Forget Montana... historical statistics say it's not so. Ever since the idiotic NMSL was repealed, the "common sense" crew was talking about thousands more deaths that were going to come from this. In realty, nothing like that happened even as states increased speed limits, nationwide. But let's not let data get in the way of a "good decision".
Exactly... the rules and regulations are already in place. The government just figures they don't have to follow them, because they say so. Engineers already say they are too low, but no one listens to them, so why would they listen to me when there is some ninny on the street complaining that his/her kids can't play because of cars passing by so fast? HE/SHE feels it's too fast, so they politicos listen to her. How about keeping your damn kids off the friggen street?
Have you ever been to kangaroo court (aka civil court)? They will find you responsible regardless, because it's actually guilty until proven innocent in the wonderful USA civil court system. Hell in my state of MA, they CHARGE you to go to court... how's that for fair?
Except that current speed limits are NOT set by this rule, even though they are supposed to be. Simply because idiots think "common sense" somehow trumps science and engineering.
You aren't reading my statement correctly. Let me clarify... this is what I said in court: I presented that the company was lying about having a signed contract, which they forced me a termination fee on. For reasons I won't get into, I paid the fee and asked repeatedly about this contract, as I did not recall it. I also asked for a copy of this contract from the company. They sent me a copy of an UNSIGNED contract, because I never saw it or signed it. I said that the company lied, saying they had a signed contract. Since there is no signed contract, I cannot be held to the terms of that contract... after all, I never saw it!
That seems simple enough to me. This is when the judge said he didn't care who lied... when that is the very basis of this case. I showed him the unsigned contract, and presented it to the judge and defendant... yet this was ignored completely.
As a person who has dealt with courts in the past, I am very aware of rules and such. I followed each of them to the best of my ability. I had recordings, documents, email threads, etc... I had TONS of evidence in paper that I was presenting from, and was presenting to the judge. I even filed aMassachusetts Chapter 93A consumer protection letter according to procedure, etc.
If you can tell me where I went wrong, I would LOVE to hear it. I am HAPPY to accept fault for presentation or whatever, and learn from my mistakes. Of course, no one is willing to do this, so I have no reason I did anything wrong. I even have recordings of the event from the court, if you are really bored. As an engineer, I am very good at following directions and presenting data, yet when someone says they don't want to hear about who lied, I can't be anything but flabbergasted, since that is the basis of the claim I was making with all my data. The case was about the fact that they made me pay a contract termination fee for a contract I NEVER SIGNED. All my evidence proved that they lied to me about having a signed contract over email and phone, and when asked to produce it, they showed me an unsigned one which I never saw previously. I don't know how much more clear it can be.
Seriously - if you want to help me learn from this case, and my mistakes, I'd love to hear it... I'm always ready to learn, but I just don't see it. Bottom line, it baffles me that a judge could actually say he doesn't care about who lied... particularly in court and when evidence is presented. I admit I pretty much gave up at that point since he clearly wasn't listening to me.
I certainly don't expect you to be able to comment on my case with limited information. The point is, how can a judge be "not concerned" with who lied in a consumer protection case, where it's ALL about who lied to whom. In this case, the company said they had a signed contract from me, I said they didn't, they couldn't prove it, I said they lied, and the judge said he didn't care about who lied... WTF?
As for libel, slander, or whatever... I have been forced to give up the case. No one wanted to take it before... what makes you think anyone would bother now? Besides which, the SOL is probably expired on the case (IANAL and since no one is helping me, I have no solid way to confirm this myself.)
As for the lawyers not taking the case, that is my exact point... I know why they didn't (they didn't feel it was financially sound)... and that is my point. You WILL lose even if the facts are on your side, as they were in my case... unless you have a lawyer. Frankly, I would rather be right than win financially... so I was willing to pay, but STILL no one would take the case.
A business-lawyer friend of mine told me the same thing - the reason she doesn't practice litigation is because she knows the system is not fair and that there is no such thing as "open and such" regardless of how much proof you have. If a lawyer can't make this system work, you know it's broken.
