If you had 5% of American citizens up in arms over a single topic, angry with government abuse and ready to take a stand for what they believe in, it would be one of the biggest movements in American history. Not even the broken "democracy" system in the US is broken enough to withstand the combined voice of that many voters.
Forget the million man march, this is fifteen million folks. Just imagine that!
Can someone PLEASE tell me what in the hell Immigration and Customs has to do with movie piracy...?
It is likely a simple distraction method to make them look like they are doing something. Business 101: If you aren't able to do your given job well, find something else that is visible and do a great job at it. People will then not focus so much on the fact that you aren't doing your job because you have done such a great job elsewhere.
Can't stop drugs crossing the border? Can't stem the flow of illegal immigrants across the fence? Easy, take down a few shitty websites, do a "great job" of it, get in some news articles, maybe get into TV and do a nice show and tell about how much money this is saving the US (it doesn't matter if everything you say is garbage) just say "millions of dollars" and "American Taxpayers", maybe throw in a few "terrorits groups" and button it with "Jobs for hard working Americans!" and you have a wonderful media distraction while drugs keep flowing, people keep jumping the fence.
Sadly, I think that there will be a lot more of your type (Americans who are disgusted with the state of your nation) long before anything positive happens. From what I see, there are three types of political views in America at the moment. 1) Happy becuase I am making buckets of money through any means (Small but very connected and powerful group this lot). 2) Disgusted with the state of America (Slowly growing middle class, and generally older or middle aged sensible folks. Remembers the days when America was really something special - and wants it to happen again). 3) I don't give a fuck about anything, or I don't know enough about politics to make an informed stance (This is the real killer. There are so many Americans who seem to be totally and utterly living in a fairytale land of unicorns, fluffy clouds and the "Red, white and blue", getting all their information from Fox News or other similar sources who would likely be totally stunned if they knew what the rest of the world thought of America and it's longer term prospects.
While the media and big business/big government is doing all it possibly can to ensure that group three totally outnumbers group two, I think that it is a slow war of attrition. The glory days of America are fading fast, and while there are still of course bright sparks in otherwise doom and gloom, America needs to learn to compete truly on a global scale again. Not just in small high tech niches, but in day to day manufacturing, tools, construction and really try to force home a concept of getting back to business, not importing anything and everything from some third world country with cheap labour.
Why?.com domain names are US domain names. If they want to have a pirate site in Korea, how about getting a.kr domain name?
Seriously, I can't believe that this gets modded up on/. still. A.com is NOT a US domain name. The.us suffix is what is used to denote site within the United States of America. The.com TLD is open for anyone to use, though it was designed for a commercial entity with the idea of not being localized to a single country - hence no suffix denoting a country.
Seriously mods, use your brains before you mod up rubbish that belongs on Fox News.
The wealth disparity isn't between the middle class and the poor, its between the rich and everyone else. Stealing from the middle class just creates new poor.
While I don't really agree with this op, if you think about it logically and follow the money trail, it isn't going to come out of the pockets of the middle class. It will come out of the insurance companies - who are more likely to be mainly owned by the rather rich.
1) Anon flogs some cash off a credit card and donates it to charity. 2) Owner of said card cries foul and bank re-imburses that card. 3) Bank then claims however much was nicked on insurance. 4) Insurance company hands over the cash to the bank. 5) Insurance company raises prices if anything to try to recover said losses. (Having said that, I don't imagine that anything that Anon can do would be more than a grain of salt on a beach when compared to the daily giving and taking that these banking behemoths do).
In banking terms, you can. You just overstate your "assets" to say that you have all this valuable stuff lying around that you can liquidate at any time - which means that you can then lend against those assets - which actually gives you more assets.
Where the bankers got caught though was that their overvalued assets started to literally fall apart. By having to write off those assets, the cash pool started drying up. In a effort to curb losses, many bankers and investors started to dump their assets that they knew were shaky at best - which then caused a flood into a market further devaluing anything due to supply and demand.
