The ISP business is quite similar to how airlines overbook flights assuming people will not use their allotted amounts. There will always be people that use more and a lot of times, the connection will lie dormant. If you were to pay for the actual charge of having all your bandwidth, you'd be paying a lot more than $50 a month.
And how does me sending a packet to one IP address actually cost more than other IPs (apart from other customers on the same network)? Is there any actual basis for this?
On the provider side, ISPs actually have to purchase bandwidth on networks on a Xbits/second rate. So the cost of sending a packet from NY to LA over land is significantly cheaper than sending a packet from LA to Australia on underwater cables. There is a large trading system on the backend where ATT can sell it's excess bandwidth to QWest for example. They even have a futures trading system [much like the stock market or energy exchanges]. But on the consumer side, we rarely see this in action because we are often charged a fixed monthly fee. Often, ISP setup local caches or an Alkami site to reduce the amount of bandwidth going out to the actual internet. But this has yet to be implemented for P2P systems.
Incidently, this is related to the reason why a lot of telecom died in the late 90s. People were laying down fiber all over the country which [by the laws of supply/demand] reduced the costs of purchasing bandwidth to a level where a lot of these companies were selling below cost. A lot of the fiber layed down at that point was called 'dark fiber' [ie unused fiber]
I mean, do you expect the cashier making $5.25 / hour to type in every single bank note that they receive. Look at how long that would take to buy a pack of gum or a coffee or something.
Anyways, the people in charge of the euros have a better idea: Radio Tag. All you need is just one per note and they are incredibly cheap to produce. Also, they can be scanned from a relative distance like passing it over the checkout scanner.
The key here is $20. Nobody would even think about using the marker on anything less than a $20 unless there was reason of suspicion. All you need is a kid to print up a couple $10 bills and spread it around at the local fair or hotdog stand or anywhere that is relatively dark and focused on bring rapid turnover on customer service. You can even buy a 50 cent candy bar to launder the money... [ie get change for it and you make a $9 profit (minus material costs)]
First of all you have some pretty fuzzy math there:
>>when I buy a $180 system that cost $100 to make, you just made $100 regardless of what I do with it afterward
180-100=80 not 100.
Anyways, back to my point. I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers from, but all recent reports have shown that MS, Sony, Nintendo are selling their gaming hardware at a loss. This has been the way that the industry has worked over the years: sell the systems cheaply, make it up by collecting the royalty and licensing fees.
Secondly, your naive statement on piracy:
P.S. If I'm pirating games... guess what, I wouldn't have bought them from you in the first place... so you know what you lost when I pirated the game??? absolutely nothing, you realized the entire potential profit on games from a person who would pirate material for illegitimate reasons (note I think there are plenty of legit reasons) $0.00 + $100profit for the gaming console. Hey... guess what, you lost nothing and made $100... doesn't that mean you came out ahead????
You fail to recognize the sunk cost of R&D in creating the X-box. All this has to come from somewhere. The measily amount of money made from selling the hardware will not come close to making up the 100s of millions of dollars spent on developing the system.
Anyways, my point is not that you should not be modding or pirating, but rather, don't delude yourself into thinking that it is not an illegal activity. Or justify it with that you would not have bought the pirated game in the first place.
I mean, I have pirated my share of games, and modded some consoles, but I don't delude myself into thinking what I'm doing is right. Piracy is piracy is piracy.
That may be true, but you didn't provide over 100,000 [or however many..didn't check the number] of jobs all over the US. Again, these people are putting into the economy through their taxes paid and through their purchases [which incidentally are taxed again].
Quite unlikely. Think about it this way. Why would the US government support an idea like this? If there was an international standard, foreign companies may be able to develope Office applications and profit. By maintaining and supporting this monopoly internationally, MS makes a profit from providing software to other countries. Those profits gets taxed and the US gov then makes a profit.
The answer to the question was this article. The reason it is not preinstalled on more hardware is because of the lack of demand [by the general public]. A company is not going to release something with linux on it unless it knows for sure that it will make $X million. Dell tried that a while ago and has since backed off.