I did contact a lawyer, as I mentioned (and you noted in the end) no one would take it because the money wasn't enough. Hence, my point (that you mostly agree with) that you don't get justice unless you pay up.
As for the argument, I did state clearly, numerous times, that there was no contract, and that the company could not produce one. I also stated that the company was lying about having one, and has never produced one. That is when the judge said he didn't care about who was lying, etc. In other words, it's impossible to make the argument of logic if the judge refuses to hear it.
Lastly, this was small-claims court. The intent (at least the intent we are told) is that we don't have to be lawyers, and the judge would handle the case as if we don't know this stuff. It's supposed to be less formal and a venue where "you don't have to be a lawyer". I quote from http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=ocaterminal&L=3&L0=Home&L1=Consumer&L2=Consumer+Legal+Resources&sid=Eoca&b=terminalcontent&f=small_claims_court&csid=Eoca where it says "The atmosphere of Small Claims Court is informal, and the rules of the Court are simple. You can sue or be sued in this Court without being represented by a lawyer, because the more formal procedures characteristic of other courts are not required. Instead, you are allowed to present your own evidence and speak in layperson's terms." Hence, basic presentation of facts and logic should be followed, yet they weren't... for whatever reason. Again, that's my point... it's not about truth or justice... it's about money and being a lawyer. Logic need not apply.
When a judge tells me "I'm not so concerned with who lied about what" in a consumer fraud case I brought up in small claims court, and then finds for the company that screwed me, and then goes on to take away fines against the company... I have a problem with that... and I have no faith in a system that claims to be impartial or even capable of basic logic. How can a company that claims I had a signed contract with them, and then can't produce it (because they really didn't have one and continued to lie about it IN COURT) get away with winning such a case?! It just doesn't make sense. Yet I lost?
I realize IANAL, but SUPPOSEDLY this is why small claims is supposed to make this process easier for non-lawyers on "small cases". In my case, no lawyer would even take the case because $700 wasn't enough of a fine to get involved with. Obviously, the system does not care about justice, but more about money... and if you don't have enough, you will get screwed, just like I did.
I realize that there are safeguards in the system for bigger issues, as you describe. However, this was a simple case, with clear information... yet they got it wrong because they just didn't listen to me, and clearly refused to hear about the documented lies I was showing them. How can a judge ignore a lying defendant? Particularly in a consumer protection case, where lying is the POINT of the case in the first place?!
So true... the legal system doesn't believe in logic... I have experienced this myself. Don't mess with it, as logical as your argument may be... you will lose because of some crap that has no bearing on reality or basic intelligence. Consult with a lawyer, and maybe you can countersue or something to help make up for some of the fees. The bottom line is, the system doesn't work and it isn't fair... don't play with it or mess with it.
Maybe pleading with the BSA would work... it might be cheaper as well, but in the end, you will be screwed out of money for this injustice. Welcome to America.
Exactly. The problem is ANY distracted driving. Once your mind is on something else, it's not on the task of driving. Hands-free doesn't even solve the problem, since you are still mentally distracted: Hands-free cell phone usage equally dangerous while driving
The point is, pay attention to the road first... not the phonecall or other person. The priority needs to be the road, not anything else in the car.
I think we're saying the same thing, but just for clarity, my country IS the USA. I was referring to people who can do 4 right turns being allowed to drive cars, while 18-wheelers require far more training and ability. The point is, we don't really test a person's competence, and then throw them into a killing machine (car), and then blame everyone for accidents and ask for more restrictions due to one person's stupidity. Hell, we're now forcing all sorts of digital nannies to protect these idiots from themselves, while the rest of us are being screwed out of control over the vehicle (stability control, auto parking, etc). Bottom line is, we need better training before handing them the keys to even "just a car"... especially if we require such training from other drivers (18 wheelers). I remember back in the day, we were told "driving is a privilege, not a right"... yet we give people the right to drive through their stupidity and incompetence and then defend these same unskilled people. Unless they are *gasp* speeders because everyone knows they are the root of all accidents, so we better get them off the road first.
