You accuse OP of trolling, but I find your comment to be much more antagonizing. He make an interesting point, whether you agree with software patents or not. (I don't.) Not every dissenting opinion is a troll, and to play that card reduces your credibility to those who might be more ignorant about the subject.
No, it's up try this EU proxy 130.75.87.83:3124. I think you will see that it's working just fine outside the US. They couldn't get it shut down, because wikileaks is hosted in Sweden on the same ISP the pirate bay uses, so maybe the secret service has been in touch with all the major US ISPs, arranging to have our access to blocked. Can anyone in the US, get to wikileaks.org? What ISP are you using? I'm getting blocked on SBC dsl.
I'm a Beaumont resident myself. I'm also a very happy dsl subscrriber. I've managed to get 890KB down from my $35 a month connection. So, you can just go fuck yourself time warner.
lol, "using Windows or a cellphone at the level of current politicians." Yea, I wish I could use my cell phone as well as one of those brilliant politicians! Come on, you just compared what takes a week to learn to what takes a lifetime.
Why don't you just use a pdf viewer like autodesk's free voloview? If you did, you wouldn't have to export your drawings as a pdf every time a small change is made.
That argument would be more convincing if it would be demonstrated to be true. I mean, that's one of the exact same arguments proponents of the deathpenalty use to justify it
You make an interesting point however, I would argue that most capital offences are crimes of passion. The motivation for crimes like murder are very different from the motivation for crimes like spamming. People spam because it seems logical to do so. Most murders are committed based on illogical thinking. It would come as no surprise to me if I saw proof that doubling the sentence for murder did little to reduce the crime. I think that most American spammers weigh the risk versus benefit ratio of their actions thoroughly. You should realize, by no means do I suggest an outrageously long sentence like 65 years. My point is simply that I would have no problem with the sentence for spamming exceeding the sentence for murder if that was proven to be an effective deterrent and, that sentencing guidelines should not be thought up solely based on the heinousness of a crime for the sake of "consistency." For the record I oppose the death penalty and think it's barbaric and, whoever said beggars should be jailed ought to be beaten with sticks.:-)
There is a reason people talk about how rapist shouldn't be shot in the face because murderers get off easier than that. It is because if rapist get shot in the face and murderers got out in a few years it would be a huge incentive to commit a rape and murder rather than just a rape. What doesn't make since is not taking in to account all the reasons we put people in prisons, in hopes that we can be consistent with our criminals. We put people in prison to rehabilitate them, punish them, and to convince people who are not criminals that they don't want to end up like that guy in prison. When you think about that last reason you have to consider other factors beyond how heinous a crime is. What I'm getting at is spammers are hard to catch, it's easy to spam and, it's very profitable. To balance the equation and make spamming no longer such an attractive deal you have to be very harsh and, personally I have no problem putting putting spammers in prison twice as long as murderers if that's what it takes to make people respect the risk they would be taking to start a spamming business.
There is a reason people talk about how rapist shouldn't be shot in the face because murderers get off easier than that. It is because if rapist get shot in the face and murderers got out in a few years it would be a huge incentive to commit a rape and murder rather than just a rape. What doesn't make since is not taking in to account all the reasons we put people in prisons, in hope that we can be consistent with our criminals. We put people in prison to rehabilitate them, punish them, and to convince people who are not criminals that they don't want to end up like that guy in prison. When you think about that last reason you have to consider other factors beyond how heinous a crime is. What I'm getting at is spammers are hard to catch, it's easy to spam and, it's very profitable. To balance the equation and make spamming no longer such an attractive deal you have to be very harsh and, personally I have no problem putting putting spammers in prison twice as long as murderers if that's what it takes to make people respect the risk they would be taking to start a spamming business.
I wont say he should be sentenced to death but, I can see how someone could think that. By my rough estimate every ~3 million emails this guy sent negated an entire human life based on the premise that humans on average live 80 years and it takes 15 seconds to find and delete a spam message. I say 65 years sounds pretty reasonable when you think about it this way.
I would say if anything, it's more like forcing someone to take an aids cure against their will. The fact a number of people have aids threatens me, the fact a number of people have cancer does not. I will either get cancer or wont but, it certainly wont be because someone was incautious with their body and I got fucked over for it.