Once linux is idiot-proofed to the point that your 80 year old grandmother can use it, then there would be an increased demand. I think the author of the article has a couple good points such as the naming of the directory structure: make it more human understandable would be a good start.
With the rise of computerized voting systems, there follows a greater opportunity to cheat in elections. In the past election [for congress], voting districts started using computer voting systems. The problem with this is the lack of accountability. The voting machines are not open source [which in itself is not a problem]. However in the last election, there were a couple incidents in which the vendors "upgraded" [or modified] the code after it was inspected by the accounting people.
In addition, in the last election, one of the candidate owned great number of shares in the voting machine production companies of his state. This is a great potential for conflict of interest.
Lastly, hackers found that the binary files and certain voting data files were found on the company's public FTP site. It was improperly configured so that you can upload your own data files to overwrite the official ones.
Anyways, until we get a more secured system that is more accountable, we should not jump into computerized voting.
This is representative of the change in American outlook in the last 30 or so years and even more so under this current administration.
Specifically, there are two main points that have changed dramatically from the ideals of the forefathers.
America was founded on the principle that the little guy can beat the big guy and equality for all. The idea that the government should support rising individuals over the large groups. This is evident by the anti-monopoly acts and also the basic tenets of Democracy.
As someone else had mentioned in, America is no longer a democracy, rather an Empire. We [as in the administration] often talks about supporting democracy worldwide, however, in actions, we support oppression and dictatorship over the choice of the people. Throughout the last 30 or so years, there are numerous examples of this. Even now, are we going to let the Iraqi people have a democracy? According to recent reports, the Iraqis want a Islamic government.
Now you are wondering how this relates to the article. Because of this mentality, we [the administration] want to be able to have direct control of everything. This is contrary to the open source mentality. In open source development, no one person has direct control over the development. Even if there is, people can branch off and do there own thing.
The American government likes the large corporations like the Microsofts of the world. If they want something done, there is a single point of communication. If they don't like something, there is a person/group that you can go to.
I'm sorry, I was going to analyze this further, but don't have time right now..
I don't think so. Basically when corporations set up this system, they have a ip to phone gateway somewhere that they are connected to. For example, Sprint offers this VoIP service. A company would sign up with spring at a discounted rate or a flat rate. When a person makes a call, it connects to the Sprint gateway. Sprints system then finds the closest gateway to the destination number. [For example, if you were calling a LA, it may connect you to the SF gateway which then connects to the actual phone network]. This reduces the cost on their end.
So with just a cable modem, you really can't do much. You still need to subscribe to a gateway service.
But Thomas Jefferson may not want people to know his SN. And he doesn't have a choice about it in this scenario. Once Ben submits it, Tom's name is automatically up there.
Internet2 is what the Internet was originally designed to be: a network for purely for research. It is only available to the member groups, mostly universities and major research corporations.
Here's the page to the consortium: Internet2
Genocide of American Indians:
(One example) "In 1851 the Governor of California officially called for the extermination of the Indians in his state. [3, pg.144] "
I'll debunk each of your argument one by one. With each, I will try to find factual evidence to support the argument:
Listen, it is confirmed that Saddam has killed a plethora of his own people
Very true. But remember, when this was done back in the 1980s, the US supported him with funding and weapons. Saddam was an ally until the 1990s (Persian Gulf War). We did nothing to stop him at the time for using chemical weapons against Iran and the Kurds "his own people" (as you say). In fact, we even supplied Iraq with the same chemical weapons that he used back then and the same ones that we're looking for. It is a fact from declassified papers that the CIA sold the weapons to Saddam.
On November 1 1983, the secretary of state, George Shultz, was passed intelligence reports of "almost daily use of CW [chemical weapons]" by Iraq.
However, 25 days later, Ronald Reagan signed a secret order instructing the administration to do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq losing the war. Source:Rumsfeld 'offered help to Saddam'
Secondly, what is the difference between Saddam murdering his own people versus the lynching of the blacks throughout US history, up to the present day. You may argue that these were done by individual people. However, when the FBI and the federal government look the other way and don't do anything to prevent/prosecute it, they are complacent to the fact. In fact, a number of presidents were members of the KKK (Source: Lynching)
It is confirmed that this same dude has mysteriously not accounted for most of the chemical weapons cataloged during the early 1990's.
This I don't dispute. I don't disagree that he is probably hiding some chemical weapons.
It is also confirmed that this SOB sent out 3 ships floating around the Indian Ocean with most of these "missing" weapons.
Could you provide a source for this info? I couldn't find any such information.
Most of the Peacequeers(Hollywood limosine liberals) talking out against the the war are ones with a political agenda and because of Bush. None of these people lifted a finger whilst Clinton was bombing aspirin factories on Baghdad. Make me sick how two faced these hippocrates are((sic)
First of all, I like how you resort to name calling. Secondly, it's hypocrites. Also, I think you got your facts wrong (unless you're referring to another incident). Clinton bombed pharmaceutical factories in Sudan and Afghanistan, not Iraq (Source: U.S. missiles pound targets in Afghanistan, Sudan). The target was bin Ladin [remember that guy?] and alQaeda. This was in direct retaliation for the terrorist attack (I believe) on the US bases in Kenya and Tanzania.
(Source: History of Terrorist Attacks).
That is why people are speaking out against the war. It sets a bad precedent if we start a trend of attacking nations at will.
As far as France, Germany, and Russia are concerned they have "business" dealings with Iraq worth billions of dollars. Selling arms-turning Mirage jets into anthrax cropdusters. These countries only care for their own economivcs interests. They don't care for the rest of the world.
Quite true. Except that you forgot to add United States and Britain to that list that have and still does sell arms to Iraq. As I stated above, the US provided Iraq with the chemical and biological weapons that we are trying to find today. In recent years, companies like HP, Kodak, Dupont and 23 US companies have sold nuclear capable technology and rocket technology to Iraq (Source: U.S. Complicity in Arming IraqComplete List).
Now for my argument against war against Iraq. Iraq is currently the lesser of the "evils" (I hate that word) that we should be approaching right now. In this time of fear and safety, we don't need to create another level of instability in the world. Bin Ladin was the one responsible for 9/11. Bin Ladin is the largest terrrorist in the world now a days. Al Qaeda is still in operation worldwide. [Mind you, these are all facts]. He should be the one that we go after.
Secondly, our internal security is like the parable of the king with the invisible fleece. So much of our resources are so focused on Iraq and not enough on the internal security. We do not have enough funding for the first responders (Source: Byrd criticizes Bush over first responder funds). The majority of our police force lack the training they need to deal with another terrorist attack.
Third, once we win the war in Iraq (which I do think we will if we attack, but with a significant number of casualties), we would have created a political vacuum. Will the people be better off with a new regime? A great amount of resources would be needed to maintain the peace and tranquility. And as a country, we are horrible at nation building in another country. Look at Afghanistan, Cuba, and most of the Central American countries.
Lastly, I view Korea as a more clear and present danger than Iraq. We know for sure that Korea has at least two nuclear weapons. He also has the ability to launch the nuclear weapons on Japan, South Korea, and at least to Hawaii (if not the US mainland). His standing army is significantly larger than the number of troops that we have in South Korea. And recently, he has activated his nuclear enrichment program.
If you want to talk about hypocrisy, there it is for you. Why is Saddam a greater threat than Kim Jong Il?
In closing, I know there is no way I could change your views. The two sides are already deadset on their viewpoints and now both sides are just talking at each other rather than to. But I just wanted to correct some of your argument.
Re:Why are they trying to hide that it was ...
on
More on Columbia
·
· Score: 1
I wouldn't take freerepublic as a reliable source of news. Check out some of the other "news" that they have on their...
Infant Baptism in the nude
First of all..I agree Family Guy was the best ever. I can't wait till the DVDs come out in April. Already have it on pre-order!
Secondly, that episode was a parody of another movie or maybe Twilight Zone (don't remember). But I know for sure that it was not a Simpson's original.
According to the regulations on this [I'm speaking of US laws], the ISP only has to inform the user that they have received such letter. If the user does not cease and desist, Mediaforce would have to go after them directly. The ISP relinquishes responsibilities after they inform the user.
