I don't know what you're searching for, but I've never had any results "you had to pay for". You do know the top ones are ads, right?
As for the seeders, that's common for all public torrent sites (I'm not a regular of private ones). It's usually not a problem anyway, since the DHT will get a few even if the site says otherwise.
BitCoins don't (...) have any value by themselves.
Sure they do: they provide a cheap way of sending money to someone else over the 'net that isn't subject to the shenanigans like Paypal's constant money freezing or the Wikileaks blockade.
Whether that's good enough for it to survive remains to be seen, of course.
And your misguided belief is that this is "right".
I have no such belief. I try to avoid morally judging others. But I can assure you that if everyone was like me, Microsoft and Adobe would be bankrupt a long time ago, since I don't give them a single cent.
You seem to be under the misguided belief that costs determine prices. In the real world, that's only rarely true,
Microsoft, Adobe, etc are not charities like the Raspberry Pi foundation; they adjust their prices in order to maximize their profits.
In an ideal scenario, competition would lower the prices. There are many reasons why this doesn't happen in this market, but you can thank government-granted monopolies like patents for a big chunk of that - it's kinda hard to compete when you can't even implement FAT on your OS without paying Microsoft.
Oh, and if you hardcode them, how do you expect them to be able to do XHR requests to their servers, in violation of the same origin policy? There's no point in serving JS if you prevent it from working.
Despite your claims, we're not all uneducated buffoons, and some of us actually know how to spell Commonwealth.
As a Portuguese software developer, I can assure you that while our average proficiency levels in English are admittedly low, the levels among the younger generations are significantly better.
There's no such thing as "fair use" in most of the world. The US is kind of on it's own legally, with it.
But the law that applied here was the US law. In fact, under NK law, copyrighted works can be copied without consent as long as they're "performed free of charge", so this question wouldn't even be relevant.
But on a serious note, don't confuse laws by some countries with European directives; I don't judge the whole US by the moronic laws of some of its states either. Particularly, CCTVs on public space are rather rare in many European countries, even if they're common in others.
As an aside - why does Firefox spell checker tell me that nazi is misspelled?
Because Nazi is a proper noun and should be capitalized, and while that isn't a spelling error, it wouldn't make sense for them to purposely include an orthography error in their dictionary.
Slashdot Mirror
And you've accomplished exactly nothing. Talk about a pointless sense of self-righteousness.
I don't know what you're searching for, but I've never had any results "you had to pay for". You do know the top ones are ads, right?
As for the seeders, that's common for all public torrent sites (I'm not a regular of private ones). It's usually not a problem anyway, since the DHT will get a few even if the site says otherwise.
Bah, they're all crap compared to Plan9.
That's an oversimplification, but even so, outrage is a fine way of attracting eyeballs to those ads, so one could still expect they do report it.
Storj is a proposal for an experiment on independent artificial entities, not a product to be marketed and sold.
BitCoins don't (...) have any value by themselves.
Sure they do: they provide a cheap way of sending money to someone else over the 'net that isn't subject to the shenanigans like Paypal's constant money freezing or the Wikileaks blockade.
Whether that's good enough for it to survive remains to be seen, of course.
Yes, it makes perfect sense that the people in power in Equador would just give some US nerd the power to decide the election.
Mitnick's job is window dressing, nothing more.
It's from the generator of random conspiracy theories at verifiedfacts.org. Some of them are actually pretty funny.
You're allowed to negotiate. You're not allowed to force them to negotiate.
And your misguided belief is that this is "right".
I have no such belief. I try to avoid morally judging others. But I can assure you that if everyone was like me, Microsoft and Adobe would be bankrupt a long time ago, since I don't give them a single cent.
You seem to be under the misguided belief that costs determine prices. In the real world, that's only rarely true,
Microsoft, Adobe, etc are not charities like the Raspberry Pi foundation; they adjust their prices in order to maximize their profits.
In an ideal scenario, competition would lower the prices. There are many reasons why this doesn't happen in this market, but you can thank government-granted monopolies like patents for a big chunk of that - it's kinda hard to compete when you can't even implement FAT on your OS without paying Microsoft.
MediaCore seems nice. No WebM support, but then again, that battles seems lost. Even Firefox has decided to support H.264 (using OS codecs).
How would his presence help his friends? You make it sound like the other got convicted for crimes he did, when in reality he was convicted as well.
Oh, and if you hardcode them, how do you expect them to be able to do XHR requests to their servers, in violation of the same origin policy? There's no point in serving JS if you prevent it from working.
Slashdot itself loads a few JS files directly from third-party servers, particularly Google's (through Google Analytics).
Facebook JS files are not open source; by "hardcoding them", you're actually committing copyright infringement.
Despite your claims, we're not all uneducated buffoons, and some of us actually know how to spell Commonwealth.
As a Portuguese software developer, I can assure you that while our average proficiency levels in English are admittedly low, the levels among the younger generations are significantly better.
What we observe is nothing but a model as well.
There's no such thing as "fair use" in most of the world. The US is kind of on it's own legally, with it.
But the law that applied here was the US law. In fact, under NK law, copyrighted works can be copied without consent as long as they're "performed free of charge", so this question wouldn't even be relevant.
It'd be nice if we could afford CCTVs.
But on a serious note, don't confuse laws by some countries with European directives; I don't judge the whole US by the moronic laws of some of its states either.
Particularly, CCTVs on public space are rather rare in many European countries, even if they're common in others.
Yeah, well, you don't live here anyway, so shut up and go get groped by the TSA.
We have grills on our fans, you have the TSA, and we're the nanny continent?
Yeah, keep telling yourself that.
As an aside - why does Firefox spell checker tell me that nazi is misspelled?
Because Nazi is a proper noun and should be capitalized, and while that isn't a spelling error, it wouldn't make sense for them to purposely include an orthography error in their dictionary.
who cares if it was somehow compromised
People who know about exploits like CVE-2009-1244 and similar vulnerabilities?
JC's work is not a parody, it's a licensed cover.