Slashdot Mirror
Colocation Provider PRQ Raided; Wikileaks and Many Torrent Sites Offline
An anonymous reader writes with some chilling news about PRQ, the infamous colo founded by two Pirate Bay founders. From the article: "Stockholm police raided the free-speech focused firm (PRQ) Monday and took four of its servers, the company's owner Mikael Viborg told the Swedish news outlet Nyheter24. While a number of bittorrent-based filesharing sites including PRQ's most notorious client, the Pirate Bay, have been down for most of Monday as well as PRQ's own website, Viborg told the Swedish news site that the site outages were the result of a technical issue, rather than the police's seizure of servers."
Torrentfreak is reporting that the Pirate Bay isn't using PRQ for anything important (if at all), and that their downtime is due to a faulty PDU that happened to fail as a coincidence.
Same Country that wants assange on funny smelling charges of "rape", just raided his server room.
North American Marlin Brandon Look-Alikes to take such a risk be being hosted on the same servers as wikileaks. (I mean, I assume this isn't the other NAMBLA else I would like someone to explain to me why these servers weren't raided years ago.)
torrentz.eu is still up. All is right in the world.
Seems like they only confiscated 4 servers this time, and not everything which wasn't bolted to the floor. Quick! someone tell the cops they got intellectuals among them!
how this happen in a freedom-loving liberal socialist paradise such as Sweden? I thought only evil USA does stuff like this.
Spot on, and seeing this happen in a place like Sweden makes it even more disturbing. We are in regression, or devolution. Don't know which is more correct, but it's not good. It can only result in a new, very dark age. The desire for freedom is seen as a sign of lunacy to many.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
if the torrents were visible and easy to spy on, Our Governments In Action could just pick off the alleged violators.
results might be the same, but hey, the semantics are cleaner.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
along with everything from Michael david crawford.
he provided a torrent of his *OWN WORK*.
so yeah, go figure.
..their downtime is due to a faulty PDU that happened to fail..
So, anyone got a spare powerstrip?
-- I have a private email server in my basement.
We've all been hard on this site, and sometimes for good reason. But I have to say, when I couldn't access thepiratebay, I immediately went to Slashdot who had a news report on it.
That is why I come here.
http://wikileaks.org/
and even if the main site is taken down the mirrors will chug along.
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
Because allowing yourself to be killed is the real sign of a man. Now prove it by walking into your nearest highway.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
http://www.thelocal.se/43552/20121001/
Recommend Andy Greenberg's This Machine Kills Secrets brilliant on cypherpunks, WikiLeaks,and privacy for the Web.
And please don't forget...
http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/suspicious.pdf
They have embraced evil.
Swedish politicians are responsible for the death of Steig Larsson.
Fuck Sweden.
Riiiiight. Because Abu Hamza has only one country which has to approve his extradition (instead of two in the case of Assange), has few fans (compared to Assange, who according to polls has on the order of hundreds of millions), was trying to *set up terrorist training camps inside the US* (instead of leaking videos and cables), has no "get out of extradition free" card from being charged with an intelligence-related crime (Swedish law bans extradition for intelligence matters), and on and on... and he's *still* in the UK. He was arrested in 2004, and he's *still* not extradited. And the US has already not only promised no death penalty, no abuse, no guantanamo, they even had to promise not to send him to a Supermax prison. And he's still not sent. And we're supposed to worry about Julian F'ing Assange and his paranoid fantasyland? Especially after this?
