Slashdot Mirror
Azureus Decentralizes Bittorrent
BobPaul writes "While the eXeem project to decentralize Bittorrent remains in open beta, the Azureus Java Bittorrent project has recently released a major update that, among other things offers 'a distributed, decentralised database that can be used to track decentralised torrents. This permits both "trackerless" torrents and the maintenance of swarms where the tracker has become unavailable or where the torrent was removed from the tracker.' It doesn't contain the search functionality of eXeem, but it's also not a beta product and is licensed under the GPL. Could this and compatible clients be the replacement to SuprNova and Lokitorrents, or does the lack of search negate its effectiveness?"
Google Talk
Uh. So what's your point? I've got several perfectly legal guns mainly acquired to be used against people who threaten me or my loved ones.
Look at it this way, guns can be used to hunt for food. But the truth is, 99% of gun use is against people.
Would you mind giving a reference to that stat? I find it hard to believe.
Assuming that every shot hit its mark. And the way some of these boys today wave their firearms about I wouldn't bet on more than 1 million different peeps getting shot a day. Hmmmm. Let's start a list. We'll all put forward a few thousand names each and we'll get Mr. Anonymous' posse of "Guns-don't-kill-people-I-do"-nuts to let loose on 'em...
1. Taco (greasy Italo-fagot)
2. CowboiKneel (obscenely fat cunt, can be smelled 400 yards away; bites you in the sack if too close)
or to parody a parody using more Realistic terms
,potential copyright infringers
Bad potential copyright infringers
Whatcha want, watcha want
Whatcha gonna do
When the cartel known as RIAA come for you
Tell me
Whatcha gonna do, whatcha gonna dooo
Yeaheah
CHORUS:
potential copyright infringers
Whatcha gonna do, whatcha gonna do
When the potential infringment lawsuit signed by the RIAA come for you(if you cant afford to defend)
(Repeat)
When you were twenty
And you to save money
You go to College
And learn the golden rule
you got screwed with a student loan
and couldt afford much food
If you get hot torrents
you dont need to either starve or have fun
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
Look at it this way, guns can be used to hunt for food. But the truth is, 99% of gun use is against people.
I call bull-fucking-shit on that. For every person who is shot, I would argue there is an animal who is shot. This makes the figure below 50%. In fact, I would say the percentage of use that is against people is far below that. You do realize every cow you eat is shot, right?
Im fairly sure the inventor of the gun was not thinking "hm this ought to scare my enemys" .
No he was thinking "hm this ought to slaughter my enemys a hell of alot faster"
I don't know what that post was modded insightful when it was 100% BS. thanks for settin em striaght.
Actually, the gun was probably born out of necessity for hunting large animals more easily.
I don't need a gun , My man-hood needs no extension.
I refuse to believe you believe this yourself. It's blatantly unplausible.
The truth is, I personally have fired atleast 1000 bullets from a variety of guns this year. Not a single one of them on humans. The same is true for atleast 20 people that I personally know.
So, for your statistic to be true, if I and my friends are the *only* Norwegian to fire at something other than human beings (somehow I doubt this) then nevertheless two million bullets must be fired at human in norway every year.
That's quite a lot, considering that there's only about 4.5 million humans in Norway. Every second Norwegian gets shot at every year ? (and that is assuming *only* I and my 20 friends shoot at things other than humans)
Your "statistics" about BitTorrent-use are equally nonsensical.
In fairness to him, he probably also thought, "that way I they won't dare to attack me again". But that it's an thing better suited for offensive than defensive use is worth noting. Strangely enough, people who are willing to carry a concealed gun for their defense rarely go around wearing kevlar vests and helmets. True, that would be inconvenient, but if it can save your life, isn't it worth it?
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
For the stats to work out every American would have to be shot at (not nessecarily hit) dozens of times every week. I dunno, I do know Americans gets shot ridiculously much, but I don't think it's up to these levels yet :-)
99% of gun use is against people? I'm definately heavy supporter of gun control, but when you make up statistics, especially unquantifiable statistics, you just make your argument go to all hell. Stop lying like you know something. Have you ever been to a gun range? People shoot their guns more often at a gun range then they will EVER shoot their guns at any other point in time. Don't believe me? Take a look at the floor of a gun range. It's LITTERED with shells. Take a look at the floor of a crime scene. Just a few shells. Take a look at the forest floor. Probably just as many as at the crime scene. Stop being a jackass and use real statistics, or at least reason to prove your point.
