Isn't this like a MAC ID in a rudimentary sense? Aren't those already spoofed? I'm debating whether my tinfoil hat should or shouldn't be on, or whether I should call this one for skepticism.
Having been someone who tried to get into the military but was denied on waiver due to a marginal hearing loss after being recommended to go straight to officer school, I can tell you firsthand both from myself and others in the military that serving active duty does not in any way associate with intelligence one way or the other.
In the good ole US of A, the prime directive for whether someone is eligible or not for military duty is not intelligence, but physical capability. You can be dumb as a rock but strong as an ox, and you would be able to get into any part of service on the front lines, including commanding vehicles and handling destructive weapons.
In contrast, in Israel only the best and brightest make it to the front lines. Those who do not, get the appropriate positions with increasingly more supervision and more towards backup support. An example backup support position over there is a network technician (via remote connection maintenance work/etc). Once again, speaking from first hand example from having been in military bases in Israel.
I don't like Bush. It's not that he's stupid, its the policies he chooses to endorse and deny that represent the lack of intellect. Also, I didn't see anywhere anything about what you said with the vote. Maybe I misread, but I didn't see any method of cancellation, just idealism. "Cancel as fast as you can, fix things up as fast as you can", yet if you read between the lines it says this must be for a minimum of 30 days. That I didn't miss.
Also, notice the domestic enemies part? Do you remember what has happened in the past when the states decided to declare citizens a domestic enemy? I believe there's a prison somewhere, maybe you can remember the name, where such a situation has occurred. Legal grey area? Not to judges. To the FICA court? Rubber stamp. Also, you looked too far down. Section 2(e) is the part that means the president has all control over all parts of the government, not by themselves, but via the Homeland Security Director who gets that priveledge and capacity to enforce it via this: "The Secretary of Homeland Security shall coordinate the integration of Federal continuity plans and operations " (further down). Please, read further, I may have misread too, but last I checked it was pretty clear what was going on and that it was specifically vague at times.
I participated in the research for this as well as some of the evidence used for AP's article about it. You are 100% correct. I was wondering what happened to the FCC stuff too, it seems fishy at this point as I have heard nothing.
Umm, no. President already controls military. This says "president can control all of congress" aka house, senate without their approval. Right now the only way president can declare war is with their approval. Do you understand the difference?
If all hell breaks lose, a: I don't trust the president and B: maybe 550 people who are in the legislative body will have a better idea than our retarded president? instead, we'd get A: president decides everything. aka its a method to have martial law without approval from any other branch of government.
For the people who don't know, here's what directive 51 is about, and how bush can stop elections and control the entire USofA without any checks from congress in any form (in fact, he'd be able to control congress). So all he has to do is provoke a war enough for him to want to declare a catastrophic emergency.
I've already asked about this and this was the response from Obama (the "official one" from when I emailed him using the whitehouse mail thing). Copied verbatim, and just noticed the spelling error too. Ironic.
Additioanlly, I would like to address your concerns about the National Security Presidential Directive 51 and the Homeland Security Presidential Directive 20, signed by President Bush in May, 2007.
As you know, these directives establish procedures for continuity of the federal government in the event of a catastrophic emergency. "Continuity of government" is an effort to ensure the federal government can continue to perform essential functions during a time of emergency. Additionally, "catastrophic emergency" is defined as "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions."
I agree that Congress has an important obligation to monitor how the executive branch exercises its authority. The system of checks and balances enshrined in our Constitution is central to our democracy and protects us from a concentration of power in any one branch of government. I will continue to follow this issue closely with my colleagues on the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs in an effort to ensure accountability and lawfulness, and I look forward to staying in touch during this process.
Hate to say it, but mod AC up. It really is going to kill tourism on some levels and I for one don't need additional data being captured on myself just to get somewhere. This is retarded.
There are many methods, this one just happens to be as much fail as the other non-methods. I hear ya though, and only hope they never try to do full on-die DRM, but if they did? Hey, we'd know what not to buy, at least.
yep, oldstyle copy protection attempt right there is what it amounts to...of course anyone with even a little programming knowledge of pascal or even basic can copy everything the exe reads as it executes to crack the game in about 10minutes.