Anyway, hey, remember way back when Ghandi was charged with raping someone, and he went and hid in an embassy? Oh, that's right, he went to f'ing jail for actual political charges. Well, remember when Mandela was charged with raping someone, and he went and hid in an embassy? Oh, that's right, he went to f'ing jail for actual political charges. But no, Assange walks around like he's a hero, bragging about how much of a hero he is, when the actual felony he's facing is that he waited until a girl (SW) was asleep in order to F' her unprotected because she wouldn't let him do it while awake. And the crazy thing is he hardly even denies the charges. His legal team admits that she had been refusing unprotected sex the night before (it'd be hard not to, they have a condom with DNA matching the DNA sample from inside her, and she talked with friends that night talking about how he kept trying to F' her without protection and how she was getting really frustrated with it). Even the guy's own legal team was not challenging the fact that they "found Mr Assange's sexual behaviour in these encounters disreputable, discourteous, disturbing or even pushing towards the boundaries of what they were comfortable with" His team claims only that she woke up, was fully conscious, and then consented to sex. Which is just patently absurd, given that she had been just telling people about how upset she was about him trying to have unprotected sex with her, and she has a "paper trail" a mile long of being afraid of pregnancy and STDs, to the point where her previous boyfriend of 2 1/2 years testified that not only did she not once allow unprotected sex (it was "unthinkable" to her), but she even had him get STD tested before *protected* sex. So she woke up in the middle of the night, after complaining repeatedly about him trying to violate a lifelong principle, was fully conscious, and decided to change her views on unprotected sex? *Really*?
Assange has appealed the case in five separate courts and lost all of them: three in the UK, including the UK supreme court, and two in Sweden (the Svea court hearings), the latter two specifically focusing on the forensic evidence and interviews. But no, a random assange-fan echo chamber sourcing most of its info from Assange's admitted liar lawyer is justice, while five separate actual courts in first-world nations are railroading, right?
Just pathetic. Assange is dodging some serious F'ing charges here, and it's horrible to see so many people cheering on the majorly
All them years of priest training, taken out by one bounty hunter.
TPB's route has been down for quite some time now. Their router is no longer advertising their entire IP block to the internet. Try it, traceroute to thepiratebay.se, it will stop at the edge of your network.
This is indicative of something *seriously* wrong. Normally, routers are supplied with multiply redundant power and sometimes even a live hot-spare.
I think the timing isn't a coincidence ant TPB is lying through their teeth to prevent their users from getting nervous. Can anyone prove me wrong?
Pirate Bay went down just in time to stop us from seeing the season's first new episode of "Homeland." The Swedish cops must be in bed with Claire Danes.
There are no coincidences.
What a load of bollocks.
What I want to know is why sites like this keep trying to locate in unfriendly countries. Why not put them in someplace safe, like Russia? Is the bandwidth there a big problem or something?
And yes I know, Russia isn't exactly a big fan of free speech either, but they don't give two shits about IP laws and certainly not about protecting American IP. If you put something on your servers that criticizes Putin, sure you'll get shut down. But if you put up tons of pirated American media for people to download (let alone simply torrents), they're not going to care, instead they'd welcome the business.
Loved that site. Don't care for filelockers, but it had nice summaries of what was released. Now i guess i have to find another site like that.
I didn't realize wikileaks was taken down in that, figures.
Be seeing you...
Because Abu Hamza [wikipedia.org] has only one country which has to approve his extradition (instead of two in the case of Assange), has few fans (compared to Assange, who according to polls has on the order of hundreds of millions), was trying to *set up terrorist training camps inside the US* (instead of leaking videos and cables), has no "get out of extradition free" card from being charged with an intelligence-related crime (Swedish law bans extradition for intelligence matters), and on and on... and he's *still* in the UK.
So your argument against the belief that he is only being extradited to Sweeden so that he can then be sent to the U.S. is to present evidence of how difficult is is to get someone extradited directly from the U.K to the U.S.?
And we're supposed to worry about Julian F'ing Assange and his paranoid fantasyland? Especially after this [guardian.co.uk]?
you're sourcing a news article that's nearly 2 years old. Try looking at what's being going on more recently. like Within the last week we have news that "THE US military has designated Julian Assange and WikiLeaks as enemies of the United States - the same legal category as the al-Qaeda terrorist network and the Taliban insurgency."
"Declassified US Air Force counter-intelligence documents, released under US freedom-of-information laws, reveal that military personnel who contact WikiLeaks or WikiLeaks supporters may be at risk of being charged with "communicating with the enemy", a military crime that carries a maximum sentence of death."
i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig
(I mean, I assume this isn't the other NAMBLA else I would like someone to explain to me why these servers weren't raided years ago.)
Here's an irony:
NAMBLA's too careful to host anything that's out-and-out illegal. But...
Let's say a pedophile group DID host kiddie p0rn on PRQ.
Is anyone going to sue over copyright violations?
