They are people who understand who broken copyright is and how beneficial something like TPB is to society, and worked to make it available in light of numerous lawsuits and countries trying to shut it down.
What most are not OK with is the length (120 years after the death of the author, IIRC), and the depth. Why should this protection extend to preventing someone from downloading MP3's of a CD they have already paid for?
Can you think of any good reason? Because that is one of many examples (others being better quality products, lack of DRM, lack of availability) that justify piracy, and is something the pirate bay helped facilitate, as a service to the entire online community.
Most people are not against copyright as a principle, and agree with allowing the author some time and protection to profit. But the way things are now is ridiculous.
A man should never be in jail for something like this. It's abhorrent.
Sorry, but the loss of profit is negligible and irrelevant. Aside from the fact that piracy results in a net profit to make up for any loss, that how it's been for the last 12 years or so, and that's how it's going to continue to be.
Yes, I am taking the copy without paying for it, and I do so proudly.
When I was broke, I couldn't afford to see most movies, TV shows etc. I pirated them. Having access to this stuff has only helped me, and certainly has not helped the content creators as I could not have paid for it anyway.
It's not a sense of entitlement, but since it is freely available and I don't see it as hurting anyone, I don't see what the problem is in taking advantage of an opportunity.
More to your point, art shouldn't need this ridiculous protection. Throughout most of history artists made a living because of their performance, or their execution. No one could paint like Dali or Picaso, write like Shakespeare or compose like Mozart.
If you are good, people will pay for it. To protect every single idea as precious and to limit sharing is ridiculous, and not a sustainable model as we advance as a society.
ALl this man did was help build a search enging allowing people to share.
This only benefits society.
There is no stealing, despite what some ignorant people unable to think for themselves claim.
Is there a loss in profit for original work? No doubt, but I would argue this is superseded by a) the increase in sales that piracy has been shown to affect, and b) the huge benefit to society by allowing information to be more freely accessible, to inspire and educate.
This shows IMHO a lack of understanding of how court tends to work. I think you should be right, but all too often the examples like you so readily dismissed will be taken out of context and misrepresented, resulting in more time and money and far from a guarantee of winning, despite being innocent.
OpenSSL did not take specific measures to counteract "defense" mechanisms in OBSD. That implies intent, and is downright disingenuous.
OpenBSD was famous for auditing all code in the base system. The famously deny they need any advanced security measure such as MAC, file signing, or even an ACL.
NetBSD tends to be a much more secure system, without any of the hype. Less reported vulnerabilities, veriexec, PaX (similar to W^X) and TrustedBSD extensions.
Feminism has the same common goal it always has, and people having differing opinions is simply what makes that up.
This is the part that you've got wrong.
'Feminism' used to be, in an abstract sense, fighting for equality. Modern feminism is no longer limited by that definition and several factions, for lack of a better word, seek to go much further beyond that.
No strawman either, I'd suggest you read up on what that actually means before you throw it around.
No, there is no victim blaming, just facts. His observation that women tend to react in a way that stimulates trolls, while men ignore or fight back has no implication of blame.
Modern feminism lacks a common goal like the earlier waves did. There are so many dissenting opinions all under the umbrella of feminism, many (most?) of which are not about getting equality.
I'm all for equality and fairness, but I've become very wary of 'feminism', or at least what it has mutated into.
I have to say it annoys me that all the alarmists who used to claim that soda emphatically did cause diabetes are correct. Not because they are correct, but because they used to insist upon it with no actual data to back it up.
See, the American Diabetes Association has it on their page as a myth that Sugar causes Type 2 diabetes, indicating it can lead to obesity which can cause Type 2 diabetes. WebMD has a similar passage.
That article is light on details. Previous research indicated that a high calorie diet has a link to Type 2 diabetes - Nothing specific to sugar.
There may now be research indicating something unique to sugar does in fact have at least a casual link to type 2 diabetes, but it's far from conclusive.
