The state loses $3 million bucks, and the guy responsible gets the punishment of a whole week of lost vacation time? Wow....I want to find me a job where I can screw up so badly and get off so lightly. I mean....other than the Presidency.
Unless I can no longer read and correctly understand and interpret English, this is not anything to get excited over. (But most of y'all will, cos otherwise Slashdot would be no fun at all, right?) That one sentence, in context, links the ripping to mp3 format and the "making available" in a shared folder as being one "unauthorized" process. Yes, I would say the sentence is poorly worded and potentially ambiguous, but the intent is clear. If he had ripped the tracks for his own use, and not made them available to others, no one would know or care, and there would be no case here.
Leave it to the denizens of this board, however, to twist bad syntax into something sinister. You would think that we are suddenly in danger of having the mp3 format declared illegal and ripping software impounded. There are plenty of reasons to despise the RIAA, and they are a sufficiently evil organization as it is -- we don't need to paint them as even more of an asshat than they already are.
Are you suggesting that here, in the Land of the Free(TM), that the government would seize and auction off your assets for a copyright "crime" even if you haven't been adjudicated as guilty? Oh, come on.....next you'll try to tell me that they'll seize and auction your car and keep your cash if they even suspect you of having drugs! (Chuckle) Yeah....like that's gonna happen....
Looks like there's something going on to push Windows as the only OS, leaving Linux and the rest up a creek with no hard drives at this rate.
Being a Linux aficionado is kind of like voting for a third-party candidate. You make an intelligent choice of a better product, but the idiots will still end up running the country.
Whatever happened to "substantially non-infringing use"?
It disappeared into the same black hole as such things as habeus corpus, warrants, "innocent until proven guilty" -- you know, all that old-fashioned stuff.
f they had half a clue they'd take a page from the credit card companies.
Visa and Mastercard don't try to stop all credit card fraud. They look to reduce it to manageable levels. If a solution is going to cost more to implment then it's going to save then they probably aren't going to run with it. If it's going to cost them more in customer goodwill then it gains them in fraud prevention they probably aren't going to run with it.
Exactly. Another example: stores could reduce shoplifting to zero by physically searching every person who leaves the store, but the store owner knows that (a)the payroll for all those security folks probably would exceed the value of the goods lost to theft, and (b)patting down customers and searching their personal handbags and pockets is not a very good way to insure return business to your store. So, you put a few cameras in electronics, designer goods, etc., electronically tag your high dollar items, train personnel to watch for suspicious activity, and that's about it. Some stuff will still go out the door free. You can minimize it, control it to some extent, but you can never eliminate it. In the case of online piracy, really the only way to completely eliminate digital piracy is to shut down the Internet. (I shouldn't post that -- might give some congresscritters ideas...)
Not to mention the fact that on both borders (but most especially U.S.-Canada) there are many, many communities and areas where the people on both sides have a long-standing relationship with each other, both socially and economically -- in some cases, almost as if the border did not exist. Now we're making sure that what were normal, everyday activities -- like visiting friends, patronizing a business, or fishing that nice trout stream on the "other side" -- become almost too much of a hassle to bother with, to the detriment of both countries' citizens.
Exactly. Cos the way to make sure that criminals have a chance to rehabilitate and reintegrate into society is to make sure that when they get out they become a pariah with little chance of landing a decent job, obtain decent housing, or get the social or medical services they need, right?
We lock up more people by far than any other "civilized" country, and has it lowered the crime rate? Nope. And with background checks becoming easily available to all potential employers and landlords, combined with the climate of paranoia fostered by the government, we almost guarantee that offenders will face a steep uphill battle in trying to become law-abiding, productive citizens again. The only potential saving grace is that they keep lowering the bar on what constitutes a criminal offense, so maybe someday just about everyone in the country will have a criminal record and it will all even out.
Unfortunately, the 90% who signed are probably not in a position to protest. I agree in fighting for one's rights, but without a Trade Union to protect them, most folks would be quickly and quietly fired.
So, if the ratio were reversed, and 90% of NASA's scientists said "fuck you" to having their personal affairs probed, then NASA would fire them all? I don't think so, friend. You think they can call some temp agency to replace them?
