No, it's not considered illegal use of the material. It's considered copyright infringement, which is very different than "illegal use."
I suspect illegal use of a DVD would be something like either public broadcast or perhaps shattering it and stabbing someone in the neck. Duplicating and selling copies is not illegal use of a disc, it's copyright infringement, plain and simple.
Copying is a use of the material, at least legally speaking.
Again, incorrect. Copying is not a use, it is an act which may or may not be illegal. Don't try to split legal hairs when you don't even appear to understand what the words you are using mean and how they are used.
Perhaps this will make it easier to understand: "Use" is a verb. "Copy" is a verb. You can't Verb and Verb. The sentence "Copying is use" is completely nonsense in both the legal sense and the laymen sense. It would be like saying 'Apple is orange.'
Copying something may be illegal. Using something may be illegal, but one does not have to imply or even vaguely relate to the other.
A company doesn't have to watch a video to duplicate it and sell copies. But I'm pretty sure that the law considers duplicating and selling copies without permission to be an illegal use of the material.
A company or individual can copy the video all they want. They can't sell it. Copying is not illegal and never has been. What you do with those copies can be illegal, but the act of copying them is not illegal.
I'm not saying I've been involved in an MPAA or RIAA case, but I have been involved in a very similar extortion type case that was a big thing in geek circles a few years ago. The usual reason you never hear about a defendant winning a case is because the suing entity (such as the RIAA, MPAA, Hughes, etc..) usually offers to drop the case or part of the case being brought to a conclusion is what amounts to an NDA... you can't talk about what the result was, or the case defaults (or is at least re-opened with penalties)... so you have a gag order when you win and can't tell anyone about it.
To make the copy, the company has to use the material, and it is doing so in a commercial manner. How do you make a copy, without making use of the material?
Simple - you don't watch it. Making use of a video recording, in this context, is to watch it and derive potential entertainment out of it. If it's just being copied, hidden away as 1's and 0's in a computer, it's not being used, it's being duplicated. Duplication != use. Use implies a function, duplication is an action upon an object or entity.
Because you are using their hardware to connect. The companies in question fronted the money to put up the cell sites that you are using, and thus you will pay them for the privilege to use them. Nominally, the companies paid for the cell sites, unlike say cable or telephone which was subsidized by the government. I know this is not true in all cases, but generally speaking, the cell phone companies put out billions of dollars to get their networks into shape and thus have a "right" to the profits.
You'll never see an a la carte approach to your cell phone provider like you do with ISPs, since the underlying transport hardware is privately owned by the companies in question.
Are you willing to go see a movie at the theater for 7 dollars? If not, does that justify buying it from a street peddler on DVD? Are you willing to pay 50 dollars a month to connect to the internet? If not, does that justify splicing your neighbor's cable?
No and No.
I am willing to pay $20 a month for Netflix, and I am willing to pay $30 a month for bandwidth, however.
I could go on. I agree with you. I use allofmp3 too. But the fact is, with allofmp3, the money does NOT go to the artist, it does not go to the people who put up the risk to create the art (record companies, shudder), it does not go to anyone who did anything constructive. It goes to some russians who got lucky and who clearly don't mind making millions from copyright violations. I consider bit torrent to be at least as moral, and actually easier to use.
You seem to have missed the entire point of my post. I was not posting to justify using AllOfMp3, bit torrent, other P2P, etc... I was posting to point out that I could easily get it for free from other sources, but I choose to pay for it from AllOfMP3 - and then I explained why. Because it's DRM free, reasonably priced, easily obtainable, and in the format I want. I don't care who I pay for this, be it AllOfMP3 or another more "legitimate" source. I'd be willing to wager 99.9% of AllOfMP3 users think the same - if AllOfMP3 shut down tomorrow and a "legitimate" source of music in the US opened up the following day for the same or close to the same fees, they'd start using that site instead. I know I would.
