: However, obfuscating your identity during a : criminal act is immoral and unethical
Not necessarily by my morals and ethics. I desperately need to start my own country. Preferably with as little people as possible in it Like that planet Aurora in _Foundation and Earth_ by Isaac Asimov. Those guys had it good.
Yes, but with enough expertise and skill, it might be thouroughly anonymous, but you have a point. Of couse modern forensics are starting to scare me. Write a note, they've got the obvious fingerprints, hair and handwriting. But they can trace things like paper and pencil too.. kind of like in Gattaca...
Most people dont realize it, but these laws are more than 200 years old. Many, such as not killing, result from a moral code set during the Dark Ages. These laws were set up by the church for peons to follow while the Nobility went around doing whatever they wanted because God said they could. So much for seperation of church and state...
An Napster user who READS THE DOCUMENTATION knows both how to TURN OFF SHARING of your mp3s and to limit the directories Napster looks in for mp3s. Because of this, I share NO songs, but have several hundred on my hard drive.
Most people refuse to admit that they are doing anything wrong. I do admit that. I am copying their songs for personal gain. I want to listen to their music and NOT pay for it. If I do buy a CD (which I do occaisonally) it is NOT to support the artist, but so I can get hard to find songs.
I do not feel as you do that intellectual property cannot be copyrighted. It can, and should. It is the artists creation, just like painting or scultpures. It is the same thing as quoting from a book. According to your belief system, it is ok to steal images from companies that sell production-quality art, like Corbis. I admit that it is their property, and I also admit that I am taking it without giving them anything in return.
Most modern people have in incredibly hard time admitting that they are doing something illegal. Everyone tries to justify it with some lame excuse. I am honest and admit that I have none! I pirate because I don't want to pay.
Sometimes its a thin line between piracy and not piracy. For instance, in the world of American anime, American audiences either learn Japanese or depend on American redistributers to translate Japanese shows. Only a small portion can be translated, leaving many new programs (as well as lesser-known older ones) untranslated for Americans. So what some people do, is subtitle the anime themselves and redistribute for a small fee to audiences in America, usually just enough to cover the cost of shipping the the tape (called Fansubbing). Fansubbing causes no company to loose money, because in raw Japanese few would be able to understand it, and no American redistrobution company has liscenced it, so, is it piracy? Most people don't think so... including me. But the line is very close indeed.
It doesn't matter what you call it, stealing or pirating or bootlegging. But it is NOT sharing... you are taking something that does not belong to you. You should not have it, because you have not paid the authors for your right to use it. You can call it piracy or stealing, and it doesn't change anything.
I don't understand why some people can't come to terms that they are stealing. I have, and I don't really care that I am.
:i mean, you may not agree with copyright law, but :that doesn't make it null. copyright law is still :law, and 'sharing' copywritten material is still :piracy, which is illegal.
Well, now other countries dont even have to ask us for help. At the first suspicion of threat the US shows up at your doorstep with quarter billion troops and smart bombs specially designed to blow up Chinese Embassies. And when we're done protecting our interests we'll smear the whole thing with propaganda to make it look like we did a wonderful job. Heres a sample scenario to illustrate my point.
Sample Scenario: Two Saudi-Arabian goat-herders get drunk and start banging on an oil well with sticks and rocks. The US immediatly deploys the Atlantic Fleet to prevent this unethical genocide. US News services pick up the story, giving full praise to the army and revealing our battle plans to the Saudis. They find some particular hard luck case in the Army, put his picture up in the little box on the top-right of the screen, and accompany it with a half-hour of interviews about how this brave soldier overcame grave danger and used his wits to survive for 2 weeks after being stranded in enemy territory. US audiences rejoice at our successful war effort... several movies are made that have no basis in reality, but reinforce in audiences that the US did a great thing in the Middle East again.
Why are you debating history like this? The fact of the matter is that the Russian lands ended up collapsing in upon itself in less than a hundred years. At the time the US and Russia were allies, we'd have no reason to start fighting against each other. So pitting the US and Russian armies against each other would make no sense at that time in history. Its not like there was some critical decision made to "not conquer Russia," because typically you don't do that to allies.
