Right, so any minority that comprises less than 10% of the population is irrelevant and should be ignored to better satisfy the desires of the masses? Even though we don't have a way of accurately measuring how many people actually find something offensive. Also we all should be denied the freedom to enjoy entertainment that might somehow incite even a few to commit crimes, just in case? That's going to wipe out the majority of entertainment media, because you'll be able to find a lot of people who think there's something undesirable or unwholesome about pretty much everything.
You were never taught the concepts of "personal choice" and "personal responsibility", I suppose?
By the way, even your made up numbers are stupid. If 55% of men don't find it to be offensive, then that means more than 10% of the total population doesn't find it offensive, and therefore the hypothetical song about rape should be allowed.
That's because many people believe their opinion to be the only valid one, that their world view is Right, and that everyone else's world view is Wrong.
What's wrong with a song about raping or murdering or stealing or taking drugs or being a douchebag? Sure we don't want people doing these things and don't condone them, but well; thought police much?
For the rest of your comment, while pretty much everyone would agree with you that there's a lot of rubbish that never should have been made, you'll find very little agreement on what the rubbish is and what the good stuff is.
No telnet anymore. At least not in Server 2008. Is it in Vista?
It wasn't very good, but at least it let me check very quickly whether I could connect to a host or not. IE's error messages are next to useless. My personal favourite thing is that Server 2008 defaults to the "High Security" configuration for IE, and if you click on the "More details" link in the error page... nothing happens, because it's blocking the scripting. In the internal IE error page. Nice work, guys.
You really think someone would be offended by such words? Who gives a fuck what some/. AC says?
Hell, if I ever have kids, and they're hot, I'll tie them down and rape them myself while intravenously pumping almost-lethal doses of the most addictive life-destroying drug I can find. If they're not hot, I'll pay someone else to rape them. Maybe you!
I did actually think the line in the article summary was a bit lame - I expected to read that in the comments. I think the summary really should aim a bit higher... but then I remembered what site I was on.
Probably the main point you disagree on is there is plenty of demand for the RIAA's products. I suspect MightyYar is of the belief that nobody actually wants the RIAA's product and their continued existence is just a holdover from when they were important. Just to be clear, the RIAA's product isn't music. That's the product of the artists and producers that create it; and at a stretch, of the labels that promote it. When the RIAA was important it acquired quite a bit of power, and that's what it keeps it going today.
Whether or not this is true, I can't say. How valuable is an association of record labels today?
The other angle is that People will start to resent pirates. One aspect of behaviour like MightyYar's is that it makes this less likely to occur. The kid you gave a disc of music to might not think of it as piracy at the time, and more like you being helpful. But at some point he'll probably realise that he could be facing massive fines or even jail time for accepting that disc, and rather than think "wow that guy's a bastard for giving me stolen property!" he'll think "wow what a fucked up law, I don't even like 90% of the shit he gave me".
Downloading stuff seems to be pretty common, certainly amongst everyone who knows how to do it. It does seem that most downloaders don't find it to be a particularly immoral action, which makes it unlikely they'll resent pirates.
I think MightyYar's stance is based on the pendulum theory, i.e. it swings back and forth between the varying interests rather than sitting at a nice balanced point. If you're of the belief that the pendulum is too far from the individual's interest, one idea is that instead of trying to pull it back, you give it a mighty shove the way you don't want it to go. That way you hasten its return. Or in other words, if you assume things have to get worse before they'll start getting better, you actively try to make them worse.
An interesting theory, which may or may not work in reality. I suspect that an individual's efforts to destroy the system via piracy will be about as effective as an individual's efforts to destroy the system through boycotts.
The usual cause of this is programs which upload as fast as they can, saturating the upsteam link. Some programs are smart enough to guess how much upstream bandwidth you have and confine themselves to fit inside it without causing issues.
It makes normal usage slow because your computer sends acknowledgements as it receives data. If the host sending you that data doesn't receive the acknowledgements, it assumes there's congestion and reduces the rate at which it sends to you. If you're uploading at full steam, a large queue of packets will build up waiting to be sent out. The acknowledgement packets, while very small, also wait in this queue; and unless you're doing some kind of traffic shaping, it's just a simple first-in, first-out queue. The acks are therefore delayed for up to a few seconds before they get out.
