He operated a service that had potential for legitimate and illegitimate uses.
That still doesn't make it okay to knowingly profit significantly from the illegitimate uses. I'm not sure what's tough to understand about this. You live in a society - behave like it.
Last time I checked, online advertising wasn't illegal. In fact, Google and others are praised for their advertising-based "free to play" revenue models. Dotcom wasn't making money off copyright infringement, he was making money off advertisements on a file sharing service that had substantial non-infringing uses.
I can't believe anyone can be so intellectually dishonest. People are interested in sponsoring a site because eyeballs have been gathered by making in-demand content available. Therefore the quality of the content is part of the commercial exercise.
I've never understood why people non-anonymously go public with security flaws, except for personal gain. "Yeah I'm that guy, give me credz/a job... BUT I DID IT ALTRUISTICALLY!"
Either post directly under an alias, or - better - release to the IT or even general press.
I call for an end to excessive investigative powers in the name of the "national security" bogeyman, and I suggest that powerful leeches be dealt with whether or not they act with the support of the powers that be, and I'm a "fascist cunt"? Elaborate.
This is a spat between two sets of businessmen who want to make money distributing other people's work. While you're taking sides, the system continues.
If there's plenty of good evidence, why didn't they charge him on summons? Why did they break down his door special ops style?
Because the copyright cartel, which should be treated with as much contempt as he has been treated, infiltrated the justice system, and demonstrated such an incredible level of hubris that it managed to fuck up its own efforts.
He operated a file sharing service. What you shared on it wasn't his business.
It doesn't matter how often you argue that, it doesn't make it any more accurate. He has no right to the proportion of income he gained from illegal activities, especially not once he'd become aware that his service was being used that way.
By your logic, manufacturers of zip-lock bags don't deserve their income, because the product is used to facilitate drug trades.
They don't deserve any of the income gained from facilitation of drug trades, as long as drug-trading is illegal (let's assume for a moment that it shouldn't be legal). But unless you're arguing that ziplock bag manufacturers make a hefty profit from drug trades, the two aren't comparable.
Firstly, there's no difference between "law enforcement" and "national security" except in the eyes of egomaniacs who think that there brand of crime investigation (e.g. "terror" - seriously, could you get any more emotive?) is Totally More Important and should receive all sorts of Special Dispensations.
Secondly, intercepting data of suspected criminals - and there is a lot of good evidence that this guy was engaging in criminal activity - seems sensible. It shouldn't be all cloak and dagger, and "signals intelligence" should just be regarded as another way of collecting evidence.
Thirdly, people like this, who are essentially making huge bank by distributing other people's work, don't really deserve their income. They are the flip side of the copyright cartel.
The copyright cartel are also leeches and ought to be just as thoroughly investigated for their dirty bribery and lawyering practices.
Why do geeks love the "all or nothing" false dichotomy? Easiest of all would be for me to just sit in a room all day having everything delivered to me and never having to travel at all, but do you know why I don't do that?
1) Except that that's not the reporter's account, and it's getting pretty boring to hear Tesla+fanboys try sooooo hard to discredit someone simply because he was driving like anyone would normally drive a car and he found out that one car isn't quite suited for driving like that;
2) Even so, when you're doing an independent test, you rely on independent logging.
Is this the car where a reporter failed to make a simple journey and Musk published misleading charts which didn't even take account of the wheel diameter, then a big deal was made out of a repeat which was done in substantially different conditions, then when another group of bitter owners tried (again without reproducing original conditions), one car wouldn't charge until it had received a "firmware update"?
I don't think the internal combustion engine has much to worry about just yet.
1. A civilised society provides healthcare to all people, including criminals;
2. Merely "feeling" something and actually having a gender identity disorder are completely different, and thank you for illustrating why we don't have laypeople either building jet planes or practising medicine.
"Oaths" are substitutes for reason. If you cannot convince a person to do something in good conscience, you tell them that having a conscience is not their department. For some reason, it's really easy to take away personhood with this approach- some fault in our evolution has made it really easy for leaders to make underlings show or support mindless allegiance.
