The RIAA is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.
As much as I love encryption and would like to see more bittorrent clients using it I hope you realize that it means absolutely nothing with regards to keeping RIAA from knowing you are sharing.
The typical method that they use is to connect to the tracker and get a list of the clients who are sharing the file(s) in question. It doesn't matter if your client is running encryption or not -- they are going to find out that your IP address is sharing this file. The only solution for this is private trackers. In the end all RIAA is going to accomplish is to drive file sharing underground.
Take heart though, it will take us geeks popular again. When that cute girl down the street is too stupid/scared to figure out how to pirate music on her own who do you think she is going to come to?;)
There may be concerns of privacy (ISP snooping your data, etc)
In New York State that would be a felony:
250.05 Eavesdropping.
A person is guilty of eavesdropping when he unlawfully engages in wiretapping, mechanical overhearing of a conversation, or intercepting or accessing of an electronic communication.
Eavesdropping is a class E felony.
8. "Unlawfully" means not specifically authorized pursuant to article seven hundred or seven hundred five of the criminal procedure law for the purposes of this section and sections 250.05, 250.10, 250.15, 250.20, 250.25, 250.30 and 250.35 of this article.
Common sense is what we preach
It's not common sense. RIAA can get my internet access revoked on their word alone with zero proof to back up the claim? How the hell is that common sense?
Ah, you're in favour of everyone having equal access to nuclear weapons? Good luck with that.
Ironic that you accuse me of hyperbole and bust out with 'so everybody should have nuclear weapons' in response to a remark about drug prohibition. I suspect we are done here.
Is there any particular reason you consider the US military to be different?
Well, for starters, the US military swears an oath to uphold the US Constitution, not to blindly follow the orders of the Commander-in-Chief. You are also taught in the US military to disobey illegal orders.
Not to mention the fact that the US with all their might couldn't defeat the Vietcong.
We did defeat the Vietcong. The Vietcong was decimated during the Tet Offensive and the bulk of the fighting thereafter occurred between US Forces and the North Vietnamese Army. You'll note that army was equipped with the latest in military technology, supplied by their friends in Moscow.
Sorry mr gun nut sir, but things are not as clear cut as you think, armed population != control by the people
I disagree, but regardless, if you had actually bothered to read my post you would have seen that this wasn't the point I was trying to make. Let me help you since your reading comprehension is apparently lacking: "And no, I'm not implying that guns keep the Government in line. I'm implying that by acquiescing to the surrender of a right you held for hundreds of years you set the stage for the Government to curtail your other rights"
Lets ignore the 2 mass shooting the US has had in the last week.
Let's also ignore the fact that if any of the victims had been armed they might just have been able to defend themselves. Something the gun control lobby refuses to ever acknowledge as a possibility. Let's also ignore the fact that one of those "mass shootings" you refer to had one victim and the perpetrator was stopped by members of the public and not by law enforcement.
where did the armed uprising take place when Bush started warrant-less wiretapping, which is far worse then anything other western nations have done in the march towards fascism?
Yes, the warrant-less wiretapping of overseas phone calls is much worse than Kristallnacht or anything else that has happened in history. Why don't you get some fucking perspective and leave your off-topic rants about GWB for another discussion?
If you fail to wear a seat belt in the back of a car, you might just kill the person sitting in front of you
Give me a break. A) That's so hypothetical and tenuous that it hardly merits a response, B) The person in front of you could have made an informed decision not to remain in the car unless you put on your seat belt.
I should imagine that a front seat occupant is more likely to kill someone in the front of the other vehicle in the case of a head-on collision.
Do you have a single example of this ever happening or are you going on your "gut" feeling?
Marijuana might bring out psychotic tendencies in enough people to be considered a risk
Then those people shouldn't use it and should be held responsible for any actions they commit while under the influence. Some people get violent when they drink -- you gonna take my beer away from me because of them?
