This is slashdot, if we wanted to RTFA we wouldn't be bothering to comment or mod people, how can you get a vague car analogy if you know the details wouldn't support one: TL;DR 4EVA!!!
How can one tell if peers/files are real or not unless the torrent is actually downloaded? Did they really download everything to verify it? There ARE a majority of torrents with fake peers. The traffic isn't real but one can only tell after getting burned trying to download it.
This explicitly states the bias of the research. They start out assuming that BT is not legitimate before starting. Just because something isn't available on amazon doesn't make it illegitimate. One could argue that amazon is the illegitimate one if one were to take an extreme moral position on some of their controversial activities.
Yes, the technology of BT favours popularity. Now that BT is so widespread you get obscure torrents that stay alive. It use to be ONLY Hollywood and the most popular of files could stay alive for any significant duration.
Ha, "Legal" content... I'm glad the idea of thought police that tell us what we can and can't share isn't funny anymore, just normal. Orwell couldn't sell anything if he started writing today.
My understanding was that typically 50% of electrical energy is wasted by long distance transmission (nevermind whatever other inefficiencies there may be). If that is the case wouldn't this scheme be prohibitively ineffective? How much energy can realistically "transported" such a large distance - between continents!
Is this just more unrealistic greenwashed nonsense - consuming billions of public dollars to pay nefarious private organisations to put precious/rare/toxic chemicals all over the place - to be a later public nuisance and cleanup issue, or worse - maintenance? Call me cynical but I won't be banking on this one.
"Come on. Seriously? You're acusing anti-war folks of being gullible?"
It doesn't matter how unlikely the argument is of convincing. The flak is just there to contain the debate and make it seem like the basic assumption (That we all have seen firsthand the wrongness of the American invasion of Iraq via the Collateral Murder video) is still open to question when it is not. That prevents us from moving on to action that would turn our sentiment into something useful. Like actually holding someone accountable. As it is we get caught up in the nonsense and allow the hero of the story (wikileaks guy) to get arrested and the murderer generals who orders those troops in the helicopter into that predictable civillian killing situation still walk free.
"The Army is not in the business of "trying to not look bad." "The military spends an *enormous* amount of time trying to gain and maintain domestic support for its activities abroad."
The point is that if the military actually had a video which made them look good they would certainly release it because their job is 90% propaganda (A gun isn't nearly as useful as the fear and obedience it inspires) They don't have a different video because there A) isn't one, or B) because they like the image conveyed by the "Collateral Murder" video. Don't discount that the military likes to appear bloodthirsty to certain parties. Obviously wikileaks hasn't inspired enough outrage to actually get the US out or Iraq.
Wikileaks released a long and a short version. I've watched both. There is no other version out there that is up front and lets you view the footage. The long version that they edited does NOT show a positive light on the actions. It's just slower and longer. If anything it is more damning because it disproves the lie that this was a "heat of the battle mistake" where they didn't have time to be more careful. They had a lot more time to decide than the edited version of the video shows and they STILL did what they did because that is what happens when you fly around in a helicopter with guns dangling out of it shooting at random dark people for cash. Add that the soldiers have no idea of their own safety and just want to survive, they might be shot by friendly fire after all - that happens a lot. And you get a situation that was very predictable murder, something that only sociopaths would excuse. Something that the individuals involved might get scapegoated for but the real culprit is untouchable.
Yeah the more you say that "Seeing that might change the thoughts slightly on the pieces of video that were seen..." the more we believe it, please post it 12 more times. Oh wait, you already did?
As long as it looks like there is another "side" to the debate that is credible then our binary thinking minds will say: OK, the greay area is something in between not shooting people who aren't shooting you from a helicopter and the guy who makes excuses because of the helicopter not shooting everyone in sight.
Good point you make there, after all, the military has no ability to release video that shows them in a positive light, unlike wikileaks or people imprisoned in Kuwait.
Distance is the essence of modern warfare. We now have easier access to information but because it is far away we get overwhelmed and distracted by other information and also we don't know what to do about the war or what to believe.