Are you saying that literature does not acknowledge transgendered people, or that it defines "man" as "having meat and two veg"? Because history is full of explicit descriptions of certain people as having mixed gender features, *beyond* mere sexual preference. Indeed, some parts of Islam consider transgenderism as more "normal" than homosexuality - so mukhannathun, who seem merely to have transgender characteristics in hadith, are regarded in modern Iran as "cured" homosexuals.
Anyway, pre-20th century terms to describe human characteristics - "race", "hysteria", "invert",... - are all so absurdly unscientific that we have eliminated them from modern discourse. So, while a hundred years ago we religiously assumed that "man" should mean "attracted to women", a hundred years ago it was also common to assume that "man" should mean "has meat and two veg". Now we see that the concepts of sexuality and gender are rather more fucking complex. As usual, more conservative members of society think about 200 years in the past, so it will take them a while to catch up - by which time the rest of the world will be 200 years further ahead.
It would be obtuse, well into the 21st century, to entertain the 19th century notion of "race". But go ahead, if you want - billions of people still entertain the several thousand year old dream of a sky fairy.
Slashdot Mirror
He operated a service that had potential for legitimate and illegitimate uses.
That still doesn't make it okay to knowingly profit significantly from the illegitimate uses. I'm not sure what's tough to understand about this. You live in a society - behave like it.
Last time I checked, online advertising wasn't illegal. In fact, Google and others are praised for their advertising-based "free to play" revenue models. Dotcom wasn't making money off copyright infringement, he was making money off advertisements on a file sharing service that had substantial non-infringing uses.
I can't believe anyone can be so intellectually dishonest. People are interested in sponsoring a site because eyeballs have been gathered by making in-demand content available. Therefore the quality of the content is part of the commercial exercise.
I've never understood why people non-anonymously go public with security flaws, except for personal gain. "Yeah I'm that guy, give me credz/a job... BUT I DID IT ALTRUISTICALLY!"
Either post directly under an alias, or - better - release to the IT or even general press.
I call for an end to excessive investigative powers in the name of the "national security" bogeyman, and I suggest that powerful leeches be dealt with whether or not they act with the support of the powers that be, and I'm a "fascist cunt"? Elaborate.
This is a spat between two sets of businessmen who want to make money distributing other people's work. While you're taking sides, the system continues.
If there's plenty of good evidence, why didn't they charge him on summons? Why did they break down his door special ops style?
Because the copyright cartel, which should be treated with as much contempt as he has been treated, infiltrated the justice system, and demonstrated such an incredible level of hubris that it managed to fuck up its own efforts.
He operated a file sharing service. What you shared on it wasn't his business.
It doesn't matter how often you argue that, it doesn't make it any more accurate. He has no right to the proportion of income he gained from illegal activities, especially not once he'd become aware that his service was being used that way.
By your logic, manufacturers of zip-lock bags don't deserve their income, because the product is used to facilitate drug trades.
They don't deserve any of the income gained from facilitation of drug trades, as long as drug-trading is illegal (let's assume for a moment that it shouldn't be legal). But unless you're arguing that ziplock bag manufacturers make a hefty profit from drug trades, the two aren't comparable.
We're talking about greatness, not relevance, aren't we?
The British empire was full of asshattery, but also a great deal of philosophical, scientific, technological and practical productivity.
Modern Britain is a Politburo.
Capitalism pretends that you can think in the long term by pandering to the interests of men who only need enough money to live for one lifetime.
All non-regulated industries end up as you describe, really.
Er, the UK is home to one of the most important financial centres on the planet.
So, like the guy said - formerly great.
"borrow"
Firstly, there's no difference between "law enforcement" and "national security" except in the eyes of egomaniacs who think that there brand of crime investigation (e.g. "terror" - seriously, could you get any more emotive?) is Totally More Important and should receive all sorts of Special Dispensations.
Secondly, intercepting data of suspected criminals - and there is a lot of good evidence that this guy was engaging in criminal activity - seems sensible. It shouldn't be all cloak and dagger, and "signals intelligence" should just be regarded as another way of collecting evidence.