Well, if you want freedom to do things that are harmful to you or others, then you should also be held responsible for mistakes. Furthermore, "safety measures" to prevent your stupidity should not affect me either - I should be free to be equally stupid, and equally responsible.
Bringing that back to the original point, if you are too inept to drive, either you shouldn't be allowed to do so (licensing restriction... though this is still a "safety measure" by the above definition), or you should be held responsible. After all, you're not going to give the right to drive an 18-wheeler to an inexperienced person, but yet we are happy to do so for every idiot on the road today who can take 4 right turns and stop.
Again, I'm not saying the stuff it cheap, but I question whether you need to own all the high end stuff in the first place. I'm not an audio person, so explaining that to me is pointless and fruitless... I'm not going to research the nitty gritty of audio equipment to prove you wrong. My simple point is that you MAY not need to BUY all that stuff in the first place. Just like with computers, you don't need to buy a $1000 laptop for most people, but they do it anyway.
But, even barring that discussion, my previous point stands - these are your tools of the trade. Mine happened to be a degree in engineering. I probably spent as much as you would on hardware to get my degree. So, I don't see why you should be "exempt" from having to pay into your career. If your equipment costs $100k, that's the typical cost of a college education... it's your choice to spend it on music equipment, just like it's mine to spend it on my career. I wouldn't be where I am without my degree, and you can't expect to get audio equipment "for free" in a similar manner.
It may not be completely inexpensive, but if this is your "career" then that's where you have to spend your money. My career was engineering, so I spent a bunch of money on a college education. If you want to be a recording artist, you have to spend your money there... so you can't complain about that.
Secondly, you don't need super high end equipment. Look at the Foo Fighters latest album - all recorded on old analog equipment, and in a garage. Sure, it's not convenient or easy, but it can be done and still sound great. If you WANT the new MIDI stuff and automation, then knock yourself out... just don't go crying to people that it's expensive (for both of these reasons). Bottom line, is that if you have the TALENT (as mentioned above) you don't need to fake it with electronics. If you're not talented, then don't complain about poor sales/quality/etc.
The problem is, the priests also don't speak from experience. In other words, NONE of them have proven any of their theories in any way - they all simply read the same book, and believe it to be true. It's like getting all your news/information from one source, and then never questioning it. Just because it's said there, doesn't mean it's right/true/valid/etc. In religion, there is no direction, interest, nor even allowance to question the book/history/past in order to test it, or validate it.
Science, on the other hand, encourages testing and proof, and allows you to do it, if you have the interest/resources. Just because you cannot do it, doesn't mean it can't be done. Compare that to religion where they don't even allow you to do it! In other words, in religion, priests don't do it (testing/validating) nor do they allow it to be done (ie, thorough analysis of religious artifacts, such as the "shroud of Turin" for example). If they really want to prove it to be true, then why not let testing happen? Are they afraid they will be proven wrong? Answering yes to either question makes religion a non-science.
So, while YOU cannot test quantum mechanics, it doesn't mean it cannot be done. Yes, you are taking the fact that others have tested it to be true, but this is very different from what religion does. For example, if I want to test the validity of a religious artifact, I will simply not be allowed to do it.
"I moved the file server into a colo [aka Amazon S3 or "Cloud Drive"] and stream it from there, is this legal?"
After all, the user has to do this themselves... except for the purchased tracks. And in that latter scenario, I am sure Amazon simply "links" to the existing MP3 on their server... I expect they don't create a "new copy" of it for the user. So, they aren't actually MOVING the file anywhere. (That's why they give you that storage space for free... since it costs them nothing to do it.) So, if you want to get techincal about this, then the RIAA still loses the argument there, too.
The only other argument that could be made is that Amazon has the right to allow DOWNLOADs of the MP3, and not streams. But the only difference there (technically) is that a stream is a "slow download" with "no saving rights". Therefore, a download is more encompassing, and if you do it slowly and play it while you're downloading, why is that suddenly different? Technically, it isn't. But I'm sure this level of logic is lost on the legal system.
