While you are correct in the actual spelling of the term, your definition of it's use is a few centuries behind the times.
It has long since become a common Spanish idiom literally meaning "godspeed". People say it all the time, probably because it became so common a saying from Catholic priests centuries ago.
Sites will post anything they want, they just won't depend on the DNS system anymore to do it.
This is what Mike means when he says that this bill will break the internet. The only reason websites are so easy to find currently is because we've tied IP addresses to nice strings of text.
The minute they start banning sites, everything will go underground. The internet will fragment, but it will still be there. Just not nearly as useful as it should be. It will be back to the early days of it's creation when it was really nothing more than a wide area local network.
If you're speeding in your car, and pull over for the cop when they tell you to by flashing their lights at you, yes, all you will get is a ticket.
Your analogy fails at that point.
Tell you what, try this the next time a cop tries to pull you over:
Don't stop. Just keep driving as you were. Totally ignore what the cop is asking you to do. Then complain to him while he's wrestling you to the ground that he's using unnecessary force.
They were NOT arrested for breaking the little law about not dancing there. They were arresting them for refusing to follow the officers instructions when they were caught breaking the law.
I can't even begin to read through all these comments, but I can't pass this up without giving my piece.
First, the cops in these videos did absolutely nothing wrong. Yes, they used force to subdue the individuals. Every single thing they did follows what they are trained to do to subdue a person resisting arrest with the least amount of injury and risk possible. Anyone complaining at the force they used is pretending the problem is something other than what it really is.
These officers were doing what they're supposed to do: defend the law. The people protesting were breaking the law and refused to follow their instructions, and then went further by resisting arrest.
Do I agree with what the law says here? No, of course not. Do I think these people were wrong in protesting? No, of course not. The only thing they were wrong in was refusing to follow law enforcement.
Our legal system needs to be followed. If there are laws we don't agree with, we need to work to get them changed. This kind of protest could have been done without breaking the law it was protesting.
Organizing and participating in protests is legal. Breaking the law is not. Do not pretend that because it was a protest that they should somehow be allowed to break the law.
Does the law need to be changed? Definitely. But we need to go about it without breaking the law. It can be done.
If we think that breaking the law is ok just because we don't agree with it, we are no better than those who removed our freedom by making that law in the first place.
....to learn from the past so that we don't make the same mistakes again and again and again and again....
/sarcasm
If a paywall model is ever found that is actually valuable to the user in any way, I'm sure Mike will praise it. None of the paywalls mentioned here have ever even tried to do that, and many have even been stupid enough to try locking up content that is easily available in many other places.
So you say Mike is wrong.....and then you completely agree with him???? I'm lost.
As to what your saying, it just makes me laugh and remember my economics class where we learned how to prove that this is absolutely true. Pricing closer to the cost of the item will begin to increase sales exponentially, in the end making greater profit.
But then again, every single business major in my class completely failed to understand the graphs used to show this relationship....so I guess I shouldn't be surprised that none in the business market seem to believe it.
That's what's so confusing about this, though. Bordee isn't just 1.2% over, they went 27% over (1.27, not 1.012). If profnath charged 9.99, Bordee would be charging about 13.
I can only assume that they assumed Profnath would keep their price low, because any higher than that would start causing the price difference to skyrocket, as it did :).
Actually, you're math is just a little off :). Profnath IS undercutting the big guy. By multiplying their price by 0.9983, they're making their own price about 99.8% of Bordee's.
As far as why Bordee would try to charge so much more than Profnath, I have no idea.
That's funny, I've tried rereading my post a few times. Please enlighten me as to where I attacked your freedom to view it if you choose?
I'll defend your freedom to live your life as you like anytime you want, whether I agree with what you're doing or not. My statement only pointed to the fact of how harmful this choice is, not to your right to do it anyway.
While I agree with you on most issues, I think you're way out in left field when it comes to this one.
First, those numbers don't debunk anything. They certainly provide an interesting piece of information to look at and hypothesize over, but they don't show WHY those trends are happening.
Third, how can anyone think for a second that treating women (sorry, but that seems to be the most common form of it out there) and/or men as base objects good for nothing but self gratification and in any sick way imaginable is NOT harmful to the way a person views those around them I will never understand.
I do agree that it is not always responsible for the crimes quoted, but it IS a degrading and harmful thing that should be avoided.