Plaintiff: "Yes, your honor, I swear I am the photographer who took those pictures and I'm suing PERVERTSRUS hosted on PRQ and want an order to shut them down."
Judge: "Motion granted. Baliff, detain this person and call the prosecutor ASAP, then see that PRQ gets served."
Russia is not immune to pressure about IP laws.
This is not true, in Russia it would happen earlier, there are multiple examples of seized servers due to IP violations. One country that I know that does not have IP laws is Vietnam.
I don't think we have ever been really free, at least in a modern sense.
I suspect the early Picts, Vikings and other tribes had significantly more freedom than we have today.
We live in a pervasive information society, one where the government is the biggest customer and companies are all too happy to sell our data to it.
Our grandchildren will piss on our graves for what we have allowed.
Just bought a new quantum computer, but I'm uncertain how it works.
THE US military has designated Julian Assange and WikiLeaks as enemies of the United States - the same legal category as the al-Qaeda terrorist network and the Taliban insurgency.
Ah, yes, the standard "make things sound worse than they are by providing a negative association in the headline" tactic. I guess saying "have designated Assange and Wikileaks as Enemies of the State- the same legal category as Martin Luther King and Henry David Thoreau" just doesn't get the weak-minded whipped up into a religious fervor.
"reveal that military personnel who contact WikiLeaks or WikiLeaks supporters may be at risk of being charged with "communicating with the enemy", a military crime that carries a maximum sentence of death."
Uh, well yea it's called "Espionage" and such a designation actually does NOT carry any "legal" status and it's not a "legal" category. What it does is sets a uniform policy for US Military people where they are not allowed to have certain types of communications, business relationships, etc. with such an organization or person or it will be automatically considered to be "communicating with the enemy" aka Treason. It doesn't apply to civilians at all, it doesn't allow anybody in the government to do anything differently in regards to Assange or Wikileaks either.
So your argument against the belief that he is only being extradited to Sweeden so that he can then be sent to the U.S. is to present evidence of how difficult is is to get someone extradited directly from the U.K to the U.S.?
I'm not sure what point he was trying to make, but here's the actual reason why Assange's claim is BS:
From the Wiki- "As a member state of the European Union, the United Kingdom is party to an agreement whereby extradition must be refused to any country which has the death penalty and where the suspect is to be tried in a capital case." Which kind of ruins his whole argument that he didn't want to go to Sweden out of fear of deportation to the US, as both the UK and Sweden are bound by the same agreement so it doesn't matter which country he's in.
So what? It's legal in the Sweden and the US - until they press charges or release him. The clock's ticking, they have a limited amount of time of lawful detention.
The US has people unlawfully detained for years without pressing charges in for example Guantanamo. The US police is a sorry excuse, and their justice system is hardly just. No, Sweden is in no way comparable with that monstrosity called the US!
Host a Tor relay. As other nodes close to you request data posted by other nodes, you yourself become a host to make loading quicker in the future, speeding up the network. It becomes quite resilient.
Yes, this means you're potentially hosting something illegal, but you can't access it (the cache is encrypted) and it can't be traced to you (you are just another anonymous node between the host and the client).
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
What's the story? Morning glory?
Come on, the lawyers are expected to work a bit harder than that in all other extradition cases. Do they really think a healthy human being can sleep through such an incident?
And no dirty sex was undergone. After the fact she still tweets about how great the sex is and how great he is.
And BOTH putative victims deny it is rape.
It's really myscogynistic to tell women they can't tell when they've been raped, you know.
But are statements the women involved refused to sign.
The High Court was merely meeting over whether the EAW could be issued by a prosecutor rather than by (as it was intended) by the court judge.
NOT whether the case was sufficiently proven for extradition.
It's easy for the US to get stuff taken down in Russia, they just have to pay the right police a few thousand USD, that's peanuts.
Yes. Given the fact that he's got to be extradited VIA the UK. Since he is arrested under common European law, that is an absolute requirement. He would need to get extradited back to the UK and _then_ to the US, and the charges need to be valid in Sweden _and_ UK.