The better solution would be a social one. Quarantine the computer at the gateway; disallow it from establishing outgoing connections except to certain ports (80, 8080, etc). When the user tries to load a website, redirect them to a page that illuminates the situation. I realize that this requires tremendous cooperation on the part of the ISP, but it's a better solution than cyber-vigilantism.
I have to disagree, I think a better plan is one that would actually happen. No ISP is going to compete better with another ISP by angering their customers, making them sit around and, read about why they can't use the internet they paid for until they jump through the ISP's hoops when all they want to do is find out what time a movie is playing as they are about to walk out the door. I seriously can not see the cost of all the support calls, lost customers, etc. that would inevitably result, being less than the cost of having botnets running on your network. If you hope for any major ISP agreeing to something like this out of philanthropic efforts, you are a true optimist.
Well, the nursing industry is booming, new nurses are needed all the time. It makes since to try to rid the nursing industry of the "girl job" connotations. They need people. Computer Science on the other hand, people are constantly complaining about losing their jobs to outsourcing. Also, why should it matter any more that there is diversity within industries of highly skilled people than within industries that require less training like hairdressing?
I disagree, there is plenty lack of precedent for online sales tax, maybe you live in a state (or outside the states) that has a sales tax for online purchases but, I don't. If your suggesting I be taxed in some other manner than a sales tax, why then don't I have to pay a tax when I transfer money with paypal. That's not consistent. BTW, I live in Texas, we don't have an income tax.
It's the difference between an amature/hobbiest and a professional. Once you start making real world money off things you are at that point a professional and income from your profession should be taxed.
Why should everything new be taxed as soon as it becomes evident that there is real money in doing so. If the government needs the money, why didn't it need the money yesterday? If it needed it yesterday why weren't taxes raised yesterday.
I think your ignoring the fact that while the content of the news stories or plots of whatever video game may be fabrications or lies, the video games and news stories themselves do exist. Learning to distinguish fact from fiction is a valuable ability to have. Of course, pure fiction has educational value beyond teaching the lesson not to believe everything you see. Fiction opens your mind to new possibilities. The more absurd the idea the more it opens your mind.
How can the US be slammed for protectionism when we don't let anyone in the US to do online gambling?
Totally untrue, if you are a resident of Connecticut, Nevada or a few other states you can gamble online at the state sponsored gambling site!
This also touches on broader "moral issues". If a country doesn't want something to come in because it objects on moral grounds, who is another country to sue about it? It's like Columbia complaining to the WTO that we ban cocaine.
This is exactly why we should never legislate morality. Who the hell has the right. I never understood how someone could say someone else doesn't have the right to kill themselves if they want to. I know all the counter arguments. "but what about the mentally ill!" If we take away the mentally ills right to kill them selves we open our selves up to more and more laws to protect people from themselves, you have to clearly draw the line at the one place that makes any rational since otherwise peoples rights become a matter of debate. The obvious choice for this line is as much freedom as possible. Laws restricting a person's freedom should ONLY be made in order to protect one persons freedoms from another's. Laws against rape, murder, stealing, etc. these protect people's rights. Laws like the new federal law that prohibits people from eating horse because, "it is an American icon," do not protect anyones rights. That law is the appitamy of irrational, close-minded, morality based laws. It was literally made because people had nothing better to do. This law along with drug laws and, other laws that restrict personal freedoms without protecting other peoples personal freedoms in a more than equitable trade off should all be abolished. It's not a matter of whether you believe doing drugs or eating horse is right or wrong, the question is do you have the right to tell other people what to eat, ingest, do, etc. Protecting a minority opinion is important because one day you might be part of the minority who thinks you should be able to take insulin but, others may argue that wrong because it's a product of animal experimentation.
(Some may argue that regular gambling is legal in parts of the US, but I think online gambling falls into a different realm. Because of the ease of access, it could lead to an major increase in gambling.)
Some may argue no one should be allowed to live within 30 miles of a casino, otherwise it will be just to convenient. Don't legislate morality!
"The comments wouldn't be complete without some idiot bitching about a lossless format"
And what's gotten up your ass. Yes lower quality music for the same price is a bad deal.
Most consumers don't know what FLAC or SHN is.
Yea, so they shouldn't care right, and we should all have rootkits on our computer too. Just because most people don't know what flac or shn is doesn't mean they don't want it.
