"Get up off their network, you didn't have permission to be accessing with and/or generating traffic on it."
You might make the same argument to keep the ethnic group of your choice from using the public highways, or even from using their own private driveways.
The Cease&Desistee didn't apparently break any laws. They did, in my opinion, throw away their own rights by complying with the C&D, but that's their own misfortune. But you cannot support the argument that a P2P system uses any network properties of Kazaa or whoever. You'd have to make the same argument that they are "stealing" from AT&T or Comcast or C&W or Earthlink or whoseever wire their traffic goes through. P2P users are paying their monthly bills for their cable modems or whatever.
By your standards, I ought to be able to deny YOUR permission to use the Internet for whatever traffic you use it for, past your LAN anyway.
What is it about my or your P2P traffic that gives Kazaa an interest or consumes a resource belonging to them?
What rights do you suppose have been infringed here? I submit the only rights issue is the one where the right to due process of law is weakened a little bit whenever anyone decides to throw it in the garbage, when they back down and comply the demands on a letter as if it's the first time they've ever seen a bond paper letterhead, and are surely *doomed* if they've gotten a (gasp) *lawyer* to send them a *letter*. Oh my god. A LETTER! We'd better PANIC! And while we're panicking, we'd better make sure we use our right to defend ourselves as shitpaper and flush it!
Stand up. At least make sure the people who send you a C&D letter are serious enough to show up at a hearing, and interested enough to do what is required to get a court order. If it goes that far, you're no more screwed than if you stand down at the first threat, and you're better off for having at least exercised your rights as a person who lives under a system of laws, rather than a coward who lives under anarchy.
Valenti, of all the people who were in JFK's motorcade on Metro Day in '63, has enjoyed the longest career, and arguably wields the most political power today. In Oliver Stone terms, "Who Benefitted?" you'd better consider Jack Valenti.
Yeah ok. I understand that. And it may be a problem in the future. But right now, the country is divided fairly evenly between "status quo", "opposition", and "abstention". There are a significant number of people who actually believe the current government is the result of a coup, and many more were dissatisfied by the outcome of the contraversy.
The secret ballot is *very* important. The situation it defends against was very real -- you stepped up on a platform, guarded by officers and whatever magistrate, and you "voted". Technically you were free to vote in opposition, but the pressure against doing so was enormous. It often would mean sacrificing your job or even your life.
However, we need to balance those concerns with more immediate concerns -- We actually need assurance that the democratic system is still functioning. There are people who truly believe that the conservative party has committed treason and sabotage and has installed itself in a dictatorial role. We need to avoid ANY scandal or serious contraversy in the next presidential election, or else we might find ourselves in a situation where domestic unrest is more violent and costly that Iraq! (That's not a threat, mind you. I don't advocate violence, but it surprises me we haven't seen widespread violent opposition stateside.)
"If California, or whatever state you happen to live in, concludes that Diebold electionic voting systems are crap, and yet they are implemented anyway, what are you going to do about it?"
I've already decided to use the early voting procedure. Not only does that offer an alternative, it also makes it more convenient in terms of time.
At this point, I still believe a secret ballot is utterly important, but not as important as flushing the current administration.
It scares me to think that the 2004 presidential election will again be too close to call. As we've seen and could have predicted, a too-close-to-call race will fall on the side of the conservative party.
I have no apologies to the approximately half of my countrymen who continue to support President Bush and the members of his administration.
"This is the problem: you've got a system that is rotting away, where people have to drive/walk/take the bus to a designated voting station, register, and use a computer to vote"
When every one of them could simply cast an early or absentee ballot by mail as long as a month before the election, I don't see how this argument has any merit at all. In my state, you can vote without *ever* leaving your house, and you have 90 days before the election to request the ballot, 33 days before the election to cast it.
Okay, so some people live on a bench in the bus terminal. Bet even they can get a voter reg card and a ride to the polling place.
"Cause the real criminals KNOW how to steal and not get caught."
