If RIAA does start applying a 20 pound or 40 dollar monthly tax
The summary quite clearly states that it is a 20 pound a year tax that is being considered. Other posters are still absolutely right however, that those who are not currently downloading music or films (and I reckon that it is still the vast majority of internet users) will be paying to subsidise the activities of those who want to continue their illegal activities. Oh, come on, filesharers may think it is their right to copy whatever they want to, but it is still illegal. The copyright is still held by someone and they have said that no copies can be made without their express permission so, whether we like it or not, under the current law it is illegal. So to those who would like to benefit from any potential tax that I might have to pay I suggest that you get the law changed rather than believe that you are some sort of Robin Hood character who is actually doing the world a favour.
I'm not criticising the OP but rather this particular thread which has, once again, turned a technical issue into a political slanging match without debating the benefits of the proposal.
Not being an American, it is not my place to comment on either party but I did hear Obama's speech. Do you recall the bit about 'everyone contributing' and 'all working together' to try to sort out the current mess? Have you even considered it, you know, like cooperating with each other rather than acting like little children and pointing fingers and blame at the kid that sits on the other side of the class?
The election is over, Obama is president. Deal with it. Can we please move on and try to discuss geek issues like adult geeks?
Oh yes, I think that a country that can deliver mail to every home, has roads that criss-cross the country and ensures that everyone can have a telephone of some kind or another, should be more than capable of meeting the challenge of getting broadband to everyone so that your businesses can compete, so that your kids can have access to information, and so that everyone can have a choice where they shop and thus bring back competition to bring down prices. Six billion seems more of an investment rather than a waste of money.
Another issue is this is the first time I have seen the infection attributed to a Russian-area site.
I realise that the article is referring to Ukraine, but your phrase 'Russia-area' covers 11 time zones and either 12 or 14 countries which directly border upon Russia, depending on whether you include the enclave of Kaliningrad: Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, China and North Korea. That is a considerable chunk of the world, the majority of its population, and totally irrelevant to the subject. After all, your sweeping generalisation of Russia-area includes China which is where you have also heard the virus originated.
Why didn't you just say 'Ukraine'?
Anyone starting a war will want a crushing first blow and taking out files, doing DDoS, etc, would be typical.
You do realise that Ukraine is no longer aligned with Russia? Are you honestly suggesting that the Ukraine is about to attack someone?
If you are going to be deterred from coming to the US over the requirement that you register online and cough up some fingerprints I suppose you really didn't care that much about coming in the first place anyway, did you?
Hang about - I've already been through the visa application and vetting system, and now you also demand that I must have access to the internet? Why? Is the internet now some form of security device that everyone must have, or is it still something that is optional and might even be considered a luxury item? The online application requires me to say in which hotel I will be staying? Why? Can't I just arrive and book a hotel of my choice - well obviously not. What will the next requirement be? Must I also buy an American car, or deposit some money into a US bank account, or tell someone which restaurant I intend to use for each meal?
I have never before seen a powerful nation become so frightened by shadows. It's your country and I, for one, will leave you to it. You are, I suppose, correct - 'I (now) don't really care that much about coming in the first place'.
Imagine that the program to kill the botnet is written by China or Russia. If they released it and allowed it to run on computers in the US there would be a major outcry. "This is eWar!" or "We are under eAttack!" would be heard far and wide and the US would use it as a reason to raise the alert state at the very minimum and could even begin a shooting war to defend the US internet and their citizens.
Now, why do you think it should be any more acceptable to other countries if the US authorises its agencies to do a similar stunt? Running unauthorised software on someone's computer is an offence regardless of who does it. The only way that this could be acceptable is if the program is released publically and users can choose to run it on their own computer.
Until they make the use of SSH tunnels or even encryption illegal. After all, if you have nothing to hide, why would you even consider using either? - or so their argument will go.
It also allows market traders to continue to sell their wares in imperial units without displaying metric units at all. Now that might not be the intention of the new ruling but it is certainly how it has been interpreted at the 2 locations that I know reasonably well - the NW and SW.
So, are you claiming that the road signs now indicate distances in km rather than miles? Or are we now using 'metric' miles rather than the traditional ones with 1760 yards to each of them? That would be 1760 metric yards, each of 3 metric feet in length which, in turn, contain 12 metric inches? Are horse races now measured in metric furlongs - 8 metric furlongs to each of your metric miles, perhaps?
