How convenient.
I copied the data and sent it to a friend. Lucky for me, I was able to find the source again.
here [vgchartz.com] It seems that an apology might be in order, or at least a thank-you? No, of course not, not from an AC.
Possible - but it will not happen because it cannot be effective. We have copyright protection in Europe, but there is probably as much P2P copying in Europe as elsewhere. There are lots of crimes that are legislated against, but they all occur in Europe. I, along with friends, built my first computer (8080 with 8k (k!) of memory in the early 1980s. Not from a kit, we designed it and built it from components. Printers require perhaps a few more specialist components but that doesn't mean they cannot be built. Legislate away, it will not stop computers - or printers - from being built.
There are already printers that refuse to print images of dollars.
And how, exactly, will that be accomplished worldwide. Do these machines refuse to print any currency? Nope, I thought not. And my printer has no problem reproducing dollars, sterling, euros or whatever. So what value do the restricted machines have that makes them more desireable than the one that I use now? Probably nothing at all, in which case they will not be bought.
And just for my own interest, can you tell me the make and the model of the printer that refuses to print dollars?
And just how does the Information Assurance office achieve this with regards to closed-source software? Do they actually have a check of every line of code? Or is this simply a way of ensuring that the US Government only procures software produced in the USA? While I fully understand why this might be desireable, it would only be another form of protectionism. I would argue that it is far easier to check open-source code - after all the code is freely available and the run time can be compiled from read-only sources using your own validated compilers and software tools - than trying to achieve the same for commercially produced, closed-source software.
There were 240 pence to the old (pre-decimalisation) pound, comprised of 20 shillings each worth 12 (old) pence. Do you remember guineas, crowns, half-crowns, shillings, tanners (6-penny piece), threepenny bit, pennies, half-pennies, farthings (a quarter penny)? I do. I suspect that I am quite a bit older than you and I cannot ever remember there being 120 pence to the pound. So either please provide a citation or confess that you are mistaken/talking bollocks.:-)
But the main thrust of your post was correct with regards to dividing sums of money easily. Or at least it was until the education system decided that mathematics and mental arithmetic were not the most important subjects in life. I'm not sure how some of today's young people could cope with such problems.
Many comments in this thread are complaining about how their children cannot now watch Sesame Street. Why not? You can show the video to your children if you wish. Perhaps the restrictions will prevent your children from personally buying the DVD, but there is nothing to stop you from buying it and letting them watch it - or is there? Have American rules now become so petty that someone can dictate how you bring up your own children? I think that if this changes anything its because nobody has the balls to make a choice regarding how they bring up their children. Sesame Street didn't harm you and all you have to do is now make a decision for yourself and get on with your life.
As a non-American, may I be permitted to ask "Who the hell is Gene Simmons?". Is he important to Americans, or anyone else for that matter? Why should what he say be of interest to 'geeks'?
Your reply suggests that, because both parties seem to do it, destroying evidence is acceptable. Is that really how you decided your standards, or wouldn't you prefer to clean the whole matter up by making all politicians act like decent people?
You would not be able to tell RCMP apart from regular joes coming to you door asking for money or doling out cookies. In fact when the RCMP showed up at my door they were both women.
In which case, I would easily be able to differentiate between the regular joes and RCMP. Women? I cannot remember women ever arriving at my basement door. Perhaps my parents stop them......?
I thought the internet was deregulated by nature, and that censorship is something that's simply routed around.
Yes, of course you are correct however, not in America it seems. Elsewhere, and for the moment, we seem to be faring somewhat better. Nevertheless, I am sure that someone, somewhere, will come along and spoil it all for us as well.
I get even more disturbed when I hear individuals defining what is right or wrong based on their own whims. When you take the law into your own hands, you become a vigilante. That is also against the law in many countries, including probably your own. You have become no better than those you wish to punish. Don't dress it up by explaining how you think that you are justified, or by claiming that it requires some l33t hacker to come and save the world on your behalf. You are thinking, and wanting to act, like a criminal - no better, no worse.
And you have completely ignored the point that I made in your heroic stand against spam and viruses. It is not the network that is at fault but the users of the network. RTFA again - the network shouldn't be punished because of its users, particularly as RBN haven't broken the law. I'll bet there are several bots operating using your own ISP. How would you feel if you were shut down simply because of their actions?
"FTA....and [RBN] may not technically even be violating Russian law."
This has nothing to do with resources or having sufficient desire to act. RBN possibly hasn't broken the law in Russia, therefore neither the Russian government nor any other country has the right to punish them for what they are doing. OK, perhaps Russian law needs changing but, until then, they are not criminals (unless of course they have previous convictions.:-) Those using RBN's network to carry out crime are criminals but if no-one is raising a complaint then the police are unable to act against them as individuals.
A lot of the spam is not arriving from RBN, although some is admittedly, but from the bots that they control. It is the bots that need to be stopped. Now a fair proportion of those exist in the US and in many of the other countries that/.ers live in. That is where we and/or our governments can act legally. So I wonder why we are not doing so?
I cannot see the problem - this is not being designed for the benefit of the RIAA or any other US monster, particularly as this is in the UK. But, if you log on using your username and password and then download music X, the ISP will know that you did so. Now whether they will be required to keep records of your connections (probably not, this is the UK not the USA) in additional to simply the fact that you logged on at a specific time, or whether the IP will remain the same for the extra 512kb allowance rather than the main subscriber's portion I do not know.
They only get to use the additional 512kb that is given to those who subscribe to the scheme. That 512kb can only be used by other users, not the subscriber himself. His connection remains at the maximum speed that he is entitled to under his existing contract. But it explains this in TFA....
No, to use the system you still have to log on with a username and password. They will know who is downloading what. How does that make sharing any different from what exists today?
No, there is a big difference between the two. The situation that you describe is where someone uses a network to which he has no authorisation, without obtaining permission. That is illegal in the UK. The situation in TFA is where you have an account with BT and are authorised to use any access point which is part of the system. If you can log on, you have a user name and password, and therefore are authorised. You are paying to be a member of the network but you are free to choose which access point you use. The point that you are contesting is that if might make the job of detection more difficult. So what? When the police have reasonable suspicion they can question an individual and ascertain that he has a user name and password and therefore is not committing a crime - much as they can ask you to produce your driver's licence within a specific period of time at a police station of your choosing. I don't see this new development as being something which they cannot cope with.
How will Microsoft trace him from his sig? Is/. obliged to give out user information to anyone who asks? Do you really expect NSA to devote effort in trying to track him down. So Microsoft browse this forum - so what? They are only a company and have no legal powers - at least not outside the USA.
If he is not in the US, what do you think Microsoft will do? What evidence do they have? His 'admission'? Nope - there are people on/. who claim all sorts of things that are patently not true. I do not see this impressing any court (outside the US).
Yep, he is not being smart by not using AV, but I hardly think that being paranoid is called for. Haven't you got enough to worry about with all the terrorists that are stalking the streets of America, all the pedophiles that are threatening your children and all those enemies who are waiting to attack you? Yes, you're right, none of these things are anywhere near as bad as most Americans appear to imagine that they are. If Microsoft could catch pirates that easily don't you think that they would have done so by now?
I'm not an American, so please forgive me if I'm not as knowledgeable of your legal system as you are.
But when are we going to have this stuff get to the point where we can see a real change?
Just as soon as you do something about getting it changed.... What is required? Are you demanding it? Or is it someone else's problem? Please don't take offence, but I've read the stories here that you have. I agree, it isn't changing, but perhaps that's because no-one is making it happen.
Yes, but ARPPNet doesn't actually kill anybody. It might cause RSI in a small number of people who overindulge in pron, but that is about the extent of its dangers to the individual (despite what many might have you to believe). I'm not saying that defence spending hasn't funded some marvellous scientific advances but it is still sad to see that one of the three 'benefits' of this discovery mentioned in the summary includes how it might be useful as a way of killing more of our own kind in the future. Is that the best that they can come up with? What a sad race we have become....
There are many phones that are available in Europe which still don't seem to have seen the light of day in the States. We're not short of choices. Now I'm not sure what particular iPhone capability is seen as being the world beater (I'm one of those old, boring people who just uses my telephone to talk to people....) but I feel that there is still plenty here to make iPhone much harder to sell than perhaps it is in the US.