Wrong it's (it is) costing (paying) them (us)(him) plenty (lots). They (the RIAA (Record Industry Association of America)) (you) are paving (setting precedent)) the way for more and more (not less) (frivolous (unfounded) lawsuits) (civil cases) against other (not the same) victims (us). We (them) shouldn't (should not) (stand) idly (by while our freedoms (rights)) are eroded (washed) away(. I for one am sick) (don't (do not) like it) and tired of (their ridiculousness (it's (it is)ridiculous)). (We )(((you) (I)) need (to) take (a)) ((((stand.))))
Slashdot Mirror
You accuse OP of trolling, but I find your comment to be much more antagonizing. He make an interesting point, whether you agree with software patents or not. (I don't.) Not every dissenting opinion is a troll, and to play that card reduces your credibility to those who might be more ignorant about the subject.
You obviously didn't see the "inb4." It's too late for that dude.
No, it's up try this EU proxy 130.75.87.83:3124. I think you will see that it's working just fine outside the US. They couldn't get it shut down, because wikileaks is hosted in Sweden on the same ISP the pirate bay uses, so maybe the secret service has been in touch with all the major US ISPs, arranging to have our access to blocked. Can anyone in the US, get to wikileaks.org? What ISP are you using? I'm getting blocked on SBC dsl.
I'm a Beaumont resident myself. I'm also a very happy dsl subscrriber. I've managed to get 890KB down from my $35 a month connection. So, you can just go fuck yourself time warner.
lol, "using Windows or a cellphone at the level of current politicians." Yea, I wish I could use my cell phone as well as one of those brilliant politicians! Come on, you just compared what takes a week to learn to what takes a lifetime.
Why don't you just use a pdf viewer like autodesk's free voloview? If you did, you wouldn't have to export your drawings as a pdf every time a small change is made.
The jury's job is to do what ever the fuck they want to. Take a look at this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
You make an interesting point however, I would argue that most capital offences are crimes of passion. The motivation for crimes like murder are very different from the motivation for crimes like spamming. People spam because it seems logical to do so. Most murders are committed based on illogical thinking. It would come as no surprise to me if I saw proof that doubling the sentence for murder did little to reduce the crime. I think that most American spammers weigh the risk versus benefit ratio of their actions thoroughly. You should realize, by no means do I suggest an outrageously long sentence like 65 years. My point is simply that I would have no problem with the sentence for spamming exceeding the sentence for murder if that was proven to be an effective deterrent and, that sentencing guidelines should not be thought up solely based on the heinousness of a crime for the sake of "consistency." For the record I oppose the death penalty and think it's barbaric and, whoever said beggars should be jailed ought to be beaten with sticks.
There is a reason people talk about how rapist shouldn't be shot in the face because murderers get off easier than that. It is because if rapist get shot in the face and murderers got out in a few years it would be a huge incentive to commit a rape and murder rather than just a rape. What doesn't make since is not taking in to account all the reasons we put people in prisons, in hopes that we can be consistent with our criminals. We put people in prison to rehabilitate them, punish them, and to convince people who are not criminals that they don't want to end up like that guy in prison. When you think about that last reason you have to consider other factors beyond how heinous a crime is. What I'm getting at is spammers are hard to catch, it's easy to spam and, it's very profitable. To balance the equation and make spamming no longer such an attractive deal you have to be very harsh and, personally I have no problem putting putting spammers in prison twice as long as murderers if that's what it takes to make people respect the risk they would be taking to start a spamming business.
There is a reason people talk about how rapist shouldn't be shot in the face because murderers get off easier than that. It is because if rapist get shot in the face and murderers got out in a few years it would be a huge incentive to commit a rape and murder rather than just a rape. What doesn't make since is not taking in to account all the reasons we put people in prisons, in hope that we can be consistent with our criminals. We put people in prison to rehabilitate them, punish them, and to convince people who are not criminals that they don't want to end up like that guy in prison. When you think about that last reason you have to consider other factors beyond how heinous a crime is. What I'm getting at is spammers are hard to catch, it's easy to spam and, it's very profitable. To balance the equation and make spamming no longer such an attractive deal you have to be very harsh and, personally I have no problem putting putting spammers in prison twice as long as murderers if that's what it takes to make people respect the risk they would be taking to start a spamming business.
I wont say he should be sentenced to death but, I can see how someone could think that. By my rough estimate every ~3 million emails this guy sent negated an entire human life based on the premise that humans on average live 80 years and it takes 15 seconds to find and delete a spam message. I say 65 years sounds pretty reasonable when you think about it this way.