Fitting the thing with a master key for each manufacturer would not be difficult. Such things are well known. Not that anyone will think of the possible abuse that would ensue or anything./sarcasm on last sentence, not on first
Until the internet speeds and capability match demand and the market of services, usage will continue to increase regardless of current speed and capability until those match up. I think this fact is what providers are having a hard time handling, even if they have additional fiber in case of redundancy/increased future capacity.
I understand the philosophy but it causes a discrimination of services and additionally will cause issues as far as double charging (duh). Also, say 2$/GB which is extreme, what about people who go through 80GB/month...you saying 160$ on internet? Nobody in the US pays that much. With tiered pricing comes tiered services pricing. Guess what happens when you pay for web browsing and what it won't include? Streaming Video, audio. Sound like most of the internet? Yup. What would easily be next after that? Well just go service by service. First would probably be Java and PHP or Flash (which is a large majority of the web). Or how about "you have to pay to connect to any website hosted using Apache"? Follow that up with instant messaging programs, excessive limitations on email sizes, do you see where this is going? It's a step backwards in internet providing.
This is a very real and slow creep that could easily be accomplished step by step if the companies got their opportunity (the corruption aspect is not a question). Especially since it will up their profits enormously which in the US is considered a "sound business decision" because it ups profits, even if its a customer scam. Now what happens if every single provider does this? Sound a bit like a problem? Yup.
This would be like going back to dialup at a price higher than dialup reaches on a consumer level.
When speed increases, don't think they won't keep the pricing the same to milk customers either. You have no guarantee whatsoever even if its in the contract that the price won't just rise astronomically to make a companies financials look nice and black and out of the red. Of course the price will be the same but since you have more services available to you, you use up your quota faster and pay more.
There's about 8 situations here, all of which are lead back to the same problem of Net Neutrality all over again. Also, you have a minimum charge for your use which will be in every business even though minimum charges are only accepted because people are stupid enough to accept them (and not fight them). I guarantee even a utility bill can be changed if you're below min and fight hard enough.
Cost of installation is one thing. But once its installed, its much more efficient, otherwise a business wouldn't provide such a service. I don't know if 1$/GB is high or not fo ra host
Of course this should be just as stable as Vista was originally. Anyone have bets as to how long before a significant program of widespread use is broken, or Vista breaks itself with SP1? I give it about 5 minutes following release.
Beyond that, has there been any actual basis showing that SP1 (of the testers) adds any form of significant performance enhancements? Last I read about improving Vista performance people basically said "turn off everything that differentiates vista from XP"
the only reason they're making crazy ass ridiculously high fines is so that its more costly to appeal (posting it, etc)...gotta love how law favors prosecution in some instances. I think it will be hard to infer that a for profit business is automatically associated with piracy though, with merely trackers.
Here's the issue. How can you say that a tracker that isn't data itself, facilitates anything? That's like having a file with a list of pirate URLs and IP addresses, even if there's descriptions that say like "good place to get illegal stuff". That type of evidence would first have to be accepted by court before it can even be argued before it can even be accepted as evidence before it can even be debated. It doesn't tie you to anything. You still don't explain how they are tied as well to having made money off piracy as opposed to what they did, which is made money off advertising. Whether there is piracy or not if people come to their site and they get paid for the ads, there's nothing illegal about that.
This is the difference of the law vs my opinion or yours. The law wants fact, and unbiased opinion. You can claim all the silly things you want but they won't even make it to trial (which is what I have been saying) if you have no real proof and evidence....and thats what summary judgement and why expert witnesses don't make it to trial (aka daubert hearing) if the lawyer is attentive.