Exactly... we already pay for infrastructure. The problem is that this money is being diverted to other (not always related) causes... which is why the infrastructure is suffering. (See http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/transportation/highway-funding ). It would be better if we simply used the funds for the intent they were created, rather than squandering them on other (often unrelated) nonsense. In other words, let the earmarkers go figure out where to get the money from, rather than raiding our infrastructure monies!
I commend you on being able to notice the delusions behind statements like "guns are evil". However, you still made a statement that shows me your bias: "What about the suffering of the man who *knows* the gay couple next door is bringing god's wrath on him by having sex every night?"
Now, I'm not sure whether YOU feel this way or not, but, in any case, the statement is irrelevant. What the man "knows" about the gay couple going to hell or whatever is only in the man's mind. As long as the gay couple aren't hurting anyone else, what they do in the privacy of their own home is not anyone's business. That doesn't mean the gay couple are necessarily without fault (ie, they shouldn't go around to churches "displaying" their love just to piss others off - because they, too, would be hurting others). But, in this limted statement, the man has no right to say or do anything just because they are gay or because they love each other. As I said before: Do no harm.
Bringing this back to the original point... what the individual "knows" about good and evil is not relevant to black/white hat discussions. The action, alone, is what's at play. If the hacker is doing this to help solve the problem in the software, then they are white-hat... otherwise, they are gray/black hat. What either party believes in is irrelevant for the same reasons as the man in your example above.
Still, the question above applies... why do you think your morals are necessarily "good"? For all we know, you could be a terrorist who thinks that what he/she is doing is "good" (you do realize they think they are doing a good thing, according to their morals). But, as you can see, your moral basis doesn't mean that it is good for anyone else or society as a whole. For this reason, good/bad MUST be considered socially / as a group, or as all of human-kind/earth-kind. Bottom line, just because you (or the hackers) think they are doing good, doesn't make it so. Hence, the above distinction for black/gray/white stands.
With a statement like that, it would mean that we have no free will and therefore cannot be held accountable for what god made us do? So, morals, ethics, humanity, etc are all out the window, since we have no control over them.
Hence, being gay is also not a choice... yet the Christians are happy to say that it is a choice, and try to "fix" you from it? Instead, it should be embraced because, after all, it's god's will.
Hence, abortions are not a choice either, because god made the woman do it? So that's not our fault, and should be allowed... because it's god's will?
No, it's not a "different problem"... you simply assumed he was referring to the broadcast transition to digital.
Fact is, many cable subscribers in America had to switch to using cable boxes or DTA boxes, and we are continuing to be forced to do so. So, he's not "wrong" as the rest of America is being forced to switch as well...
I do agree with the notion that this is essentially a "loophole" allowing the cable companies to continue to force cable boxes down our throats.
But if the decryption devices on the network are communicating to get updated, you could simply crack that process, and get the keys delivered to you, couldn't you? Then you don't need to crack each individual key every time... just the one for the update-process?
In the old days, the cable-cos would monitor for "signal leakage" which helps to indicate approximately how many cable tuners are on that particular line. (See http://articles.latimes.com/1992-10-06/business/fi-524_1_cable-operators ). So, basically, the cable tech visits the line into your house, and can "see" how many devices are connected. These days, this isn't enough information, but I think they can even detect how much "load" is on a particular "band" of the spectrum, and then determine what channels you're tuned to? Seems possible, from an electrical standpoint... but then again, I'm a Mech-E... so I could be full of crap.
Slashdot Mirror
Forget Montana... historical statistics say it's not so. Ever since the idiotic NMSL was repealed, the "common sense" crew was talking about thousands more deaths that were going to come from this. In realty, nothing like that happened even as states increased speed limits, nationwide. But let's not let data get in the way of a "good decision".