I hope you haven't read anything I've said and concluded that I would have a problem regulating air pollution. My problem is when politicians try to regulate behavior based on some perceived harm to society. Seat belt laws come to mind. Marijuana prohibition comes to mind. If my behavior isn't harming anyone else then what business is it of the Government? My main complaint is with the nanny state and the war on vice.
The problem is that the cameras COST you money if the lights are timed correctly. Study after study has shown that if an intersection is properly timed, the number of times people will run a red light is so low that it NEVER makes money.
Who cares if it makes money? I already said I don't think traffic laws should be enforced with an eye towards making money. They should be enforced with an eye towards deterring behavior that places other drivers and pedestrians at risk.
Yes, there are cities where people routeinly run red lights. Those cities have neglected their lights
In my city people routinely run red lights and our lights are maintained/timed just fine. So paint with a narrower brush next time you make sweeping statements.
They don't install sensors to see if cars are present,
My city has those sensors.
they don't adjust up the yellow light time to the recommended 30 seconds
30 seconds eh?
Running a red light is a TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT problem, not a funding idea.
You didn't bother to read the post you are replying to, did you?
P.S. I don't own a car and have not driven one in over 10 years
Thanks for sharing all of your driving experience with us then;)
Historically, land owners had the right to unilaterally increase their tennants' rent or throw them off without notice, now they don't.
They still have that right if you are on a month-to-month lease. Granted, they have to give you 30 days to get out but if you think they can't unilaterally increase your rent you are sadly mistaken.
Historically, employers had the right to refuse to employ women, Jews, or black people, and shops had the right to refuse to serve people on the basis of their faith, creed, gender, or colour, now they don't.
And I have a problem with that. Of course now you'll probably assume that I'm some sort of racist -- I'm not -- I have an issue when the Government compels private businesses or individuals to associate with others. If I don't want to do business with [insert some racial/religious group here] that's my right. It's also your right not to do business with me and to encourage others to do the same.
If you think the right to carry a gun around with you would be worth reintroducing you need to give a better argument
Self-defense is a right that we haven't yet given up. The most effective way to defend yourself is with weaponry. Who are you to tell me that I can't defend myself if my life is in danger?
I had some lady just sit there at the green light... I gave her the most courteous honk I could (you know... the short toot-toot honk?), and she looks at me like I'm nuts. So I honk again and she gives me the "WHAT?" shrug... so I point at the light and she's like "Oh..." but by then it was turning yellow. So she's sitting there at a green light, blocking everybody, and she gets to go, and I and the people behind me get stuck. Yet I'm the impatient jerk, right?
No, you aren't a jerk in that scenario. I'm from New York State, world's capital of arrogant and asshole drivers. I probably would have laid on the horn screaming obscenities in that scenario after the friendly "toot-toot" failed to move her.
You've figured out your lights, I've figured out mine.
Around here there isn't much to figure out. We don't have enough traffic for the DOT to justify synchronizing them. They generally just stay green on the busier roadway and only flip to red if there is someone waiting to go on the side street. The first time I ever drove in a bigger city and saw how all of the lights are synchronized I was impressed. And yeah, I saw how the idiots screw up that system too. Annoying isn't it?
We used to have a traffic circle around these parts that everybody complained about. Too much traffic, too many accidents, etc, etc. Personally I never saw anything wrong with it -- the only issue was assholes that were either too stupid to use it properly (ride in the inside lane until you reach your exit, how fucking hard is that to understand?) or too arrogant to bother. So we wound up spending tens of millions of dollars to build a flyover. Waste of money if you ask me -- I would have spent 10% of that money on law enforcement and started ticketing the morons that would ride around the circle in the outside lane.
but I will drive fast and I will do jack-rabbit starts at certain intersections (because I do know the timing of the lights).
Actually that brings to mind another thing that annoys the hell out of me. The light ahead turns red so I take my foot off the gas -- then some asshole starts tailgating me and flashing his lights. I guess he's in a hurry to get to the light so he has to stop first. I also love when I get tailgated/flashed at when there is a car in front of me on a solid yellow line. What do you want me to do, push him out of the way?
