"Here are photos of girls with balloons. I don't want to throw them away, just hide them."
That is a direct quote of Steve Jobs from the Engadget article. Apparently he accidentally revealed his women popping balloons porn on stage, and then tried to hide it.
Man, I'm sorry to hear that. I know I was fortunate that my pain only lasted 3 months, though that felt like forever. I don't know why this issue seems to get such little publicity. When the media does cover medications such as hydrocodone, they focus on those who abuse it, and on celebrity stories such as Rush Limbaugh. When those are the only stories covered, people are going to think we need more restrictions on pain meds, not realizing the amount of real suffering that is already taking place.
I hope you can find a way to get the relief you need. It should be your choice what risks to take and what meds to try. Go see another doctor, or go to another country if you must. Do whatever it takes.
You are correct. So it made sense for me to be kept in miserable, almost unbearable pain in order to fend off the possibility of some hypothetical future addiction? And I deserved no say in whether I wanted to take that risk?
In case you didn't get it, the parent post was encoded in ROT26. Here it is decoded:
In the eyes of the DMCA, the best DRM is ROT26.
Re:Bad arguments and bad reasoning
on
The DRM Scorecard
·
· Score: 1
Oh, I get it now!
Re:The only thing not cracked yet...
on
The DRM Scorecard
·
· Score: 1
I wouldn't say that the lawsuit tactic is not working. Like copy protection, it's another deterrent to infringement. A certain percentage of people purchase rather than copy because they don't know how to break encryption or they won't be bothered. Likewise, a certain percentage purchase rather than download out of fear of litigation.
There are two basic problems. The primary one is that doctors are legally restricted about how much medication they can give, and are taking professional risks if they don't seriously restrict the prescriptions they write for these medications. The government is stopping doctors from helping people in the name of the "War on Drugs."
The second problem is that only the pain sufferer knows what they are going through. I think some doctors do not give the sufferer enough choice about what degree of medication they take. My doctor denied me a hydrocodone (Vicodin) refill, despite these facts: 1. It provided pain relief when over the counter drugs did not. 2. My pain was very bad and was reducing my ability to work, sleep, and generally function. 3. I was only taking 50% of the maximum allowed daily dose. I had not abused the medication in any way, and used it only when most needed. 4. A reasonable dose of hydrocodone is actually safer than many over-the-counter pain drugs.
The only reason my doctor could give for denying my medication was the risk of developing addiction. But I had showed no signs of addiction, and when I stopped the medication I experienced no withdrawal. I just experienced a lot of pain.
If that's the case, then he'd just be ripping people off. But the article mentioned an accomplice who was helping to supply him with hydrocodone, so I had the impression he was selling actual medicine.
This guy was scum, no question about it. And yet the ironic thing about it is that he may have really helped many people in need. Many people are suffering from severe pain, and yet are unable to legally obtain the relief which should be readily available to them. One hand, you could say that he overcharged such people and took advantage of them - but then again, he also met their needs (regardless of his intentions.)
The government's overzealous prosecution against pain medication is a far greater moral wrong than anything this guy ever did. It's true that such drugs can be abused, but innocent people should not be told they must keep suffering just because of the foolish actions of a few drug abusers.
The real problem is that there is a demand for online pharmacies from otherwise law-abiding, good citizens who are just trying to escape from pain. If you disagree, try being in pain for three months like I was, screaming and crying and unable to sleep, and yet denied medication. You'll quickly change your view.
I agree, that's the best way to support a band. The t-shirt is just another idea, especially if you don't have the opportunity to see a particular band.
MS can easily get back on track. First they announce that XP updates and official support will end in 6 months. Then 6 months from now, they start secretly feeding known XP security holes to underground newsgroups. It will look bad for them, but they already look bad anyway, and the billions of dollars in new Vista licenses ought to make up for the bad publicity.
I've figured out how to get games running with Linux!
1. Set up your Linux system. Use onboard video and don't overspend on your processor. 2. Buy a PS2, a Wii, or a 360. 3. Play games on your game console and do everything else on Linux.
Are you buying the used CDs so that you can rip them to an uncompressed format? That seems to be the only thing you will gain. You're not helping the artists out any. I'm sure they'd rather you buy a t-shirt, or buy one new CD rather than three used CDs. That way they at least see a little piece of the money you'll be spending.
