Let's not forget about hardware donors. Donate a hard drive? Get an account and some credits! Sites such as LSD and LOOP did this.. and many more still do.
Autotrading with pftp was a great way to get banned when I came up in the scene. ssh + standard unix ftp and a screen rotation of ~5-10 sites were the usual trading setup. It's much nicer than FXP, particularly as most top sites only allowed a few logins. You simultaneously mget different files from all affil sites and mput to the rest of your rotation. Chaining with FXP just isn't fast enough.
Autotrading will still get you banned. But yeah what you describe sounds like it's from back in the day. Nowadays there are three modes with the standard pftp: autotrade, autotrade only while at computer (redundant, I know), and manual trade.
But chaining with FXP is just fine now (virtually all courier groups do it with the exception of 0day). When I was a courier our pftp coordinated with the other ones in the group and chained them via country, ranking, and by 3-4 other factors I can get into if you'd like.
Are the site rankings published anywhere? When I came up we had e-zines like the Netmonkey Weekly Report. Damn they were cool! :)
FWIW: I traded 0sec to places like: Falsehood, Hades, VDRLake, Firesite, Enigma, Etirnity (whose dutch admins couldn't spell, but their site owned anyway :p) and, my favourite, Stairway to Heaven.
Also, the bulk of legitimate releases comes from the "leaders" of the ISO scene.. As of right now there are ~38 users in the IRC channel representing the the majority of the top level groups. To me this is absolutely frightening that a channel like this even exists.
I created a fork of less-rails-bootstrap a few weeks ago and put 2.0-wip on it pretty easily in an hour or so. A week or two after that 2.0-wip was pushed to the master branch on that project. What issues were you having exactly?
A few points to mention.. there is most definitely a federal law against murder: US Code Title 18 Section 1111.
I'm also concerned with your statements regarding abortion et al. These are serious issues that significantly impact people's lives. We shouldn't have a "playground" or a labyrinth of "mini laboratories" for such issues. What's to stop a state, say Alabama for hypothetical purposes, from testing out slavery again? It's economically beneficial, isn't it?
Also this statement seems contradictory: "with the rest of the country able to watch what happens, and then pick the best results from the other states." Who picks the best results? Certainly not the federal government under a Paul administration. Many supporters counter by stating that people can just move to another state... but unfortunately for the poor moving is almost impossible.
You say that we then pick the best result from the states, but that seems contradictory to Ron Paul's message.
Finally, the Constitution was written by rich white individuals who were basically looking after their own well-being (I may be overcritical, but you can decide whether I am or not by reanalyzing it). This requires critical analysis and a historical background: but how many clauses benefit the rich? how many the poor? how many benefit slave owners? The constitution is a relatively vague document, and although I agree that some branches are overextending their powers (i.e. executive) I don't think a strict adherence to the literal wording of the document will be any beneficial to solving the broad problems that exist today.
Sorry if my wording seems harsh, I don't mean for it to be. I had to hastily write this in a couple minutes before I head out the door.
I'm on my tablet right now so it's a little difficult to type lengthy responses, but hopefully these are sufficient.
First, it specifies a death penalty for Murder 1st Degree -- but we all know that there are plenty of states (most?) in which you cannot be killed for this. So there's a contradiction.
Actually, it isn't a contradiction. The wording for part B (which you are referring to) states "Within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States." If you are confused as to what that means you can refer to 18 USC 7 which lays out a specific definition.
18 USC 1092 is only applicable to Chapter 50a, not 18 USC 1111. However, 18 USC 1111 is applicable to states (but not part B). There are several complex nuances to this. I won't claim to know all of them, but 18 USC 454 adds better clarification than I could explain.
Ummm... maybe the 13th Amendment? Honestly, I think you're being intentionally obtuse here.
Yes, I was exaggerating. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Replace slavery with abortion, child labor, or anything... the point is still the same.
The people of each state, or their duly appointed representatives, of course.
######################
We can keep discussing this as this is the single most important argument overclouding this entire conversation.
######################
To start the discussion, do you believe that the collective taxes of one state should go to benefit another?
It looks like you're so afraid that a small portion are going to be disadvantaged that you're insisting on a one-size-fits-all solution. But experience shows that such solutions are almost always worse in the end (e.g., NCLB), and by their very nature they hurt a much broader scope of people -- better to make your experimental mistakes at a small scope. Especially since experience also shows that legislative mistakes (again, like NCLB, but there are countless other examples) are almost never rolled back, because of political gamesmanship.
First off, it's not as small of a portion as you may think. NCLB is a good example of a federal program gone awry, but fortunately this administration is putting into place several policies to fix the fundamental issues of why NCLB didn't succeed. There is no reason why federal legislation can not give leniency to the states. If you are interested in learning about these policies let me know and I can generate a few sources for you to check out.
In what way is insisting on using Article V (the amendment process) in order to patch bugs inferior to ad hoc power grabs?
I understand your argument and why you feel that Article V is a good process, but it isn't. I'll give you reasons why but first I'd like to read your response to the question posed a couple sections above.
Your explanation appears correct, but I'd want to understand the larger framework around the whole thing. Because, taking a step back and looking at the big picture, it is certainly true that the federal government does not have general police power. See, e.g.,
- - - - Begin Quote [1]
In United States constitutional law, police power is the capacity of the states to regulate behavior and enforce order within their territory ... Under the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution, the powers prohibited from or not delegated to the Federal Government are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. ...
Because the Congress has limited powers granted in the Constitution, the Federal government does not have a general police power, as the states do. The exceptions are laws regarding Federal property and the military; the Federal government was also granted broad police powers by the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887.