I haven't seen Walmart loss prevention numbers but I would bet you a bag of donuts that the inside theft is orders of magnitude higher than customer shoplifting. That's just merchandise, mind you, without getting into the realm of embezzlement in the accounting office or stock scams by the execs.
What you suggest is an option that is available to the state. But people are even less active in regards to their state governments than national!
In fact, the most involvement you can expect from almost anybody, is they grudgingly vote in the national elections, usually just the ones that pick the president, and very, very few even do that.
They sure as hell aren't persuading their state legislatures to focus state policies. They're not doing *anything* political.
In the abstention of their duty of stewardship, they get the government they choose. The default choice. The "whatever, I don't give a shit" vote.
Then they polarize either adamantly FOR or vehemently AGAINST the status quo. I'm convinced this is the system the people want. It's the ultimate expression of the will of the people.
I'm expecting another "too close to call" election this time around. But then, I've gone on record many times with the view that things need to get FAR worse before people get interested in changing the system. I've also gone on record saying that "changing the system" is going to involve more than just a democratic process. I stop short of advocating violence, but I'm sure there will be plenty to go around.
Regular meters cost about $800 each, if you buy them in typical municipal rollout quantities.
The article didn't price the Montreal meters, but it does point out that each meter covers 12 spaces and neglects to mention that it no doubt results in labor reduction (lost job in entry-level law enforcement?) Notice the use of the word "meter maid" which would have the feminists marching in the streets if you said that in the US.
Annual cost for patrolling 150 spaces is $80,000. Annual revenue per 150 spaces (in Vancouver) is $140,000.
Gear boxes and engines are spent routinely at the quarter mile strip. Every suspension part that can break, will break on a rally course.
A true sports car should allow you to operate it to the breaking point, it should not limit your envelope for your safety or to keep you from breaking something. It should let you outspeed your brakes, it should let you oversteer, and it should let you put moure torque into the drivetrain than it can handle.
That comes with the understanding that if you break it by doing so, it's your fault, of course.
Many are running pine. Bunch are running mathematica/MathKernel. Few lynx sessions. None of my business really, and less of yours.
People are flaming me, and completely miss my point. 2 users on a host shouldn't be news (and it isn't).
To be fair, the particular host, which I just picked at random, is an sun4u 80. Admittedly I could have been more fair, or at least more apples-to-apples and used a BSD intel box instead. Apologies.
"The chances of BatStar seeing a dime are, well, slim as a thin dime."
I don't imagine it's about the money. This is an attack aimed at the investor mindset. Finally, FINALLY, someone who is in a leadership position has decided to call out SCO on their lies and crimes. Still a bit more subtle than I would like to see personally, but notice that this will be pretty much the first action that gets any hint of negativity into the mainstream news reports.
Until now, pretty much every report on SCO is tempered with language that makes it sound as if there is some conceivable merit to the SCO allegations against IBM and RedHat, and like it's conscionable that Darl McBride is not in prison, etc. (Unless you read Slashdot or Groklaw, which, it may suprise you to note, people who make real business decisions haven't read or even HEARD OF!)
The BayStar announcement HAS TO hit the press. It may seem less important than public statements from IBM or Novell, but those are just tech companies, meaningless in the financial world. This news item will get noticed. People who otherwise don't have a clue that there's anything amiss with SCO, hard as it is to imagine, will notice this.
If only the press had any balls, to take off the gloves and tell it like it is, spelling the facts out with the biases where they ought to be, like PJ does. A hostile treatment of SCO would sell papers and so on wouldn't it? You'd think you'd hear about this stuff, but you don't, unless you look for it in fringe places like slashdot and groklaw.
"Does this protend a soon to be expected sell-off of shares to the general public by SCO itself?"
You're sure aiming high.
I'm still waiting for the first negative assessment of SCO to appear in any mainstream press. At least anywhere that would be taken seriously by business folks. Except for Slashdot, Groklaw, and the occasional story here and there, you'd think everything was just fine.