The Sikh religion has a belief that one should fight their own battles rather than have others do it for them. Great idea anyway.
I think you are on to something. But then I also meet a lot of people my own age and younger (I'm not so young anymore, merely wired) who are duped by all this anyway. There is also a lot of apathy among the younger "sophisticated" people who get their news from the internet.
Ultimately its about organisation and leadership. The truth is so demoralising to so many people that most political campaigns about it are only really complaining, rarely directing that shared opinion into something constructive which changes the system.
Part of it is that media machine which makes us think that speaking up in a CNN poll or some such is a substantive political act of rebellion, that rebellion will somehow intrinsically redirect the "bad guys" towards a higher moral ground etc. What we really need is to take power via direct action and only a small part of that can happen sitting in front of a flickering LCD panel. Also, we get riled up by things far away which are effectively out of our control but acquiesce on that in our front yard, like driving cars and voting with our dollars for the bargain slave labour goods.
I don't know, at least there is that truth floating around there somewhere on the internet still. Seems like as more and more of the internet is corporate-ized we see less of that badly designed webpage with important things to say and more of that selling almost nothing but really slick page...
Clean up that war! Just remove some marginal "free speech" type websites. Also discredit the obvious validity of criticism with relativistic horseshit: "We are progressing to make war safer for everyone, we won't get it right until you send us more money and sons and daughters..."
What confuses me is how people like you stand up for such vile deeds without any compensation. Watched a lot of movies about the "Glory of War" have we?
Yes, only training will yield the appropriate moral opinions. Only experts can tell us what is wrong and right. The experts tell us that wikileaks is marginal and that objective news comes from embedded reporters. 8 years isn't long for a war, there was one that lasted 100 after all. "Blood Sweat and Iron" bring prosperity and peace to us all so we must use our Will to Power what is the best strategy and method to assess the targets...
(Or for those cultured in only the last 10 years, the appropriate sarcastic comment would be: AMERICA, FUCK YA!)
Yeah its too bad they didn't have more data. That would prevent civilian deaths. It's like a video game. If you can pause then you will. We just need the new data of a pause button on the war. Then we can fight war perfectly, that is the goal of our nuclear silo operators and most other soldiers. They are just doing a good job. With guns. If we give them more information then they will kill less innocents.
That is how technology works and why we have had less murder the more technology we develop. Every century is less bloody than the previous. Human progress is a real science. Let's invest in it. Disney makes a great map of the world.
That's a pretty shallow and individualistic notion of adult and responsible. I rely on kind, cooperative strangers for my job. As do everyone. Even rich robber baron bastards. Maybe the world would be a little more just if people would cooperate with that type less. I rely on kind strangers to teach me language so I can be human and interact.
You obey laws and I won't pack a gun with my bike and shoot warning shots next to your children's heads whenever I feel like it or if I think you are maybe breaking what I think are the rules. Oh wait, I'm not allow to use a weapon when I get around and randomly threaten your life.... Something about driving a car is encouraged for the economy and cyclists and pedestrians have a REAL choice: follow the rules or die.
Sorry to inconvenience you in your morning commute. I'm sure you have somewhere more important to go than I do.
Intention doesn't equal safety
on
Life Recorder
·
· Score: 1
"ignorant dickheads who think that cyclists have no right to be on heavily used roads."
Those I can usually hear coming by the way they rev their engine. The most dangerous are those who think that they can drive a car safely and are not vigilant - those texting, cell phoning or otherwise driving as normal around soft bodies with heavy steel boxes. It's always nice to not how this threat to you life is for the sake of being too lazy to exercise, or to look cool, or to fit in... or to be too ignorant to know that driving cars is immoral.
"Everything bad I do on my bike I learned from cars."
Re:Bicyclist Deserves to die
on
Life Recorder
·
· Score: 1
...Because riding on the freeway at slower than the maximum speed means you should be Capitally Punished.
We live in a free land. Cars are our freedom.
Re:Bicycling
on
Life Recorder
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Why can't you apply your brakes safely? If not you are driving dangerously. If you are driving dangerously then how is it my fault?