The result is really slow browsing, as all of the latency sensitive stuff like DNS lookups and connection handshakes can take a very long time to complete. It can also slow down your downloads, since the rate at which the host you're downloading from will send you data is partially determined by how quickly (and consistently) you send acknowledgements.
The solution is either to use a client which magically determines your available bandwidth and reduces it upload rate so as not to allow queues to develop, or to manually tell your client to only upload at a certain rate. A more robust approach is to use traffic shaping techniques, which basically means putting a smart queue on the router so acknowledgements, DNS lookups and other small packets can skip ahead of the bulky upload packets in the transmit queue.
A capital M denotes "mega" while a lowercase m denotes "milli". A capital B denotes bytes, a lowercase b denotes bits.
Therefore, Mb is right, and Mbps is exactly right: megabits-per-second. 18mbps would be 18 millibits per second, which is not a widely used measure of bandwidth.
It's explained in a few comments above. You just reference a resource (usually an image) that requires you to be logged in at the target site in order to access. If your attempt fails, the user isn't logged in at that site. If it succeeds, you know the user is currently logged in.
I've definitely noticed formatting changes when using OOo rather than Word, but not enough to really worry me. It certainly would annoy some people though. I think I've even seen cases where the page padding was off enough that a formerly one-page document became two pages.
The worst case I've seen is our timesheet spreadsheet. Functionally it works, however quite a bit of the formatting goes haywire. The timesheet has the day names written vertically spanning a few rows, which OOo doesn't seem to support at all. I also haven't been able to work out how to merge cells in OOo Calc, which should a pretty straightforward thing.
Recently we received a call sheet in Excel format for some EMC hardware. The phone number to call doesn't appear when opened in Calc. I haven't investigated why (it's just a call sheet after all, and I have a VM with XP + Office 2007 handy) but it is definitely not FUD.
As much as I love OOo and use it in preference to MS Office, it definitely isn't 100% compatible.
Me too, hence my last paragraph. I don't recall ever hearing any power companies complaining about cyclical spikes in power draw as being a particular problem for them. On the other hand, they may have always just considered it a given and that there wasn't anything that could be done about it.
Well, there's a big difference between lab simulations and real-world trials. The previous paragraph suggests the largest trial they've done with real equipment consisted of seven small fridges and three larger industrial-sized coolrooms.
Also, it's not intended for single locations but rather for "every house in the city". There's little to be gained by smoothing out the energy usage of individual locations, even rather large locations.
Well it's not going to do anything to reduce an individual household's power usage; certainly nothing that couldn't be done with non-networked smart fridges, anyway. Most people just pay for the amount of energy they use; it doesn't matter if they consume it in large bursts or as a constant trickle.
This is intended for whole suburbs or cities to be able to regulate the energy draw from cooling fridges so as to decrease peak levels of demand. The other main thrust seems to be regarding renewable energy sources, in particular solar. The idea is that if cloud cover decreases the amount of energy being produced, the plants can tell the fridges and they can intelligently decrease their collective power draw. When the sun's out in full blaze and there's plenty of power being produced, the fridges can cool their interiors by an extra degree or two, effectively storing that additional energy to help them weather a shortage later on.
Air conditioning seems another obvious target for this technology, since most aircons cool for a while (using lots of power) and then just ran the fan (using little power) until the room heats up a bit, then they cool again. If you have 500,000 aircons all doing this, there's a good chance the power station is going to see big surges in energy draw. If they're all talking to each other, they could negotiate their cycles to place a more consistent draw on the power source, flattening out the peak.
Of course, I have no idea just how much fluctuation is common in the energy draw at our power stations, and whether this is a practical thing to pursue or just a really cool, clever idea with minimal practical applications.
In my previous life as a fed agent I was often asked to assist with some "undercover" sting operations all over the Northeast US. One of the most memorable was a op in northern Maine. I was to play the brother-in-law of our source whose co-worker had recently asked him if he knew of any good dealers of crack.
Long story short, they brought me in to sell him crack. We met the "Client" as planned and you should have seen this kids eyes when I pulled out this giant bag of crack we had obtained from a previous bust. He looked like he was going to start crying, like he had just come to know Jesus or something... anyway he wanted to buy it all, every last gram of it, but he had only brought $150.00 bucks with him.
I thought for a second and asked him if had his checkbook on him and he did. I asked him how much money he had in the bank, he told me and I told him he could just write me a check for the total. This kid didn't think twice about it and started writing the thing out. As he was writing he asked me all the usual questions, correct spelling of my name, confirmed the date, then stopped writing for a second, put his pen down, and I started to panic.
He looked me straight in the eye and he stated that he always wrote down "the reason" in the little space provided in the lower left hand of checks for that purpose. Before I could even speak he picked his pen back up again and started writing, then folded the check in half and handed it to me. Before I handed him the crack I wanted to see what he wrote, so I unfolded the check and read aloud; "For Illegal Drugs", the second I read that out loud we could all hear very loud laughter coming from the room next door. You see I was wired and 6 agents were in the next room, hanging on every word. They knew they had alerted this guy and without delay came charging into the room to arrest him, but what a strange sight it was to see 6 armed feds tearing into a room, guns drawn and laughing so hard they really could not even speak in complete sentences...
Re:TFA says Juniper is doomed. Not so fast.
on
Google Router Rumors
·
· Score: 1
Haha disregard that I suck cocks.
I just realised what rumour you were referring to.:(
Re:TFA says Juniper is doomed. Not so fast.
on
Google Router Rumors
·
· Score: 1
Why would a rumour of a buyout drive the stock price down? Do all the investors go "oh my god a massive company with billions of dollars is going to want to buy my shares, I'd better get rid of them now for as little as possible!"?
If you're doing "sudo cat foo >/dev/audio", the redirection (i.e. opening/dev/audio for writing) occurs under whatever user you're logged in as, not as root. This is because file descriptor redirection is sorted out by the shell before the command is actually invoked. I would expect most desktop users to have write access to the audio device though so that may not be the problem.
Only 2% are moderating. The other 5% were trying to access the "cool new site" everyone is talking about, but are having difficulty working out how to enter aitch tee tee pee colon slash slash slash dot dot org into their browser.
I had a quick look at the CDDL and I don't see any stipulation that you need to make it possible for end-users to recompile the software with a modified version of the code covered by the CDDL. This is the second main purpose of the LGPL: you are obligated to permit updated versions of the LGPL library (assuming they're ABI compatible) to be substituted for the version shipped by the distributor. This can be useful if the distributor is no longer supporting the product and there's important bugfixes or performance improvements for an LGPL library it makes use of, for example.
The CDDL only appears to achieve the primary purpose of the LGPL, i.e. ensuring any improvements to the code make it upstream so everyone can benefit. If that's your goal then it's probably a good license to use, but it's not quite equivalent. Even though it's using "Free" code, you may not be able to make any changes to that "Free" code within the proprietary application.
I agree with most of your post in a pragmatic sense, but it does raise some issues in an idealistic sense.
If you want to avoid being seen as a threat, it might behoove you to not dress like one.
This sounds an awful lot like "if a woman doesn't want to be raped, it might behoove her not to dress provocatively". On the surface there is some logic to it: if a potential rapist happens across a woman dressed in particularly attractive or revealing attire he may decide to attack her. So from a purely pragmatic point of view, it does make some sense. On the other hand, there's a good reason why "but she looked really, really hot" has never been considered a valid excuse for rape, and "blame the victim" mentalities in general are considered very poor form.
As you said yourself, it's idiotic to think a real terrorist would dress the part to get on an airplane. Yet for some reason it's okay to expect people to dress differently purely because lots of people have some idiotic notions about "what terrorists look like"?
Perhaps it's just my firm belief that organized religion is a dangerous habit that by all logic should be treated with the same disdain as any other self-indulgent delusion
It probably is. To find out, try a thought experiment: what if this discrimination wasn't occurring against people wearing clothing that implied a particular religious faith, but instead that they supported a particular sports team? Would you then say, "well supporting the Chicago Bulls is a dangerous habit and if you don't want to get kicked off planes you should keep your interest in basketball to yourself"? Or would you say "that's fucking ludicrous and I feel kind of embarrassed to be part of a society that tolerates such ridiculous and obviously ineffectual 'security' measures"?
Also, I think your comment about the mods here being pro-Islam and anti-Christian is a strawman. People aren't being persecuted and treated like terrorists because they wear a cross necklace or are dressed like a nun. Islamists aren't trying to get their religion's creation myth taught alongside evolution in schools. Apples and oranges.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't care how well someone can use a sword, they will not defeat many or even a few unskilled people with swords.
