Not all torrents are necessarily as large as movies/albums. You might have a legitimate (maybe even legal, shock horror) need for a much smaller torrent.
Who said anything about "without permission"? Try asking him? Admittedly if you just want to surf porn it might be a tough sell, but if that's the case you'll just have to work a little harder to get around your problems (Tor should work fine, for example).
Inexhaustible, in the sense that we will not be able to exhaust it by using it all up.
While it is true that the sun is not an inexhaustible power supply, it should last for several billion years hence, and collecting solar power will not speed its demise. Similar can be said of wind and tidal power.
Wilfully misunderstanding a word by placing it in the wrong context does not make you cool.
One would assume that piracy would have a slight bias towards lesser known music (in comparison to sales) because of a lower barrier of entry.
If I buy a CD, I need £10. Since £10 is difficult to come by, I'm only going to spend it on CDs I'm sure I want. Even if a new band has been recommended to me, I'm not liable to be parted from my money for their CD all that easily, unless I'm exposed to them in some other way.
With piracy though, I'm free to grab a copy of some of their music with no barriers. If I like it, I might buy their CD, merchandise and tickets to their gigs. Without the piracy, I might never have got to experience them properly.
Other than that one single factor though, you'd expect illegal downloading to mirror sales pretty closely. People like what they like.
Anyone else feeling like Philip K. Dick might have got here first, again?
Present the user with a series of images, videos and texts designed to evoke an empathetic reaction. The ones that feel sorry for the puppy in a blender are legitimate users, the rest are bots.
Signatures don't handle security, and it's a very very long time since they did.
I still get asked occasionally to sign for my credit card, and the shop assistant always peers intently at the back of my card to see if they match.
And we still rely on signatures as a first-line-of-defence for identifying people in written correspondence at work (including in formal documents and forms). For most important things there are other checks, but a matching signature is still often required.
Being able to accurately reproduce someone's signature would still be a big boon for any would-be fraudster.
One very minor correction: TBP allegedly never turned a profit. According to the evidence given in the court case, the owners spent quite a lot of their own money running the site, and it never got around to breaking even. They claim it was a hobby, not a business.
Occam's Razor is irrelevant in this circumstance. I don't think that either the view that people download because they want a free game or the view that people download because they like to know what they're buying are inherently "simpler".
And for that matter, Occam's Razor only applies where no evidence exists affirming one possibility or another. We know for a fact that people like to try things before they pay comparatively large sums for something. It's the reason you're allowed to test drive cars, and the reason you look around houses, and the reason that music shops have those little demo-headphone points.
Since there is evidence for both possibilities, Occam's Razor can't be used. You have to assess the evidence and decide on a possibility on its merit.
You inadvertently bring up another good point, too.
If internet piracy means less trucks on the road, does that make internet piracy environmentally friendly? Would encouraging piracy help Canada fulfil its G20 green commitments?
Your big big flaw is that you assume women are special in this.
The lesson you should learn is that all people are people. A significant proportion of people aren't very pleasant. The more trust you put into an unpleasant person, the worse it'll turn out for you.
You might know some unpleasant men, but they won't impact on you because your emotional attachment with them isn't that deep. It is different when you find an unpleasant woman and start a relationship.
They've built a glass bridge leading to a conference room floating unsupported above the main data centre itself. I somehow feel that being cheap was not on their agenda.
In actuality, the smartest thing to do would be to put the whole fucking thing somewhere else. If the ocean level rises even six feet (one of the more conservative estimates these days) Florida is well and rightly fucked.
I was just thinking that myself.
One of the great things about the modern US (and most of the rest of the developed world, for that matter) is that we have our electricity on huge distributed grids. The beauty of this is that you can build a power generator pretty much anywhere and all of the buildings on the same grid can use the electricity.
Why the flip would you want to build your solar power station in the middle of a new city? Why not build it wherever it'll work best, and then build the houses wherever they'll go best? I suspect the criteria for a good location for houses and power stations are not necessarily the same...
Sad this is that Brussels is better at looking out for us than Westminster.
