Let's ignore Diebold for a minute -- I know plenty of other people here will (rightfully) hang them. This points to a major systemic flaw in our certification programs for voting machines. Period. End of discussion.
The problem was, all criticism of Diebold — however legitimate — was coming from people with "Bush was appointed" and "Elections Stolen" on their T-shirts. This discounted their opinions down to zero, because they were viewed as partisan hacks.
Now that the opposite side has won the elections (despite dire predictions of Diebold-enabled vote-stealing), these same people have calmed down and are able to present their case properly — without sliding into Impeach Now!!! hysteria.
The other explicitly says it has nothing to do with ability.
Preferring — in statistically significant numbers — fields other than science is innate lack of ability. Ability to prefer science, if you will. There is no difference.
The above rhetorical question implies, the submitter/editor disagree with mathematical methods. For Slashdot, that's quite a shocker... From the linked posting:
Nocera explores the age-old debate between those who assert that the best decisions are based on quantification and numbers, and those who base their decisions on more subjective degrees of belief about the uncertain future.
A particular math theory may or may not be flawed, but do we really prefer "subjective beliefs" (a.k.a. "hunches") around here?
intrinsic differences in the abilities of men and women were a factor in why there were more male than female sciencists and engineers. [...] differences in commitment in terms of time and flexibility [...] also contributed
The above opinion was deemed sexist enough for the person holding it to resign as Harvard's President in 2005.
But this one:
because they [women] want flexibility to raise children or prefer less math-intensive fields of science.
So, you're all pissy because although they're giving you something amazing for free [...]
Having been contributing to Open Source for over a decade myself, I'm long past your stage. It is only "free" if your own time is worthless. Mine is not. If I spend hours porting ffmpeg-2008FOO to FreeBSD to make, say, mplayer work well and then realize, that I must repeat most of that porting effort to make cinerella (which comes with its own, slightly different ffmpeg-2008BAR) build correctly, I will wonder, why the heck is not there ffmpeg-1.0 (or ffmpeg-0.4, or whatever), which can be shared by all ffmpeg-using applications.
And if my wondering is answered by the authors, that they are too important to concern themselves with Release Engineering, I'll be upset. Upset enough, that I'd wish, their project did not exist at all — and did not "crowd-out" someone else's attempt to do the same thing properly.
Do you also insult people at christmas when they don't give you exactly the presents you want?
If I were given a broken gift, and the gift-giver refused to help me exchange it — claiming, they are too busy and I should be happy with what I got — I'd become upset too, yes. Upset enough to mention it, if the topic ever came up in another conversation.
To anyone involved in maintaining ports of third-party software to a particular OS (or even a distro), working with a release of that software is quite important. Unfortunately, ffmpeg-developers couldn't be bothered with such things. Here is a rather arrogant response I got two years ago from them:
We have them [releases -mi]. They are called nightly snapshots. Now, if you were
to ask us to spend our time on evaluating and telling you which of
the snapshots we consider to be more stable than the other ones --
you would be asking us to do *YOUR* job. Not a nice thing to do
unless you can also give us some incentive.
He further explains their stance as:
The best way to use FFmpeg is to privatize
its source code inside your project
If, indeed, this idiotic view has been retired for good — great!.
most of the time yes, it's just a question of recompiling the program.
Even when it is this simple, who is going to do this? For the customer — even if they had the source, this wouldn't be trivial for OLPC's target audience (poor people, relying on charity to connect to the Internet — if they had the knowledge to compile things, they would've been gainfully employed).
And so it would have to be the vendor/author of the software...
And, when you use interpreted languages, you don't even need to go that far.
Yes... Except in cases, when the installer performs ``uname -a'' and tells you: "This platform is not supported." Yes, this is fixable. By whom — see above...
So, I think Obama or any other President [emphasis mine -mi]...
Were you as forgiving towards the previous President?
Did the previous president give any evidence of indication...
The GGP said: "any other President". Hence it was logical to wonder, if he was as tolerant towards corruption under Bush (who, BTW, had no problems appointing cabinet members without problems of tax-dodging).
Whoever sells (a.k.a. vends) the laptops is the vendor. They will port the OS and whatever software, that's bundled with the device itself. This is not the problem.
The OS/GUI is open source. Sugar is free to download as are the Activities which are written in python.