I will not pay 99 cents for a DRM laden track of music that I can't play elsewhere, such as on XBMC. I may or may not pay 99 cents for a track that is free from DRM. I will, however, pay 20 cents a track for such a track. I can do without it if it comes to it.
Why should they? It is. I know it is a stupid argument, but it is true - purchasing music gives an incentive to artists to create. I know you have heard this before, but you lost all right (in my eyes) to come off as innocent the second you tried justifying your actions. I pirate too, but at least I can admit it.
Again, you missed the entire point. I said that because I've heard it all before, and that wasn't what my post was about. My post is simply about the fact that I will pay for music, regardless of the source, if it's reasonably priced and free of DRM. If I can't get that, I *WILL* get it from other sources that offer me what I want. Failing that, I will do with out. What I will *NOT* do is pay excessively high fees for DRM encumbered music. Read that last sentence again. That sums up basically the entire post. That point is not negotiable. That is the end of the line. If it is excessively priced and has DRM, I will not pay for it. Ever. Under any circumstance.
The fact that AllofMP3 is so wildly popular with the masses (heck, even my father and mother use it) should be a clear indication to artists and, god forbid, the music industry that DRM free, affordable, portable music is what people want... and they will pay for it, even if they are offered it for free via P2P.
I stopped downloading music via P2P when I found AllofMP3, and I now pay for it happily. Save me the bullshit about it still being "theft" ad nasuem. The fact is, I am willing to pay for music at a reasonable price in a format I want. I am not willing to pay for music any other way. As such, if I am not able to pay for my music in the format I want, I won't buy it. There is absolutely NO loss of sale either way. I won't buy it if I can't get it the way I want it, period. End of story. This is not a negotiable point. The sooner the RIAA and the rest of the music industry gets this through their heads, the sooner they'll be raking in cash again as people flock to "legitimate" quality online music distribution.
[i]No one is forcing me to use Comcast. But if Comcast are filtering mail without telling me, that's still not right. You can't argue that companies should be able to do whatever they want because I can always change provider; some things are just wrong.[/i]
No one said anything about the moral implications. We are speaking of the legal implications of the whole issue... and legally, there is nothing "wrong" with it. However you feel morally and ethically about it is irrelevant to the discussion.
Can you cite a source? I can't find anything on Comcast's terms of service, or on Google.
What Federal, State or local statute is forcing you to use Comcast again? I can't seem to find it on any.gov site or on Google.
Kinda cool, but just Sony Ericsson ??
on
Caller ID Watches
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I've been in the market for a new geek watch for about 8 months now, but nothing really strikes me as something I want to wear.
The watches themselves look ok, and I like the idea of having caller ID on my wrist and not having to fuss with the phone... but only supporting Sony/Ericsson phones? I won't buy Sony shit, and I Ericsson phones are notorious pieces of shit.
It's BLUETOOTH for gods sake... it's an open standard. Why won't it support generic Bluetooth phones?
Screw that... I'll buy from another company that actually has support for some of the more common phones out there. I can't think of anyone with an Ericsson phone off the top of my head.
Fireball (and any AE spell) does not do AoE damage, they do AE damage. AoE is the resulting radius of an AE spell. A spell can't be AoE, it can only be AE. There's no such thing as an AoE spell, only AE spells.
Only n00bs say AoE spell. Vetrans know it's AE.
The same goes for military weapons - You don't say "Our Area of Effect warheads in the MLRS were ineffective."
You say "Our Area Effect warheads in the MLRS were in effective, as the Area of Effect was too small."
You've provided me with all the help I need... knowing that there are people out there more stupid than a boiled banana warms my heart.
At least I know that no matter what happens to me in life, even if I become a vegetable in a hospital bed, drooling all over myself and unable to comprehend even basic shapes... you'll still be out there, making me look like Stephen Hawking when compared to you.
I can now rest, knowing that there will always be a bigger idiot out there, somehwere, on the internet.
You know how many people like you I've run into that are all talk and no brains?