"The truth is, I personally have fired atleast 1000 bullets from a variety of guns this year. Not a single one of them on humans. The same is true for atleast 20 people that I personally know." But you did not use your gun for what it was intended for or created for, so this is like saying you practiced driving in your parking lot 1000 times yet never took your car on the highway. The gun was not invented for shooting at paper targets it was created to shoot people for the military and for protection of your property.
You do realize every cow you eat is shot, right?
Have you ever been to a slaughterhouse? Unless you like to hunt your own food in the wild the cows you have eaten were (almost) certainly not shot. Generally they are stunned, often with a blow to the back of the neck, then hung up by their hind legs and a main artery is cut and they bleed to death.
I call bull fucking shit on that. For every person who is shot, I would argue there is an animal who is shot. This makes the figure below 50%. In fact, I would say the percentage of use that is against people is far below that. You do realize every cow you eat is shot electrocuted, decapitated.. , right?
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
I have to admit that I was not aware of that. I always thought that they were killed by a shot to the brain.
In any case, someone else in the thread gave a better argument for why the 99% figure was wrong (see the post about people going to a firing range).
However, kosher animals I believe are humanely shot, right?
Insightful? Gun crime is a fucking lot more serious.
I meant to say "in google"
Have you considered the fact that most guns are probably used outside of the USA, at wars?
That's not to say that I agree that 90% of guns are used to kill people, just that your logic is as bad as the one of the parent post.
And that's without considering that he was probably talking about guns, not bullets (as you are implying by using shootings as the measure).
Not that I give a monkeys but I think the poster was defining the use of guns as being to kill and that, as proportion of those things killed, they kill more humans than was the intention. Wouldn't really matter what the actual percentage was. I doubt the gun vendor has an acceptable human killing number in mind.
If the point of guns was to see how good your aim was, there are many ways that can be tested without requirement that the device must also be good at killing things too.
Thus, to summarise, "use" is being defined by the poster as for the designed purpose rather than during practicing sessions.
No, the gun was born out of necessity to stop a mounted knight in shining armor. Suddenly it became easy for mere footman to drop a knight.
After their effectiveness in battle became known, they became rather terrifying. The second part of their use came into play; the fear they generated could deter others from attacking seemingly weaker targets. Suddenly those without years of training and small fortunes in armor could stand up for themselves and survive after it was all said and done.
After that, it was pretty much common sense that you could use it to kill lunch. If it's going to drop a medieval tank, I'm sure that deer has no chance.
You simply confuse my point but bring to light some interesting ideas. Anyway the primary purpose of sex is to reproduce. This happens to be fun therefore recreational because of some evolutionary process. So yes the primary purpose of sex is recreational. The primary purpose happens to share the characteristic of being recreational.
However for the gun or whatever weapon, the primary use is to kill. It is used as a weapon of war. The secondary use is for recreation which is just shooting. The act of shooting a gun is recreational but that is its secondary use. The primary use is to kill which maybe fun or not. I would think its not fun to kill or be in war. Then again I haven't so I can't say first hand. However the mental impacts of war tend to point that it is not fun.
The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
By this reasoning the concept of "invented" is meaningless and free will is an illusion.
Not that I necessarily disagree with that sentiment...
It's something that is pretty hard to argue with if one believes in evolution. After all, if we are shaped by both genetic predisposition and the inputs we receive from the moment of conception and their reaction with one another. (i.e. two individuals with different genetic backgrounds but identical inputs - as if that exists - may process the information differently) then it's hard to assert that we have any control over our response to stimulus. We are only doing what we have been prepared by both heredity and environment to do.
Of course, this line of thinking pretty much leads to despair, and the conclusion that your actions have no significance whatsoever.
If only there was something bigger than man.