No, there is an oppressive price on gasoline not an oppressive tax, atleast not in the United States.
The average state tax on gasoline in the United States was 28.6 cents per gallon in the first quarter of 2008.
During the same period the gasoline tax in Germany was 7.6 dollars per gallon and 5.2 dollars per gallon in the United Kingdom.
I hate the RIAA, but the same thing applies to software, and guess what I'm a software dev, and I imagine many of you might be. What would you do if everyone started giving away your product for free without your consent?
People are already giving away others software for free.
The software industry's response to that is to riddle the software with crippling copy protection that doesn't deter the pirates but annoys the legitimate buyer and drives them to pirate the software instead because it causes less hassle.
Yes punishments are there as a deterrent, yes they should hurt.
What the deterrents shouldn't do is completely devastate the deviant, destroy any chance they will ever have at a decent life and send them into eternal debt.
Any deterrents should be in proportion to the actual crime. If you drive drunk you risk other peoples lives and wellbeeing that is something very serious and should naturally carry a MUCH steeper deterrent than depriving somone of $0.99 no matter the number of infringements in the latter case.
Yes dictatorships and their like tends to be much better at misappropriating funds for personal interest but US is a democracy and thus subject to higher standards on matters like these.
Modern dictatorships usually exists to enrich the dictator but democracies claims that they exist to protect the general population and hence your comparison is not very fitting.
One problem with this is that when higher rated games become harder and more expensive to obtain than going to the local WalMart and getting your game the likelihood that the potential customer turns to piracy simply out of convenience increase dramatically.
Many people would rather pirate that game than going to the local shady porn shop and risk getting seen by somone they know.
This could in the end lead to that games with higher than child friendly ratings become extinct or prohibitively expensive because they're not profitable.
For your first alternative physical intrusion detection will work very well as a safety measure since the attacker wants to be discrete.
If you return home and notice somone have drilled/sawed/cut a large hole in the side of your computer would you be suspicious?
As for the Van Eck device, there is a reason military systems that needs to be secure outside of a secured enviroment is usually quite bulky, thats because they are shielded.
If your data is so important that you need to worry about three letter agencies or the military will come after your data you can pay to install shielding too.
Deal with the network invasion way the same way it is usually dealt with.
And your last alternative, Construct your own secure nonsense password.
It is your right as a free person to risk your own life yes, but you have no right whatsoever to risk the lives of anyone else without their express permission to do so.
Because in doing so you take away their rights and freedom to decide for themselves and thus you are no better than any other tyrant.
The traffic related deaths can be lowered alot by steeply raising the requirements needed to be elegible for a drivers license.
Most people over here in europe look upon the US drivers license requirements as a joke, thats how low they are compared to whats required of us western europeans to earn a drivers license.
No the ISP's over here are not on the same side as the AA's, neither are they against P2P yet.
Another reason to support this would be because the European Union tells you to, EU is not afraid of regulating something they think isn't working as it should, things like roaming costs which they are in the process of mandating lower costs on for traffic inside EU.
If you don't want anyone to get access to it yes but if you want it for plausible deniability or resonable doubt(or if you're just another ignorant computer user) it will be as it was shipped, usually wide open that is.
No it would probably mean that you are considered more responsible than if you had no bandwidth limits.
If you had no limits and no protection you could resonably claim you had no idea your router was open to the public but with the limit and still no protection a prosecutor could claim you willingly helped somone to gain access to whatever the content was and then you'd be an accessory to that crime.
Actually no it won't be that easy to get away with.
All this verdict says is that you are not automatically responsible for content that passes through their unprotected wifi connection. It does not say say that you are never responsible for content that passes over your wireless connection.
There will still be a trial and the judge and the jury will be presented with the evidence that they will have to take into consideration and determine wether it is relevant or not and wether it casts guilt on the defendant or not.
To use a car analogy, you are not responsible for what somebody who steal your car does with it just because you didn't lock the doors(your insurance company might refuse to pay you for the stolen car but you would not be criminally liable).