Obviously, the apps included in the distribution would be ported by the vendor — this is not a concern regardless of whether the OS/GUI/bundled apps are open source or not. I was talking about third-party applications, which, presumably exist by now...
Even those written in Python will require testing. Those written in C or C++ will require some porting effort — and will not "simply work".
Have you ever used, um, open source software before?
Yes, as a matter of fact, I have. And I not-so-humbly think, I know more than 99.9% of Slashdot users (including yourself) about such things...
Porting well-written open source apps is mostly just a matter of recompiling these days.
Did I say "well written" somewhere? Or "open source"? I did not... Even if we are talking about a vendor porting their own app (which is "open source" to them), it is far from certain, that it is "well written". And even if it were, they are likely to charge a non-trivial sum for a port to a new hardware architecture. Which means, a person, who bought an older OLPC will have to pay for using the same application on the new hardware.
And, boy, is "well written" a high benchmark to clear! A big portion of applications breaks, for example, when people move from one major GCC release to another. If you told their authors, that the apps are not "well written", you would've been flamed to crisp...
I cannot prove this but I will offer some speculation: the more I have heard of his speeches and his intentions and his beliefs, the more I think that John F. Kennedy was a fluke.
Just like JFK, Barack Obama is a product of Chicago Political Machine(TM) — easily the most corrupt local political system in the nation (think Blagojevich)... I'd rather JFK and Obama were both flukes — having the nation's President come from such gutters as a rule is rather disgraceful...
So, I think Obama or any other President probably cannot help but to make bad choices or to have corruption. Even if he himself is a sincere man, he is working within a system that is not designed for sincerity.
Were you as forgiving towards the previous President? More importantly, were the moderators?
What does such a move mean for backward compatibility? Aren't their applications already written with the existing OLPC in mind? I am afraid, it will not be as easy as "just recompile" to port some of them and those, who have already paid for theirs may have to pay again to be able to use them on the new hardware...
some slight marketing concern overrode what they were told was a matter of national security.
Marketing over national security (as well as other real issues) is how Obama got elected in the first place. Even if we continue to give him the benefit of the doubt regarding past nasty associations (racist pastor Wright, terrorists Bill and Bernardine Ayers, governor Blagojevich), and not (yet?) question his personal integrity, the man's lack of experience (or, more harshly, lack of substance) is showing already: many of his appointees and would-be appointees are either a disgrace already or on their way to infamy. TodayFBI raided the office of Vivek Kundra...
People who can use punctuation, capitalization, and spell properly. Actually, I think he was referring to those who voted the President into office.
Actually, no, most of the people voting for Obama didn't know some very basic things about him or the opposition. And what they did know, was often wrong.
In the particularly striking example, the vast majority attributed the infamous I can see Russia from my house! to Sarah Palin, when, in fact, the phrase was coined by Saturday Night Live, who were mocking her lack of foreign policy experience, while willfully ignoring Joe Biden's — whom Obama picked for the supposed foreign policy expertise — lunacies.
What's much worse, though, is that these supposedly educated and well-versed people are now trying their damnest to keep the truth from becoming known — people trying to add mentions of Obama's association with (unrepentant) terrorist Ayers to Obama's Wikipedia entry have their changes reverted within minutes and their accounts banned for days...
You'd better remember how in the US they treated their own ppl (the blacks) *at that same time*.
How? USSR — during those times — has killed over 30 million of its own citizens, either by direct execution or via truly hard labor in harsh conditions. What did Blacks suffer — discrimination? Does not compare — except in the minds of the Russian propagandists, who have — since Brezhnev's days at least — always countered the obvious advantages of America with: "Yea, but they beat up negros!" And now, with your own country being among the mostracist — Chernozhopye huzhe zhidov — you defend KGB's murderers by attempting to equate them with America's racists? Pathetic — you don't even have that counter-argument any more.
As for my associating Russia with the USSR — well, today's Russia has a KGB man in charge and, among other things, has restored the monument of the very first executioner. For all anybody should care, they are one and the same.
To anyone familiar with Russian methods, the solution is obvious — capture the criminals and put them into special prison, from where they'll have to work for the State in order to be "awarded" something like a pack of cigarettes, or a can of condensed milk.
They've done worse before — forcing completely innocent people to work on things like fighter planes and nuclear weapons on threat of immediate execution or slow wasting away at a labor camp, so why not do this to people actually deserving punishment?
