become a source of anti-gravity, does it?
You didn't read the first message, the answer is not at all.
No, I read it; I just selectively ignored the portion that got it modded as Redundant.;)
What I meant to ask though was: would the court rule they be served consecutively or concurrently? That's my mistake, and I own up to it. I'd still like to know if these are charges that are generally sentenced to be served consecutively or concurrently, and who decides (judge, jury, or statute) and/or is it arbitrary (i.e. to make an example of someone).
Slashdot Mirror
Do they charge for the SMS?
I've received promotional text messages from my phone company on my cell phone for which I have not been charged, so it is within the realm of possibility that standard text messaging rates will not apply to these messages.
If the average user shares song X 1000 times, then the average user downloads song X 1000 times. Who the hell downloads a given song 1000 times?
That doesn't make sense. More like if the average user shares song X 1000 times, then the average user has an average of 1000 friends. So who the hell has a thousand friends? More like the artist has a thousand fans who like song X and download music. And they're still not likely to all download from one person.
"What color is the sky in your world?"
"It depends on the time of day or night and the prevailing weather conditions. Doesn't yours?"
BitTorrent is a unique player in the P2P realm. I usually mean things like the original Napster, Kazaa, and Limewire applications which present themselves as servers to each other and act as clients to each other where the roles are more clearly defined.
BitTorrent instead pulls little pieces of the same file from multiple sources. I really should make myself familiar with the protocol as it may indeed require some rethinking on my part over whether uploading and downloading can even apply at all. I should also become more familiar with how NNTP servers propagate their feeds to each other for the same reason. And how an FTP client can instruct two servers to send files between each other without the client being a recipient or sender of the data.
How does requesting parts work under BitTorrent? Assuming all members of the swarm know what parts of the file each member has, does the client pick a member and say, "give me part x" and pull it or does the swarm just see that he is incomplete and push random parts to him to fill him up?
As the protocol gets more complicated, it becomes a thought experiment to determine the right terminology. Consider for example this classic crime puzzle (you may have seen it in an episode of Homicide: Life on the Street. A body is at the base of a building with a fatal shotgun blast. Through the course of investigation, it is conclusively proven that the victim was attempting suicide by jumping from the building, but during the fall he was shot dead before impact. Is it still suicide, or is it homicide? The shot hastened his death, but if he was going to die anyway from his previous act, it wouldn't be a homicide. Except the jumper hit an awning on his way down which would have preserved his life if not for being shot. So it's homicide. However, the shot was not deliberate, it was accidental. The person who fired the shotgun did not know it was loaded, and in fact never loaded it. He'd use the gun to threaten his wife, squeeze off an empty round, and from the excitement they would then have sex. It was a game of role-play they'd do to make their sex life more exciting. But again, neither he nor she loaded the gun. The gun was loaded by their son, who knew about this game they'd play and intended for his father to shoot his mother, whom he hated and had a sizable life insurance policy on. He couldn't kill her and collect on the policy, but if his father did, he could. An attempted homicide which claimed not the son's intended victim but another. Even with the wrong victim, it becomes the son who committed homicide on the jumper. But the son had loaded the gun months ago and his parents hadn't used it to spice up their sex life. Despondent over his failed plot, he jumped from the building, upon which he was shot by the gun he had loaded intending for his father to shoot his mother and instead shot him before hitting the awning. It could be said he was guilty of his own murder. Homicide: Life on the Street elected to call it "suicide avec torque: suicide with a twist".
Except it isn't that complicated after all. The user that opened the .torrent file started with nothing and ended up with something. That user is a downloader, he is downloading the file. Even though over time he becomes a seeder of from parts-of to the-whole-of the file, that seeding is traditionally defined as serving. It is unbidden by the user. Even if he stops the transfer and restarts it with the file in place, he's only restarted his action as a server. He's no longer downloading, but others are downloading from him.
Sine qua non: without which not. Without someone initiating the transfer, no transfer takes place. If I don't drop the match, the gas station doesn't explode. Upload and download attach that initiator in their meanings. Sure, they're technical meanings. They are technical terms.