Thank you for upholding the finest of Slashdot traditions by not reading the post you were replying to, which said:
Most "sheep" won't bring swords on board. And a skilled person with a sword can defeat very many unarmed people
Right, so any minority that comprises less than 10% of the population is irrelevant and should be ignored to better satisfy the desires of the masses? Even though we don't have a way of accurately measuring how many people actually find something offensive. Also we all should be denied the freedom to enjoy entertainment that might somehow incite even a few to commit crimes, just in case? That's going to wipe out the majority of entertainment media, because you'll be able to find a lot of people who think there's something undesirable or unwholesome about pretty much everything.
You were never taught the concepts of "personal choice" and "personal responsibility", I suppose?
By the way, even your made up numbers are stupid. If 55% of men don't find it to be offensive, then that means more than 10% of the total population doesn't find it offensive, and therefore the hypothetical song about rape should be allowed.
Many people would disagree with that assumption.
That's because many people believe their opinion to be the only valid one, that their world view is Right, and that everyone else's world view is Wrong.
What's wrong with a song about raping or murdering or stealing or taking drugs or being a douchebag? Sure we don't want people doing these things and don't condone them, but well; thought police much?
For the rest of your comment, while pretty much everyone would agree with you that there's a lot of rubbish that never should have been made, you'll find very little agreement on what the rubbish is and what the good stuff is.
No telnet anymore. At least not in Server 2008. Is it in Vista?
It wasn't very good, but at least it let me check very quickly whether I could connect to a host or not. IE's error messages are next to useless. My personal favourite thing is that Server 2008 defaults to the "High Security" configuration for IE, and if you click on the "More details" link in the error page... nothing happens, because it's blocking the scripting. In the internal IE error page. Nice work, guys.
...and so ends the era of "useless use of cat"; now begins the era of "completely nonsensical attempt to use cat".
This idea was already invented by Shampoo.
You really think someone would be offended by such words? Who gives a fuck what some /. AC says?
Hell, if I ever have kids, and they're hot, I'll tie them down and rape them myself while intravenously pumping almost-lethal doses of the most addictive life-destroying drug I can find. If they're not hot, I'll pay someone else to rape them. Maybe you!
I did actually think the line in the article summary was a bit lame - I expected to read that in the comments. I think the summary really should aim a bit higher... but then I remembered what site I was on.
Probably the main point you disagree on is there is plenty of demand for the RIAA's products. I suspect MightyYar is of the belief that nobody actually wants the RIAA's product and their continued existence is just a holdover from when they were important. Just to be clear, the RIAA's product isn't music. That's the product of the artists and producers that create it; and at a stretch, of the labels that promote it. When the RIAA was important it acquired quite a bit of power, and that's what it keeps it going today.
Whether or not this is true, I can't say. How valuable is an association of record labels today?
The other angle is that People will start to resent pirates. One aspect of behaviour like MightyYar's is that it makes this less likely to occur. The kid you gave a disc of music to might not think of it as piracy at the time, and more like you being helpful. But at some point he'll probably realise that he could be facing massive fines or even jail time for accepting that disc, and rather than think "wow that guy's a bastard for giving me stolen property!" he'll think "wow what a fucked up law, I don't even like 90% of the shit he gave me".
Downloading stuff seems to be pretty common, certainly amongst everyone who knows how to do it. It does seem that most downloaders don't find it to be a particularly immoral action, which makes it unlikely they'll resent pirates.
I think MightyYar's stance is based on the pendulum theory, i.e. it swings back and forth between the varying interests rather than sitting at a nice balanced point. If you're of the belief that the pendulum is too far from the individual's interest, one idea is that instead of trying to pull it back, you give it a mighty shove the way you don't want it to go. That way you hasten its return. Or in other words, if you assume things have to get worse before they'll start getting better, you actively try to make them worse.
An interesting theory, which may or may not work in reality. I suspect that an individual's efforts to destroy the system via piracy will be about as effective as an individual's efforts to destroy the system through boycotts.
The usual cause of this is programs which upload as fast as they can, saturating the upsteam link. Some programs are smart enough to guess how much upstream bandwidth you have and confine themselves to fit inside it without causing issues.
It makes normal usage slow because your computer sends acknowledgements as it receives data. If the host sending you that data doesn't receive the acknowledgements, it assumes there's congestion and reduces the rate at which it sends to you. If you're uploading at full steam, a large queue of packets will build up waiting to be sent out. The acknowledgement packets, while very small, also wait in this queue; and unless you're doing some kind of traffic shaping, it's just a simple first-in, first-out queue. The acks are therefore delayed for up to a few seconds before they get out.