Exactly... the rules and regulations are already in place. The government just figures they don't have to follow them, because they say so. Engineers already say they are too low, but no one listens to them, so why would they listen to me when there is some ninny on the street complaining that his/her kids can't play because of cars passing by so fast? HE/SHE feels it's too fast, so they politicos listen to her. How about keeping your damn kids off the friggen street?
Have you ever been to kangaroo court (aka civil court)? They will find you responsible regardless, because it's actually guilty until proven innocent in the wonderful USA civil court system. Hell in my state of MA, they CHARGE you to go to court... how's that for fair?
Also consider: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_curve
Except that current speed limits are NOT set by this rule, even though they are supposed to be. Simply because idiots think "common sense" somehow trumps science and engineering.
You aren't reading my statement correctly. Let me clarify... this is what I said in court: I presented that the company was lying about having a signed contract, which they forced me a termination fee on. For reasons I won't get into, I paid the fee and asked repeatedly about this contract, as I did not recall it. I also asked for a copy of this contract from the company. They sent me a copy of an UNSIGNED contract, because I never saw it or signed it. I said that the company lied, saying they had a signed contract. Since there is no signed contract, I cannot be held to the terms of that contract... after all, I never saw it!
That seems simple enough to me. This is when the judge said he didn't care who lied... when that is the very basis of this case. I showed him the unsigned contract, and presented it to the judge and defendant... yet this was ignored completely.
As a person who has dealt with courts in the past, I am very aware of rules and such. I followed each of them to the best of my ability. I had recordings, documents, email threads, etc... I had TONS of evidence in paper that I was presenting from, and was presenting to the judge. I even filed aMassachusetts Chapter 93A consumer protection letter according to procedure, etc.
If you can tell me where I went wrong, I would LOVE to hear it. I am HAPPY to accept fault for presentation or whatever, and learn from my mistakes. Of course, no one is willing to do this, so I have no reason I did anything wrong. I even have recordings of the event from the court, if you are really bored. As an engineer, I am very good at following directions and presenting data, yet when someone says they don't want to hear about who lied, I can't be anything but flabbergasted, since that is the basis of the claim I was making with all my data. The case was about the fact that they made me pay a contract termination fee for a contract I NEVER SIGNED. All my evidence proved that they lied to me about having a signed contract over email and phone, and when asked to produce it, they showed me an unsigned one which I never saw previously. I don't know how much more clear it can be.
Seriously - if you want to help me learn from this case, and my mistakes, I'd love to hear it... I'm always ready to learn, but I just don't see it. Bottom line, it baffles me that a judge could actually say he doesn't care about who lied... particularly in court and when evidence is presented. I admit I pretty much gave up at that point since he clearly wasn't listening to me.
I certainly don't expect you to be able to comment on my case with limited information. The point is, how can a judge be "not concerned" with who lied in a consumer protection case, where it's ALL about who lied to whom. In this case, the company said they had a signed contract from me, I said they didn't, they couldn't prove it, I said they lied, and the judge said he didn't care about who lied... WTF?
As for libel, slander, or whatever... I have been forced to give up the case. No one wanted to take it before... what makes you think anyone would bother now? Besides which, the SOL is probably expired on the case (IANAL and since no one is helping me, I have no solid way to confirm this myself.)
As for the lawyers not taking the case, that is my exact point... I know why they didn't (they didn't feel it was financially sound)... and that is my point. You WILL lose even if the facts are on your side, as they were in my case... unless you have a lawyer. Frankly, I would rather be right than win financially... so I was willing to pay, but STILL no one would take the case.
A business-lawyer friend of mine told me the same thing - the reason she doesn't practice litigation is because she knows the system is not fair and that there is no such thing as "open and such" regardless of how much proof you have. If a lawyer can't make this system work, you know it's broken.
I did contact a lawyer, as I mentioned (and you noted in the end) no one would take it because the money wasn't enough. Hence, my point (that you mostly agree with) that you don't get justice unless you pay up.