Being in a hurry is no excuse to drive badly, I will grant you that, but that's not all there is too it.
No, that's not all there is too it. Just don't expect me to have much sympathy for someone who gets a ticket for running the red. Red means stop. Yellow means stop if you can do so safely. How hard is that to understand?
Where I live, Cops mostly just show up after the fact.
Yeah, same here, that's why I usually tend to go off on rants about the evils of gun control.....
My point though was that we have limited police resources and transferring the cops away from fighting/investigating real crimes and onto enforcing red lights is probably not the best use of police resources. So do we accept the fact that people will be assholes and run red lights (placing others at risk) or do we use technology to solve the problem?
I don't like when red light cameras turn into revenue sources but I also don't like being t-boned when I have the green light. Is there a better way to keep people from running red lights that I haven't thought of?
Let me know when that's anything much more than a gun nut's fantasy. Home invasions are very very rare.
Home fires are equally rare so I suppose there isn't any reason for me to bother owning fire extinguishers. And why are you assuming that my comment makes me a 'gun nut'? All I said was self-defense isn't vigilantism and the police aren't likely to arrive in time to help you. Do you disagree with either of those statements?
I'm just saying, there's not actually a strong case to arm the populace either.
The 'strong case' is the fact that you historically had the right and now you don't. Personally I don't like it when my Government tries to take away a right that we've had for generations. Apparently you disagree. Don't come crying to me when your Government takes away the rights that you actually care about. Ongoing events in your country suggest that they aren't looking to only take away guns.
These precedents have been set in most western nations. People (and states) in the US have been surrendering more and more rights to the federal government for decades. Hell, the US has a long history of abuses against its own citizens
Those abuses won't stop until people take back their rights. All of their rights. Not just the ones that happen to enjoy widespread support or the ones that happen to be politically correct. I grow weary every time I hear somebody justify a reduction in freedom with phrases like "it's for the public good", "it's for our protection" or the time-honored "think of the children!"
The problem is you are causing me to make a $200+ decision in 0.5 seconds.
Then don't drive. Seriously. Every time you step behind the wheel you are making $200+ decisions in under a second. I'm not talking about fines either -- I'm talking about insurance deductibles. If you can't make a decision in <1 second you probably don't have any business being behind the wheel of a car. Every single time I drive I'm forced to make decisions that quickly -- usually because of some asshat who isn't paying attention mind you, but I think you get my point.
Light goes yellow. Can you safely stop? If so then you stop. If you can't then you go. If the light is timed properly then it won't turn red before you hit the intersection if you couldn't safely stop. If it isn't timed properly then that's a whole another matter that needs to be addressed. Hopefully you noticed where I agreed with everybody who said that lowering the yellow light timing to increase revenue is a crock of shit and needs to be dealt with accordingly.
I used to think just like you do now. When XP was released, I forced the ugly Windows 2000 theme because I didn't want graphical interfaces left and right. Then I realized that it's not really cluttering anything, just that I am not used to the looks.
Just because the XP interface doesn't "clutter" anything doesn't mean it isn't butt fucking ugly and a huge distraction. I'm typing this message on a Windows Vista machine (stuck with them at work, still on XP for Windows @ home) and I still dumb down the interface to the Windows 2000 look. It's less distracting, less obtrusive and (IMHO) easier on the eyes. Sometimes less is more.
Slashdot Mirror
They can search your car if they think there suspicions of a crime being committed
That's bad enough.
And then, the RIAA will have won.
The RIAA is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.
As much as I love encryption and would like to see more bittorrent clients using it I hope you realize that it means absolutely nothing with regards to keeping RIAA from knowing you are sharing.
The typical method that they use is to connect to the tracker and get a list of the clients who are sharing the file(s) in question. It doesn't matter if your client is running encryption or not -- they are going to find out that your IP address is sharing this file. The only solution for this is private trackers. In the end all RIAA is going to accomplish is to drive file sharing underground.