Unfortunately more than 90% of the roughly 5000 employees at JPL have already signed. Only a few hundred are actively protesting, and 28 are plaintiffs in the lawsuit.
We really have become a nation of sheep, haven't we? This is why our rights are going down the toilet, because most people simply do not care. It would be a vastly different story if that 90-10 ratio were reversed.
This reminds me of an incident (I'm going entirely on memory here) in the months after 9/11 in which some jurisdiction or other was conducting random bag/backpack searches of bus passengers. One guy filed a suit after refusing the search and being hauled in. In the article, it said that out of something like 1300 of these searches that had been conducted, fewer than half a dozen people objected or refused. When the populace has become that complacent and trusting, it's open season on the Constitution.
It generally doesn't happen overnight, or all at once. A certain paperhanger and his minions didn't transform Germany in one fell swoop -- it was done gradually, eroding the rights and privacies of the people little by little, step by step, always under the guise of it being for their own good or protection from bad guys. I'm not necessarily making a direct comparison here.....I'm just saying....
Of course, to be honest, it's probably more that the guy has other income, or is comfortably retired, and just runs the shop as a hobby. I've run into a lot of used book stores like that -- old dude in a checkered shirt, smoking a pipe, petting his dog and watching "Matlock." Gets maybe a dozen customers a day, of which 2 or 3 might actually buy something. Clearly barely enough income to pay his store rent...maybe. I always figured those guys were just bored old farts on a good pension (military or whatever) who just want to have something to motivate them to get out of the house and drive the '88 LeBaron (with only 43,000 miles on it) half a mile to "work" every day and get to meet a few folks, have some interesting chats, and stay out of the wifey's hair.
I once had a small business (really more of a hobby than a major enterprise -- something to bring in some extra wampum) in which I sold unusual esoteric merchandise to a small group of fanatics (I think at most I had a few hundred folks on my mailing list). Sales were down and the economy was bad, so one month I did a "name you own price" special -- you tell me what you want and what you think is a fair price and we have a deal. And I had a higher net profit in that month than any other that year. Apropos of nothing, perhaps, as I know every business and industry is different, but the basic point is that often it is the unconventional business model that turns out to be the most successful. The more set you are in your ways, the more you stand to lose as the world passes you by.
I spent many years as a radio hobbyist, including scanners, shortwave, etc., and this sort of debate used to come up about cell phone transmissions and other "sensitive" frequencies. The hobbyist's theory always was, hey, if you broadcast it through the air on radio frequencies that intrude into my space, penetrating my walls and even my body, I have a right to access and monitor them -- if you don't want me to listen, the burden is on you to scramble the transmission. Same thing with Wi-Fi -- an open, unsecured connection floating beyond the boundaries of your home is an open invitation for others to tap in -- lock it down if you don't want others to use it.
Rule of thumb: If any agency of the government in any way, shape or form has even the remotest, most tangential, most tenuous link to it, assume it has a backdoor.
I have yet to see anything turn up relating to me via my legal name (and variations) on Google. I don't know whether to be relieved or insulted.....
Basically, the more public the life you lead, the more apt you are to be found on Google. I've led a very hermit-like life and am very, very careful about who gets my personal information and why. Google knows me not -- I've never been the subject of or quoted in any news stories, I have not worked for any company or belonged to any organization that might put a staff or membership list online, etc., etc. Even if you try the various public records searches, my name will pop up occasionally, but 95% of what turns up is outdated information anyway, and what is there could be found without the Internet via a trip to the courthouse. I am well aware that the tide is turning (has turned) and that you can't totally hide in this day and age. But at the same time, that doesn't mean I'm going to hand over the details of my life on a silver platter. I understand that if someone really wanted to find me, they could. But at least they will have to work hard to do so.
Slashdot Mirror
The state loses $3 million bucks, and the guy responsible gets the punishment of a whole week of lost vacation time? Wow....I want to find me a job where I can screw up so badly and get off so lightly. I mean....other than the Presidency.
Unless I can no longer read and correctly understand and interpret English, this is not anything to get excited over. (But most of y'all will, cos otherwise Slashdot would be no fun at all, right?) That one sentence, in context, links the ripping to mp3 format and the "making available" in a shared folder as being one "unauthorized" process. Yes, I would say the sentence is poorly worded and potentially ambiguous, but the intent is clear. If he had ripped the tracks for his own use, and not made them available to others, no one would know or care, and there would be no case here.
