If you look at the specs, you'll find they only dim down to 20%, unfortunately that's actually worse than it sounds because of the way humans perceive light, so visually it appears to only dim to about 50% Incandescents on the other hand dim down to 0%
I have tried LED and CFL "dimmable" bulbs, several different makes and models, and none of them dim as much as I want in my TV room. It is extremely frustrating!
Price: LED $27.98, Incandescent $0.43 (Comparison of 60w incandescent vs 9w LED (approximately same brightness) at local home depot store) Efficiency: 9w vs 60w, that's an improvement. quality: very little ever goes wrong with incandescent bulbs, they work until they eventually burn out, often many years later. LEDs theoretically last longer, but there is a lot more that can go wrong with them, and I've seen many reports of individual LEDs within the arrays not working, or annoying flickers developing etc. Quality may be a wash, but it certainly isn't something I would easily award to the LED side. Environmental impact... this is really hard to tell, sure the LED uses less electricity, but there is a LOT more involved in the manufacture as well including various components that are not exactly great environmentally. Additionally they are generally manufactured overseas and not locally as Incandescent bulbs are, so there's the shipping impact to add in to that as well. and when it comes to disposal, incandescents are just glass and metal, LED bulbs leave a bit more of a question as to their environmental impact.
Now for the bad news. I also can't give you usability. Sure they work just fine in standard fixtures, however they don't work in a couple of extremely common applications. 1) oven lights 2) microwave lights 3) enclosed fixtures (apparently the electronics can't handle the heat they generate) 4) dimmers (sure they CLAIM to dim, but I have never found any type of bulb other than incandescent that actually does, and I've tried quite a few)
Incandescent bulbs have 2 huge drawbacks, lifespan and efficiency. But they have everything else going for them. So far those 2 drawbacks are the only thing any of the replacements do have going for them, at the expense of all the others.
People want an improved light bulb, they just haven't seen one yet.
And when I check with my provider you have your choice when signing up to get either double your minutes, or unlimited text/picture/video messaging, or a "fave 5" plan, on any of the plans (starting as cheap as $30/month including all taxes and fees)
If you chose one of the choices that doesn't give you the unlimited text messages, it's $15/mo to add unlimited text/video/picture messaging, voicemail, and call display. (And that's the full retail price, I negotiated $5/mo for those 3 features combined)
My carrier's pre-paid plans don't quite line up with their post-paid plans, so comparisons are difficult, however as far as I can tell, the post-paid plans are significantly cheaper than the pre-paid ones. Add in the "free" phone, and you'd be crazy to go pre-paid.
In my country I can not see any reason to ever buy your phone outright, pay as you go is more expensive than contract, and there are no contracts with any discount for bringing your own phone. The cheapest way to have a cell phone here is to get it "free" with your contract.
Now I wish the carriers would change this and discount people for having their own phone, but it's just not in their best interest to do so.
Unfortunately subsidized is more accurate for most plans... or maybe "forced purchase" because I've never seen a carrier in my country that gives you any discount at all for a "sim only" or "bring your own phone" plan. If I have to pay the same either way, I might as well take the "free" phone while I'm at it.
This bundling will end only if carriers are forced to separate the phones from the plans (Something I really wish would happen!)
No wonder iPhones are blamed for using more data than any other phone, for each text she sends you it has to check with the server to see if it can send it over data instead, and then when it determines that it can't, it reverts to text messages.
In a country where data is insanely expensive, and almost everyone has an unlimited text plan, I'd hate to end up accidentally using a program like that!
So if you send a message to an iPhone, you end up using expensive data, instead of free text messages. and worse yet, if you send a message to a non-iphone, you use BOTH the expensive data (to check if you can use data vs text), and then send a text message anyway...
Wow... this sounds like the worst possible way of sending text messages!
I really enjoyed the northern lights here in Canada last night, watched them from the comfort of my backyard hot-tub. I've certainly seen them before, but I don't think I've ever seen them from inside the city before, usually the light polution overpowers them, these were quite vivid!
Where did I say anarchy? not once. I said decentralized and not under the control of any national government. It shouldnt' be that hard to design a completely independent system that no single country can control. You could even build in distributed dispute resolution practices. that again, are not subject to the whims of any one country.
