Write the word "never" (in your local language) on a piece of paper, and that mechanical device tells pretty accurately (n most parts of the world) when the ISS is overhead.
I'm sure there were quite a bit of legit stuff on torrentz.eu, too. I don't see how you can extrapolate from one legit video to them all. Also, I don't believe you actually went trhough all those 23M hits this quickly.
Google gives copyright holders the option to collect any advertising revenue from infringing content.
That's fairly recent. Less than a year? For a decade, they did not. Also, any sort of decency requires that one asks the copyright holder first, before starting to distribute the copyrighted material...
Torrentz.eu... not so much.
So if torrentz.eu would offer ad revenue to the copyright holder, all would be ok? The copyright holder has no say in the matter?
Why would linking to links be any safer, legally? Is it not the criminal [sic?] intent that is the differentiator here. Google lacks it, torrentz.eu has [1] it.
[1] I actually don't know. torrentz.eu cannot be reached right now, so I cannot gauge their attitude. Who knows, perhaps they also have a take-down notice page?
Don't they host the metadata that allow the download of the disputed data? Would not removing the torrent (search result) upon request be sufficient to keep torrentz.eu unblocked?
Wait, this search engine located at youtube.com - is that not primarly used for pirating music and videos? At least that is what I use it for, almost to 99%. And youtube.com is a service run by Google.
How is the "editing some data on your own equipment" relevant here? Unless you do it by mistake, or in research purposes. But we are here talking about deliberately bypassing a security system, in order to get a paid service you have not paid for. Unless one argues the patches fall under "fair use" (nobody has, that I have seen), I don't understand how applying them is not stealing. Now MS should have made an effort in the security here (turns out security by obscurity is bad security, after all...) , and I don't suggest any effort whatsoever should be used from the law enforcement side to hunt down the leachers. The only victim is MS, and they are in a position to fix this. But that doesn't make the leaching any less illegal, does it?
So what is this system where markets are not regulated called, then?
I maintain that what is described above is just precisely a working captialist system. What you describe is just the alternative route of events: with the loss of Stross' novels, an competitive channel springs up, offering them to the public (i.e. not the event of Amazon relenting, and maintaining its monopoly). If this does not happen, and Stross cannot stay solvent, it is not a fault of the system, but the law of supply and demand working against Stross.
The suggestion that Amazon can maintain its dictatorial monopoly is ridiculous and there are an endless list of examples countering it in economical history. Granted, one effective way of dismanteling a dicatorial monopoly is just this: make the genereal populus upset about it, and alternatives tend to spring up faster.
(An apology to Charlie Stross is appropriate here - the label "Stross" is here used to describe the phenomena, not the author. And same goes for the label "Amazon")
Should not the analogy continue a bit further with: and when there are no more Charlie Stross novels, the customers can not buy them, making Amazon's incomes diminish. At which time they have to pay more to the Charlie Strosses out there.
Is this not just precise how capitalism is supposed to work?
Of course everyone is biased. I haven't still met a teacher who would have taught both versions. I just made an observation that categorically all my English teachers were biased, for some reason, towards the British version to refute GP's suggestion that British English is "standard" only in the Commonwealth. Of course, chance could have thrown all four teachers I have had from the British lot. But its noteworthy that none of them were native speakers. Also, I am sure that the cultural imperialism of Window's spellcheck defaults might have evened out the odds a bit nowdays:)
The remainder have been included because the British were found to have achieved some sort of military presence in the territory - however transitory -
Clearly we seem to have different meanings for the word "conquered". But I guess that is just my bad English:) My point was that the British culture was not introduced by this "conquest", but through other means.
the English to which you refer is only "standard" among Commonwealth countries, and is not a global one.
I beg to disagree. At least in my school, using the American English was considered an error. One teacher relented enough to admit that American English, whilst not wrong as such, should at least not be mixed up with British English in the same text: "so pick one, and don't pick the American version" was her advice. This was not a country with English as native language, nor was it a part of the Commonwealth. And unless the history classes were propaganda, never even been conquered by the Brits.
The crime victim [sic] is not in this loop at all... Any operator in the USA is required by law to yield lawful intercept requests from the government (i.e. police). Arguing here that the networks are not sold to the government, but independent busineses is just the sort of white-washing/denialism that GP was supposedly opposed to. Look e.g. at what happened with the NSN equipment in Iran a few yeas back... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_Solutions_and_Networks#Lawful_interception_controversy
None of this "I was just following orders/trying to make money" shit. You knowingly sold stuff to a government who is going to use it for things which are likely illegal in your own country.
So you argue that companies like say Ericsson or NSN should not sell mobile network equipment to e.g. the USA, as that government consistently uses the legal intercept possibilities of the equipment for the purpose of tracking down criminals they eventually kill (here in the civilized world, the death penalty is considered a human rights violation). While at the same time, it is completely OK for Huawei or Motorola to sell similar stuff, also to the USA? If you really meant that, then I do salute your moral backbone. But I do hope you notced the slippery slope in your fanatic-sounding argumentation.
