Unless you refute the idea of "theft of service". His "victims" claim he cost them $1.4 million. How did they lose out? Because he sold bandwidth that they weren't even using at the time?
And this $1 million "restitution" he's supposed to pay. WTF? Sad world, people. Sad world.
In the last local authorities election in England, I voted for the local Pirate Party candidate. Unfortunately I was almost alone in doing so: he got just 16 votes IIRC. That's pretty much the party's own fault though: I saw *no* publicity for them, and I didn't even know a PP candidate was standing until I was in the voting booth and read the ballot paper. Idiots. Who's going to vote for someone who calls himself a pirate if they don't know what he stands for? He might be campaigning for the legalisation of piracy on the high seas or something...
@FlorianMueller: on that blog page have you transposed the photo or is the flag-maker/bearer an idiot? I thought the PP's symbol was supposed to resemble a letter "p" (you know, cos "pirate" begins with a "p" and all that).
Oh come on! The GP obviously didn't bother reading the prize-winning articles, he just jumped in straight away with the defamation. Which is reasonable, I think - unless you're suggesting it is now all of a sudden necessary to have some justification for random denigration of others' success?
So now all would-be players should be advised to give false personal info and a throwaway gmail address when signing up to join the game. Which is a wise SOP anyway IMO.
I know that isn't an ideal solution. But it is a solution that allows for free gameplay without the risk of compromise. An alternative, and more sensible course of action is to avoid playing these games in the first place. But that's the killjoy's solution.
There's also a bit of job creation going on. All this registration then keeping tabs on the registrants is going to require a massive bureaucracy to keep running. Jobs for the boys (and girls) ennit?
The Mexican authorities aren't interested in tourist telephones or the people likely to use them - tourists or gangsters. They just want another way to keep tabs on the general population's lines of communication.
I can't believe there are people here who actually think there's any room for idealism here. We're talking about Mexico dammit! It's not a normal country like the US or Canada - it's the fricken Third World. Mexicans have no right to anonymity or privacy until they start doing the democracy thing properly and elect effective government. Until then, they're getting what they deserve.
The name "Slashdot" is described by [Slashdot founder Rob] Malda as "a sort of obnoxious parody of a URL", chosen to confuse those who tried to pronounce the URL of the site ("h-t-t-p-colon-slash-slash-slashdot-dot-org").
There's so "slashdot" disambiguation to explain another meaning. Therefore there is no other meaning!
"Qubes" is a frikken terrible name. Something like "stained bedsheets" would be much better (Linen-XXX, geddit?). But I suppose a sense of humour is too much to expect nowadays.
Well, I can't remember a time BEB (Before Energizer Bunny) so that means the thing's been around for at least 20 years! I haven't checked the fount of all human knowledge yet, but I'm sure it will confirm my beliefs.
The Energizer Bunny is the marketing icon and mascot of Energizer batteries in North America. It is a pink toy rabbit wearing sunglasses and blue and white striped sandals that beats a bass drum bearing the Energizer logo. It is a parody of the preexistent Duracell Bunny, seen in Europe and Australia. It has been appearing in television commercials in North America since 1989.
Actually I think the very first battery bunny ad I can remember is the Duracell guy with the drum. But that's irrelevant - it's the Energizer Bunny who's the daddy now!
Jeeze, you're mean! The Energizer Bunny is not the product of a "crappy ancient ad campaign"... the creature's a freaking icon! And although I can't remember the exact ad where the rabbit escapes its own ad to invade others, there have been plenty of others featuring the creature. I saw one just the other day. And it seems to me that Energizer Bunny ads have been run since forever! Well, I can't remember a time BEB (Before Energizer Bunny) so that means the thing's been around for at least 20 years! I haven't checked the fount of all human knowledge yet, but I'm sure it will confirm my beliefs.
Go anywhere in the world, find someone who watches commercial TV with any sort of regularity and show him a picture of the Bunny - I'll bet you 1000-1 he'll know who it is. That creature isn't just an icon - it's up there with Mickey Mouse, Jesus Christ and Coca Cola. Get down on your knees and beg the Bunny-God for forgiveness!
As much as football fields, mini coopers and libraries of congress are ridiculous and imprecise, they are pretty decent references for public, non-technical descriptions.
What, so they're gonna drop a mini cooper the size of a football field onto the library of Congress? I didn't get that from the video...
The protocol isn't the problem. The problem is someone profiting from the online availability of "infringing" material. It's very difficult to portray yourself as a "content-agnostic" search engine merely enabling users to share files when you're turning over £1 million a year.