The internet has become far to important to allow any one nation state to control it on a global scale, which is exactly what the USA is attempting to do. I'm not going to advocate simply changing which country can control it. It needs to be kept independent. The internet is truly international in nature. if we let every country in the world have full control, it will quickly cease to exist. And there is no possible way to justify any one specific country being given control over any other country. So the only logical way is to take it away from ALL countries. If they want to police something on the internet, they can do it the old fashioned way, by asserting jurisdiction over physical people or servers within their own country.
How did we ever get to a point where suggesting a move from US jurisdiction to Russian jurisdiction to avoid abuses of government power actually sounds reasonable???
Not forgetting, but that was still a lot less damaging to the country as a whole than the first few months of the Harper government were, let alone the rest of his reign
They now know that they can't hide the internet from the artists, so they've switched to a policy of trying to break the internet so the artists can't use it without paying up.
Except that currently the "tax" (it's actually a levy, not a tax) DOES allow us to download music for personal use LEGALLY. (This has been upheld in court)
Now the copyright industry wants to change this, they want to make it illegal, they also want it to be easy to prosecute with a minimum of due process, and all without giving up the cash cow that is the blank media levy.
If this passes and goes to court, I'm fairly certain it would be deemed unconstitutional. The only way they can have the levy is because it is to compensate for legal copying. If the copying is illegal it would presume that every citizen is guilty of a crime, and the legal system just doesn't work that way. (as much as the government tries to make it so)
Currently in Canada, because of the levy on blank media, it is perfectly legal, for private use, to download music that you haven't paid for (because you ARE paying for it when you buy blank media.) This has been upheld in court.
What's happening now though is that the music industry wants to change this, they want to make it illegal to download music, as well as making it extremely easy to track you down without any due process... oh, and they want more money on the blank media levy while they're at it.
If this passes, and it goes to court, I'm fairly certain it would be deemed unconstitutional. You can't apply an across the board levy that assumes every citizen is breaking the law. Either the levy, or the restriction on private copying would have to go.
The problem is that every other party had points in their platform that stated that they WOULD kill the oil sands.
The biggest problem in Canadian politics isn't that the Conservatives are popular (they actually aren't) the problem is that the other parties are managing to be even less popular than the Conservatives. If any party manages to come up with a good leader they will win the next election by a landslide, but as long as we keep seeing the likes of Ignatief or Dion the Conservatives don't exactly have much to worry about.
I'm Albertan too, and there is no way I could bring myself to vote conservative, but it's no mystery to me why others do, or why the liberals can't get any seats. (I actually voted for an independent last election (knowing full well that in my riding the Conservative would win, but refusing to vote for them))
I actually have to disagree, Ships are efficient per unit, and are used heavily for long distance, but really only because air is so expensive, and you can't drive between continents. But really talking about airports is a bit off-topic as the subject is the wheel so we're comparing more to trucks and trains. And I wouldn't want to see what would happen if you knocked out road and rail.
Ships today are used heavily between continents, but they just aren't used much within the same country, certainly not as they were a century ago. Today you'd never think to send things from LA to new york by ship (though you certainly would have 200 years ago), today you use either road or rail, even along the same coast you usually don't send things by ship unless the roads are pretty bad, or non-existant (as is true of some of the northern parts of Canada and Alaska) You also don't see nearly as much in the way of barges on the rivers, and long gone are the days of canoes carrying supplies along the smaller waterways (voyageurs haven't switched to powerboats, they've been replaced by tractor trailers). Even 100 years ago the logging industry used the rivers almost exclusively to transport logs to the mills, these days it's mostly by truck.
This really does re-affirm the post about the environment being so important, now that we have the good infrastructure for wheels, they really have taken over, but wherever that infrastructure is lacking (between continents or in remote areas) we still use water or air instead of forcing a wheeled vehicle across tundra or through dense brush. For anyone living in a world without roads or rails, the wheel wouldn't be nearly as useful as we perceive it today.
As many people have pointed out, using the laptop for personal use, regardless of the method, MAY fall afoul of your company's policies, and is a risk that should be weighed very carefully before doing so. Additionally I'd strongly recommend a method that leaves no trace on the laptop.
That said, I have done it. The company I worked for had whole disk encryption set up on the laptop, and I figured I'd be best not to touch it in any way shape or form. So I used an external USB hard drive and installed ubuntu on it and booted from that. the work part was completely separate from the personal part, and never the 2 did meet.