Where the world got caught though was when the bankers had screwed their own business up to a point where it was going to (and did in some instances) cause entire nations to become effectively bankrupt. The world (governments that is, not the ordinary folk) then had to bail out the banks under the theory of mitigation - where bailing out (through nationalization, or stupendous loans at next to nix interest) a bunch of banks, securities (oh, the irony of that) and fund groups was going to cause less harm then to allow them to crash and kill off retirements, investments and allow that cancer to spread at full speed into the everyday lives of pretty much everyone.
tl;dr - You most certainly can lend cash that you don't have.
for their own benefit, at the detriment to billions of others living in more central latitudes is a shortsighted despot.
Welcome to the world we live in. The common good, altruism and generally being the "good guys" are ideologies of generations before the ones currently - at least for the most part. Welcome to the world of no direct consequences, it's like living in the internet, but in real life.
I just don't buy that we'll stop innovating if patents and copyrights disappear. There will still be profit to be made and there will still be incentive to make that profit.
The problem here (and I am against many patents/copyrights for the most part) is that due to the "We must be 100% certain that no-one will be hurt in any way, shape, form or other..." approach taken by most countries in what they allow to be used for treating what - and the absurd litigation that occurs throughout the US when unforseen side-effects surface, or medications don't work quite as advertised. These things have driven up the cost to go from an idea or even some solid research to the point where it is marketable. This process costs millions and millions of dollars and takes many years to complete.
So, to get back on point, the problem with abolishing patents like this totally means that this investment of millions and millions hasn't quite got that same level of guarantees with it. The folks investing (read gambling on this) will be more hesitant to back that idea with their money, but rather choose to invest where there are more dependable returns.
If I have a million to invest, I don't care what the investment is - I care about steady and certain returns.
it seems to be terrible at factoring in external costs or contingencies.
Don't blame that on Capitalism. Blame that on shit-peddling salesmen under the guise of politicians, leaders and project managers. They are the ones that are excluding the external costs and contingencies because it means that their project/idea deliverables won't be quite as shiny and sparkly which in turn diminishes the chance that they will have their next term in office/contract extended/job.
Yes, because Earth has fucking magnets all over it.
No, because the molten iron in the outer core of the earth produces immense amounts of electricity as it flows around making it basically a huge electromagnet with the magnetosphere as the electromagnetic field around it.
It gives the USA free surveillance on China. Go USA!
A window may be gazed through in both directions. This isn't about China asking for help so much as China asking to be let inside to explore and stake things out - under the pretense of coming inside to play.
Are there really that many more cosmic rays en route to Mars than there are where the ISS is?
Actually, yes.
You see the ISS orbits in Low Earth Orbit due to the altitude of between 300 and 460 kilometers. This is well inside the magnetosphere which extends for tens of thousands of kilometers into space. It is this Magnetosphere that protects both us here on earth and the astronauts up in the ISS from the same levels of radiation found in open space - even within our solar system.
Well, it's not so much the wind escaping the chamber, more along the lines of the sound making it out. The only thing "getting out" is electromagnetic waves - and to be honest, I am surprised that the atmosphere actually keeps most of them in. If you think about it, I guess is makes sense, given you can bounce radio signals off the atmosphere to get the signal past the horizon and such - but I was just surprised that electromagnetic waves from lightning get caught inside our atmosphere.
Seriously, we hear more concern out of our Religious leaders about allowing same sex marriage than we do the killing of 10's and sometimes 100's of women and children!
Most of your Religious Leaders are in fact political creatures just like most politicians. They might internally be thinking about the killings of 10's and 100's - but they preach what will be most likely to generate attention.
The average US citizen doesn't care about 10's or 100's of people dying in some other country at their hand. To make a point, where was the US outrage about the NATO strikethat killed 24 Pakistani soldiers. Pakistan is taking this latest attack so seriously that is has given US forces two weeks to vacate their main drone base!
It's a sad world these days, but leaders of just about all things, be they political leaders, religious leaders, business leaders - all have their own little agenda and they make just the right soundbytes and bring up just the right things to get to where they want to be. Sadly, those agendas very rarely seem to have the improvement of the world in general anywhere in the list.
On that note, unless I am mistaken, the "Remove links from all social media sites" actually pointless?