Yep, you've convinced me than we have gone metric. Now, I'm a Brit so I might be wrong about all of this, but where are you from? It's still legal to use pounds and ounces, or gallons, or miles or any other imperial units, but you are equally welcome to use metric units if you wish.
Imagine the US government offering to "help" by buying Google (and it's mountains of personal data) to "maintain stability".
No problem. I'm not an American so the US Government threatens me no more or no less with this data than it does today. If you are suggesting that the US government 'might' use such information to persuade citizens of other nations to do something that they might otherwise not do or to apply pressure in any other way, then Americans need to sort out their government. Of course, some Americans might be of the opinion that anything that their government does to 'foreigners' is OK (ignoring the fact that we might actually be allies), to which I can only reply that their Government represents to the world each and every American citizen, and if that is how they wish to be perceived by others then so be it.
As soon as 'something is plugged in' to the computer, either hardware or software, then the integrity of the data on the disk is invalidated. This would be laughed out of any court that I know of.
When a computer is analysed forensically, a copy is made of the hard drive, the copy is verified as being accurate, and then all work is conducted on the copy. The original drive is not changed. What they are proposing is something that can access a computer without all the 'trouble' of maintaining the chain of evidence i.e. the end result will be inadmissible in court. The reason that the current system takes so long is that they cannot simply 'plug something in' to collect evidence. They have to follow rigorous procedures which require documenting at each and every step. All the accused would have to claim is that whatever is on the hard-drive after it left his possession or, more correctly, after the police started tampering with it, is nothing to do with him.
Is it that the pelvis is tilted up, and is closer to the camera than the rest of the body
Er, I think that the knees are much closer to the camera than the pelvis - therefore it MUST be pornography!
I'm having a hard time saying what, in concrete terms, makes this pose sexualizing.
I think that the phrase you are trying to say is 'Nothing'. Other than the title of the album it is simply a picture of a naked individual. If anyone finds it sexually arousing then perhaps there it is something wrong with them and not with the cover?
So does all this add up to porn? I don't know. It's borderline.
No, it isn't. This is more symptomatic of society's problem that it cannot accept that, although we are all born naked, we mustn't ever be seen that way again. If you go to many beaches in Europe (and I suspect elsewhere) you will see people of all ages completely naked and continuing with all the things that normal people do at the beach. Sunbathing, playing games, reading, eating, drinking, swimming. It doesn't signify the end of the world as we know it, nor is it something that attracts anything more than routine interest by almost everyone else. OK, you get the odd giggling schoolboy but that is probably more of a reflection of his upbringing than of anything else. We mocked the Victorians for their prudish views and now someone in the UK seems to think that we should regress back to such times. We will be draping tables with cloths soon so that sensitive ladies cannot view naked table legs!
As several others have already commented, we all take pictures of our children in various states of dress and undress - sometimes young girls play at dressing up and perhaps their parents let them try makeup. Not as a matter of routine but simply for the enjoyment of a moments play. It doesn't make the child any more sexually provocative then she was a few moments before but there are some who believe differently. I cannot agree with them, and they should seek help.
If it wasn't for the album's title it would have been a non-event. When it was released it caused the desired scandal but was still available in the shops. Why on earth it should be deemed to be even more scandalous today is beyond me.
This is nothing to do with not following the party line
Arresting the MP (Member of Parliament) is not the issue here, nor is searching his home. If an MP has committed a crime then he/she is responsible for his or her actions. However, an MP has the right to speak to his constituents and to keep what they say confidential, in much the same way as a doctor or lawyer. By conducting a search of his Parliamentary offices (without a warrant!) this confidentiality has been seriously breached. In addition, the police accessed his emails in Parliament which, as some technically aware MP has spotted, this means that the Police must have accessed the server (without any oversight) and they could potentially have copied or viewed every MP's emails.
This is not about the rights of a single MP who may, or may not, have broken the law (we do not yet know because the police are not yet revealing the evidence that they have). It is about a fundamental breach of the UK's democratic principles and particularly about a Member of Parliament's ability to represent his constituents without outside interference. The waters have been muddied by some trying to widen the debate to score political points over the other parties, and by others who simply have misunderstood why the debate has arisen in the first place.
Just to clarify another point, the police CAN conduct a search without a warrant IF they have the property owner's permission to do so. The problem revolves here in the fact that they did not tell the Sergeant at Arms (read 'Parliamentary Security') that they did not have a warrant nor is the SaA the 'owner' of the property. As this is the first time in 400 years that such an action has even been attempted the legal basis for all of these actions is not entirely clear. Some also believe that the police would never have been granted a warrant by a judge, and that the 'crime' of which the arrested MP is accused is actually part of his Parliamentary responsibilities (i.e. holding the Government to account) and something that has been practiced by all parties for hundreds of years. Therefore, some suspect that the whole thing might have political mischief written all over it particularly as the Cabinet Office currently have oversight of the whole matter (although they deny knowing anything about it!) and the MP concerned is currently in opposition to the Government.
In a few cases, serious sexual assault being one of them, the police CAN keep your DNA for a period of time (not unlimited) even if you are not convicted. This is because just because it cannot be proven in court does not mean that you haven't committed the crime. You just cannot be punished for it. However, it is thought that serious sexual offenders tend to repeat their offences and there is an obvious benefit for the police in preventing or solving subsequent crimes by keeping your DNA.
I'm not arguing one way or another about whether this is desirable, simply stating that your statement is wrong for precisely the reasons you argue that DNA should be kept. It already is.
So you managed to do just that for roads and telephones but you are suggesting that it would be impossible to do for broadband?
I disagree. It would be difficult and expensive but, given the will, it could be done. The problem is that it is not your Government but businesses that would have to carry out the work, and they want to see a profit. So it is not in their interests to do it. Of course, your Government could offer a financial package to help pay for the work. Oh, wait, they already have done.....
People once said that you couldn't travel at speeds greater than 25 MPH without suffering physical injury, that you couldn't go to the moon, that an African-American could be President, and so on. All these things have come, or are coming, to pass but America is still becoming an broadband backwater. It is not because of ability but simply a lack of will.
I have the right to not have the net flucked up by idiots who think they can do what they want to the detriment of others, and also by idiots who don't know how to keep their machines free of this muck?
And where is this right defined? In which article of statute or law does it specify your 'right' to internet access at the fastest possible speed? Where does it state that your rights are more important than any other internet user?
The law in your country is probably not the same as the law in another. You cannot make assumptions about your international 'rights' based solely on what you think is good for you. If there is no-one in your country using spam, generating spam, buying things being advertised by spam or being part of this botnet then why don't you simply get your country to disconnect itself from the rest of the world. Hey, your spam problem will be fixed!
This is an attack on US assets by foreign nationals.
You are receiving spam not nuclear weapons, you idiot. It's not terrorism. What are you being terrorised to do? For goodness sake, get a sense of perspective! It is an annoyance, but it is hardly posing a threat to your national security. If it is causing you that much of a problem then unplug your computer from the socket in the wall.
I'm not saying that there isn't a cost involved - there is. But what sort of action are you suggesting should be taken? A military invasion? Undercover assassinations of anyone you think might be involved in spamming? Or simply killing all those whose machines are infected? And if you think that any of those is acceptable then you surely won't have any objection if/when other nations start behaving that way in your country, will you? I know where most of my spam originates.
My tip with virgin is to do any of your large downloading in the evening or at night.
On a site intended for geeks, is there anyone who 'watches' their torrent download? Why would anyone do anything other than automate downloads for action during a time when you are unlikely to be using the computer for anything else? OK, perhaps gamers spend 25 hours a day (not a typo!) on their machine but, for the rest of us, a simple script can automate numerous tasks that take computer time but are less than interesting to sit and watch.
Slashdot Mirror
If RIAA does start applying a 20 pound or 40 dollar monthly tax
The summary quite clearly states that it is a 20 pound a year tax that is being considered. Other posters are still absolutely right however, that those who are not currently downloading music or films (and I reckon that it is still the vast majority of internet users) will be paying to subsidise the activities of those who want to continue their illegal activities. Oh, come on, filesharers may think it is their right to copy whatever they want to, but it is still illegal. The copyright is still held by someone and they have said that no copies can be made without their express permission so, whether we like it or not, under the current law it is illegal. So to those who would like to benefit from any potential tax that I might have to pay I suggest that you get the law changed rather than believe that you are some sort of Robin Hood character who is actually doing the world a favour.
On this side of the pond we often use the phrase 'clued-up'. It does, however, mean exactly as you have surmised.
Interestingly, the 'toyota.com' site opened on my FF (3.0.5) running on linux with no apparent display problems. What does it do on your computer?
I'm not criticising the OP but rather this particular thread which has, once again, turned a technical issue into a political slanging match without debating the benefits of the proposal.
Not being an American, it is not my place to comment on either party but I did hear Obama's speech. Do you recall the bit about 'everyone contributing' and 'all working together' to try to sort out the current mess? Have you even considered it, you know, like cooperating with each other rather than acting like little children and pointing fingers and blame at the kid that sits on the other side of the class?
The election is over, Obama is president. Deal with it. Can we please move on and try to discuss geek issues like adult geeks?
Oh yes, I think that a country that can deliver mail to every home, has roads that criss-cross the country and ensures that everyone can have a telephone of some kind or another, should be more than capable of meeting the challenge of getting broadband to everyone so that your businesses can compete, so that your kids can have access to information, and so that everyone can have a choice where they shop and thus bring back competition to bring down prices. Six billion seems more of an investment rather than a waste of money.
Another issue is this is the first time I have seen the infection attributed to a Russian-area site.
I realise that the article is referring to Ukraine, but your phrase 'Russia-area' covers 11 time zones and either 12 or 14 countries which directly border upon Russia, depending on whether you include the enclave of Kaliningrad: Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, China and North Korea. That is a considerable chunk of the world, the majority of its population, and totally irrelevant to the subject. After all, your sweeping generalisation of Russia-area includes China which is where you have also heard the virus originated.
Why didn't you just say 'Ukraine'?
Anyone starting a war will want a crushing first blow and taking out files, doing DDoS, etc, would be typical.
You do realise that Ukraine is no longer aligned with Russia? Are you honestly suggesting that the Ukraine is about to attack someone?
If you are going to be deterred from coming to the US over the requirement that you register online and cough up some fingerprints I suppose you really didn't care that much about coming in the first place anyway, did you?
Hang about - I've already been through the visa application and vetting system, and now you also demand that I must have access to the internet? Why? Is the internet now some form of security device that everyone must have, or is it still something that is optional and might even be considered a luxury item? The online application requires me to say in which hotel I will be staying? Why? Can't I just arrive and book a hotel of my choice - well obviously not. What will the next requirement be? Must I also buy an American car, or deposit some money into a US bank account, or tell someone which restaurant I intend to use for each meal?
I have never before seen a powerful nation become so frightened by shadows. It's your country and I, for one, will leave you to it. You are, I suppose, correct - 'I (now) don't really care that much about coming in the first place'.
Let's turn this around a little
Imagine that the program to kill the botnet is written by China or Russia. If they released it and allowed it to run on computers in the US there would be a major outcry. "This is eWar!" or "We are under eAttack!" would be heard far and wide and the US would use it as a reason to raise the alert state at the very minimum and could even begin a shooting war to defend the US internet and their citizens.
Now, why do you think it should be any more acceptable to other countries if the US authorises its agencies to do a similar stunt? Running unauthorised software on someone's computer is an offence regardless of who does it. The only way that this could be acceptable is if the program is released publically and users can choose to run it on their own computer.
Until they make the use of SSH tunnels or even encryption illegal. After all, if you have nothing to hide, why would you even consider using either? - or so their argument will go.
What can you see that is coloured red? Each linked page looks completely normal to me.
It also allows market traders to continue to sell their wares in imperial units without displaying metric units at all. Now that might not be the intention of the new ruling but it is certainly how it has been interpreted at the 2 locations that I know reasonably well - the NW and SW.
Actaully that's not quite true. Shops must display a) both metric and imperial or b) metric only)
That law was rescinded only a few months ago. We have been given 'EU permission' to continue with our imperial values.