Even moreso, is I don't see any links to the actual charges being filed (or translated to english), nor with a specific definition of what they are being sued for. The slashdot link says "accessory to the crime" and the article says 2 things: "conspiracy to break copyright law in Sweden." and "The operation of The Pirate Bay is financed through advertising revenues. In that way it commercially exploits copyright-protected work and performances," prosecutor Hakan Roswall said in a statement" which is basically a null phrase they said to the press which means "we can't tie things to anything they've don3e, but we're going to blow a lot of smoke to the press". Doesn't this make you wonder a little what the REAL claim
Conspiracy is a word that is well defined in law, and its about as easy to prove as claims in impeachment. Conspiracy is a government charge on occasion, not something that the IFPI or any non governmental organization can claim at all. If its not the government claiming that phrase expect it to be a vertical hill that they are trying to walk up aka won't happen.
Any high class lawyer that does well and knows Swedens laws will have this case through in 4-6 years after the MAFIAA is done trying to drag it on in hopes that piratebay will default due to not having enough money (Expect a million claims in the case in hopes that a few stick). In any legal case if you don't have money for appeals you can't even appeal, which is why cases are dragged on (you have to post the money). You and I can debate until our ears are blue but there is no factual proof of anything whatsoever until things are accepted in court.
I understand what you're saying and agree with that I don't want to see them go down,
but making money advertisements on a website doesn't tie them to piracy. That's a very hard thing to tie together, regardless of your business. Also, hosting the tracker is a method to search out the files but is not a copy of them. Remember as well that copyright infringement is not theft, no matter how much the MAFIAA wants you to be brainwashed otherwise, and this is going to be a core issue in court. Especially since files can be shared without a hosted tracker, too. Trackers help, but are not required. A smart lawyer for piratebay will see plenty of ways and options to tear down the MAFIAA on this one. Don't forget this case will go on for years (RIAA/MPAA, not piratebay reasoning - remember RIAA/MPAA wants to drag it out for excess legal fees) and there are no preliminary injunctions against the bay in Sweden. That last part makes a huge difference as well.
Indictment means they were actually taken to court and prosecution declared their charge. It doesn't mean a damn thing. The Bay will survive, they make no money off copyright and don't distribute the music, therefore this case will fall apart. There is no evidence whatsoever that they have infringed on copyright, since they haven't even made the music available.
Stop sucking up to media without using some actual court logic....even if this is slashdot. This is like taking someone to court and indicting them on 4 accounts of XYZ. It doesn't even mean found guilty or that the evidence is accepted, it's the next step after "we want to take you to court". Piratebay can even ask for summary judgement against the MPAA/RIAA that could shut down this case before it even goes to trial. Hopefully they have good lawyers who can poke holes in the evidence before the trial even occurs.
actually, as much as I don't really care for opera, I can see it doing better if FF gets dominant market share due to people then making websites that aren't IE optimized. When all browsers are created equal its just flavor preference. In those situations I suspect that FF and Safari will be tied for dominant browser (just my own prediction) Additionally if I remember right early versions of opera had problems rendering things right as well, which would be resolved by IE taking a nosedive into some concrete.
Yep,I agree. I don't know how that was missed, but I'm with you Yagu.
Even if Firefox had a 100% market share, the issue is the bundling of the browser, not the market share. All the other things that result from IE bundling are just results to that.
Where in contrast linux usually comes with a few browsers so people can pick what they want. MS is screwed because even if they included FF in addition to IE, you still can neither get rid of IE completely and also it would add more bloat to the size of windows installations. Let alone administrative and procedural issues if they were to "Add it" or "add the option of it being installed with the OS"
IANAL as well, but to be honest it would be dropped by #4. Opinion vs fact in a court of law. I'm sure if such a case was made it might not even hit the courts until someone tells the new crews, and even then it'd just be media hype. You probably can't even argue it since the case was dismissed with prejudice.
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't this like a MAC ID in a rudimentary sense? Aren't those already spoofed? I'm debating whether my tinfoil hat should or shouldn't be on, or whether I should call this one for skepticism.
Having been someone who tried to get into the military but was denied on waiver due to a marginal hearing loss after being recommended to go straight to officer school, I can tell you firsthand both from myself and others in the military that serving active duty does not in any way associate with intelligence one way or the other.