I did however buy an Acer Iconia tablet a little while back, and haven't used the work laptop for personal use since. Even for coding, web design, word processing, and other such things I just attach a USB keyboard and mouse and it's pretty much as good as any other computer.
When I read your post, the first thing to come to mind is that you don't need long distances to make a wheel useful, wheelbarrows are very useful tools used generally for quite short distances. However on further thought it occurs to me that those sort of applications may have been more likely invented as an application for the wheel, rather than the other way around. You do however have a good point about the surfaces required, it is actually only quite recently that it has made sense to ship large shipments or long distances over land, even 200 years ago every effort would have been made to ship by water instead if at all possible. (obviously not always possible, but there's a good reason that the population of many countries is concentrated on the coasts and along major waterways.
The summary states that they already have the rights to stream the music. As the question was about hosting, that's what is being answered, not questioning the assertion made in the summary that they already have those rights. (How they got those rights, who from, at what cost, or even if they actually have them is not relevant to the question being asked)
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I was not passing judgment on whether libertarianism is "right" or "wrong" or "good" or "bad", just clarifying that nobody who believes in libertarianism thinks it's a good thing to be allowed to run around and beat people up, and specifically that Libertarians do believe that dealing with this is government's proper role.
As for Anarchy vs Libertarianism, Although the specific post I responded to didn't mention it, the context I read in to the whole discussion was about criticism of lack of government, and I responded in that context. The fact that Anarchists would propose a different solution doesn't really change the fact that the government would not be fulfilling that role. and as such the poster would be valid in criticizing Anarchism in that way, but not correct for criticizing Libertarianism for the same thing. Now if you are looking at the larger picture of if you think you would remain consequence free after beating someone up under each of the two systems (instead of only the government's role in the process) then you would be correct in that Anarchists do propose a solution to such things as well, simply not one involving any form of organized government.
Now I have to admit that from a personal perspective, I have not spent as much time reading up on, or researching, Anarchism, as I have Libertarianism, so I am not as well able to speak of their ideal solution to such things. I should also add that I have occasionally described myself as having some libertarian leanings, though not in any way to the extremes some people would take it to (I favour a government and legal system that gets back to the basics, and stops meddling in things that people do which harm nobody, and which stops funnelling my ever increasing tax money to whatever the fad of the week is. However I do believe that there is still a place for government involvement of one form or other in many of their traditional roles such as health care, education, and infrastructure (especially anything leading itself to a natural monopoly))
The pedophiles dropping money, ok, no problem, if they drop money and a kid comes over and gives it back I don't see any problem at all. Now if they kidnap said kid, get them for that offence, or if they assault the kid, get them for that. don't get them for dropping money that's not the thing they did wrong.
The woman screaming loudly during sex, is she breaking laws regarding loud noises? fine her under those laws, if she isn't, where's the problem?
These ASBOs are being used as excuses to avoid using existing laws for their purposes, if something is illegal, enforce the related law, if it isn't illegal, why are you bothering with it in the first place?
Every libertarian I have ever met, even the most die-hard libertarians, agree that your freedom to do what you want ends the moment it affects somebody other than yourself. They all tend to agree that a government is necessary, and that it's one and only true roll is to police for exactly those things.
You can swing your arm wherever and however you like, as long as it never impacts anyone else's nose. (or other body part, or personal property, etc)
Your argument would be correct if you were talking about anarchists instead of libertarians.
graffiti, loud music at night, those damn kids hanging around on the street corner
1) already illegal under other laws, enforce those! 2) already illegal under other laws, enforce those! 3) none of anybody's damn business!
I'm not in the UK, however this sounds like one of those laws that does absolutely nothing for it's claimed purposes (because those are already covered in other places) and only serves to foster abuse of the legal system. (unfortunately every country has tons of these sorts of laws)
Unfotunately I've found that up.to netload, turbobit, and several others also have the same speed issues as RapidShare.
Shame, because those are all legal for me to use in my country, whereas torrents are a bit more of a grey area (downloading copyrighted material is 100% legal in my country, uploading is not) meaning that the slower speeds actually pushes people like me from the legal practice of downloading, back to a grey area of torrenting.