Before the Internet was popular and people knew what it was, the only laws concerning it were conversions of other ones. Now that being online is the cool thing to do, all the governments decides that they must regulate it. This is not logical. The internet is a commodity. If a country does not agree with the rules set by the organizations that run it, do not allow your citizens to connect to the internet, go start your own. Yes I realize that these countries see it as their benifit to be online, but either agree with ALL of it or NONE of it and don't try to make some arbitrary line telling other people what they can and cannot do.
Frankly, I think governments should just give up trying to regulate what people see on the internet. Trying to censor what someone can see is just a waste of time on the internet. Its like trying to stop a damn breaking with scotch tape (no offense to the scotts).
As for having you citizens bring down computer networks, that is still reasonable to try to stop because it just pisses off everyone involved. But it is also reasonable to stop your citizens from actually *buying* the Nazi stuff. That seems a much less retarded place to draw the line.
Anyways, FreeBSD would not be what you'd use to run a firewall, which is what they're doing. If you want something secure use OpenBSD. You must of heard this before, its mentioned every time someone talks about BSD in general.
1. I'd say that they don't want to limit thier functionality. A tweaked firewall will let them keep useful schtuff turned on.
So that when the firewall is breached, they lose everything? Uh-uh for me.
What are you talking about? Your assumption is incredibly illogical.
2.If the firewall uses its CPU to deflect the crap, then the web servers wont have to deal with it.
So put the firewall into service as another server. You can't create more CPU by dedicating some of it to being a firewall.
That defeats the purpose of having a firewall. And what are you talking about creating CPU cycles... if its on a different machine YOUR NOT CREATING CYCLES. Your freeing up tasks from the web server.
3. They have a BSD uberadmin who can make that BSD box walk the dog. If something else wierd goes on, it'll be in his back yard. Linux expertise is more widely available. This is just a flame.
Slashdot Mirror
Seagrams owns Universal Music, a very LARGE music productions company.
I'd pay good money to see you eat your own shit. Or rather, I'd pirate a movie of someone else paying you good money to eat your own shit.
: However, obfuscating your identity during a
: criminal act is immoral and unethical
Not necessarily by my morals and ethics. I desperately need to start my own country. Preferably with as little people as possible in it Like that planet Aurora in _Foundation and Earth_ by Isaac Asimov. Those guys had it good.
I bet nylons aren't.
Yes, but with enough expertise and skill, it might be thouroughly anonymous, but you have a point. Of couse modern forensics are starting to scare me. Write a note, they've got the obvious fingerprints, hair and handwriting. But they can trace things like paper and pencil too.. kind of like in Gattaca...
: That's just an legal construct they
: made up so they could make money off us.
Welcome to capitalism! What other reason would you try to sell something in a capitalistic society? You should be beat in the head with a clue.
Yes, the time for revolution is at hand. Grrr...
Most people dont realize it, but these laws are more than 200 years old. Many, such as not killing, result from a moral code set during the Dark Ages. These laws were set up by the church for peons to follow while the Nobility went around doing whatever they wanted because God said they could. So much for seperation of church and state...
An Napster user who READS THE DOCUMENTATION knows both how to TURN OFF SHARING of your mp3s and to limit the directories Napster looks in for mp3s. Because of this, I share NO songs, but have several hundred on my hard drive.
Most people refuse to admit that they are doing anything wrong. I do admit that. I am copying their songs for personal gain. I want to listen to their music and NOT pay for it. If I do buy a CD (which I do occaisonally) it is NOT to support the artist, but so I can get hard to find songs.
I do not feel as you do that intellectual property cannot be copyrighted. It can, and should. It is the artists creation, just like painting or scultpures. It is the same thing as quoting from a book. According to your belief system, it is ok to steal images from companies that sell production-quality art, like Corbis. I admit that it is their property, and I also admit that I am taking it without giving them anything in return.
Most modern people have in incredibly hard time admitting that they are doing something illegal. Everyone tries to justify it with some lame excuse. I am honest and admit that I have none! I pirate because I don't want to pay.
A lot of the stuff I do download is stuff that I could afford but would never consider buying in a store...
Magic Folders for windows... It keeps track of where the folders exist, but the main filesystem doesn't know about them.