There's hardly ever so much as a passing mention of the litigation, much less anything that would resemble allegations that McBride et al are straight-up crooks who are lying, probably committing perjury, and making fools of investors and judges as they abuse the system and take assloads of cash in the process.
It's never mentioned. Never a word about IBM, Redhad, Daryl's big mouth, the tenuous nature of their claims, etc. At least the Baystar story makes it onto the news sites. Some things can't just be airbrushed out, I suppose. Taking a hell of a long time for the tables to turn. I understand that things may be obvious to you and me (we're biased, after all), and not so obvious to others. But I don't see how you could side with SCO, given even the most perfunctory glance at the facts of the matter.
Then again, there's tens of millions of voters who plan to cast ballots to re-elect Bush in November, and it escapes me how that's possible too.
Slashdot Mirror
"Do you look forward to doing prison time of ANY duration?"
Only the State can put you in prison. Last time I checked, RIAA was not an arm of the US Government.
How many people have actually had a hearing on a RIAA lawsuit?
"I would love to see what percentage of these agregious file sharers are sharing new songs or older songs."
I want to be sued by the RIAA for filesharing my OWN music to which I hold the copyright.
"Get up off their network, you didn't have permission to be accessing with and/or generating traffic on it."
You might make the same argument to keep the ethnic group of your choice from using the public highways, or even from using their own private driveways.
The Cease&Desistee didn't apparently break any laws. They did, in my opinion, throw away their own rights by complying with the C&D, but that's their own misfortune. But you cannot support the argument that a P2P system uses any network properties of Kazaa or whoever. You'd have to make the same argument that they are "stealing" from AT&T or Comcast or C&W or Earthlink or whoseever wire their traffic goes through. P2P users are paying their monthly bills for their cable modems or whatever.
By your standards, I ought to be able to deny YOUR permission to use the Internet for whatever traffic you use it for, past your LAN anyway.
What is it about my or your P2P traffic that gives Kazaa an interest or consumes a resource belonging to them?
What rights do you suppose have been infringed here? I submit the only rights issue is the one where the right to due process of law is weakened a little bit whenever anyone decides to throw it in the garbage, when they back down and comply the demands on a letter as if it's the first time they've ever seen a bond paper letterhead, and are surely *doomed* if they've gotten a (gasp) *lawyer* to send them a *letter*. Oh my god. A LETTER! We'd better PANIC! And while we're panicking, we'd better make sure we use our right to defend ourselves as shitpaper and flush it!
Stand up. At least make sure the people who send you a C&D letter are serious enough to show up at a hearing, and interested enough to do what is required to get a court order. If it goes that far, you're no more screwed than if you stand down at the first threat, and you're better off for having at least exercised your rights as a person who lives under a system of laws, rather than a coward who lives under anarchy.
"Some sites are starting to hardcode IP addresses, in which case the hosts file is useless."
Static null routes are MUCH better than host records anyway.
Games with baseball pitching, golf swing.
Valenti, of all the people who were in JFK's motorcade on Metro Day in '63, has enjoyed the longest career, and arguably wields the most political power today. In Oliver Stone terms, "Who Benefitted?" you'd better consider Jack Valenti.
> They produce the movies, it's their call.
Well, just because you have published something, does not make you King of the World, with your opinion dictating whatever rule of law applies.
Producing a movie does not put you above the law of the land.
6510 is a 6502 with 4 extra IO lines. Nice, but not really a different processor.
Instead of saying "due to DMCA blah blah blah"
say "Enemies of free speech and opponents of a free press in your governmnet blah blah blah"
This message brought to you by a left-wing liberal openly opposed to the current order.
"Voting by mail is subject to coercion."
Yeah ok. I understand that. And it may be a problem in the future. But right now, the country is divided fairly evenly between "status quo", "opposition", and "abstention". There are a significant number of people who actually believe the current government is the result of a coup, and many more were dissatisfied by the outcome of the contraversy.
