It's probably more a lack of leechers than anything else. Private trackers reward people for seeding, so most of the stuff is overseeded. Most of them have occasional free leech periods or other programs to stimulate the credit economy, look into them. Generally it's only in the beginning that you have ratio troubles on a private tracker.
I disagree. Having separate trackers with their own community was a big part of BitTorrent's success. It brings people together, they actually talk about what they're sharing, and they can organize to put together big projects that just didn't happen before bittorrent. It's not exactly the lack of integrated search that did it, but the lack of search pushed people to the web which is a much better platform for collaboration and communication. If this client doesn't even let people make and read comments on a torrent it really is a step backwards.
What's the point of stopping piracy if you discourage large numbers of people from buying your game because you don't have a good single player campaign? There are lots of people out there who don't care for internet gaming. If EA doesn't have anything to sell us, someone else will.
We were talking about when life begins, not when "personhood" begins.
Clearly personhood is what matters. If it was just life that mattered, a zygote would be no different than any other lump of human tissue. Every one of your cells is alive, so every time you scratch an itch you're ending thousands of human lives. I've never heard anyone suggest that scratching is murder, so there must be something else at issue here.
You are deciding that there is some scientific criteria that must be met before you consider something a human being - that is your philosophy.
For the sake of argument, rationality and superstition are both philosophies. Are you suggesting that they are on equal ground?
Why is your philosophy more valid than that of the pro-lifers?
Because it's science, not philosophy. Everything that makes a person a person is found in the central nervous system. No CNS, no person. The "life begins at conception" argument is based on magical thinking.
In any case, some sort of delay should be added to avoid algorithms to come up with the idea that you're NOT an actual customer and so, lock you out.
Wget includes a --random-wait parameter for exactly this reason. You'd also want to set it to recurse, so you're not just grabbing the same page over and over again, which would likely get cached. If you really want to behave badly, you can even ignore robots.txt with -e robots=off. Most of what you'd need to do can be accomplished with a wget commandline.
The way to understand the anti-abortion mindset is extremely simple, but very difficult (apparently) for many supposedly "rational" thinkers. They believe that a person is alive and has rights from the moment of conception.
The reason it's so different for rational thinkers to understand that is because it's an irrational position. It takes someone with very simplistic concepts of life to mistake a lump of totipotent cells for a child. It essentially comes down to a belief that something magical happens at conception.
the fact that the question is far more philosophical than scientific means that you can't simply disregard this option
The fact that it is more philosophical than scientific is exactly why we can disregard this option. It's superstition, nothing more, and should be treated as such.
The cells used in this treatment were derived from adult skin cells. No controversy here. Everyone wins.
The fact that adult stem cells are useful should lead us to believe that embryonic stem cells are useful too. In this way any work on adult stem cells is linked to (the lack of) work on embryonic stem cells. If we can save lives with adult stem cells, what if we could save even more lives with embryonic stem cells? Shouldn't we at least do the research to find out?
if you have to download 10x movies than the average population, why is it that the other customers should fund your hobby?
You answered your own question earlier:
the price is set according to how much the companies can milk. the detail doesn't matter.
Kick the heavy downloaders off the network and they're not going to bring the prices down. In fact, since it costs the same to run a saturated and empty network, and you're dividing those fixed costs among fewer users it may even cost you more. Bandwidth that is not used is wasted, you should be thanking the heavy users for not wasting this resource that you are paying for whether you use it or not.
Electricity and gas are unlike bandwidth. They are limited in a way bandwidth isn't. If you use a unit of gas, you have to generate more. On the other hand, if you use a unit of bandwidth there's another unit waiting for you. Conversely, if you don't use a unit of gas you can save it for later. If you don't use a unit of bandwidth it's gone forever, and it costs the same to maintain the network whether you use it or not.
Pricing structure should encourage people to conserve gas and electricity. Networks (computer and phone) have to be maximally utilized to provide the lowest cost per packet. Pricing per megabyte discourages maximal utilization which leads to waste.
In the medium market I can get a 1gb connect with a 1gb floor for $1k
They're making some nice profits on that. I get about 10mbit down on cable for $50/month. Assuming they don't oversubscribe (they do), they have 100 customers on that one mbit line. That's $5000 income for $1000 worth of bandwidth.
I'm saying that the claim that Wikileaks has been censored by the US government is, on the face of it, simply not even remotely true.
But it is. Wikileaks.org would still be up if it weren't for the actions of the government. That they used political trickery instead of overt force doesn't make it not censorship. The fact that the government doesn't even have to resort to using force to get its way speaks very poorly of our free speech rights in the US. The only reason Wikileaks is still on the internet is because individuals from *other countries* are hosting it. This is a clear case of government censorship.