I very much doubt you've been working in the computer industry longer than I've been alive. What you have experienced that far back, IF it is true (still HIGHLY unlikely) has little to no bearing on what is going on in the industry today, anyway. The fact you had to resort to name calling proves me correct.
Judging by your comments, I'm betting the chances are increasing dramatically that my first statement is true. Go back to school, Junior!
To touch on your point about redirecting a url not being a crime: If your redirection causes the target to loose communication (as was the case here), it is theft of services. VERY MUCH illegal. The ends do NOT justify the means.
This is what you are clearly incapable of understanding. Redirecting a URL is simply that... redirecting a URL. They are not generating any traffic to the target site... someone else is. THOSE people are responsible for theft of service, not Blue Security. Why can't you get the fact of root cause through your thick skull? As I said, if Blue Security did it intentionally, they are guilty of being dicks, nothing more. The criminals are the ones orchestrating the DDoS.
So no, it's not "VERY MUCH illegal," no matter how much you want it to be, the law states otherwise. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Your UID being lower than mine also means nothing. Small slahsdot UID's have appeared on ebay in the past. How am I to be sure you haven't purchased it?
Because you can read back through my post history and see that my posting style has remained pretty much the same since the beginning. Duh.
This is the end of the conversation. You are worth no more of my time.
Ahh yes, the tired old response to someone who's been pwned. GG sir! Plzdrivethru thx.
Jesus H. Christ on a crutch... are you fucking dense or what? I didn't think anyone could possibly be as obtuse as you seem to be and still be capable of operating a computer.
How on earth do you possibly equate the statement that "Redirecting a URL is not vandalism" with "It's ok to be a dick to your neighbor." Are you just pretending to be stupid to troll, or are you really that incapable of critical thinking?
There are two statements made here, that you seem to have tried to graft together to support your ludicrous point.
The first statement is "Redirecting a URL is not vandalism." It's not. Please tell me how you think it's vandalism. Once you have that thought in your head, try to keep it there while you go look up what exactly vandalism is. Now compare what it IS and what you THINK it is. Are they the same thing? Go ahead, give it a shot, I'll wait.
Now that you've done that, I could have saved you some time, the correct answer is 'No, they are not.'
Good, now that we've got that fact out of the way, lets see the other statement you are using in conjunction with the above, "So redirecting a DDOS attack from Blue Security to communityhosting.net seems to be consistent with your statement that it is not harmful or wrong."
Where did I say that it is not harmful or wrong? Oh... that's right, I didn't. I said it wasn't illegal. I said "your neighbors will probably think you are a dick." I also said that it is unethical (read: NOT OK, duh) to do so.
oh so great one, of which I am not worthy to dwell in your cyberspace.
You're goddamned right you aren't worthy to dwell in my cyberspace. Fucktards like you should not be allowed anywhere near a computer, much less on the internet.
Your disapproval haunts me and leaves me flaccid, I fear I will not be able to perform my carnal duties to your wife. That saddens me because I so dearly wanted to be your friend.
Ahh, a wife joke. That's almost as good as a "Yo mama" joke! Wow... dude, do you write your own material, or does someone from the 3rd grade write it for you?
I know you wanted to be my friend, but I am far, far too manly for you. My balls are so huge they dwarf the largest ball of twine in Minnesota like the earth dwarfs the moon. They are so large, they have their own gravitational pull. There is simply no way a mere mortal like yourself could ever comprehend the entire granduer of my sac in one lifetime; it would take you at least ten. I don't have that kind of time... so no, you can never be my friend, nor can you ever know me. You are simply not evolved enough; you are not on the same plane of existence. You can not comprehend even a fraction of my awesomeness. I am sorry. I truely am... but you should probably just go kill yourself now... the crushing depression you will feel after reading my words that I have deigned to bestow up on you will eat at you for the rest of your short and pitiful life.
Bow before me, and I may allow you to gaze upon a small portion of my granduer for a moment longer.