It is no less fair than if the national government had voted no on the issue and thus killing the proposition in the exact same way.If a proposition require a unanimous decision it doesn't matter wether the state that votes no does that because their parliament voted no or because they had a national vote on it.
What you're really against is that giving any nation the power to kill a proposition on their own.
Actually you can, atleast in Sweden it appears, during the last election for the European Parliament a previously unknown EU critical party called the Junelist came from nowhere and grabbed several seats so it does happen.
Actually Sweden already gathers intelligence in many other ways it's simply that so far they've been prohibited from legally tapping into cable bound traffic, everything else has so far been fair game.
Because until the Soviet Union fell Sweden had a very real threat on our doorstep and historically Swedens armed forces have been sized to deal with that threat the best it could and not completely bankrupt the country(after all there is a huge size disparity between sweden and what was the USSR). After the Soviet Union fell Russia was unstable for several years and well, if you don't use gained skills you eventually forget those skills or the people with those skills retire.
During many years of the cold war Sweden had the world's third largest airforce and Sweden have always been making very high qualit military materials.
Terrorism for one. US has a resonable reason to expect terrorist plots agains your contry or your military bases placed on foreign soil as you have done alot to piss off muslims in general and terrorists in particular. This is not something Sweden needs to worry about enough to warrant a law such as this and our UN expiditionary forces wouldn't benefit from this law either in a way that justifies these kind of laws.
Alleged terrorist funding operations originating in sweden is neither a big enough reason to warrant any law such as this.
IF the main reason for this law is Russia as the defense minister tries to claim then this wouldn't be done in public they would just quietly put a tap on the lines passing into sweden where the majority of the russian traffic passes through.
Sweden is a small country that doesn't concern most other countries in any significant way after the cold war officially ended. If Russia wanted to take sweden there's nothing Sweden could do about it except to use guerilla warfare against aggressors and hope somone more powerful intervenes, infact that was Sweden's grand military strategy during the cold war. Even that might be impossible today since Sweden is cherfully cutting fundings to large parts of their armed forces.
There is a very simple reason for this. In Sweden if you're a MOP you're expected to vote for the party line whatever that is regardless of your own opinions if you don't your political career will pretty much be over. Hence they don't care much about whatever they're voting on, they just have to know what the party line is and vote accordingly.
On paper each MOP when elected gets a personal mandate to vote his own opinion and whenever there's a discussion about that all the parties proclaim how good it is that we have personal mandates so that the members can vote THEIR opinions. But in reality the parties hate the personal mandate and do their best to ignore it and whip party members back in line whenever somone sticks their nose out.
Actually they should. Even if the government is ordering a company to divulge something that is by law illegal it is that company's responsibility to refuse until they come back with a warrant or until they change the law to allow what they're doing.
If the company complies with the government to do something illegal wether the government is ordering it or just requesting it doesn't matter, they should still be punished to the full extent of the law.
Well the problem is that wistleblowers are doing something very illegal most of the time. What they are divulging can be considered business secrets most of the time and it is a felony to make business secrets known to anyone not privileged to the information.
They are doing society a service by making the information public but it's still a crime that they could be prosecuted for and most likely go to jail for if they became known.
Yes and the eventual response to that would be for P2P applications to start sending random encrypted data camouflaging as something legitimate in both directions.
If such P2P clients becomes popular(Average Joe does not need to know how it works or what it does as long as it's easy to use) the ISP's will be in a much worse situation since data transfer for average users will go up.
A subscriber to Wide Open West (WOW!) gave Topolski remote access to his machine, and Topolski then verified that WOW's NebuAd system was planting its own cookies when users visited Google and Yahoo, among other sites.
After examining the TCP/IP packet data more closely, Topolski concluded that the NebuAd box was simply appending its cookies to the HTML code served up by Google and Yahoo.
So lets look at this from the senders point of view, what the NebuAd system is doing is essentially modifying their page and inserting things they didn't intend to be there.