Take heart though, it will take us geeks popular again. When that cute girl down the street is too stupid/scared to figure out how to pirate music on her own who do you think she is going to come to? ;)
we're talking about Comcast/Verizon here. Same people who used to throttle legitimate P2P traffic
When has Verizon throttled any traffic?
There may be concerns of privacy (ISP snooping your data, etc)
In New York State that would be a felony:
250.05 Eavesdropping.
A person is guilty of eavesdropping when he unlawfully engages in wiretapping, mechanical overhearing of a conversation, or intercepting or accessing of an electronic communication.
Eavesdropping is a class E felony.
8. "Unlawfully" means not specifically authorized pursuant to article seven hundred or seven hundred five of the criminal procedure law for the purposes of this section and sections 250.05, 250.10, 250.15, 250.20, 250.25, 250.30 and 250.35 of this article.
Common sense is what we preach
It's not common sense. RIAA can get my internet access revoked on their word alone with zero proof to back up the claim? How the hell is that common sense?
Ah, you're in favour of everyone having equal access to nuclear weapons? Good luck with that.
Ironic that you accuse me of hyperbole and bust out with 'so everybody should have nuclear weapons' in response to a remark about drug prohibition. I suspect we are done here.
Is there any particular reason you consider the US military to be different?
Well, for starters, the US military swears an oath to uphold the US Constitution, not to blindly follow the orders of the Commander-in-Chief. You are also taught in the US military to disobey illegal orders.
Not to mention the fact that the US with all their might couldn't defeat the Vietcong.
We did defeat the Vietcong. The Vietcong was decimated during the Tet Offensive and the bulk of the fighting thereafter occurred between US Forces and the North Vietnamese Army. You'll note that army was equipped with the latest in military technology, supplied by their friends in Moscow.
Here's one: bullets are hard, and people are soft.
Hard drives are hard too. Let's outlaw those ;)
Sorry mr gun nut sir, but things are not as clear cut as you think, armed population != control by the people
I disagree, but regardless, if you had actually bothered to read my post you would have seen that this wasn't the point I was trying to make. Let me help you since your reading comprehension is apparently lacking: "And no, I'm not implying that guns keep the Government in line. I'm implying that by acquiescing to the surrender of a right you held for hundreds of years you set the stage for the Government to curtail your other rights"
Lets ignore the 2 mass shooting the US has had in the last week.
Let's also ignore the fact that if any of the victims had been armed they might just have been able to defend themselves. Something the gun control lobby refuses to ever acknowledge as a possibility. Let's also ignore the fact that one of those "mass shootings" you refer to had one victim and the perpetrator was stopped by members of the public and not by law enforcement.
where did the armed uprising take place when Bush started warrant-less wiretapping, which is far worse then anything other western nations have done in the march towards fascism?
Yes, the warrant-less wiretapping of overseas phone calls is much worse than Kristallnacht or anything else that has happened in history. Why don't you get some fucking perspective and leave your off-topic rants about GWB for another discussion?
If you fail to wear a seat belt in the back of a car, you might just kill the person sitting in front of you
Give me a break. A) That's so hypothetical and tenuous that it hardly merits a response, B) The person in front of you could have made an informed decision not to remain in the car unless you put on your seat belt.
I should imagine that a front seat occupant is more likely to kill someone in the front of the other vehicle in the case of a head-on collision.
Do you have a single example of this ever happening or are you going on your "gut" feeling?
Marijuana might bring out psychotic tendencies in enough people to be considered a risk
Then those people shouldn't use it and should be held responsible for any actions they commit while under the influence. Some people get violent when they drink -- you gonna take my beer away from me because of them?
Is to make their voters dumber than them and aggressively push religious beliefs that teach unquestioning loyalty.
What makes you think that everybody who votes Republican does so for religious reasons?