My analogy was spot on. You are a clueless noob who can't fathom that an analogy is to illustrate the faliciousness of the arguement in question, it is not meant to be a 1:1 comparison.
You also appear to have a reading comprehension problem in so far as I said nothing about it being OK to swap house addresses, that's a product of your own limited ability to understand written English. I said the person swapping house numbers is not committing the crime; the person robbing the house is. Regardless of whether or not the act of switching addresses is illegal in the physical world, the act of redirecting your URL to another IP is not illegal anywhere in the world. Thus, the analogy is spot on and your limited mental facilities are unable to comprehend the difference between an analogy and a direct comparison.
I'm sorry that you are unable to understand simple concepts like this, but the failure is in yourself (or education) not in the analogy.
Lets see who the young one is here... your UserID is 468134, mine is 72977. Yeahhh... I'm gonna have to go with you being the one that's too young to be here with adults. In fact, I'm gonna go so far as to say I've been working in the computing industry longer than you've been alive. So scat, noob, you aren't allowed at the adult table anymore.
I wouldn't necessarily say you are wrong that it's Blue Security's fault, either through negligence or intentional thought... but to say they are the ones causin the DDoS is ridiculous.
They are not sending out the offending packets, the spammer is.
Is it unethical to redirect the DDoS you are getting hit with? Yep, I'd say so if you do it intentionally. Is it illegal? Nope, not in any sense of the word. The people perpetrating the crime are the spammers, and they are the ones performing the illegal act.
It's no different than someone calling you up on the phone and telling you that you're going to be robbed tonight while you're out on the town. Before you leave, you switch the address on your house to your neighbors, and when you leave, the robbers break into your neighbors house. You sure are a dick, but you didn't do anything illegal. Your neighbors probably won't be happy with you, but they have no legal recourse, except to perhaps fling dog poo in your yard.
Ahh yes... because New Orleans was such a lovely place to be before hand! I mean... generations of welfare addicts, drug pushers and users, a crappy public education system, etc...
Yes indeed, it's going to be worse now!
If NOLA wasn't such a crappy place to begin with, you wouldn't have this problem with the "neocons" now, would you?
If your vision of the future of NOLA comes true, how is that any worse than the festering pit of crap that was NOLA to begin with? I use to have to travel to New Orleans a lot on business... what a grungy, grimey, crappy place to live. Lots of history, yes... but I sure as hell didn't have any interest in seeing any of it.
If and when this does go to legal grounds, it will most likely be a huge landmark case that could open the floodgates for other cities to establish a municiple wireless system.
If it's handled improperly, and gets shut down, it will be a serious blow to any in roads already established toward providing free, community wireless projects. This would be a terrible crime, and once again, a reason the US would fall further behind in the broadband arena. The cable companies and Bell's already have an effective monopoly over much of the US, simply because they are the only carrier/provider in the area offering Broadband, and you simply can't go to someone else for that. Wireless takes away this monopoly, and boy are they pissed.
Man, I wish I could mod you higher than 5. You wrote basically everything I was going to write about why I dislike unions. To me, they are the embodiment of laziness and get paid ridiculous amounts of money for doing little to no work.
Does anyone have an example page that is a result of this alogrithm? The article is a little sparse on details or functionality, and you can't see anything if you go to the website.
From what I've read, I've tried to come up with stuff that I'd put in the first 5 links to give to the site, and I'm having trouble. I don't necessarily like to view the same things or same types of things from day to day, so I'm not sure how useful that'd be...
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, you are a shining example of a zero. Thanks for pointing that fact out.
Idiot.
No, it's not considered illegal use of the material. It's considered copyright infringement, which is very different than "illegal use."
I suspect illegal use of a DVD would be something like either public broadcast or perhaps shattering it and stabbing someone in the neck. Duplicating and selling copies is not illegal use of a disc, it's copyright infringement, plain and simple.
Copying is a use of the material, at least legally speaking.
Again, incorrect. Copying is not a use, it is an act which may or may not be illegal. Don't try to split legal hairs when you don't even appear to understand what the words you are using mean and how they are used.