Fact is, the network and the bandwidth it uses don't belong to you. Just because you can see it from your property does not magically mean that it's on public property. That's exactly like saying that because light waves carry the image of my toolbox to your window, my toolbox is now on public property and free to use.
"The router *specifically* sends out an invitation signal telling anyone to connect to it."
No, it does not. It sends a signal telling other computers that it's there, it does absolutely nothing to invite anyone to connect to it. Pretending that because I can see something equals the owner inviting me to use it is ridiculous.
What I find preposterous is that you pretend that just because I leave something open and available I am immediately removed of any right of ownership, or that it's ok for others to come and use it simply because it's easily available.
I should not have to lock something I own up in order for it to be wrong for others to use it without my permission.
"Many computers automatically connect to open routers. It's the way it was designed, and it's exactly what it was designed to do."
No, it was not designed that way. Operating systems chose to do that, wifi was never designed with the intent to automatically connect to any open connection.
If I leave my toolbox out on my lawn, that does not suddenly make it ok for someone to come by and use it without asking me.
And as far as those saying the wireless is somehow on public property, that's also bogus. You can only see the light waves coming from the router, the network is physically only in one place: wherever the router is. It's the EXACT same thing as seeing an open door or a toolbox on a lawn and then pretending that it's somehow public property.
"The very nature of open WiFi is that *IT* broadcasts itself out to the world and says "HEY, JOIN ME!""
Actually, all wifi broadcasts itself to the world, not just open connections. It's only obvious a connection is open when you actually look at the connections you can see in an area.
IMHO, the analogy to a door being open or closed matches this very well, as an open connection appears open, and a protected one appears closed. The only failure is that in entering someone's home, you'll almost definitely be seen, whereas normally no one will ever see that you've joined an open wifi connection.
The point I believe Hugh is trying to make is that just because it's easy does not mean we should take the further step of telling everyone it's ok. I should not have to lock my stuff up to be given the privilege of keeping it from other ppl.
Locks exist because dishonest ppl will take things if they can, not because I have to let ppl know that I don't want them taking or using my stuff.
"An open router is exactly that, so yeah, it should be perfectly legal to use."
So if I leave my toolbox out on my front lawn, it should be perfectly legal for you to take it and use the tools, even if you intend to return it?
Just because something isn't locked up doesn't make it ok to use it. Locks exist because there are dishonest ppl who will take things if they can, not to let ppl know that you don't want them taking your stuff.
I appreciate what you're saying, but please read my comment more carefully. This is the second time you've told me I missed the point, and then repeated exactly what I said in your attempt to correct me.
As far as the copy being modified and therefore not a backup, it doesn't matter. First sale doesn't care why you're making a copy, it deals specifically with a buyer's right to make modifications to the original. In simple summarized form, it says that once the seller has sold a legitimate copy to someone, they no longer have any say over what the buyer chooses to do with it. While they still hold copyright over the item, that specific copy no longer belongs to them in the least bit. It even gives the buyer the right to make copies for their own use, as long as they don't distribute anything without handing everything over, including the original.
From there we enter into the debate over whether or not the seller can get away with pretending they only sold a license and not a physical copy, but that debate is beyond what's being discussed here and is still being debated in legal circles as it is.
And if you'd bothered to read the second half of the same paragraph you quoted, you would have seen this little tidbit:
"I think that's the only failure most of these services made, they failed to provide the original along with the modified copy."
As for not having "permission" to modify, or edit, the content, that's where we get into laws contradicting each other (again see first sale doctrine) and ppl pretending they can just sell a "license", but not bothering to include all the normal benefits to the consumer that a license provides (if something I license wears out from normal use, you have to replace it for me, etc.).
Pretending that first sale somehow doesn't apply in these so called special cases is what fails, and is one of many reasons that copyright no longer protects the consumer and creator equally, the way it was originally intended to.
Wow, I was going to respond to some individual posts, but then I saw just how many clueless idiots claiming, in one way or another, how morally wrong it somehow was to want censored content either for yourself or your children, that it just makes more sense to put up my own....
Economics 101: if the service wasn't wanted, it wouldn't exist.
Fact is, there are a LOT of movies out there with great stories, but where some idiot decided the main actor had to swear every third word or a director thought they had to throw in a sex scene somewhere just to broaden the audience, and removing the swearing or that sex scene does absolutely nothing to the story of the film itself. Just look up Titanic, as an example.