I bet the NCSE also promotes teaching of water being wet
But water isn't always wet ;)
I hope you haven't read anything I've said and concluded that I would have a problem regulating air pollution. My problem is when politicians try to regulate behavior based on some perceived harm to society. Seat belt laws come to mind. Marijuana prohibition comes to mind. If my behavior isn't harming anyone else then what business is it of the Government? My main complaint is with the nanny state and the war on vice.
Sure, here's some code to do that:
if (strcmp(link.postedby, "Anonymous Coward") == 0 || strstr(link.url, "goatse" != NULL) return false;
else return true;
The problem is that the cameras COST you money if the lights are timed correctly. Study after study has shown that if an intersection is properly timed, the number of times people will run a red light is so low that it NEVER makes money.
Who cares if it makes money? I already said I don't think traffic laws should be enforced with an eye towards making money. They should be enforced with an eye towards deterring behavior that places other drivers and pedestrians at risk.
Yes, there are cities where people routeinly run red lights. Those cities have neglected their lights
In my city people routinely run red lights and our lights are maintained/timed just fine. So paint with a narrower brush next time you make sweeping statements.
They don't install sensors to see if cars are present,
My city has those sensors.
they don't adjust up the yellow light time to the recommended 30 seconds
30 seconds eh?
Running a red light is a TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT problem, not a funding idea.
You didn't bother to read the post you are replying to, did you?
P.S. I don't own a car and have not driven one in over 10 years
Thanks for sharing all of your driving experience with us then ;)
Also, Binghamton smells bad.
Not as bad as Elmira ;)
Historically, land owners had the right to unilaterally increase their tennants' rent or throw them off without notice, now they don't.
They still have that right if you are on a month-to-month lease. Granted, they have to give you 30 days to get out but if you think they can't unilaterally increase your rent you are sadly mistaken.
Historically, employers had the right to refuse to employ women, Jews, or black people, and shops had the right to refuse to serve people on the basis of their faith, creed, gender, or colour, now they don't.
And I have a problem with that. Of course now you'll probably assume that I'm some sort of racist -- I'm not -- I have an issue when the Government compels private businesses or individuals to associate with others. If I don't want to do business with [insert some racial/religious group here] that's my right. It's also your right not to do business with me and to encourage others to do the same.
If you think the right to carry a gun around with you would be worth reintroducing you need to give a better argument
Self-defense is a right that we haven't yet given up. The most effective way to defend yourself is with weaponry. Who are you to tell me that I can't defend myself if my life is in danger?
I had some lady just sit there at the green light... I gave her the most courteous honk I could (you know... the short toot-toot honk?), and she looks at me like I'm nuts. So I honk again and she gives me the "WHAT?" shrug... so I point at the light and she's like "Oh..." but by then it was turning yellow. So she's sitting there at a green light, blocking everybody, and she gets to go, and I and the people behind me get stuck. Yet I'm the impatient jerk, right?
No, you aren't a jerk in that scenario. I'm from New York State, world's capital of arrogant and asshole drivers. I probably would have laid on the horn screaming obscenities in that scenario after the friendly "toot-toot" failed to move her.
You've figured out your lights, I've figured out mine.
Around here there isn't much to figure out. We don't have enough traffic for the DOT to justify synchronizing them. They generally just stay green on the busier roadway and only flip to red if there is someone waiting to go on the side street. The first time I ever drove in a bigger city and saw how all of the lights are synchronized I was impressed. And yeah, I saw how the idiots screw up that system too. Annoying isn't it?
We used to have a traffic circle around these parts that everybody complained about. Too much traffic, too many accidents, etc, etc. Personally I never saw anything wrong with it -- the only issue was assholes that were either too stupid to use it properly (ride in the inside lane until you reach your exit, how fucking hard is that to understand?) or too arrogant to bother. So we wound up spending tens of millions of dollars to build a flyover. Waste of money if you ask me -- I would have spent 10% of that money on law enforcement and started ticketing the morons that would ride around the circle in the outside lane.
but I will drive fast and I will do jack-rabbit starts at certain intersections (because I do know the timing of the lights).