Thirdly, people like this, who are essentially making huge bank by distributing other people's work, don't really deserve their income. They are the flip side of the copyright cartel.
The copyright cartel are also leeches and ought to be just as thoroughly investigated for their dirty bribery and lawyering practices.
A pox on all their houses.
Why do geeks love the "all or nothing" false dichotomy? Easiest of all would be for me to just sit in a room all day having everything delivered to me and never having to travel at all, but do you know why I don't do that?
1) Except that that's not the reporter's account, and it's getting pretty boring to hear Tesla+fanboys try sooooo hard to discredit someone simply because he was driving like anyone would normally drive a car and he found out that one car isn't quite suited for driving like that;
2) Even so, when you're doing an independent test, you rely on independent logging.
I read somewhere that it is shit.
is it true that the Hotel Quebec is shit?
Could it be that it's full of cockroaches, and that the waiters ejaculate into the food?
Has anyone said that the manager hurls racial abuse at his staff and non-white customers?
Did anyone find any reports about guests having their personal property stolen by the room cleaners?
Christ why do you need all this shit? What is so hard?
I sometimes take the bus just to avoid having to interact with people like you.
And, yes, driving on a road with people like you is too much like interaction for me.
Is this the car where a reporter failed to make a simple journey and Musk published misleading charts which didn't even take account of the wheel diameter, then a big deal was made out of a repeat which was done in substantially different conditions, then when another group of bitter owners tried (again without reproducing original conditions), one car wouldn't charge until it had received a "firmware update"?
I don't think the internal combustion engine has much to worry about just yet.
1. A civilised society provides healthcare to all people, including criminals;
2. Merely "feeling" something and actually having a gender identity disorder are completely different, and thank you for illustrating why we don't have laypeople either building jet planes or practising medicine.
Well, if you really think that a lot of techno/geek debate isn't "Jerry Springer stuff" too... ;-)
"Oaths" are substitutes for reason. If you cannot convince a person to do something in good conscience, you tell them that having a conscience is not their department. For some reason, it's really easy to take away personhood with this approach- some fault in our evolution has made it really easy for leaders to make underlings show or support mindless allegiance.
Yet to be loyal to evil is still to do evil.
"Only rich people should be able to enjoy good healthcare. Anyway, psychology does not count as a branch of healthcare."
USA! USA! USA!
Are you saying that literature does not acknowledge transgendered people, or that it defines "man" as "having meat and two veg"? Because history is full of explicit descriptions of certain people as having mixed gender features, *beyond* mere sexual preference. Indeed, some parts of Islam consider transgenderism as more "normal" than homosexuality - so mukhannathun, who seem merely to have transgender characteristics in hadith, are regarded in modern Iran as "cured" homosexuals.
Anyway, pre-20th century terms to describe human characteristics - "race", "hysteria", "invert", ... - are all so absurdly unscientific that we have eliminated them from modern discourse. So, while a hundred years ago we religiously assumed that "man" should mean "attracted to women", a hundred years ago it was also common to assume that "man" should mean "has meat and two veg". Now we see that the concepts of sexuality and gender are rather more fucking complex. As usual, more conservative members of society think about 200 years in the past, so it will take them a while to catch up - by which time the rest of the world will be 200 years further ahead.
Ready when you are, dear.
It would be obtuse, well into the 21st century, to entertain the 19th century notion of "race". But go ahead, if you want - billions of people still entertain the several thousand year old dream of a sky fairy.
If you defend the scientific method, particularly when it happens to act in favour of marginalised people, you're a self-righteous twat - gotcha.
If this were 40 years ago, I can imagine you as one of these upstanding citizens.
Statistic pulled out of ass - check.
Non sequitur - check.
lol, bigots.
I struggle to identify an argument, but I think you're saying:
1. 99.99% of people identify entirely as a gender which accords somehow with the sex organs they were born with - citation please.
2. Correlation is causation - citation please.
homosexual judeomasonic conspiracy o nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo