Somehow I don't feel at all threatened by the MPAA, the RIAA and the like. I have nothing whatsoever to worry about from them. And I don't need bittorrent software in order to remain anonymous. And yes, things like this can potentially be used for honest purposes - but let's be honest, torrent and the like is primarily used for the illegal distribution of music, movies, and software.
Last I checked, newspapers and magazines are not covered by DRM. Most things covered by DRM falls into the category of 'entertainment' (yes, I'd include many documentaries and such in that category).
Thanks for providing a proof for my claim.:) Society has moved away from educating kids and schools are now the place to entertain kids. American youth (and probably youth elsewhere, but America is the limit of my experience) just can't function anymore if they are not being entertained. They have come to expect it and have come to act as though they deserve entertainment. Theirs is a mindset that says "If it doesn't entertain me then I won't do it!" Only bad things can result from this.
How freaking self-centered are those who put the protection of entertainment over the education of our children?
And how sad for a society that requires entertainment in order to provide education. If we can't teach without flashy shiny media clips then something is wrong, and it isn't DRM.
Necessary absences are rare. School is a commitment. A good teacher will hold the student to that commitment. A good teacher would also know better than to promote illegal distribution of content.
And a conflicting class? That sounds like a student issue.
I don't think people know what discrimination is anymore. I don't know whether to laugh or be dismayed at how many posters have called this discrimination. This is not discrimination. This might annoy the three Linux users that view NY Times videos (admit it, most of the posters only went to NY Times videos using Linux in order to see if this was actually right) but annoyance hardly constitutes discrimination. Don't pretend to be something you aren't. If you want to feel discriminated, go be an African American living somewhere in the vicinity of the 1950's.
If you would RTFA you'd notice that the response was that since this guy is in Turkey he isn't covered by US laws and cannot be prosecuted. The article mentioned something about calling the guy on a US number, then linked to the court case PDF. The PDF mentions US attempts to determine the identity of the informant. They were able to get a US phone number that connected them to some voicemail service. In this day of getting international phone numbers through Skype, and using Skype for voicemail, having a US number doesn't demonstrate much.
The article says he's spreading the Sub7 worm. It takes a 30 second google to find copies of Sub7. If someone else gets Sub7, it's very unlikely to be because this guy is spreading it in specific usenet groups that your mother is unlikely to visit.
Laws that address the behavior of those interacting with products influenced by the RIAA. If you have nothing to do with those products the laws will have nothing to do with you.
It doesn't matter how it is regarded. It remains a scientific theory and nothing more. And as you have pointed out, it's a theory built on top of other theories. The theories under evolution are themselves even more tenuous. I believe there is a lot of merit in evolutionary theory, but I won't go around pretending the theory is something it isn't.
There's quite a bit of difference between a philisophic, psychological self-awareness and a scientific expression of fact. Evolution is indeed a theory and nothing more. The theory being what it is, it's unlikely that evolution could ever be more than a theory. In truth the vast majority of scientific postulations we deal with are simply theory, even if they are theories we put into practice every day.
'There are many legitimate reasons to want to be completely anonymous on the Internet,' says Rickard Falkvinge, chairman of the Pirate Party. 'If the government can check everything each citizen does, nobody can keep the government in check.'"
Oh please. 99% of the traffic will be illegal filesharing. This particular statement is quite ridiculous because what does "darknet" have to do with keeping government in check? Something like this can have nothing to do with government accountability. The argument is akin to the "Think of the children!" approach so often ridiculed here.
Not to mention the sound is inaudible to the majority of people over 25 while the original post says it's annoying everyone under 40. The exaggeration of facts doesn't make me any more confident that the original poster is as innocent as he pretends to be.
This has been endlessly rehashed on/. but I'll make the point again. No desktop operating system is secure enough to be safe from its most dangerous threat - Mom. Mom is a dangerous threat, clicking links without a care in the world, running programs that offer free kittens on her desktop, opening that email attachment containing a forward of Grandma's Secret Recipe for Jello Pies, and so on. The best defense a poor OS has against Mom is additional software that will keep up with everything going on via internet tubes so that it can Just Know when Mom is doing something stupid.
If you're going to have a desktop OS then you're always going to have security problems due to the end user. There is no way around that and there's no perfect protection from that. Security software is the best way to help, and why shouldn't a software company like Microsoft be making software? It's silly to say they shouldn't provide products that enhance the security of their other products.
You have no right to upload anything to YouTube. However, YouTube has given you permission to upload things, so long as you follow their conditions. They can quite easily take away that permission and all you could do is whine about it.
What would be the point of being anti-competitive if not making money? If money isn't MS's motivation for failing to offer boot support for other OS's then what would be MS's motivation for trying to overpower their competition?
At any rate, it could well be that one reason they don't offer great boot support to other OS's is money. Sure they sold you a license this time, but what if your use of the other OS leads you to decide to use that OS rather than buy the next version of Windows? Sure, you're well within your rights to do that but MS is under no obligation to help you do that.
Plus, come now - how many Windows users actually care a flip about dual boot capability? Very few compared to the number of Linux users that want to dual boot. It only makes sense that Linux offers good dual boot support, a lot less people would use Linux if it wasn't available.
I'm rather looking forward to Vista. I liked Beta 2 and used it enough that I'm already hooked on some of the features. If there is a public release of Beta 3 I'll probably use it until Vista goes on sale.
Slashdot Mirror
Somehow I don't feel at all threatened by the MPAA, the RIAA and the like. I have nothing whatsoever to worry about from them. And I don't need bittorrent software in order to remain anonymous. And yes, things like this can potentially be used for honest purposes - but let's be honest, torrent and the like is primarily used for the illegal distribution of music, movies, and software.