Actually, I just pick a side and stick with it. Three fingered touch typing is not that hard. Personally, I'm in favor of the caps lock key, I just couldn't resist your challenge. I'll admit doing that all day would get uncomfortable.
Publishing illegally obtained classified documents from the military and state departments. Overall, considering that this is a pretty damn grey area, I think the US governments' response has been rather subdued.
There is no grey area here. The government employee who conveyed the classified documents to civilians is guilty of a crime. Those civilians who published the information are not. It's pretty black and white.
Press members in the US, as far as I can tell, don't really have cause to fear for their safety or their freedom no matter what they're reporting, unless they actually break laws to obtain that information.
The US lacks a shield law and reporters do go to jail for protecting their sources.
I've seen some people making comparisons to North Korea, and no one calls them out on it. Seriously?
The US is not North Korea. But neither is Assange a terrorist. Which hyperbolic accusation gets repeated more often by "professional" journalists?
Actually, apart from doing things like pressuring private companies like Amazon and PayPal to "voluntarily" kick Wikileaks off their systems, and making public statements musing that Mr Assange should be assassinated (all reprehensible, to be sure), has the US government actually done anything concrete to censor Wikileaks?
Is that not enough? The first amendment says "congress shall make no law". What's so frightening is that the government has found a way to silence people without even running it by congress. The fact that the governments actions here aren't unconstitutional doesn't mean that they're OK, it means that the first amendment is insufficient to protect our freedom of speech. We need similar restrictions on the other branches of government.
I'm curious, apart from vague allusions to "censoring websites from the entire world", what are you referring to exactly?
I don't really see the US doing those things. Or perhaps you want to suggest that they are doing those things but that we don't know about them because the US has silenced anyone who talks about it.
They DO do them, they are doing them, and you know about it. You even mentioned them in the first sentence of your post. Somehow in your mind they don't count. Whether the repression happens at the barrel of a gun, or with a nudge and a wink, it's still repression.
The problem is not something that additionally encrypting/signing messages will fix, it's a problem of network operators blindly trusting routes from their providers and passing them along.
You're right, blind trust is the problem. Cryptographic signatures are how you verify that trust.
Slashdot Mirror
It's probably more a lack of leechers than anything else. Private trackers reward people for seeding, so most of the stuff is overseeded. Most of them have occasional free leech periods or other programs to stimulate the credit economy, look into them. Generally it's only in the beginning that you have ratio troubles on a private tracker.
I disagree. Having separate trackers with their own community was a big part of BitTorrent's success. It brings people together, they actually talk about what they're sharing, and they can organize to put together big projects that just didn't happen before bittorrent. It's not exactly the lack of integrated search that did it, but the lack of search pushed people to the web which is a much better platform for collaboration and communication. If this client doesn't even let people make and read comments on a torrent it really is a step backwards.
In short, either our servers validate you or you don't get to play the game.
Either I can play my single player game offline, or you don't get my money.
What's the point of stopping piracy if you discourage large numbers of people from buying your game because you don't have a good single player campaign? There are lots of people out there who don't care for internet gaming. If EA doesn't have anything to sell us, someone else will.
I don't know my left from my right.
How do you switch your cursor from insert to overwrite mode?
R
How do you delete characters on the right hand side of the cursor?
dh
How would you easily delete a line via keyboard
dd
You dont use the delete key? how do you delete files?
rm
We were talking about when life begins, not when "personhood" begins.
Clearly personhood is what matters. If it was just life that mattered, a zygote would be no different than any other lump of human tissue. Every one of your cells is alive, so every time you scratch an itch you're ending thousands of human lives. I've never heard anyone suggest that scratching is murder, so there must be something else at issue here.
You are deciding that there is some scientific criteria that must be met before you consider something a human being - that is your philosophy.
For the sake of argument, rationality and superstition are both philosophies. Are you suggesting that they are on equal ground?
Why is your philosophy more valid than that of the pro-lifers?
Because it's science, not philosophy. Everything that makes a person a person is found in the central nervous system. No CNS, no person. The "life begins at conception" argument is based on magical thinking.
In any case, some sort of delay should be added to avoid algorithms to come up with the idea that you're NOT an actual customer and so, lock you out.
Wget includes a --random-wait parameter for exactly this reason. You'd also want to set it to recurse, so you're not just grabbing the same page over and over again, which would likely get cached. If you really want to behave badly, you can even ignore robots.txt with -e robots=off. Most of what you'd need to do can be accomplished with a wget commandline.
So all you really need is wget, while, and nice.
Is wget in a while loop insufficient?
Would I make Ninja Turtles? Hell yes I would!
The way to understand the anti-abortion mindset is extremely simple, but very difficult (apparently) for many supposedly "rational" thinkers. They believe that a person is alive and has rights from the moment of conception.