Now imagine a different system. Two nodes--we can call them peers--connect to each other and transfer data between them until both nodes contain the s
Or light reflecting off a mirror and so creating another copy of a copyrighted work! Reproduction I say!
No, that's more like creating another performance of the work for an unintended audience. You're just changing the direction of the vector of the photons, not duplicating them.
Even assuming that the words "upload" and "download" once upon a time meant what you are insisting they mean, this is not the case today.
Uploading is sending, downloading is receiving.
Anything else is pointless pedantry over outdated definitions.
You make me weep for the state of our education system.
Uploading is pushing away, downloading is pulling towards, and you can't push something with a rope no matter how many pulleys you use.
You're buying from a machine, but the machine is not the seller.... The people who stock the machine aren't selling to the machine.
These positions are contradictory; pick one.
As I said, the original analogy was deeply flawed. To upload or download is not analogous to selling and buying. It's right there in the conjunction: "or", not "and".
I accept that the majority gets it wrong. That doesn't make it right. Dictionaries describe usage, not necessarily correct usage. See the mutually contradicting definitions of "moot".
Washington: Project Freelancer had one last resort failsafe: a high power E.M.P. that can wipe out all the A.I. in this facility. Now that the Meta is here we have a chance to take them all out at once and put this entire project out of commission.
Grif: What's an E.M.P.?
Washington: It's an electo-magnetic pulse. It wipes out all circuitry and computers it touches. It will destroy the A.I.-
Simmons: Oh, you mean an Emp.
Sarge: Yeah, I was just about to say. Sounds like he's talkin' 'bout an Emp.
Washington: Emp? That's not how you say it.
Sarge: That's how most people say it. "Emp."
Washington: No, they don't.
Church: I say it that way.
Washington: It's initials for Electro, Magnetic, Pulse. That's E.M.P.
Grif: Right. Which spells Emp. Durr.
Washington: We don't have time for this. You're wrong.
Simmons: Why don't we take a vote?
Washington: A vote? No. No vote, you're just wrong. There's no vote, it's E.M.P.
Caboose: Not very democratic.
Washington: Being wrong isn't a Democracy.
You are wholely and completely incorrect. In common parlance, uploading means you are sending data and downloading means you are receiving data. There is no other definition, common or otherwise that is correct.
Then why have the words upload/download and just say send and receive? What is the purpose of having them if their definitions do not differ in any way? Have you thought for a moment why the root of the words is "to load"?
Which would you rather be done: load the ship or unload the dock? The latter may just get you a bay full of tea.
Bad analogy. A vending machine purchase is still a purchase and therefor it is still a sale.
The analogy started bad by comparing to buying and selling. They weren't analogous to start with, so obviously any analogy drawn from that will be similarly flawed.
Meaning that while the term upload doesn't appear, uploading is the only activity here that's relevant to copyright law.
Serving, not uploading. And the RIAA's "making available" argument wasn't even about serving, it's about creating a temptation for others to download as if it were a deliberate invitation instead of a result of the modus operandi of the software. It could easily apply to failing to secure your CD collection in your home.
It's like making it illegal to cool the pie you bought(*) on your open windowsill as it may tempt someone else to take it(**) on the basis that the seller of the pie was able to take it.
What they should be prosecuting is the server operator's action of downloading from another. The evidence is publicly available on their own server. Oh, except that they don't know whether they were illegally downloaded or legally locally ripped, since ripping is also a function of many of these P2P applications.
Perhaps they should be suing the makers of the ripping software for not tagging the files with the identity of the ripper so that if they ever left the server the person in possession could be prosecuted. Or just for shipping software preconfigured to permit outside access by unauthorized persons. (iTunes doesn't even automatically open ports in the firewall to share with other devices on your LAN.) But would the RIAA even have standing if the software makers were instead locksmiths selling defective locks to owners of CD collections?
(*) Or rather paid for an implied license for personal consumption only as First Sale Doctrine is not being applied.
(**) For purposes of reverse-engineering the recipe.
By that rationale, the verb "upload" has no meaning and shouldn't even exist.
