Even Google admits that they are probably in monopoly territory. Monopolies are not illegal though. Abusing your monopoly position to inhibit competition is illegal.
If you don't want to get down-modded perhaps you should point out areas where you think they have abused their monopoly position rather than just say "see, Google is a monopoly!"
Microsoft are convicted monopolists and there are numerous examples of the anti-competitive behavior. Point to Google's ant-competitive behaviors then perhaps there can be a discussion.
So let's get into this. The point you are trying to make is that we either agree with your assessment of the Manning incident or we are teenaged idiots?
We only get those two choices? No adolescent fool, or middle aged buffoon, just teenaged idiots?
That is the problem when you are working in a gatekeeper position or have deal with people in that role.
No one notices the gatekeeper until they screw up. The default answer to any request must be no, because if they say yes and something bad happens it is their fault. No one remembers that they have been keeping the bad stuff out up until this point. Only that they let this one bad thing through so they must be bad at their job and should be replaced.
I suspect that the people who are bragging that they'd shoot someone over trespassing are teenage armchair internet warriors trying to convince themselves that they are tough.
You have obviously never been to Texas.
I'll give you another link to a local paper's editorial decrying the action the man in the earlier link I posted took. Take some time to read through the comments attached to it. You will find that the majority of the comments not only support the man's actions but laud him as a hero and upstanding citizen.
Now don't take my posts as an argument that it is proper to shoot someone just for trespassing or even burglarizing your neighbors property. I personally would never kill someone over anything as trivial as property. I was merely pointing out that you may be a little naive about many peoples' attitudes as to when deadly force is acceptable.
As to the point about calling your bluff when you brandish your firearm, I think you could make an argument that they were assaulting you if they tried to make a grab for your weapon. Plus if you didn't really want to shoot them guns are quite effective as a bludgeoning device. Mmmmmm Pistol Whip.
I disagree, there was a time during Bush's presidency where to criticize or question Bush's policy was equated to being an unpatriotic traitor. I'm pretty sure the Dixie Chicks experienced a lot of the vitriol, public shunning and public crucifixion you don't seem to remember anymore.
Hit Obama and the Democrats where they will feel it the most, the pocketbook. The dems and Obama benefited hugely from their grass roots campaign to get donations in. Their is another election in less than two years that they are going to need our money for again. Don't give it to them and encourage other people to with hold as well. Just make it clear why you aren't helping. When they put out the call for volunteers show up and discourage people from helping by pointing out the fact that they aren't delivering on their end of the bargain.
We need to stand together and send the dems a message that if they won't deliver on their promises, we won't help them anymore. They are answerable to all of us who worked to put them in office, it's our job to make sure they never forget that.
They are trying to make an example of this company, IMHO. Pure speculation on my part but the overboard manner in which this was executed makes me think they wanted to send a message to this company and other data center operators. I'm guessing that perhaps Core IP may not have been as cooperative as the FBI would have liked them to be in past inquiries. So they used whatever excuse they have currently to get an over broad warrant and shut the whole operation down. That's just my straight out of my ass feeling though.
I hope this backfires horribly on the FBI. I hope that the affected completely innocent companies get some lawyers and go to town on the FBI for this.
Just like the media players the different beers have their use depending on what you are looking for. You want sweet, strong, refined beer you go Belgian. You want a clean, delicious, infinitely drinkable dunkel, you go German. You want a kick ass pilsner you go Czech.
Even if you are using a VPN, you are still connecting to an IP administered by TPB. That is cause for suspicion even if nobody can read the data. What excuse have you got for connecting to TPB at all ? Whether the authorities can see the torrents is irrelevant.
Um.. I'm not sure why I would need an excuse for connecting to TPB, but I would imagine that my excuse would be that they happen to be my VPN provider. I'm pretty sure purchasing VPN service is not illegal.
Your arguments are specious because this VPN is not for browsing but "for users looking to cover their tracks when torrenting". Browsing does not enter into the picture because of the stated use of the VPN.
that stated use is the editorial opinion of the Ars Technica reporter who wrote the article covering the VPN offering from piratebay. If you had actually gone to the provider's website you would see that the stated use of the product is:
IPREDator is a network service that makes people online more anonymous using a VPN. it costs about 5 EUR a month and we store no traffic data. our service is right now in a beta stage. we hope it will be released for the public before 1st of april. sign up now to start using it as soon as we're stable. the network is under our control. not theirs. the pirate bay likes and knows real kopimism. and waffles.
Rather than specious my argument is quite sincere. I think it is you that is engaging in specious arguments. You argue that a pirate bay VPN can/will be used for nothing but copyright infringement even though you have to know that is just not true.
I argue on the other hand that while piratebay will almost certainly be used for copyright infringement by some one (just as I suspect any other VPN product will be) it will almost certainly be used for a large number of legitimate purposes.
You are the one who is being insincere in this argument.
Would you care to define when strong security be "too" strong? If I feel the need for privacy and security I'm going to go with the absolute strongest security I can afford, to do any less is wasting my time.