Slashdot Mirror
Possible - but it will not happen because it cannot be effective. We have copyright protection in Europe, but there is probably as much P2P copying in Europe as elsewhere. There are lots of crimes that are legislated against, but they all occur in Europe. I, along with friends, built my first computer (8080 with 8k (k!) of memory in the early 1980s. Not from a kit, we designed it and built it from components. Printers require perhaps a few more specialist components but that doesn't mean they cannot be built. Legislate away, it will not stop computers - or printers - from being built.
And how, exactly, will that be accomplished worldwide. Do these machines refuse to print any currency? Nope, I thought not. And my printer has no problem reproducing dollars, sterling, euros or whatever. So what value do the restricted machines have that makes them more desireable than the one that I use now? Probably nothing at all, in which case they will not be bought.
And just for my own interest, can you tell me the make and the model of the printer that refuses to print dollars?
And just how does the Information Assurance office achieve this with regards to closed-source software? Do they actually have a check of every line of code? Or is this simply a way of ensuring that the US Government only procures software produced in the USA? While I fully understand why this might be desireable, it would only be another form of protectionism. I would argue that it is far easier to check open-source code - after all the code is freely available and the run time can be compiled from read-only sources using your own validated compilers and software tools - than trying to achieve the same for commercially produced, closed-source software.
Fred, did you mean 'psychic disorders' or, as I believe you meant to say, psychological disorders?
seam seem?
There were 240 pence to the old (pre-decimalisation) pound, comprised of 20 shillings each worth 12 (old) pence. Do you remember guineas, crowns, half-crowns, shillings, tanners (6-penny piece), threepenny bit, pennies, half-pennies, farthings (a quarter penny)? I do. I suspect that I am quite a bit older than you and I cannot ever remember there being 120 pence to the pound. So either please provide a citation or confess that you are mistaken/talking bollocks. :-)
But the main thrust of your post was correct with regards to dividing sums of money easily. Or at least it was until the education system decided that mathematics and mental arithmetic were not the most important subjects in life. I'm not sure how some of today's young people could cope with such problems.
Many comments in this thread are complaining about how their children cannot now watch Sesame Street. Why not? You can show the video to your children if you wish. Perhaps the restrictions will prevent your children from personally buying the DVD, but there is nothing to stop you from buying it and letting them watch it - or is there? Have American rules now become so petty that someone can dictate how you bring up your own children? I think that if this changes anything its because nobody has the balls to make a choice regarding how they bring up their children. Sesame Street didn't harm you and all you have to do is now make a decision for yourself and get on with your life.
As a non-American, may I be permitted to ask "Who the hell is Gene Simmons?". Is he important to Americans, or anyone else for that matter? Why should what he say be of interest to 'geeks'?
Your reply suggests that, because both parties seem to do it, destroying evidence is acceptable. Is that really how you decided your standards, or wouldn't you prefer to clean the whole matter up by making all politicians act like decent people?
In which case, I would easily be able to differentiate between the regular joes and RCMP. Women? I cannot remember women ever arriving at my basement door. Perhaps my parents stop them......?
From your description, I can see why you think it is 'brillinat'. I agree, and think that it is also supreb, useluf and long overude....
Less than you think you do.... Try reading up on your history.
Yes, of course you are correct however, not in America it seems. Elsewhere, and for the moment, we seem to be faring somewhat better. Nevertheless, I am sure that someone, somewhere, will come along and spoil it all for us as well.
I get even more disturbed when I hear individuals defining what is right or wrong based on their own whims. When you take the law into your own hands, you become a vigilante. That is also against the law in many countries, including probably your own. You have become no better than those you wish to punish. Don't dress it up by explaining how you think that you are justified, or by claiming that it requires some l33t hacker to come and save the world on your behalf. You are thinking, and wanting to act, like a criminal - no better, no worse.
And you have completely ignored the point that I made in your heroic stand against spam and viruses. It is not the network that is at fault but the users of the network. RTFA again - the network shouldn't be punished because of its users, particularly as RBN haven't broken the law. I'll bet there are several bots operating using your own ISP. How would you feel if you were shut down simply because of their actions?