Only if you limit your scope of possible applications of the words to the context of peer-to-peer file transfers where uploading need not occur. FTP on the other hand does engage in uploading. A user sending a "get" command initiates a download and a "put" command an upload. That is long established. Also, a user posting a message to USENET does so by uploading it to an NNTP server. Submitting data from a form uploads that data to the web server, especially if also sending a file. I'm uploading this message to slashdot's server, and since you're reading it, you've downloaded it.
But none of that needs to exist for P2P to function, nor in any application which has dual roles as both client and server. You wouldn't need both in FTP either if you had command line access to every server and every server ran a client installed. (FTP even has an extra mode where you can transfer files from one server to another without the data passing through the client! There's no up or down in that.)
However, one must acknowledge that it does exist, therefore it does express an existing concept, and that is the concept of sending data to a remote computer.
The computer need not be remote. It can be the local computer acting a server controlled by a remote client. It can even be the same computer (ftp 127.0.0.1, typically to another account on the same machine, necessary if you don't have shell access to both accounts or don't want to mess with chmod and chown), though generally P2P doesn't bother returning results you already have (nor do you generally want to download that which you already have). It might not be implemented in a particular application, but that doesn't negate the concept, nor its existence in other applications.
You send, the remote computer passively accepts, this is uploading.
The remote computer makes data available, you take the initiative to retrieve it, this is downloading.
That is correct!
Are you dense? Every bit you download was uploaded by someone else. You might as well say "there are all these people buying, but nobody is selling!" That's the same kind of nonsense. No one can buy anything without someone to sell it.
The terms are not analogous, but I'll humor it for you.
You can buy from vending machines, but there's nobody in that machine selling to you. You're buying from a machine, but the machine is not the seller. It is a vendor operating autonomously on the behalf of the seller according to the rules in its configuration that says you must provide metal disks in certain combinations of sizes and quantities for it to release the product (later uniform pieces of paper with certain magnetic properties in their ink). The people who stock the machine aren't selling to the machine.
When you are downloading via P2P, you are also also downloading from a machine called a server. Instead of money, it only requires a properly formed request from your client and will autonomously provide the requested content. The method by which the P2P server is stocked with files is not uploading. It instead is stocked by its other role as a client communicating with other servers, instructing them to serve.
Eventually, the prime stocker of the server is someone who originally ripped content from a CD or DVD. But ripping is neither uploading nor downloading. There's no network involved. For a vending machine, you could call this prime stocker the manufacturer of the vended goods. But, as I said, comparing uploading and downloading to selling and buying is a very poor analogy.
I'm not saying that the operator of the server is without liability. There used to be vending machines for cigarettes. They also sold packets of Wrigley's gum. These machines had no sense of the age of the person making the purchase and would vend cigarettes to kids just as readily as they would vend gum to adults if left unattended. Society tolerated their existence for a long time until they decided more control needed to be exercised and they were removed and a human gatekeeper placed in the transaction capable of determining whether you are a child or an adult and assigned the legal liability of getting it right every time.
Sir, that is not correct. You do not appear to have a solid grasp on the concepts of uploading and downloading data.
No, your sources are wrong (and one of them is broken). Many sources get it wrong in a number of ways, and in turn the applications themselves are getting it wrong. Some define uploading as motion between a lesser machine to a greater one (desktop to mainframe), but the stature of a machine is irrelevant as it would fail to define transfers between equal peers. It also doesn't matter where the user is physically located, nor where the machines are located physically or network-topologically. The terms need meaning even when applied to a loopback connection.
The terms are tied to the client-server relationship. The client makes the request; the server responds to the request. The actions of the client define the direction.
Content is pulled from server by client:
Client POV: "I am downloading from you."
Server POV: "You are downloading from me."
Content is pushed by client to server (not implemented in P2P):
Client POV: "I am uploading to you."
Server POV: "You are uploading to me."
In layman's terms: an upload is always a push of data; a download is always a pull. To push does not imply someone else is pulling, nor vice versa.
If one computer makes content available for another computer to pull in, the content originator is the uploader and the content consumer is called the downloader.