As for the argument, I did state clearly, numerous times, that there was no contract, and that the company could not produce one. I also stated that the company was lying about having one, and has never produced one. That is when the judge said he didn't care about who was lying, etc. In other words, it's impossible to make the argument of logic if the judge refuses to hear it.
Lastly, this was small-claims court. The intent (at least the intent we are told) is that we don't have to be lawyers, and the judge would handle the case as if we don't know this stuff. It's supposed to be less formal and a venue where "you don't have to be a lawyer". I quote from http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=ocaterminal&L=3&L0=Home&L1=Consumer&L2=Consumer+Legal+Resources&sid=Eoca&b=terminalcontent&f=small_claims_court&csid=Eoca where it says "The atmosphere of Small Claims Court is informal, and the rules of the Court are simple. You can sue or be sued in this Court without being represented by a lawyer, because the more formal procedures characteristic of other courts are not required. Instead, you are allowed to present your own evidence and speak in layperson's terms." Hence, basic presentation of facts and logic should be followed, yet they weren't... for whatever reason. Again, that's my point... it's not about truth or justice... it's about money and being a lawyer. Logic need not apply.
When a judge tells me "I'm not so concerned with who lied about what" in a consumer fraud case I brought up in small claims court, and then finds for the company that screwed me, and then goes on to take away fines against the company... I have a problem with that... and I have no faith in a system that claims to be impartial or even capable of basic logic. How can a company that claims I had a signed contract with them, and then can't produce it (because they really didn't have one and continued to lie about it IN COURT) get away with winning such a case?! It just doesn't make sense. Yet I lost?
I realize IANAL, but SUPPOSEDLY this is why small claims is supposed to make this process easier for non-lawyers on "small cases". In my case, no lawyer would even take the case because $700 wasn't enough of a fine to get involved with. Obviously, the system does not care about justice, but more about money... and if you don't have enough, you will get screwed, just like I did.
I realize that there are safeguards in the system for bigger issues, as you describe. However, this was a simple case, with clear information... yet they got it wrong because they just didn't listen to me, and clearly refused to hear about the documented lies I was showing them. How can a judge ignore a lying defendant? Particularly in a consumer protection case, where lying is the POINT of the case in the first place?!
So true... the legal system doesn't believe in logic... I have experienced this myself. Don't mess with it, as logical as your argument may be... you will lose because of some crap that has no bearing on reality or basic intelligence. Consult with a lawyer, and maybe you can countersue or something to help make up for some of the fees. The bottom line is, the system doesn't work and it isn't fair... don't play with it or mess with it.
Maybe pleading with the BSA would work... it might be cheaper as well, but in the end, you will be screwed out of money for this injustice. Welcome to America.
Exactly. The problem is ANY distracted driving. Once your mind is on something else, it's not on the task of driving. Hands-free doesn't even solve the problem, since you are still mentally distracted: Hands-free cell phone usage equally dangerous while driving
The point is, pay attention to the road first... not the phonecall or other person. The priority needs to be the road, not anything else in the car.
I think we're saying the same thing, but just for clarity, my country IS the USA. I was referring to people who can do 4 right turns being allowed to drive cars, while 18-wheelers require far more training and ability. The point is, we don't really test a person's competence, and then throw them into a killing machine (car), and then blame everyone for accidents and ask for more restrictions due to one person's stupidity. Hell, we're now forcing all sorts of digital nannies to protect these idiots from themselves, while the rest of us are being screwed out of control over the vehicle (stability control, auto parking, etc). Bottom line is, we need better training before handing them the keys to even "just a car"... especially if we require such training from other drivers (18 wheelers). I remember back in the day, we were told "driving is a privilege, not a right"... yet we give people the right to drive through their stupidity and incompetence and then defend these same unskilled people. Unless they are *gasp* speeders because everyone knows they are the root of all accidents, so we better get them off the road first.
Well, if you want freedom to do things that are harmful to you or others, then you should also be held responsible for mistakes. Furthermore, "safety measures" to prevent your stupidity should not affect me either - I should be free to be equally stupid, and equally responsible.
