If users can't upload, how then is it a p2p (as opposed to just having a metric ton of servers out there?) I couldn't find anything that said it was a p2p (or that users couldn't upload) on their website. www.joost.com
Ok, I'm not sure if you're for or against this bill, but is sounds like you're all for it. I personally hate myspace and would like to see it blasted off the net, but I really don't think that it should be a state mandate to ban it from libraries, etc. If someone is not using the library's facilities appropriately, then I say we let the librarians handle it, not the police. We have far too many frivilous laws in this country as it is.
Crazy, highly trained arabs did not have guns in the attacks on 9/11 (though they did on other hijackings to be sure). And I often said, if someone tried to hijack a plane with a box cutter that I was on, I would have fought back (definately would have gotten wounded, maybe even have died, but hey, someone else could have incapacitated him while he was cutting me. I'm no superman, but neither are they)
I wish I had mod points left for you. Please Mod Parent up. Seriously this is the single most compelling reason for Joe-Sixpack to do something about the environment, make it a local issue. Then when enough joe-sixpacks get together and do one little thing, the whole world will get better. (many hands make light work)
Ok, purjury is a valid reason for impeachment. So then, if purjury (which is a class 3 felony in IL) is a cause for impeachment, what then of a president who institutes an illegal wiretapping program (wiretapping is a class A misdemeanor in IL, which is 1 step below a felony). No, I'm not a lawyer, but I do have the Illinois Legislator's webbsite bookmarked, whis has a nifty search feature. Maybe a lawyer could clarify if they will increase charges if you are a rampant, repeat offender?
True that ford could not set up a shop in that foreign land and sell cars not meeting the standards, but what if a citizen of County X comes to the U.S. and buys the car, and takes it home with him? Can Country X's automobile manufacturing alliance sue Ford because the CXAMA (Country X Automobile Manufacturing Alliance) says the car doesn't meet standards? (Or Better Yet, Ford isn't paying them fees to sell the car in Country X?) This car analogy is really bad for comparing to music anyway, so sorry if I don't make sense.
Wasn't going for hilarious so much as just saying M$ doesn't do such a good job of advertising for linux on thier site. Web search: http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=Linux&FORM=MS NH so even then the second add goes into the windows domain and is a "compare linux to windows". I guess it is kinda funny after all.
While I agree with your sentiment that installing a p2p program which then redistributes it not "fair use" (and it's a bummer that the p2p networks had to go and prompt the DRM response, etc). The problem is that the "expert" found no traces of a p2p program on her hard drive. So, unless they are claiming that the c$ on her hard drive somehow constitutes file sharing, it seems to me that the RIAA is just pulling a SCO and saying "They didn't provide us with the same hard drive that this woman was using to share music"
Autopackage is slick. I chatted with some in thier camp and they don't think it would be good for a distro, I didn't care to argue with the devs, but I think it would be a great package management solution. If I had the time, I would consider building a distro around it. It just works, and it works well. And as any who use Linux regularly all say, it isn't hard to use, just (depending on distro) hard to set up.
I agree completely, get someone with a fair amount of Linux knowledge to come over, offer them pizza, and have them assist you in setting it up. Do all the work yourself, but have them on standby to answer questions for you, take notes, and then if need be, you will be able to do it again. Get it set up to boot into your GUI, and go to town. I promise you that unless you log in as root, you won't break much (unless you first type su and the root password).
I like this idea, however, as some have pointed out in this thread, there should be triggers, time limitations, etc... I agree with the poster who said that after it is published you should pay the tax. Make the value something to the tune of the cost of publication, plus x amount for time spent creating the work. Maybe even allow the tax to be paid out over a short length of time. The idea does have merits, and if the bugs got all worked out, I would welcome this with open arms.
Seriously that is the most frightening thing I've ever read. Too much like Fahrenheit 451. It's just too freaky. I almost don't want to believe it could happen, but I think you're right, it might.
But what would not be illegal would be producing a movie about trying to kill someone (unless someone actually was going to die) or watching a movie someone else made about killing someone (again, fictional). So how is this different? No one actually had sex with a kid, and no one actually died.