Sometimes its a thin line between piracy and not piracy. For instance, in the world of American anime, American audiences either learn Japanese or depend on American redistributers to translate Japanese shows. Only a small portion can be translated, leaving many new programs (as well as lesser-known older ones) untranslated for Americans. So what some people do, is subtitle the anime themselves and redistribute for a small fee to audiences in America, usually just enough to cover the cost of shipping the the tape (called Fansubbing). Fansubbing causes no company to loose money, because in raw Japanese few would be able to understand it, and no American redistrobution company has liscenced it, so, is it piracy? Most people don't think so... including me. But the line is very close indeed.
: and used a Magic HTML Ray-Gun
HTML, whats that got to do with this?
It doesn't matter what you call it, stealing or pirating or bootlegging. But it is NOT sharing... you are taking something that does not belong to you. You should not have it, because you have not paid the authors for your right to use it. You can call it piracy or stealing, and it doesn't change anything.
I don't understand why some people can't come to terms that they are stealing. I have, and I don't really care that I am.
:i mean, you may not agree with copyright law, but
:that doesn't make it null. copyright law is still
:law, and 'sharing' copywritten material is still
:piracy, which is illegal.
not in Thailand it doesn't
Oh yeah, well try installing Win2K on a pacemaker! Oh boy, did THAT take some time!
Technically those weren't viruses, but properly written macros that just do something less than ethical...
At least the Watchtower is coherant.
Well, now other countries dont even have to ask us for help. At the first suspicion of threat the US shows up at your doorstep with quarter billion troops and smart bombs specially designed to blow up Chinese Embassies. And when we're done protecting our interests we'll smear the whole thing with propaganda to make it look like we did a wonderful job. Heres a sample scenario to illustrate my point.
Sample Scenario: Two Saudi-Arabian goat-herders get drunk and start banging on an oil well with sticks and rocks. The US immediatly deploys the Atlantic Fleet to prevent this unethical genocide. US News services pick up the story, giving full praise to the army and revealing our battle plans to the Saudis. They find some particular hard luck case in the Army, put his picture up in the little box on the top-right of the screen, and accompany it with a half-hour of interviews about how this brave soldier overcame grave danger and used his wits to survive for 2 weeks after being stranded in enemy territory. US audiences rejoice at our successful war effort... several movies are made that have no basis in reality, but reinforce in audiences that the US did a great thing in the Middle East again.
Why are you debating history like this? The fact of the matter is that the Russian lands ended up collapsing in upon itself in less than a hundred years. At the time the US and Russia were allies, we'd have no reason to start fighting against each other. So pitting the US and Russian armies against each other would make no sense at that time in history. Its not like there was some critical decision made to "not conquer Russia," because typically you don't do that to allies.
Before the Internet was popular and people knew what it was, the only laws concerning it were conversions of other ones. Now that being online is the cool thing to do, all the governments decides that they must regulate it. This is not logical. The internet is a commodity. If a country does not agree with the rules set by the organizations that run it, do not allow your citizens to connect to the internet, go start your own. Yes I realize that these countries see it as their benifit to be online, but either agree with ALL of it or NONE of it and don't try to make some arbitrary line telling other people what they can and cannot do.
Frankly, I think governments should just give up trying to regulate what people see on the internet. Trying to censor what someone can see is just a waste of time on the internet. Its like trying to stop a damn breaking with scotch tape (no offense to the scotts).
As for having you citizens bring down computer networks, that is still reasonable to try to stop because it just pisses off everyone involved. But it is also reasonable to stop your citizens from actually *buying* the Nazi stuff. That seems a much less retarded place to draw the line.
Are you calling me a hothead?
Why is this moderated down?
Anyways, FreeBSD would not be what you'd use to run a firewall, which is what they're doing. If you want something secure use OpenBSD. You must of heard this before, its mentioned every time someone talks about BSD in general.
1. I'd say that they don't want to limit thier functionality. A tweaked firewall will let them keep useful schtuff turned on.
So that when the firewall is breached, they lose everything? Uh-uh for me.
What are you talking about? Your assumption is incredibly illogical.
2.If the firewall uses its CPU to deflect the crap, then the web servers wont have to deal with it.
So put the firewall into service as another server. You can't create more CPU by dedicating some of it to being a firewall.
That defeats the purpose of having a firewall. And what are you talking about creating CPU cycles... if its on a different machine YOUR NOT CREATING CYCLES. Your freeing up tasks from the web server.
3. They have a BSD uberadmin who can make that BSD box walk the dog. If something else wierd goes on, it'll be in his back yard. Linux expertise is more widely available. This is just a flame.