What I find a little unsettling is the judge's critcism of Newzbin's takedown procedures. From TFA:
Newzbin was also criticized for its “delisting” or notice and takedown procedures, which were referred to as a “cosmetic” and “cumbersome” mechanism designed to “render it impractical” for rights holders to have material removed.
While I have no personal knowledge of how "cumbersome" the procedure is, I don't see why it shouldn't be "cumbersome". If an alleged rights-holder wants his alleged material removed from the index, why shouldn't he have to jump through a few hoops? Why shouldn't the alleged rights-holder have to prove definitively that he owns the rights he claims? If the takedown procedure were too streamlined and gave the alleged rights-holder too much benefit of the doubt we could end up with a situation where any tom dick or harry could make malicious complaints about content they don't own just to cause trouble for the site. I can't just point at any car I like the look of, say "that's mine" and get the police to drag the driver out through the window.
I am also an aged child (40+, dammit!) , and my local library filters what I can and can't see while using their computers.
Although these filters are trivial to bypass, one needs to consider why the filters are there in the first place. I can understand the library filtering porn; but it also filters for terms like "hacking" which have many legitimate connotations.
If one finds that the filter blocks a site that one considers legitimate, there is a procedure to try and get the sysadmin to whitelist the site. But such procedures are needlessly complicated, and they should not even have to exist. We in the "Free World" shake our heads and tut at China's attempts to control what its citizens can see... but our situation is just as bad.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless you refute the idea of "theft of service". His "victims" claim he cost them $1.4 million. How did they lose out? Because he sold bandwidth that they weren't even using at the time?
And this $1 million "restitution" he's supposed to pay. WTF? Sad world, people. Sad world.
In the last local authorities election in England, I voted for the local Pirate Party candidate. Unfortunately I was almost alone in doing so: he got just 16 votes IIRC. That's pretty much the party's own fault though: I saw *no* publicity for them, and I didn't even know a PP candidate was standing until I was in the voting booth and read the ballot paper. Idiots. Who's going to vote for someone who calls himself a pirate if they don't know what he stands for? He might be campaigning for the legalisation of piracy on the high seas or something... @FlorianMueller: on that blog page have you transposed the photo or is the flag-maker/bearer an idiot? I thought the PP's symbol was supposed to resemble a letter "p" (you know, cos "pirate" begins with a "p" and all that).
Of course there's a way to make meaningful estimates of losses. Just ask the copyright holder how much he thinks he deserves.
This method has been used very successfully by courts all round the world. Why mess with a thing of beauty?
I disagree. Wikileaks do vital work and all that, but what they do isn't journalism.
Oh come on! The GP obviously didn't bother reading the prize-winning articles, he just jumped in straight away with the defamation. Which is reasonable, I think - unless you're suggesting it is now all of a sudden necessary to have some justification for random denigration of others' success?
So now all would-be players should be advised to give false personal info and a throwaway gmail address when signing up to join the game. Which is a wise SOP anyway IMO.
I know that isn't an ideal solution. But it is a solution that allows for free gameplay without the risk of compromise. An alternative, and more sensible course of action is to avoid playing these games in the first place. But that's the killjoy's solution.
"Disappointing", yes. "Shocking"? Nah.
There's also a bit of job creation going on. All this registration then keeping tabs on the registrants is going to require a massive bureaucracy to keep running. Jobs for the boys (and girls) ennit?
The Mexican authorities aren't interested in tourist telephones or the people likely to use them - tourists or gangsters. They just want another way to keep tabs on the general population's lines of communication.
I can't believe there are people here who actually think there's any room for idealism here. We're talking about Mexico dammit! It's not a normal country like the US or Canada - it's the fricken Third World. Mexicans have no right to anonymity or privacy until they start doing the democracy thing properly and elect effective government. Until then, they're getting what they deserve.
So there!
Okay,so what does a slash followed by a dot mean? I know what ./ is for, because I'm a Linux user. But /.? Please enlighten me.
According to the fount of all human knowledge:
The name "Slashdot" is described by [Slashdot founder Rob] Malda as "a sort of obnoxious parody of a URL", chosen to confuse those who tried to pronounce the URL of the site ("h-t-t-p-colon-slash-slash-slashdot-dot-org").
There's so "slashdot" disambiguation to explain another meaning. Therefore there is no other meaning!
