Your actions online would be entirely different if your IP address was unique and followed you everywhere.
Not really. My ISP can already tie an IP address to my computer at a particular date and time (that's how they catch a large portion of file sharers, after all).
That doesn't solve the problem of disentangling encrypted traffic that is purposefully routed inefficiently through multiple nodes so as to avoid anyone knowing who actually requested what.
Your grasp of technology seems to be a fragile thing . . .
First off, distributed DNS is a fail - you use the same pipes, the same networks. Unless you are going to run all your own fiber, and set up your own alternative network, you are still on the same pipes. Doesn't matter how you try to hide.?
Distributed DNS isn't about "hiding". On the contrary, distributed DNS is about getting your address out to as many people as possible through alternative channels. I assume you just don't understand the term "DNS". (A copyright maximalist that doesn't understand technology? That's unpossible . . .)
And your argument about "being on the same pipes" (and therefore implicitly in view of the authorities) is rather laughable. Software like Freenet routes (and caches) encrypted content through multiple nodes on the network before it arrives at your computer, making it nearly impossible for anyone outside to know what is being passed around, and making it nearly impossible for anyone inside to determine who actually requested a particular piece of data.
The key point is that they believed the old casket was destroyed by the funeral home at the time of the changeover.
Discarded items are no longer considered your property (this is why police officers don't need a warrant to go through your trash when it's at the curb).
If the family were the ones who said "Yeah, toss it" then the funeral home has a good claim on it. If the family said "Where's the old one?" and the funeral home said "Uh, we burnt it." when they really didn't, then not so much.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: As I Said In The Other Thread
First, I notice you ignored my earlier question: How is personally giving money to a candidate less a corrupting influence than a corporation doing it? (Sure, corporations generally have more money than citizens, but they are still bound by law as to the amount they can donate.)
this is not a realistic solution
Why not? If enough people get on board, the company loses money. If your argument is that not enough people care, and that such a boycott would be too small to make any appreciable difference, then you acknowledge that the majority of their customers don't care about (or even approve of) such transactions.
If it were, we wouldn't have a completely corrupt Congress.
Here you assume that such minor transactions are the cause of government corruption, which is what we're disputing in the first place. Question begging will get you nowhere! ;)
Don't like my answer? What's yours?
Honestly, a stronger constitution implementing a government of more limited scope and powers. You may argue that this is not a realistic solution (and I would agree), but that doesn't change the fact (substitute in "my opinion" for the word "fact", if you prefer) that it would be the correct solution, and that your recommendation would make no appreciable difference in scope of government corruption.
You obviously don't realize that your taxes already funds elections and that our Congress is already corrupt.
So you acknowledge that funding elections through taxes causes corruption? ;) I say this in jest, of course, since you didn't imply that the correlation between the two was evidence of causation one way or the other. But it does call into question your argument, does it not?
Another example of people who think a free society and an orderly society are the same thing (much like people think a free market and a stable market are the same thing).
Freedom is chaotic, unpredictable, and sometimes bad things will happen, but if you can't handle that, quit legislating to the lowest common denominator of society and just move to somewhere like North Korea. They'll provide you with all the order they can cram down your throat.
The laws that we created to protect us from the government now protect the government from us. The force of law can't stop the feds from wiretapping citizens without a warrant, but we'll be sure to nail this woman to the wall.
The people making comments in support of the entrenched industry, however, are ridiculous, and I really wish they would come say the same shit in person to me here in Denver. I just don't think they have the balls. There's no way they could say this shit in person.
Our resident industry trolls and shills don't even have the balls to put a name next to their posts, much less debate in person. You're expecting waaaay too much from them.
I think the appropriate analogy would be: "I will steal my next car from you if you don't give me what I want."
First (and you know this is coming), copying is not stealing. Second, how is this stealing from them specifically? I'm planning on getting the content from a completely different source if they don't provide me with a reason to purchase it from them. I won't even use their bandwidth.
Your example has the threatened response as being something legal. That's not what's happening here, as pointed out by Anonymous. The threat here is of illegal action.
So if the government decided tomorrow that citizens were only allowed to buy GM cars from now on (the cynical side of me says that we're not far out from there anyway, but I digress), then a threat from me to buy a Toyota instead of a GM becomes extortion due to its illegality?
Or that we have to ban P2P distribution of music because musicians won't have any incentive to make more, but we also have to ban P2P distribution of child porn because it will only incentivize pedophiles to make more.
Except she isn't in a public place, she is in a private place that is open to the public. An enclosed shopping mall isn't a public place per se.
It's interesting that such places seem to be categorized as whatever is most expedient for any given proposal.
"If its a public place, then people there shouldn't have an expectation of privacy, right?"
