"undisputed evidence" without a cite? What bullshit. The truth is that most two and three-minute clips are provided by the owners of the content, free of charge, with advertisements inserted, to attract surfers to their paysite. However, almost all longer ten minutes+ clips have not been provided by the content owner. All tube sites use fake uploader accounts which they claim are uploading the porn of their free will and they can't monitor everything people upload yadda, yadda. Those accounts are created by the site owners so they can have some "users" to put the blame on when the dmca takedown notices come in. If you don't believe me and are to lazy do do the research yourself, then use some common sense. Why on earth would publishers upload full videos they own to free sites, without any branding or any other identifying marks whatsoever, how would it even be possible for the average surfer to locate the proper content owner of an unbranded clip seen on a tubesite?
Google has a long history of aggregating data it "borrowed" from other sources. First google news where they used slugs from newspapers to populate their pages. Then google books in which they made books available despite the publishers protests. Why someone shouldn't be allowed to use googles data, when they themselves have built their entire fortune on borrowing others data, is hypocrisy.
Well, did it appear in the movie or not? TFA says "Of course, this scene is probably completely different in the finished film, KDE will likely be replaced by an Apple desktop, seeing as the characters are seen using Apple computers a couple of times in the trailer." I'll refuse to see the what is likely a really crappy movie myself to find out whether they made such a faggot stunt or not.
There are no 800 pound gorillas. Very obese gorillas held in captivity may top out at 600 lbs at most. A healthy, strong, alpha gorilla out in the wild would weigh no more than 350-400 lbs. 800 pound gorillas are pure fantasy.
Re:Making it just as heavy as Gnome and KDE now?
on
Xfce 4.8 Released
·
· Score: 1
Sure it is not HAL:s clumsiness I'm arguing about. It is the API churn and the general development model in which a single developer comes up with a "fantastic" api and releases version 0.0001 of said software, pushes it to become standard, then the next programmer takes over, realizes the previous system was junk and decides to build a new one and so it goes on and on.
Re:What functionality are we BSD users ...
on
Xfce 4.8 Released
·
· Score: 1
Sure, they can verify that it compiles for other OS:es. Though if they do not use BSD as their primary OS their testing wont be particularily thorough. Can't blame them for not performing time wasting testing for N platforms when there aren't any users for those platforms that themselves bother with reporting bugs.
Maybe Cassandra should have choosen some other terminology for their database that so obviously doesn't conflict with already existing terms. A column in Cassandra is a tuple which in an RDBMS is a row. Confusion all around.
Re:What functionality are we BSD users ...
on
Xfce 4.8 Released
·
· Score: 1
It is freaking hard to develop for a system you dont have access for. Most free software developers doesn't use BSD (or Windows for that matter) so they need help bug-testing and verifying that their software works on those platforms. They don't get the help they need, so they advertise that they really need help triaging those platforms, they still don't get any help so they drop support for them.
Re:Making it just as heavy as Gnome and KDE now?
on
Xfce 4.8 Released
·
· Score: 1
HAL itself is only five years old and has only recently reached version 0.5. It is hard to tell exactly what is wrong with HAL, just calling it "unwieldy" doesnt prove anything. DeviceKit was supposed to also replace parts of HAL but now that project is merged into udev-extras. And all these replacements are Linux specific, so bsd-users are left out in the cold stuck with HAL. There have been far to many hardware abstraction and filesystem virtualization layers developed for Linux many of which competes with each other.
Right. So you get a bunch of Indians working for a few cents an hour to monitor all the files people upload. That won't cause any confidentiality problems, will it? So anyone who cares about privacy will use encryption. I guess you'd delete or report them on the grounds that "You have something to hide, you must be a pirate/terrorist/pedophile"?
No, as stated, the Indians would only have to monitor those files the automatic system has already classified as suspicious. When you copy upload to another owners computer, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy, unless otherwise explicitly agreed upon.
Or they could just check the 100 most downloaded rapidshare files. Likely, all of which are warez or movies.
Even if you're right, that's about.0001% of the files. Not much of a deterrent.