You should try some blind listening tests to see if you can really tell the difference between compressed and uncompressed music. Of course, it depends where you got the music from originally. 128kbps or lower may sound bad, especially if it was made with bad software. But with 160kbps and up with a good encoder, the majority of people can't tell the difference.
First of all, you can't clear your name legally. Many people have suggested buying these CDs used, but if you do that you still have gained. By waiting to pay for them, the street value of the CDs dropped while you got free use out of the music. Furthermore, even if you go purchase all the albums new or from iTunes, it does not clear you legally for downloading. If the RIAA subpoenas your IP address and sues you, presenting your receipts and stacks of CDs will not help you one iota. You can't undo what is done. (You do increase your legal risk by keeping your mp3 collection, but realistically if it just sits on your hard drive the risk is minimal at this point.)
Therefore, this comes down to primarily a moral issue. I encourage you to do some research and decide where you stand on the issue of copying music. It's not the same as stealing, and there isn't really a good analogy to describe it in terms of physical real-world items. I think most people would agree that copyright has been extended way beyond its intended purpose, and that artists do not get a good deal from the recording industry.
Personally, I take this further - I have no moral issue with freely copying and listening to recorded sounds, and I think the recording industry does more harm than good for the promotion of excellent music. Like you, I did feel guilty about copying at first. However, I discovered that my guilt was based on things I had been told, and not based on anything I believed.
I try to support artists by attending concerts and buying merchandise. I'll buy t-shirts and occasionally a special edition CD. If you can buy directly from the artists they will see more of the money.
But calling someone a jackass because they disagree with you is doing good?
I'm against long term copyrights, but I'm for showing basic respect to others. I think the most damaging thing to the cause of copyright reform is the childish behavior of its supporters.
Re:Requiring payment for delisting
on
Choosing a Good DNSBL
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Amen! I have run up against SORBS blocking as well, and we refused to pay them. Unfortunately, their blacklisting service is used by a major U.S. supplier of email addresses. (I can't remember which one at the moment.)
No, 14 bucks a month is pretty insane. It's great for keeping TiVo's business afloat, and they get away with it because they have a great product and little competition. But I'd bet their profit on those subscriptions is in the "monster cable" 500-1000% range.
At Netflix I pay $17 per month for a 3-DVD plan. It includes an ad-free website full of listings and recommendations, plus the cost of mailing discs back and forth, plus the cost of maintaining their huge network of shipping facilities. TiVo, which deals with no physical product and only has to maintain those modem banks, must have but a tiny fraction of Netflix's expenses.
Bind has been redesigned and rewritten several times... and so has Windows. That doesn't mean anything. They both lack elegance, but they generally get the job done.
Yes, Yahoo shows ads with their listings. Are they making $10-$15 per month per person viewing those ads? Not so likely. $3-$5 per month ought to easily cover TiVo's listing fees.
What say does the content owner have in how TiVo records their content? MythTV will record in an unencumbered format and cut out commercials, and it seems to still be legal. Content owners might not like it, but that's not really TiVo's problem. Some people would redistribute their archives illegally, but that's also not TiVo's problem.
Recording shows to your VCR and keeping a personal archive is proven to be legal. TiVo would be doing the same thing, just in a way that is higher quality and more convenient. The litmus test for the legality of the VCR is that it provides a significant legal use. TiVo should be able to provide the features I want and still pass the same test.
The best human players will be switching up their styles, trying to make their opponents think they are loose when they're playing tight, and vice versa. So really, when you're playing against a quality opponent, you don't know how they are playing, even if you think you do. Therefore I think the computer could do well by simply refusing to play the guessing game at all.
The bell curve would need to be tuned carefully to be not too flat or too steep. The idea is to throw the human player off just enough that they start reading into the style that the computer is playing. When they then make a move to try to capitalize on that, they are likely to get burned.
Then again, you may very well be right. Until I get $200k in funding to develop my program, we'll never really settle this. If I do get my funding I'll come back here and update you.:)
Slashdot Mirror
I loved that page back before they plastered it with ads.