This has nothing to do with resources or having sufficient desire to act. RBN possibly hasn't broken the law in Russia, therefore neither the Russian government nor any other country has the right to punish them for what they are doing. OK, perhaps Russian law needs changing but, until then, they are not criminals (unless of course they have previous convictions. :-) Those using RBN's network to carry out crime are criminals but if no-one is raising a complaint then the police are unable to act against them as individuals.
A lot of the spam is not arriving from RBN, although some is admittedly, but from the bots that they control. It is the bots that need to be stopped. Now a fair proportion of those exist in the US and in many of the other countries that /.ers live in. That is where we and/or our governments can act legally. So I wonder why we are not doing so?
I cannot see the problem - this is not being designed for the benefit of the RIAA or any other US monster, particularly as this is in the UK. But, if you log on using your username and password and then download music X, the ISP will know that you did so. Now whether they will be required to keep records of your connections (probably not, this is the UK not the USA) in additional to simply the fact that you logged on at a specific time, or whether the IP will remain the same for the extra 512kb allowance rather than the main subscriber's portion I do not know.
Nothing, but what is to stop you from faking your driving licence?
They only get to use the additional 512kb that is given to those who subscribe to the scheme. That 512kb can only be used by other users, not the subscriber himself. His connection remains at the maximum speed that he is entitled to under his existing contract. But it explains this in TFA....
No, to use the system you still have to log on with a username and password. They will know who is downloading what. How does that make sharing any different from what exists today?
No, there is a big difference between the two. The situation that you describe is where someone uses a network to which he has no authorisation, without obtaining permission. That is illegal in the UK. The situation in TFA is where you have an account with BT and are authorised to use any access point which is part of the system. If you can log on, you have a user name and password, and therefore are authorised. You are paying to be a member of the network but you are free to choose which access point you use. The point that you are contesting is that if might make the job of detection more difficult. So what? When the police have reasonable suspicion they can question an individual and ascertain that he has a user name and password and therefore is not committing a crime - much as they can ask you to produce your driver's licence within a specific period of time at a police station of your choosing. I don't see this new development as being something which they cannot cope with.
I can see the point that you are making but:
How will Microsoft trace him from his sig? Is /. obliged to give out user information to anyone who asks? Do you really expect NSA to devote effort in trying to track him down. So Microsoft browse this forum - so what? They are only a company and have no legal powers - at least not outside the USA.
If he is not in the US, what do you think Microsoft will do? What evidence do they have? His 'admission'? Nope - there are people on /. who claim all sorts of things that are patently not true. I do not see this impressing any court (outside the US).
Yep, he is not being smart by not using AV, but I hardly think that being paranoid is called for. Haven't you got enough to worry about with all the terrorists that are stalking the streets of America, all the pedophiles that are threatening your children and all those enemies who are waiting to attack you? Yes, you're right, none of these things are anywhere near as bad as most Americans appear to imagine that they are. If Microsoft could catch pirates that easily don't you think that they would have done so by now?
Just my viewpoint.
I'm not an American, so please forgive me if I'm not as knowledgeable of your legal system as you are.
But when are we going to have this stuff get to the point where we can see a real change?Just as soon as you do something about getting it changed.... What is required? Are you demanding it? Or is it someone else's problem? Please don't take offence, but I've read the stories here that you have. I agree, it isn't changing, but perhaps that's because no-one is making it happen.
Yes, but ARPPNet doesn't actually kill anybody. It might cause RSI in a small number of people who overindulge in pron, but that is about the extent of its dangers to the individual (despite what many might have you to believe). I'm not saying that defence spending hasn't funded some marvellous scientific advances but it is still sad to see that one of the three 'benefits' of this discovery mentioned in the summary includes how it might be useful as a way of killing more of our own kind in the future. Is that the best that they can come up with? What a sad race we have become....
There are many phones that are available in Europe which still don't seem to have seen the light of day in the States. We're not short of choices. Now I'm not sure what particular iPhone capability is seen as being the world beater (I'm one of those old, boring people who just uses my telephone to talk to people....) but I feel that there is still plenty here to make iPhone much harder to sell than perhaps it is in the US.