Read up about the 80-20 rule. A very small percentage of all files on rapidshare constitutes a large percentage of all downloads.
And when warez still gets through, what then? Who's responsible? Is RS going to be fined? If so, they'll just go out of business...
You are arguing about something else other than wheter it is technically possible for rapidshare to curb most piracy on their site.
You would tag the files as suspicious. Give it a "suspicious-rating" that is higher if the file is password-protected, multi-file rar-archive, downloaded from known warez-domains, mostly downloaded by visitors who downloads known warez files. Then you hire 10 Indians for $5/hour who go through the most suspicious and most downloaded files and check them for obvious copyright infringements. Or they could just check the 100 most downloaded rapidshare files. Likely, all of which are warez or movies.
The point is not to have a bullet-proof system. The point is to make a system that is sufficiently good at detecting warez that pirates will use another method. Yes, an evil genius warez pirate hacker can white-wash the link using an url shortener. The system can do a simple google search and see which domains it is placed on. Yes, you can create lots of accounts, you can also record how many accounts a single ip creates and ban them for abuse if they create to many.
Bayesian spam filters are also trivial to work around, doesn't mean that they aren't extremely efficient at stopping spam.
Incorrect, here is a simple explanation of how RapidShare could,with a very high degree of success, detect piracy on their site that even a toddler can understand. They dont even have to check the filenames, just check the name of the uploader (has it uploaded piracy before? then this new upload is probably also piracy) and the referer header of downloaders (comes from a warez site? then file is likely piracy).
Think what you want about the morality of copyright infringement. But saying that the technology for rapidshare to curb piracy isn't there, is an insincere statement if you understand the basics of technology and computer algorithms.
Yes becasue if it were really that simple, don't you think they would be doing it already?
No they wouldn't because they are making money on people sharing pirated material! People are supposed to want to download files from them, get pissed that "all their download slots are busy" and pay for premium accounts.
The second you filter, you become responsible for what passing through the filter. Ask ISP's in restrictive countries and almost any modern legal system.
Utter rubbish. That is not how the law works at all. Google has a safe-search feature, that doesn't mean someone can sue them for millions when something slips through that filter. Every ISP, torrent and hosting site filters out child porn and they are very good at it. TPB which prides themselves in hosting pirated content despite takedown letters, takes down child porn torrens within minutes of their uploading.
That argument, "it is to hard!" is so damn silly. Rapidshare have at their disposal this new thing called computers and technology. No, they can't manually check every file that is uploaded, but they can develop heuristic methods to flag the content that is most likely warez and then manually remove that.
For example, if a file gets more than 100 downloads per hour, it is most likely some copyrighted game or movie. If most of the referers who downloads the file comes from www.warezforum.com, then the file is also very likely warez. Is there file part of a 30 parts big rar archive? Probably warez too because no one else but warez groups share files like that.
These dirt-simple heuristic methods that I thought up in about five minutes could be used by rapidshare to eliminate 90% or more of all copyrighted content shared on their site with few false positives and very little manual work needed. It is not rocket science, it is a few days work at most for a competent developer to implement this system. The only reason rapidshare is not doing it, is because they profit from the "sharing" of it on their site.
Why all the hate? It is a pretty well known fact that animal farming is one of the major contributors to ghg emissions. Focus on the issue at hand instead of trying to shot the messenger.
If you aren't familiar with the case, either look at the fucking video and read about it or shut the fuck up. She submitted to the strip search and subsequent abuse because she was anonymously accused of theft. Now, if she wouldn't, and she would have been fired because of suspected thievery, what chances do you think she would have had of finding a new fast-food job with that record?
The incident would NOT have happened in a unionized workplace because she wouldn't have risked her job for resisting the abuse. And the above case is not covered by any employment laws at all, thanks to the at-will employment doctrine, you fucking retard. The initial phone caller, with baseless accusations of theft, would have been more than enough to cost her her job.
This case was not an isolated incident as there are dozens of reported cases of fast food managers taking advantage of their female subordinates. It is the tip of the ice-berg. It happens because they either comply with the manager or get fired.