Fuck Everything, We're Doing Five Blades
(The funniest thing about this article is that a year after they published it, Gillette actually did release a five-bladed shaver!)
Man, I'm sorry to hear that. I know I was fortunate that my pain only lasted 3 months, though that felt like forever. I don't know why this issue seems to get such little publicity. When the media does cover medications such as hydrocodone, they focus on those who abuse it, and on celebrity stories such as Rush Limbaugh. When those are the only stories covered, people are going to think we need more restrictions on pain meds, not realizing the amount of real suffering that is already taking place.
I hope you can find a way to get the relief you need. It should be your choice what risks to take and what meds to try. Go see another doctor, or go to another country if you must. Do whatever it takes.
You are correct. So it made sense for me to be kept in miserable, almost unbearable pain in order to fend off the possibility of some hypothetical future addiction? And I deserved no say in whether I wanted to take that risk?
Yes, it's like jjohnson said. I went into more detail in this post.
You haven't heard of the DMCA? You must be new here. The backup is legal, but the decrypting you have to do in order to make the backup is not legal.
You may not care that it's illegal - but then why care about copyright at all?
In case you didn't get it, the parent post was encoded in ROT26. Here it is decoded:
Oh, I get it now!
I wouldn't say that the lawsuit tactic is not working. Like copy protection, it's another deterrent to infringement. A certain percentage of people purchase rather than copy because they don't know how to break encryption or they won't be bothered. Likewise, a certain percentage purchase rather than download out of fear of litigation.
Or from MST3K: The Movie -
"I'm not an alien! Sure I'll ram my ovipositor down your throat, and lay my eggs in your chest, but I'm not an alien!"
There are two basic problems. The primary one is that doctors are legally restricted about how much medication they can give, and are taking professional risks if they don't seriously restrict the prescriptions they write for these medications. The government is stopping doctors from helping people in the name of the "War on Drugs."
The second problem is that only the pain sufferer knows what they are going through. I think some doctors do not give the sufferer enough choice about what degree of medication they take. My doctor denied me a hydrocodone (Vicodin) refill, despite these facts: 1. It provided pain relief when over the counter drugs did not. 2. My pain was very bad and was reducing my ability to work, sleep, and generally function. 3. I was only taking 50% of the maximum allowed daily dose. I had not abused the medication in any way, and used it only when most needed. 4. A reasonable dose of hydrocodone is actually safer than many over-the-counter pain drugs.
The only reason my doctor could give for denying my medication was the risk of developing addiction. But I had showed no signs of addiction, and when I stopped the medication I experienced no withdrawal. I just experienced a lot of pain.
For more very interesting thoughts see this article, "The DEA's War on Pain Doctors"
If that's the case, then he'd just be ripping people off. But the article mentioned an accomplice who was helping to supply him with hydrocodone, so I had the impression he was selling actual medicine.
This guy was scum, no question about it. And yet the ironic thing about it is that he may have really helped many people in need. Many people are suffering from severe pain, and yet are unable to legally obtain the relief which should be readily available to them. One hand, you could say that he overcharged such people and took advantage of them - but then again, he also met their needs (regardless of his intentions.)
The government's overzealous prosecution against pain medication is a far greater moral wrong than anything this guy ever did. It's true that such drugs can be abused, but innocent people should not be told they must keep suffering just because of the foolish actions of a few drug abusers.
The real problem is that there is a demand for online pharmacies from otherwise law-abiding, good citizens who are just trying to escape from pain. If you disagree, try being in pain for three months like I was, screaming and crying and unable to sleep, and yet denied medication. You'll quickly change your view.
I agree, that's the best way to support a band. The t-shirt is just another idea, especially if you don't have the opportunity to see a particular band.
MS can easily get back on track. First they announce that XP updates and official support will end in 6 months. Then 6 months from now, they start secretly feeding known XP security holes to underground newsgroups. It will look bad for them, but they already look bad anyway, and the billions of dollars in new Vista licenses ought to make up for the bad publicity.
I've figured out how to get games running with Linux!
1. Set up your Linux system. Use onboard video and don't overspend on your processor.
2. Buy a PS2, a Wii, or a 360.
3. Play games on your game console and do everything else on Linux.
Are you buying the used CDs so that you can rip them to an uncompressed format? That seems to be the only thing you will gain. You're not helping the artists out any. I'm sure they'd rather you buy a t-shirt, or buy one new CD rather than three used CDs. That way they at least see a little piece of the money you'll be spending.