- - - - End Quote
To start the discussion, do you believe that the collective taxes of one state should go to benefit another?
There are two ways that I can answer, depending on exactly what you mean.
If you're talking about the application of federal revenues, then I think it's OK for a given state's residents to pay more in taxes to the federal government then they get back in terms of services, etc. For example, we do like to have interstate highways spanning across those large, sparsely-populated states. This clearly demands a model for spending that doesn't necessary allocate spending in lockstep with revenues. Similarly, the federal need to secure borders demands that more federal money be spent in border states.
However, I fear you might instead mean that, in a more decentralized system, state revenues could be redirected to other states. For example, in the absence of significant federal aid for education, it's likely that not all states would be able to subsidize public education in the same way. I would not support any forced redistribution of taxes from one state to another for such purposes. Not only do I believe that it's morally wrong, but I think it also ruins the potential for those mini laboratories. For example, the Massachusetts attempts at healthcare reform were crappy examples for the federal government to follow because their success (inasmuch as they were successful, which they were not, but the politicians like to pretend that they were) depended significantly on the use of greater federal Medicaid funding, and thus the rest of the country has been underwriting Massachusetts plan.
There is no reason why federal legislation can not give leniency to the states.
It's certainly true that our legislators could patch NCLB to fix its most glaring failures. However, they almost certainly will not address the flawed premise on which the whole thing is founded. They virtually never say "we were wrong, let's undo this", they'll keep patching and duct-taping more to the side of it to shore it up. And this interferes with finding an approach that really is better.
fortunately this administration is putting into place several policies to fix the fundamental issues of why NCLB didn't succeed.
If you're referring to what I think you are (Obama granting waivers to states based on his own criteria) [2], what Obama is doing is almost certainly illegal. The Congress, and only the Congress, has the power to set the laws. In some cases the President may have some discretion, like he could instruct DOJ to stop prosecuting people for marijuana violations. But there's no question that the President does not have the authority to simply discard terms of the laws as Congress passed them, and insert his own.
I'll note that this is becoming habitual with him. He's been doing it for some time already with waivers for ObamaCare, and there's further talk of IRS rules re-writing part of the ObamaCare rules governing federally-created exchanges.
EDIT: and this is precisely the kind of usurpation of power that your "living document" philosophy permits, and I believe is necessary to stop. The government is leviathan. It grows and grows. You may think that an instance of such growth is good or advantageous, but that's fleeting, because a little ways down the road your opponent will have a chance at the reins, and morph those powers into something that will damage you.
there is most definitely a federal law against murder: US Code Title 18 Section 1111
Any lawyers here to clarify? I looked this up [1], and find a couple of interesting things. First, it specifies a death penalty for Murder 1st Degree -- but we all know that there are plenty of states (most?) in which you cannot be killed for this. So there's a contradiction. Also, see [2]
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as precluding the application of State or local laws to the conduct proscribed by this chapter, nor shall anything in this chapter be construed as creating any substantive or procedural right enforceable by law by any party in any proceeding.
So my best guess is that this stuff is applicable to DC, national parks, etc., but not to the states.
What's to stop a state, say Alabama for hypothetical purposes, from testing out slavery again?
Ummm... maybe the 13th Amendment? Honestly, I think you're being intentionally obtuse here.
Who picks the best results? Certainly not the federal government under a Paul administration.
The people of each state, or their duly appointed representatives, of course.
Many supporters counter by stating that people can just move to another state... but unfortunately for the poor moving is almost impossible.
This creates a competitive situation between states. In the end, the most prosperous states will be those that can find the best equilibrium between positive and negative rights for the residents. Crank up the taxes too high, and you'll get mass exodus as with California today. But with them too low relative to expenses, the states can't provide necessary services (or wind up in significant debt, as we see with PIIGS in the EU; this suggests that balanced-budget rules are necessary for the states, which is a problem we'd need to overcome).
It looks like you're so afraid that a small portion are going to be disadvantaged that you're insisting on a one-size-fits-all solution. But experience shows that such solutions are almost always worse in the end (e.g., NCLB), and by their very nature they hurt a much broader scope of people -- better to make your experimental mistakes at a small scope. Especially since experience also shows that legislative mistakes (again, like NCLB, but there are countless other examples) are almost never rolled back, because of political gamesmanship.
I don't think a strict adherence to the literal wording of the document will be any beneficial to solving the broad problems that exist today.
In what way is insisting on using Article V (the amendment process) in order to patch bugs inferior to ad hoc power grabs? When the changes are ad hoc, we get phenomena like GWB's power grabs around USA PATRIOT and other issues. In some cases these were decried by the other side, but a few years later, when power swung the other way, those that claimed to oppose the overreaches did nothing to right the problems, and indeed, have enjoyed exercising and even expanding those newly-minted powers themselves.
So it looks to me like the ad hoc route has tremendous dangers. The only disadvantage I can see to the use of Article V is that it requires enough political support that those advocating the changes, although they don't admit it, don't believe they can get it (or so it seems to me).
Winning Iowa, or at least winning expectations, correlates with additional fundraising and additional support leading into the following states: NH, SC, FL, NV. A winner is able to build up momentum into those states and have the chance to continue a successful campaign (Obama for America 2006-2008). And to be honest, Iowa and New Hampshire both are special. I've been to both states countless times and the people are fervent in understanding today's issues and the candidates' stances on those issues, more so than any other state in the country. But you are partially correct with your final assessment, winning Iowa does not guarantee a successful campaign run.