The topic is fat europeans, so the money is probably not an issue. Last doctor's bill I had was 13 euro (for a busted knee). Of course, this is just the fee in one of the european countries. YMMV.
The first use of spin-valve sensors in hard disk drive read heads was in the IBM ® Deskstar 16GP Titan, which was released in late 1997 with 16.8 GB of storage.
Thankyou for that. Now I know SxSW is not a pop concert (because an anonymous person on the internet told me so). If I only got ten thousand replies like yours, I could start guessing what it actually is, by process of elimination.
if Linus had an on going issue with this guy he should have addressed it directly
As I read TFAs, he didn't have an ongoing issue. Just a repeating one, which -knowing Linus- I'd wager he had already addressed.
instead of the starting with the sweeping generalization "By their you mean ".
That is not a generalization. Quite the opposite. Steven, who Linus replied to, did the generalization to protect the guilty.
Waiting for something to break and then throwing a tantrum
It doesn't seem anyone was waitng for stuff to break. Borislav just noticed an issue that systemd parses kernel command line in a sub-optimal manner.
and saying "its my ball I'm not letting you play with it now", is as childish as it seems.
If Linus feels Kay's contributes persistently are sub par not due to code quality but coder attitude, what else can he do?
A good manager should have pulled this guy up a long time ago and said "Don't try any of that shit any more. If you do here is what is going to happen..". A bad manager blows up about it in public.
But Linus is not Kay's manager. This is an open source project.
Perhaps you now see gweihir's point? Not that gweihir expressed it as elegantly as Linus expressed his...
Key, I'm f*cking tired of the fact that you don't fix problems in the code *you* write, so that the kernel then has to work around the problems you cause. Greg - just for your information, I will *not* be merging any code from Kay into the kernel until this constant pattern is fixed.
I read it that what needs fixing here is the attitude, not just the bug.
Slashdot Mirror
Write the word "never" (in your local language) on a piece of paper, and that mechanical device tells pretty accurately (n most parts of the world) when the ISS is overhead.
Doesn't these polls usually go:
"Where's the Most Unusual Place You've had sex?"
Agreed, on all points.
Don't you just hate it too, when a good argument ends up in the realization that it was only an argument about semantics :( :)
Sorry for my bad English
I'm sure there were quite a bit of legit stuff on torrentz.eu, too. I don't see how you can extrapolate from one legit video to them all.
Also, I don't believe you actually went trhough all those 23M hits this quickly.
Google gives copyright holders the option to collect any advertising revenue from infringing content.
That's fairly recent. Less than a year? For a decade, they did not. Also, any sort of decency requires that one asks the copyright holder first, before starting to distribute the copyrighted material...
Torrentz.eu... not so much.
So if torrentz.eu would offer ad revenue to the copyright holder, all would be ok? The copyright holder has no say in the matter?
Why would linking to links be any safer, legally? Is it not the criminal [sic?] intent that is the differentiator here. Google lacks it, torrentz.eu has [1] it.
[1] I actually don't know. torrentz.eu cannot be reached right now, so I cannot gauge their attitude. Who knows, perhaps they also have a take-down notice page?
Don't they host the metadata that allow the download of the disputed data? Would not removing the torrent (search result) upon request be sufficient to keep torrentz.eu unblocked?
http://xkcd.com/1053/ :(
Slipping into elitism is so easy.
Wait, this search engine located at youtube.com - is that not primarly used for pirating music and videos? At least that is what I use it for, almost to 99%. And youtube.com is a service run by Google.
How is the "editing some data on your own equipment" relevant here? Unless you do it by mistake, or in research purposes.
But we are here talking about deliberately bypassing a security system, in order to get a paid service you have not paid for. Unless one argues the patches fall under "fair use" (nobody has, that I have seen), I don't understand how applying them is not stealing.
Now MS should have made an effort in the security here (turns out security by obscurity is bad security, after all...) , and I don't suggest any effort whatsoever should be used from the law enforcement side to hunt down the leachers. The only victim is MS, and they are in a position to fix this. But that doesn't make the leaching any less illegal, does it?
So what is this system where markets are not regulated called, then?
I maintain that what is described above is just precisely a working captialist system. What you describe is just the alternative route of events: with the loss of Stross' novels, an competitive channel springs up, offering them to the public (i.e. not the event of Amazon relenting, and maintaining its monopoly). If this does not happen, and Stross cannot stay solvent, it is not a fault of the system, but the law of supply and demand working against Stross.
The suggestion that Amazon can maintain its dictatorial monopoly is ridiculous and there are an endless list of examples countering it in economical history. Granted, one effective way of dismanteling a dicatorial monopoly is just this: make the genereal populus upset about it, and alternatives tend to spring up faster.