You should try some blind listening tests to see if you can really tell the difference between compressed and uncompressed music. Of course, it depends where you got the music from originally. 128kbps or lower may sound bad, especially if it was made with bad software. But with 160kbps and up with a good encoder, the majority of people can't tell the difference.
First of all, you can't clear your name legally. Many people have suggested buying these CDs used, but if you do that you still have gained. By waiting to pay for them, the street value of the CDs dropped while you got free use out of the music. Furthermore, even if you go purchase all the albums new or from iTunes, it does not clear you legally for downloading. If the RIAA subpoenas your IP address and sues you, presenting your receipts and stacks of CDs will not help you one iota. You can't undo what is done. (You do increase your legal risk by keeping your mp3 collection, but realistically if it just sits on your hard drive the risk is minimal at this point.)
Therefore, this comes down to primarily a moral issue. I encourage you to do some research and decide where you stand on the issue of copying music. It's not the same as stealing, and there isn't really a good analogy to describe it in terms of physical real-world items. I think most people would agree that copyright has been extended way beyond its intended purpose, and that artists do not get a good deal from the recording industry.
Personally, I take this further - I have no moral issue with freely copying and listening to recorded sounds, and I think the recording industry does more harm than good for the promotion of excellent music. Like you, I did feel guilty about copying at first. However, I discovered that my guilt was based on things I had been told, and not based on anything I believed.
I try to support artists by attending concerts and buying merchandise. I'll buy t-shirts and occasionally a special edition CD. If you can buy directly from the artists they will see more of the money.
http://questioncopyright.org/ has some good reading material to get you thinking.
But calling someone a jackass because they disagree with you is doing good?
I'm against long term copyrights, but I'm for showing basic respect to others. I think the most damaging thing to the cause of copyright reform is the childish behavior of its supporters.
Amen! I have run up against SORBS blocking as well, and we refused to pay them. Unfortunately, their blacklisting service is used by a major U.S. supplier of email addresses. (I can't remember which one at the moment.)
Just say NO to SORBS!
No, 14 bucks a month is pretty insane. It's great for keeping TiVo's business afloat, and they get away with it because they have a great product and little competition. But I'd bet their profit on those subscriptions is in the "monster cable" 500-1000% range.
At Netflix I pay $17 per month for a 3-DVD plan. It includes an ad-free website full of listings and recommendations, plus the cost of mailing discs back and forth, plus the cost of maintaining their huge network of shipping facilities. TiVo, which deals with no physical product and only has to maintain those modem banks, must have but a tiny fraction of Netflix's expenses.
Bind has been redesigned and rewritten several times... and so has Windows. That doesn't mean anything. They both lack elegance, but they generally get the job done.
Yes, Yahoo shows ads with their listings. Are they making $10-$15 per month per person viewing those ads? Not so likely. $3-$5 per month ought to easily cover TiVo's listing fees.
What say does the content owner have in how TiVo records their content? MythTV will record in an unencumbered format and cut out commercials, and it seems to still be legal. Content owners might not like it, but that's not really TiVo's problem. Some people would redistribute their archives illegally, but that's also not TiVo's problem.
Recording shows to your VCR and keeping a personal archive is proven to be legal. TiVo would be doing the same thing, just in a way that is higher quality and more convenient. The litmus test for the legality of the VCR is that it provides a significant legal use. TiVo should be able to provide the features I want and still pass the same test.
The best human players will be switching up their styles, trying to make their opponents think they are loose when they're playing tight, and vice versa. So really, when you're playing against a quality opponent, you don't know how they are playing, even if you think you do. Therefore I think the computer could do well by simply refusing to play the guessing game at all.
:)
The bell curve would need to be tuned carefully to be not too flat or too steep. The idea is to throw the human player off just enough that they start reading into the style that the computer is playing. When they then make a move to try to capitalize on that, they are likely to get burned.
Then again, you may very well be right. Until I get $200k in funding to develop my program, we'll never really settle this. If I do get my funding I'll come back here and update you.