No, this is different. Microsoft committed a crime within the jurisdiction of the EU authorities. The EU was rightly so in sueing MS.
However, in this situation, it is harder to tell. When you illegally download a file from a computer in another country, under whose jurisdiction do you fall? The issue is that 1) MediaForce has no legal right to enforce the laws 2) In a case like this, which court/set of laws apply?
You are right, this is a part of globalization. However, even in globalization, a country must and still remain sovereign and be able to enforce its own laws.
I think you may be slightly confused. They aren't going after the people that download but the people that offer copyrighted material. So basically, they are just doing a search and if they are able to download it from you, you will be held liable.
It is VERY shortsighted if you try to claim that cracking the X-BOX encryption is the most "interesting problem with practical real-world implications." This is far from it. If anyone can crack the RSA encryption, the whole basis of the internet and business would collapse. Look at E-commerce or Online banking. Look at how much damage you can do if you are able to crack any encryption in any reasonable amount of time. Look at the CIA/FBI/Milnet infrascructure. There would be nothing that can be held "secure" on the internet.
So to say that XBOX is the most practical impact on the world is very shortsighted
Slashdot Mirror
The ISP business is quite similar to how airlines overbook flights assuming people will not use their allotted amounts. There will always be people that use more and a lot of times, the connection will lie dormant. If you were to pay for the actual charge of having all your bandwidth, you'd be paying a lot more than $50 a month.
On the provider side, ISPs actually have to purchase bandwidth on networks on a Xbits/second rate. So the cost of sending a packet from NY to LA over land is significantly cheaper than sending a packet from LA to Australia on underwater cables. There is a large trading system on the backend where ATT can sell it's excess bandwidth to QWest for example. They even have a futures trading system [much like the stock market or energy exchanges]. But on the consumer side, we rarely see this in action because we are often charged a fixed monthly fee. Often, ISP setup local caches or an Alkami site to reduce the amount of bandwidth going out to the actual internet. But this has yet to be implemented for P2P systems.
Incidently, this is related to the reason why a lot of telecom died in the late 90s. People were laying down fiber all over the country which [by the laws of supply/demand] reduced the costs of purchasing bandwidth to a level where a lot of these companies were selling below cost. A lot of the fiber layed down at that point was called 'dark fiber' [ie unused fiber]
The good thing about this logic is that you can never prove it is true or false.
...Unless of course you find a werewolf.
Two words: To costly
I mean, do you expect the cashier making $5.25 / hour to type in every single bank note that they receive. Look at how long that would take to buy a pack of gum or a coffee or something.
Anyways, the people in charge of the euros have a better idea: Radio Tag. All you need is just one per note and they are incredibly cheap to produce. Also, they can be scanned from a relative distance like passing it over the checkout scanner.
The key here is $20. Nobody would even think about using the marker on anything less than a $20 unless there was reason of suspicion. All you need is a kid to print up a couple $10 bills and spread it around at the local fair or hotdog stand or anywhere that is relatively dark and focused on bring rapid turnover on customer service. You can even buy a 50 cent candy bar to launder the money... [ie get change for it and you make a $9 profit (minus material costs)]
- "War on Terrorism"
- "War on Drugs"
- "War on Education"
and other asinine policies of the governmentFirst of all you have some pretty fuzzy math there:
>>when I buy a $180 system that cost $100 to make, you just made $100 regardless of what I do with it afterward
180-100=80 not 100.
Anyways, back to my point. I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers from, but all recent reports have shown that MS, Sony, Nintendo are selling their gaming hardware at a loss. This has been the way that the industry has worked over the years: sell the systems cheaply, make it up by collecting the royalty and licensing fees.
Secondly, your naive statement on piracy: You fail to recognize the sunk cost of R&D in creating the X-box. All this has to come from somewhere. The measily amount of money made from selling the hardware will not come close to making up the 100s of millions of dollars spent on developing the system.
