Personally, I think we should just cut to the chase and start growing humans specifically to harvest the organs. Why not? As long as they don't achieve consciousness, what's the harm?
But yet the Supreme Court determined that it isn't an "unreasonable search" for the government to break down your door, rummage through your house, take what they want, and not bother to identify themeselves or why they are there.
And why should they? If they have a warrant (*see below), then I have no problem with the authorities doing the above in order to enforce law, order and justice. If it's later in the process that you learn why they're there, what difference does it make?
And it's the same United States that redefined "warrants" to include warrants after the fact.
Again, who cares? I have no problem with that as long as, 1) there are appropriate punishments when a warrant is NOT issued, and 2) it's done rarely and with probable cause. Sometimes when life is imminently threatened, the police need some slack. It doesn't mean we give them carte blanche, but I do believe in flexibility.
One of the reasons that the police have become so insulated from society is exactly BECAUSE of the inflexibility of "the rules". Any little mistake, and the criminal is back on the streets. I personally believe that mistakes in evidence gathering should not taint the evidence, but that it should cause sanctions against the officer and the department. The criminal still goes to jail, and the police take responsibility. But that's a bit off the subject.
In Europe, the Internet will be a place (more like what we in the US have today) where ideas are exchanged freely.
Sheesh, what are you talking about? Are you talking about the same United States that guarantees free speech in the constitution (which is NOT typically guranteed in Europe) and has protected us many times from an overzealous government? And are you talking about the same Europe with France that tried to ban certain Yahoo auctions? And are you talking about the same Europe that put a man in jail for thinking the wrong thoughts?
History favors the stability of the United States. It wasn't THAT long ago that Europe dragged the world into a WW/II.
Mindless anti-Americanism really gets old somtimes.
What creative industry ISN'T 95% derivative? Movies, television, books, music, art, you name it. Everyone jumps on the bandwagon when something is successful. Every so often someone comes up with something new, but true innovation is very rare.
How is using such images in a now- (and long-)defunct ad campaign staking the company's entire image on progressive politics?
Apple is famous (or infamous) for using arrogant elitism in its ads. If you live by arrogance, then you die by arrogance. Apple can't have it both ways.
So why trust umpteen other mechansisms to prop up an inherently weak password scheme? There are more points of failure that way for sure.
Because, as we know, the biggest security flaws are humans themselves. The best passwords are ones that don't have to be written down, and the "better" the password, the more likely it can't be remembered. It seems to me that it's better to not depend on long passwords to hide flaws in your security system, which just creates more flaws in the humans.
That's statistically as secure as a four and one half letter password, assuming 96 usable characters. Does that qualify for a flaw you don't know about?
Yes, that's true. But what is the goal of a password? If it can be that easily defeated with brute-force methods, I suggest that password complexity is just a red herring for bigger flaws in the security system. It should not be possible to feed 1.6 billion combinations of something into a security system without someone noticing.
If we're talking about, say, an encryption key, then that's a different kettle o' fish. But I suggest that for system-access passwords, this method is fine.
Unless there's some flaw that I don't know about, I've always liked the password method where it's two random English words (DoorAsphalt or MessHeave). It's easy to remember, and assuming, say, a 40,000 word dictionary, that gives 1.6 billion combinations.
And GNU/the FSF does not? I wonder when Google switched to Windows XP.
GNU's software is mostly a copy of Unix tools. Useful, yes, but not particularly influential. The GPL is the closest thing to influence that RMS commands, but even that in the Great Scheme of Things is not that important on the world stage.
On the other hand, Microsoft influences industries a hell of a lot more than GNU/FSF. I'll even throw in Apple as an influencer (though, they influence much, much less than the average Apple zealot thinks), even though Apple is peanuts on the world stage, too.
For they are not just "someone" but 3 individuals quite involved into this DRM saga, thus having points and a petition to be discussed.
Jeez, come on. Most of the geek community knows who RMS is, but in world leader terms, he is NOBODY. He has very little influence. Linus Torvalds has ten times the influence, and even he isn't that important in the big picture.
Bill Gates is received with all the honors by the President and RMS & Co can't even reach the prime minister or even some random official guy ?
Gee, I wonder why? Bill Gates makes the software that a large percentage of the world uses. He has the biggest charitable foundation in history. Even if you discount software, he is one of the most influential people in the world.