The reason it's so different for rational thinkers to understand that is because it's an irrational position. It takes someone with very simplistic concepts of life to mistake a lump of totipotent cells for a child. It essentially comes down to a belief that something magical happens at conception.
the fact that the question is far more philosophical than scientific means that you can't simply disregard this option
The fact that it is more philosophical than scientific is exactly why we can disregard this option. It's superstition, nothing more, and should be treated as such.
The cells used in this treatment were derived from adult skin cells. No controversy here. Everyone wins.
The fact that adult stem cells are useful should lead us to believe that embryonic stem cells are useful too. In this way any work on adult stem cells is linked to (the lack of) work on embryonic stem cells. If we can save lives with adult stem cells, what if we could save even more lives with embryonic stem cells? Shouldn't we at least do the research to find out?
My guess is that someone in the props department really liked cutting corners.
if you have to download 10x movies than the average population, why is it that the other customers should fund your hobby?
You answered your own question earlier:
the price is set according to how much the companies can milk. the detail doesn't matter.
Kick the heavy downloaders off the network and they're not going to bring the prices down. In fact, since it costs the same to run a saturated and empty network, and you're dividing those fixed costs among fewer users it may even cost you more. Bandwidth that is not used is wasted, you should be thanking the heavy users for not wasting this resource that you are paying for whether you use it or not.
Electricity and gas are unlike bandwidth. They are limited in a way bandwidth isn't. If you use a unit of gas, you have to generate more. On the other hand, if you use a unit of bandwidth there's another unit waiting for you. Conversely, if you don't use a unit of gas you can save it for later. If you don't use a unit of bandwidth it's gone forever, and it costs the same to maintain the network whether you use it or not.
Pricing structure should encourage people to conserve gas and electricity. Networks (computer and phone) have to be maximally utilized to provide the lowest cost per packet. Pricing per megabyte discourages maximal utilization which leads to waste.
In the medium market I can get a 1gb connect with a 1gb floor for $1k
They're making some nice profits on that. I get about 10mbit down on cable for $50/month. Assuming they don't oversubscribe (they do), they have 100 customers on that one mbit line. That's $5000 income for $1000 worth of bandwidth.
Yes. It was an early model of the octagonal papers used on Battlestar Galactica.
I'm saying that the claim that Wikileaks has been censored by the US government is, on the face of it, simply not even remotely true.
But it is. Wikileaks.org would still be up if it weren't for the actions of the government. That they used political trickery instead of overt force doesn't make it not censorship. The fact that the government doesn't even have to resort to using force to get its way speaks very poorly of our free speech rights in the US. The only reason Wikileaks is still on the internet is because individuals from *other countries* are hosting it. This is a clear case of government censorship.
Actually, I just pick a side and stick with it. Three fingered touch typing is not that hard. Personally, I'm in favor of the caps lock key, I just couldn't resist your challenge. I'll admit doing that all day would get uncomfortable.
Publishing illegally obtained classified documents from the military and state departments. Overall, considering that this is a pretty damn grey area, I think the US governments' response has been rather subdued.
There is no grey area here. The government employee who conveyed the classified documents to civilians is guilty of a crime. Those civilians who published the information are not. It's pretty black and white.
Press members in the US, as far as I can tell, don't really have cause to fear for their safety or their freedom no matter what they're reporting, unless they actually break laws to obtain that information.
The US lacks a shield law and reporters do go to jail for protecting their sources.
I've seen some people making comparisons to North Korea, and no one calls them out on it. Seriously?
The US is not North Korea. But neither is Assange a terrorist. Which hyperbolic accusation gets repeated more often by "professional" journalists?
Actually, apart from doing things like pressuring private companies like Amazon and PayPal to "voluntarily" kick Wikileaks off their systems, and making public statements musing that Mr Assange should be assassinated (all reprehensible, to be sure), has the US government actually done anything concrete to censor Wikileaks?
Is that not enough? The first amendment says "congress shall make no law". What's so frightening is that the government has found a way to silence people without even running it by congress. The fact that the governments actions here aren't unconstitutional doesn't mean that they're OK, it means that the first amendment is insufficient to protect our freedom of speech. We need similar restrictions on the other branches of government.
I'm curious, apart from vague allusions to "censoring websites from the entire world", what are you referring to exactly?
Specifically, he is referring to this.
I don't really see the US doing those things. Or perhaps you want to suggest that they are doing those things but that we don't know about them because the US has silenced anyone who talks about it.
They DO do them, they are doing them, and you know about it. You even mentioned them in the first sentence of your post. Somehow in your mind they don't count. Whether the repression happens at the barrel of a gun, or with a nudge and a wink, it's still repression.
The problem is not something that additionally encrypting/signing messages will fix, it's a problem of network operators blindly trusting routes from their providers and passing them along.
You're right, blind trust is the problem. Cryptographic signatures are how you verify that trust.