So, are you claiming that the road signs now indicate distances in km rather than miles? Or are we now using 'metric' miles rather than the traditional ones with 1760 yards to each of them? That would be 1760 metric yards, each of 3 metric feet in length which, in turn, contain 12 metric inches? Are horse races now measured in metric furlongs - 8 metric furlongs to each of your metric miles, perhaps?
Yep, you've convinced me than we have gone metric. Now, I'm a Brit so I might be wrong about all of this, but where are you from? It's still legal to use pounds and ounces, or gallons, or miles or any other imperial units, but you are equally welcome to use metric units if you wish.
Imagine the US government offering to "help" by buying Google (and it's mountains of personal data) to "maintain stability".
No problem. I'm not an American so the US Government threatens me no more or no less with this data than it does today. If you are suggesting that the US government 'might' use such information to persuade citizens of other nations to do something that they might otherwise not do or to apply pressure in any other way, then Americans need to sort out their government. Of course, some Americans might be of the opinion that anything that their government does to 'foreigners' is OK (ignoring the fact that we might actually be allies), to which I can only reply that their Government represents to the world each and every American citizen, and if that is how they wish to be perceived by others then so be it.
As soon as 'something is plugged in' to the computer, either hardware or software, then the integrity of the data on the disk is invalidated. This would be laughed out of any court that I know of.
When a computer is analysed forensically, a copy is made of the hard drive, the copy is verified as being accurate, and then all work is conducted on the copy. The original drive is not changed. What they are proposing is something that can access a computer without all the 'trouble' of maintaining the chain of evidence i.e. the end result will be inadmissible in court. The reason that the current system takes so long is that they cannot simply 'plug something in' to collect evidence. They have to follow rigorous procedures which require documenting at each and every step. All the accused would have to claim is that whatever is on the hard-drive after it left his possession or, more correctly, after the police started tampering with it, is nothing to do with him.
Is it that the pelvis is tilted up, and is closer to the camera than the rest of the body
Er, I think that the knees are much closer to the camera than the pelvis - therefore it MUST be pornography!
I'm having a hard time saying what, in concrete terms, makes this pose sexualizing.
I think that the phrase you are trying to say is 'Nothing'. Other than the title of the album it is simply a picture of a naked individual. If anyone finds it sexually arousing then perhaps there it is something wrong with them and not with the cover?
So does all this add up to porn? I don't know. It's borderline.
No, it isn't. This is more symptomatic of society's problem that it cannot accept that, although we are all born naked, we mustn't ever be seen that way again. If you go to many beaches in Europe (and I suspect elsewhere) you will see people of all ages completely naked and continuing with all the things that normal people do at the beach. Sunbathing, playing games, reading, eating, drinking, swimming. It doesn't signify the end of the world as we know it, nor is it something that attracts anything more than routine interest by almost everyone else. OK, you get the odd giggling schoolboy but that is probably more of a reflection of his upbringing than of anything else. We mocked the Victorians for their prudish views and now someone in the UK seems to think that we should regress back to such times. We will be draping tables with cloths soon so that sensitive ladies cannot view naked table legs!
As several others have already commented, we all take pictures of our children in various states of dress and undress - sometimes young girls play at dressing up and perhaps their parents let them try makeup. Not as a matter of routine but simply for the enjoyment of a moments play. It doesn't make the child any more sexually provocative then she was a few moments before but there are some who believe differently. I cannot agree with them, and they should seek help.
If it wasn't for the album's title it would have been a non-event. When it was released it caused the desired scandal but was still available in the shops. Why on earth it should be deemed to be even more scandalous today is beyond me.
Why do the police need my DNA records then.....? Haven't they tried a Google search for 'Sex attack, , , who is the offender?'
This is nothing to do with not following the party line
Arresting the MP (Member of Parliament) is not the issue here, nor is searching his home. If an MP has committed a crime then he/she is responsible for his or her actions. However, an MP has the right to speak to his constituents and to keep what they say confidential, in much the same way as a doctor or lawyer. By conducting a search of his Parliamentary offices (without a warrant!) this confidentiality has been seriously breached. In addition, the police accessed his emails in Parliament which, as some technically aware MP has spotted, this means that the Police must have accessed the server (without any oversight) and they could potentially have copied or viewed every MP's emails.