The PHP docs have an unedited "comment" system which is completely different from a Wiki. I wish the PHP docs were a Wiki so that wrong information could be cleanly removed and whatever debate about it could go on a "discussion" page.
This smells like a troll, but what do you think different breeds of dogs and cats are? That's basically human genetic engineering.
Not to mention that dogs and cats are artificially created animals anyway. Dogs were 'manufactured' from wolves, and cats from (whatever that proto-cat was called that I'm too lazy to look up).
Exactly what I was thinking; fortunately the other replier gave some numbers that are very encouraging.
Something I just thought of... if the energy density of these things gets really good and they're relatively light (as I'd expect nanotubes to be), would it ever make sense to drive big truckloads of capacitors instead of having lossy power lines?
I'm reminded of the old computer saying, 'never underestimate the bandwidth of a carload of mag tapes.'
I'm in an engineering degree, and I'm shocked at the lack of this ability in college students at american schools!
You're an engineer, and you're shocked that not everyone wants to be an engineer. Why am I not surprised?
How many musical instruments can you play? How many countries are you an expert in their history? How many languages can you speak? How many crafts have you mastered? How many sports are you expert in? How many cooking disciplines are you expert in? How well can you sculpt? How good a hunter are you? How well can you farm? How well can you broker deals?
It seems to be unique to engineers they think that not only should every WANT to be an engineer, but that things should be designed purposely difficult so that every should HAVE to be an engineer.
Guess what? Very few people care about how things work. And I submit that it's perfectly OK to not care, and just want to use things that other people build.
*Numbers welcome*, said I, and you conveniently forgot to quote this, and to provide any sort of numbers. Can you sustain your statement with cold, hard, numbers? Or should we cast a doubt as to whose ass exactly the evidence comes out of?
You said 'numbers welcome' as an irrelvent point, because you know I can't provide them, so you can claim some sort of 'victory'. Since neither of us know the numbers, we have to use other evidence.
My evidence is that tons of web sites make money via banner ads, and we have nothing to assume that TPB would be any different. We also know that they had $100K-$200K (or more) to spend on servers.
Since you're making the extraordinary claim that TPB would *not* make a lot of money from advertising, it's up to you to provide extraordinary evidence that they would be different from other sites. I've already proven my claim to the degree that it's possible. You haven't provided one shred of evidence for your claim, except to claim unilateral victory because we don't have their balance sheet.
But just to make sure, I visited the page on donating, and it states that donors get to have the ads removed--so, by all means if the ads annoy you, just donate: the ads will go aways and TPB won't profit from them any more.:)
I don't care whether they do or not -- my point is that TPB has a lot of ads, and is clearly not a donation-run site.
Also, I doubt that ads can sustain the costs of TPB. Numbers welcome, of course.
What you 'doubt' comes out of your ass. My evidence is that a lot of sites make a LOT of money from banner ads. My evidence is that they had the money for a hundred servers and money to spare to get up and running again very quickly. Your evidence?
What, is the idea that they might actually be MAKING A LOT OF MONEY all while wearing their freedom badge on their chest shock you?
Actually, knowing how hard it is for donation-only-fed activities to, hum, stay afloat, I'm pretty sure donations don't cover all of TPB, and they probably pay for part of it out of their own pockets. What's *your* theory, inuendos apart?
You know, you might actually *visit* the site you're defending. I counted no less than FOUR ads on one of the pages I browsed.
Well, I my world at least, when a hundred servers are running your site, you shell out money for them to. Talk about naive, now.
Yes... and where do you think the money comes from? Do you think the money was left by Swedish elves? Do you think they spent every last penny of the money they have on servers?
They're not making any money. They have just some advertising as they need money to buy new servers and pay the bandwidth costs. These things aren't cheap at all. Remember, they had almost 100 servers confiscated by the police...
They have a HUNDRED SERVERS and you think they're not making money? How naive you are.
You're one of these people who thinks that it's the customer's duty to give a shit about producers, and that's just not the way it's supposed to work.