Perhaps this will make it easier to understand: "Use" is a verb. "Copy" is a verb. You can't Verb and Verb. The sentence "Copying is use" is completely nonsense in both the legal sense and the laymen sense. It would be like saying 'Apple is orange.'
Copying something may be illegal. Using something may be illegal, but one does not have to imply or even vaguely relate to the other.
A company doesn't have to watch a video to duplicate it and sell copies. But I'm pretty sure that the law considers duplicating and selling copies without permission to be an illegal use of the material.
A company or individual can copy the video all they want. They can't sell it. Copying is not illegal and never has been. What you do with those copies can be illegal, but the act of copying them is not illegal.
"Real Life" is all 1's and 0's at a fundamental level, as well... so what is your point, besides the one on top of your head?
Idiot.
I'm not saying I've been involved in an MPAA or RIAA case, but I have been involved in a very similar extortion type case that was a big thing in geek circles a few years ago. The usual reason you never hear about a defendant winning a case is because the suing entity (such as the RIAA, MPAA, Hughes, etc..) usually offers to drop the case or part of the case being brought to a conclusion is what amounts to an NDA ... you can't talk about what the result was, or the case defaults (or is at least re-opened with penalties) ... so you have a gag order when you win and can't tell anyone about it.
It's BS, but there it is.
To make the copy, the company has to use the material, and it is doing so in a commercial manner. How do you make a copy, without making use of the material?
Simple - you don't watch it. Making use of a video recording, in this context, is to watch it and derive potential entertainment out of it. If it's just being copied, hidden away as 1's and 0's in a computer, it's not being used, it's being duplicated. Duplication != use. Use implies a function, duplication is an action upon an object or entity.
Because you are using their hardware to connect. The companies in question fronted the money to put up the cell sites that you are using, and thus you will pay them for the privilege to use them. Nominally, the companies paid for the cell sites, unlike say cable or telephone which was subsidized by the government. I know this is not true in all cases, but generally speaking, the cell phone companies put out billions of dollars to get their networks into shape and thus have a "right" to the profits.
You'll never see an a la carte approach to your cell phone provider like you do with ISPs, since the underlying transport hardware is privately owned by the companies in question.
Are you willing to go see a movie at the theater for 7 dollars? If not, does that justify buying it from a street peddler on DVD?
Are you willing to pay 50 dollars a month to connect to the internet? If not, does that justify splicing your neighbor's cable?
No and No.
I am willing to pay $20 a month for Netflix, and I am willing to pay $30 a month for bandwidth, however.
I could go on. I agree with you. I use allofmp3 too. But the fact is, with allofmp3, the money does NOT go to the artist, it does not go to the people who put up the risk to create the art (record companies, shudder), it does not go to anyone who did anything constructive. It goes to some russians who got lucky and who clearly don't mind making millions from copyright violations. I consider bit torrent to be at least as moral, and actually easier to use.
You seem to have missed the entire point of my post. I was not posting to justify using AllOfMp3, bit torrent, other P2P, etc... I was posting to point out that I could easily get it for free from other sources, but I choose to pay for it from AllOfMP3 - and then I explained why. Because it's DRM free, reasonably priced, easily obtainable, and in the format I want. I don't care who I pay for this, be it AllOfMP3 or another more "legitimate" source. I'd be willing to wager 99.9% of AllOfMP3 users think the same - if AllOfMP3 shut down tomorrow and a "legitimate" source of music in the US opened up the following day for the same or close to the same fees, they'd start using that site instead. I know I would.
I will not pay 99 cents for a DRM laden track of music that I can't play elsewhere, such as on XBMC. I may or may not pay 99 cents for a track that is free from DRM. I will, however, pay 20 cents a track for such a track. I can do without it if it comes to it.