Actually that brings to mind another thing that annoys the hell out of me. The light ahead turns red so I take my foot off the gas -- then some asshole starts tailgating me and flashing his lights. I guess he's in a hurry to get to the light so he has to stop first. I also love when I get tailgated/flashed at when there is a car in front of me on a solid yellow line. What do you want me to do, push him out of the way?
Being in a hurry is no excuse to drive badly, I will grant you that, but that's not all there is too it.
No, that's not all there is too it. Just don't expect me to have much sympathy for someone who gets a ticket for running the red. Red means stop. Yellow means stop if you can do so safely. How hard is that to understand?
Where I live, Cops mostly just show up after the fact.
Yeah, same here, that's why I usually tend to go off on rants about the evils of gun control.....
My point though was that we have limited police resources and transferring the cops away from fighting/investigating real crimes and onto enforcing red lights is probably not the best use of police resources. So do we accept the fact that people will be assholes and run red lights (placing others at risk) or do we use technology to solve the problem?
I don't like when red light cameras turn into revenue sources but I also don't like being t-boned when I have the green light. Is there a better way to keep people from running red lights that I haven't thought of?
Let me know when that's anything much more than a gun nut's fantasy. Home invasions are very very rare.
Home fires are equally rare so I suppose there isn't any reason for me to bother owning fire extinguishers. And why are you assuming that my comment makes me a 'gun nut'? All I said was self-defense isn't vigilantism and the police aren't likely to arrive in time to help you. Do you disagree with either of those statements?
I'm just saying, there's not actually a strong case to arm the populace either.
The 'strong case' is the fact that you historically had the right and now you don't. Personally I don't like it when my Government tries to take away a right that we've had for generations. Apparently you disagree. Don't come crying to me when your Government takes away the rights that you actually care about. Ongoing events in your country suggest that they aren't looking to only take away guns.
These precedents have been set in most western nations. People (and states) in the US have been surrendering more and more rights to the federal government for decades. Hell, the US has a long history of abuses against its own citizens
Those abuses won't stop until people take back their rights. All of their rights. Not just the ones that happen to enjoy widespread support or the ones that happen to be politically correct. I grow weary every time I hear somebody justify a reduction in freedom with phrases like "it's for the public good", "it's for our protection" or the time-honored "think of the children!"
The problem is you are causing me to make a $200+ decision in 0.5 seconds.
Then don't drive. Seriously. Every time you step behind the wheel you are making $200+ decisions in under a second. I'm not talking about fines either -- I'm talking about insurance deductibles. If you can't make a decision in <1 second you probably don't have any business being behind the wheel of a car. Every single time I drive I'm forced to make decisions that quickly -- usually because of some asshat who isn't paying attention mind you, but I think you get my point.
Light goes yellow. Can you safely stop? If so then you stop. If you can't then you go. If the light is timed properly then it won't turn red before you hit the intersection if you couldn't safely stop. If it isn't timed properly then that's a whole another matter that needs to be addressed. Hopefully you noticed where I agreed with everybody who said that lowering the yellow light timing to increase revenue is a crock of shit and needs to be dealt with accordingly.
Should be -1 Troll.
Wow, nobody has any sense of humor today....
as Microsoft has a well paid legal team at their disposal which would most likely prevent unauthorized usage of patented ideas.
Yeah, when would Microsoft ever violate patents?
I used to think just like you do now. When XP was released, I forced the ugly Windows 2000 theme because I didn't want graphical interfaces left and right. Then I realized that it's not really cluttering anything, just that I am not used to the looks.
Just because the XP interface doesn't "clutter" anything doesn't mean it isn't butt fucking ugly and a huge distraction. I'm typing this message on a Windows Vista machine (stuck with them at work, still on XP for Windows @ home) and I still dumb down the interface to the Windows 2000 look. It's less distracting, less obtrusive and (IMHO) easier on the eyes. Sometimes less is more.