Will, the crux of your argument is that all information ought to be free. I reject that assertion. All of the rest of this argument has been hashed out already.
> Windows is a menace to networks everywhere. W32 botnets are responsible > for > the vast majority of the world's spam and are used to launch all sorts of > other malice. This is because Windows has both systematic and accidental > flaws and each machine is essentially identical. M$ and many third parties > have been working forever to "patch" these problems and Bill Gates > promissed > everyone that Spam would be a thing of the past by now. The cure has often > been worse than the dissease, to strip people of network freedom as if the > problem were users or the internet not Windows. This has greatly reduced > the > utility of networks for everyone directly and indirectly. People who use > and recommend Windows are usually ignorant or deny this because it suits > them > somehow. > I use and recommend Windows because I am able to quickly develop productivity software with features that are impossible to develop on Linux in a similar amount of time. While spam has not been eliminated, I use mail accounts which for all intents and purposes do a near 100% job at preventing it from reaching my inbox. So its annoyance is of little effect to me. I use and recommend Linux for people who can't afford to use the latest and greatest computer software and only need the cheapest of cheap computers. I give lots of Linux computers to church brethren who need free computers for their childrens' schoolwork. Lastly, I use it because I'm a geek. Years ago, I used and recommended Linux for use in router and networking PC-based machines which have now been replaced by $50 appliances. I also used to use MythTV but no longer have time to maintain a PC-based PVR solution, With the advent of inexpensive HDTVs there is no free way to record expanded cable in Hi-Definition... so I rent a pair of Cox DVRs. > US Copyright is a created right that violates people's natural right to > free > press. Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 gives congress the power to do this, > but only if it furthers the public knowledge and the state of the arts. > The > founding fathers of this country despised exclusive franchises as tools of > tyranny and control and copyrights were originally limited and sensible. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause I have been told many times that wikipedia is not a credible source. Regardless, I hold copyright laws to be an effective tool to ensure a person who creates a work is fairly compensated if the work is deemed to hold value. > Many aspects of modern copyright law betray the public. Attacks on network > freedom for the benefit of a few big publishers harms society in more > important ways than a missed sitcom. The publishers have done an effective job at policing the networks themselves. Movies and other copyrighted content are policed to the point of sending abuse letters to ISPs when a user downloads Cars.. for example. There's no real need to shut down P2P. Why do you demand having information for free? You are employed by LSU. Did you hand your last paycheck back because the research information you produced should have been free? I think that QOS is a legitimate way to ensure that high-bandwidth applications don't affect low latency ones. It's a technical solution to a technical problem. > One of the first to object to > Comcast's throttling was a group that used P2P to distribute bible > translations. Bible translations aren't free. People do lots of work on translations and want to be fairly compensated for it, which is biblical by the way. Scientific research is greatly hampered by people's inability > to create digital libraries, and I can assure you that scientists all seek > the widest possible audience for their publications without the kinds of > rewards that MAFIAA pretend to offer people. So the people who are downloading Disney's library are doing it for the sake of science? > Laws that keep people from > sharing their own material with each other are UnAmerican There's no such law > and laws that > prevent private, non commercial copy are universally offensive and immoral. You cannot make this blanket statement. Add a "To ME" at the end of the sentence and we have no problem. > > Companies and business models which can't survive in freedom deserve to > fail, > we will all be better off without them. Again, let me know when you hand LSU back your paycheck. Then I will listen to your argument. > > Finally, you seem blissfully unaware of the shameful place US networks hold > in > the world. The US is the most powerful country in the world but more than > 20 > other countries do better than we do and places like Japan do dramatically > better. Instead of investing in a network that could provide everyone with > universal access to human knowledge, we have spent out time and money on > wiretaps that would make Erich Honecker blush, fighting P2P, which is one > of > the most efficient ways to distribute popular content, and writing stupid > laws like this: > > > http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.1000030&ct=1&SESSID=f246fced5098a13180e242e58f10e1db > > Several people have pointed to Lafayette as an example of how things can > be, > but it will take a lot more than fiber to make networks serve the public > instead of a few vested interests. People like you need to be taught to > demand what's right for you or science, the state of the arts, freedom of > press and your privacy will be lost to the next version of cable TV. > Freedom of the press? This really is a religious argument for you, isn't it? > > Please help yourself to my pictures, classnotes code and other projects > that I > offer. Cox has yet to complain about my bandwith use because most people > are > not that interested in my stuff. They also seem to tolerate other > "servers" > such as IM and P2P clients which are far more popular and consume almost as > much bandwith as the W32 botnet spam flood. IM and P2P are not 'listening' on a 'port' for everyone to access. P2P requires a tracker and IM usually communicates with the network servers. http://www.hypothetic.org/docs/msn/general/overview.php "The program on your PC is called an MSN Messenger "client". It connects to > an MSN Messenger "server" over the Internet. In broad terms, the client then > sends and receives information with other clients via the server. Most of > the time, your client will converse with the MSN Messenger server, which > processes the information and tells other people. However, some information > is simply passed on by the server without being processed. For example, when > sending an instant message, the command "here is a message, pass it on" is > processed by the server, but the message itself is just passed on by the > server and processed by the client. " > > > On Thursday 29 January 2009, Andrew Baudouin wrote: > > Not to throw any more gasoline on the fire with this, but you posted > > "People who use and recommend Microsoft don't deserve to complain about > > bandwidth". > > > > Will, you just seem to have much different thought processes than most > > other people. I frequently fail to understand them, because they seem > > immature (e.g. I want unlimited bandwidth to download whatever I want > > including copyrighted material, 0 ms latency for my apps, and I also want > > Cox to give that to me for $10 a month while removing all botnets from > > their network, All information should be free, because I say so, Windows > > users are inferior as human beings, etc) > > > > I would like to gently remind you that you are currently violating Cox's > > TOS (line item 6) by hosting a web server on port 1024. > > > > _______________________________________________ > General mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net >
_______________________________________________ General mailing list [email protected] http://mail.brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net