Why should they? It is. I know it is a stupid argument, but it is true - purchasing music gives an incentive to artists to create. I know you have heard this before, but you lost all right (in my eyes) to come off as innocent the second you tried justifying your actions. I pirate too, but at least I can admit it.
Again, you missed the entire point. I said that because I've heard it all before, and that wasn't what my post was about. My post is simply about the fact that I will pay for music, regardless of the source, if it's reasonably priced and free of DRM. If I can't get that, I *WILL* get it from other sources that offer me what I want. Failing that, I will do with out. What I will *NOT* do is pay excessively high fees for DRM encumbered music. Read that last sentence again. That sums up basically the entire post. That point is not negotiable. That is the end of the line. If it is excessively priced and has DRM, I will not pay for it. Ever. Under any circumstance.
The fact that AllofMP3 is so wildly popular with the masses (heck, even my father and mother use it) should be a clear indication to artists and, god forbid, the music industry that DRM free, affordable, portable music is what people want... and they will pay for it, even if they are offered it for free via P2P.
I stopped downloading music via P2P when I found AllofMP3, and I now pay for it happily. Save me the bullshit about it still being "theft" ad nasuem. The fact is, I am willing to pay for music at a reasonable price in a format I want. I am not willing to pay for music any other way. As such, if I am not able to pay for my music in the format I want, I won't buy it. There is absolutely NO loss of sale either way. I won't buy it if I can't get it the way I want it, period. End of story. This is not a negotiable point. The sooner the RIAA and the rest of the music industry gets this through their heads, the sooner they'll be raking in cash again as people flock to "legitimate" quality online music distribution.
[i]No one is forcing me to use Comcast. But if Comcast are filtering mail without telling me, that's still not right. You can't argue that companies should be able to do whatever they want because I can always change provider; some things are just wrong.[/i]
No one said anything about the moral implications. We are speaking of the legal implications of the whole issue... and legally, there is nothing "wrong" with it. However you feel morally and ethically about it is irrelevant to the discussion.
Can you cite a source? I can't find anything on Comcast's terms of service, or on Google.
.gov site or on Google.
What Federal, State or local statute is forcing you to use Comcast again? I can't seem to find it on any
I've been in the market for a new geek watch for about 8 months now, but nothing really strikes me as something I want to wear.
The watches themselves look ok, and I like the idea of having caller ID on my wrist and not having to fuss with the phone... but only supporting Sony/Ericsson phones? I won't buy Sony shit, and I Ericsson phones are notorious pieces of shit.
It's BLUETOOTH for gods sake... it's an open standard. Why won't it support generic Bluetooth phones?
Screw that... I'll buy from another company that actually has support for some of the more common phones out there. I can't think of anyone with an Ericsson phone off the top of my head.
Damn, the n00b count is high!
Fireball (and any AE spell) does not do AoE damage, they do AE damage. AoE is the resulting radius of an AE spell. A spell can't be AoE, it can only be AE. There's no such thing as an AoE spell, only AE spells.
Only n00bs say AoE spell. Vetrans know it's AE.
The same goes for military weapons - You don't say "Our Area of Effect warheads in the MLRS were ineffective."
You say "Our Area Effect warheads in the MLRS were in effective, as the Area of Effect was too small."
Duh.
You've provided me with all the help I need... knowing that there are people out there more stupid than a boiled banana warms my heart.
At least I know that no matter what happens to me in life, even if I become a vegetable in a hospital bed, drooling all over myself and unable to comprehend even basic shapes... you'll still be out there, making me look like Stephen Hawking when compared to you.
I can now rest, knowing that there will always be a bigger idiot out there, somehwere, on the internet.
Thank you for that, sir. Thank you for that!
Tim?
Rage Disorder? Ahh... you meant to say "I am incapable of coherent thought and thus can not come up with anything suitably witty to retort with."
I understand, sir. It's ok... there's always the Special Olympics for you!
You know how many people like you I've run into that are all talk and no brains?