At this point, people insisting sugar causes T2 diabetes are still spreading FUD.
There are numerous reasons to limit sugar intake, and that shouldn't even be high on the list.
This is spoken as someone who for about 12 years chugged down at least a liter of soda a day and lived an otherwise healthy lifestyle. I was always annoyed at people who would insist that I was going to get Diabetes, when there was no evidence of that being likely.
If it turns out there is in fact a link, then that changes things. At the moment though that single press article about a study isn't conclusive, and until the FDA, ADA etc change their stance and the prevailing theory that it is a high caloric intake and weight gain that are linked, I don't see how it is responsible to claim sugar causes T2 diabetes.
Of cause, exercising caution is a whole different thing.
No, I'm telling you that if you don't want to believe me, just ask the experts.
Exactly. Your saying I should go and verify it myself, because you have not actually provided any evidence.
that goes directly against what the experts say about excess sugar consumption and insulin resistance
No, it really doesn't. Excess sugar consumption may not be healthy, but that doesn't mean there is an established causative link between excess sugar consumption and type 2 diabetes.
If there is proof of that, maybe you could provide a link?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, that's stupid. Depriving yourself for nonsense moral reasons. Baaaa.
It hasn't, and you don't seem to understand either of them.
I'm guessing it was perhaps 'coca' and 'cola'. As parent said, please try *a little bit*.
No. not parasites.
They are people who understand who broken copyright is and how beneficial something like TPB is to society, and worked to make it available in light of numerous lawsuits and countries trying to shut it down.
Most people agree with that, sort of.
What most are not OK with is the length (120 years after the death of the author, IIRC), and the depth. Why should this protection extend to preventing someone from downloading MP3's of a CD they have already paid for?
Can you think of any good reason? Because that is one of many examples (others being better quality products, lack of DRM, lack of availability) that justify piracy, and is something the pirate bay helped facilitate, as a service to the entire online community.
Most people are not against copyright as a principle, and agree with allowing the author some time and protection to profit. But the way things are now is ridiculous.
A man should never be in jail for something like this. It's abhorrent.
Guardians of the Galaxy features many colorful characters, that may well inspire ideas for a new franchise or universe.
It may not benefit society, but like all works it has potential.
Sorry, but the loss of profit is negligible and irrelevant. Aside from the fact that piracy results in a net profit to make up for any loss, that how it's been for the last 12 years or so, and that's how it's going to continue to be.
More importantly, that's how it *should* be.
Yes, I am taking the copy without paying for it, and I do so proudly.
When I was broke, I couldn't afford to see most movies, TV shows etc. I pirated them. Having access to this stuff has only helped me, and certainly has not helped the content creators as I could not have paid for it anyway.
It's not a sense of entitlement, but since it is freely available and I don't see it as hurting anyone, I don't see what the problem is in taking advantage of an opportunity.
More to your point, art shouldn't need this ridiculous protection. Throughout most of history artists made a living because of their performance, or their execution. No one could paint like Dali or Picaso, write like Shakespeare or compose like Mozart.
If you are good, people will pay for it. To protect every single idea as precious and to limit sharing is ridiculous, and not a sustainable model as we advance as a society.
ALl this man did was help build a search enging allowing people to share.
This only benefits society.
There is no stealing, despite what some ignorant people unable to think for themselves claim.
Is there a loss in profit for original work? No doubt, but I would argue this is superseded by a) the increase in sales that piracy has been shown to affect, and b) the huge benefit to society by allowing information to be more freely accessible, to inspire and educate.
This shows IMHO a lack of understanding of how court tends to work. I think you should be right, but all too often the examples like you so readily dismissed will be taken out of context and misrepresented, resulting in more time and money and far from a guarantee of winning, despite being innocent.
5/ OpenBSD assumes the world is a bad place. Linux is just hoping no one will do something bad.
