Amazing how the downward modded posts are sometimes the most relevant. I personally mod this (3, Insightful). The real trolls are the ones defending the girl by using the expression "she's just a child". No one cries fowl when a child shoplifts from the local department store. Although tempered corrective behavior is called for, few reject the concept of restitution (i.e. fines, community services, etc). Actually, perhaps instead of a fine, the children of financially destitute families should be forced to do community service, teaching other people how it's important not to steal, or becoming moderators in file sharing systems to serve out their "sentence". Now, avid file-sharers may resort to rebutting this argument as being "indentured servitude" or "RIAA is training new minions for its army", but then one must look hard at the source of this rhetoric. Also, it will quiet all of those who believe the RIAA is simply extorting money from people.
The RIAA is simply pointing out that they do not care who the suspected file sharer is. You could be young, old, black, white, hispanic, etc.
The parents are responsible for their children not sharing these types of songs. In fact, Kazaa, if not already doing this, should have filters preventing the vast majority of illegal files from being shared (i.e. music, movies) so they can share more constructive and legal files (i.e. past term papers/book reports from fellow students). The last paragraph had me rolling..."It's not like we're doing anything illegal", then spinning the matter towards stating that she's just a child. She won't pay...her parents will. The lawsuit is well served in this case, but as I've stated before, this lawsuit must be easy to defend against (which it isn't, for shame). See my other posts for constructive criticism against the RIAA's tactics.
You check it by listening to it on the radio (for free!). Price gouging applies primarily towards essential items like food, water, and energy. I hardly think music is a necessity (except for most Gen-Xers).
Is the "mommy" remark another bit or sarcasm? I wasn't quite sure if you were serious or not. However, physical evidence such as a hotel receipt from a vacation you just took, a credit card receipt from a gas station located out of town, or something similar, this can be used as evidence to prove your innocence since you were not present and aware of any downloads. If a download took place during this time, the evidence given by the RIAA is not conclusive, since someone else could have performed the download (your little sister, for example). You may look down on my idea, but it cannot be any less plausible than the knee-jerk paranoia from would-be criminals surfacing from this forum today.
All of the points, and any others you make, do not address the topic at hand. The topic is whether downloaders of music should be arrested like any other common criminal. The argument you're making is defined as spin. Oh, and prohibition only didn't work because organized crime made sure it didn't. I don't forsee the mafia getting seriously involved in circumventing copyright laws, so I suppose it's here to stay. The only hope rational people have in saving our rights is through small progression, like making the court process easier for the defendant to be proven innocent. Lots of demands on the RIAA to completely re-invent themselves will not hold up in the mainstream public's eyes. It is the typical argument of Gen-X paranoids who significantly mooch from the system, then when the stuff hits the fan, attempt to reason their way out of their actions.
To restate my argument, the undeniable conclusion is that file swapping copyrighted material is illegal, no IFs, ANDds or BUTs. However, the process of suing should be more tempered. The concept of sending these "virtual subpoenas" using the conventional court system should not hold up. Instead, court systems should allow people to provide evidence in a manner which is convenient, and not cost-prohibitive to prove their innocence. Also, the RIAA and others should be publically denounced by the court system and their powers made more impotent for bringing forth excessively disproved cases.
One thing I forgot to mention: In the future, court cases based on copyright infringement should have to go through a very priliminary technical proceeding, without attorneys (to save money for would-be defendants), consisting of the empirical evidence the RIAA or anyone else would be using and how sound it is. For example, the article posted earlier on MD5 hashing, coupled with ISP records showing the user did indeed share hundreds of files on the Internet, whereas evidence such as the defendant being able to supply all music files on their hard drive with differing MD5 signatures, ISP cancellation notices, or written proof he/she was not at their computer at the time of infringement is enough evidence to dismiss the case. Maybe a step in the right direction?