Leave it to the denizens of this board, however, to twist bad syntax into something sinister. You would think that we are suddenly in danger of having the mp3 format declared illegal and ripping software impounded. There are plenty of reasons to despise the RIAA, and they are a sufficiently evil organization as it is -- we don't need to paint them as even more of an asshat than they already are.
Other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?
Are you suggesting that here, in the Land of the Free(TM), that the government would seize and auction off your assets for a copyright "crime" even if you haven't been adjudicated as guilty? Oh, come on.....next you'll try to tell me that they'll seize and auction your car and keep your cash if they even suspect you of having drugs! (Chuckle) Yeah....like that's gonna happen....
Looks like there's something going on to push Windows as the only OS, leaving Linux and the rest up a creek with no hard drives at this rate.
Being a Linux aficionado is kind of like voting for a third-party candidate. You make an intelligent choice of a better product, but the idiots will still end up running the country.
Tell me just one HD which is compatible with sauce.
I think mine is -- the label says it was manufactured by Ronzoni.Whatever happened to "substantially non-infringing use"?
It disappeared into the same black hole as such things as habeus corpus, warrants, "innocent until proven guilty" -- you know, all that old-fashioned stuff.
f they had half a clue they'd take a page from the credit card companies.
Visa and Mastercard don't try to stop all credit card fraud. They look to reduce it to manageable levels. If a solution is going to cost more to implment then it's going to save then they probably aren't going to run with it. If it's going to cost them more in customer goodwill then it gains them in fraud prevention they probably aren't going to run with it.
Exactly. Another example: stores could reduce shoplifting to zero by physically searching every person who leaves the store, but the store owner knows that (a)the payroll for all those security folks probably would exceed the value of the goods lost to theft, and (b)patting down customers and searching their personal handbags and pockets is not a very good way to insure return business to your store. So, you put a few cameras in electronics, designer goods, etc., electronically tag your high dollar items, train personnel to watch for suspicious activity, and that's about it. Some stuff will still go out the door free. You can minimize it, control it to some extent, but you can never eliminate it. In the case of online piracy, really the only way to completely eliminate digital piracy is to shut down the Internet. (I shouldn't post that -- might give some congresscritters ideas...)
Not to mention the fact that on both borders (but most especially U.S.-Canada) there are many, many communities and areas where the people on both sides have a long-standing relationship with each other, both socially and economically -- in some cases, almost as if the border did not exist. Now we're making sure that what were normal, everyday activities -- like visiting friends, patronizing a business, or fishing that nice trout stream on the "other side" -- become almost too much of a hassle to bother with, to the detriment of both countries' citizens.
Exactly. Cos the way to make sure that criminals have a chance to rehabilitate and reintegrate into society is to make sure that when they get out they become a pariah with little chance of landing a decent job, obtain decent housing, or get the social or medical services they need, right?
We lock up more people by far than any other "civilized" country, and has it lowered the crime rate? Nope. And with background checks becoming easily available to all potential employers and landlords, combined with the climate of paranoia fostered by the government, we almost guarantee that offenders will face a steep uphill battle in trying to become law-abiding, productive citizens again. The only potential saving grace is that they keep lowering the bar on what constitutes a criminal offense, so maybe someday just about everyone in the country will have a criminal record and it will all even out.
"The credibility of the United States is at stake here..."
I thought that in the last 7 years (the Bush reign), we had already pretty much lost whatever credibility we once had...
Unfortunately, the 90% who signed are probably not in a position to protest. I agree in fighting for one's rights, but without a Trade Union to protect them, most folks would be quickly and quietly fired.
So, if the ratio were reversed, and 90% of NASA's scientists said "fuck you" to having their personal affairs probed, then NASA would fire them all? I don't think so, friend. You think they can call some temp agency to replace them?
I've never been able to figure out why it's called "Second Life" when most of the people there have no "first life" to speak of.....
Unfortunately more than 90% of the roughly 5000 employees at JPL have already signed. Only a few hundred are actively protesting, and 28 are plaintiffs in the lawsuit.
