Now I know you are simply being sarcastic, but it should be said that the desire for privacy does not imply wrongdoing. And I can't understand for the life of me why some authorities do not get this.
This revolved around fraudulent checks, not credit cards. From Imdb.com :
"An FBI agent tracks down and catches a young con artist who successfully impersonated an airline pilot, doctor, assistant attorney general and history professor, cashing more than $2.5 million in fraudulent checks in 26 countries."
Oh yeah, doesn't really work with bittorrent, didn't really say it did either. IANAL, but I think that is still in the gray area of definitions of the law. I am going to have to go with, I don't have a clue, but it can't be good.
Being Canadian and all, I have read about this law for the "media tax" and so on, basically they compared downloading music to going to the library and making a photocopy of a book or its pages and so on. But what they explicitly said was wrong was "advertising" your shares. Or basically saying openly "Hey I have music, come download from me!". That is illegal.
So basically, you can download but you can't share.
Can't you all agree that it depends on the individual teenager rather than trying to generalize the whole 16 year old world population (or American, whatever)?
Re:Unfounded Criticism
on
iPods at War
·
· Score: 1
How about the shroud of Turin? Assuming of course that it is the real one, and Catholics/whoever else worships Jesus don't get too pissed off about it.
If you're on someone's wifi, and you're not causing harm, and they left it open, what is the problem?
The problem is your right to privacy, well in this case their right to privacy.
There is no reason why you need to justify hiding your network and not wanting anyone else hopping on. It is yours and your right to solely want only the people you authorize access to it.
That's what they called it...Just saying that people were debating on either they meant HD as in Hard Drive or HD as in High Def, I just told them it was meant to be High Def.
Actually, alot of people are seeing this the wrong way. The thing is, in Sweden, maybe it's not illegal to point out to drugs. Only to sell. Metaphorically speaking of course...
Better yet, think of it this way : the Netherlands. It is perfectly legal to buy, sell, use, whatever, marijuana. Now imagine some guy in the Netherlands is on the internet listing a bunch of places in North America where you can buy this substance.
For the sake of argument, let's say that under Swedish law, unless you aren't actually hosting the copyrighted material, you aren't actually doing anything illegal, hence in this case, having text files pointing where to go is fine. Wouldn't this be the same thing as the guy listing places that sell marijuana in the states?
Now if police in America want to use this information to go after the sellers then by all means go. It would make more sense...Why would you want to stop the lister? Wouldn't you want to stop the person that has the actual material?
Hey! I'm French (and by French I mean French-Canadian) and I take offense to that! But just so that we are clear, I don't want to start anything...So leave us alone!...Please don't hurt me...Ok here take it all!!!*runs away*
Hey, I was just trying to be politically correct, the GP's post implied that this can only be applied with Windows when we all know that anyone, running any OS would be able to use it!
Ok sorry, didn't press preview, here's the formatted version:
I find this comment offensive because it is discriminatory towards other OSes. So here's the more political correct version :
When you have network connectivity:
Load Mozilla Firefox
Click OpenOffice.org button on Google Toolbar
Download, install OpenOffice.org if it's not installed
OpenOffice.org loads
When you lack network connectivity:
Load Mozilla Firefox
Click OpenOffice.org button on Google Toolbar
OpenOffice.org loads
There is no JavaScript Office reimplementation. Google's just cross-marketing a free product, in the same way that Adobe Reader 7's installer prompts you to install the Yahoo! Toolbar.
I find this comment offensive because it is discriminatory towards other OSes. So here's the more political correct version :
When you have network connectivity:
1. Load Mozilla Firefox
2. Click OpenOffice.org button on Google Toolbar
3. Download, install OpenOffice.org if it's not installed
4. OpenOffice.org loads
When you lack network connectivity:
1. Load Mozilla Firefox
2. Click OpenOffice.org button on Google Toolbar
3. OpenOffice.org loads
There is no JavaScript Office reimplementation. Google's just cross-marketing a free product, in the same way that Adobe Reader 7's installer prompts you to install the Yahoo! Toolbar.
No I don't think the joyride is a good analogy. I would look at it more like a duplicator. Yeah far fetched, not real, but if you want to compare it with a materialistic view, thats what you need. And if you want to take the car example, let's assume that this "duplicator" just needs the plans to make what you want.
For example, some guy made plans for a new car and you can buy to plans to enjoy the car he made. Now imagine that your friend just made a copy of the plans (let it be photocopy, digital, whatever) and then you process it in your duplicator and out comes the car seconds later.
You now have the same car as the original, but he never felt anything, was never intruded, not even bothered. He has not even the slightest clue that you made a copy.
I believe this would be a better analogy and I will leave it up to you to draw your own conclusions.
Personally, I find for music, that the content should be distributed freely and if you like what you hear, send a donation, via like paypal or something. So you give what you think you owe to the artist. If it sucked, well it sucked, he won't be making much money right? But this all relies on the honesty of the population, but if you look at how iTunes is doing, the market for paying online for music is existant and profitable...it's not impossible that's all I'm saying.
Slashdot Mirror
Because they screw a larger group than the other...?
Simply because the desire for privacy does not imply wrongdoing. And we are entitled to it.
Now I know you are simply being sarcastic, but it should be said that the desire for privacy does not imply wrongdoing. And I can't understand for the life of me why some authorities do not get this.
Couple of problems with an open Big Brother like system.
Stalkers and pedophiles come to mind...
Want to think that over again?