The result is really slow browsing, as all of the latency sensitive stuff like DNS lookups and connection handshakes can take a very long time to complete. It can also slow down your downloads, since the rate at which the host you're downloading from will send you data is partially determined by how quickly (and consistently) you send acknowledgements.
The solution is either to use a client which magically determines your available bandwidth and reduces it upload rate so as not to allow queues to develop, or to manually tell your client to only upload at a certain rate. A more robust approach is to use traffic shaping techniques, which basically means putting a smart queue on the router so acknowledgements, DNS lookups and other small packets can skip ahead of the bulky upload packets in the transmit queue.
A capital M denotes "mega" while a lowercase m denotes "milli". A capital B denotes bytes, a lowercase b denotes bits.
Therefore, Mb is right, and Mbps is exactly right: megabits-per-second. 18mbps would be 18 millibits per second, which is not a widely used measure of bandwidth.
It's explained in a few comments above. You just reference a resource (usually an image) that requires you to be logged in at the target site in order to access. If your attempt fails, the user isn't logged in at that site. If it succeeds, you know the user is currently logged in.
I've definitely noticed formatting changes when using OOo rather than Word, but not enough to really worry me. It certainly would annoy some people though. I think I've even seen cases where the page padding was off enough that a formerly one-page document became two pages.
The worst case I've seen is our timesheet spreadsheet. Functionally it works, however quite a bit of the formatting goes haywire. The timesheet has the day names written vertically spanning a few rows, which OOo doesn't seem to support at all. I also haven't been able to work out how to merge cells in OOo Calc, which should a pretty straightforward thing.
Recently we received a call sheet in Excel format for some EMC hardware. The phone number to call doesn't appear when opened in Calc. I haven't investigated why (it's just a call sheet after all, and I have a VM with XP + Office 2007 handy) but it is definitely not FUD.
As much as I love OOo and use it in preference to MS Office, it definitely isn't 100% compatible.
How cunning.
Me too, hence my last paragraph. I don't recall ever hearing any power companies complaining about cyclical spikes in power draw as being a particular problem for them. On the other hand, they may have always just considered it a given and that there wasn't anything that could be done about it.
Well, there's a big difference between lab simulations and real-world trials. The previous paragraph suggests the largest trial they've done with real equipment consisted of seven small fridges and three larger industrial-sized coolrooms.
Also, it's not intended for single locations but rather for "every house in the city". There's little to be gained by smoothing out the energy usage of individual locations, even rather large locations.
Well it's not going to do anything to reduce an individual household's power usage; certainly nothing that couldn't be done with non-networked smart fridges, anyway. Most people just pay for the amount of energy they use; it doesn't matter if they consume it in large bursts or as a constant trickle.
This is intended for whole suburbs or cities to be able to regulate the energy draw from cooling fridges so as to decrease peak levels of demand. The other main thrust seems to be regarding renewable energy sources, in particular solar. The idea is that if cloud cover decreases the amount of energy being produced, the plants can tell the fridges and they can intelligently decrease their collective power draw. When the sun's out in full blaze and there's plenty of power being produced, the fridges can cool their interiors by an extra degree or two, effectively storing that additional energy to help them weather a shortage later on.
Air conditioning seems another obvious target for this technology, since most aircons cool for a while (using lots of power) and then just ran the fan (using little power) until the room heats up a bit, then they cool again. If you have 500,000 aircons all doing this, there's a good chance the power station is going to see big surges in energy draw. If they're all talking to each other, they could negotiate their cycles to place a more consistent draw on the power source, flattening out the peak.
Of course, I have no idea just how much fluctuation is common in the energy draw at our power stations, and whether this is a practical thing to pursue or just a really cool, clever idea with minimal practical applications.
Somewhat relevant quote from Clientcopia:
In my previous life as a fed agent I was often asked to assist with some "undercover" sting operations all over the Northeast US. One of the most memorable was a op in northern Maine. I was to play the brother-in-law of our source whose co-worker had recently asked him if he knew of any good dealers of crack.
Long story short, they brought me in to sell him crack. We met the "Client" as planned and you should have seen this kids eyes when I pulled out this giant bag of crack we had obtained from a previous bust. He looked like he was going to start crying, like he had just come to know Jesus or something... anyway he wanted to buy it all, every last gram of it, but he had only brought $150.00 bucks with him.