You say that like it's a strange thing. The politicians at Brussels are just the same as the politicians in Westminster, just with different friends and different interests.
Plenty of people work plenty of jobs with far fewer skills than that...
Who do you think mans the tills at Walmart? Skills and job requirements are a progressive scale, and no-one says that an HTML-doer has to be anywhere near the top...
A series of cables doesn't sound astronomically expensive. As a civilisation we've been laying cables for quite a long time now, and are quite good at it.
The power grid stretches quite deep into the desert already, in some cases. I'd be willing to bet there are quite a few communities in the US on the national grid out somewhere pretty deserty.
Upgrading the existing infrastructure doesn't so much sound astronomical as par for the course these days.
It's worth highlighting that that legislation allows pretty much any body to be used as arbitrators in civil cases, as long as both parties agree to be bound by its outcome.
It "allows Sharia courts" only insofar as it allows you to appoint anyone to solve your dispute for you.
Why do you say "most of it is available now"? Do you have any idea how much written information has been lost over the last 5000 years or so of written history?
We have countless examples of information where we've lost a large part. Take the Epic Cycle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Cycle . It would appear to be an extremely important work from the Classical period, and the only surviving examples are considered literary milestones. Yet only some 25% of the data has survived to this point.
75% loss over a few measly millennia is pretty lossy performance.
Back in the days when censorship was popular, everyone knew that it was going on and who was doing it.
The original name for the BBFC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBFC) was "British Board of Film Censors", and it was their government sponsored job to censor all film and TV. They kept the word "censors" in their name for about 70 years.
It's only these days, now that people have decided it is a bad thing, that it might need to be done in secret.
Other way around. If you spend $20,000 on MS Office, you're allowed to spend up to $20,000 on OpenOffice. And presumably deposit the change in a convenient Swiss bank account.
Slashdot Mirror
Not all torrents are necessarily as large as movies/albums. You might have a legitimate (maybe even legal, shock horror) need for a much smaller torrent.
Who said anything about "without permission"? Try asking him? Admittedly if you just want to surf porn it might be a tough sell, but if that's the case you'll just have to work a little harder to get around your problems (Tor should work fine, for example).
Oh, for mod points...
How are using your PDA in movie theatre and being open to reasonable discussion mutually exclusive? Or related in any way?
Don't get me wrong, I agree that using PDAs/phones in the cinema is not really on; you're just not making sense.
Inexhaustible, in the sense that we will not be able to exhaust it by using it all up.
While it is true that the sun is not an inexhaustible power supply, it should last for several billion years hence, and collecting solar power will not speed its demise. Similar can be said of wind and tidal power.
Wilfully misunderstanding a word by placing it in the wrong context does not make you cool.
One would assume that piracy would have a slight bias towards lesser known music (in comparison to sales) because of a lower barrier of entry.
If I buy a CD, I need £10. Since £10 is difficult to come by, I'm only going to spend it on CDs I'm sure I want. Even if a new band has been recommended to me, I'm not liable to be parted from my money for their CD all that easily, unless I'm exposed to them in some other way.
With piracy though, I'm free to grab a copy of some of their music with no barriers. If I like it, I might buy their CD, merchandise and tickets to their gigs. Without the piracy, I might never have got to experience them properly.
Other than that one single factor though, you'd expect illegal downloading to mirror sales pretty closely. People like what they like.
Not liking something is not the same as there not being something.
New to FOSS, then?
Anyone else feeling like Philip K. Dick might have got here first, again?
Present the user with a series of images, videos and texts designed to evoke an empathetic reaction. The ones that feel sorry for the puppy in a blender are legitimate users, the rest are bots.
That'll hold them for a little while...
Signatures don't handle security, and it's a very very long time since they did.
I still get asked occasionally to sign for my credit card, and the shop assistant always peers intently at the back of my card to see if they match.
And we still rely on signatures as a first-line-of-defence for identifying people in written correspondence at work (including in formal documents and forms). For most important things there are other checks, but a matching signature is still often required.
Being able to accurately reproduce someone's signature would still be a big boon for any would-be fraudster.