As far as movies where removing the sex removes the film, obviously it would be pointless for such a service to try to edit them. Trying to pretend that all movies that have some sex in them fit that scenario is just ridiculous.
And then there are all those pretending that my desire to filter what comes into my home for my children is somehow deluding myself into thinking they'll NEVER see that kind of stuff. Of course they'll encounter it, you think I'm an idiot? If I want to teach them that it's the sleazy filth that it is, that in no way pretends that they'll never see it. Obviously they will grow up to make their own choices as to what they watch, my sharing with them the values I feel are important in no way removes their freedom to choose for themselves when they grow up.
The only one of these commenters I would agree with is that it's ridiculous to filter content based solely upon a persons age. The idea that viewing something is ok for an adult but somehow not appropriate for a child is stupid. The only thing is, I flip the intent of that comment on it's head. Pornography is not appropriate for anyone, IMHO, regardless of age. That is, of course, my OPINION, so I have every right to it.
And child abuse for teaching my children right vs wrong??? Seriously???
As surely as we do not call you stupid or idiotic names for choosing the values you do, do not do so to us.
And a final note for all those who question the legality of these services:
Copyright 101: once someone has purchased a legitimate copy of something, they can modify it and EVEN SELL THE MODIFIED COPY as long as they include the original. Look up First Sale Doctrine if you don't believe that. I think that's the only failure most of these services made, they failed to provide the original along with the modified copy.
Re: Re:
While you are correct in the actual spelling of the term, your definition of it's use is a few centuries behind the times.
It has long since become a common Spanish idiom literally meaning "godspeed". People say it all the time, probably because it became so common a saying from Catholic priests centuries ago.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sites will post anything they want, they just won't depend on the DNS system anymore to do it.
This is what Mike means when he says that this bill will break the internet. The only reason websites are so easy to find currently is because we've tied IP addresses to nice strings of text.
The minute they start banning sites, everything will go underground. The internet will fragment, but it will still be there. Just not nearly as useful as it should be. It will be back to the early days of it's creation when it was really nothing more than a wide area local network.
Re:
If you're speeding in your car, and pull over for the cop when they tell you to by flashing their lights at you, yes, all you will get is a ticket.
Your analogy fails at that point.
Tell you what, try this the next time a cop tries to pull you over:
Don't stop. Just keep driving as you were. Totally ignore what the cop is asking you to do. Then complain to him while he's wrestling you to the ground that he's using unnecessary force.
They were NOT arrested for breaking the little law about not dancing there. They were arresting them for refusing to follow the officers instructions when they were caught breaking the law.
Re: Re: Reacting to the wrong thing
Yep. And you know what the best part is?
They were YOUR ORDERS.
We decide who gets into political office. We let them know whether we agree with the laws they put in place or not. We get rid of them if we don't.
The buck stops here.
Reacting to the wrong thing
I can't even begin to read through all these comments, but I can't pass this up without giving my piece.
First, the cops in these videos did absolutely nothing wrong. Yes, they used force to subdue the individuals. Every single thing they did follows what they are trained to do to subdue a person resisting arrest with the least amount of injury and risk possible. Anyone complaining at the force they used is pretending the problem is something other than what it really is.
These officers were doing what they're supposed to do: defend the law. The people protesting were breaking the law and refused to follow their instructions, and then went further by resisting arrest.
Do I agree with what the law says here? No, of course not. Do I think these people were wrong in protesting? No, of course not. The only thing they were wrong in was refusing to follow law enforcement.
Our legal system needs to be followed. If there are laws we don't agree with, we need to work to get them changed. This kind of protest could have been done without breaking the law it was protesting.
Organizing and participating in protests is legal. Breaking the law is not. Do not pretend that because it was a protest that they should somehow be allowed to break the law.
Does the law need to be changed? Definitely. But we need to go about it without breaking the law. It can be done.
If we think that breaking the law is ok just because we don't agree with it, we are no better than those who removed our freedom by making that law in the first place.
Re: Seems Unfair ...
....to learn from the past so that we don't make the same mistakes again and again and again and again....