Charter's customers might have signed away their rights but page owners most likely have not.
This action is essentially a violation of the page owner's copyright and imagine what would happen to Charter if say Google sued Charter for copyright violations and demanded similar compensation per violation as the AA's do. That means every time somone loads Google Charter violates Google's copyright and that is alot of violations which would force Charter to file for bankruptcy very fast.
War is ugly... but freedom is worth it. It is worth it now, like it was in 1916 and 1942. The problem is that to the local populace all the United States and allies did was replace "Oppressive Bad Guy 1" with "Oppressive so called democatic puppet regime of Democracy 1"
The local populace are still oppressed, they are still murdered and humiliated by various local and nonlocal groups including Al Qaeda and US armed forces.
So for whom is this so called freedom worth the price?
The difference between the current situation and the WW's are that in the WW's the US helped to liberate conquered nations where the populace was against their conquerors, in the current situation they are seen as the conquerors.
Well the problem with what you just mentioned is when the seeds does what comes naturally to them, that is spread and when the gene modified seeds spreads to a different farmers field he apparently owes monsanto extortion(royalty) fees.
A farmer in a community can't do without paying Monsanto royalty fees a few years after another farmer in that community decides he wants to use them.
That system is inherently flawed because the protected property will spread all on it's own regardless of the wishes of the original user or any new involuntary users.
I remember reading something about the plan for the 2nd or 3rd generation Trusted Computing chip was to directly integrate it into the processor.
That would make it kinda tricky to release a modchip unless the processor plants in asia starts spewing out "bootleg" processors without the Trusted Computing module at nighttime and processors with the Trusted Computing module during daytime.
I seem to recall this thing called the piratebay and the air over here in Sweden is showing a definite lack of US bombs and aircraft.
All that has happened so far is that our government got some threatening mail and the MPA leveling some rather ludicrous(by local standards) financial claims against the piratebay.
The difference is actually very significant.
If something is inherently toxic then just consuming/inhaling it or even just getting in contact with the substance in large enough ammounts will do you in.
On the other hand if it's just the metabolites that are toxic the substance has to be processed by your intestines before it becomes toxic, if you prevent your intestines from processing the substance it will come out your back end and you will still be alive.
Slashdot Mirror
No, there is an oppressive price on gasoline not an oppressive tax, atleast not in the United States.
The average state tax on gasoline in the United States was 28.6 cents per gallon in the first quarter of 2008. During the same period the gasoline tax in Germany was 7.6 dollars per gallon and 5.2 dollars per gallon in the United Kingdom.
I hate the RIAA, but the same thing applies to software, and guess what I'm a software dev, and I imagine many of you might be. What would you do if everyone started giving away your product for free without your consent?
People are already giving away others software for free.
The software industry's response to that is to riddle the software with crippling copy protection that doesn't deter the pirates but annoys the legitimate buyer and drives them to pirate the software instead because it causes less hassle.
Yes punishments are there as a deterrent, yes they should hurt.
What the deterrents shouldn't do is completely devastate the deviant, destroy any chance they will ever have at a decent life and send them into eternal debt.
Any deterrents should be in proportion to the actual crime. If you drive drunk you risk other peoples lives and wellbeeing that is something very serious and should naturally carry a MUCH steeper deterrent than depriving somone of $0.99 no matter the number of infringements in the latter case.
Yes dictatorships and their like tends to be much better at misappropriating funds for personal interest but US is a democracy and thus subject to higher standards on matters like these.
Modern dictatorships usually exists to enrich the dictator but democracies claims that they exist to protect the general population and hence your comparison is not very fitting.
One problem with this is that when higher rated games become harder and more expensive to obtain than going to the local WalMart and getting your game the likelihood that the potential customer turns to piracy simply out of convenience increase dramatically.
Many people would rather pirate that game than going to the local shady porn shop and risk getting seen by somone they know.