As the domains have been seized, I am assuming that the next time that google (or any other search engine) trawls them, the main content will be gone and they will be reindexed. Give it a month or so and the site will drop off anything relating to the fake rolexes (or whatever it sold) that it was indexed to when it was taken to court?
While I like the idea of doing a better job, doing the same job cheaper has a more predictable result in the quarterly profit report.
It depends on what your "profit" is intended to be. As discussed in many posts above this thread in detail, a lot of the public works programmes that are currently abounding the world are there to provide jobs. If the payoff for government is to create jobs for ten people for a year, but the task only requires one man and a machine to do, then the payoff hasn't been met - which means you put on the extra workers and instead of building a road, you build a road and botanical reserve along the sides.
If robots are doing all of the work, is society okay with only feeding the people who happen to own robots?
If robots are able to do ALL the work that is needed by humanity, then there is no need whatsoever for altruism not to kick into high gear and allow everyone access to anything they need. The only reason we have money/barter is that we trade our work for work done by others for the items we need. If everything can be provided by a robot, then there is no cost associated with anything. Money is no more. (maybe with the exception of finite resources such as land?)
If a robot tilled fields, gave the wheat to a milling robot, who then gave the flour to a baker robot - why would there be any reason whatsoever for everyone not being able to have free bread? The farmer robot can save some of the seed for next harvest, so he has unlimited access to wheat, the robots are provided maintenance by maintenance robots who again require no wages, the parts come from a factory with manufacturing/recycling robots who pick through our trash or use materials provided by miner robots.
If a robot could perform every single task better than us, the only thing that I would find interesting is what percentage of the population degenerates to a "sit on the couch and watching trash on the TV and stuffing their faces with food served by robots" and what percentage of society makes use of all this free time to explore, travel, become artistic or any other manner of positive expenditure of time.
Earning a living is an idea deeply ingrained into most societies. Our entire economy will need to be reworked if the vast majority are not to starve. What's more it must be done sustainably with the finite resources we have. The change isn't going to be pretty..
Yes and no. While I agree with that in some manner, our economy is also built on the foundation of barter - we just merely use money as a means to barter for what we need from one another. I will always need bread for example. I will always pay for the bread that the baker sells in his shop - it doesn't matter to me if he kneads the dough by hand or if he has a robot in the back of the shop and he sits at the register all day reading slashdot under his counter.
The easier it is to make something that is needed, the more automated it is, the more opportunity there is to do MORE. If that same baker used to have two dough kneading lads working in his shop that he replaced with said robot, those two lads are now able to go out and produce things that they were unable to do so before. One might turn out to be a landscaper - the other might end up designing robots for bakeries.
In my opinion, those who are afraid of automation (and I am not saying it is the parent post) are already aware that they are performing as superfluous work. I don't see why anyone cannot raise to the occasion so to speak - and raise the knotch on what it is that they do or perform. If you work in a factory sewing shirts, and a fandangle new sewing machine comes in that does just about all the work for you, what is wrong with utilising the folks to sew in extra fancy stitching around the collars and cuffs that the machine can't do? If a group of ten men used to be needed to dig out the foundation for a new road, and that is now done with one chap in a tractor, what exactly is wrong with using those other nine men to make footpaths and gardens along the road? Automation and efficiency improvements should be looked at as a means of doing a better job - not just a way to do the same job for less.
They just cover their ears and go "la la la" not to hear anything that would lead to even worse cognitive dissonance than they already have to face.
So true, and it wouldn't be so sad if it wasn't so perversely indoctrinated in society today. Sadly I see this everywhere. I see it in Big Music, happily screaming away any discord from suggestions on how to move their business model forward into todays day and age, I see this from project managers who steadfastly refuse to aknowledge any wrongdoing in their projects, I see this in politicians - both in the political field and in "professional" roles where they are merely playing a political field while adding little or no value to the work at hand and sadly, I even see it in the parents of today. My neighbour has obnoxious children who need discipline. Yet, when one of her offspring starts throwing a tantrum because she didn't get yet another lolly (this happened last week when they popped over) she gave her a hurt look and then handed the three four year old yet another lolly.