Yes, by barricading all doors and windows. In the event someone does get in to do something bad, there is very little in place to protect against it.
No ACL, Auditing, MAC etc. Just very basic chroots and securelevels. Meh.
We had command line tools for managing packages, but not for searching and installing from a repository.
You should be embarrassed. You don't understand why, so I'll just be embarrassed for you.
What basis is there to assume there was?
OpenSSL did not take specific measures to counteract "defense" mechanisms in OBSD. That implies intent, and is downright disingenuous.
OpenBSD was famous for auditing all code in the base system. The famously deny they need any advanced security measure such as MAC, file signing, or even an ACL.
NetBSD tends to be a much more secure system, without any of the hype. Less reported vulnerabilities, veriexec, PaX (similar to W^X) and TrustedBSD extensions.
No, what they are is excellent OpenSSH maintainers.
The security of OpenBSD is often overrated by people who don't actually understand security.
For all their hyperbole, they were still vulnerable to Heartbleed.
Feminism has the same common goal it always has, and people having differing opinions is simply what makes that up.
This is the part that you've got wrong.
'Feminism' used to be, in an abstract sense, fighting for equality. Modern feminism is no longer limited by that definition and several factions, for lack of a better word, seek to go much further beyond that.
No strawman either, I'd suggest you read up on what that actually means before you throw it around.
Displaying ample cleavage is going to attract eyes. I would argue it is equally inappropriate to wear such a revealing outfit as it is to stare.
It can be pronounced day-mon as well, just as valid.
And you completely ignore his point because it hurts yours.
Which destroys your credibility.
No, there is no victim blaming, just facts. His observation that women tend to react in a way that stimulates trolls, while men ignore or fight back has no implication of blame.
Please don't twist peoples words like that.
The OP has a point, unfortunately.
Modern feminism lacks a common goal like the earlier waves did. There are so many dissenting opinions all under the umbrella of feminism, many (most?) of which are not about getting equality.
I'm all for equality and fairness, but I've become very wary of 'feminism', or at least what it has mutated into.
And that's fine.
All I'm saying is it is irresponsible and incorrect to claim that there is a direct link between sugar and diabetes, when at best there *might be*.
That is interesting, Thank you.
I have to say it annoys me that all the alarmists who used to claim that soda emphatically did cause diabetes are correct. Not because they are correct, but because they used to insist upon it with no actual data to back it up.
See, the American Diabetes Association has it on their page as a myth that Sugar causes Type 2 diabetes, indicating it can lead to obesity which can cause Type 2 diabetes. WebMD has a similar passage.
That article is light on details. Previous research indicated that a high calorie diet has a link to Type 2 diabetes - Nothing specific to sugar.
There may now be research indicating something unique to sugar does in fact have at least a casual link to type 2 diabetes, but it's far from conclusive.
At this point, people insisting sugar causes T2 diabetes are still spreading FUD.
There are numerous reasons to limit sugar intake, and that shouldn't even be high on the list.
This is spoken as someone who for about 12 years chugged down at least a liter of soda a day and lived an otherwise healthy lifestyle. I was always annoyed at people who would insist that I was going to get Diabetes, when there was no evidence of that being likely.
If it turns out there is in fact a link, then that changes things. At the moment though that single press article about a study isn't conclusive, and until the FDA, ADA etc change their stance and the prevailing theory that it is a high caloric intake and weight gain that are linked, I don't see how it is responsible to claim sugar causes T2 diabetes.
Of cause, exercising caution is a whole different thing.
No, I'm telling you that if you don't want to believe me, just ask the experts.
Exactly. Your saying I should go and verify it myself, because you have not actually provided any evidence.
that goes directly against what the experts say about excess sugar consumption and insulin resistance
No, it really doesn't. Excess sugar consumption may not be healthy, but that doesn't mean there is an established causative link between excess sugar consumption and type 2 diabetes.
If there is proof of that, maybe you could provide a link?