The fact is the car is the danger. Also the truck. The only fault I have is that I am paying my taxes to subsidise your unethical and unsafe behavior in public. But I can't opt out of that even if it ruins my city, planet and kills and maims people around me.
If there were any justice people driving cars in cities would be criminally prosecuted. And people could then move on to comfort issues and minor threats like bicycles bumping into people. If you think this isn't so you haven't looked at the issue objectively and are taken in by the car propaganda, the biggest advertising industry. To get a more realistic perspective look at death statistics especially for those who are not newborn infants or elderly (the majority of people). The facts are clear. Cars kill most people unless they live to be old enough to die of disease, or if they don't make it past infanthood. Maybe not in war-torn parts of the world but the 40000K/yr in the US isn't small. Compare that to American losses in Vietnam. And one can add that oil wars are not unrelated to car driving. Also the history of car technology is intertwined with the military in WW1 and WW2 (tanks) and the Cold War (Interstate system)
Re:Law Enforcement Implications - Uniform
on
Life Recorder
·
· Score: 1
A simpler if less radical approach would be for police to have their uniforms in a different colour. I'm told that police uniforms use to be a bright almost sky blue. Some british police (where the modern tradition of policing emerged) wore red, or had bright copper buttons. However in recent years the uniforms have gotten darker. Now they are often a paramilitary black. What has been lost from the uniform is the public honour/duty and the symbolic colouring that indicates it is a very public responsibility that should not be done hidden. In my city unmarked police cars use to be a rarity. Now it is commonplace. The change was really obvious around 9/11. Now I think half the time the reason for unmarked police cars is as much saving money on paint as it is covertness. Personally I think the uniforms should be bright pink unless a judge gives a warrant for covert behavior. There is a great Marilyn Manson video with pink cops in uniform. If not pink I'd settle for the sky blue. But the point is that police acting in camo isn't ethical - they should be proud of their work and being bright, if not they are not serving the public or doing real policework.
Slashdot Mirror
This is slashdot, if we wanted to RTFA we wouldn't be bothering to comment or mod people, how can you get a vague car analogy if you know the details wouldn't support one: TL;DR 4EVA!!!
How can one tell if peers/files are real or not unless the torrent is actually downloaded? Did they really download everything to verify it? There ARE a majority of torrents with fake peers. The traffic isn't real but one can only tell after getting burned trying to download it.
(2) freely available through legitimate channels,
This explicitly states the bias of the research. They start out assuming that BT is not legitimate before starting. Just because something isn't available on amazon doesn't make it illegitimate. One could argue that amazon is the illegitimate one if one were to take an extreme moral position on some of their controversial activities.
Its sooo different. Like totally. All that multiplication of the lost potential profit. They are loosing Beellliooooonnzzz!
Go go thought police!
"Legal" content.
Yes, the technology of BT favours popularity. Now that BT is so widespread you get obscure torrents that stay alive. It use to be ONLY Hollywood and the most popular of files could stay alive for any significant duration.
Ha, "Legal" content... I'm glad the idea of thought police that tell us what we can and can't share isn't funny anymore, just normal. Orwell couldn't sell anything if he started writing today.
My understanding was that typically 50% of electrical energy is wasted by long distance transmission (nevermind whatever other inefficiencies there may be). If that is the case wouldn't this scheme be prohibitively ineffective? How much energy can realistically "transported" such a large distance - between continents!
Is this just more unrealistic greenwashed nonsense - consuming billions of public dollars to pay nefarious private organisations to put precious/rare/toxic chemicals all over the place - to be a later public nuisance and cleanup issue, or worse - maintenance? Call me cynical but I won't be banking on this one.
"Come on. Seriously? You're acusing anti-war folks of being gullible?"
It doesn't matter how unlikely the argument is of convincing. The flak is just there to contain the debate and make it seem like the basic assumption (That we all have seen firsthand the wrongness of the American invasion of Iraq via the Collateral Murder video) is still open to question when it is not. That prevents us from moving on to action that would turn our sentiment into something useful. Like actually holding someone accountable. As it is we get caught up in the nonsense and allow the hero of the story (wikileaks guy) to get arrested and the murderer generals who orders those troops in the helicopter into that predictable civillian killing situation still walk free.