Bringing that back to the original point, if you are too inept to drive, either you shouldn't be allowed to do so (licensing restriction... though this is still a "safety measure" by the above definition), or you should be held responsible. After all, you're not going to give the right to drive an 18-wheeler to an inexperienced person, but yet we are happy to do so for every idiot on the road today who can take 4 right turns and stop.
http://www.dailytech.com/Unsecured+Routers+Land+People+in+a+Heap+of+Police+Trouble/article21453.htm references Sarasota, FL / Buffalo, NY / N. Syracuse, NY
http://news.cnet.com/Police-blotter-Open-Wi-Fi-blamed-in-child-porn-case/2100-1036_3-6177095.html?tag=untagged shows an event in Buffalo again (different person)
That's 4 events I found without even trying. Who knows how many more are out there, and remain unmentioned? And let's not forget all the **AA-targetted people who were sent blackmail letters, but then "let go" because they were too old, didn't have computers, or whatever. The point is, IP addresses don't tell you squat... though the police think it points a finger directly at the culprit. Idiocy.
Again, I'm not saying the stuff it cheap, but I question whether you need to own all the high end stuff in the first place. I'm not an audio person, so explaining that to me is pointless and fruitless... I'm not going to research the nitty gritty of audio equipment to prove you wrong. My simple point is that you MAY not need to BUY all that stuff in the first place. Just like with computers, you don't need to buy a $1000 laptop for most people, but they do it anyway.
But, even barring that discussion, my previous point stands - these are your tools of the trade. Mine happened to be a degree in engineering. I probably spent as much as you would on hardware to get my degree. So, I don't see why you should be "exempt" from having to pay into your career. If your equipment costs $100k, that's the typical cost of a college education... it's your choice to spend it on music equipment, just like it's mine to spend it on my career. I wouldn't be where I am without my degree, and you can't expect to get audio equipment "for free" in a similar manner.
It may not be completely inexpensive, but if this is your "career" then that's where you have to spend your money. My career was engineering, so I spent a bunch of money on a college education. If you want to be a recording artist, you have to spend your money there... so you can't complain about that.
Secondly, you don't need super high end equipment. Look at the Foo Fighters latest album - all recorded on old analog equipment, and in a garage. Sure, it's not convenient or easy, but it can be done and still sound great. If you WANT the new MIDI stuff and automation, then knock yourself out... just don't go crying to people that it's expensive (for both of these reasons). Bottom line, is that if you have the TALENT (as mentioned above) you don't need to fake it with electronics. If you're not talented, then don't complain about poor sales/quality/etc.
The problem is, the priests also don't speak from experience. In other words, NONE of them have proven any of their theories in any way - they all simply read the same book, and believe it to be true. It's like getting all your news/information from one source, and then never questioning it. Just because it's said there, doesn't mean it's right/true/valid/etc. In religion, there is no direction, interest, nor even allowance to question the book/history/past in order to test it, or validate it.
Science, on the other hand, encourages testing and proof, and allows you to do it, if you have the interest/resources. Just because you cannot do it, doesn't mean it can't be done. Compare that to religion where they don't even allow you to do it! In other words, in religion, priests don't do it (testing/validating) nor do they allow it to be done (ie, thorough analysis of religious artifacts, such as the "shroud of Turin" for example). If they really want to prove it to be true, then why not let testing happen? Are they afraid they will be proven wrong? Answering yes to either question makes religion a non-science.
So, while YOU cannot test quantum mechanics, it doesn't mean it cannot be done. Yes, you are taking the fact that others have tested it to be true, but this is very different from what religion does. For example, if I want to test the validity of a religious artifact, I will simply not be allowed to do it.
"I moved the file server into a colo [aka Amazon S3 or "Cloud Drive"] and stream it from there, is this legal?"
After all, the user has to do this themselves... except for the purchased tracks. And in that latter scenario, I am sure Amazon simply "links" to the existing MP3 on their server... I expect they don't create a "new copy" of it for the user. So, they aren't actually MOVING the file anywhere. (That's why they give you that storage space for free... since it costs them nothing to do it.) So, if you want to get techincal about this, then the RIAA still loses the argument there, too.