Last I checked, newspapers and magazines are not covered by DRM. Most things covered by DRM falls into the category of 'entertainment' (yes, I'd include many documentaries and such in that category).
Some kids want to learn, some don't. Those that don't put in the necessary work make bad grades. Life goes on.
Thanks for providing a proof for my claim. :) Society has moved away from educating kids and schools are now the place to entertain kids. American youth (and probably youth elsewhere, but America is the limit of my experience) just can't function anymore if they are not being entertained. They have come to expect it and have come to act as though they deserve entertainment. Theirs is a mindset that says "If it doesn't entertain me then I won't do it!" Only bad things can result from this.
How freaking self-centered are those who put the protection of entertainment over the education of our children?
And how sad for a society that requires entertainment in order to provide education. If we can't teach without flashy shiny media clips then something is wrong, and it isn't DRM.
Necessary absences are rare. School is a commitment. A good teacher will hold the student to that commitment. A good teacher would also know better than to promote illegal distribution of content.
And a conflicting class? That sounds like a student issue.
I don't think people know what discrimination is anymore. I don't know whether to laugh or be dismayed at how many posters have called this discrimination. This is not discrimination. This might annoy the three Linux users that view NY Times videos (admit it, most of the posters only went to NY Times videos using Linux in order to see if this was actually right) but annoyance hardly constitutes discrimination. Don't pretend to be something you aren't. If you want to feel discriminated, go be an African American living somewhere in the vicinity of the 1950's.
Mentioning the website in an article is hardly a recommendation by the NY Times.
If you would RTFA you'd notice that the response was that since this guy is in Turkey he isn't covered by US laws and cannot be prosecuted. The article mentioned something about calling the guy on a US number, then linked to the court case PDF. The PDF mentions US attempts to determine the identity of the informant. They were able to get a US phone number that connected them to some voicemail service. In this day of getting international phone numbers through Skype, and using Skype for voicemail, having a US number doesn't demonstrate much.
The article says he's spreading the Sub7 worm. It takes a 30 second google to find copies of Sub7. If someone else gets Sub7, it's very unlikely to be because this guy is spreading it in specific usenet groups that your mother is unlikely to visit.
If we are speaking about embryo's then we ARE speaking about kids that have already been created.
You were rejected from the chess club, weren't you? Be honest now.
Your application for doctoral study was rejected, wasn't it? Be honest now.
Laws that address the behavior of those interacting with products influenced by the RIAA. If you have nothing to do with those products the laws will have nothing to do with you.
It doesn't matter how it is regarded. It remains a scientific theory and nothing more. And as you have pointed out, it's a theory built on top of other theories. The theories under evolution are themselves even more tenuous. I believe there is a lot of merit in evolutionary theory, but I won't go around pretending the theory is something it isn't.
Very, very good post.
There's quite a bit of difference between a philisophic, psychological self-awareness and a scientific expression of fact. Evolution is indeed a theory and nothing more. The theory being what it is, it's unlikely that evolution could ever be more than a theory. In truth the vast majority of scientific postulations we deal with are simply theory, even if they are theories we put into practice every day.
It was even worse for me. I used ed.
'There are many legitimate reasons to want to be completely anonymous on the Internet,' says Rickard Falkvinge, chairman of the Pirate Party. 'If the government can check everything each citizen does, nobody can keep the government in check.'"
Oh please. 99% of the traffic will be illegal filesharing. This particular statement is quite ridiculous because what does "darknet" have to do with keeping government in check? Something like this can have nothing to do with government accountability. The argument is akin to the "Think of the children!" approach so often ridiculed here.
Not to mention the sound is inaudible to the majority of people over 25 while the original post says it's annoying everyone under 40. The exaggeration of facts doesn't make me any more confident that the original poster is as innocent as he pretends to be.
This has been endlessly rehashed on /. but I'll make the point again. No desktop operating system is secure enough to be safe from its most dangerous threat - Mom. Mom is a dangerous threat, clicking links without a care in the world, running programs that offer free kittens on her desktop, opening that email attachment containing a forward of Grandma's Secret Recipe for Jello Pies, and so on. The best defense a poor OS has against Mom is additional software that will keep up with everything going on via internet tubes so that it can Just Know when Mom is doing something stupid.
If you're going to have a desktop OS then you're always going to have security problems due to the end user. There is no way around that and there's no perfect protection from that. Security software is the best way to help, and why shouldn't a software company like Microsoft be making software? It's silly to say they shouldn't provide products that enhance the security of their other products.
You have no right to upload anything to YouTube. However, YouTube has given you permission to upload things, so long as you follow their conditions. They can quite easily take away that permission and all you could do is whine about it.
What would be the point of being anti-competitive if not making money? If money isn't MS's motivation for failing to offer boot support for other OS's then what would be MS's motivation for trying to overpower their competition? At any rate, it could well be that one reason they don't offer great boot support to other OS's is money. Sure they sold you a license this time, but what if your use of the other OS leads you to decide to use that OS rather than buy the next version of Windows? Sure, you're well within your rights to do that but MS is under no obligation to help you do that. Plus, come now - how many Windows users actually care a flip about dual boot capability? Very few compared to the number of Linux users that want to dual boot. It only makes sense that Linux offers good dual boot support, a lot less people would use Linux if it wasn't available.
I'm rather looking forward to Vista. I liked Beta 2 and used it enough that I'm already hooked on some of the features. If there is a public release of Beta 3 I'll probably use it until Vista goes on sale.
Extra scrutiny is fine, the point made was that they should be allowed to place bids. Scrutinize their bids, sure, but let them make the bids.