Jump to content

HolyMoly

Members
  • Posts

    345
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by HolyMoly

  1. Yup ... but that Detroit News story allowed people to respond. This is the response I sent to the article: Hey, that gives me the idea for another new game called TURN THE TABLES. This is how it works. You are the head of the RIAA. Your quest is to protect yourself and the labels you represent from those who would challenge your control over the music market. But, in order to do this, you've got to accomplish four things. First, you have to create a policy called MAP that rips off the music consumer to the tune of $400,000,000 starting four years before Napster was even born. Secondly, you have to find a friendly Attorney General who won't press criminal charges against you for the monstrous theft. Thirdly, you have to settle a multistate antitrust lawsuit in such a way that you get to keep $256,000,000 of the $400,000,000 you stole while making the plaintiff attorneys think THEY won. And finally, you have to convince the public, the Congress and the Senate that you and your member labels are merely innocent victims of copyright pirates ... hoping they won't see through your facade to see the biggest pirate of all. :D
  2. So far. I'm holding out as a Windows 98SE user for as long as I can because I consider Windows ME to be little more than "Windows 98 3rd Edition" ... and Windows 2000 & XP to be the beginnings of spyware in the guise of an operating system. I'm hoping against hope that in the next few years, there will be a creative explosion among software developers in the Linux arena that will blow Bill Gates out of the water. Bill Gates, as the film "Pirates Of Silicon Valley" intimated, IS "big brother" ... or possibly the antichrist (grin, see photo of Bill Gates as Antichrist at the bottom of this post). Macs? They've always been the better computer with the better operating system. But, the BETA video format was far superior to VHS as well. Translation? People like "cheap." This forces Mac developers to play an unending game of "catch up" ... and I suspect that, eventually, Mac OS's will become more spywareish than they are today ... a future fait accompli. In fact, my landlord (uses OS 9.22 on his Mac) swears that OS-X is the first Mac OS incorporating snoop routines. Whether or not that's true is something I don't know. The Internet was meant to be like the great frontier. But big business wants to tame it, fence it up, box it in, and serve it up in chunks to the consumer. And the government? They'll go along for the ride.
  3. No more than they've already intruded. I'm actually a bit more worried about how far private industry will intrude into our online lives -- spam, intrusive cookies, popups, things like Gator (now known as Claria) and the more sophisticated forms of adware and spyware yet to be developed and deployed. I now use AdAware and Spybot as routinely as I take out the garbage ... and it wasn't always this way. Many years ago before it was a fad, I was a CB (citizen's band) radio enthusiast. Then it became commercialized and turned into a fad that brought so many do-dos on the air it just wasn't fun anymore - and I've not used a CB radio in years. I've not become fed up with the Internet just yet but it could happen.
  4. Schmidt was an elite hacker before he became a capitalist ... even spent time in prison for it. I suspect this is just another hacker who wants to one-up Schmidt ... which in hindsight, might end up being a stupid thing to do. If you were an elite hacker, rich, and had 34 other elite hackers working for you ... what would you do if someone had the audacity to hack you? I can think of a number of things ... all unpleasant. BTW, I just turned in a complaint to the moderater. The 7:02 AM post just before yours was NOT posted by me. Either there's a glitch in the forum software or someone has hacked into my forum account and is using it to post messages under my name. If it's the latter, my days here at BeatKing are numbered. Sorry, but these kind of childish games don't impress me a bit.
  5. It's a bit more than that (the article said there were things the FBI couldn't discuss about their "mission"). They want "controlled" hacking ... or, hacking by design and on orders ... not by freelancers. An example of what the FBI says they want to avoid is hackers like Kim Schmitz. Kim is a German entrepreneur, very pro-American, who has founded a number of startup technology firms and is quite successful. But one of the successes has been, by design, a money-loser from the get-go ... an organization he calls Y.I.H.A.T. (Young Intelligent Hackers Against Terrorism). He claims his team of 34 hackers, some of whom speak/read/write fluent Arabic and Farsi have hacked into bank accounts in a number of Moslem countries and given information to the U.S. government (a claim the U.S. government denies ... but, hehe, if it was true they'd deny it anyway). CLICK HERE to see Kim's short Flash file on Y.I.H.A.T. BTW, he is hiring (grin). Oddly, though, Schmidt is even generating indignation among hackers. One hacker going by the "Fluffy Bunny" alias hacked his way into Schmidt's site twice and defaced it. Of course, Fluffy Bunny could have been an FBI hacker working on orders. Only on the Coast-To-Coast AM show. Don't know much about it at all.