Anyways, my point is not that you should not be modding or pirating, but rather, don't delude yourself into thinking that it is not an illegal activity. Or justify it with that you would not have bought the pirated game in the first place.
I mean, I have pirated my share of games, and modded some consoles, but I don't delude myself into thinking what I'm doing is right. Piracy is piracy is piracy.
>>I paid more taxes last year than MS
That may be true, but you didn't provide over 100,000 [or however many..didn't check the number] of jobs all over the US. Again, these people are putting into the economy through their taxes paid and through their purchases [which incidentally are taxed again].
Quite unlikely. Think about it this way. Why would the US government support an idea like this? If there was an international standard, foreign companies may be able to develope Office applications and profit. By maintaining and supporting this monopoly internationally, MS makes a profit from providing software to other countries. Those profits gets taxed and the US gov then makes a profit.
The answer to the question was this article. The reason it is not preinstalled on more hardware is because of the lack of demand [by the general public]. A company is not going to release something with linux on it unless it knows for sure that it will make $X million. Dell tried that a while ago and has since backed off.
Once linux is idiot-proofed to the point that your 80 year old grandmother can use it, then there would be an increased demand. I think the author of the article has a couple good points such as the naming of the directory structure: make it more human understandable would be a good start.
Check out this site: Black Box Voting
With the rise of computerized voting systems, there follows a greater opportunity to cheat in elections. In the past election [for congress], voting districts started using computer voting systems. The problem with this is the lack of accountability. The voting machines are not open source [which in itself is not a problem]. However in the last election, there were a couple incidents in which the vendors "upgraded" [or modified] the code after it was inspected by the accounting people.
In addition, in the last election, one of the candidate owned great number of shares in the voting machine production companies of his state. This is a great potential for conflict of interest.
Lastly, hackers found that the binary files and certain voting data files were found on the company's public FTP site. It was improperly configured so that you can upload your own data files to overwrite the official ones.
Anyways, until we get a more secured system that is more accountable, we should not jump into computerized voting.
Read more about this at: Salon.com Hacking Democracy
This is representative of the change in American outlook in the last 30 or so years and even more so under this current administration.
Specifically, there are two main points that have changed dramatically from the ideals of the forefathers.
America was founded on the principle that the little guy can beat the big guy and equality for all. The idea that the government should support rising individuals over the large groups. This is evident by the anti-monopoly acts and also the basic tenets of Democracy.
As someone else had mentioned in, America is no longer a democracy, rather an Empire. We [as in the administration] often talks about supporting democracy worldwide, however, in actions, we support oppression and dictatorship over the choice of the people. Throughout the last 30 or so years, there are numerous examples of this. Even now, are we going to let the Iraqi people have a democracy? According to recent reports, the Iraqis want a Islamic government.
Now you are wondering how this relates to the article. Because of this mentality, we [the administration] want to be able to have direct control of everything. This is contrary to the open source mentality. In open source development, no one person has direct control over the development. Even if there is, people can branch off and do there own thing.
The American government likes the large corporations like the Microsofts of the world. If they want something done, there is a single point of communication. If they don't like something, there is a person/group that you can go to.
I'm sorry, I was going to analyze this further, but don't have time right now..
I don't think so. Basically when corporations set up this system, they have a ip to phone gateway somewhere that they are connected to. For example, Sprint offers this VoIP service. A company would sign up with spring at a discounted rate or a flat rate. When a person makes a call, it connects to the Sprint gateway. Sprints system then finds the closest gateway to the destination number. [For example, if you were calling a LA, it may connect you to the SF gateway which then connects to the actual phone network]. This reduces the cost on their end. So with just a cable modem, you really can't do much. You still need to subscribe to a gateway service.
But Thomas Jefferson may not want people to know his SN. And he doesn't have a choice about it in this scenario. Once Ben submits it, Tom's name is automatically up there.
American English .. wait.. even better EBONICS!
Internet2 is what the Internet was originally designed to be: a network for purely for research. It is only available to the member groups, mostly universities and major research corporations. Here's the page to the consortium: Internet2
I wouldn't say "worse" but just as bad. First go read "Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong". Here are some examples:
Genocide of American Indians: (One example) "In 1851 the Governor of California officially called for the extermination of the Indians in his state. [3, pg.144] "
The Lynching of Blacks up to the 1980s.