I would definitely subscribe to the idea that individuals should not have to be blackmailed into paying settlements based on the fear of being taken to court. However, I would be a strong proponent on dealing out harsh sentences to defendents based on definitive proof they indeed shared files illegally. Until the RIAA began sending out subpoenas to ISPs to disseminate file sharers suspected of trading music online, I was a small blip on the radar screen (50-100 song library). However, I did the cease and desist thing after this happened, and for good reason. Based on your final remarks of sarcasm, I can detect in your tone that you do not completely respect the destructive nature of copyright infringement. From my desisting, I have learned that the truly American thing to do is to boycott bands (e.g. Metallica) who do not subscribe to evolved models of music purchase ($.79-.99/track) and to patronize those bands who either offer songs free of charge for getting their promotion thing going, or to openly sell tracks on their band's web site, for example. I hope others follow my lesson.
Considering this school is in the top 50 doctoral programs in Computer Science, it undeniably proves that you are more ignorant than the targets of your diatribe. This implementation will probably help their standing in the academic community, and is probably a good investment.
Let me re-phrase my response to better illustrate. Some objectivity, with subtle well-informed opinions is typically far superior than knee-jerk responses brought on by radical/reactionary philosophy. Always has been, always will be.
As a Christian, I would have hoped that the Crusades would be forgiveable over time, similar to radical Islam's attempt at changing political structure through terrorism. Although terrorism is their only weapon against an intractable enemy, it still crosses the line between the unavoidable innocent killed in war and the intentional killing of civilians. Point is, your opinion stands alone along with the reactionaries. Even conservatives (like myself) don't believe this way. Anyone denouncing a particular religion and lumping a small minority of wicked individuals into an entire for of belief deserves every browbeating from the majority. So not only are people who think this way often brainwashed, they are also the minority whose minds are too weak to resist being molded in this fashion.
Not unless someone invents a "Star Trek"-like replicator. I assume your thought is that BMWs may someday become less costly, but nowhere near $20. Raw material costs exceed that 100 fold alone. In addition, what is your definition of artificial manufacturing for automobiles? In actuality, vehicles are manufactured partially by robots, which could be construed as "artificial".
The mere fact that you point this out does not exempt you from being a bigot or a fanatic. Objectivity is the antithesis of bigotry, and you my friend are certainly not objective in your opinion of Islam. Your outcome is possibly a feel-good success story for media conglomerates around the world by making this inference as well. How does it feel to have your mind molded into Fox's "fair and balanced" status quo, instead of being able to think for yourself? Bye.
I want to be clear on this. The though that foreign programmers can be had for $5/hr within the context of small businesses and produce immediate value for the company is somewhat of a fallacy. To do an overseas operations properly, whether it be operations support, development, etc., a special long-term relationship is required. You can't just go out and seek a Russian (or Slovakian, Hungarian, etc) programmer, put them to work, and expect them to bring immediate value to the table just because they are cheap. It takes months, if not years, of planning with a respectable foreign conglomerate to make the whole overseas campaign work in favor of the small business. Worst case scenario is the process is rushed because of some brilliant idea upper management had for cutting costs, while consideration is not done concerning time and language barriers, and the product doesn't get out the door anywhere near on time, and if you're lucky, so buggy and convoluted that the program is unmaintainable. I know of this first hand because a Russian company has essentially extorted from a major organization my colleague works for which develops electronic devices (company name withheld). They have done this by slowly upping the price on their developers after producing an extremely unreliable product which is unmaintainable by the in-house developers (spaghetti code). Also, the product manager has to fly to Russia constantly to make sure all their ducks are in a row. A major pain in the butt and unforseen cost hemorraging if not done properly. On the bright side, the more businesses who undergo this painful process, the more business who opt to never undergo the onerous process of hiring overseas again (at least for many years to come)
Much of the news you hear concerning the job market is usually out-of-context dribble that, while technically true, is usually broadcast by news organizations who have a hunger for negative announcements (7 dead from enraged employee about to be let go, etc...). The point of getting hired is being proactive. Circulate your resume, avoid the purely internet driven job search, cold call...basically find the job that will fill in for the poor guy who was either just let go, resigned, or relocated (perhaps even that very day). At times employers may opt for the cheap route and not publically advertise positions. Perhaps they look to fill internally, or do not have the budget to post on the monster board. Any way you slice it, the moral deflator for the majority of IT professionals only enhances opportunity for the truly aggressive job seeker. Good luck!