/sarcasm
If a paywall model is ever found that is actually valuable to the user in any way, I'm sure Mike will praise it. None of the paywalls mentioned here have ever even tried to do that, and many have even been stupid enough to try locking up content that is easily available in many other places.
Re: Mike you are wrong...
So you say Mike is wrong.....and then you completely agree with him???? I'm lost.
As to what your saying, it just makes me laugh and remember my economics class where we learned how to prove that this is absolutely true. Pricing closer to the cost of the item will begin to increase sales exponentially, in the end making greater profit.
But then again, every single business major in my class completely failed to understand the graphs used to show this relationship....so I guess I shouldn't be surprised that none in the business market seem to believe it.
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Real Question is:
That's what's so confusing about this, though. Bordee isn't just 1.2% over, they went 27% over (1.27, not 1.012). If profnath charged 9.99, Bordee would be charging about 13.
I can only assume that they assumed Profnath would keep their price low, because any higher than that would start causing the price difference to skyrocket, as it did :).
Re: Re: Re: The Real Question is:
Actually, you're math is just a little off :). Profnath IS undercutting the big guy. By multiplying their price by 0.9983, they're making their own price about 99.8% of Bordee's.
As far as why Bordee would try to charge so much more than Profnath, I have no idea.
Re: Re:
That's funny, I've tried rereading my post a few times. Please enlighten me as to where I attacked your freedom to view it if you choose?
I'll defend your freedom to live your life as you like anytime you want, whether I agree with what you're doing or not. My statement only pointed to the fact of how harmful this choice is, not to your right to do it anyway.
(untitled comment)
While I agree with you on most issues, I think you're way out in left field when it comes to this one.
First, those numbers don't debunk anything. They certainly provide an interesting piece of information to look at and hypothesize over, but they don't show WHY those trends are happening.
Second, pornography is a proven ill. It's incredibly addictive and harmful, both proven facts: http://www.loveinaction.org/pornography
Third, how can anyone think for a second that treating women (sorry, but that seems to be the most common form of it out there) and/or men as base objects good for nothing but self gratification and in any sick way imaginable is NOT harmful to the way a person views those around them I will never understand.
I do agree that it is not always responsible for the crimes quoted, but it IS a degrading and harmful thing that should be avoided.
Re: Re: Please buy your own studio Netflix
Well, you're talking about an idiom...which inherently means it doesn't make sense.
All languages have them, and very few of them make any sense until they're explained to you. That's just the way it is.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why should it be legal to hop onto open WiFi signals?
Yep, swearing always makes your point right.
Fact is, the network and the bandwidth it uses don't belong to you. Just because you can see it from your property does not magically mean that it's on public property. That's exactly like saying that because light waves carry the image of my toolbox to your window, my toolbox is now on public property and free to use.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why should it be legal to hop onto open WiFi signals?
"The router *specifically* sends out an invitation signal telling anyone to connect to it."
No, it does not. It sends a signal telling other computers that it's there, it does absolutely nothing to invite anyone to connect to it. Pretending that because I can see something equals the owner inviting me to use it is ridiculous.
What I find preposterous is that you pretend that just because I leave something open and available I am immediately removed of any right of ownership, or that it's ok for others to come and use it simply because it's easily available.
I should not have to lock something I own up in order for it to be wrong for others to use it without my permission.
"Many computers automatically connect to open routers. It's the way it was designed, and it's exactly what it was designed to do."
No, it was not designed that way. Operating systems chose to do that, wifi was never designed with the intent to automatically connect to any open connection.
If I leave my toolbox out on my lawn, that does not suddenly make it ok for someone to come by and use it without asking me.
And as far as those saying the wireless is somehow on public property, that's also bogus. You can only see the light waves coming from the router, the network is physically only in one place: wherever the router is. It's the EXACT same thing as seeing an open door or a toolbox on a lawn and then pretending that it's somehow public property.
Re: Re: Why should it be legal to hop onto open WiFi signals?
"The very nature of open WiFi is that *IT* broadcasts itself out to the world and says "HEY, JOIN ME!""
Actually, all wifi broadcasts itself to the world, not just open connections. It's only obvious a connection is open when you actually look at the connections you can see in an area.
IMHO, the analogy to a door being open or closed matches this very well, as an open connection appears open, and a protected one appears closed. The only failure is that in entering someone's home, you'll almost definitely be seen, whereas normally no one will ever see that you've joined an open wifi connection.