You're confusing the roles of a client and server with the actions of uploading and downloading. The content originator is the server and the content consumer is a downloading client. The server would have to be receptive to receiving content pushed from the client to receive an upload, but a server cannot itself be an uploader. The commands emanate from the client.
Hopefully this corrects your impression that originating content for someone else to retrieve (especially over most common P2P networks) is downloading.
I said no such thing. Your subject is the operator of the server. The operator of the server is not downloading, nor is the operator of the server uploading. The only person doing anything is the operator of the client, and that person is downloading. Downloading to their own server, from which others can download.
There is no uploading in P2P.
Dinosaurs is a great analogy - corporate America should really take a lesson from the way that show wrapped things up in the last episode.
Yeah, that wasn't the last episode. There were seven more that only aired in syndication, but the episode "Changing Nature" was the perfect episode with which to end the series' first run.
Someone had to put it there. someone had to make available the content. Those are the people who are liable.
Yes, but not by uploading. They downloaded it to their server and are serving it to other downloaders.
Uploader = whomever made it available.
No, that's wrong.
Ah, but with P2P, when you download, you upload.
No, everything you download you also serve. There is no uploading.
You aren't opening connections to other people's computers and pushing files they didn't request into their computers. They are opening connections to your computer and pulling files they did request into their computers. The former is uploading. The latter is downloading. They are separate actions and to use both to describe the same transfer is incorrect usage.
Even the law does not use the words "upload" or "uploader".
The only exception to this is NASA's usage where uploads are to space and downloads are to Earth.
It's the uploader's job
What uploaders? There are downloaders and there are servers, but I'm not seeing any uploaders. Everything is being pulled down; nothing is being pushed up.
the old TV show Dinosaurs with its "WeSaySo Corporation".
"WESAYSO. We know what you want. We know what you need. We know where you live."
.... can I just shoot them if they try to hunt me down? What about a nice EMP blast? And will they be armed? Or will they behave more like searchers from the Chronicles of Riddick?
I was thinking more like They Live.
"And who are you, little fella? Come to show 'em where I am, huh? Not nice!"
Don't cross the imperial and metric units. It would be bad.
It would be preferable not to feed the console directly into the monitor. We have employee monitoring software in use and need to track the usage of the console. So, it seems best to use a capture card along with some type of viewer utility.
That won't be viable. Capture cards can't capture and redisplay fast enough for gaming. Try passing a console's video signal through a TiVo for an example of the problem. You'll need something that will split the video signal.
Luckily, cables are available for most consoles that have both S-Video and Composite connections which output simultaneously. Let the player have the S-Video and record the Composite with whatever system you prefer. Audio splitters are cheap too.
I think it is a toss-up between the years-per-count and the pardon. The former would be redundant with someone who was himself redundant on the pardon issue. I think more likely the pardon. If it were the puppetry, I'd think you'd have gotten a Troll or Flamebait on from someone taking personal offense on behalf of his party.
Personally, with Dick Cheney, I never thought I'd see the day when I'd miss Dan Quayle, but there it is. But with Sarah Palin, I have to ask: do I miss Quayle that badly?
Now that will probably get me a Flamebait, so I'm not gonna use my Karma Bonus.
Rather it's when the inflowing matter creates so much heat it clears out all the remaining matter in the area. Creates a "dry galaxy" (their term, not mine). So nothing left nearby for it to suck in and thereby grow.
Yeah, but it should still have an immense gravitational pull and drag matter into its area of influence again, flare up again, and self-extinguish again, effectively "sparking" repeatedly. It doesn't just become a source of anti-gravity, does it?
You didn't read the first message, the answer is not at all.
No, I read it; I just selectively ignored the portion that got it modded as Redundant. ;)
What I meant to ask though was: would the court rule they be served consecutively or concurrently? That's my mistake, and I own up to it. I'd still like to know if these are charges that are generally sentenced to be served consecutively or concurrently, and who decides (judge, jury, or statute) and/or is it arbitrary (i.e. to make an example of someone).
Oh, one more thing:
He does not seem to think that the internet is a bunch of vacuum tube technology.
No, he thinks its a bunch of pneumatic tubes.