I'd love to see one of these snarly power-hungry dipshits try to stop me. Take my camera and I sue and/or file police report. Try to touch me and I sue for assault and battery.
Security is pretty much limited to escorting you out of the premises, they are not legally permitted to hold you (Unless they are actaully legally credentialed officers of the law, and you have to actually be violating a law, not a mall rule) and they certianly cannot start pilfering your private possessions.
Who the fuck to these people think they are? Try to stop me. The only law I break will be if I do not leave when I am told to leave. You can't stop me from taking pictures and you can't touch me or my possessions.
I've run skype on my PC at work (inside of a computer room at our company) and it started eating 50-60 megabits of bandwidth pretty quickly.
Didn't matter for me, I could afford the bandwidth but I can see why, especially at smaller private universities, that this would become a problem rather quickly.
Bullshit. Standardized testing is often used as a basis for intelligence classification, whether they are intended for it or not. MENSA used to accept the SAT as a means of qualifying for membership, despite the lack of evidence supporting the use of the test in that role (MENSA later dropped the use of the test).
You also neglect the fact that the SAT is a very general and content specific test. You can't guess a student's performance in a specific area of study based on this test. You also can't apply the results of a "standardized" test and apply it to all University academic programs, each university structures its programs a certian way and each professor will tend to have certian biases to certian methods of teaching and form of study required.
The only correlation between SAT performance and college performance is that students who do good on the test are those who put the effort to learn how to take it well because they want to get into a university with a good reputation that demands high scores. There is nothing about the SAT that tells you whether you are good student or not and certianly nothing about your intelligence, other than you were awake during the 2 hours to take the test.
I hate standardized testing and I did only moderately well on the SAT. I got into the school I wanted to go and I have a 3.7 GPA. Yet, there are students with far higher SAT scores and they do worse.
It should be noted that standardized tests are a poor measure of intelligence other than the ability to take the tests themselves.
It is also not fair to say that because someone is at Harvard that it means they are better than other people, plenty of employers will tell you about many Harvard (and other ivy league) graduates who were not qualified to do the jobs they went to school for. Plenty of highly talented people come out of lesser known state Universities but when you mention a name like "University of Texas", people poo-poo you for not coming from a "prestigious" school.
Do you realize how hypocritical that Michael is posting this story when Michael himself hijacked censorware.org from the people it belonged to? I reproduce the story here (you can read the original here:
h2>Michael Sims, Domain Hijacking and Moral Equivalency
by Jonathan Wallace jw@bway.net
How would you feel if your webmaster maliciously took your web-site
offline, then, when you demanded its return, put up a site attacking
your company at your old URL? It happened to a group I was involved
in, the Censorware Project, currently at
http://www.censorware.net.
The purpose of this essay is to put the behavior on record, and to
give you some impressions and inferences about it.
The Censorware Project was originally an informal collective of six
people who collaborated online to fight censorware:
Seth Finkelstein,
Bennett Haselton,
Jamie McCarthy, Mike Sims, Jim Tyre and
myself. Several of us had never met or even spoken on the phone,
yet for some time -- around two years as I recall -- we had a remarkably
easy collaboration. There was no funding, no hierarchy, no titles, not
even project managers. Someone would suggest a project and take the
responsibility for a part of it, others would sign up for other
elements, and proceeding this way we got a remarkable amount of work
done, including reports on X-Stop, Cyberpatrol, Bess and other
censorware products.
Even though two of us were attorneys -- Jim and myself -- we never
incorporated the group or wrote a charter or any contracts among
ourselves. Mike Sims was obliging enough to register the domain, just
as other members paid for press releases and the other incidental
expenses which came along. Mike also served as webmaster of the
censorware.org site and
did substantial work for the group,
including writing contributions to several of the reports and lead
authorship of at least one. Seth
was the source of our
decrypted censorware blacklists
and managed many technical tasks, but later felt he had to leave the
group because of the
increasing prospects of a lawsuit, particularly
under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). After Seth left the
group, the remaining five continued.
Robert Frost said that "nothing gold can stay," and the Censorware
Project was no exception. Over the summer of 2000, Mike Sims' reaction
to a perceived slight from Jim Tyre was to take the site down
for a week. He sent us mail at the time saying something like
"The Censorware Project is now closed."
I replied to him that, given that the group was a collective
and we all had an interest in its work product, the domain, and the
goodwill it had achieved, the decision was not his to make. Sims did
not reply.