This is building a sound-proof room in a bunker behind a 20ft, steel-reinforced, cinder block wall topped with barbed wire and watched by security cameras, and a gate guard that is specifically instructed to sound a silent alarm if the police show up and then to delay the police as long as possible before letting the police in.
The security guard sounds the alarm whenever ANYONE shows up. If it is the police he delays them long enough to ensure that they have a legal and properly executed warrant before allowing them entry. If they do not have such he sends them on their way.
This is using a piece of software that requires a 64 character password, which will write 1s and 0s directly to the drive if there are two consecutive password failures, on a computer kept in a room with a security system which will hit the drive with a magnet pulse and fry the electronics if the room is breached, and turns the only entryway into an electromagnet to erase the drives if someone tries to remove the boxes.
I have a right to privacy and if I feel strongly about it I have a right to take whatever legal means i feel necessary to protect it. You may think it is excessive but it's none of your business nor the governments so long as they have no evidence of wrong doing. And having extremely strong security is NOT evidence of illegal activities.
I'm at a public internet cafe or any public internet access point (i.e airport, hotel, etc) and don't know what kind of snooping an unscrupulous proprietor maybe up to, a VPN connection to Pirate Bay will protect me from those shenanigans. Or I just want to keep my browsing habits private from my local ISP as I don't feel it any of their business as to what sites I spend my time at. The point being that I would use a Pirate Bay VPN for the same reasons I would use any other VPN.
If you are asking for some one to justify using the Pirate Bay's VPN specifically, I really don't see why anyone would have to do that. But just to humor you, their service price seems pretty fair and their stated privacy policies seem to be exactly what some one looking for VPN service would want them to be.
That link you provide says that the ideal serving temperature for coffee is 155-175. So it appears that McDonald's was serving their coffee about 20 degrees above the recommended temperature if in fact they were serving the coffee at 185 degrees.
Yeah, because that's what I really want my books to do. Play music at me and let me browse the internet.
Hey, why stop there? What about email, stock quotes, instant messaging, and all sorts of stuff that interferes with reading books?
It's a book reader for pete's sake. It does not make julienned fries.
It's a book reader that costs $360. At that price I too am wondering what all else it does to justify me paying so much for it. I still haven't found a good reason for this thing to be so ridiculously priced.
Slashdot Mirror
Check out GeoCities on Tumblr. They post a screen shot of a GeoCities home page every 10 minutes or so.
http://oneterabyteofkilobyteage.tumblr.com/
Yes, that may be, but when was the last time he worked there? Old man.
Even Google admits that they are probably in monopoly territory. Monopolies are not illegal though. Abusing your monopoly position to inhibit competition is illegal.
If you don't want to get down-modded perhaps you should point out areas where you think they have abused their monopoly position rather than just say "see, Google is a monopoly!"
Microsoft are convicted monopolists and there are numerous examples of the anti-competitive behavior. Point to Google's ant-competitive behaviors then perhaps there can be a discussion.
Duh.
http://video.adultswim.com/frisky-dingo/guys-nibblies.html
So let's get into this. The point you are trying to make is that we either agree with your assessment of the Manning incident or we are teenaged idiots?
We only get those two choices? No adolescent fool, or middle aged buffoon, just teenaged idiots?
I'll just leave this here for you.
http://www.ratebeer.com/RateBeerBest/bestbeers_012011.asp
People are obviously much more tolerant of human error than machine error. Machines in life safety areas are expected to be perfect.
Also who is liable in a fatal accident caused by a machine? People want a human scapegoat.
That is the problem when you are working in a gatekeeper position or have deal with people in that role.
No one notices the gatekeeper until they screw up. The default answer to any request must be no, because if they say yes and something bad happens it is their fault. No one remembers that they have been keeping the bad stuff out up until this point. Only that they let this one bad thing through so they must be bad at their job and should be replaced.
Here you go. Bible Fight!
http://games.adultswim.com/bible-fight-action-online-game.html
You forgot to tell us to get off your lawn.
You have obviously never been to Texas.
I'll give you another link to a local paper's editorial decrying the action the man in the earlier link I posted took. Take some time to read through the comments attached to it. You will find that the majority of the comments not only support the man's actions but laud him as a hero and upstanding citizen.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/falkenberg/5865045.html
Now don't take my posts as an argument that it is proper to shoot someone just for trespassing or even burglarizing your neighbors property. I personally would never kill someone over anything as trivial as property. I was merely pointing out that you may be a little naive about many peoples' attitudes as to when deadly force is acceptable.
While this may only apply to Texas, It appears that some juries are in fact buying.
http://www.newser.com/story/31381/no-charges-for-texas-man-who-shot-neighbors-burglars.html
As to the point about calling your bluff when you brandish your firearm, I think you could make an argument that they were assaulting you if they tried to make a grab for your weapon. Plus if you didn't really want to shoot them guns are quite effective as a bludgeoning device. Mmmmmm Pistol Whip.
I disagree, there was a time during Bush's presidency where to criticize or question Bush's policy was equated to being an unpatriotic traitor. I'm pretty sure the Dixie Chicks experienced a lot of the vitriol, public shunning and public crucifixion you don't seem to remember anymore.