Funniest thing is, I agree with your main point, sicko child molesters should be locked up. The details we disagree on, I personally believe that public money would be better spent on healtcare for children rather than on prisons to hold anyone and everyone who looks at a picture of a cartoon that is supposedly depicting a 17 year old girl. I also think that the money would be better spent on healthcare than locking up someone for a number of many other "morality" crimes. What I do with my wife in our bedroom is our business, I don't want the cops arresting me for child molestation if she dresses up in a cheerleader outfit just because she looks like she could be 17 if she did. No more than I think it should be illegal for an animated feature depicting 17 year old girls having sex, or real actors over the age of 18 dressed up to look 17. No children were hurt. This has nothing to do with the asshat of a judge who sentanced a child molestor to probation for screwing a little girl, and for what it's worth, I hope that judge is no longer on the bench. This has everything to do with not putting more people in prison for stupid shit (like watching a movie where 25 year olds have sex dressed up like cheerleaders), and using that money instead to make our lives better.
Did I say that a 45 year old having sex with a 9 year old should get probation, no. I said that in that case, prison is where he should go. But what about that 18 year old having sex with his girlfreind 2 days before she turns 18? Should he also go to jail for life? And for what it's worth, I don't agree with teenagers having sex either. The age of consent (in most of the U.S.) is 18, like it or vote to change it, but it sounds like you don't think 23 year olds should have sex either, because you could barely deal with the consequences. So let's just make the age 50, then we don't have to worry about children at all, since there wouldn't be any. You may have had a hard time dealing with it, and I feel sorry for you. But don't push your shit on me. I ask the same of you. (BTW, father of 4 7,2,1,and 3 months so don't say "you wouldn't feel that way if you were a parent either)
You are absolutely right. Locking up an 18 year old man for life because he had sex with his girlfriend 2 days before she turned 18 is more important than insuring that the children you are so interested in protecting have adequite healthcare. WAKE UP! I understand your frustration, but banning a cartoon is not going to stop a pedophile. True 45 year old men dicking 10 year old kids is wrong, and they should be locked up. But get real. I don't fear for my children getting molested every time I send them outside to play. Does it happen to children, yes, is it a real threat, yes, but so is a planetoid craching into earth. What do they have in common, if they came to pass? They would both fuck my (and my children's) world all to shit. But be realistic, you can warn you children of dangers, you can do everything to keep REAL perverts from hurting them, but it has been researched that watching pornography actually decreases the likelyhood of a sex offender to offend. So please spare me your "watching porn makes you commit sex crimes, think of the children" line. I do think about my children, every day, and I do not fear that someone is going to watch a Hentai movie and then think about molesting my child. That is an irrational fear, and giving into it will eventually lead to whatever you do with your significant other for kicks being outlawed too.
I understand that you don't defend the attitude you posted about, but I have problems with the attitude, and the biggest problem I have with that attitude is how on earth are you supposed to judge the "age" of a cartoon character by just looking at the picture? (let's just pretend the artist who drew the cartoon left out any references to the age of the character). Sometime's it's hard enough with real people. I posted earlier (in another thread) would it be a crime for my wife to dress up in a schoolgirl outfit to make hserself appear to be a teenager and we have sex? With the pervasive attitued I suppose it would, and that's just wrong. (Flipside of the coin is why if the cartoon character is know to be 17, but looked 35 would it still be illegal). This whole set of laws is just screwed to no end, a tangled mess of shit and now we can't get out of it without looking like pedophiles ourselves.
Thank you, that slippery slope is not one I care to slide down. If my wife wants to dress up like a high school cheerleader when we have sex, does that make me a pedophile? NO. But if we filmed it, would that make it kiddie porn? Logically, no, but if that law passed, it could. Thus the law runs contrary to logic, thus the law is flawed. Please, people of Great Britian, stop this before it's too late, and your country gets as fscked as mine (The U.S.) There are other questions one could pose, but they are more dealing with pedophila itself and not the topic at hand.