"Well, no. You see, it may be open to the public, but it's privately owned, so people there still have an expectation of privacy."
"Oh, okay. Well if it's private property, they can allow smoking in it, right?"
"Well, no. You see, it may be private property, but it's open to the public. Therefore the public has free reign to ban things it doesn't like."
I wish our country would make up its goddamn mind once in a while.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: As I Said In The Other Thread
Yes. Because he'll do what we want.
Right. And what's the problem with that? If he would do what we want regardless of us giving him cash, how is that corruption? If you find a politician that you believe is the right fit based on his stated viewpoints, and you give him money to help him win, are you corrupting government? How are the donations you personally make to a political campaign different from a corporation?
Financially, this isn't very different than your non-tax money being taken by corporations and given to candidates that protect their interests.
Sure it is. I can always choose to stop shopping at a given business if I don't like how they play at politics. I can't choose to stop paying the government.
What you have just advocated, is having the government reach into my wallet, remove money from me by force, and then give that money to candidates whose views I find abhorrent. Right now, the money that I hand over voluntarily might be used to support candidates I despise, so your solution is to replace my voluntary donation with state-backed violent coercion.
Yikes. That's not a solution to government corruption, it's an invite!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: As I Said In The Other Thread
The Citizen's United decision didn't say that corporations could donate as much money as they wanted to a political campaign. That was all just FUD.
The decision said that the government couldn't stop a group of people from publishing their own political documentary, merely because the group of people was incorporated.
There's a big difference between those two things.
On the post: Obama Nominates Former Top RIAA Lawyer To Be Solicitor General
Re: Re: The ACs sound very manic today...
Not really. My ISP can already tie an IP address to my computer at a particular date and time (that's how they catch a large portion of file sharers, after all).
That doesn't solve the problem of disentangling encrypted traffic that is purposefully routed inefficiently through multiple nodes so as to avoid anyone knowing who actually requested what.
Your grasp of technology seems to be a fragile thing . . .
On the post: Obama Nominates Former Top RIAA Lawyer To Be Solicitor General
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Distributed DNS isn't about "hiding". On the contrary, distributed DNS is about getting your address out to as many people as possible through alternative channels. I assume you just don't understand the term "DNS". (A copyright maximalist that doesn't understand technology? That's unpossible . . .)
And your argument about "being on the same pipes" (and therefore implicitly in view of the authorities) is rather laughable. Software like Freenet routes (and caches) encrypted content through multiple nodes on the network before it arrives at your computer, making it nearly impossible for anyone outside to know what is being passed around, and making it nearly impossible for anyone inside to determine who actually requested a particular piece of data.
On the post: Obama Nominates Former Top RIAA Lawyer To Be Solicitor General
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Obama Nominates Former Top RIAA Lawyer To Be Solicitor General
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A word that, ironically, tends to apply to only those who use it, I'm afraid. =/
(Obligatory XKCD link.)
On the post: Lee Harvey Oswald's Brother Sues Funeral Home For Selling Oswald's Old Coffin
Re:
Discarded items are no longer considered your property (this is why police officers don't need a warrant to go through your trash when it's at the curb).
If the family were the ones who said "Yeah, toss it" then the funeral home has a good claim on it. If the family said "Where's the old one?" and the funeral home said "Uh, we burnt it." when they really didn't, then not so much.
On the post: Let's Try This Again: Even If There's No Corruption, The Appearance Of Corruption Hurts Representative Government
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: As I Said In The Other Thread
this is not a realistic solution
Why not? If enough people get on board, the company loses money. If your argument is that not enough people care, and that such a boycott would be too small to make any appreciable difference, then you acknowledge that the majority of their customers don't care about (or even approve of) such transactions.
If it were, we wouldn't have a completely corrupt Congress.
Here you assume that such minor transactions are the cause of government corruption, which is what we're disputing in the first place. Question begging will get you nowhere! ;)
Don't like my answer? What's yours?
Honestly, a stronger constitution implementing a government of more limited scope and powers. You may argue that this is not a realistic solution (and I would agree), but that doesn't change the fact (substitute in "my opinion" for the word "fact", if you prefer) that it would be the correct solution, and that your recommendation would make no appreciable difference in scope of government corruption.
You obviously don't realize that your taxes already funds elections and that our Congress is already corrupt.
So you acknowledge that funding elections through taxes causes corruption? ;) I say this in jest, of course, since you didn't imply that the correlation between the two was evidence of causation one way or the other. But it does call into question your argument, does it not?
On the post: UK Intelligence Agencies Ask Court To Say They're Immune From Having To Provide Evidence
Another Example
Freedom is chaotic, unpredictable, and sometimes bad things will happen, but if you can't handle that, quit legislating to the lowest common denominator of society and just move to somewhere like North Korea. They'll provide you with all the order they can cram down your throat.