As long as the target processor's architecture is open, the event of holding organizations hostage to one OS is an impossibility. Groups of people design operating systems specifically tailored to these mission-critical systems everyday, spearheaded by brilliant people with a keen sense of knowing exactly what the organization requires from the system. It's important to note that alternative OSes such as Linux and FreeBSD are not suitable for many real-time mission-critical applications as much as MS products (although many on/. would appreciate the oppotunity to feabily argue this hypothesis). It also seems unlikely that niche OSes (e.g. QNX, Phar-Lap, etc) are going to go bankrupt simply because of a carpetbombing-style marketing campaign by companies such as the ones MS so proudly airs. Software is still the concept of ideas (unlike the broken analogy of concrete), and the entry fee for designing OSes is not, and may never be, that large if tailored to a specific purpose. In fact, these types of OSes may even be more reliable than the open-source OSes in certain cases!
Yeah, but that's just the standard disclaimer. Some lawyers are clever enough to get around these words and convince a judge to award damages from these defective software products, no matter how clear and direct these disclaimers appear to be.
Your analogy is absolutely sound. The combination of a high-protein/low-carbohydrate diet is not the same as a high-protein/high-carbohydrate diet. The former is good for you, the latter is bad for you. The superfluous feathers contribute to coronary heart disease, diabetes, and all the latest diseases that have conveniently occurred since humans have shifted toward a more low-fat/high-carbohydrate lifestyle.
That latter statement of meat being a luxury is simple not true, at least for the majority of the world. You're probably reflecting on your Humanities classes from college, the population of which still made up a small portion of the population. The Nomads, Tribesmen, and Native Americans still made up a majority of the diverse world. They were still living on a "Atkins-like" diet, while suffering fewer illnesses and being physically superior to the "civilized world".
I guess what I'm getting down to is that discipline is key, and while discipline can be realized in any diet, I have personally never found an easier way to be discplined on my diet than this one. Ketosis is a natural way of living (has been for many centuries), and helps me concentrate on my job more, make me more sexually active, weened me off of coffee, and helped me to become physically stronger (I am a weightlifter too). I don't wish to go back to feeling cranky, bloated after meals, and hyperactive.
Understood, but the evidence to support this is only based on a high-protein diet with more than a negligible amount of carbs. Humans have lived on a meat only diet for 2.4 million years, but have only begun low-fat/high-carb diets, what, about 40-50 years or so. Diabetes is up, obesity is up...where does it end?
I guess discipline is the key whatever diet you choose, but discipline seems to come easy when you're under ketosis like me!:)
Your facts (as well as mine) can often be speculative and subject to interpretation.
I'm going to get off the ideology of not consuming large quantities of saturated fats momentarily and reflect on one of the more notable long term real life trials that exist today. This example is based from evidence drawn from a sterilized clinical trial, but rather a true to life example of the Masai and other tribes existing for the last 10,000 years (kinda beats any existing trial out there by far). This tribe consistently ate over 300g of fats/day, mostly saturated. The tribesmens' diets consisted of virtually no carbohydrates. In the end, autopsies of these tribal members discovered that the evidence of lipid build-up in the arteries was marginal. In addition, treadmill tests (of live tribesmen of course) resulted in these individuals having comparable or superior performance to Olympic champions.
I invited you to google research performed by Professor George Mann from Vanderbilt University. Although the evidence wasn't aggregated in a labratory as such, it cannot be argued that the duration of this standing test beats out anything the FDA has implemented.
In conclusion, most evidence of kidney failure and such are attibuted to high fat/high carb diets. When carbs are drastically reduced/eliminated, the problem is severly mitigated.
This is wholly unsubstantiated, and mainly applied to individuals already diagnosed with kidney problems. If this were true, we would experience an epidemic of this phenomenon from people such as weightlifters who are recommended to eat 1gm/lb body wgt/day, much more than Atkins recommends.
The numbers don't lie for a proper implementation of the Atkins Diet: higher HDL, lower LDL, reduction of risk/elimination of Diabetes (type II), reduced volatility in blood sugar levels, etc...