In the good ole US of A, the prime directive for whether someone is eligible or not for military duty is not intelligence, but physical capability. You can be dumb as a rock but strong as an ox, and you would be able to get into any part of service on the front lines, including commanding vehicles and handling destructive weapons.
In contrast, in Israel only the best and brightest make it to the front lines. Those who do not, get the appropriate positions with increasingly more supervision and more towards backup support. An example backup support position over there is a network technician (via remote connection maintenance work/etc). Once again, speaking from first hand example from having been in military bases in Israel.
I don't like Bush. It's not that he's stupid, its the policies he chooses to endorse and deny that represent the lack of intellect. Also, I didn't see anywhere anything about what you said with the vote. Maybe I misread, but I didn't see any method of cancellation, just idealism. "Cancel as fast as you can, fix things up as fast as you can", yet if you read between the lines it says this must be for a minimum of 30 days. That I didn't miss.
Also, notice the domestic enemies part? Do you remember what has happened in the past when the states decided to declare citizens a domestic enemy? I believe there's a prison somewhere, maybe you can remember the name, where such a situation has occurred. Legal grey area? Not to judges. To the FICA court? Rubber stamp. Also, you looked too far down. Section 2(e) is the part that means the president has all control over all parts of the government, not by themselves, but via the Homeland Security Director who gets that priveledge and capacity to enforce it via this: "The Secretary of Homeland Security shall coordinate the integration of Federal continuity plans and operations " (further down). Please, read further, I may have misread too, but last I checked it was pretty clear what was going on and that it was specifically vague at times.
I participated in the research for this as well as some of the evidence used for AP's article about it. You are 100% correct. I was wondering what happened to the FCC stuff too, it seems fishy at this point as I have heard nothing.
wait a minute. Whats up with this post then?
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hJKgeE0Z-SivATjok-utYBdh9wDwD8UOTR1G0
Umm, no. President already controls military. This says "president can control all of congress" aka house, senate without their approval. Right now the only way president can declare war is with their approval. Do you understand the difference?
If all hell breaks lose, a: I don't trust the president
and B: maybe 550 people who are in the legislative body will have a better idea than our retarded president?
instead, we'd get A: president decides everything. aka its a method to have martial law without approval from any other branch of government.
For the people who don't know, here's what directive 51 is about, and how bush can stop elections and control the entire USofA without any checks from congress in any form (in fact, he'd be able to control congress). So all he has to do is provoke a war enough for him to want to declare a catastrophic emergency.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html
I've already asked about this and this was the response from Obama (the "official one" from when I emailed him using the whitehouse mail thing). Copied verbatim, and just noticed the spelling error too. Ironic.
Additioanlly, I would like to address your concerns about the National Security Presidential Directive 51 and the Homeland Security Presidential Directive 20, signed by President Bush in May, 2007.
As you know, these directives establish procedures for continuity of the federal government in the event of a catastrophic emergency. "Continuity of government" is an effort to ensure the federal government can continue to perform essential functions during a time of emergency. Additionally, "catastrophic emergency" is defined as "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions."
I agree that Congress has an important obligation to monitor how the executive branch exercises its authority. The system of checks and balances enshrined in our Constitution is central to our democracy and protects us from a concentration of power in any one branch of government. I will continue to follow this issue closely with my colleagues on the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs in an effort to ensure accountability and lawfulness, and I look forward to staying in touch during this process.
Hate to say it, but mod AC up. It really is going to kill tourism on some levels and I for one don't need additional data being captured on myself just to get somewhere. This is retarded.
No way, we'd have people saving mod points for dead baby jokes and anyone opposing terrorism would probably get modded flamebait.
The problem here is that if we slashdotted him into the White House, we'd get a 503 government unreachable.
How do you set up this Grandcentral thing? I looked up some info but blah blah private beta etc....sounds pretty awesome, overall.
How about Vista Antipiracy? remember when vista was telling people to register their PCs due to doing this on a semi-hardware level? Didn't end well, did it? If I recall they removed it within days, and the only people they screwed were those who bought legitimate copies.