The stupid US may be ordering its hackers to stay away from computers, but Russia would not do such a thing...
Also, awhile back when the USAF created its Cyber Security Command (or something like that), Cheney immediately shut it down.
And rightly so. Cyber security has nothing to do with flying planes, and so it did not belong to the US Air Force any more than to the Agriculture Department.
Yes, I am well aware that military branches have overlapping services (such as Marines having their own planes), but for USAF to have the main anti-hacking command — beyond what's needed to secure their own networks — would've been just wrong. See also "mission creep"...
What, people who are self-employed or business owners cannot get health insurance?
McCain is not self-employed. He is paid a substantial salary of a US Senator. The package includes wonderful health insulation — getting off it in favor of a hard to find and expensive (due to the cited near-absence of market) private plan would've been either crazy or grandstanding. And the man, for all his other flaws, is neither...
And before you accuse him of hypocrisy again, let me remind you, that he was not saying, people should ditch their existing employer-based plans. His proposal was to stop the government subsidy for them, in favor of subsidizing individuals.
Of course you can find individual plans, if you're willing to shell out the money for them.
Yes, and — as an owner of my own company — I have one (with a $10K/year deductible, that my paternalistic Massachusetts is now forcing me to lower). Would I rather have a better plan for free? Sure! And so would everybody — as long as somebody else is paying for it. But I don't think, government providing it is a good idea — quite the opposite, in fact.
First of all, let me thank you for acknowledging, that the hypocrisy I pointed out actually exists. Now let's go back to discussing, whether it is worth more of your concern...
if torrent files were used (and often times specifically designed) to murder other people.
The very first mistake in your reply is the use of the term "murder" instead of "kill". "Murder" is a crime, "killing" — not necessarily so. Guns are specifically designed to kill. That some of the killings end up being murders is the responsibility of the gun-users, not gun-makers.
Or such is the defense used by both the gun-manufacturers and The Pirate Bay.
The whole point of a legal system/justice dept. is to handle exceptional cases of law...
What?! Why is handling "exceptional cases of law" the "whole point" of a legal system? Of course it is not! A decent legal system is consistent in both its laws, and their application — in all (or most) cases, not just the spectacular heists you read about on front pages. That said, TPB with its flaunting is already an exceptional and spectacular case anyway.
Lastly, the jump between impacts of economic and violent crimes may be difficult to imagine, but there is a fairly-determinable cost of human life. And, although counted by "soul-less" bean-counters working for governments and insurance companies, it is based on what people themselves are willing to pay (as gauged by, say, consumers' willingness to spend on optional safety equipment like airbags). So, each $129K lost to copyright violations, is, according to Time-quoted Standford scientists, worth a year of human life (even more, according to insurers). And each $million lost is murder (not just "killing").
You'll note that McCain himself didn't seem to eager to buy his own insurance rather than take his employers.
A more bogus statement is hard to find... How could McCain possibly switch to his own insurance — or even display notable reluctance to do so — if no such insurance plans are being offered to individuals, because no market exists for them, thanks to the decades of government's insistence, the insurance must go either through employers or, uhm, the government?
Going off-tangent (a little), if you and your "inspiring" president have your way, US Health Care will be as awful (and embarrassing) as US Public Schools (or highways, or trains, or prisons, or anything else the government does, really). And here, BTW, the major proponent's hypocrisy can be seen very easily. Despite pushing $100bln inside "stimulus" package for "education" and banning use of of that money on private schools, Obama sends his own daughters to a private one... And so did Clintons...
The most efficiently run medical payment service in this country right now is medicare with over 95% efficiency in terms of money going to treatment vs. overhead.
Another bogus statement — the number is often-cited and quoted to the point of self-perpetuation, but makes little sense, for it is derived from Medicare's Board of Trustees' own reports. They count overhead costs and the care costs themselves, and — spending somebody else's money — pay no attention to:
according to a confidential draft of a federal inspector general's report, those claims of success, which earned Medicare wide praise from lawmakers, were misleading.
In calculating the agency's rate of improper payments, Medicare officials told outside auditors to ignore government policies that would have accurately measured fraud, according to the report. For example, auditors were told not to compare invoices from salespeople against doctors' records, as required by law, to make sure that medical equipment went to actual patients.
As a result, Medicare did not detect that more than one-third of spending for wheelchairs, oxygen supplies and other medical equipment in its 2006 fiscal year was improper, according to the report. Based on data in other Medicare reports, that would be about $2.8 billion in improper spending.