I 'give a shit' that there is an environment such that people can make money, because without it, the programming THAT I WANT won't exist. It's called 'self interest'. I don't care about them personally, I care about myself.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, thank you for noticing. :) (this being Slashdot, I probably should've added sarcasm tags)
Personally, I think we should just cut to the chase and start growing humans specifically to harvest the organs. Why not? As long as they don't achieve consciousness, what's the harm?
Please don't involve Europe in places that have gotten into wars most recently. :-p
The difference is that Europe fought wars of expansion and domination, whereas the US is fighting wars against agressive hostiles.
against unreasonable searches and seizures
There's that pesky word "unreasonable" again.
But yet the Supreme Court determined that it isn't an "unreasonable search" for the government to break down your door, rummage through your house, take what they want, and not bother to identify themeselves or why they are there.
And why should they? If they have a warrant (*see below), then I have no problem with the authorities doing the above in order to enforce law, order and justice. If it's later in the process that you learn why they're there, what difference does it make?
And it's the same United States that redefined "warrants" to include warrants after the fact.
Again, who cares? I have no problem with that as long as, 1) there are appropriate punishments when a warrant is NOT issued, and 2) it's done rarely and with probable cause. Sometimes when life is imminently threatened, the police need some slack. It doesn't mean we give them carte blanche, but I do believe in flexibility.
One of the reasons that the police have become so insulated from society is exactly BECAUSE of the inflexibility of "the rules". Any little mistake, and the criminal is back on the streets. I personally believe that mistakes in evidence gathering should not taint the evidence, but that it should cause sanctions against the officer and the department. The criminal still goes to jail, and the police take responsibility. But that's a bit off the subject.
In Europe, the Internet will be a place (more like what we in the US have today) where ideas are exchanged freely.
Sheesh, what are you talking about? Are you talking about the same United States that guarantees free speech in the constitution (which is NOT typically guranteed in Europe) and has protected us many times from an overzealous government? And are you talking about the same Europe with France that tried to ban certain Yahoo auctions? And are you talking about the same Europe that put a man in jail for thinking the wrong thoughts?
History favors the stability of the United States. It wasn't THAT long ago that Europe dragged the world into a WW/II.
Mindless anti-Americanism really gets old somtimes.
We'll know if the alarmists were right in 30 years.
We already know the alarmists from 30 years ago were wrong.
What creative industry ISN'T 95% derivative? Movies, television, books, music, art, you name it. Everyone jumps on the bandwagon when something is successful. Every so often someone comes up with something new, but true innovation is very rare.
How is using such images in a now- (and long-)defunct ad campaign staking the company's entire image on progressive politics?
Apple is famous (or infamous) for using arrogant elitism in its ads. If you live by arrogance, then you die by arrogance. Apple can't have it both ways.
So why trust umpteen other mechansisms to prop up an inherently weak password scheme? There are more points of failure that way for sure.
Because, as we know, the biggest security flaws are humans themselves. The best passwords are ones that don't have to be written down, and the "better" the password, the more likely it can't be remembered. It seems to me that it's better to not depend on long passwords to hide flaws in your security system, which just creates more flaws in the humans.
That's statistically as secure as a four and one half letter password, assuming 96 usable characters. Does that qualify for a flaw you don't know about?
Yes, that's true. But what is the goal of a password? If it can be that easily defeated with brute-force methods, I suggest that password complexity is just a red herring for bigger flaws in the security system. It should not be possible to feed 1.6 billion combinations of something into a security system without someone noticing.
If we're talking about, say, an encryption key, then that's a different kettle o' fish. But I suggest that for system-access passwords, this method is fine.
Unless there's some flaw that I don't know about, I've always liked the password method where it's two random English words (DoorAsphalt or MessHeave). It's easy to remember, and assuming, say, a 40,000 word dictionary, that gives 1.6 billion combinations.
And GNU/the FSF does not? I wonder when Google switched to Windows XP.
GNU's software is mostly a copy of Unix tools. Useful, yes, but not particularly influential. The GPL is the closest thing to influence that RMS commands, but even that in the Great Scheme of Things is not that important on the world stage.
On the other hand, Microsoft influences industries a hell of a lot more than GNU/FSF. I'll even throw in Apple as an influencer (though, they influence much, much less than the average Apple zealot thinks), even though Apple is peanuts on the world stage, too.
For they are not just "someone" but 3 individuals quite involved into this DRM saga, thus having points and a petition to be discussed.