Society these days is too soft. If you need a proverbial kick up the bum or have one coming, stand up and take it. If you have someone that disagrees with you, stand up and listen to what they are saying, then argue your own point to counter their points. To quote a rather insightful commentary - Listen up, maggots. You are not special. You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake. You're the same decaying organic matter as everything else.
No, not at all. There are linux torrents, world of warcraft patches and wikileaks insurance policies that are perfectly legal uses for torrents.
Having said that, if I asked just about anyone I know what torrents they last downloaded - it would be rather unlikely to be one of the three examples above and it would also be unlikely that they were not downloading torrents containing copyrighted material.
While there are many legal uses for torrent files and peer to peer, I would really love to see a true (read: not produced by **AA or torrent*****.com - both of which I assume would be biased) percentage breakdown of illegal vs legal torrent use. If the numbers are overwhelmingly in favour of pirated material (which I think they likely are) then advertising a business as "seedbox friendly" is by definition somewhat clouded (at least in my mind) by their perceived potential market - no matter what their intentions are.
To pop my thoughts into a car analogy - You can put a massive super powerful engine into a normal car because you like the sound, but much more likely you want to go faster.
Again, as I said in the original post here - I don't support piracy, but I am dead against the stupidly over the top litigation that record companies are bringing against people for downloading a few songs. Two polar wrongs don't blend to make a right somewhere in the middle here.
Damn summaries and articles - or perhaps damn my comprehension ability today. I read that about five times as well as reading the article to try to work out why it was an issue.
If it is the parent company that is advertising itself as a pirate friendly ISP, then it's a bit of kettle and black pot, but at the same time, if Koppla is nice and clean, they will no doubt have zero problems switching over to another ISP with next to no problems or downtime for their customers.
Slashdot Mirror
Yet another "I can haz explain rotation curves!!!" theory is definitely not interesting.
Gold, utter gold. I applaude you good sir!
If you had 5% of American citizens up in arms over a single topic, angry with government abuse and ready to take a stand for what they believe in, it would be one of the biggest movements in American history. Not even the broken "democracy" system in the US is broken enough to withstand the combined voice of that many voters.
Forget the million man march, this is fifteen million folks. Just imagine that!
Can someone PLEASE tell me what in the hell Immigration and Customs has to do with movie piracy...?
It is likely a simple distraction method to make them look like they are doing something. Business 101: If you aren't able to do your given job well, find something else that is visible and do a great job at it. People will then not focus so much on the fact that you aren't doing your job because you have done such a great job elsewhere.
Can't stop drugs crossing the border? Can't stem the flow of illegal immigrants across the fence? Easy, take down a few shitty websites, do a "great job" of it, get in some news articles, maybe get into TV and do a nice show and tell about how much money this is saving the US (it doesn't matter if everything you say is garbage) just say "millions of dollars" and "American Taxpayers", maybe throw in a few "terrorits groups" and button it with "Jobs for hard working Americans!" and you have a wonderful media distraction while drugs keep flowing, people keep jumping the fence.
Sadly, I think that there will be a lot more of your type (Americans who are disgusted with the state of your nation) long before anything positive happens. From what I see, there are three types of political views in America at the moment.
1) Happy becuase I am making buckets of money through any means (Small but very connected and powerful group this lot).
2) Disgusted with the state of America (Slowly growing middle class, and generally older or middle aged sensible folks. Remembers the days when America was really something special - and wants it to happen again).
3) I don't give a fuck about anything, or I don't know enough about politics to make an informed stance (This is the real killer. There are so many Americans who seem to be totally and utterly living in a fairytale land of unicorns, fluffy clouds and the "Red, white and blue", getting all their information from Fox News or other similar sources who would likely be totally stunned if they knew what the rest of the world thought of America and it's longer term prospects.
While the media and big business/big government is doing all it possibly can to ensure that group three totally outnumbers group two, I think that it is a slow war of attrition. The glory days of America are fading fast, and while there are still of course bright sparks in otherwise doom and gloom, America needs to learn to compete truly on a global scale again. Not just in small high tech niches, but in day to day manufacturing, tools, construction and really try to force home a concept of getting back to business, not importing anything and everything from some third world country with cheap labour.