Whether or not the $2.8 billion is accurate, the report touches on only a small subset of Medicare-paid items — why would waste/fraud in other areas be much different? Sure, private plans have to spend on advertising (Medicare does plenty of lobbying too), but do you wish for the government to provide us all with, say, food — to save the monies currently going to restaurants' advertising and supermarket circulars?
copyright infringement is *not* legally the same thing as theft.
I was talking about "theft" as in: "Thou Shalt Not Steal," — not as detailed in some criminal code somewhere (volume Z, chapter Y). This particular maxim is shared by all surviving civilization, not just our "Judeo-Christian" one.
If the 10 Commandments were a "living document", the "thou shall not violate copyrights" would've been much easier to find in there, than finding the "States shall not limit abortions" in the US Constitution.
The overlap between people agreeing with "The Pirate Bay" (as they earlier agreed with Napster), and disagreeing with gun-makers and retailers using the exact same defense, is, probably, above 90%... And most gun-buyers buy them for legitimate purpose, I might add, whereas only a tiny fraction of TPB-facilitated P2P traffic is legitimate.
TPB's service does not violate copyrights, people violate copyrights, right?
The hypocrisy is sad — both of my links have to do with New York, but try asking NewYorkCountyLawyer, for example, whether he dislikes Mike Bloomberg's harassment of gun-retailers as much as he dislikes RIAA's harassment of copyright violators, or even whether he dislikes it at all...
Slashdot Mirror
The problem was, all criticism of Diebold — however legitimate — was coming from people with "Bush was appointed" and "Elections Stolen" on their T-shirts. This discounted their opinions down to zero, because they were viewed as partisan hacks.
Now that the opposite side has won the elections (despite dire predictions of Diebold-enabled vote-stealing), these same people have calmed down and are able to present their case properly — without sliding into Impeach Now!!! hysteria.
Yes, indeed. Today we set to find out, whether we can really build a Quassam rocket on a budget.
Tune in for the next week's episode, when we see, if we can successfully hit police station with it.
Preferring — in statistically significant numbers — fields other than science is innate lack of ability. Ability to prefer science, if you will. There is no difference.
The above rhetorical question implies, the submitter/editor disagree with mathematical methods. For Slashdot, that's quite a shocker... From the linked posting:
A particular math theory may or may not be flawed, but do we really prefer "subjective beliefs" (a.k.a. "hunches") around here?
The above opinion was deemed sexist enough for the person holding it to resign as Harvard's President in 2005.
But this one:
is just fine?
Having been contributing to Open Source for over a decade myself, I'm long past your stage. It is only "free" if your own time is worthless. Mine is not. If I spend hours porting ffmpeg-2008FOO to FreeBSD to make, say, mplayer work well and then realize, that I must repeat most of that porting effort to make cinerella (which comes with its own, slightly different ffmpeg-2008BAR) build correctly, I will wonder, why the heck is not there ffmpeg-1.0 (or ffmpeg-0.4, or whatever), which can be shared by all ffmpeg-using applications.
And if my wondering is answered by the authors, that they are too important to concern themselves with Release Engineering, I'll be upset. Upset enough, that I'd wish, their project did not exist at all — and did not "crowd-out" someone else's attempt to do the same thing properly.
If I were given a broken gift, and the gift-giver refused to help me exchange it — claiming, they are too busy and I should be happy with what I got — I'd become upset too, yes. Upset enough to mention it, if the topic ever came up in another conversation.
To anyone involved in maintaining ports of third-party software to a particular OS (or even a distro), working with a release of that software is quite important. Unfortunately, ffmpeg-developers couldn't be bothered with such things. Here is a rather arrogant response I got two years ago from them:
He further explains their stance as:
If, indeed, this idiotic view has been retired for good — great!.
Even when it is this simple, who is going to do this? For the customer — even if they had the source, this wouldn't be trivial for OLPC's target audience (poor people, relying on charity to connect to the Internet — if they had the knowledge to compile things, they would've been gainfully employed).
And so it would have to be the vendor/author of the software...
Yes... Except in cases, when the installer performs ``uname -a'' and tells you: "This platform is not supported." Yes, this is fixable. By whom — see above...
The GGP said: "any other President". Hence it was logical to wonder, if he was as tolerant towards corruption under Bush (who, BTW, had no problems appointing cabinet members without problems of tax-dodging).