  6. None. I think the idea of a site by-invitation-only is a good thing. There are undesirables who don't belong here that are a constant pain in the ass to the folks at ZP. Of course, you could do some scouting around for "desirable" people not yet here. The more the merrier ... minus trolls and naysayers. On my last post about hackers (generally poor or middle-class but smart) getting favorable treatment (ie., respect) from law enforcement entities, just wanted to add something. Every year, hackers from all over the world attend a hackers convention called DefCon. DefCon 12 is scheduled for Las Vegas next year between July 30th and August 1st. Click here for more details. Anyway, for a number of years now (at least since DefCon 8), the FBI has been "haunting" these conventions ... and on occasion, have arrested wanted fugitives at them. However, the FBI has also been openly "recruiting" hackers to work for them at DefCons. Read this article. Of course, there's still a love-hate relationship there. They've probably not been too successful in recruiting the "elite" hackers. I sort of imagine a scenario similar to the first Matrix film ... with Neo sitting across the table from Agent Smith, who offers to "wipe the slate clean" of past transgressions in exchange for his help. Neo replies, "I've got a better offer. How about if I give you this (flips Agent Smith the bird) and you give me my fucking phone call (to an attorney)." Hehe. But, there's definitely righteous respect for the hacking community by Federal law enforcement agencies ... no denying that.
  7. Nope. Law enforcement always treats rich and/or smart suspects with a certain degree of respect. Michael Jackson is an example of respect for a rich suspect ... and Frank Abagnale, Jr., is an example of respect for the smart suspect. Abagnale was the subject of the film, "Catch Me If You Can," the kid who forged checks and impersonated various professions -- a pilot, a doctor, etc. And to some extent, hackers are treated with respect and are sometimes offered jobs working for "the good guys" - much like Abagnale was. I think it's more a "self-fulfilling prophecy." When a suspect is an extremely well-known celebrity, media attention is a given. If anything, I think the DA is a bit scared. If he can't make this case stick, he knows that his credibility as a DA will be on par with Marcia Clark's credibility (OJ's prosecutor). It's make or break. I think the DA is less trying to make a name for himself as, perhaps, attempting to restore some of the credibility he lost 10 years ago when California law tied his hands in any attempt to prosecute Michael Jackson for his 1993 incident.
  8. Doubtful. Like I said, it's only a conspiracy theory (grin). Remember that race riots were predicted if OJ was found guilty. Can you imagine what would happen if the prosecutor's office now went after Jason? People would claim it was a vendetta. Bottom line, the blood evidence was tainted. And even if the bloody glove fit Jason's hand now, it may not have fit his hand in 1994 (when fitting it mattered). Proving Jason's guilt at this point would be a prosecutor's nightmare ... assuming Jason is guilty (and I'm not necessarily saying he is). But starting with Dr. Lee's remark, my suspicious nature looked in the only logical alternative direction.
  9. The prosecution believed they "had their man." The jury said no. But, I think that O.J. may have possibly done the best acting performance of his life ... both before and during the trial. BTW, here's another tidbit about Jason. During the 1996 civil suit brought against OJ by Ron Goldman's parents, Jason Simpson swore under oath that he'd been taking the drug Depakote since 1991 for epilepsy. Depakote can do some bizarre things to your head since it's also used to treat people suffering from manic episodes. And no medical evidence was asked for or provided to substantiate the diagnosis Jason claimed.
  10. Jason was born in 1970 (24 years old when the murder occurred). Visit THIS WEBSITE and pay particular attention to the timeline notes on these dates: June 1977 (OJ meets Nicole) October 1978 (OJ separates from Marguerite) (HINT - When you're only 7 to 8 years old and daddy divorces mommy for another woman, the resentment must have been acutely felt ... and between then and age 24 was a lot of time to build on that resentment.) March 1993 (Jason gets criminal record for assaulting a guy) And then, of course, on June 12, 1994, Nicole is murdered by "someone." It's important to remember that O.J.'s last violent act against Nicole was in 1989 -- and that Jason's last violent act was only a year before Nicole was murdered. As Dr. Lee said, I suspect "They went after the wrong Simpson."