You are thinking of Catch Me If You Can (2002)
This revolved around fraudulent checks, not credit cards. From Imdb.com :
"An FBI agent tracks down and catches a young con artist who successfully impersonated an airline pilot, doctor, assistant attorney general and history professor, cashing more than $2.5 million in fraudulent checks in 26 countries."
"love your neighbor as yourself"
What if you are suicidal?
Oh yeah, doesn't really work with bittorrent, didn't really say it did either. IANAL, but I think that is still in the gray area of definitions of the law. I am going to have to go with, I don't have a clue, but it can't be good.
Being Canadian and all, I have read about this law for the "media tax" and so on, basically they compared downloading music to going to the library and making a photocopy of a book or its pages and so on. But what they explicitly said was wrong was "advertising" your shares. Or basically saying openly "Hey I have music, come download from me!". That is illegal.
So basically, you can download but you can't share.
The glass is too big.
Or how about :
Are you going to drink that?
Can't you all agree that it depends on the individual teenager rather than trying to generalize the whole 16 year old world population (or American, whatever)?
Seriously, wish I had mod points to mod him up.
How about the shroud of Turin? Assuming of course that it is the real one, and Catholics/whoever else worships Jesus don't get too pissed off about it.
If you're on someone's wifi, and you're not causing harm, and they left it open, what is the problem?
The problem is your right to privacy, well in this case their right to privacy.
There is no reason why you need to justify hiding your network and not wanting anyone else hopping on. It is yours and your right to solely want only the people you authorize access to it.
That's what they called it...Just saying that people were debating on either they meant HD as in Hard Drive or HD as in High Def, I just told them it was meant to be High Def.
I guess I wasn't really clear on that point...
Ok first off, here is another article on the subject with pictures! : http://news.com.com/2100-1041_3-6098853.html?tag=n efd.top
g =ne.gall.pg
So it gives you more of an idea, yes it is HIGH DEF, but the screen is larger because the sleeve has it's own.
Here's how it looks inside so it gives you an idea : http://news.com.com/2300-1041_3-6099056-2.html?ta
Anyways I will let you guys debate over this some more to draw your own conclusions as to what this exactly is.
Actually, alot of people are seeing this the wrong way. The thing is, in Sweden, maybe it's not illegal to point out to drugs. Only to sell. Metaphorically speaking of course...
Better yet, think of it this way : the Netherlands. It is perfectly legal to buy, sell, use, whatever, marijuana. Now imagine some guy in the Netherlands is on the internet listing a bunch of places in North America where you can buy this substance.
For the sake of argument, let's say that under Swedish law, unless you aren't actually hosting the copyrighted material, you aren't actually doing anything illegal, hence in this case, having text files pointing where to go is fine. Wouldn't this be the same thing as the guy listing places that sell marijuana in the states?
Now if police in America want to use this information to go after the sellers then by all means go. It would make more sense...Why would you want to stop the lister? Wouldn't you want to stop the person that has the actual material?
Just a thought...
I usually don't do "me too" posts but, touché.
SHHH!! they might be watching us right now....
I'm not ashamed of my roots. Except maybe for all my French ones...
Hey! I'm French (and by French I mean French-Canadian) and I take offense to that! But just so that we are clear, I don't want to start anything...So leave us alone!...Please don't hurt me...Ok here take it all!!!*runs away*
Well technically, if it was Google-style ads (text only, relevant to the content) then indirectly, yeah. But not arbitrarily.
That is of course if you wanted to take your joke to another level...
Hey, I was just trying to be politically correct, the GP's post implied that this can only be applied with Windows when we all know that anyone, running any OS would be able to use it!
Hey, don't blame me, blame society.
I find this comment offensive because it is discriminatory towards other OSes. So here's the more political correct version :
When you have network connectivity:
When you lack network connectivity:
There is no JavaScript Office reimplementation. Google's just cross-marketing a free product, in the same way that Adobe Reader 7's installer prompts you to install the Yahoo! Toolbar.
I find this comment offensive because it is discriminatory towards other OSes. So here's the more political correct version : When you have network connectivity: 1. Load Mozilla Firefox 2. Click OpenOffice.org button on Google Toolbar 3. Download, install OpenOffice.org if it's not installed 4. OpenOffice.org loads When you lack network connectivity: 1. Load Mozilla Firefox 2. Click OpenOffice.org button on Google Toolbar 3. OpenOffice.org loads There is no JavaScript Office reimplementation. Google's just cross-marketing a free product, in the same way that Adobe Reader 7's installer prompts you to install the Yahoo! Toolbar.
No I don't think the joyride is a good analogy. I would look at it more like a duplicator. Yeah far fetched, not real, but if you want to compare it with a materialistic view, thats what you need. And if you want to take the car example, let's assume that this "duplicator" just needs the plans to make what you want.
For example, some guy made plans for a new car and you can buy to plans to enjoy the car he made. Now imagine that your friend just made a copy of the plans (let it be photocopy, digital, whatever) and then you process it in your duplicator and out comes the car seconds later.
You now have the same car as the original, but he never felt anything, was never intruded, not even bothered. He has not even the slightest clue that you made a copy.
I believe this would be a better analogy and I will leave it up to you to draw your own conclusions.
Personally, I find for music, that the content should be distributed freely and if you like what you hear, send a donation, via like paypal or something. So you give what you think you owe to the artist. If it sucked, well it sucked, he won't be making much money right? But this all relies on the honesty of the population, but if you look at how iTunes is doing, the market for paying online for music is existant and profitable...it's not impossible that's all I'm saying.