I find more plausible that they have uploaded some trojans to the site, before shutting it down. It's a technique the copyright industry have been doing for a while.
It might look like cruel move, but in these times fast reaction like this is the only way to protect the artists. Of course, these filthy pirates are now crying all kinds of bullshit like that they didn't host files but forms, but we all know that the site was used mainly for piracy.
firstly in many places there are only one or two available ISPs
I guess this is the problem. Here in Europe there is little need for a net neutrality legislation, because there are enough ISPs to choose from, some of them being neutral. Also, it helps a lot that any throttling has to be done transparently, so you know what you sign up for.
Even if they can cure it, aren't antibiotics reserved for serious illnesses that can't be cured by other means? You can cure a cold dozens of other ways without breeding a new strain of resistent bacteria, what the hell is wrong with you Americans?
If at least one will adopt net neutrality, then the users will have a choice. Prioritising internet traffic is not necessarily bad, giving services that require low lag, such as voip priority over, for example downloads is a useful that can save costs and enhance user experience, until the infrastructure is built up properly. The problem is when, intead of prioritisation, some ISPs simply throttle or ban some type of traffic, or even worse use their infrastructure to provide unfair advantage to other services they offer. Having an alternative ISP will ensure that the others won't abuse their powers, because in that case they would risk losing their userbase. Of course, this requires at least one company to become neutral, which is not guaranteed.
Freedom of speech DOES NOT include slander and libel and all kinds of other speech
So what are these "other speech" that should not be protected? It's called 'freedom of speech' not 'freedom of some speech that is not otherwise forbidden'. Just because all governments want to tell us what to say (and hypocratically give themselves the privilege of not falling under those rules), doesn't mean that we should accept oppression as normal.
While the term "cyberwarfare" is a bad analogy (as I have detailed in a previous topic), is it such a problem that a government wants to enforce security in certain infrastructural systems? The article writes nothing about what exactly is the problem with the plans.
While some games have good stories, it is very rare. Most of the time a story is put in because the designers feel they have to do some. Most games would, in fact, be better off if the effort was put into the actual gameplay. That doesn't mean games with stories are inherently bad, but shallow stories are all too often just disguises under which you are sold the exact same thing.
Censorship and punishing criminals are to different things. If you want them to die on a pole, the ideal course of action is to get a court order to subpoena the data of the uploaders, sue them, and if proven guilty punish them according to the law. No censorship required.
Proving that the most important parts are still the teachers themselves. Technology is just a tool, and as such can be used well, but can also be misused.
On the one hand you don't want the wrong people getting a hold of such data, but on the other hand the more people with the ability to create an effective preventive or curative measure against such organisms have access to the data, the better.
A cure would be more dangerous than the virus itself. Without the cure, only the crazy ones would use biological weapons, as they would die with the rest of the world. However, if someone were to develop a cure, they could release the virus while being safe themselves, and being the only ones with the cure would make them de facto leaders of the world. The only solution would be to release all knowledge about the cure, but you can't be sure that the first one to develop it will do so.
They had a lot of mustard gases and viral agents developed in WWI, which were never used.
But the ones that were used were already more than enough. The reason not to use some wasn't morality, but because other gases proved to be more efficient.
Slashdot Mirror
Many people use solar power for heating, which in winter can save a lot of electricity.
I find more plausible that they have uploaded some trojans to the site, before shutting it down. It's a technique the copyright industry have been doing for a while.
It might look like cruel move, but in these times fast reaction like this is the only way to protect the artists. Of course, these filthy pirates are now crying all kinds of bullshit like that they didn't host files but forms, but we all know that the site was used mainly for piracy.
This exactly. The "prediction" was not a result of science, but of political pressure.
They were using a probabilistic model yet they claimed that there is absolutely no chance of a major quake. In other words, they were lying.
firstly in many places there are only one or two available ISPs
I guess this is the problem. Here in Europe there is little need for a net neutrality legislation, because there are enough ISPs to choose from, some of them being neutral. Also, it helps a lot that any throttling has to be done transparently, so you know what you sign up for.
Even if they can cure it, aren't antibiotics reserved for serious illnesses that can't be cured by other means? You can cure a cold dozens of other ways without breeding a new strain of resistent bacteria, what the hell is wrong with you Americans?
Just ask for homeopathic medicine.
If at least one will adopt net neutrality, then the users will have a choice. Prioritising internet traffic is not necessarily bad, giving services that require low lag, such as voip priority over, for example downloads is a useful that can save costs and enhance user experience, until the infrastructure is built up properly. The problem is when, intead of prioritisation, some ISPs simply throttle or ban some type of traffic, or even worse use their infrastructure to provide unfair advantage to other services they offer. Having an alternative ISP will ensure that the others won't abuse their powers, because in that case they would risk losing their userbase. Of course, this requires at least one company to become neutral, which is not guaranteed.
They will just protest even more claiming that those electronics are "made of dead trees".
I would like to live in England if music piracy is the most serious crime over there.
Freedom of speech DOES NOT include slander and libel and all kinds of other speech
So what are these "other speech" that should not be protected? It's called 'freedom of speech' not 'freedom of some speech that is not otherwise forbidden'. Just because all governments want to tell us what to say (and hypocratically give themselves the privilege of not falling under those rules), doesn't mean that we should accept oppression as normal.
While the term "cyberwarfare" is a bad analogy (as I have detailed in a previous topic), is it such a problem that a government wants to enforce security in certain infrastructural systems? The article writes nothing about what exactly is the problem with the plans.
Let's not forget that there are also some of them in America.
While some games have good stories, it is very rare. Most of the time a story is put in because the designers feel they have to do some. Most games would, in fact, be better off if the effort was put into the actual gameplay. That doesn't mean games with stories are inherently bad, but shallow stories are all too often just disguises under which you are sold the exact same thing.
With a car analogy, that would be like removing the engine to reduce the weight.
I wonder how the people in the 10%-6% slot will feel about your plan, when the 5%-1% folks are dead, and they've just been promoted to the new top 5%.
Very true.
I'm not saying it's right for them to be able to do that but they do catch individuals engaged with corporate and even economic espionage that way.
Bullshit. Why would anyone try to smuggle data physically through the border instead of sending it on wire?
Unlike Libya, Tunisia didn't have a real revolution. The military still rules the country, it just changed its unpopular puppet to a new one.
Censorship and punishing criminals are to different things. If you want them to die on a pole, the ideal course of action is to get a court order to subpoena the data of the uploaders, sue them, and if proven guilty punish them according to the law. No censorship required.
Proving that the most important parts are still the teachers themselves. Technology is just a tool, and as such can be used well, but can also be misused.
Yes, you are.
Isn't this called electrolysis?
On the one hand you don't want the wrong people getting a hold of such data, but on the other hand the more people with the ability to create an effective preventive or curative measure against such organisms have access to the data, the better.
A cure would be more dangerous than the virus itself. Without the cure, only the crazy ones would use biological weapons, as they would die with the rest of the world. However, if someone were to develop a cure, they could release the virus while being safe themselves, and being the only ones with the cure would make them de facto leaders of the world. The only solution would be to release all knowledge about the cure, but you can't be sure that the first one to develop it will do so.
They had a lot of mustard gases and viral agents developed in WWI, which were never used.
But the ones that were used were already more than enough. The reason not to use some wasn't morality, but because other gases proved to be more efficient.