I also have children, and no I don't advocate youths having sex by any means, but if the girl lies about her age in the first place, why should someone be required to card them to make sure, and if they do card them, and the teenager is in possession of a false ID, should the "criminal" be branded a sex offender for life, I think not. The "criminal" in this matter had no intention of sleeping with an underage person. Even if the "molestor" is 30, if he has reason to believe the "victim" is of age, then why should he serve 5-10 years and be branded for life. I do think that a reasonable person could tell if the victim were 12, and they should be punished, but if a young woman were in a bar (where I live you have to be 18 to get in the door, 21 to drink) a reasonable person would assume she's of legal consenting age. As a father, I would be furious with my daughter for being there, but I would not jump on the "castrate the bastard" bandwagon. It does take 2 to tango, and if a 17 year old doesn't know the emotional ramifications of sleeping with an older person (especially if she lied about her age in the first place), that's the parent's fault, not the "criminal". And, as I pointed out, as did another in this thread, there is the whole intent thing. Note: I am merely talking about the 17ish crowd, not the young teenagers, any reasonable person should be able to tell if someone is under 16 (there is usually a gut feeling that they just seem too young)
Absolutely agree. Nevermind the cases where a girl lied about her age, or the girl was a willing participant until daddy found out. It happens all too often. I'm not talking about like 12 year olds either that's makes me go ewwwww). But why should someone be branded for life if they sleep with a 17 year old? Are we to believe that she didn't know what she was doing when she lied about her age? I'm all for light rehab when needed, something in the ilk of "Look, you're 28 years old, good rule of thumb, make sure they can legally drink at a bar with you", and imprisonment of the true predators, but those are really few and far between. (If I had mod points, I would have just modded you way up.)
Slashdot Mirror
So their going to control what I upload? Only color me stupid if I sign up for this. Thanks for the clarification.
If users can't upload, how then is it a p2p (as opposed to just having a metric ton of servers out there?) I couldn't find anything that said it was a p2p (or that users couldn't upload) on their website. www.joost.com
Ok, I'm not sure if you're for or against this bill, but is sounds like you're all for it. I personally hate myspace and would like to see it blasted off the net, but I really don't think that it should be a state mandate to ban it from libraries, etc. If someone is not using the library's facilities appropriately, then I say we let the librarians handle it, not the police. We have far too many frivilous laws in this country as it is.
Let's not forget The Guess Who (Randy Bachman's first band) and probably much better than BTO imho
I would like to know how cutting down on carbon emissions, recycling, etc has anything to do whatsoever with being communist? Seriously.
Crazy, highly trained arabs did not have guns in the attacks on 9/11 (though they did on other hijackings to be sure). And I often said, if someone tried to hijack a plane with a box cutter that I was on, I would have fought back (definately would have gotten wounded, maybe even have died, but hey, someone else could have incapacitated him while he was cutting me. I'm no superman, but neither are they)
I wish I had mod points left for you. Please Mod Parent up. Seriously this is the single most compelling reason for Joe-Sixpack to do something about the environment, make it a local issue. Then when enough joe-sixpacks get together and do one little thing, the whole world will get better. (many hands make light work)
Ok, purjury is a valid reason for impeachment. So then, if purjury (which is a class 3 felony in IL) is a cause for impeachment, what then of a president who institutes an illegal wiretapping program (wiretapping is a class A misdemeanor in IL, which is 1 step below a felony). No, I'm not a lawyer, but I do have the Illinois Legislator's webbsite bookmarked, whis has a nifty search feature. Maybe a lawyer could clarify if they will increase charges if you are a rampant, repeat offender?
True that ford could not set up a shop in that foreign land and sell cars not meeting the standards, but what if a citizen of County X comes to the U.S. and buys the car, and takes it home with him? Can Country X's automobile manufacturing alliance sue Ford because the CXAMA (Country X Automobile Manufacturing Alliance) says the car doesn't meet standards? (Or Better Yet, Ford isn't paying them fees to sell the car in Country X?) This car analogy is really bad for comparing to music anyway, so sorry if I don't make sense.