Why? .com domain names are US domain names. If they want to have a pirate site in Korea, how about getting a .kr domain name?
Seriously, I can't believe that this gets modded up on /. still. A .com is NOT a US domain name. The .us suffix is what is used to denote site within the United States of America. The .com TLD is open for anyone to use, though it was designed for a commercial entity with the idea of not being localized to a single country - hence no suffix denoting a country.
Seriously mods, use your brains before you mod up rubbish that belongs on Fox News.
I find your comment interesting and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
The wealth disparity isn't between the middle class and the poor, its between the rich and everyone else. Stealing from the middle class just creates new poor.
While I don't really agree with this op, if you think about it logically and follow the money trail, it isn't going to come out of the pockets of the middle class. It will come out of the insurance companies - who are more likely to be mainly owned by the rather rich.
1) Anon flogs some cash off a credit card and donates it to charity.
2) Owner of said card cries foul and bank re-imburses that card.
3) Bank then claims however much was nicked on insurance.
4) Insurance company hands over the cash to the bank.
5) Insurance company raises prices if anything to try to recover said losses. (Having said that, I don't imagine that anything that Anon can do would be more than a grain of salt on a beach when compared to the daily giving and taking that these banking behemoths do).
You can't lend non existent cash. Learn math.
In banking terms, you can. You just overstate your "assets" to say that you have all this valuable stuff lying around that you can liquidate at any time - which means that you can then lend against those assets - which actually gives you more assets.
Where the bankers got caught though was that their overvalued assets started to literally fall apart. By having to write off those assets, the cash pool started drying up. In a effort to curb losses, many bankers and investors started to dump their assets that they knew were shaky at best - which then caused a flood into a market further devaluing anything due to supply and demand.
Where the world got caught though was when the bankers had screwed their own business up to a point where it was going to (and did in some instances) cause entire nations to become effectively bankrupt. The world (governments that is, not the ordinary folk) then had to bail out the banks under the theory of mitigation - where bailing out (through nationalization, or stupendous loans at next to nix interest) a bunch of banks, securities (oh, the irony of that) and fund groups was going to cause less harm then to allow them to crash and kill off retirements, investments and allow that cancer to spread at full speed into the everyday lives of pretty much everyone.
tl;dr - You most certainly can lend cash that you don't have.
for their own benefit, at the detriment to billions of others living in more central latitudes is a shortsighted despot.
Welcome to the world we live in. The common good, altruism and generally being the "good guys" are ideologies of generations before the ones currently - at least for the most part. Welcome to the world of no direct consequences, it's like living in the internet, but in real life.
I just don't buy that we'll stop innovating if patents and copyrights disappear. There will still be profit to be made and there will still be incentive to make that profit.
The problem here (and I am against many patents/copyrights for the most part) is that due to the "We must be 100% certain that no-one will be hurt in any way, shape, form or other..." approach taken by most countries in what they allow to be used for treating what - and the absurd litigation that occurs throughout the US when unforseen side-effects surface, or medications don't work quite as advertised. These things have driven up the cost to go from an idea or even some solid research to the point where it is marketable. This process costs millions and millions of dollars and takes many years to complete.
So, to get back on point, the problem with abolishing patents like this totally means that this investment of millions and millions hasn't quite got that same level of guarantees with it. The folks investing (read gambling on this) will be more hesitant to back that idea with their money, but rather choose to invest where there are more dependable returns.
If I have a million to invest, I don't care what the investment is - I care about steady and certain returns.
it seems to be terrible at factoring in external costs or contingencies.
Don't blame that on Capitalism. Blame that on shit-peddling salesmen under the guise of politicians, leaders and project managers. They are the ones that are excluding the external costs and contingencies because it means that their project/idea deliverables won't be quite as shiny and sparkly which in turn diminishes the chance that they will have their next term in office/contract extended/job.
That's what I fucking said.
Duty called..
Yes, because Earth has fucking magnets all over it.
No, because the molten iron in the outer core of the earth produces immense amounts of electricity as it flows around making it basically a huge electromagnet with the magnetosphere as the electromagnetic field around it.
It gives the USA free surveillance on China. Go USA!