I very much doubt you've been working in the computer industry longer than I've been alive. What you have experienced that far back, IF it is true (still HIGHLY unlikely) has little to no bearing on what is going on in the industry today, anyway. The fact you had to resort to name calling proves me correct.
Judging by your comments, I'm betting the chances are increasing dramatically that my first statement is true. Go back to school, Junior!
To touch on your point about redirecting a url not being a crime: If your redirection causes the target to loose communication (as was the case here), it is theft of services. VERY MUCH illegal. The ends do NOT justify the means.
This is what you are clearly incapable of understanding. Redirecting a URL is simply that... redirecting a URL. They are not generating any traffic to the target site... someone else is. THOSE people are responsible for theft of service, not Blue Security. Why can't you get the fact of root cause through your thick skull? As I said, if Blue Security did it intentionally, they are guilty of being dicks, nothing more. The criminals are the ones orchestrating the DDoS.
So no, it's not "VERY MUCH illegal," no matter how much you want it to be, the law states otherwise. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Your UID being lower than mine also means nothing. Small slahsdot UID's have appeared on ebay in the past. How am I to be sure you haven't purchased it?
Because you can read back through my post history and see that my posting style has remained pretty much the same since the beginning. Duh.
This is the end of the conversation. You are worth no more of my time.
Ahh yes, the tired old response to someone who's been pwned. GG sir! Plzdrivethru thx.
Jesus H. Christ on a crutch... are you fucking dense or what? I didn't think anyone could possibly be as obtuse as you seem to be and still be capable of operating a computer.
How on earth do you possibly equate the statement that "Redirecting a URL is not vandalism" with "It's ok to be a dick to your neighbor." Are you just pretending to be stupid to troll, or are you really that incapable of critical thinking?
There are two statements made here, that you seem to have tried to graft together to support your ludicrous point.
The first statement is "Redirecting a URL is not vandalism." It's not. Please tell me how you think it's vandalism. Once you have that thought in your head, try to keep it there while you go look up what exactly vandalism is. Now compare what it IS and what you THINK it is. Are they the same thing? Go ahead, give it a shot, I'll wait.
Now that you've done that, I could have saved you some time, the correct answer is 'No, they are not.'
Good, now that we've got that fact out of the way, lets see the other statement you are using in conjunction with the above, "So redirecting a DDOS attack from Blue Security to communityhosting.net seems to be consistent with your statement that it is not harmful or wrong."
Where did I say that it is not harmful or wrong? Oh... that's right, I didn't. I said it wasn't illegal. I said "your neighbors will probably think you are a dick." I also said that it is unethical (read: NOT OK, duh) to do so.
oh so great one, of which I am not worthy to dwell in your cyberspace.
You're goddamned right you aren't worthy to dwell in my cyberspace. Fucktards like you should not be allowed anywhere near a computer, much less on the internet.
Your disapproval haunts me and leaves me flaccid, I fear I will not be able to perform my carnal duties to your wife. That saddens me because I so dearly wanted to be your friend.
Ahh, a wife joke. That's almost as good as a "Yo mama" joke! Wow... dude, do you write your own material, or does someone from the 3rd grade write it for you?
I know you wanted to be my friend, but I am far, far too manly for you. My balls are so huge they dwarf the largest ball of twine in Minnesota like the earth dwarfs the moon. They are so large, they have their own gravitational pull. There is simply no way a mere mortal like yourself could ever comprehend the entire granduer of my sac in one lifetime; it would take you at least ten. I don't have that kind of time... so no, you can never be my friend, nor can you ever know me. You are simply not evolved enough; you are not on the same plane of existence. You can not comprehend even a fraction of my awesomeness. I am sorry. I truely am... but you should probably just go kill yourself now... the crushing depression you will feel after reading my words that I have deigned to bestow up on you will eat at you for the rest of your short and pitiful life.
Bow before me, and I may allow you to gaze upon a small portion of my granduer for a moment longer.
Is it okay for Blue to redirect the next DDOS to communityhosting.net? I hear it is fast and reliable.