On the post: Woman Arrested For Recording Attempt To Report Police Officer Who Sexually Assaulted Her
Business As Usual
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week
Re:
Our resident industry trolls and shills don't even have the balls to put a name next to their posts, much less debate in person. You're expecting waaaay too much from them.
On the post: US Copyright Group Finally Files Some Other Lawsuits... In Minnesota
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
First (and you know this is coming), copying is not stealing. Second, how is this stealing from them specifically? I'm planning on getting the content from a completely different source if they don't provide me with a reason to purchase it from them. I won't even use their bandwidth.
Your example has the threatened response as being something legal. That's not what's happening here, as pointed out by Anonymous. The threat here is of illegal action.
So if the government decided tomorrow that citizens were only allowed to buy GM cars from now on (the cynical side of me says that we're not far out from there anyway, but I digress), then a threat from me to buy a Toyota instead of a GM becomes extortion due to its illegality?
Not buying it.
On the post: US Copyright Group Finally Files Some Other Lawsuits... In Minnesota
Re: Re: Re:
If I tell Ford "I will buy my next car from Toyota unless you improve the quality of your product", is that extortion?
On the post: Google Effectively Puts Demand Media On Notice Days Before Planned IPO
Can't Wait . . .
You know it will happen.
On the post: Woman Threatening To Sue Mall Because Mall Video Captured Her Text-And-Walking Into A Fountain
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Francis Ford Coppola On Art, Copying And File Sharing: We Want You To Take From Us
Re:
Absolutely. Go there, copy his wine (either by copying his recipe or by Star Trek-style replicator; whichever is easiest for you) and enjoy.
We won't say anything. I doubt Francis will either.
On the post: Francis Ford Coppola On Art, Copying And File Sharing: We Want You To Take From Us
Re: Re: Re:
He gives his content away for free, which is also the vehicle he uses to connect with his fans.
His presentations are the scarce item he sells around the content, which is perfectly in line with everything he advocates.
(I'm going to assume you're just trolling, because I refuse to believe someone can be so stupid by random chance.)
On the post: Woman Threatening To Sue Mall Because Mall Video Captured Her Text-And-Walking Into A Fountain
Re: Re: Re:
The mere fact that we have such a concept as a private-public area is proof of that.
On the post: Woman Threatening To Sue Mall Because Mall Video Captured Her Text-And-Walking Into A Fountain
Re:
It's interesting that such places seem to be categorized as whatever is most expedient for any given proposal.
"If its a public place, then people there shouldn't have an expectation of privacy, right?"
"Well, no. You see, it may be open to the public, but it's privately owned, so people there still have an expectation of privacy."
"Oh, okay. Well if it's private property, they can allow smoking in it, right?"
"Well, no. You see, it may be private property, but it's open to the public. Therefore the public has free reign to ban things it doesn't like."
I wish our country would make up its goddamn mind once in a while.
On the post: Let's Try This Again: Even If There's No Corruption, The Appearance Of Corruption Hurts Representative Government
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: As I Said In The Other Thread
Right. And what's the problem with that? If he would do what we want regardless of us giving him cash, how is that corruption? If you find a politician that you believe is the right fit based on his stated viewpoints, and you give him money to help him win, are you corrupting government? How are the donations you personally make to a political campaign different from a corporation?
Financially, this isn't very different than your non-tax money being taken by corporations and given to candidates that protect their interests.
Sure it is. I can always choose to stop shopping at a given business if I don't like how they play at politics. I can't choose to stop paying the government.
What you have just advocated, is having the government reach into my wallet, remove money from me by force, and then give that money to candidates whose views I find abhorrent. Right now, the money that I hand over voluntarily might be used to support candidates I despise, so your solution is to replace my voluntary donation with state-backed violent coercion.
Yikes. That's not a solution to government corruption, it's an invite!
On the post: Let's Try This Again: Even If There's No Corruption, The Appearance Of Corruption Hurts Representative Government
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: As I Said In The Other Thread
The decision said that the government couldn't stop a group of people from publishing their own political documentary, merely because the group of people was incorporated.
There's a big difference between those two things.
On the post: Let's Try This Again: Even If There's No Corruption, The Appearance Of Corruption Hurts Representative Government
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: As I Said In The Other Thread
Answered by the second part; because we're already in synch with his viewpoint and we want him to win.
Either way, the amount of money we could give him is limited by both law and reality. This is not the case with companies.
Companies can give as much money as they want to political campaigns with no limits? Are you certain about that?
Again, if we had fair election rules in place, then anyone, even Mike Masnick, could run for office, resulting in better governance.
Ugh, so then my tax money will taken from me and be used to contribute to every politician's campaign equally. No thanks.
Next >>