A window may be gazed through in both directions. This isn't about China asking for help so much as China asking to be let inside to explore and stake things out - under the pretense of coming inside to play.
Are there really that many more cosmic rays en route to Mars than there are where the ISS is?
Actually, yes.
You see the ISS orbits in Low Earth Orbit due to the altitude of between 300 and 460 kilometers. This is well inside the magnetosphere which extends for tens of thousands of kilometers into space. It is this Magnetosphere that protects both us here on earth and the astronauts up in the ISS from the same levels of radiation found in open space - even within our solar system.
There are concepts to build a small magnetic field (similar to the Earth's Magnetic Field) around spacecraft to protect the crew which are quite intriguing - the link is a PDF sorry but well worth a read.
In Soviet Russia worms colonize YOU!
I think you meant to say In the Amazon Basin worms colonize YOU!
Well, it's not so much the wind escaping the chamber, more along the lines of the sound making it out. The only thing "getting out" is electromagnetic waves - and to be honest, I am surprised that the atmosphere actually keeps most of them in. If you think about it, I guess is makes sense, given you can bounce radio signals off the atmosphere to get the signal past the horizon and such - but I was just surprised that electromagnetic waves from lightning get caught inside our atmosphere.
Seriously, we hear more concern out of our Religious leaders about allowing same sex marriage than we do the killing of 10's and sometimes 100's of women and children!
Most of your Religious Leaders are in fact political creatures just like most politicians. They might internally be thinking about the killings of 10's and 100's - but they preach what will be most likely to generate attention.
The average US citizen doesn't care about 10's or 100's of people dying in some other country at their hand. To make a point, where was the US outrage about the NATO strike that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers. Pakistan is taking this latest attack so seriously that is has given US forces two weeks to vacate their main drone base!
It's a sad world these days, but leaders of just about all things, be they political leaders, religious leaders, business leaders - all have their own little agenda and they make just the right soundbytes and bring up just the right things to get to where they want to be. Sadly, those agendas very rarely seem to have the improvement of the world in general anywhere in the list.
What part of "anti-counterfeiting specialist" don't you get?
It's not like the courts care anymore. Someone said that such-and-such website was infringing, so it had to be taken down, then it was. It doesn't even matter if the one doing the complaining admits to lying and not doing any research on the matter. The stuff still gets taken down.
On that note, unless I am mistaken, the "Remove links from all social media sites" actually pointless?
As the domains have been seized, I am assuming that the next time that google (or any other search engine) trawls them, the main content will be gone and they will be reindexed. Give it a month or so and the site will drop off anything relating to the fake rolexes (or whatever it sold) that it was indexed to when it was taken to court?
While I like the idea of doing a better job, doing the same job cheaper has a more predictable result in the quarterly profit report.
It depends on what your "profit" is intended to be. As discussed in many posts above this thread in detail, a lot of the public works programmes that are currently abounding the world are there to provide jobs. If the payoff for government is to create jobs for ten people for a year, but the task only requires one man and a machine to do, then the payoff hasn't been met - which means you put on the extra workers and instead of building a road, you build a road and botanical reserve along the sides.
If robots are doing all of the work, is society okay with only feeding the people who happen to own robots?
If robots are able to do ALL the work that is needed by humanity, then there is no need whatsoever for altruism not to kick into high gear and allow everyone access to anything they need. The only reason we have money/barter is that we trade our work for work done by others for the items we need. If everything can be provided by a robot, then there is no cost associated with anything. Money is no more. (maybe with the exception of finite resources such as land?)
If a robot tilled fields, gave the wheat to a milling robot, who then gave the flour to a baker robot - why would there be any reason whatsoever for everyone not being able to have free bread? The farmer robot can save some of the seed for next harvest, so he has unlimited access to wheat, the robots are provided maintenance by maintenance robots who again require no wages, the parts come from a factory with manufacturing/recycling robots who pick through our trash or use materials provided by miner robots.
If a robot could perform every single task better than us, the only thing that I would find interesting is what percentage of the population degenerates to a "sit on the couch and watching trash on the TV and stuffing their faces with food served by robots" and what percentage of society makes use of all this free time to explore, travel, become artistic or any other manner of positive expenditure of time.