This could in the end lead to that games with higher than child friendly ratings become extinct or prohibitively expensive because they're not profitable.
For your first alternative physical intrusion detection will work very well as a safety measure since the attacker wants to be discrete. If you return home and notice somone have drilled/sawed/cut a large hole in the side of your computer would you be suspicious?
As for the Van Eck device, there is a reason military systems that needs to be secure outside of a secured enviroment is usually quite bulky, thats because they are shielded. If your data is so important that you need to worry about three letter agencies or the military will come after your data you can pay to install shielding too.
Deal with the network invasion way the same way it is usually dealt with.
And your last alternative, Construct your own secure nonsense password.
It is your right as a free person to risk your own life yes, but you have no right whatsoever to risk the lives of anyone else without their express permission to do so.
Because in doing so you take away their rights and freedom to decide for themselves and thus you are no better than any other tyrant.
The traffic related deaths can be lowered alot by steeply raising the requirements needed to be elegible for a drivers license. Most people over here in europe look upon the US drivers license requirements as a joke, thats how low they are compared to whats required of us western europeans to earn a drivers license.
No the ISP's over here are not on the same side as the AA's, neither are they against P2P yet.
Another reason to support this would be because the European Union tells you to, EU is not afraid of regulating something they think isn't working as it should, things like roaming costs which they are in the process of mandating lower costs on for traffic inside EU.
If you don't want anyone to get access to it yes but if you want it for plausible deniability or resonable doubt(or if you're just another ignorant computer user) it will be as it was shipped, usually wide open that is.
No it would probably mean that you are considered more responsible than if you had no bandwidth limits.
If you had no limits and no protection you could resonably claim you had no idea your router was open to the public but with the limit and still no protection a prosecutor could claim you willingly helped somone to gain access to whatever the content was and then you'd be an accessory to that crime.
Actually no it won't be that easy to get away with. All this verdict says is that you are not automatically responsible for content that passes through their unprotected wifi connection. It does not say say that you are never responsible for content that passes over your wireless connection.
There will still be a trial and the judge and the jury will be presented with the evidence that they will have to take into consideration and determine wether it is relevant or not and wether it casts guilt on the defendant or not.
To use a car analogy, you are not responsible for what somebody who steal your car does with it just because you didn't lock the doors(your insurance company might refuse to pay you for the stolen car but you would not be criminally liable).
It is no less fair than if the national government had voted no on the issue and thus killing the proposition in the exact same way.If a proposition require a unanimous decision it doesn't matter wether the state that votes no does that because their parliament voted no or because they had a national vote on it.
What you're really against is that giving any nation the power to kill a proposition on their own.
Actually you can, atleast in Sweden it appears, during the last election for the European Parliament a previously unknown EU critical party called the Junelist came from nowhere and grabbed several seats so it does happen.
Actually Sweden already gathers intelligence in many other ways it's simply that so far they've been prohibited from legally tapping into cable bound traffic, everything else has so far been fair game.
Because until the Soviet Union fell Sweden had a very real threat on our doorstep and historically Swedens armed forces have been sized to deal with that threat the best it could and not completely bankrupt the country(after all there is a huge size disparity between sweden and what was the USSR).
After the Soviet Union fell Russia was unstable for several years and well, if you don't use gained skills you eventually forget those skills or the people with those skills retire.
During many years of the cold war Sweden had the world's third largest airforce and Sweden have always been making very high qualit military materials.
Terrorism for one. US has a resonable reason to expect terrorist plots agains your contry or your military bases placed on foreign soil as you have done alot to piss off muslims in general and terrorists in particular.
This is not something Sweden needs to worry about enough to warrant a law such as this and our UN expiditionary forces wouldn't benefit from this law either in a way that justifies these kind of laws.
Alleged terrorist funding operations originating in sweden is neither a big enough reason to warrant any law such as this.
IF the main reason for this law is Russia as the defense minister tries to claim then this wouldn't be done in public they would just quietly put a tap on the lines passing into sweden where the majority of the russian traffic passes through.