Jeez, come on. Most of the geek community knows who RMS is, but in world leader terms, he is NOBODY. He has very little influence. Linus Torvalds has ten times the influence, and even he isn't that important in the big picture.
Bill Gates is received with all the honors by the President and RMS & Co can't even reach the prime minister or even some random official guy ?
Gee, I wonder why? Bill Gates makes the software that a large percentage of the world uses. He has the biggest charitable foundation in history. Even if you discount software, he is one of the most influential people in the world.
The PHP docs have an unedited "comment" system which is completely different from a Wiki. I wish the PHP docs were a Wiki so that wrong information could be cleanly removed and whatever debate about it could go on a "discussion" page.
This smells like a troll, but what do you think different breeds of dogs and cats are? That's basically human genetic engineering.
Not to mention that dogs and cats are artificially created animals anyway. Dogs were 'manufactured' from wolves, and cats from (whatever that proto-cat was called that I'm too lazy to look up).
Real terrorists and criminals will use encryption, but the average person will not.
Where does this idea come from that all criminals and terrorists are master spies who never make stupid mistakes?
Generally speaking, criminals and terrorists are that way BECAUSE they're stupid (with various exceptions, of course).
Something I just thought of... if the energy density of these things gets really good and they're relatively light (as I'd expect nanotubes to be), would it ever make sense to drive big truckloads of capacitors instead of having lossy power lines?
I'm reminded of the old computer saying, 'never underestimate the bandwidth of a carload of mag tapes.'
You're an engineer, and you're shocked that not everyone wants to be an engineer. Why am I not surprised?
How many musical instruments can you play? How many countries are you an expert in their history? How many languages can you speak? How many crafts have you mastered? How many sports are you expert in? How many cooking disciplines are you expert in? How well can you sculpt? How good a hunter are you? How well can you farm? How well can you broker deals?
It seems to be unique to engineers they think that not only should every WANT to be an engineer, but that things should be designed purposely difficult so that every should HAVE to be an engineer.
Guess what? Very few people care about how things work. And I submit that it's perfectly OK to not care, and just want to use things that other people build.
I like it, but the nested comments aren't indented enough.
You said 'numbers welcome' as an irrelvent point, because you know I can't provide them, so you can claim some sort of 'victory'. Since neither of us know the numbers, we have to use other evidence.
My evidence is that tons of web sites make money via banner ads, and we have nothing to assume that TPB would be any different. We also know that they had $100K-$200K (or more) to spend on servers.
Since you're making the extraordinary claim that TPB would *not* make a lot of money from advertising, it's up to you to provide extraordinary evidence that they would be different from other sites. I've already proven my claim to the degree that it's possible. You haven't provided one shred of evidence for your claim, except to claim unilateral victory because we don't have their balance sheet.
Then you couldn't have looked too hard.
Two banner ads: http://thepiratebay.org/browse.php
Three banner ads + text ads (total of four): http://thepiratebay.org/brwsearch.php?b=1&c=102
Clicking on random torrent (three banners, + text ad): http://thepiratebay.org/details.php?id=3490243
But just to make sure, I visited the page on donating, and it states that donors get to have the ads removed--so, by all means if the ads annoy you, just donate: the ads will go aways and TPB won't profit from them any more. :)
I don't care whether they do or not -- my point is that TPB has a lot of ads, and is clearly not a donation-run site.
Also, I doubt that ads can sustain the costs of TPB. Numbers welcome, of course.
What you 'doubt' comes out of your ass. My evidence is that a lot of sites make a LOT of money from banner ads. My evidence is that they had the money for a hundred servers and money to spare to get up and running again very quickly. Your evidence?
What, is the idea that they might actually be MAKING A LOT OF MONEY all while wearing their freedom badge on their chest shock you?
Welcome to the real world, boy.
You know, you might actually *visit* the site you're defending. I counted no less than FOUR ads on one of the pages I browsed.
Yes... and where do you think the money comes from? Do you think the money was left by Swedish elves? Do you think they spent every last penny of the money they have on servers?
They have a HUNDRED SERVERS and you think they're not making money? How naive you are.
I 'give a shit' that there is an environment such that people can make money, because without it, the programming THAT I WANT won't exist. It's called 'self interest'. I don't care about them personally, I care about myself.