After Seth created a partial, text, mirror, Mike put the site back up
a week later without explaining, let alone apologizing for, his actions.
Given his continuing failure to answer any email from me (and
I think from others) and the overall signs that Sims thought the group
was exclusively his, I wrote him several emails requesting that he
turn the domain over to Jamie or Bennett, as I felt we could no longer
trust him to administer it. We also found out during that time that
important email from people trying to contact us, including members of
the press, was not being answered by Sims, nor being forwarded to
other members.
I ultimately became exasperated that my name was listed as a principal
on what had now become a "rogue" site I had no control over. Over
about
To the person who buys his music, he actually gets more than the person who downloads the album off of P2P - he gets a physical CD that he can take wherever he goes, he gets a CD case, and he might even get a poster from the band who made the music.
I did not assert that. You misread. I provided a possibility of what might happen if the RIAA continues to go after filesharers (notice the tense of the words I use).
Of course both are illegal but the difference in opinion is not of legality but of the fact that the two are different.
I believe file sharing should be 100% legal. I don't believe there is anything morally wrong with taking music and sharing it with people in the forms of 0's and 1's that go over a wire.
On the other hand, selling bootlegs is something I cannot agree with. I do not believe someone should have the right to profit off of my own work just as much as your college propfessor does not believe that you should get a good grade and a degree for plagarizing (someone else's effort).
or 3) People stop buying RIAA label music out of protest and frustration, continue file sharing (perhaps more discretly or through methods that the RIAA cannot track such as private networks), and buying indie music in which file sharing is encouraged
Slashdot Mirror
Cool! Which mall was this?
I'd love to see one of these snarly power-hungry dipshits try to stop me. Take my camera and I sue and/or file police report. Try to touch me and I sue for assault and battery.
Security is pretty much limited to escorting you out of the premises, they are not legally permitted to hold you (Unless they are actaully legally credentialed officers of the law, and you have to actually be violating a law, not a mall rule) and they certianly cannot start pilfering your private possessions.
Who the fuck to these people think they are? Try to stop me. The only law I break will be if I do not leave when I am told to leave. You can't stop me from taking pictures and you can't touch me or my possessions.
That is a stretch and you know it.
Why isn't the games section called "Games Online" or the science section "Science Online"?
Oh, I just completely trashed your argument.
Sorry.
I've run skype on my PC at work (inside of a computer room at our company) and it started eating 50-60 megabits of bandwidth pretty quickly.
Didn't matter for me, I could afford the bandwidth but I can see why, especially at smaller private universities, that this would become a problem rather quickly.
Bullshit. Standardized testing is often used as a basis for intelligence classification, whether they are intended for it or not. MENSA used to accept the SAT as a means of qualifying for membership, despite the lack of evidence supporting the use of the test in that role (MENSA later dropped the use of the test).
You also neglect the fact that the SAT is a very general and content specific test. You can't guess a student's performance in a specific area of study based on this test. You also can't apply the results of a "standardized" test and apply it to all University academic programs, each university structures its programs a certian way and each professor will tend to have certian biases to certian methods of teaching and form of study required.
The only correlation between SAT performance and college performance is that students who do good on the test are those who put the effort to learn how to take it well because they want to get into a university with a good reputation that demands high scores. There is nothing about the SAT that tells you whether you are good student or not and certianly nothing about your intelligence, other than you were awake during the 2 hours to take the test.
I hate standardized testing and I did only moderately well on the SAT. I got into the school I wanted to go and I have a 3.7 GPA. Yet, there are students with far higher SAT scores and they do worse.
It should be noted that standardized tests are a poor measure of intelligence other than the ability to take the tests themselves.
It is also not fair to say that because someone is at Harvard that it means they are better than other people, plenty of employers will tell you about many Harvard (and other ivy league) graduates who were not qualified to do the jobs they went to school for. Plenty of highly talented people come out of lesser known state Universities but when you mention a name like "University of Texas", people poo-poo you for not coming from a "prestigious" school.
Why is it that we can bitch about everything on Slashdot but we can't bitch about Slashdot itself?
Last thing we need is domain registrars getting in the business of policing what people put on their websites.