The secret ballot is *very* important. The situation it defends against was very real -- you stepped up on a platform, guarded by officers and whatever magistrate, and you "voted". Technically you were free to vote in opposition, but the pressure against doing so was enormous. It often would mean sacrificing your job or even your life.
However, we need to balance those concerns with more immediate concerns -- We actually need assurance that the democratic system is still functioning. There are people who truly believe that the conservative party has committed treason and sabotage and has installed itself in a dictatorial role. We need to avoid ANY scandal or serious contraversy in the next presidential election, or else we might find ourselves in a situation where domestic unrest is more violent and costly that Iraq! (That's not a threat, mind you. I don't advocate violence, but it surprises me we haven't seen widespread violent opposition stateside.)
"If California, or whatever state you happen to live in, concludes that Diebold electionic voting systems are crap, and yet they are implemented anyway, what are you going to do about it?"
I've already decided to use the early voting procedure. Not only does that offer an alternative, it also makes it more convenient in terms of time.
At this point, I still believe a secret ballot is utterly important, but not as important as flushing the current administration.
It scares me to think that the 2004 presidential election will again be too close to call. As we've seen and could have predicted, a too-close-to-call race will fall on the side of the conservative party.
I have no apologies to the approximately half of my countrymen who continue to support President Bush and the members of his administration.
>Anyone care to add some examples here?
USA: We're going to invade some countries and depose their government and kill a bunch of people.
RestOfTheWorld: You'd better not!
USA: We're doing it!
ROTW: If you do, why we'll, uh, stand aside and act all mad. Yeah that's it! We'll COMPLAIN.
USA: BOOM BANG SPLAT
ROTW: SEE! We TOLD you so! If you don't stop it, why, we're just going to keep acting mad! We might even ball up our fists and stomp our feet!
"This is the problem: you've got a system that is rotting away, where people have to drive/walk/take the bus to a designated voting station, register, and use a computer to vote"
When every one of them could simply cast an early or absentee ballot by mail as long as a month before the election, I don't see how this argument has any merit at all. In my state, you can vote without *ever* leaving your house, and you have 90 days before the election to request the ballot, 33 days before the election to cast it.
Okay, so some people live on a bench in the bus terminal. Bet even they can get a voter reg card and a ride to the polling place.
"Cause the real criminals KNOW how to steal and not get caught."
I haven't seen Walmart loss prevention numbers but I would bet you a bag of donuts that the inside theft is orders of magnitude higher than customer shoplifting. That's just merchandise, mind you, without getting into the realm of embezzlement in the accounting office or stock scams by the execs.
"Many of the polling places had voters, off the street, trying to help them diagnoe the problem and boot the software."
Were these "voters off the street" wearing dark suits and dark glasses and small 2-way radios by any chance?
What you suggest is an option that is available to the state. But people are even less active in regards to their state governments than national!
In fact, the most involvement you can expect from almost anybody, is they grudgingly vote in the national elections, usually just the ones that pick the president, and very, very few even do that.
They sure as hell aren't persuading their state legislatures to focus state policies. They're not doing *anything* political.
In the abstention of their duty of stewardship, they get the government they choose. The default choice. The "whatever, I don't give a shit" vote.
Then they polarize either adamantly FOR or vehemently AGAINST the status quo. I'm convinced this is the system the people want. It's the ultimate expression of the will of the people.
I'm expecting another "too close to call" election this time around. But then, I've gone on record many times with the view that things need to get FAR worse before people get interested in changing the system. I've also gone on record saying that "changing the system" is going to involve more than just a democratic process. I stop short of advocating violence, but I'm sure there will be plenty to go around.
Regular meters cost about $800 each, if you buy them in typical municipal rollout quantities.
The article didn't price the Montreal meters, but it does point out that each meter covers 12 spaces and neglects to mention that it no doubt results in labor reduction (lost job in entry-level law enforcement?) Notice the use of the word "meter maid" which would have the feminists marching in the streets if you said that in the US.
Annual cost for patrolling 150 spaces is $80,000.