A proper implementation != bacon and eggs for breakfast, 1 pound of macadamia nuts for lunch, and large quantities of prime rib and lobster for dinner, with butter and cheese for snacks. Although these foods are welcome, it's all in moderation. Atkins is a well balanced diet (not a fad diet) with an emphasis on severe reduction of carbs. There's a mini-conspiracy brewing with the food industry and their disagreement with this diet. The profit margin for serving hamburgers on enriched flour bread is substantial, and the extra value meal has an even larger profit margin %.
The FDA recommends that individuals ingest approximately 300g of carbohydrates a day. This amount is awful for just about any individual other than one who ingests pasta and whole wheat exclusively, and bikes 25 miles/day. For everyone else, this is simply a recipe for a spare tire (man) or a bubble butt/hips (woman). Obviously, the individual beginning this thread is not a threat of doing significant bike riding daily.
Slashdot Mirror
Amazing how the downward modded posts are sometimes the most relevant. I personally mod this (3, Insightful). The real trolls are the ones defending the girl by using the expression "she's just a child". No one cries fowl when a child shoplifts from the local department store. Although tempered corrective behavior is called for, few reject the concept of restitution (i.e. fines, community services, etc). Actually, perhaps instead of a fine, the children of financially destitute families should be forced to do community service, teaching other people how it's important not to steal, or becoming moderators in file sharing systems to serve out their "sentence". Now, avid file-sharers may resort to rebutting this argument as being "indentured servitude" or "RIAA is training new minions for its army", but then one must look hard at the source of this rhetoric. Also, it will quiet all of those who believe the RIAA is simply extorting money from people.
The parents are responsible for their children not sharing these types of songs. In fact, Kazaa, if not already doing this, should have filters preventing the vast majority of illegal files from being shared (i.e. music, movies) so they can share more constructive and legal files (i.e. past term papers/book reports from fellow students). The last paragraph had me rolling..."It's not like we're doing anything illegal", then spinning the matter towards stating that she's just a child. She won't pay...her parents will. The lawsuit is well served in this case, but as I've stated before, this lawsuit must be easy to defend against (which it isn't, for shame). See my other posts for constructive criticism against the RIAA's tactics.
You check it by listening to it on the radio (for free!). Price gouging applies primarily towards essential items like food, water, and energy. I hardly think music is a necessity (except for most Gen-Xers).
Is the "mommy" remark another bit or sarcasm? I wasn't quite sure if you were serious or not. However, physical evidence such as a hotel receipt from a vacation you just took, a credit card receipt from a gas station located out of town, or something similar, this can be used as evidence to prove your innocence since you were not present and aware of any downloads. If a download took place during this time, the evidence given by the RIAA is not conclusive, since someone else could have performed the download (your little sister, for example). You may look down on my idea, but it cannot be any less plausible than the knee-jerk paranoia from would-be criminals surfacing from this forum today.
To restate my argument, the undeniable conclusion is that file swapping copyrighted material is illegal, no IFs, ANDds or BUTs. However, the process of suing should be more tempered. The concept of sending these "virtual subpoenas" using the conventional court system should not hold up. Instead, court systems should allow people to provide evidence in a manner which is convenient, and not cost-prohibitive to prove their innocence. Also, the RIAA and others should be publically denounced by the court system and their powers made more impotent for bringing forth excessively disproved cases.
One thing I forgot to mention: In the future, court cases based on copyright infringement should have to go through a very priliminary technical proceeding, without attorneys (to save money for would-be defendants), consisting of the empirical evidence the RIAA or anyone else would be using and how sound it is. For example, the article posted earlier on MD5 hashing, coupled with ISP records showing the user did indeed share hundreds of files on the Internet, whereas evidence such as the defendant being able to supply all music files on their hard drive with differing MD5 signatures, ISP cancellation notices, or written proof he/she was not at their computer at the time of infringement is enough evidence to dismiss the case. Maybe a step in the right direction?