People aren't required by law to buy a passport and carry it all the time.
I have to disagree, I think a better plan is one that would actually happen. No ISP is going to compete better with another ISP by angering their customers, making them sit around and, read about why they can't use the internet they paid for until they jump through the ISP's hoops when all they want to do is find out what time a movie is playing as they are about to walk out the door. I seriously can not see the cost of all the support calls, lost customers, etc. that would inevitably result, being less than the cost of having botnets running on your network. If you hope for any major ISP agreeing to something like this out of philanthropic efforts, you are a true optimist.
Bullshit! After one year you get great health insurance.
Well, the nursing industry is booming, new nurses are needed all the time. It makes since to try to rid the nursing industry of the "girl job" connotations. They need people. Computer Science on the other hand, people are constantly complaining about losing their jobs to outsourcing. Also, why should it matter any more that there is diversity within industries of highly skilled people than within industries that require less training like hairdressing?
To clarify your point, it is the responsibility of the seller to collect sales tax of course, it's not a buys tax after all
I disagree, there is plenty lack of precedent for online sales tax, maybe you live in a state (or outside the states) that has a sales tax for online purchases but, I don't. If your suggesting I be taxed in some other manner than a sales tax, why then don't I have to pay a tax when I transfer money with paypal. That's not consistent. BTW, I live in Texas, we don't have an income tax.
Why should everything new be taxed as soon as it becomes evident that there is real money in doing so. If the government needs the money, why didn't it need the money yesterday? If it needed it yesterday why weren't taxes raised yesterday.
I think your ignoring the fact that while the content of the news stories or plots of whatever video game may be fabrications or lies, the video games and news stories themselves do exist. Learning to distinguish fact from fiction is a valuable ability to have. Of course, pure fiction has educational value beyond teaching the lesson not to believe everything you see. Fiction opens your mind to new possibilities. The more absurd the idea the more it opens your mind.
Totally untrue, if you are a resident of Connecticut, Nevada or a few other states you can gamble online at the state sponsored gambling site!
This is exactly why we should never legislate morality. Who the hell has the right. I never understood how someone could say someone else doesn't have the right to kill themselves if they want to. I know all the counter arguments. "but what about the mentally ill!" If we take away the mentally ills right to kill them selves we open our selves up to more and more laws to protect people from themselves, you have to clearly draw the line at the one place that makes any rational since otherwise peoples rights become a matter of debate. The obvious choice for this line is as much freedom as possible. Laws restricting a person's freedom should ONLY be made in order to protect one persons freedoms from another's. Laws against rape, murder, stealing, etc. these protect people's rights. Laws like the new federal law that prohibits people from eating horse because, "it is an American icon," do not protect anyones rights. That law is the appitamy of irrational, close-minded, morality based laws. It was literally made because people had nothing better to do. This law along with drug laws and, other laws that restrict personal freedoms without protecting other peoples personal freedoms in a more than equitable trade off should all be abolished. It's not a matter of whether you believe doing drugs or eating horse is right or wrong, the question is do you have the right to tell other people what to eat, ingest, do, etc. Protecting a minority opinion is important because one day you might be part of the minority who thinks you should be able to take insulin but, others may argue that wrong because it's a product of animal experimentation.
Some may argue no one should be allowed to live within 30 miles of a casino, otherwise it will be just to convenient. Don't legislate morality!
And what's gotten up your ass. Yes lower quality music for the same price is a bad deal.
Yea, so they shouldn't care right, and we should all have rootkits on our computer too. Just because most people don't know what flac or shn is doesn't mean they don't want it.
Moderator, what if this was just some guy who enjoys listening to music released at no cost? There IS free music out there you know.
Ha! It doesn't cost 30 cents to send the entire file. This is just milking people for all they can get.
Can you make a self modifying javascript application? I don't think it's possible.
Wrong it's (it is) costing (paying) them (us)(him) plenty (lots). They (the RIAA (Record Industry Association of America)) (you) are paving (setting precedent)) the way for more and more (not less) (frivolous (unfounded) lawsuits) (civil cases) against other (not the same) victims (us). We (them) shouldn't (should not) (stand) idly (by while our freedoms (rights)) are eroded (washed) away(. I for one am sick) (don't (do not) like it) and tired of (their ridiculousness (it's (it is)ridiculous)). (We )(((you) (I)) need (to) take (a)) ((((stand.))))