  11. Well, I didn't say just the rich. Smart but otherwise poor people get away with all kinds of things all the time. Fortunately for cops, they're in the minority. A good example of such a man is D. B. (Dan) Cooper -- the guy who was paid a $200,000 ransom back in 1971 and then parachuted out of the back of a 727. The crime was never "officially" solved. DNA collection procedures in 1971 weren't all that sophisticated and a lot of evidence was just thrown away. Unofficially, though, the case was possibly solved 3 years ago based on the deathbed confession of a man calling himself Duane Weber. The FBI agent assigned to the case believes personally that Weber is the culprit. But (grin) it could be safely said that the deathbed confessions of a criminal mean that he got away with it. Back in August of 2000, Weber's widow, Jo, was interviewed on NPR. The quality is not all that great but, for voice interviews, understandable. Click HERE for the RealAudio interview and slide the RealPlayer time-bar to the 21 minute mark (that's where it begins). It's just shy of 12 minutes long.
  12. Yes, it is. How can a P2P entity that employs a decentralized system (like FastTrack) police anything? It just goes to show how dense some of our lawmakers are when it comes to technology. Incidentally, did you hear that C-Net is going to buy MP3.com and turn it into yet another legal download site? It will be interesting to see if they go the way of Napster and iTunes - requiring Windows XP - or if they go the way of Rhapsody which lets people using Win98SE (like me) access their service. If they do allow Win98SE people, I'll join as an experiment to see if they have the same security issues as Rhapsody does. And if they do, I'll send them an email telling them ... just like I did to Rhapsody. If they're strictly pay-to-download only, that's one thing. But, if they offer free listening, I'd be dubious of their ability to control downloading/burns. As an example, Rhapsody allows free listening ... but charges you extra if you want to download a "burnable" copy. The problem? Legal software like TotalRecorder captures any digital audio signal on its way to the sound card, saving it as a WAV file at the same time you're listening to it. So much for paying a "download-for-burn" fee.
  13. No, this is not a spam. I don't work for any ISP. But, a friend of mine asked me to find a cheap ISP for her. And, I did. Unlimited dialup access, 1 pop account, 10 megs webspace, USENET newsgroups, $6.95 a month. No popups, no ads, no long-term contract, no setup fee ... just simple pay by the month service. BTW, I called up their customer service line with a question and got a "human being" on the first ring. http://www.mailaka.net. If I ever get tired of my 2.4 megabit cable access, that's where I'll go. (P.S. Ain't gonna happen, hehe.)
  14. Almost forgot (getting back to the topic of the XtraJet videotape). Now, I'm not faulting the attorney for getting upset with the videotape. But I distinctly remember "rumors" in the news that Michael was crying on the jet, hysterical, and even requesting that the pilot fly him to South America. However, when FoxNews viewed the tape (they didn't air it), they reported that Jackson was calm, talkative and even laughing with his entourage during the flight. Now, the truth itself doesn't indict Jackson of anything. But who would have wanted to plant such a "rumor" in the news media that Michael was crying, hysterical, etc., etc.????? Obviously, it was someone who wanted to portray Michael Jackson as behaving in a "childlike" manner ... throwing a tantrum, as it were, on the flight to Santa Barbara. So, another conspiracy theory. Could it be that Jackson's legal team released the rumor ... fueling the popular belief that Jackson was in a state of childlike confusion, reflecting the persona of someone innocent? And could it be that when the videotape proved otherwise, Jackson's attorney was not only angry that his attorney/client privelege was violated, but also angry because the "leaked cover story" was blown out of the water by the facts?
  15. The day after Lee made that statement (then denied making it), I was watching CBS News talking with Alan Dershowitz ... the New York "pointman" for Robert Shapiro (who later fell out of favor with Shapiro). CBS asked him about Lee's statement and denial. His response? Dershowitz was smiling like a Cheshire cat and replied, "Well, you're asking the wrong person. Talk to Dr. Lee." I was hoping he'd answer it directly. But, his smile and his evasiveness said plenty to me. BTW, Goldman and Simpson didn't work in the same restaurant. They worked in the same "biz" ... Goldman was a waiter at one upscale restaurant, Simpson was a chef at another. But, they may have moved in the same circles, socially. Who can say?