Hit Obama and the Democrats where they will feel it the most, the pocketbook. The dems and Obama benefited hugely from their grass roots campaign to get donations in. Their is another election in less than two years that they are going to need our money for again. Don't give it to them and encourage other people to with hold as well. Just make it clear why you aren't helping. When they put out the call for volunteers show up and discourage people from helping by pointing out the fact that they aren't delivering on their end of the bargain.
We need to stand together and send the dems a message that if they won't deliver on their promises, we won't help them anymore. They are answerable to all of us who worked to put them in office, it's our job to make sure they never forget that.
They are trying to make an example of this company, IMHO. Pure speculation on my part but the overboard manner in which this was executed makes me think they wanted to send a message to this company and other data center operators. I'm guessing that perhaps Core IP may not have been as cooperative as the FBI would have liked them to be in past inquiries. So they used whatever excuse they have currently to get an over broad warrant and shut the whole operation down. That's just my straight out of my ass feeling though.
I hope this backfires horribly on the FBI. I hope that the affected completely innocent companies get some lawyers and go to town on the FBI for this.
Just like the media players the different beers have their use depending on what you are looking for. You want sweet, strong, refined beer you go Belgian. You want a clean, delicious, infinitely drinkable dunkel, you go German. You want a kick ass pilsner you go Czech.
check and make sure the built in Windows firewall on the hosts you are trying to check is not blocking the request.
Even if you are using a VPN, you are still connecting to an IP administered by TPB. That is cause for suspicion even if nobody can read the data. What excuse have you got for connecting to TPB at all ? Whether the authorities can see the torrents is irrelevant.
Um.. I'm not sure why I would need an excuse for connecting to TPB, but I would imagine that my excuse would be that they happen to be my VPN provider. I'm pretty sure purchasing VPN service is not illegal.
Your arguments are specious because this VPN is not for browsing but "for users looking to cover their tracks when torrenting". Browsing does not enter into the picture because of the stated use of the VPN.
that stated use is the editorial opinion of the Ars Technica reporter who wrote the article covering the VPN offering from piratebay. If you had actually gone to the provider's website you would see that the stated use of the product is:
Rather than specious my argument is quite sincere. I think it is you that is engaging in specious arguments. You argue that a pirate bay VPN can/will be used for nothing but copyright infringement even though you have to know that is just not true.
I argue on the other hand that while piratebay will almost certainly be used for copyright infringement by some one (just as I suspect any other VPN product will be) it will almost certainly be used for a large number of legitimate purposes.
You are the one who is being insincere in this argument.
Would you care to define when strong security be "too" strong? If I feel the need for privacy and security I'm going to go with the absolute strongest security I can afford, to do any less is wasting my time.
This is building a sound-proof room in a bunker behind a 20ft, steel-reinforced, cinder block wall topped with barbed wire and watched by security cameras, and a gate guard that is specifically instructed to sound a silent alarm if the police show up and then to delay the police as long as possible before letting the police in.
The security guard sounds the alarm whenever ANYONE shows up. If it is the police he delays them long enough to ensure that they have a legal and properly executed warrant before allowing them entry. If they do not have such he sends them on their way.
This is using a piece of software that requires a 64 character password, which will write 1s and 0s directly to the drive if there are two consecutive password failures, on a computer kept in a room with a security system which will hit the drive with a magnet pulse and fry the electronics if the room is breached, and turns the only entryway into an electromagnet to erase the drives if someone tries to remove the boxes.
I have a right to privacy and if I feel strongly about it I have a right to take whatever legal means i feel necessary to protect it. You may think it is excessive but it's none of your business nor the governments so long as they have no evidence of wrong doing. And having extremely strong security is NOT evidence of illegal activities.
I'm at a public internet cafe or any public internet access point (i.e airport, hotel, etc) and don't know what kind of snooping an unscrupulous proprietor maybe up to, a VPN connection to Pirate Bay will protect me from those shenanigans. Or I just want to keep my browsing habits private from my local ISP as I don't feel it any of their business as to what sites I spend my time at. The point being that I would use a Pirate Bay VPN for the same reasons I would use any other VPN.
If you are asking for some one to justify using the Pirate Bay's VPN specifically, I really don't see why anyone would have to do that. But just to humor you, their service price seems pretty fair and their stated privacy policies seem to be exactly what some one looking for VPN service would want them to be.
You seem to be operating under the assumption that the only purpose for offering/using a VPN is to engage in copyright infringement.
You forgot the whole RIM vs NTP debacle.
Settlement reached in BlackBerry patent case
Research in Motion pays NTP $612.5 million; devices to stay on
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11659304/
That link you provide says that the ideal serving temperature for coffee is 155-175. So it appears that McDonald's was serving their coffee about 20 degrees above the recommended temperature if in fact they were serving the coffee at 185 degrees.
It's a book reader that costs $360. At that price I too am wondering what all else it does to justify me paying so much for it. I still haven't found a good reason for this thing to be so ridiculously priced.