Slashdot Mirror
If you look at the specs, you'll find they only dim down to 20%, unfortunately that's actually worse than it sounds because of the way humans perceive light, so visually it appears to only dim to about 50% Incandescents on the other hand dim down to 0%
I have tried LED and CFL "dimmable" bulbs, several different makes and models, and none of them dim as much as I want in my TV room. It is extremely frustrating!
Price: LED $27.98, Incandescent $0.43 (Comparison of 60w incandescent vs 9w LED (approximately same brightness) at local home depot store)
Efficiency: 9w vs 60w, that's an improvement.
quality: very little ever goes wrong with incandescent bulbs, they work until they eventually burn out, often many years later. LEDs theoretically last longer, but there is a lot more that can go wrong with them, and I've seen many reports of individual LEDs within the arrays not working, or annoying flickers developing etc. Quality may be a wash, but it certainly isn't something I would easily award to the LED side.
Environmental impact... this is really hard to tell, sure the LED uses less electricity, but there is a LOT more involved in the manufacture as well including various components that are not exactly great environmentally. Additionally they are generally manufactured overseas and not locally as Incandescent bulbs are, so there's the shipping impact to add in to that as well. and when it comes to disposal, incandescents are just glass and metal, LED bulbs leave a bit more of a question as to their environmental impact.
Now for the bad news. I also can't give you usability. Sure they work just fine in standard fixtures, however they don't work in a couple of extremely common applications. 1) oven lights 2) microwave lights 3) enclosed fixtures (apparently the electronics can't handle the heat they generate) 4) dimmers (sure they CLAIM to dim, but I have never found any type of bulb other than incandescent that actually does, and I've tried quite a few)
Incandescent bulbs have 2 huge drawbacks, lifespan and efficiency. But they have everything else going for them. So far those 2 drawbacks are the only thing any of the replacements do have going for them, at the expense of all the others.
People want an improved light bulb, they just haven't seen one yet.
And when I check with my provider you have your choice when signing up to get either double your minutes, or unlimited text/picture/video messaging, or a "fave 5" plan, on any of the plans (starting as cheap as $30/month including all taxes and fees)
If you chose one of the choices that doesn't give you the unlimited text messages, it's $15/mo to add unlimited text/video/picture messaging, voicemail, and call display. (And that's the full retail price, I negotiated $5/mo for those 3 features combined)
My carrier's pre-paid plans don't quite line up with their post-paid plans, so comparisons are difficult, however as far as I can tell, the post-paid plans are significantly cheaper than the pre-paid ones. Add in the "free" phone, and you'd be crazy to go pre-paid.
In my country I can not see any reason to ever buy your phone outright, pay as you go is more expensive than contract, and there are no contracts with any discount for bringing your own phone. The cheapest way to have a cell phone here is to get it "free" with your contract.
Now I wish the carriers would change this and discount people for having their own phone, but it's just not in their best interest to do so.
Unfortunately subsidized is more accurate for most plans... or maybe "forced purchase" because I've never seen a carrier in my country that gives you any discount at all for a "sim only" or "bring your own phone" plan. If I have to pay the same either way, I might as well take the "free" phone while I'm at it.
This bundling will end only if carriers are forced to separate the phones from the plans (Something I really wish would happen!)
No wonder iPhones are blamed for using more data than any other phone, for each text she sends you it has to check with the server to see if it can send it over data instead, and then when it determines that it can't, it reverts to text messages.
In a country where data is insanely expensive, and almost everyone has an unlimited text plan, I'd hate to end up accidentally using a program like that!
So if you send a message to an iPhone, you end up using expensive data, instead of free text messages. and worse yet, if you send a message to a non-iphone, you use BOTH the expensive data (to check if you can use data vs text), and then send a text message anyway...
Wow... this sounds like the worst possible way of sending text messages!
I really enjoyed the northern lights here in Canada last night, watched them from the comfort of my backyard hot-tub. I've certainly seen them before, but I don't think I've ever seen them from inside the city before, usually the light polution overpowers them, these were quite vivid!
Where did I say anarchy? not once. I said decentralized and not under the control of any national government. It shouldnt' be that hard to design a completely independent system that no single country can control. You could even build in distributed dispute resolution practices. that again, are not subject to the whims of any one country.