Show me one place in this thread that I've said it was ok, and I will agree that it's ok.
Again, another idiot with zero reading comprehension skills! Yay for the iNtarW3b!
God, I wish you idiots would go back to AOL and leave the people with intelligence alone.
My analogy was spot on. You are a clueless noob who can't fathom that an analogy is to illustrate the faliciousness of the arguement in question, it is not meant to be a 1:1 comparison.
You also appear to have a reading comprehension problem in so far as I said nothing about it being OK to swap house addresses, that's a product of your own limited ability to understand written English. I said the person swapping house numbers is not committing the crime; the person robbing the house is. Regardless of whether or not the act of switching addresses is illegal in the physical world, the act of redirecting your URL to another IP is not illegal anywhere in the world. Thus, the analogy is spot on and your limited mental facilities are unable to comprehend the difference between an analogy and a direct comparison.
I'm sorry that you are unable to understand simple concepts like this, but the failure is in yourself (or education) not in the analogy.
Lets see who the young one is here... your UserID is 468134, mine is 72977. Yeahhh... I'm gonna have to go with you being the one that's too young to be here with adults. In fact, I'm gonna go so far as to say I've been working in the computing industry longer than you've been alive. So scat, noob, you aren't allowed at the adult table anymore.
Don't be fucking pedantic. It's an analogy, buy a clue.
Redirecting a URL is not vandalism.
I wouldn't necessarily say you are wrong that it's Blue Security's fault, either through negligence or intentional thought... but to say they are the ones causin the DDoS is ridiculous.
They are not sending out the offending packets, the spammer is.
Is it unethical to redirect the DDoS you are getting hit with? Yep, I'd say so if you do it intentionally.
Is it illegal? Nope, not in any sense of the word. The people perpetrating the crime are the spammers, and they are the ones performing the illegal act.
It's no different than someone calling you up on the phone and telling you that you're going to be robbed tonight while you're out on the town. Before you leave, you switch the address on your house to your neighbors, and when you leave, the robbers break into your neighbors house. You sure are a dick, but you didn't do anything illegal. Your neighbors probably won't be happy with you, but they have no legal recourse, except to perhaps fling dog poo in your yard.
As opposed to the Republicans, who have been breeding generations of warfare addicts.
Six of one, half dozen of the other. They both suck the life out of the country.
Ahh yes... because New Orleans was such a lovely place to be before hand! I mean... generations of welfare addicts, drug pushers and users, a crappy public education system, etc...
Yes indeed, it's going to be worse now!
If NOLA wasn't such a crappy place to begin with, you wouldn't have this problem with the "neocons" now, would you?
If your vision of the future of NOLA comes true, how is that any worse than the festering pit of crap that was NOLA to begin with? I use to have to travel to New Orleans a lot on business... what a grungy, grimey, crappy place to live. Lots of history, yes... but I sure as hell didn't have any interest in seeing any of it.
If and when this does go to legal grounds, it will most likely be a huge landmark case that could open the floodgates for other cities to establish a municiple wireless system.
If it's handled improperly, and gets shut down, it will be a serious blow to any in roads already established toward providing free, community wireless projects. This would be a terrible crime, and once again, a reason the US would fall further behind in the broadband arena. The cable companies and Bell's already have an effective monopoly over much of the US, simply because they are the only carrier/provider in the area offering Broadband, and you simply can't go to someone else for that. Wireless takes away this monopoly, and boy are they pissed.
Man, I wish I could mod you higher than 5. You wrote basically everything I was going to write about why I dislike unions. To me, they are the embodiment of laziness and get paid ridiculous amounts of money for doing little to no work.
Does anyone have an example page that is a result of this alogrithm? The article is a little sparse on details or functionality, and you can't see anything if you go to the website.
From what I've read, I've tried to come up with stuff that I'd put in the first 5 links to give to the site, and I'm having trouble. I don't necessarily like to view the same things or same types of things from day to day, so I'm not sure how useful that'd be...