The problem with Wikipedia is people like Shane Fitzgerald who wish to abuse it to there own end. Wikipedia it's self is a valuable resource just like the internet in general, it's just unfortunate that there are assholes who like abusing things just because they can.
I download purely because bittorrent IS the BEST solution available.
Compare the pros and cons of Buying DVDs vs Bittorrent and you will see why Bittorrent is so popular.
ThePirateBay gives me movies on demand, from home. It normally takes 5 working days for DVDs to arrive whereas I can download a movie in less than 2-3hours.
My ISP offers an online movie rental service, however I need to use their proprietary software to download an play the movie. I want to use VLC media player to watch movies not install a new piece of software which may or may not run on the system i'm using at the time.
DVD's are a pain in the ass to rip, files from the pirate bay are just easier to work with, you can't just right click a DVD and select "Send to Thumb drive"
The Pirate Bay just provides better service, it provides what consumers want.
I agree - but only if "We're sorry, this video is not available in your country" is never, ever, ever shown again.
People who put those restrictions in place should cancel their internet connection and never ever go online again. I hate people who don't understand globalisation.
I think there is more to this than a simple yes or no answer.
No, I would not pay to access youtube as a whole. However if I could watch entire tv episodes on it I might. I hate TV because I always miss certain shows it in impossible/very difficult to watch a season of something in order.
For shows like family guy and the Simpsons it doesn't matter what order you watch them in. But for a show like Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles you do need to follow it in order.
I would very much like the ability to watch TV online, on-demand. Schedules are so 20th century.
They can still hold a trial, just because they have no jurisdiction doesn't mean they can't waste money. This is just like the Spamhaus vs Spammer lawsuit.
"Coming up next: The earth is in orbit around the sun, Liquid Nitrogen is cold; and why sleeping inside an active rock tumbler may be damaging to your health."
That ISP is NOT network neutral, they are either dumb or flat out fraudulent.
I suspect those two statements might have been written by two different people, at least one of whom has their facts wrong. There's still no excuse though.
Personally I wouldn't avoid hiring someone due to religious belief that would just be stupid. The way I see it, I just happen to know more about the universe than they do. Just as someone else might know more about Cisco routers than I do.
I believing in fairy tails is kinda dumb, but it doesn't necessarily make them unfit. However I still think it's an employers right to choose.
Your not totally wrong. Googling someone's name does find face book pages but more often than not it also finds other things they have posted their name on such as blogs, forum posts ect.
Googling an email address or phone number can also be effective, not to mention you can also just search straight on facebook.
I blocked people from searching me by phone number, so customers, supervisors and people I generally piss off can't find me.
If someone came back at me for not hiring them because of their religion, I would put them down as "Not psychologically fit".
We grant this status to many people who have psychological impairments. For example people who see green monkeys, or believe in unicorns. So why can't we give the same status to people who believe in ludicrous fairy tales?
I'm not saying we can't employ these people as it is important for them to lead a normal life but there are some jobs that require a sound mind. An employer is well within their rights to deny a position to someone who is not suited to it.
But other people don't suffer at the hands of your ability to operate a refrigerator and if they did (you cook them a meal) you are liable for food poisoning. A computer should be no different, users need to be held accountable for the damage their stupidity causes.
Ok I'll throw in a free car analogy. If you don't know how to drive a car, yet you choose to anyway you are held liable if you crash, even though you didn't know what you where doing you would still be charged. Same goes for any other bit of machinery, try using a crane without a license and see who faces the lawsuit when you wreck something.
Yes, computers should be JUST applications limited to the users needs and if an unqualified person wishes to operate a computer further they should be liable to the damage it does.
VoIP, Police, Employers, Friends anybody with a phone can switch the number to private or have it left on private by mistake. I call customers from a private number so they can't/don't call me instead of the company also the police will always call from a private number, unless they are calling from the station. If you rang someone for a job interview they might call you back from a private number. A payphone is also a private number.
All this is besides the point, I don't want to be harassed by organisations and I should not have to wait for every one to call me just so I can tell them not to call back. It would take years to finally get peace. Telemarketing should be opt-in only or at the very least they should be blockable by the service provider, perhaps some sort of unique called id could allow providers identify these calls and block them if requested by the customer.
Just because email is so badly abused it doesn't mean we should just surrender our phone networks to the same fate.
Slashdot Mirror
Expert?
Remember the RIAA is involved here.
It's not a crime to be stupid.
If the entire hard drive was secured with something like TrueCrypt, could you be compelled to turn over the password?
No...
The problem with Wikipedia is people like Shane Fitzgerald who wish to abuse it to there own end. Wikipedia it's self is a valuable resource just like the internet in general, it's just unfortunate that there are assholes who like abusing things just because they can.
I download purely because bittorrent IS the BEST solution available.