I would definitely subscribe to the idea that individuals should not have to be blackmailed into paying settlements based on the fear of being taken to court. However, I would be a strong proponent on dealing out harsh sentences to defendents based on definitive proof they indeed shared files illegally. Until the RIAA began sending out subpoenas to ISPs to disseminate file sharers suspected of trading music online, I was a small blip on the radar screen (50-100 song library). However, I did the cease and desist thing after this happened, and for good reason. Based on your final remarks of sarcasm, I can detect in your tone that you do not completely respect the destructive nature of copyright infringement. From my desisting, I have learned that the truly American thing to do is to boycott bands (e.g. Metallica) who do not subscribe to evolved models of music purchase ($.79-.99/track) and to patronize those bands who either offer songs free of charge for getting their promotion thing going, or to openly sell tracks on their band's web site, for example. I hope others follow my lesson.
Considering this school is in the top 50 doctoral programs in Computer Science, it undeniably proves that you are more ignorant than the targets of your diatribe. This implementation will probably help their standing in the academic community, and is probably a good investment.
Let me re-phrase my response to better illustrate. Some objectivity, with subtle well-informed opinions is typically far superior than knee-jerk responses brought on by radical/reactionary philosophy. Always has been, always will be.
As a Christian, I would have hoped that the Crusades would be forgiveable over time, similar to radical Islam's attempt at changing political structure through terrorism. Although terrorism is their only weapon against an intractable enemy, it still crosses the line between the unavoidable innocent killed in war and the intentional killing of civilians. Point is, your opinion stands alone along with the reactionaries. Even conservatives (like myself) don't believe this way. Anyone denouncing a particular religion and lumping a small minority of wicked individuals into an entire for of belief deserves every browbeating from the majority. So not only are people who think this way often brainwashed, they are also the minority whose minds are too weak to resist being molded in this fashion.
Not unless someone invents a "Star Trek"-like replicator. I assume your thought is that BMWs may someday become less costly, but nowhere near $20. Raw material costs exceed that 100 fold alone. In addition, what is your definition of artificial manufacturing for automobiles? In actuality, vehicles are manufactured partially by robots, which could be construed as "artificial".
The mere fact that you point this out does not exempt you from being a bigot or a fanatic. Objectivity is the antithesis of bigotry, and you my friend are certainly not objective in your opinion of Islam. Your outcome is possibly a feel-good success story for media conglomerates around the world by making this inference as well. How does it feel to have your mind molded into Fox's "fair and balanced" status quo, instead of being able to think for yourself? Bye.
I want to be clear on this. The though that foreign programmers can be had for $5/hr within the context of small businesses and produce immediate value for the company is somewhat of a fallacy. To do an overseas operations properly, whether it be operations support, development, etc., a special long-term relationship is required. You can't just go out and seek a Russian (or Slovakian, Hungarian, etc) programmer, put them to work, and expect them to bring immediate value to the table just because they are cheap. It takes months, if not years, of planning with a respectable foreign conglomerate to make the whole overseas campaign work in favor of the small business. Worst case scenario is the process is rushed because of some brilliant idea upper management had for cutting costs, while consideration is not done concerning time and language barriers, and the product doesn't get out the door anywhere near on time, and if you're lucky, so buggy and convoluted that the program is unmaintainable. I know of this first hand because a Russian company has essentially extorted from a major organization my colleague works for which develops electronic devices (company name withheld). They have done this by slowly upping the price on their developers after producing an extremely unreliable product which is unmaintainable by the in-house developers (spaghetti code). Also, the product manager has to fly to Russia constantly to make sure all their ducks are in a row. A major pain in the butt and unforseen cost hemorraging if not done properly. On the bright side, the more businesses who undergo this painful process, the more business who opt to never undergo the onerous process of hiring overseas again (at least for many years to come)
Much of the news you hear concerning the job market is usually out-of-context dribble that, while technically true, is usually broadcast by news organizations who have a hunger for negative announcements (7 dead from enraged employee about to be let go, etc...). The point of getting hired is being proactive. Circulate your resume, avoid the purely internet driven job search, cold call...basically find the job that will fill in for the poor guy who was either just let go, resigned, or relocated (perhaps even that very day). At times employers may opt for the cheap route and not publically advertise positions. Perhaps they look to fill internally, or do not have the budget to post on the monster board. Any way you slice it, the moral deflator for the majority of IT professionals only enhances opportunity for the truly aggressive job seeker. Good luck!