There are many methods, this one just happens to be as much fail as the other non-methods. I hear ya though, and only hope they never try to do full on-die DRM, but if they did? Hey, we'd know what not to buy, at least.
yep, oldstyle copy protection attempt right there is what it amounts to...of course anyone with even a little programming knowledge of pascal or even basic can copy everything the exe reads as it executes to crack the game in about 10minutes.
Umm, no?
/sarcasm on last sentence, not on first
Fitting the thing with a master key for each manufacturer would not be difficult. Such things are well known. Not that anyone will think of the possible abuse that would ensue or anything.
You brought up a good point I completely forgot:
Until the internet speeds and capability match demand and the market of services, usage will continue to increase regardless of current speed and capability until those match up. I think this fact is what providers are having a hard time handling, even if they have additional fiber in case of redundancy/increased future capacity.
I understand the philosophy but it causes a discrimination of services and additionally will cause issues as far as double charging (duh). Also, say 2$/GB which is extreme, what about people who go through 80GB/month...you saying 160$ on internet? Nobody in the US pays that much. With tiered pricing comes tiered services pricing. Guess what happens when you pay for web browsing and what it won't include? Streaming Video, audio. Sound like most of the internet? Yup. What would easily be next after that? Well just go service by service. First would probably be Java and PHP or Flash (which is a large majority of the web). Or how about "you have to pay to connect to any website hosted using Apache"? Follow that up with instant messaging programs, excessive limitations on email sizes, do you see where this is going? It's a step backwards in internet providing.
This is a very real and slow creep that could easily be accomplished step by step if the companies got their opportunity (the corruption aspect is not a question). Especially since it will up their profits enormously which in the US is considered a "sound business decision" because it ups profits, even if its a customer scam.
Now what happens if every single provider does this? Sound a bit like a problem? Yup.
This would be like going back to dialup at a price higher than dialup reaches on a consumer level.
When speed increases, don't think they won't keep the pricing the same to milk customers either. You have no guarantee whatsoever even if its in the contract that the price won't just rise astronomically to make a companies financials look nice and black and out of the red. Of course the price will be the same but since you have more services available to you, you use up your quota faster and pay more.
There's about 8 situations here, all of which are lead back to the same problem of Net Neutrality all over again. Also, you have a minimum charge for your use which will be in every business even though minimum charges are only accepted because people are stupid enough to accept them (and not fight them). I guarantee even a utility bill can be changed if you're below min and fight hard enough.
Cost of installation is one thing. But once its installed, its much more efficient, otherwise a business wouldn't provide such a service. I don't know if 1$/GB is high or not fo ra host
Even beyond that, 5 bucks for 50MB? I think even dialup is better on pricing than that.
Of course this should be just as stable as Vista was originally. Anyone have bets as to how long before a significant program of widespread use is broken, or Vista breaks itself with SP1? I give it about 5 minutes following release.
Beyond that, has there been any actual basis showing that SP1 (of the testers) adds any form of significant performance enhancements? Last I read about improving Vista performance people basically said "turn off everything that differentiates vista from XP"
the only reason they're making crazy ass ridiculously high fines is so that its more costly to appeal (posting it, etc)...gotta love how law favors prosecution in some instances. I think it will be hard to infer that a for profit business is automatically associated with piracy though, with merely trackers.
Here's the issue. How can you say that a tracker that isn't data itself, facilitates anything? That's like having a file with a list of pirate URLs and IP addresses, even if there's descriptions that say like "good place to get illegal stuff". That type of evidence would first have to be accepted by court before it can even be argued before it can even be accepted as evidence before it can even be debated. It doesn't tie you to anything. You still don't explain how they are tied as well to having made money off piracy as opposed to what they did, which is made money off advertising. Whether there is piracy or not if people come to their site and they get paid for the ads, there's nothing illegal about that.
This is the difference of the law vs my opinion or yours. The law wants fact, and unbiased opinion. You can claim all the silly things you want but they won't even make it to trial (which is what I have been saying) if you have no real proof and evidence....and thats what summary judgement and why expert witnesses don't make it to trial (aka daubert hearing) if the lawyer is attentive.