Also the fact that you point out that the maximum sentence is death invalidates your entire argument anyways. It is absolutely _forbidden_ in Sweden as well as all EU member states to extradite someone to a country if possible sentences include death. It is not considered civilized over here and there are all kinds of legal guarantees to protect against it. It is even a requirement to even get considered for EU membership, something some of the newer member states from the former eastern block had experience with first hand.
Considering the number of spooks and Vietnam runaways that has gotten refuge in Europe over the past fifty years, and no one has been extradited for the above reasons, I'd say we can be pretty sure about this.
Are you sure this is still the case? I thought Vietnam had signed up to WIPO, and had "pretty standard" copyright laws now?
Not necessarily the best reference source, but here's something which seems to support this, and also "Vietnamese Copyright Laws: Foreign Copyright Owners Beware!" (pdf).
He has had no charges filed against him.
Now go back to BuyMore to find your next dumbass 20s agents.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
The US will fake it with a lesser charge that has 20 year jail.
Then accidentally, he will be 'killed by a madman' psycho who was accidentally mixed in his cell.
100% proof this has happened before, the FBI has 100s and countless of ex-agents FIRED or in JAIL for faking evidence or ruining or killing others.
Yeah a little known and not heavily publicized fact, crooks are in the system too.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Because that would be Donald Rumsfeld's company.
And Iran's reactor? US companies again.
Manufacturing enemies to justify statism is what it's about.
Wikileaks told the truth and that's the one thing they hate more than freedom.
Don't forget, the other thing you have to take into account is the level of enforcement. China, for instance, professes strong protections for IP. But everyone knows that's a total joke. So IP laws don't necessarily equate to actual IP enforcement (particularly in response to claims by foreign copyright holders).
Seems like Iran should be a better place to host such sites (than it is; they're not very open with their internet connections). They'd be happy to thumb their noses at the US authorities and copyright holders.
My big question here is: if you're hosting who-knows-what, how much disk space does this end up using on your machine, to be part of Tor?
Unless something has changed, this is not how Tor works. It is a closer description to how Freenet works.
A Tor relay does nothing more than pass along packets. Tor exit nodes allow the Tor network to connect to sites on the internet. Anybody can also run a Tor hidden service, which is just a webserver that talks to a Tor node. These do not require exit nodes to operate and should be more secure as a result.
However, I'd be concerned about running something like this on Tor. The fact is that there aren't all that many nodes on Tor. I would think that an adversary could contribute a large number of nodes to the network as a result and get a pretty good idea of what is going on. If they could manage to get a message to pass from a client they control through a set of relays they control to the site hosting the hidden service then they'd be able to identify where it is hosted. Tor also is a low-latency network making network analysis possible.
The sorts of things that make Tor more tolerable from a usability standpoint make it much less anonymous.
Fair point.
the United Kingdom is party to an agreement whereby extradition must be refused to any country which has the death penalty and where the suspect is to be tried in a capital case
Bolded the key part here - is US vs Assange a capital case, or a regular criminal case?
No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
What I want to know is why sites like this keep trying to locate in unfriendly countries. Why not put them in someplace safe, like Russia?
You are utterly insane. You can take out a competitor by paying $60k to the police. The victim then spends 15 years in prison. And you want to go to that country and piss off rich people around the world?
Not. A. Good. Idea.
I can not find the BBC link I was thinking of but this one should be sufficient to illustrate: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/1193249/1/.html
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
Attn mods:
I appreciate the props, but I wish you would give more to the AC I responded to. I did little more than echo his viewpoint and agree with it 100%. It is very important that we fight back. I have no problem using whatever means necessary to protect our freedoms. We should never let them be put up to a vote. We need to make them as inviolable as humanly possible, regardless of anybody's opinion.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Iran is too locked down now, and doesn't have the political capital for anyone to care if say their connections were to get DDOS'd or similar.
I would've thought somewhere like Venezuela would be better - full of hate for the US and the West, but with enough political capital and enough of a stranglehold on the West's fuel supply (now that we've given up Iranian oil) to avoid any too punitive a punishment. This said, Chavez is a bit sporadic in his hate of the West so a good enough backhander his way and he could probably be bought perhaps. Syria would probably have been better if it wasn't now in a state of war.