This is not about the rights of a single MP who may, or may not, have broken the law (we do not yet know because the police are not yet revealing the evidence that they have). It is about a fundamental breach of the UK's democratic principles and particularly about a Member of Parliament's ability to represent his constituents without outside interference. The waters have been muddied by some trying to widen the debate to score political points over the other parties, and by others who simply have misunderstood why the debate has arisen in the first place.
Just to clarify another point, the police CAN conduct a search without a warrant IF they have the property owner's permission to do so. The problem revolves here in the fact that they did not tell the Sergeant at Arms (read 'Parliamentary Security') that they did not have a warrant nor is the SaA the 'owner' of the property. As this is the first time in 400 years that such an action has even been attempted the legal basis for all of these actions is not entirely clear. Some also believe that the police would never have been granted a warrant by a judge, and that the 'crime' of which the arrested MP is accused is actually part of his Parliamentary responsibilities (i.e. holding the Government to account) and something that has been practiced by all parties for hundreds of years. Therefore, some suspect that the whole thing might have political mischief written all over it particularly as the Cabinet Office currently have oversight of the whole matter (although they deny knowing anything about it!) and the MP concerned is currently in opposition to the Government.
Get the popcorn, this will run and run.
You are wrong
In a few cases, serious sexual assault being one of them, the police CAN keep your DNA for a period of time (not unlimited) even if you are not convicted. This is because just because it cannot be proven in court does not mean that you haven't committed the crime. You just cannot be punished for it. However, it is thought that serious sexual offenders tend to repeat their offences and there is an obvious benefit for the police in preventing or solving subsequent crimes by keeping your DNA.
I'm not arguing one way or another about whether this is desirable, simply stating that your statement is wrong for precisely the reasons you argue that DNA should be kept. It already is.
What's this 'sex' thing that you are talking about?
So you managed to do just that for roads and telephones but you are suggesting that it would be impossible to do for broadband?
I disagree. It would be difficult and expensive but, given the will, it could be done. The problem is that it is not your Government but businesses that would have to carry out the work, and they want to see a profit. So it is not in their interests to do it. Of course, your Government could offer a financial package to help pay for the work. Oh, wait, they already have done.....
People once said that you couldn't travel at speeds greater than 25 MPH without suffering physical injury, that you couldn't go to the moon, that an African-American could be President, and so on. All these things have come, or are coming, to pass but America is still becoming an broadband backwater. It is not because of ability but simply a lack of will.
If you don't tell them, then their going to fail continuously.
OK, I'll tell you that you're wrong! It's "they're", not "their".
unless you live in a cave in a grass skirt.
That's a funny place to find a cave..... Da - dah!
I have the right to not have the net flucked up by idiots who think they can do what they want to the detriment of others, and also by idiots who don't know how to keep their machines free of this muck?
And where is this right defined? In which article of statute or law does it specify your 'right' to internet access at the fastest possible speed? Where does it state that your rights are more important than any other internet user?
The law in your country is probably not the same as the law in another. You cannot make assumptions about your international 'rights' based solely on what you think is good for you. If there is no-one in your country using spam, generating spam, buying things being advertised by spam or being part of this botnet then why don't you simply get your country to disconnect itself from the rest of the world. Hey, your spam problem will be fixed!
This is an attack on US assets by foreign nationals.
You are receiving spam not nuclear weapons, you idiot. It's not terrorism. What are you being terrorised to do? For goodness sake, get a sense of perspective! It is an annoyance, but it is hardly posing a threat to your national security. If it is causing you that much of a problem then unplug your computer from the socket in the wall.
I'm not saying that there isn't a cost involved - there is. But what sort of action are you suggesting should be taken? A military invasion? Undercover assassinations of anyone you think might be involved in spamming? Or simply killing all those whose machines are infected? And if you think that any of those is acceptable then you surely won't have any objection if/when other nations start behaving that way in your country, will you? I know where most of my spam originates.
My tip with virgin is to do any of your large downloading in the evening or at night.
On a site intended for geeks, is there anyone who 'watches' their torrent download? Why would anyone do anything other than automate downloads for action during a time when you are unlikely to be using the computer for anything else? OK, perhaps gamers spend 25 hours a day (not a typo!) on their machine but, for the rest of us, a simple script can automate numerous tasks that take computer time but are less than interesting to sit and watch.