The internet has become far to important to allow any one nation state to control it on a global scale, which is exactly what the USA is attempting to do. I'm not going to advocate simply changing which country can control it. It needs to be kept independent. The internet is truly international in nature. if we let every country in the world have full control, it will quickly cease to exist. And there is no possible way to justify any one specific country being given control over any other country. So the only logical way is to take it away from ALL countries. If they want to police something on the internet, they can do it the old fashioned way, by asserting jurisdiction over physical people or servers within their own country.
How did we ever get to a point where suggesting a move from US jurisdiction to Russian jurisdiction to avoid abuses of government power actually sounds reasonable???
How sad a state of affairs this truly is.
ideally a decentralized service that no one country can have any authority over.
Not forgetting, but that was still a lot less damaging to the country as a whole than the first few months of the Harper government were, let alone the rest of his reign
They now know that they can't hide the internet from the artists, so they've switched to a policy of trying to break the internet so the artists can't use it without paying up.
Except that currently the "tax" (it's actually a levy, not a tax) DOES allow us to download music for personal use LEGALLY. (This has been upheld in court)
Now the copyright industry wants to change this, they want to make it illegal, they also want it to be easy to prosecute with a minimum of due process, and all without giving up the cash cow that is the blank media levy.
If this passes and goes to court, I'm fairly certain it would be deemed unconstitutional. The only way they can have the levy is because it is to compensate for legal copying. If the copying is illegal it would presume that every citizen is guilty of a crime, and the legal system just doesn't work that way. (as much as the government tries to make it so)
Currently in Canada, because of the levy on blank media, it is perfectly legal, for private use, to download music that you haven't paid for (because you ARE paying for it when you buy blank media.) This has been upheld in court.
What's happening now though is that the music industry wants to change this, they want to make it illegal to download music, as well as making it extremely easy to track you down without any due process... oh, and they want more money on the blank media levy while they're at it.
If this passes, and it goes to court, I'm fairly certain it would be deemed unconstitutional. You can't apply an across the board levy that assumes every citizen is breaking the law. Either the levy, or the restriction on private copying would have to go.
The problem is that every other party had points in their platform that stated that they WOULD kill the oil sands.
The biggest problem in Canadian politics isn't that the Conservatives are popular (they actually aren't) the problem is that the other parties are managing to be even less popular than the Conservatives. If any party manages to come up with a good leader they will win the next election by a landslide, but as long as we keep seeing the likes of Ignatief or Dion the Conservatives don't exactly have much to worry about.
I'm Albertan too, and there is no way I could bring myself to vote conservative, but it's no mystery to me why others do, or why the liberals can't get any seats. (I actually voted for an independent last election (knowing full well that in my riding the Conservative would win, but refusing to vote for them))
I actually have to disagree, Ships are efficient per unit, and are used heavily for long distance, but really only because air is so expensive, and you can't drive between continents. But really talking about airports is a bit off-topic as the subject is the wheel so we're comparing more to trucks and trains. And I wouldn't want to see what would happen if you knocked out road and rail.
Ships today are used heavily between continents, but they just aren't used much within the same country, certainly not as they were a century ago. Today you'd never think to send things from LA to new york by ship (though you certainly would have 200 years ago), today you use either road or rail, even along the same coast you usually don't send things by ship unless the roads are pretty bad, or non-existant (as is true of some of the northern parts of Canada and Alaska) You also don't see nearly as much in the way of barges on the rivers, and long gone are the days of canoes carrying supplies along the smaller waterways (voyageurs haven't switched to powerboats, they've been replaced by tractor trailers). Even 100 years ago the logging industry used the rivers almost exclusively to transport logs to the mills, these days it's mostly by truck.
This really does re-affirm the post about the environment being so important, now that we have the good infrastructure for wheels, they really have taken over, but wherever that infrastructure is lacking (between continents or in remote areas) we still use water or air instead of forcing a wheeled vehicle across tundra or through dense brush. For anyone living in a world without roads or rails, the wheel wouldn't be nearly as useful as we perceive it today.
As many people have pointed out, using the laptop for personal use, regardless of the method, MAY fall afoul of your company's policies, and is a risk that should be weighed very carefully before doing so. Additionally I'd strongly recommend a method that leaves no trace on the laptop.
That said, I have done it. The company I worked for had whole disk encryption set up on the laptop, and I figured I'd be best not to touch it in any way shape or form. So I used an external USB hard drive and installed ubuntu on it and booted from that. the work part was completely separate from the personal part, and never the 2 did meet.