Ok, if not Russia, who then? How about China? They're not as totally corrupt as Russia, and probably aren't too keen on western companies poking around with their legal system.
China might be a better choice than Russia but the problem still remains, you are relying on a government to not care about your activities. Under normal circumstances, relying on the government not to care about you is VERY safe; however, when money is involved, we can clearly see that even the less corrupt governments quickly fold and do illegal actions against their own people. See Kim Dotcom for the most recent example. Or Julian Assange for a very slightly less recent example (storm the embassy to arrest him? Really?!). Hell the examples are falling all around us like rain now. *sigh*
For myself, I would put the servers in a different country than myself and then put myself in a different country than the people I am pissing off. That way, no matter how it all goes down, something is more likely to survive.
P.S. I am glad you were not offended by the question of your sanity. It was the use of an expression, not an actual accusation. Since you did not seem to get upset, I assume you are American like I am... or at least fairly world-savvy. Like I am too. ;)
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
Yes, and it works, if you're not completely ignorant of the law, and don't just believe Mr. Assange's press releases.
There is NO - I repeat, NO - way that Mr. Assange can (legally) be extradited from Sweden to the US without the consent of the UK. The authorities in the UK approving his extradition through Sweden would be the same authorities who would be asked to approve his extradition if the US requested extradition directly from the UK and Sweden wasn't involved. This "temporary surrender" canard is foolish, because nearly identical wording is included in the US/EU extradition framework treaty, as well - yet somehow only Sweden is able to use it?
So by extraditing him to Sweden, the US has to secure the agreement of both the UK and Sweden, when apparently, we were unable to even get the UK's agreement directly. And in return, the UK and Sweden take massive PR hits, and possibly even open themselves up to sanctions and penalties as EU members, for circumventing EU regulations. I don't know how foolish you need to be to believe this not only possible, but *likely,* but I do know it's pretty damn foolish.
I'm American, but I wouldn't have thought my reaction typical for my countrymen. This place is full of highly reactionary people; if someone asked me "which country has the most laid-back people", America is definitely not the first to come to mind. We're not nearly as bad as, for instance, Egypt or Libya or Pakistan by any means, but definitely not as level-headed as Canadians. Of course, people seem to get upset easily about something anywhere you go. In the middle east, you just have to draw a picture of Mohammed and people are rioting and burning things. In Europe, you just need to have a soccer match. In Canada, you just need a hockey game. In America, you just need to have a gay rights parade or pass a law forbidding parents from sending their gay kids to brainwashing camps.
Of course, I forgot to reply to the more-important point in your post; I agree entirely about spreading things out between countries: stay out of the country you're pissing off, and keep the servers in a different country from that country and the one you're in. That seems like the safest way.
Depends on the allegations and charges. And since the US hasn't filed any charges, it's impossible to say. You might say there's "NO CASE," but legions of Assange supporters will hasten to tell me how I'm wrong. But we can speculate, and we can make informed conclusions, using the following information:
1) Mr. Assange is not a US citizen; nor was he (apparently) in the US when he allegedly misbehaved;
2) Mr. Assange found himself in the possession of classified US military information;
3) Mr. Assange published that classified data to the world via Wikileaks;
Now, best case scenario - he's a completely passive recipient of classified data, and published it in his informational role as a quasi-journalist. As such, he is protected, since he did not engage in a crime, he just published some data he happened to come across. This is, I think, the most reasonable argument.
But, let's imagine the worst case scenario - he contacted PFC Manning, and actively solicited PFC Manning to leak the classified data, with the overt intent of undermining and harming the US military's operations. This could easily be argued to be espionage.
There's really very little else they could charge him for - he's not a US citizen, and he's never done this inside the jurisdictional area of a US court... so the only real thing you could charge him with would be espionage (which is a capital crime), and file an extradition request hoping that the government on the receiving end will be sympathetic to your request and hand him over. No extradition request has been filed.
Now, let's further assume that the US were to go so far as to charge him in absentia with espionage, and file an extradition request with the UK or Sweden, or wherever he happens to be sitting at the time they finally file the charges. There would be two big obstacles to fulfillment of that request:
1) Espionage is a capital crime - you CAN be subjected to the death penalty for it; The US could make assurances about his treatment, if they wanted to work around this;
2) Espionage is also a political crime - i.e., a crime against "the state". If you read through the extradition treaties, you will notice that many extradition treaties specifically exclude the possibility of extradition for "political crimes," and so the US would have to further convince the court that not this was somehow NOT a political crime (when just about every treaty with this exclusion defines it as such).