  16. Well, I don't think there are too many people in jail. I think there's a disproportionate amount of the stupid and the poor in jail ... with the smart and the rich getting away with things. BTW, here's a conspiracy theory for you (grin). When O.J. Simpson was acquitted, I thought it was a miscarriage of justice. But 48 hours later, I thought there might be a chance that he was innocent. Here's why. Two days after the trial ended, O.J.'s forensic expert, Dr. Lee, returned home. He was greeted at the airport by reporters. One of them asked, "Dr. Lee, what in your opinion was the prosecution's biggest forensic mistake?" Without batting an eyelash, Lee replied, quote, "They went after the wrong Simpson." The next day, when another reporter asked him to expand on that remark, he denied even making it. He could have merely said, "Well, I just meant that O.J. is one tough person." Instead, he denied the statement. Why? Now ... ask these questions: (Q) Who openly stated that he hated Nicole, blaming her for the breakup between his mom and O.J.? (A) Jason Simpson, O.J.'s son by his first marriage. (Q) The blood evidence was tainted ... and the best the prosecution could say was that the type closely matched O.J.'s. Who else would have been a close biological match? (A) Jason Simpson, O.J.'s son by his first marriage. (Q) The bloody glove didn't fit O.J. Who was never asked to try it on? (A) Jason Simpson, O.J.'s son by his first marriage. (Q) Who worked in the same industry (upscale restaurant biz) as Ronald Goldman ... may have socialized with him and possibly was someone Goldman could identify? (A) Jason Simpson, O.J.'s son by his first marriage. (Q) When O.J. was released following his acquittal, he went straight home to his estate. Who was the one and only person to meet him at the gate and embrace him? (A) Jason Simpson, O.J.'s son by his first marriage. (Q) With O.J.'s prosecutors humiliated in defeat, who wouldn't they dare touch with a ten-meter cattle-prod? (A) Jason Simpson, O.J.'s son by his first marriage. Think about it. O.J. was an astute businessman. Why would someone with a calculating mind do so much following Nicole's death to point the finger of guilt at himself - unless he was doing it on purpose to protect someone he loved, confident that he could get himself off the hook? Like I said, though (grin), it's only a conspiracy theory.
  17. That's why I suspect his lawyer will revert to a "diminished capacity" plea if things get ugly. And, I'd have no problem with such a plea. If Jackson's behavior was brought on by mitigating factors he could not control (a bizarre or brutal upbringing), then he shouldn't go to jail. He should go to a mental institution ... one where a cure can't be "bought" (if you know what I mean).
  18. What would harm one more professionally than an unresolved issue involving child molestation? Since 1993, Jackson's popularity has been on a downward spiral ... and part of the reason for that (just my opinion) is the quick payoff to that family back then. California law in 1993 could not force a child to testify against a molester. Jackson knew it, his lawyers knew it, and I suspect the public knew it. And hopefully, neither were the lyrics of Jackson's songs ... all with very adult themes and some with deep meanings. They could not have been written by a "child."
  19. I honestly can't figure Michael Jackson out. It seems everybody and their brother sees him as a clueless ignoramous who doesn't have a solid grip on adulthood. But, I see a different Michael Jackson. I see a Michael Jackson who behaves like a child in front of the media ... up until his interests are threatened. Then, he becomes an articulate speech-maker with a poker-face who can "talk adult" just like the rest of us. However, if the trial becomes as ugly as I think it might (with all those other witnesses ... possibly including the boy, now 20, who withdrew charges against Jackson in 1993), I suspect we might see a change of tactics on the part of the defense - perhaps even a plea of "dimished capacity" on Jackson's part (the "he's only a child inside" defense). I'm still very suspicious of that 1993 incident. If I was a near-billionaire as Jackson was back then (and probably still is now) and someone accused me of something as foul and despicable as child molestation, I'd not only refuse to settle with the SOB, I'd counter-sue ... BIG TIME ... for defamation of character. Now, all of a sudden, his attorney is getting righteous ... threatening to "come down like a ton of bricks" on anyone besmirching Jackson. Where was that righteousness in 1993? Food for thought, eh?
  20. Yes, there are legitimate kids out there with stories to tell (though some of them aren't "kids" anymore). In 1996 (3 years after Jackson's last incident), California law changed - allowing victims who'd not previously pressed charges to testify against their molester to show a "pattern of behavior." And currently, the D.A. has over 100 people on that list. Trial day will likely be a Frosty Friday for Mr. Jackson ... especially if the statute of limitations hasn't expired on any or all of these previous (but unreported) offenses. BTW, kids smile for cameras all the time ... even if they have reasons not to smile. And any good psychologist will tell you that an abused child sometimes takes the side of their abuser (a childhood version of the "Stockholm Syndrome"). P.S. Question for anyone here (a straw poll). If you were the victim of child abuse, would criminal punishment of your abuser be enough for you ... or would you, like other victims, seek monetary redress in civil court? I know I would ... and I wouldn't call myself a money-grubber for doing it. P.P.S. But back to the topic at hand -- the secret videotape done by XtraJet personnel. I know I'll get slammed for bringing this up (grin) but I wonder how long it will take before a digital copy of this video makes it to P2P networks?
×
×
  • Create New...