One very minor correction: TBP allegedly never turned a profit. According to the evidence given in the court case, the owners spent quite a lot of their own money running the site, and it never got around to breaking even. They claim it was a hobby, not a business.
LongPenIs
You're thinking of a different invention altogether, there.
Occam's Razor is irrelevant in this circumstance. I don't think that either the view that people download because they want a free game or the view that people download because they like to know what they're buying are inherently "simpler".
And for that matter, Occam's Razor only applies where no evidence exists affirming one possibility or another. We know for a fact that people like to try things before they pay comparatively large sums for something. It's the reason you're allowed to test drive cars, and the reason you look around houses, and the reason that music shops have those little demo-headphone points.
Since there is evidence for both possibilities, Occam's Razor can't be used. You have to assess the evidence and decide on a possibility on its merit.
You inadvertently bring up another good point, too.
If internet piracy means less trucks on the road, does that make internet piracy environmentally friendly? Would encouraging piracy help Canada fulfil its G20 green commitments?
Your big big flaw is that you assume women are special in this.
The lesson you should learn is that all people are people. A significant proportion of people aren't very pleasant. The more trust you put into an unpleasant person, the worse it'll turn out for you.
You might know some unpleasant men, but they won't impact on you because your emotional attachment with them isn't that deep. It is different when you find an unpleasant woman and start a relationship.
Choose your partners better. Quit generalising.
They've built a glass bridge leading to a conference room floating unsupported above the main data centre itself. I somehow feel that being cheap was not on their agenda.
In actuality, the smartest thing to do would be to put the whole fucking thing somewhere else. If the ocean level rises even six feet (one of the more conservative estimates these days) Florida is well and rightly fucked.
I was just thinking that myself.
One of the great things about the modern US (and most of the rest of the developed world, for that matter) is that we have our electricity on huge distributed grids. The beauty of this is that you can build a power generator pretty much anywhere and all of the buildings on the same grid can use the electricity.
Why the flip would you want to build your solar power station in the middle of a new city? Why not build it wherever it'll work best, and then build the houses wherever they'll go best? I suspect the criteria for a good location for houses and power stations are not necessarily the same...
Sad this is that Brussels is better at looking out for us than Westminster.
You say that like it's a strange thing. The politicians at Brussels are just the same as the politicians in Westminster, just with different friends and different interests.
Where one fails, the other might do us a service.
Plenty of people work plenty of jobs with far fewer skills than that...
Who do you think mans the tills at Walmart? Skills and job requirements are a progressive scale, and no-one says that an HTML-doer has to be anywhere near the top...
A series of cables doesn't sound astronomically expensive. As a civilisation we've been laying cables for quite a long time now, and are quite good at it.
The power grid stretches quite deep into the desert already, in some cases. I'd be willing to bet there are quite a few communities in the US on the national grid out somewhere pretty deserty.
Upgrading the existing infrastructure doesn't so much sound astronomical as par for the course these days.
Everyone does that every day. It's called the sun.
And doesn't the sun give you horrific burns and skin cancer?
Bad example maybe?
It's worth highlighting that that legislation allows pretty much any body to be used as arbitrators in civil cases, as long as both parties agree to be bound by its outcome.
It "allows Sharia courts" only insofar as it allows you to appoint anyone to solve your dispute for you.
Why do you say "most of it is available now"? Do you have any idea how much written information has been lost over the last 5000 years or so of written history?
We have countless examples of information where we've lost a large part. Take the Epic Cycle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Cycle . It would appear to be an extremely important work from the Classical period, and the only surviving examples are considered literary milestones. Yet only some 25% of the data has survived to this point.
75% loss over a few measly millennia is pretty lossy performance.
Back in the days when censorship was popular, everyone knew that it was going on and who was doing it.
The original name for the BBFC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBFC) was "British Board of Film Censors", and it was their government sponsored job to censor all film and TV. They kept the word "censors" in their name for about 70 years.
It's only these days, now that people have decided it is a bad thing, that it might need to be done in secret.
Other way around. If you spend $20,000 on MS Office, you're allowed to spend up to $20,000 on OpenOffice. And presumably deposit the change in a convenient Swiss bank account.