As long as the target processor's architecture is open, the event of holding organizations hostage to one OS is an impossibility. Groups of people design operating systems specifically tailored to these mission-critical systems everyday, spearheaded by brilliant people with a keen sense of knowing exactly what the organization requires from the system. It's important to note that alternative OSes such as Linux and FreeBSD are not suitable for many real-time mission-critical applications as much as MS products (although many on /. would appreciate the oppotunity to feabily argue this hypothesis). It also seems unlikely that niche OSes (e.g. QNX, Phar-Lap, etc) are going to go bankrupt simply because of a carpetbombing-style marketing campaign by companies such as the ones MS so proudly airs. Software is still the concept of ideas (unlike the broken analogy of concrete), and the entry fee for designing OSes is not, and may never be, that large if tailored to a specific purpose. In fact, these types of OSes may even be more reliable than the open-source OSes in certain cases!
Yeah, but that's just the standard disclaimer. Some lawyers are clever enough to get around these words and convince a judge to award damages from these defective software products, no matter how clear and direct these disclaimers appear to be.
That latter statement of meat being a luxury is simple not true, at least for the majority of the world. You're probably reflecting on your Humanities classes from college, the population of which still made up a small portion of the population. The Nomads, Tribesmen, and Native Americans still made up a majority of the diverse world. They were still living on a "Atkins-like" diet, while suffering fewer illnesses and being physically superior to the "civilized world".
I guess what I'm getting down to is that discipline is key, and while discipline can be realized in any diet, I have personally never found an easier way to be discplined on my diet than this one. Ketosis is a natural way of living (has been for many centuries), and helps me concentrate on my job more, make me more sexually active, weened me off of coffee, and helped me to become physically stronger (I am a weightlifter too). I don't wish to go back to feeling cranky, bloated after meals, and hyperactive.
I guess discipline is the key whatever diet you choose, but discipline seems to come easy when you're under ketosis like me! :)
I'm going to get off the ideology of not consuming large quantities of saturated fats momentarily and reflect on one of the more notable long term real life trials that exist today. This example is based from evidence drawn from a sterilized clinical trial, but rather a true to life example of the Masai and other tribes existing for the last 10,000 years (kinda beats any existing trial out there by far). This tribe consistently ate over 300g of fats/day, mostly saturated. The tribesmens' diets consisted of virtually no carbohydrates. In the end, autopsies of these tribal members discovered that the evidence of lipid build-up in the arteries was marginal. In addition, treadmill tests (of live tribesmen of course) resulted in these individuals having comparable or superior performance to Olympic champions.
I invited you to google research performed by Professor George Mann from Vanderbilt University. Although the evidence wasn't aggregated in a labratory as such, it cannot be argued that the duration of this standing test beats out anything the FDA has implemented.
In conclusion, most evidence of kidney failure and such are attibuted to high fat/high carb diets. When carbs are drastically reduced/eliminated, the problem is severly mitigated.
The numbers don't lie for a proper implementation of the Atkins Diet: higher HDL, lower LDL, reduction of risk/elimination of Diabetes (type II), reduced volatility in blood sugar levels, etc...
A proper implementation != bacon and eggs for breakfast, 1 pound of macadamia nuts for lunch, and large quantities of prime rib and lobster for dinner, with butter and cheese for snacks. Although these foods are welcome, it's all in moderation. Atkins is a well balanced diet (not a fad diet) with an emphasis on severe reduction of carbs. There's a mini-conspiracy brewing with the food industry and their disagreement with this diet. The profit margin for serving hamburgers on enriched flour bread is substantial, and the extra value meal has an even larger profit margin %.
The FDA recommends that individuals ingest approximately 300g of carbohydrates a day. This amount is awful for just about any individual other than one who ingests pasta and whole wheat exclusively, and bikes 25 miles/day. For everyone else, this is simply a recipe for a spare tire (man) or a bubble butt/hips (woman). Obviously, the individual beginning this thread is not a threat of doing significant bike riding daily.