"Qubes" is a frikken terrible name. Something like "stained bedsheets" would be much better (Linen-XXX, geddit?). But I suppose a sense of humour is too much to expect nowadays.
All government is corrupt. But the Massachusetts government has one big plus point: it's in Massachusetts. And I'm not.
Or at least stop them from crossing state lines.
Well, I can't remember a time BEB (Before Energizer Bunny) so that means the thing's been around for at least 20 years! I haven't checked the fount of all human knowledge yet, but I'm sure it will confirm my beliefs.
From the fount of all human knowledge:
The Energizer Bunny is the marketing icon and mascot of Energizer batteries in North America. It is a pink toy rabbit wearing sunglasses and blue and white striped sandals that beats a bass drum bearing the Energizer logo. It is a parody of the preexistent Duracell Bunny, seen in Europe and Australia. It has been appearing in television commercials in North America since 1989.
Actually I think the very first battery bunny ad I can remember is the Duracell guy with the drum. But that's irrelevant - it's the Energizer Bunny who's the daddy now!
Jeeze, you're mean! The Energizer Bunny is not the product of a "crappy ancient ad campaign"... the creature's a freaking icon! And although I can't remember the exact ad where the rabbit escapes its own ad to invade others, there have been plenty of others featuring the creature. I saw one just the other day. And it seems to me that Energizer Bunny ads have been run since forever! Well, I can't remember a time BEB (Before Energizer Bunny) so that means the thing's been around for at least 20 years! I haven't checked the fount of all human knowledge yet, but I'm sure it will confirm my beliefs.
Go anywhere in the world, find someone who watches commercial TV with any sort of regularity and show him a picture of the Bunny - I'll bet you 1000-1 he'll know who it is. That creature isn't just an icon - it's up there with Mickey Mouse, Jesus Christ and Coca Cola. Get down on your knees and beg the Bunny-God for forgiveness!
I saw a movie where a manned mission to mars landed using the "parachutes and airbags" approach, and the astronauts survived that just fine.
It's true that they went on to be butchered by an insane robot or something, but that kind of thing could happen with a rocket-assisted landing too...
Shouldn't that be "apparently its recursive"?
No, you mean the new Mini Cooper is the new old Volkswagen Bug.
...or they could just have shown a picture.
What, you mean like when the guys from Top Gear dropped a piano on a Morris Marina?
As much as football fields, mini coopers and libraries of congress are ridiculous and imprecise, they are pretty decent references for public, non-technical descriptions.
What, so they're gonna drop a mini cooper the size of a football field onto the library of Congress? I didn't get that from the video...
...it's the only way to be sure.
The protocol isn't the problem. The problem is someone profiting from the online availability of "infringing" material. It's very difficult to portray yourself as a "content-agnostic" search engine merely enabling users to share files when you're turning over £1 million a year.
What I find a little unsettling is the judge's critcism of Newzbin's takedown procedures. From TFA:
Newzbin was also criticized for its “delisting” or notice and takedown procedures, which were referred to as a “cosmetic” and “cumbersome” mechanism designed to “render it impractical” for rights holders to have material removed.
While I have no personal knowledge of how "cumbersome" the procedure is, I don't see why it shouldn't be "cumbersome". If an alleged rights-holder wants his alleged material removed from the index, why shouldn't he have to jump through a few hoops? Why shouldn't the alleged rights-holder have to prove definitively that he owns the rights he claims? If the takedown procedure were too streamlined and gave the alleged rights-holder too much benefit of the doubt we could end up with a situation where any tom dick or harry could make malicious complaints about content they don't own just to cause trouble for the site. I can't just point at any car I like the look of, say "that's mine" and get the police to drag the driver out through the window.
I am also an aged child (40+, dammit!) , and my local library filters what I can and can't see while using their computers.
Although these filters are trivial to bypass, one needs to consider why the filters are there in the first place. I can understand the library filtering porn; but it also filters for terms like "hacking" which have many legitimate connotations.
If one finds that the filter blocks a site that one considers legitimate, there is a procedure to try and get the sysadmin to whitelist the site. But such procedures are needlessly complicated, and they should not even have to exist. We in the "Free World" shake our heads and tut at China's attempts to control what its citizens can see... but our situation is just as bad.
I can understand that using the word "Facebook" in the script's name can be a trademark violation. But FB? Or F***B***?
Is Microsoft going to move against Multiple Sclerosis support groups because they use the initials MS?
The continuation of Facebook's actions makes it look like an attack on the script not the name.