I thought for a second and asked him if had his checkbook on him and he did. I asked him how much money he had in the bank, he told me and I told him he could just write me a check for the total. This kid didn't think twice about it and started writing the thing out. As he was writing he asked me all the usual questions, correct spelling of my name, confirmed the date, then stopped writing for a second, put his pen down, and I started to panic.
He looked me straight in the eye and he stated that he always wrote down "the reason" in the little space provided in the lower left hand of checks for that purpose. Before I could even speak he picked his pen back up again and started writing, then folded the check in half and handed it to me. Before I handed him the crack I wanted to see what he wrote, so I unfolded the check and read aloud; "For Illegal Drugs", the second I read that out loud we could all hear very loud laughter coming from the room next door. You see I was wired and 6 agents were in the next room, hanging on every word. They knew they had alerted this guy and without delay came charging into the room to arrest him, but what a strange sight it was to see 6 armed feds tearing into a room, guns drawn and laughing so hard they really could not even speak in complete sentences...
Haha disregard that I suck cocks.
I just realised what rumour you were referring to. :(
Why would a rumour of a buyout drive the stock price down? Do all the investors go "oh my god a massive company with billions of dollars is going to want to buy my shares, I'd better get rid of them now for as little as possible!"?
If you're doing "sudo cat foo > /dev/audio", the redirection (i.e. opening /dev/audio for writing) occurs under whatever user you're logged in as, not as root. This is because file descriptor redirection is sorted out by the shell before the command is actually invoked. I would expect most desktop users to have write access to the audio device though so that may not be the problem.
Only 2% are moderating. The other 5% were trying to access the "cool new site" everyone is talking about, but are having difficulty working out how to enter aitch tee tee pee colon slash slash slash dot dot org into their browser.
I had a quick look at the CDDL and I don't see any stipulation that you need to make it possible for end-users to recompile the software with a modified version of the code covered by the CDDL. This is the second main purpose of the LGPL: you are obligated to permit updated versions of the LGPL library (assuming they're ABI compatible) to be substituted for the version shipped by the distributor. This can be useful if the distributor is no longer supporting the product and there's important bugfixes or performance improvements for an LGPL library it makes use of, for example.
The CDDL only appears to achieve the primary purpose of the LGPL, i.e. ensuring any improvements to the code make it upstream so everyone can benefit. If that's your goal then it's probably a good license to use, but it's not quite equivalent. Even though it's using "Free" code, you may not be able to make any changes to that "Free" code within the proprietary application.
posted in a manner you cannot fail to miss.
That seems a little unfair.
I agree with most of your post in a pragmatic sense, but it does raise some issues in an idealistic sense.
If you want to avoid being seen as a threat, it might behoove you to not dress like one.
This sounds an awful lot like "if a woman doesn't want to be raped, it might behoove her not to dress provocatively". On the surface there is some logic to it: if a potential rapist happens across a woman dressed in particularly attractive or revealing attire he may decide to attack her. So from a purely pragmatic point of view, it does make some sense. On the other hand, there's a good reason why "but she looked really, really hot" has never been considered a valid excuse for rape, and "blame the victim" mentalities in general are considered very poor form.
As you said yourself, it's idiotic to think a real terrorist would dress the part to get on an airplane. Yet for some reason it's okay to expect people to dress differently purely because lots of people have some idiotic notions about "what terrorists look like"?
Perhaps it's just my firm belief that organized religion is a dangerous habit that by all logic should be treated with the same disdain as any other self-indulgent delusion
It probably is. To find out, try a thought experiment: what if this discrimination wasn't occurring against people wearing clothing that implied a particular religious faith, but instead that they supported a particular sports team? Would you then say, "well supporting the Chicago Bulls is a dangerous habit and if you don't want to get kicked off planes you should keep your interest in basketball to yourself"? Or would you say "that's fucking ludicrous and I feel kind of embarrassed to be part of a society that tolerates such ridiculous and obviously ineffectual 'security' measures"?
Also, I think your comment about the mods here being pro-Islam and anti-Christian is a strawman. People aren't being persecuted and treated like terrorists because they wear a cross necklace or are dressed like a nun. Islamists aren't trying to get their religion's creation myth taught alongside evolution in schools. Apples and oranges.
Does your site normally charge people to upload things?
Seems strange for a copyright holder to actually pay money to get something uploaded rather than just upload it themselves.