The only other argument that could be made is that Amazon has the right to allow DOWNLOADs of the MP3, and not streams. But the only difference there (technically) is that a stream is a "slow download" with "no saving rights". Therefore, a download is more encompassing, and if you do it slowly and play it while you're downloading, why is that suddenly different? Technically, it isn't. But I'm sure this level of logic is lost on the legal system.
Exactly... we already pay for infrastructure. The problem is that this money is being diverted to other (not always related) causes... which is why the infrastructure is suffering. (See http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/transportation/highway-funding ). It would be better if we simply used the funds for the intent they were created, rather than squandering them on other (often unrelated) nonsense. In other words, let the earmarkers go figure out where to get the money from, rather than raiding our infrastructure monies!
I commend you on being able to notice the delusions behind statements like "guns are evil". However, you still made a statement that shows me your bias: "What about the suffering of the man who *knows* the gay couple next door is bringing god's wrath on him by having sex every night?"
Now, I'm not sure whether YOU feel this way or not, but, in any case, the statement is irrelevant. What the man "knows" about the gay couple going to hell or whatever is only in the man's mind. As long as the gay couple aren't hurting anyone else, what they do in the privacy of their own home is not anyone's business. That doesn't mean the gay couple are necessarily without fault (ie, they shouldn't go around to churches "displaying" their love just to piss others off - because they, too, would be hurting others). But, in this limted statement, the man has no right to say or do anything just because they are gay or because they love each other. As I said before: Do no harm.
Bringing this back to the original point... what the individual "knows" about good and evil is not relevant to black/white hat discussions. The action, alone, is what's at play. If the hacker is doing this to help solve the problem in the software, then they are white-hat... otherwise, they are gray/black hat. What either party believes in is irrelevant for the same reasons as the man in your example above.
Still, the question above applies... why do you think your morals are necessarily "good"? For all we know, you could be a terrorist who thinks that what he/she is doing is "good" (you do realize they think they are doing a good thing, according to their morals). But, as you can see, your moral basis doesn't mean that it is good for anyone else or society as a whole. For this reason, good/bad MUST be considered socially / as a group, or as all of human-kind/earth-kind. Bottom line, just because you (or the hackers) think they are doing good, doesn't make it so. Hence, the above distinction for black/gray/white stands.
With a statement like that, it would mean that we have no free will and therefore cannot be held accountable for what god made us do? So, morals, ethics, humanity, etc are all out the window, since we have no control over them.
Hence, being gay is also not a choice... yet the Christians are happy to say that it is a choice, and try to "fix" you from it? Instead, it should be embraced because, after all, it's god's will.
Hence, abortions are not a choice either, because god made the woman do it? So that's not our fault, and should be allowed... because it's god's will?
Which is it? Religion can't have it both ways...
No, it's not a "different problem"... you simply assumed he was referring to the broadcast transition to digital. Fact is, many cable subscribers in America had to switch to using cable boxes or DTA boxes, and we are continuing to be forced to do so. So, he's not "wrong" as the rest of America is being forced to switch as well... I do agree with the notion that this is essentially a "loophole" allowing the cable companies to continue to force cable boxes down our throats.
But if the decryption devices on the network are communicating to get updated, you could simply crack that process, and get the keys delivered to you, couldn't you? Then you don't need to crack each individual key every time... just the one for the update-process?
In the old days, the cable-cos would monitor for "signal leakage" which helps to indicate approximately how many cable tuners are on that particular line. (See http://articles.latimes.com/1992-10-06/business/fi-524_1_cable-operators ). So, basically, the cable tech visits the line into your house, and can "see" how many devices are connected. These days, this isn't enough information, but I think they can even detect how much "load" is on a particular "band" of the spectrum, and then determine what channels you're tuned to? Seems possible, from an electrical standpoint... but then again, I'm a Mech-E... so I could be full of crap.