Slashdot Mirror
"undisputed evidence" without a cite? What bullshit. The truth is that most two and three-minute clips are provided by the owners of the content, free of charge, with advertisements inserted, to attract surfers to their paysite. However, almost all longer ten minutes+ clips have not been provided by the content owner. All tube sites use fake uploader accounts which they claim are uploading the porn of their free will and they can't monitor everything people upload yadda, yadda. Those accounts are created by the site owners so they can have some "users" to put the blame on when the dmca takedown notices come in. If you don't believe me and are to lazy do do the research yourself, then use some common sense. Why on earth would publishers upload full videos they own to free sites, without any branding or any other identifying marks whatsoever, how would it even be possible for the average surfer to locate the proper content owner of an unbranded clip seen on a tubesite?
Google has a long history of aggregating data it "borrowed" from other sources. First google news where they used slugs from newspapers to populate their pages. Then google books in which they made books available despite the publishers protests. Why someone shouldn't be allowed to use googles data, when they themselves have built their entire fortune on borrowing others data, is hypocrisy.
He is talking about kilobytes per second. You're talking about bits or bauds.
Well, did it appear in the movie or not? TFA says "Of course, this scene is probably completely different in the finished film, KDE will likely be replaced by an Apple desktop, seeing as the characters are seen using Apple computers a couple of times in the trailer." I'll refuse to see the what is likely a really crappy movie myself to find out whether they made such a faggot stunt or not.
For fucked up lunatics like that, lifetime imprisonment (preferably in solitary confinement)is probably a much worse punishment.
There are no 800 pound gorillas. Very obese gorillas held in captivity may top out at 600 lbs at most. A healthy, strong, alpha gorilla out in the wild would weigh no more than 350-400 lbs. 800 pound gorillas are pure fantasy.
I'm so happy you're not my cow-orker.
Sure it is not HAL:s clumsiness I'm arguing about. It is the API churn and the general development model in which a single developer comes up with a "fantastic" api and releases version 0.0001 of said software, pushes it to become standard, then the next programmer takes over, realizes the previous system was junk and decides to build a new one and so it goes on and on.
Sure, they can verify that it compiles for other OS:es. Though if they do not use BSD as their primary OS their testing wont be particularily thorough. Can't blame them for not performing time wasting testing for N platforms when there aren't any users for those platforms that themselves bother with reporting bugs.
Maybe Cassandra should have choosen some other terminology for their database that so obviously doesn't conflict with already existing terms. A column in Cassandra is a tuple which in an RDBMS is a row. Confusion all around.
It is freaking hard to develop for a system you dont have access for. Most free software developers doesn't use BSD (or Windows for that matter) so they need help bug-testing and verifying that their software works on those platforms. They don't get the help they need, so they advertise that they really need help triaging those platforms, they still don't get any help so they drop support for them.
HAL itself is only five years old and has only recently reached version 0.5. It is hard to tell exactly what is wrong with HAL, just calling it "unwieldy" doesnt prove anything. DeviceKit was supposed to also replace parts of HAL but now that project is merged into udev-extras. And all these replacements are Linux specific, so bsd-users are left out in the cold stuck with HAL. There have been far to many hardware abstraction and filesystem virtualization layers developed for Linux many of which competes with each other.
Right. So you get a bunch of Indians working for a few cents an hour to monitor all the files people upload. That won't cause any confidentiality problems, will it? So anyone who cares about privacy will use encryption. I guess you'd delete or report them on the grounds that "You have something to hide, you must be a pirate/terrorist/pedophile"?
No, as stated, the Indians would only have to monitor those files the automatic system has already classified as suspicious. When you copy upload to another owners computer, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy, unless otherwise explicitly agreed upon.
Or they could just check the 100 most downloaded rapidshare files. Likely, all of which are warez or movies. Even if you're right, that's about .0001% of the files. Not much of a deterrent.
Read up about the 80-20 rule. A very small percentage of all files on rapidshare constitutes a large percentage of all downloads.
And when warez still gets through, what then? Who's responsible? Is RS going to be fined? If so, they'll just go out of business...
You are arguing about something else other than wheter it is technically possible for rapidshare to curb most piracy on their site.