I did however buy an Acer Iconia tablet a little while back, and haven't used the work laptop for personal use since. Even for coding, web design, word processing, and other such things I just attach a USB keyboard and mouse and it's pretty much as good as any other computer.
When I read your post, the first thing to come to mind is that you don't need long distances to make a wheel useful, wheelbarrows are very useful tools used generally for quite short distances. However on further thought it occurs to me that those sort of applications may have been more likely invented as an application for the wheel, rather than the other way around. You do however have a good point about the surfaces required, it is actually only quite recently that it has made sense to ship large shipments or long distances over land, even 200 years ago every effort would have been made to ship by water instead if at all possible. (obviously not always possible, but there's a good reason that the population of many countries is concentrated on the coasts and along major waterways.
The summary states that they already have the rights to stream the music. As the question was about hosting, that's what is being answered, not questioning the assertion made in the summary that they already have those rights. (How they got those rights, who from, at what cost, or even if they actually have them is not relevant to the question being asked)
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I was not passing judgment on whether libertarianism is "right" or "wrong" or "good" or "bad", just clarifying that nobody who believes in libertarianism thinks it's a good thing to be allowed to run around and beat people up, and specifically that Libertarians do believe that dealing with this is government's proper role.
As for Anarchy vs Libertarianism, Although the specific post I responded to didn't mention it, the context I read in to the whole discussion was about criticism of lack of government, and I responded in that context. The fact that Anarchists would propose a different solution doesn't really change the fact that the government would not be fulfilling that role. and as such the poster would be valid in criticizing Anarchism in that way, but not correct for criticizing Libertarianism for the same thing. Now if you are looking at the larger picture of if you think you would remain consequence free after beating someone up under each of the two systems (instead of only the government's role in the process) then you would be correct in that Anarchists do propose a solution to such things as well, simply not one involving any form of organized government.
Now I have to admit that from a personal perspective, I have not spent as much time reading up on, or researching, Anarchism, as I have Libertarianism, so I am not as well able to speak of their ideal solution to such things. I should also add that I have occasionally described myself as having some libertarian leanings, though not in any way to the extremes some people would take it to (I favour a government and legal system that gets back to the basics, and stops meddling in things that people do which harm nobody, and which stops funnelling my ever increasing tax money to whatever the fad of the week is. However I do believe that there is still a place for government involvement of one form or other in many of their traditional roles such as health care, education, and infrastructure (especially anything leading itself to a natural monopoly))
Why don't you instead enforce existing laws?
The pedophiles dropping money, ok, no problem, if they drop money and a kid comes over and gives it back I don't see any problem at all. Now if they kidnap said kid, get them for that offence, or if they assault the kid, get them for that. don't get them for dropping money that's not the thing they did wrong.
The woman screaming loudly during sex, is she breaking laws regarding loud noises? fine her under those laws, if she isn't, where's the problem?
These ASBOs are being used as excuses to avoid using existing laws for their purposes, if something is illegal, enforce the related law, if it isn't illegal, why are you bothering with it in the first place?
Every libertarian I have ever met, even the most die-hard libertarians, agree that your freedom to do what you want ends the moment it affects somebody other than yourself. They all tend to agree that a government is necessary, and that it's one and only true roll is to police for exactly those things.
You can swing your arm wherever and however you like, as long as it never impacts anyone else's nose. (or other body part, or personal property, etc)
Your argument would be correct if you were talking about anarchists instead of libertarians.
graffiti, loud music at night, those damn kids hanging around on the street corner
1) already illegal under other laws, enforce those!
2) already illegal under other laws, enforce those!
3) none of anybody's damn business!
I'm not in the UK, however this sounds like one of those laws that does absolutely nothing for it's claimed purposes (because those are already covered in other places) and only serves to foster abuse of the legal system. (unfortunately every country has tons of these sorts of laws)
Unfotunately I've found that up.to netload, turbobit, and several others also have the same speed issues as RapidShare.
Shame, because those are all legal for me to use in my country, whereas torrents are a bit more of a grey area (downloading copyrighted material is 100% legal in my country, uploading is not) meaning that the slower speeds actually pushes people like me from the legal practice of downloading, back to a grey area of torrenting.