Earning a living is an idea deeply ingrained into most societies. Our entire economy will need to be reworked if the vast majority are not to starve. What's more it must be done sustainably with the finite resources we have. The change isn't going to be pretty..
Yes and no. While I agree with that in some manner, our economy is also built on the foundation of barter - we just merely use money as a means to barter for what we need from one another. I will always need bread for example. I will always pay for the bread that the baker sells in his shop - it doesn't matter to me if he kneads the dough by hand or if he has a robot in the back of the shop and he sits at the register all day reading slashdot under his counter.
The easier it is to make something that is needed, the more automated it is, the more opportunity there is to do MORE. If that same baker used to have two dough kneading lads working in his shop that he replaced with said robot, those two lads are now able to go out and produce things that they were unable to do so before. One might turn out to be a landscaper - the other might end up designing robots for bakeries.
In my opinion, those who are afraid of automation (and I am not saying it is the parent post) are already aware that they are performing as superfluous work. I don't see why anyone cannot raise to the occasion so to speak - and raise the knotch on what it is that they do or perform. If you work in a factory sewing shirts, and a fandangle new sewing machine comes in that does just about all the work for you, what is wrong with utilising the folks to sew in extra fancy stitching around the collars and cuffs that the machine can't do? If a group of ten men used to be needed to dig out the foundation for a new road, and that is now done with one chap in a tractor, what exactly is wrong with using those other nine men to make footpaths and gardens along the road? Automation and efficiency improvements should be looked at as a means of doing a better job - not just a way to do the same job for less.
They just cover their ears and go "la la la" not to hear anything that would lead to even worse cognitive dissonance than they already have to face.
So true, and it wouldn't be so sad if it wasn't so perversely indoctrinated in society today. Sadly I see this everywhere. I see it in Big Music, happily screaming away any discord from suggestions on how to move their business model forward into todays day and age, I see this from project managers who steadfastly refuse to aknowledge any wrongdoing in their projects, I see this in politicians - both in the political field and in "professional" roles where they are merely playing a political field while adding little or no value to the work at hand and sadly, I even see it in the parents of today. My neighbour has obnoxious children who need discipline. Yet, when one of her offspring starts throwing a tantrum because she didn't get yet another lolly (this happened last week when they popped over) she gave her a hurt look and then handed the three four year old yet another lolly.
Society these days is too soft. If you need a proverbial kick up the bum or have one coming, stand up and take it. If you have someone that disagrees with you, stand up and listen to what they are saying, then argue your own point to counter their points. To quote a rather insightful commentary - Listen up, maggots. You are not special. You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake. You're the same decaying organic matter as everything else.
No, not at all. There are linux torrents, world of warcraft patches and wikileaks insurance policies that are perfectly legal uses for torrents.
Having said that, if I asked just about anyone I know what torrents they last downloaded - it would be rather unlikely to be one of the three examples above and it would also be unlikely that they were not downloading torrents containing copyrighted material.
While there are many legal uses for torrent files and peer to peer, I would really love to see a true (read: not produced by **AA or torrent*****.com - both of which I assume would be biased) percentage breakdown of illegal vs legal torrent use. If the numbers are overwhelmingly in favour of pirated material (which I think they likely are) then advertising a business as "seedbox friendly" is by definition somewhat clouded (at least in my mind) by their perceived potential market - no matter what their intentions are.
To pop my thoughts into a car analogy - You can put a massive super powerful engine into a normal car because you like the sound, but much more likely you want to go faster.
Again, as I said in the original post here - I don't support piracy, but I am dead against the stupidly over the top litigation that record companies are bringing against people for downloading a few songs. Two polar wrongs don't blend to make a right somewhere in the middle here.
Damn summaries and articles - or perhaps damn my comprehension ability today. I read that about five times as well as reading the article to try to work out why it was an issue.
If it is the parent company that is advertising itself as a pirate friendly ISP, then it's a bit of kettle and black pot, but at the same time, if Koppla is nice and clean, they will no doubt have zero problems switching over to another ISP with next to no problems or downtime for their customers.