5 posts later, you finally got my point...
Whoever sells (a.k.a. vends) the laptops is the vendor. They will port the OS and whatever software, that's bundled with the device itself. This is not the problem.
The problem is third-party applications...
Obviously, the apps included in the distribution would be ported by the vendor — this is not a concern regardless of whether the OS/GUI/bundled apps are open source or not. I was talking about third-party applications, which, presumably exist by now...
Even those written in Python will require testing. Those written in C or C++ will require some porting effort — and will not "simply work".
Yes, as a matter of fact, I have. And I not-so-humbly think, I know more than 99.9% of Slashdot users (including yourself) about such things...
Did I say "well written" somewhere? Or "open source"? I did not... Even if we are talking about a vendor porting their own app (which is "open source" to them), it is far from certain, that it is "well written". And even if it were, they are likely to charge a non-trivial sum for a port to a new hardware architecture. Which means, a person, who bought an older OLPC will have to pay for using the same application on the new hardware.
And, boy, is "well written" a high benchmark to clear! A big portion of applications breaks, for example, when people move from one major GCC release to another. If you told their authors, that the apps are not "well written", you would've been flamed to crisp...
Just like JFK, Barack Obama is a product of Chicago Political Machine(TM) — easily the most corrupt local political system in the nation (think Blagojevich)... I'd rather JFK and Obama were both flukes — having the nation's President come from such gutters as a rule is rather disgraceful...
Were you as forgiving towards the previous President? More importantly, were the moderators?
What does such a move mean for backward compatibility? Aren't their applications already written with the existing OLPC in mind? I am afraid, it will not be as easy as "just recompile" to port some of them and those, who have already paid for theirs may have to pay again to be able to use them on the new hardware...
Marketing over national security (as well as other real issues) is how Obama got elected in the first place. Even if we continue to give him the benefit of the doubt regarding past nasty associations (racist pastor Wright, terrorists Bill and Bernardine Ayers, governor Blagojevich), and not (yet?) question his personal integrity, the man's lack of experience (or, more harshly, lack of substance) is showing already: many of his appointees and would-be appointees are either a disgrace already or on their way to infamy. Today FBI raided the office of Vivek Kundra...
Actually, no, most of the people voting for Obama didn't know some very basic things about him or the opposition. And what they did know, was often wrong.
In the particularly striking example, the vast majority attributed the infamous I can see Russia from my house! to Sarah Palin, when, in fact, the phrase was coined by Saturday Night Live, who were mocking her lack of foreign policy experience, while willfully ignoring Joe Biden's — whom Obama picked for the supposed foreign policy expertise — lunacies.
What's much worse, though, is that these supposedly educated and well-versed people are now trying their damnest to keep the truth from becoming known — people trying to add mentions of Obama's association with (unrepentant) terrorist Ayers to Obama's Wikipedia entry have their changes reverted within minutes and their accounts banned for days...
How? USSR — during those times — has killed over 30 million of its own citizens, either by direct execution or via truly hard labor in harsh conditions. What did Blacks suffer — discrimination? Does not compare — except in the minds of the Russian propagandists, who have — since Brezhnev's days at least — always countered the obvious advantages of America with: "Yea, but they beat up negros!" And now, with your own country being among the most racist — Chernozhopye huzhe zhidov — you defend KGB's murderers by attempting to equate them with America's racists? Pathetic — you don't even have that counter-argument any more.
As for my associating Russia with the USSR — well, today's Russia has a KGB man in charge and, among other things, has restored the monument of the very first executioner. For all anybody should care, they are one and the same.
To anyone familiar with Russian methods, the solution is obvious — capture the criminals and put them into special prison, from where they'll have to work for the State in order to be "awarded" something like a pack of cigarettes, or a can of condensed milk.
They've done worse before — forcing completely innocent people to work on things like fighter planes and nuclear weapons on threat of immediate execution or slow wasting away at a labor camp, so why not do this to people actually deserving punishment?
The stupid US may be ordering its hackers to stay away from computers, but Russia would not do such a thing...
And rightly so. Cyber security has nothing to do with flying planes, and so it did not belong to the US Air Force any more than to the Agriculture Department.
Yes, I am well aware that military branches have overlapping services (such as Marines having their own planes), but for USAF to have the main anti-hacking command — beyond what's needed to secure their own networks — would've been just wrong. See also "mission creep"...