Even moreso, is I don't see any links to the actual charges being filed (or translated to english), nor with a specific definition of what they are being sued for. The slashdot link says "accessory to the crime" and the article says 2 things: "conspiracy to break copyright law in Sweden." and "The operation of The Pirate Bay is financed through advertising revenues. In that way it commercially exploits copyright-protected work and performances," prosecutor Hakan Roswall said in a statement" which is basically a null phrase they said to the press which means "we can't tie things to anything they've don3e, but we're going to blow a lot of smoke to the press". Doesn't this make you wonder a little what the REAL claim
Conspiracy is a word that is well defined in law, and its about as easy to prove as claims in impeachment. Conspiracy is a government charge on occasion, not something that the IFPI or any non governmental organization can claim at all. If its not the government claiming that phrase expect it to be a vertical hill that they are trying to walk up aka won't happen.
Any high class lawyer that does well and knows Swedens laws will have this case through in 4-6 years after the MAFIAA is done trying to drag it on in hopes that piratebay will default due to not having enough money (Expect a million claims in the case in hopes that a few stick). In any legal case if you don't have money for appeals you can't even appeal, which is why cases are dragged on (you have to post the money). You and I can debate until our ears are blue but there is no factual proof of anything whatsoever until things are accepted in court.
I understand what you're saying and agree with that I don't want to see them go down,
but making money advertisements on a website doesn't tie them to piracy. That's a very hard thing to tie together, regardless of your business. Also, hosting the tracker is a method to search out the files but is not a copy of them. Remember as well that copyright infringement is not theft, no matter how much the MAFIAA wants you to be brainwashed otherwise, and this is going to be a core issue in court. Especially since files can be shared without a hosted tracker, too. Trackers help, but are not required. A smart lawyer for piratebay will see plenty of ways and options to tear down the MAFIAA on this one. Don't forget this case will go on for years (RIAA/MPAA, not piratebay reasoning - remember RIAA/MPAA wants to drag it out for excess legal fees) and there are no preliminary injunctions against the bay in Sweden. That last part makes a huge difference as well.
Even with making filesharing illegal, note that they aren't suing for that . That should indicate to you just how little of a case they have.
Indictment means they were actually taken to court and prosecution declared their charge. It doesn't mean a damn thing. The Bay will survive, they make no money off copyright and don't distribute the music, therefore this case will fall apart. There is no evidence whatsoever that they have infringed on copyright, since they haven't even made the music available.
Stop sucking up to media without using some actual court logic....even if this is slashdot. This is like taking someone to court and indicting them on 4 accounts of XYZ. It doesn't even mean found guilty or that the evidence is accepted, it's the next step after "we want to take you to court". Piratebay can even ask for summary judgement against the MPAA/RIAA that could shut down this case before it even goes to trial. Hopefully they have good lawyers who can poke holes in the evidence before the trial even occurs.
actually, as much as I don't really care for opera, I can see it doing better if FF gets dominant market share due to people then making websites that aren't IE optimized. When all browsers are created equal its just flavor preference. In those situations I suspect that FF and Safari will be tied for dominant browser (just my own prediction)
Additionally if I remember right early versions of opera had problems rendering things right as well, which would be resolved by IE taking a nosedive into some concrete.
Yep,I agree. I don't know how that was missed, but I'm with you Yagu.
Even if Firefox had a 100% market share, the issue is the bundling of the browser, not the market share. All the other things that result from IE bundling are just results to that.
Where in contrast linux usually comes with a few browsers so people can pick what they want. MS is screwed because even if they included FF in addition to IE, you still can neither get rid of IE completely and also it would add more bloat to the size of windows installations. Let alone administrative and procedural issues if they were to "Add it" or "add the option of it being installed with the OS"
IANAL as well, but to be honest it would be dropped by #4. Opinion vs fact in a court of law. I'm sure if such a case was made it might not even hit the courts until someone tells the new crews, and even then it'd just be media hype. You probably can't even argue it since the case was dismissed with prejudice.