Compare the pros and cons of Buying DVDs vs Bittorrent and you will see why Bittorrent is so popular.
ThePirateBay gives me movies on demand, from home. It normally takes 5 working days for DVDs to arrive whereas I can download a movie in less than 2-3hours.
My ISP offers an online movie rental service, however I need to use their proprietary software to download an play the movie. I want to use VLC media player to watch movies not install a new piece of software which may or may not run on the system i'm using at the time.
DVD's are a pain in the ass to rip, files from the pirate bay are just easier to work with, you can't just right click a DVD and select "Send to Thumb drive"
The Pirate Bay just provides better service, it provides what consumers want.
I agree - but only if "We're sorry, this video is not available in your country" is never, ever, ever shown again.
People who put those restrictions in place should cancel their internet connection and never ever go online again. I hate people who don't understand globalisation.
People don't understand that the Internet is global.
I think there is more to this than a simple yes or no answer.
No, I would not pay to access youtube as a whole. However if I could watch entire tv episodes on it I might. I hate TV because I always miss certain shows it in impossible/very difficult to watch a season of something in order.
For shows like family guy and the Simpsons it doesn't matter what order you watch them in. But for a show like Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles you do need to follow it in order.
I would very much like the ability to watch TV online, on-demand. Schedules are so 20th century.
It's not the airlines fault some moron decided to have their laptop thrown in the hold. Of the aircraft defying all common sense.
Only take breakable equipment as carry on. I always have and haven't had any problems as a result.
Or sell it on ebay, someone will buy it.
They can still hold a trial, just because they have no jurisdiction doesn't mean they can't waste money. This is just like the Spamhaus vs Spammer lawsuit.
And what would they call themselves?
The "anti-Nazi party", that would make them unqualified to run for an German office.
Does your home insurance cover "Black hole damage"
This shouldn't even be news,
"Coming up next: The earth is in orbit around the sun, Liquid Nitrogen is cold; and why sleeping inside an active rock tumbler may be damaging to your health."
No your correct.
That ISP is NOT network neutral, they are either dumb or flat out fraudulent.
I suspect those two statements might have been written by two different people, at least one of whom has their facts wrong. There's still no excuse though.
Personally I wouldn't avoid hiring someone due to religious belief that would just be stupid. The way I see it, I just happen to know more about the universe than they do. Just as someone else might know more about Cisco routers than I do.
I believing in fairy tails is kinda dumb, but it doesn't necessarily make them unfit. However I still think it's an employers right to choose.
Your not totally wrong. Googling someone's name does find face book pages but more often than not it also finds other things they have posted their name on such as blogs, forum posts ect.
Googling an email address or phone number can also be effective, not to mention you can also just search straight on facebook.
I blocked people from searching me by phone number, so customers, supervisors and people I generally piss off can't find me.
If someone came back at me for not hiring them because of their religion, I would put them down as "Not psychologically fit".
We grant this status to many people who have psychological impairments. For example people who see green monkeys, or believe in unicorns. So why can't we give the same status to people who believe in ludicrous fairy tales?
I'm not saying we can't employ these people as it is important for them to lead a normal life but there are some jobs that require a sound mind. An employer is well within their rights to deny a position to someone who is not suited to it.
But other people don't suffer at the hands of your ability to operate a refrigerator and if they did (you cook them a meal) you are liable for food poisoning. A computer should be no different, users need to be held accountable for the damage their stupidity causes.
Ok I'll throw in a free car analogy.
If you don't know how to drive a car, yet you choose to anyway you are held liable if you crash, even though you didn't know what you where doing you would still be charged. Same goes for any other bit of machinery, try using a crane without a license and see who faces the lawsuit when you wreck something.
Yes, computers should be JUST applications limited to the users needs and if an unqualified person wishes to operate a computer further they should be liable to the damage it does.
I agree,
we already have enough problems with asshats abusing the internet. We don't need the United States Government as well.
You've never heard of Windows!!!
Set up an automailer that's spams everyone porn and viruses if you don't reset the timer every month.
Whoosh....
People still hiding under desks in the us i see.
What legitimate calls are made without an ID?
VoIP, Police, Employers, Friends anybody with a phone can switch the number to private or have it left on private by mistake. I call customers from a private number so they can't/don't call me instead of the company also the police will always call from a private number, unless they are calling from the station. If you rang someone for a job interview they might call you back from a private number. A payphone is also a private number.
All this is besides the point, I don't want to be harassed by organisations and I should not have to wait for every one to call me just so I can tell them not to call back. It would take years to finally get peace. Telemarketing should be opt-in only or at the very least they should be blockable by the service provider, perhaps some sort of unique called id could allow providers identify these calls and block them if requested by the customer.
Just because email is so badly abused it doesn't mean we should just surrender our phone networks to the same fate.