Wasn't going for hilarious so much as just saying M$ doesn't do such a good job of advertising for linux on thier site. Web search: http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=Linux&FORM=MS NH so even then the second add goes into the windows domain and is a "compare linux to windows". I guess it is kinda funny after all.
You really should have left Microsoft out of this: http://search.microsoft.com/results.aspx?mkt=en-US &mkt=en-US&q=Linux&x=177&y=22
While I agree with your sentiment that installing a p2p program which then redistributes it not "fair use" (and it's a bummer that the p2p networks had to go and prompt the DRM response, etc). The problem is that the "expert" found no traces of a p2p program on her hard drive. So, unless they are claiming that the c$ on her hard drive somehow constitutes file sharing, it seems to me that the RIAA is just pulling a SCO and saying "They didn't provide us with the same hard drive that this woman was using to share music"
Autopackage is slick. I chatted with some in thier camp and they don't think it would be good for a distro, I didn't care to argue with the devs, but I think it would be a great package management solution. If I had the time, I would consider building a distro around it. It just works, and it works well. And as any who use Linux regularly all say, it isn't hard to use, just (depending on distro) hard to set up.
I agree completely, get someone with a fair amount of Linux knowledge to come over, offer them pizza, and have them assist you in setting it up. Do all the work yourself, but have them on standby to answer questions for you, take notes, and then if need be, you will be able to do it again. Get it set up to boot into your GUI, and go to town. I promise you that unless you log in as root, you won't break much (unless you first type su and the root password).
I like this idea, however, as some have pointed out in this thread, there should be triggers, time limitations, etc... I agree with the poster who said that after it is published you should pay the tax. Make the value something to the tune of the cost of publication, plus x amount for time spent creating the work. Maybe even allow the tax to be paid out over a short length of time. The idea does have merits, and if the bugs got all worked out, I would welcome this with open arms.
Seriously that is the most frightening thing I've ever read. Too much like Fahrenheit 451. It's just too freaky. I almost don't want to believe it could happen, but I think you're right, it might.
But what would not be illegal would be producing a movie about trying to kill someone (unless someone actually was going to die) or watching a movie someone else made about killing someone (again, fictional). So how is this different? No one actually had sex with a kid, and no one actually died.
Funniest thing is, I agree with your main point, sicko child molesters should be locked up. The details we disagree on, I personally believe that public money would be better spent on healtcare for children rather than on prisons to hold anyone and everyone who looks at a picture of a cartoon that is supposedly depicting a 17 year old girl. I also think that the money would be better spent on healthcare than locking up someone for a number of many other "morality" crimes. What I do with my wife in our bedroom is our business, I don't want the cops arresting me for child molestation if she dresses up in a cheerleader outfit just because she looks like she could be 17 if she did. No more than I think it should be illegal for an animated feature depicting 17 year old girls having sex, or real actors over the age of 18 dressed up to look 17. No children were hurt. This has nothing to do with the asshat of a judge who sentanced a child molestor to probation for screwing a little girl, and for what it's worth, I hope that judge is no longer on the bench. This has everything to do with not putting more people in prison for stupid shit (like watching a movie where 25 year olds have sex dressed up like cheerleaders), and using that money instead to make our lives better.