The point I believe Hugh is trying to make is that just because it's easy does not mean we should take the further step of telling everyone it's ok. I should not have to lock my stuff up to be given the privilege of keeping it from other ppl.
Locks exist because dishonest ppl will take things if they can, not because I have to let ppl know that I don't want them taking or using my stuff.
Re: Odd...
"An open router is exactly that, so yeah, it should be perfectly legal to use."
So if I leave my toolbox out on my front lawn, it should be perfectly legal for you to take it and use the tools, even if you intend to return it?
Just because something isn't locked up doesn't make it ok to use it. Locks exist because there are dishonest ppl who will take things if they can, not to let ppl know that you don't want them taking your stuff.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Child abuse???
I appreciate what you're saying, but please read my comment more carefully. This is the second time you've told me I missed the point, and then repeated exactly what I said in your attempt to correct me.
As far as the copy being modified and therefore not a backup, it doesn't matter. First sale doesn't care why you're making a copy, it deals specifically with a buyer's right to make modifications to the original. In simple summarized form, it says that once the seller has sold a legitimate copy to someone, they no longer have any say over what the buyer chooses to do with it. While they still hold copyright over the item, that specific copy no longer belongs to them in the least bit. It even gives the buyer the right to make copies for their own use, as long as they don't distribute anything without handing everything over, including the original.
From there we enter into the debate over whether or not the seller can get away with pretending they only sold a license and not a physical copy, but that debate is beyond what's being discussed here and is still being debated in legal circles as it is.
Re: Re: Child abuse???
And if you'd bothered to read the second half of the same paragraph you quoted, you would have seen this little tidbit:
"I think that's the only failure most of these services made, they failed to provide the original along with the modified copy."
As for not having "permission" to modify, or edit, the content, that's where we get into laws contradicting each other (again see first sale doctrine) and ppl pretending they can just sell a "license", but not bothering to include all the normal benefits to the consumer that a license provides (if something I license wears out from normal use, you have to replace it for me, etc.).
Pretending that first sale somehow doesn't apply in these so called special cases is what fails, and is one of many reasons that copyright no longer protects the consumer and creator equally, the way it was originally intended to.
Child abuse???
Wow, I was going to respond to some individual posts, but then I saw just how many clueless idiots claiming, in one way or another, how morally wrong it somehow was to want censored content either for yourself or your children, that it just makes more sense to put up my own....
Economics 101: if the service wasn't wanted, it wouldn't exist.
Fact is, there are a LOT of movies out there with great stories, but where some idiot decided the main actor had to swear every third word or a director thought they had to throw in a sex scene somewhere just to broaden the audience, and removing the swearing or that sex scene does absolutely nothing to the story of the film itself. Just look up Titanic, as an example.
As far as movies where removing the sex removes the film, obviously it would be pointless for such a service to try to edit them. Trying to pretend that all movies that have some sex in them fit that scenario is just ridiculous.
And then there are all those pretending that my desire to filter what comes into my home for my children is somehow deluding myself into thinking they'll NEVER see that kind of stuff. Of course they'll encounter it, you think I'm an idiot? If I want to teach them that it's the sleazy filth that it is, that in no way pretends that they'll never see it. Obviously they will grow up to make their own choices as to what they watch, my sharing with them the values I feel are important in no way removes their freedom to choose for themselves when they grow up.
The only one of these commenters I would agree with is that it's ridiculous to filter content based solely upon a persons age. The idea that viewing something is ok for an adult but somehow not appropriate for a child is stupid. The only thing is, I flip the intent of that comment on it's head. Pornography is not appropriate for anyone, IMHO, regardless of age. That is, of course, my OPINION, so I have every right to it.
And child abuse for teaching my children right vs wrong??? Seriously???
As surely as we do not call you stupid or idiotic names for choosing the values you do, do not do so to us.
And a final note for all those who question the legality of these services:
Copyright 101: once someone has purchased a legitimate copy of something, they can modify it and EVEN SELL THE MODIFIED COPY as long as they include the original. Look up First Sale Doctrine if you don't believe that. I think that's the only failure most of these services made, they failed to provide the original along with the modified copy.
Re: Re:
"The definition of deflection is not address the issues, and instead picking at the poster themselves. That is a horrible fail."
Then stop doing it.