(An apology to Charlie Stross is appropriate here - the label "Stross" is here used to describe the phenomena, not the author. And same goes for the label "Amazon")
What's illegal about it? Is it illegal to use Microsoft's provided tools to edit my registry
... to get a service you don't have a license for. How is that not illegal?
Should not the analogy continue a bit further with:
and when there are no more Charlie Stross novels, the customers can not buy them, making Amazon's incomes diminish. At which time they have to pay more to the Charlie Strosses out there.
Is this not just precise how capitalism is supposed to work?
Of course everyone is biased. I haven't still met a teacher who would have taught both versions. :)
I just made an observation that categorically all my English teachers were biased, for some reason, towards the British version to refute GP's suggestion that British English is "standard" only in the Commonwealth.
Of course, chance could have thrown all four teachers I have had from the British lot. But its noteworthy that none of them were native speakers.
Also, I am sure that the cultural imperialism of Window's spellcheck defaults might have evened out the odds a bit nowdays
from the link
The remainder have been included because the British were found to have achieved some sort of military presence in the territory - however transitory -
Clearly we seem to have different meanings for the word "conquered". But I guess that is just my bad English :)
My point was that the British culture was not introduced by this "conquest", but through other means.
the English to which you refer is only "standard" among Commonwealth countries, and is not a global one.
I beg to disagree. At least in my school, using the American English was considered an error. One teacher relented enough to admit that American English, whilst not wrong as such, should at least not be mixed up with British English in the same text: "so pick one, and don't pick the American version" was her advice.
This was not a country with English as native language, nor was it a part of the Commonwealth. And unless the history classes were propaganda, never even been conquered by the Brits.
The crime victim [sic] is not in this loop at all...
Any operator in the USA is required by law to yield lawful intercept requests from the government (i.e. police). Arguing here that the networks are not sold to the government, but independent busineses is just the sort of white-washing/denialism that GP was supposedly opposed to. Look e.g. at what happened with the NSN equipment in Iran a few yeas back... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_Solutions_and_Networks#Lawful_interception_controversy
None of this "I was just following orders/trying to make money" shit. You knowingly sold stuff to a government who is going to use it for things which are likely illegal in your own country.
So you argue that companies like say Ericsson or NSN should not sell mobile network equipment to e.g. the USA, as that government consistently uses the legal intercept possibilities of the equipment for the purpose of tracking down criminals they eventually kill (here in the civilized world, the death penalty is considered a human rights violation). While at the same time, it is completely OK for Huawei or Motorola to sell similar stuff, also to the USA?
If you really meant that, then I do salute your moral backbone. But I do hope you notced the slippery slope in your fanatic-sounding argumentation.
The topic is fat europeans, so the money is probably not an issue. Last doctor's bill I had was 13 euro (for a busted knee). Of course, this is just the fee in one of the european countries. YMMV.
TFA:
The first use of spin-valve sensors in hard disk drive read heads was in the IBM ® Deskstar 16GP Titan, which was released in late 1997 with 16.8 GB of storage.
1997. That's why I was scratching my head and wondering what radical expansion. In my view, HDDs have expanded on a steady exponential curve in size since ... forever.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hard_drive_capacity_over_time.svg
The internet is destroying my faith - not my faith in God, but in humanity.
Ok, then.
Then all we need is a printer to hook up to that serial port.
Thankyou for that.
Now I know SxSW is not a pop concert (because an anonymous person on the internet told me so). If I only got ten thousand replies like yours, I could start guessing what it actually is, by process of elimination.
Well, here goes:
if Linus had an on going issue with this guy he should have addressed it directly
As I read TFAs, he didn't have an ongoing issue. Just a repeating one, which -knowing Linus- I'd wager he had already addressed.
instead of the starting with the sweeping generalization "By their you mean ".
That is not a generalization. Quite the opposite. Steven, who Linus replied to, did the generalization to protect the guilty.
Waiting for something to break and then throwing a tantrum
It doesn't seem anyone was waitng for stuff to break. Borislav just noticed an issue that systemd parses kernel command line in a sub-optimal manner.
and saying "its my ball I'm not letting you play with it now", is as childish as it seems.
If Linus feels Kay's contributes persistently are sub par not due to code quality but coder attitude, what else can he do?
A good manager should have pulled this guy up a long time ago and said "Don't try any of that shit any more. If you do here is what is going to happen..". A bad manager blows up about it in public.
But Linus is not Kay's manager. This is an open source project.
Perhaps you now see gweihir's point? Not that gweihir expressed it as elegantly as Linus expressed his...
Not quite:
Key, I'm f*cking tired of the fact that you don't fix problems in the
code *you* write, so that the kernel then has to work around the
problems you cause.
Greg - just for your information, I will *not* be merging any code
from Kay into the kernel until this constant pattern is fixed.
I read it that what needs fixing here is the attitude, not just the bug.