We really have become a nation of sheep, haven't we? This is why our rights are going down the toilet, because most people simply do not care. It would be a vastly different story if that 90-10 ratio were reversed.
This reminds me of an incident (I'm going entirely on memory here) in the months after 9/11 in which some jurisdiction or other was conducting random bag/backpack searches of bus passengers. One guy filed a suit after refusing the search and being hauled in. In the article, it said that out of something like 1300 of these searches that had been conducted, fewer than half a dozen people objected or refused. When the populace has become that complacent and trusting, it's open season on the Constitution.
It generally doesn't happen overnight, or all at once. A certain paperhanger and his minions didn't transform Germany in one fell swoop -- it was done gradually, eroding the rights and privacies of the people little by little, step by step, always under the guise of it being for their own good or protection from bad guys. I'm not necessarily making a direct comparison here.....I'm just saying....
Is it too much to ask of people to stop confusing "Hear" and "Here"?
I here you, brother. Too many of those mistakes are made hear.Why bother suing Harvard students when there are still so many grandmothers, invalids and children to go after?
It's about time someone did something to fight the pipe-eating epidemic among today's youth. Think of the children!
Of course, to be honest, it's probably more that the guy has other income, or is comfortably retired, and just runs the shop as a hobby. I've run into a lot of used book stores like that -- old dude in a checkered shirt, smoking a pipe, petting his dog and watching "Matlock." Gets maybe a dozen customers a day, of which 2 or 3 might actually buy something. Clearly barely enough income to pay his store rent...maybe. I always figured those guys were just bored old farts on a good pension (military or whatever) who just want to have something to motivate them to get out of the house and drive the '88 LeBaron (with only 43,000 miles on it) half a mile to "work" every day and get to meet a few folks, have some interesting chats, and stay out of the wifey's hair.
I once had a small business (really more of a hobby than a major enterprise -- something to bring in some extra wampum) in which I sold unusual esoteric merchandise to a small group of fanatics (I think at most I had a few hundred folks on my mailing list). Sales were down and the economy was bad, so one month I did a "name you own price" special -- you tell me what you want and what you think is a fair price and we have a deal. And I had a higher net profit in that month than any other that year. Apropos of nothing, perhaps, as I know every business and industry is different, but the basic point is that often it is the unconventional business model that turns out to be the most successful. The more set you are in your ways, the more you stand to lose as the world passes you by.
I spent many years as a radio hobbyist, including scanners, shortwave, etc., and this sort of debate used to come up about cell phone transmissions and other "sensitive" frequencies. The hobbyist's theory always was, hey, if you broadcast it through the air on radio frequencies that intrude into my space, penetrating my walls and even my body, I have a right to access and monitor them -- if you don't want me to listen, the burden is on you to scramble the transmission. Same thing with Wi-Fi -- an open, unsecured connection floating beyond the boundaries of your home is an open invitation for others to tap in -- lock it down if you don't want others to use it.
Gene Fucking Simmons has made enough off KISS merchandise alone to more than comfortably support a small town, so he's got no room to beef.
Rule of thumb: If any agency of the government in any way, shape or form has even the remotest, most tangential, most tenuous link to it, assume it has a backdoor.
Unfortunately, much of the voting population is too busy watching "American Idol" or buying a new cell phone...
Government CAN be on the side of the angels.
I think that Paradise was Lost a long time ago.
There's a quote I recall, though not who said it:
"What the government wants to do, and has the power to do, it will do -- law, ethics, and common sense notwithstanding."
I have yet to see anything turn up relating to me via my legal name (and variations) on Google. I don't know whether to be relieved or insulted.....
Basically, the more public the life you lead, the more apt you are to be found on Google. I've led a very hermit-like life and am very, very careful about who gets my personal information and why. Google knows me not -- I've never been the subject of or quoted in any news stories, I have not worked for any company or belonged to any organization that might put a staff or membership list online, etc., etc. Even if you try the various public records searches, my name will pop up occasionally, but 95% of what turns up is outdated information anyway, and what is there could be found without the Internet via a trip to the courthouse. I am well aware that the tide is turning (has turned) and that you can't totally hide in this day and age. But at the same time, that doesn't mean I'm going to hand over the details of my life on a silver platter. I understand that if someone really wanted to find me, they could. But at least they will have to work hard to do so.