So... the US case against Mr. Assange is, at worst, a capital case for a political crime, which would almost certainly cause a request for his extradition to be denied, or at best... the case is non-existent. Either way, there's not a lot for him to fear, provided US, Swedish, and British governments all abide by their treaty & legal obligations. Of course, if they decide that "getting Assange" is more important than the negative publicity, sanctions, penalties, and reputation damage they'd take by circumventing the law, none of this would apply... but realistically, if they were interested in doing that, he'd already be dead, or in Gitmo, and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
It's almost like you don't realize the irony when you start talking about Venezuela, Iran, Syria, Russia, and China as being shining beacons of economic and individual freedom.
I don't get it, are you making a subtle joke? Or are you really so ass-backwards retarded that you think you'd be better off in one of those places?
Oh, I realize the irony. I wouldn't want to live in those places, are you kidding? But despite the corruption problems, having a server there would surely be safer than having it America. The US government, under request of the MAFIAA, can easily and quickly shut down any server it doesn't like within its own borders, but doing so in Russia is a lot harder (and apparently involves some bribery).
The other poster here was right: you want your servers to be located in some country different from your own country, and different from the country you're pissing off (most likely the US), and for best safety you want to be living in a separate country than those two as well.
Why do you think they had to put that in the bill of rights? Controlling speech is how people are controlled by those who want to take advantage of them.
Modern governments tell us what not to say. Churches and church-controlled governments take it a step further telling people WHAT to say.
I don't think we have ever been really free, at least in a modern sense.
You mean we aren't free to choose our jobs (not slaves), or that we don't have free speech to criticize the government?
I suspect the early Picts, Vikings and other tribes had significantly more freedom than we have today.
I suspect you don't know shit about the ordinary lives and freedoms of the people from those times.
We live in a pervasive information society, one where the government is the biggest customer and companies are all too happy to sell our data to it.
Oh, so you mean because there is information about us, we are not free. Ho hum.
Our grandchildren will piss on our graves for what we have allowed.
Why would our grandchildren care any more than the current generation?
Ah look, a troll!
Haha. Find a hole and die in it.
Ah, you've learned how to call people who you disagree with on the Internet a troll. Congratulations.
Perhaps, but it must seriously burn your jocks that none of your comments are moderated above 1.
I am hardly anonymous, quite the opposite.
I took a little time to read you other comments after i posted mine. It was a knee jerk post, and i apologise for that. But i do feel your worldview is overly sarcastic, deply negative and well, rejected.
Just bought a new quantum computer, but I'm uncertain how it works.
Perhaps, but it must seriously burn your jocks that none of your comments are moderated above 1.
Nope. My karma is excellent, which means I've had my posts get moderated up before, but I don't post for moderation points. If you want to get a lot of upmods you have to post early in the story. Other helpful advice is to go with the prevailing groupthink, or preface your post with "I know I'll be modded down for this..." or similar when you don't. I don't play that game.
I am hardly anonymous, quite the opposite.
The post that called me a troll and told me to die was posted anonymously. Are you belatedly taking credit for it now?
But i do feel your worldview is overly sarcastic, deply negative and well, rejected.
Funny that you're calling me out for being negative when your post was the one that shallowly complained about how we aren't "really" free. As for "rejected", you offered no counter-argument except to appeal to the prevailing groupthink.
(Rei, you're the man when it comes to knowledge of the EV industry. I wish Slashdot had a way of sending messages to other users, so I wouldn't have to post an off-topic question like this.)
According to this video.
http://cnettv.cnet.com/can-tesla-model-unkill-electric-car-cnet-cars/9742-1_53-50132179.html?ttag=cnet~tesla~ob
the Model S' performance is limited by the throughput of the inverter.
Inverters also add weight, volume, cost, and are not 100% efficient. Why not do away with the inverter altogether and use DC electric motors?
That that is is that that that that is not is not.