Did I say that a 45 year old having sex with a 9 year old should get probation, no. I said that in that case, prison is where he should go. But what about that 18 year old having sex with his girlfreind 2 days before she turns 18? Should he also go to jail for life? And for what it's worth, I don't agree with teenagers having sex either. The age of consent (in most of the U.S.) is 18, like it or vote to change it, but it sounds like you don't think 23 year olds should have sex either, because you could barely deal with the consequences. So let's just make the age 50, then we don't have to worry about children at all, since there wouldn't be any. You may have had a hard time dealing with it, and I feel sorry for you. But don't push your shit on me. I ask the same of you. (BTW, father of 4 7,2,1,and 3 months so don't say "you wouldn't feel that way if you were a parent either)
You are absolutely right. Locking up an 18 year old man for life because he had sex with his girlfriend 2 days before she turned 18 is more important than insuring that the children you are so interested in protecting have adequite healthcare. WAKE UP! I understand your frustration, but banning a cartoon is not going to stop a pedophile. True 45 year old men dicking 10 year old kids is wrong, and they should be locked up. But get real. I don't fear for my children getting molested every time I send them outside to play. Does it happen to children, yes, is it a real threat, yes, but so is a planetoid craching into earth. What do they have in common, if they came to pass? They would both fuck my (and my children's) world all to shit. But be realistic, you can warn you children of dangers, you can do everything to keep REAL perverts from hurting them, but it has been researched that watching pornography actually decreases the likelyhood of a sex offender to offend. So please spare me your "watching porn makes you commit sex crimes, think of the children" line. I do think about my children, every day, and I do not fear that someone is going to watch a Hentai movie and then think about molesting my child. That is an irrational fear, and giving into it will eventually lead to whatever you do with your significant other for kicks being outlawed too.
I understand that you don't defend the attitude you posted about, but I have problems with the attitude, and the biggest problem I have with that attitude is how on earth are you supposed to judge the "age" of a cartoon character by just looking at the picture? (let's just pretend the artist who drew the cartoon left out any references to the age of the character). Sometime's it's hard enough with real people. I posted earlier (in another thread) would it be a crime for my wife to dress up in a schoolgirl outfit to make hserself appear to be a teenager and we have sex? With the pervasive attitued I suppose it would, and that's just wrong. (Flipside of the coin is why if the cartoon character is know to be 17, but looked 35 would it still be illegal). This whole set of laws is just screwed to no end, a tangled mess of shit and now we can't get out of it without looking like pedophiles ourselves.
Thank you, that slippery slope is not one I care to slide down. If my wife wants to dress up like a high school cheerleader when we have sex, does that make me a pedophile? NO. But if we filmed it, would that make it kiddie porn? Logically, no, but if that law passed, it could. Thus the law runs contrary to logic, thus the law is flawed. Please, people of Great Britian, stop this before it's too late, and your country gets as fscked as mine (The U.S.) There are other questions one could pose, but they are more dealing with pedophila itself and not the topic at hand.
The only think I can say about that is sad, just sad
I also have children, and no I don't advocate youths having sex by any means, but if the girl lies about her age in the first place, why should someone be required to card them to make sure, and if they do card them, and the teenager is in possession of a false ID, should the "criminal" be branded a sex offender for life, I think not. The "criminal" in this matter had no intention of sleeping with an underage person. Even if the "molestor" is 30, if he has reason to believe the "victim" is of age, then why should he serve 5-10 years and be branded for life. I do think that a reasonable person could tell if the victim were 12, and they should be punished, but if a young woman were in a bar (where I live you have to be 18 to get in the door, 21 to drink) a reasonable person would assume she's of legal consenting age. As a father, I would be furious with my daughter for being there, but I would not jump on the "castrate the bastard" bandwagon. It does take 2 to tango, and if a 17 year old doesn't know the emotional ramifications of sleeping with an older person (especially if she lied about her age in the first place), that's the parent's fault, not the "criminal". And, as I pointed out, as did another in this thread, there is the whole intent thing. Note: I am merely talking about the 17ish crowd, not the young teenagers, any reasonable person should be able to tell if someone is under 16 (there is usually a gut feeling that they just seem too young)
Absolutely agree. Nevermind the cases where a girl lied about her age, or the girl was a willing participant until daddy found out. It happens all too often. I'm not talking about like 12 year olds either that's makes me go ewwwww). But why should someone be branded for life if they sleep with a 17 year old? Are we to believe that she didn't know what she was doing when she lied about her age? I'm all for light rehab when needed, something in the ilk of "Look, you're 28 years old, good rule of thumb, make sure they can legally drink at a bar with you", and imprisonment of the true predators, but those are really few and far between. (If I had mod points, I would have just modded you way up.)