McCain is not self-employed. He is paid a substantial salary of a US Senator. The package includes wonderful health insulation — getting off it in favor of a hard to find and expensive (due to the cited near-absence of market) private plan would've been either crazy or grandstanding. And the man, for all his other flaws, is neither...
And before you accuse him of hypocrisy again, let me remind you, that he was not saying, people should ditch their existing employer-based plans. His proposal was to stop the government subsidy for them, in favor of subsidizing individuals.
Yes, and — as an owner of my own company — I have one (with a $10K/year deductible, that my paternalistic Massachusetts is now forcing me to lower). Would I rather have a better plan for free? Sure! And so would everybody — as long as somebody else is paying for it. But I don't think, government providing it is a good idea — quite the opposite, in fact.
First of all, let me thank you for acknowledging, that the hypocrisy I pointed out actually exists. Now let's go back to discussing, whether it is worth more of your concern...
The very first mistake in your reply is the use of the term "murder" instead of "kill". "Murder" is a crime, "killing" — not necessarily so. Guns are specifically designed to kill. That some of the killings end up being murders is the responsibility of the gun-users, not gun-makers.
Or such is the defense used by both the gun-manufacturers and The Pirate Bay.
What?! Why is handling "exceptional cases of law" the "whole point" of a legal system? Of course it is not! A decent legal system is consistent in both its laws, and their application — in all (or most) cases, not just the spectacular heists you read about on front pages. That said, TPB with its flaunting is already an exceptional and spectacular case anyway.
Lastly, the jump between impacts of economic and violent crimes may be difficult to imagine, but there is a fairly-determinable cost of human life. And, although counted by "soul-less" bean-counters working for governments and insurance companies, it is based on what people themselves are willing to pay (as gauged by, say, consumers' willingness to spend on optional safety equipment like airbags). So, each $129K lost to copyright violations, is, according to Time-quoted Standford scientists, worth a year of human life (even more, according to insurers). And each $million lost is murder (not just "killing").
A more bogus statement is hard to find... How could McCain possibly switch to his own insurance — or even display notable reluctance to do so — if no such insurance plans are being offered to individuals, because no market exists for them, thanks to the decades of government's insistence, the insurance must go either through employers or, uhm, the government?
Going off-tangent (a little), if you and your "inspiring" president have your way, US Health Care will be as awful (and embarrassing) as US Public Schools (or highways, or trains, or prisons, or anything else the government does, really). And here, BTW, the major proponent's hypocrisy can be seen very easily. Despite pushing $100bln inside "stimulus" package for "education" and banning use of of that money on private schools, Obama sends his own daughters to a private one... And so did Clintons...
Another bogus statement — the number is often-cited and quoted to the point of self-perpetuation, but makes little sense, for it is derived from Medicare's Board of Trustees' own reports. They count overhead costs and the care costs themselves, and — spending somebody else's money — pay no attention to:
Here, from "your own" newspaper:
Whether or not the $2.8 billion is accurate, the report touches on only a small subset of Medicare-paid items — why would waste/fraud in other areas be much different? Sure, private plans have to spend on advertising (Medicare does plenty of lobbying too), but do you wish for the government to provide us all with, say, food — to save the monies currently going to restaurants' advertising and supermarket circulars?
I was talking about "theft" as in: "Thou Shalt Not Steal," — not as detailed in some criminal code somewhere (volume Z, chapter Y). This particular maxim is shared by all surviving civilization, not just our "Judeo-Christian" one.
If the 10 Commandments were a "living document", the "thou shall not violate copyrights" would've been much easier to find in there, than finding the "States shall not limit abortions" in the US Constitution.
The overlap between people agreeing with "The Pirate Bay" (as they earlier agreed with Napster), and disagreeing with gun-makers and retailers using the exact same defense, is, probably, above 90%... And most gun-buyers buy them for legitimate purpose, I might add, whereas only a tiny fraction of TPB-facilitated P2P traffic is legitimate.
TPB's service does not violate copyrights, people violate copyrights, right?
The hypocrisy is sad — both of my links have to do with New York, but try asking NewYorkCountyLawyer, for example, whether he dislikes Mike Bloomberg's harassment of gun-retailers as much as he dislikes RIAA's harassment of copyright violators, or even whether he dislikes it at all...