Sweden is a small country that doesn't concern most other countries in any significant way after the cold war officially ended. If Russia wanted to take sweden there's nothing Sweden could do about it except to use guerilla warfare against aggressors and hope somone more powerful intervenes, infact that was Sweden's grand military strategy during the cold war. Even that might be impossible today since Sweden is cherfully cutting fundings to large parts of their armed forces.
There is a very simple reason for this. In Sweden if you're a MOP you're expected to vote for the party line whatever that is regardless of your own opinions if you don't your political career will pretty much be over. Hence they don't care much about whatever they're voting on, they just have to know what the party line is and vote accordingly.
On paper each MOP when elected gets a personal mandate to vote his own opinion and whenever there's a discussion about that all the parties proclaim how good it is that we have personal mandates so that the members can vote THEIR opinions. But in reality the parties hate the personal mandate and do their best to ignore it and whip party members back in line whenever somone sticks their nose out.
Actually they should. Even if the government is ordering a company to divulge something that is by law illegal it is that company's responsibility to refuse until they come back with a warrant or until they change the law to allow what they're doing.
If the company complies with the government to do something illegal wether the government is ordering it or just requesting it doesn't matter, they should still be punished to the full extent of the law.
Well the problem is that wistleblowers are doing something very illegal most of the time. What they are divulging can be considered business secrets most of the time and it is a felony to make business secrets known to anyone not privileged to the information.
They are doing society a service by making the information public but it's still a crime that they could be prosecuted for and most likely go to jail for if they became known.
Yes and the eventual response to that would be for P2P applications to start sending random encrypted data camouflaging as something legitimate in both directions.
If such P2P clients becomes popular(Average Joe does not need to know how it works or what it does as long as it's easy to use) the ISP's will be in a much worse situation since data transfer for average users will go up.
So lets look at this from the senders point of view, what the NebuAd system is doing is essentially modifying their page and inserting things they didn't intend to be there.
Charter's customers might have signed away their rights but page owners most likely have not.
This action is essentially a violation of the page owner's copyright and imagine what would happen to Charter if say Google sued Charter for copyright violations and demanded similar compensation per violation as the AA's do. That means every time somone loads Google Charter violates Google's copyright and that is alot of violations which would force Charter to file for bankruptcy very fast.
The local populace are still oppressed, they are still murdered and humiliated by various local and nonlocal groups including Al Qaeda and US armed forces.
So for whom is this so called freedom worth the price?
The difference between the current situation and the WW's are that in the WW's the US helped to liberate conquered nations where the populace was against their conquerors, in the current situation they are seen as the conquerors.
Well the problem with what you just mentioned is when the seeds does what comes naturally to them, that is spread and when the gene modified seeds spreads to a different farmers field he apparently owes monsanto extortion(royalty) fees.
A farmer in a community can't do without paying Monsanto royalty fees a few years after another farmer in that community decides he wants to use them.
That system is inherently flawed because the protected property will spread all on it's own regardless of the wishes of the original user or any new involuntary users.
I remember reading something about the plan for the 2nd or 3rd generation Trusted Computing chip was to directly integrate it into the processor.
That would make it kinda tricky to release a modchip unless the processor plants in asia starts spewing out "bootleg" processors without the Trusted Computing module at nighttime and processors with the Trusted Computing module during daytime.
I seem to recall this thing called the piratebay and the air over here in Sweden is showing a definite lack of US bombs and aircraft.
All that has happened so far is that our government got some threatening mail and the MPA leveling some rather ludicrous(by local standards) financial claims against the piratebay.
The difference is actually very significant.
If something is inherently toxic then just consuming/inhaling it or even just getting in contact with the substance in large enough ammounts will do you in.
On the other hand if it's just the metabolites that are toxic the substance has to be processed by your intestines before it becomes toxic, if you prevent your intestines from processing the substance it will come out your back end and you will still be alive.