You would tag the files as suspicious. Give it a "suspicious-rating" that is higher if the file is password-protected, multi-file rar-archive, downloaded from known warez-domains, mostly downloaded by visitors who downloads known warez files. Then you hire 10 Indians for $5/hour who go through the most suspicious and most downloaded files and check them for obvious copyright infringements. Or they could just check the 100 most downloaded rapidshare files. Likely, all of which are warez or movies.
The point is not to have a bullet-proof system. The point is to make a system that is sufficiently good at detecting warez that pirates will use another method. Yes, an evil genius warez pirate hacker can white-wash the link using an url shortener. The system can do a simple google search and see which domains it is placed on. Yes, you can create lots of accounts, you can also record how many accounts a single ip creates and ban them for abuse if they create to many.
Bayesian spam filters are also trivial to work around, doesn't mean that they aren't extremely efficient at stopping spam.
Incorrect, here is a simple explanation of how RapidShare could ,with a very high degree of success, detect piracy on their site that even a toddler can understand. They dont even have to check the filenames, just check the name of the uploader (has it uploaded piracy before? then this new upload is probably also piracy) and the referer header of downloaders (comes from a warez site? then file is likely piracy).
Think what you want about the morality of copyright infringement. But saying that the technology for rapidshare to curb piracy isn't there, is an insincere statement if you understand the basics of technology and computer algorithms.
Pirates who upload content to rapidshare makes it publicaly available. You most certainly would not want to have your hd video published to the world.
It would suck majorly if the feds had everyones IP address!
Yes becasue if it were really that simple, don't you think they would be doing it already?
No they wouldn't because they are making money on people sharing pirated material! People are supposed to want to download files from them, get pissed that "all their download slots are busy" and pay for premium accounts.
The second you filter, you become responsible for what passing through the filter. Ask ISP's in restrictive countries and almost any modern legal system.
Utter rubbish. That is not how the law works at all. Google has a safe-search feature, that doesn't mean someone can sue them for millions when something slips through that filter. Every ISP, torrent and hosting site filters out child porn and they are very good at it. TPB which prides themselves in hosting pirated content despite takedown letters, takes down child porn torrens within minutes of their uploading.
That argument, "it is to hard!" is so damn silly. Rapidshare have at their disposal this new thing called computers and technology. No, they can't manually check every file that is uploaded, but they can develop heuristic methods to flag the content that is most likely warez and then manually remove that.
For example, if a file gets more than 100 downloads per hour, it is most likely some copyrighted game or movie. If most of the referers who downloads the file comes from www.warezforum.com, then the file is also very likely warez. Is there file part of a 30 parts big rar archive? Probably warez too because no one else but warez groups share files like that.
These dirt-simple heuristic methods that I thought up in about five minutes could be used by rapidshare to eliminate 90% or more of all copyrighted content shared on their site with few false positives and very little manual work needed. It is not rocket science, it is a few days work at most for a competent developer to implement this system. The only reason rapidshare is not doing it, is because they profit from the "sharing" of it on their site.
Hotmail has improved a lot in the recent years. It is still not nearly as good as gmail, but there are certainly much worse email providers out there.
Why all the hate? It is a pretty well known fact that animal farming is one of the major contributors to ghg emissions. Focus on the issue at hand instead of trying to shot the messenger.
If you aren't familiar with the case, either look at the fucking video and read about it or shut the fuck up. She submitted to the strip search and subsequent abuse because she was anonymously accused of theft. Now, if she wouldn't, and she would have been fired because of suspected thievery, what chances do you think she would have had of finding a new fast-food job with that record?
The incident would NOT have happened in a unionized workplace because she wouldn't have risked her job for resisting the abuse. And the above case is not covered by any employment laws at all, thanks to the at-will employment doctrine, you fucking retard. The initial phone caller, with baseless accusations of theft, would have been more than enough to cost her her job.
This case was not an isolated incident as there are dozens of reported cases of fast food managers taking advantage of their female subordinates. It is the tip of the ice-berg. It happens because they either comply with the manager or get fired.