Annual revenue per 150 spaces (in Vancouver) is $140,000.
(All Canadian Dollars)
Depends on what you mean by "sports car".
Gear boxes and engines are spent routinely at the quarter mile strip. Every suspension part that can break, will break on a rally course.
A true sports car should allow you to operate it to the breaking point, it should not limit your envelope for your safety or to keep you from breaking something. It should let you outspeed your brakes, it should let you oversteer, and it should let you put moure torque into the drivetrain than it can handle.
That comes with the understanding that if you break it by doing so, it's your fault, of course.
If you owned a radio station, and ClearChannel owns it now, shame on you, not ClearChannel.
"Outside the IT world, this contract dispute is really not that big of a deal."
I don't think the contract dispute is news either.
It's the racketeering, stock manipulation, and perjury that alarm me.
>And what are those users doing? Not existing?
Many are running pine. Bunch are running mathematica/MathKernel. Few lynx sessions.
None of my business really, and less of yours.
People are flaming me, and completely miss my point. 2 users on a host shouldn't be news (and it isn't).
To be fair, the particular host, which I just picked at random, is an sun4u 80. Admittedly I could have been more fair, or at least more apples-to-apples and used a BSD intel box instead.
Apologies.
"The chances of BatStar seeing a dime are, well, slim as a thin dime."
I don't imagine it's about the money. This is an attack aimed at the investor mindset. Finally, FINALLY, someone who is in a leadership position has decided to call out SCO on their lies and crimes. Still a bit more subtle than I would like to see personally, but notice that this will be pretty much the first action that gets any hint of negativity into the mainstream news reports.
Until now, pretty much every report on SCO is tempered with language that makes it sound as if there is some conceivable merit to the SCO allegations against IBM and RedHat, and like it's conscionable that Darl McBride is not in prison, etc. (Unless you read Slashdot or Groklaw, which, it may suprise you to note, people who make real business decisions haven't read or even HEARD OF!)
The BayStar announcement HAS TO hit the press. It may seem less important than public statements from IBM or Novell, but those are just tech companies, meaningless in the financial world. This news item will get noticed. People who otherwise don't have a clue that there's anything amiss with SCO, hard as it is to imagine, will notice this.
If only the press had any balls, to take off the gloves and tell it like it is, spelling the facts out with the biases where they ought to be, like PJ does. A hostile treatment of SCO would sell papers and so on wouldn't it? You'd think you'd hear about this stuff, but you don't, unless you look for it in fringe places like slashdot and groklaw.
> who | wc -l
488
> uptime
2:27pm up 54 days, 21:23, 488 users, load average: 0.09, 0.18, 0.23
"Does this protend a soon to be expected sell-off of shares to the general public by SCO itself?"
You're sure aiming high.
I'm still waiting for the first negative assessment of SCO to appear in any mainstream press. At least anywhere that would be taken seriously by business folks. Except for Slashdot, Groklaw, and the occasional story here and there, you'd think everything was just fine.
There's hardly ever so much as a passing mention of the litigation, much less anything that would resemble allegations that McBride et al are straight-up crooks who are lying, probably committing perjury, and making fools of investors and judges as they abuse the system and take assloads of cash in the process.
It's never mentioned. Never a word about IBM, Redhad, Daryl's big mouth, the tenuous nature of their claims, etc. At least the Baystar story makes it onto the news sites. Some things can't just be airbrushed out, I suppose. Taking a hell of a long time for the tables to turn. I understand that things may be obvious to you and me (we're biased, after all), and not so obvious to others. But I don't see how you could side with SCO, given even the most perfunctory glance at the facts of the matter.
Then again, there's tens of millions of voters who plan to cast ballots to re-elect Bush in November, and it escapes me how that's possible too.
Either the oppression and tyranny has reached a level where a coup d'état is appropriate and inevitable, or it hasn't.
Nobody is upset enough over laws that control media and distribution to start assassinating politicians or corporate execs.