Do you realize how hypocritical that Michael is posting this story when Michael himself hijacked censorware.org from the people it belonged to? I reproduce the story here (you can read the original here:
h2>Michael Sims, Domain Hijacking and Moral Equivalency by Jonathan Wallace jw@bway.net
How would you feel if your webmaster maliciously took your web-site offline, then, when you demanded its return, put up a site attacking your company at your old URL? It happened to a group I was involved in, the Censorware Project, currently at http://www.censorware.net. The purpose of this essay is to put the behavior on record, and to give you some impressions and inferences about it.
The Censorware Project was originally an informal collective of six people who collaborated online to fight censorware: Seth Finkelstein, Bennett Haselton, Jamie McCarthy, Mike Sims, Jim Tyre and myself. Several of us had never met or even spoken on the phone, yet for some time -- around two years as I recall -- we had a remarkably easy collaboration. There was no funding, no hierarchy, no titles, not even project managers. Someone would suggest a project and take the responsibility for a part of it, others would sign up for other elements, and proceeding this way we got a remarkable amount of work done, including reports on X-Stop, Cyberpatrol, Bess and other censorware products.
Even though two of us were attorneys -- Jim and myself -- we never incorporated the group or wrote a charter or any contracts among ourselves. Mike Sims was obliging enough to register the domain, just as other members paid for press releases and the other incidental expenses which came along. Mike also served as webmaster of the censorware.org site and did substantial work for the group, including writing contributions to several of the reports and lead authorship of at least one. Seth was the source of our decrypted censorware blacklists and managed many technical tasks, but later felt he had to leave the group because of the increasing prospects of a lawsuit, particularly under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). After Seth left the group, the remaining five continued.
Robert Frost said that "nothing gold can stay," and the Censorware Project was no exception. Over the summer of 2000, Mike Sims' reaction to a perceived slight from Jim Tyre was to take the site down for a week. He sent us mail at the time saying something like "The Censorware Project is now closed." I replied to him that, given that the group was a collective and we all had an interest in its work product, the domain, and the goodwill it had achieved, the decision was not his to make. Sims did not reply.
After Seth created a partial, text, mirror, Mike put the site back up a week later without explaining, let alone apologizing for, his actions. Given his continuing failure to answer any email from me (and I think from others) and the overall signs that Sims thought the group was exclusively his, I wrote him several emails requesting that he turn the domain over to Jamie or Bennett, as I felt we could no longer trust him to administer it. We also found out during that time that important email from people trying to contact us, including members of the press, was not being answered by Sims, nor being forwarded to other members.
I ultimately became exasperated that my name was listed as a principal on what had now become a "rogue" site I had no control over. Over about
Ironic that one has to pay money to view a film decrying corporatism.
its a dumb idea cuz I can see your packets still and if I want on your network I just have to change my MAC to a valid MAC on your network
You're rants about me being off topic are op topic how?
I'm talking about filesharing and how people might change their behavior in response. You're in some sort of anger-filled diatribe about me.
You do not understand my argument.
When you share on P2P, you realize no profit.
To the person who buys his music, he actually gets more than the person who downloads the album off of P2P - he gets a physical CD that he can take wherever he goes, he gets a CD case, and he might even get a poster from the band who made the music.
Sharing != Selling.
Sharing does not result in profit.
Selling does (unless you're just selling for the price of the media, but thats not what these pirates do).
Pretty simple, no?
Ah yes the cry of the debator who loses an argument.
I did not assert that. You misread. I provided a possibility of what might happen if the RIAA continues to go after filesharers (notice the tense of the words I use).
How does my post lack logic? Just because you don't agree with me?
Saying that increased music sales MUST be the result of the RIAA initiaive to go after P2P sharers is a logical fallacy.
Perhaps artists are putting out better music? There is more than one possibility here.
Of course both are illegal but the difference in opinion is not of legality but of the fact that the two are different.
I believe file sharing should be 100% legal. I don't believe there is anything morally wrong with taking music and sharing it with people in the forms of 0's and 1's that go over a wire.
On the other hand, selling bootlegs is something I cannot agree with. I do not believe someone should have the right to profit off of my own work just as much as your college propfessor does not believe that you should get a good grade and a degree for plagarizing (someone else's effort).
or 3) People stop buying RIAA label music out of protest and frustration, continue file sharing (perhaps more discretly or through methods that the RIAA cannot track such as private networks), and buying indie music in which file sharing is encouraged
He did not say physically break. He was obviously referring to compatibility being "broken" by new DVD discs.
If I get a DVD like this, I'll return it back to wherever I bought it with a note that it is defective
Why not? If the user of an account wants to have this done, there is no harm.
why isnt this story archived