"The Army is not in the business of "trying to not look bad."
"The military spends an *enormous* amount of time trying to gain and maintain domestic support for its activities abroad."
The point is that if the military actually had a video which made them look good they would certainly release it because their job is 90% propaganda (A gun isn't nearly as useful as the fear and obedience it inspires) They don't have a different video because there A) isn't one, or B) because they like the image conveyed by the "Collateral Murder" video. Don't discount that the military likes to appear bloodthirsty to certain parties. Obviously wikileaks hasn't inspired enough outrage to actually get the US out or Iraq.
Wikileaks released a long and a short version. I've watched both. There is no other version out there that is up front and lets you view the footage. The long version that they edited does NOT show a positive light on the actions. It's just slower and longer. If anything it is more damning because it disproves the lie that this was a "heat of the battle mistake" where they didn't have time to be more careful. They had a lot more time to decide than the edited version of the video shows and they STILL did what they did because that is what happens when you fly around in a helicopter with guns dangling out of it shooting at random dark people for cash. Add that the soldiers have no idea of their own safety and just want to survive, they might be shot by friendly fire after all - that happens a lot. And you get a situation that was very predictable murder, something that only sociopaths would excuse. Something that the individuals involved might get scapegoated for but the real culprit is untouchable.
Yeah the more you say that "Seeing that might change the thoughts slightly on the pieces of video that were seen..." the more we believe it, please post it 12 more times. Oh wait, you already did?
As long as it looks like there is another "side" to the debate that is credible then our binary thinking minds will say: OK, the greay area is something in between not shooting people who aren't shooting you from a helicopter and the guy who makes excuses because of the helicopter not shooting everyone in sight.
Good point you make there, after all, the military has no ability to release video that shows them in a positive light, unlike wikileaks or people imprisoned in Kuwait.
Distance is the essence of modern warfare. We now have easier access to information but because it is far away we get overwhelmed and distracted by other information and also we don't know what to do about the war or what to believe.
The Sikh religion has a belief that one should fight their own battles rather than have others do it for them. Great idea anyway.
I think you are on to something. But then I also meet a lot of people my own age and younger (I'm not so young anymore, merely wired) who are duped by all this anyway. There is also a lot of apathy among the younger "sophisticated" people who get their news from the internet.
Ultimately its about organisation and leadership. The truth is so demoralising to so many people that most political campaigns about it are only really complaining, rarely directing that shared opinion into something constructive which changes the system.
Part of it is that media machine which makes us think that speaking up in a CNN poll or some such is a substantive political act of rebellion, that rebellion will somehow intrinsically redirect the "bad guys" towards a higher moral ground etc. What we really need is to take power via direct action and only a small part of that can happen sitting in front of a flickering LCD panel. Also, we get riled up by things far away which are effectively out of our control but acquiesce on that in our front yard, like driving cars and voting with our dollars for the bargain slave labour goods.
I don't know, at least there is that truth floating around there somewhere on the internet still. Seems like as more and more of the internet is corporate-ized we see less of that badly designed webpage with important things to say and more of that selling almost nothing but really slick page...
Clean up that war! Just remove some marginal "free speech" type websites. Also discredit the obvious validity of criticism with relativistic horseshit: "We are progressing to make war safer for everyone, we won't get it right until you send us more money and sons and daughters..."
What confuses me is how people like you stand up for such vile deeds without any compensation. Watched a lot of movies about the "Glory of War" have we?
Yes, only training will yield the appropriate moral opinions. Only experts can tell us what is wrong and right. The experts tell us that wikileaks is marginal and that objective news comes from embedded reporters. 8 years isn't long for a war, there was one that lasted 100 after all. "Blood Sweat and Iron" bring prosperity and peace to us all so we must use our Will to Power what is the best strategy and method to assess the targets...
(Or for those cultured in only the last 10 years, the appropriate sarcastic comment would be: AMERICA, FUCK YA!)
Yeah its too bad they didn't have more data. That would prevent civilian deaths. It's like a video game. If you can pause then you will. We just need the new data of a pause button on the war. Then we can fight war perfectly, that is the goal of our nuclear silo operators and most other soldiers. They are just doing a good job. With guns. If we give them more information then they will kill less innocents.
That is how technology works and why we have had less murder the more technology we develop. Every century is less bloody than the previous. Human progress is a real science. Let's invest in it. Disney makes a great map of the world.
"The Universal Soldier, fighting for Peace"
A train is the only safe car on autopilot.
That's a pretty shallow and individualistic notion of adult and responsible. I rely on kind, cooperative strangers for my job. As do everyone. Even rich robber baron bastards. Maybe the world would be a little more just if people would cooperate with that type less. I rely on kind strangers to teach me language so I can be human and interact.
You obey laws and I won't pack a gun with my bike and shoot warning shots next to your children's heads whenever I feel like it or if I think you are maybe breaking what I think are the rules. Oh wait, I'm not allow to use a weapon when I get around and randomly threaten your life.... Something about driving a car is encouraged for the economy and cyclists and pedestrians have a REAL choice: follow the rules or die.
Sorry to inconvenience you in your morning commute. I'm sure you have somewhere more important to go than I do.
"ignorant dickheads who think that cyclists have no right to be on heavily used roads."
Those I can usually hear coming by the way they rev their engine. The most dangerous are those who think that they can drive a car safely and are not vigilant - those texting, cell phoning or otherwise driving as normal around soft bodies with heavy steel boxes. It's always nice to not how this threat to you life is for the sake of being too lazy to exercise, or to look cool, or to fit in... or to be too ignorant to know that driving cars is immoral.
"Everything bad I do on my bike I learned from cars."
...Because riding on the freeway at slower than the maximum speed means you should be Capitally Punished.
We live in a free land. Cars are our freedom.
Why can't you apply your brakes safely? If not you are driving dangerously. If you are driving dangerously then how is it my fault?
The fact is the car is the danger. Also the truck. The only fault I have is that I am paying my taxes to subsidise your unethical and unsafe behavior in public. But I can't opt out of that even if it ruins my city, planet and kills and maims people around me.
If there were any justice people driving cars in cities would be criminally prosecuted. And people could then move on to comfort issues and minor threats like bicycles bumping into people. If you think this isn't so you haven't looked at the issue objectively and are taken in by the car propaganda, the biggest advertising industry. To get a more realistic perspective look at death statistics especially for those who are not newborn infants or elderly (the majority of people). The facts are clear. Cars kill most people unless they live to be old enough to die of disease, or if they don't make it past infanthood. Maybe not in war-torn parts of the world but the 40000K/yr in the US isn't small. Compare that to American losses in Vietnam. And one can add that oil wars are not unrelated to car driving. Also the history of car technology is intertwined with the military in WW1 and WW2 (tanks) and the Cold War (Interstate system)
A simpler if less radical approach would be for police to have their uniforms in a different colour. I'm told that police uniforms use to be a bright almost sky blue. Some british police (where the modern tradition of policing emerged) wore red, or had bright copper buttons. However in recent years the uniforms have gotten darker. Now they are often a paramilitary black. What has been lost from the uniform is the public honour/duty and the symbolic colouring that indicates it is a very public responsibility that should not be done hidden. In my city unmarked police cars use to be a rarity. Now it is commonplace. The change was really obvious around 9/11. Now I think half the time the reason for unmarked police cars is as much saving money on paint as it is covertness. Personally I think the uniforms should be bright pink unless a judge gives a warrant for covert behavior. There is a great Marilyn Manson video with pink cops in uniform. If not pink I'd settle for the sky blue. But the point is that police acting in camo isn't ethical - they should be proud of their work and being bright, if not they are not serving the public or doing real policework.
...is "prejudism."
So there.
This could lead to another world war just like the first Occidental-Oriental Railway did in 1914. Imagine the trade advantages.