That's just two..there's plenty more..read that book...
I agree with you. Americans are ignorant about our own US History mainly because of the mediocre High School history books/class.
If you get a chance, read this book Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong
Listen, it is confirmed that Saddam has killed a plethora of his own people
Very true. But remember, when this was done back in the 1980s, the US supported him with funding and weapons. Saddam was an ally until the 1990s (Persian Gulf War). We did nothing to stop him at the time for using chemical weapons against Iran and the Kurds "his own people" (as you say). In fact, we even supplied Iraq with the same chemical weapons that he used back then and the same ones that we're looking for. It is a fact from declassified papers that the CIA sold the weapons to Saddam.
Secondly, what is the difference between Saddam murdering his own people versus the lynching of the blacks throughout US history, up to the present day. You may argue that these were done by individual people. However, when the FBI and the federal government look the other way and don't do anything to prevent/prosecute it, they are complacent to the fact. In fact, a number of presidents were members of the KKK (Source: Lynching)
It is confirmed that this same dude has mysteriously not accounted for most of the chemical weapons cataloged during the early 1990's.
This I don't dispute. I don't disagree that he is probably hiding some chemical weapons.
It is also confirmed that this SOB sent out 3 ships floating around the Indian Ocean with most of these "missing" weapons.
Could you provide a source for this info? I couldn't find any such information.
Most of the Peacequeers(Hollywood limosine liberals) talking out against the the war are ones with a political agenda and because of Bush. None of these people lifted a finger whilst Clinton was bombing aspirin factories on Baghdad. Make me sick how two faced these hippocrates are((sic)
First of all, I like how you resort to name calling. Secondly, it's hypocrites. Also, I think you got your facts wrong (unless you're referring to another incident). Clinton bombed pharmaceutical factories in Sudan and Afghanistan, not Iraq (Source: U.S. missiles pound targets in Afghanistan, Sudan). The target was bin Ladin [remember that guy?] and alQaeda. This was in direct retaliation for the terrorist attack (I believe) on the US bases in Kenya and Tanzania. (Source: History of Terrorist Attacks).
That is why people are speaking out against the war. It sets a bad precedent if we start a trend of attacking nations at will.
As far as France, Germany, and Russia are concerned they have "business" dealings with Iraq worth billions of dollars. Selling arms-turning Mirage jets into anthrax cropdusters. These countries only care for their own economivcs interests. They don't care for the rest of the world.
Quite true. Except that you forgot to add United States and Britain to that list that have and still does sell arms to Iraq. As I stated above, the US provided Iraq with the chemical and biological weapons that we are trying to find today. In recent years, companies like HP, Kodak, Dupont and 23 US companies have sold nuclear capable technology and rocket technology to Iraq (Source: U.S. Complicity in Arming Iraq Complete List).
Now for my argument against war against Iraq. Iraq is currently the lesser of the "evils" (I hate that word) that we should be approaching right now. In this time of fear and safety, we don't need to create another level of instability in the world. Bin Ladin was the one responsible for 9/11. Bin Ladin is the largest terrrorist in the world now a days. Al Qaeda is still in operation worldwide. [Mind you, these are all facts]. He should be the one that we go after.
Secondly, our internal security is like the parable of the king with the invisible fleece. So much of our resources are so focused on Iraq and not enough on the internal security. We do not have enough funding for the first responders (Source: Byrd criticizes Bush over first responder funds). The majority of our police force lack the training they need to deal with another terrorist attack.
Third, once we win the war in Iraq (which I do think we will if we attack, but with a significant number of casualties), we would have created a political vacuum. Will the people be better off with a new regime? A great amount of resources would be needed to maintain the peace and tranquility. And as a country, we are horrible at nation building in another country. Look at Afghanistan, Cuba, and most of the Central American countries.
Lastly, I view Korea as a more clear and present danger than Iraq. We know for sure that Korea has at least two nuclear weapons. He also has the ability to launch the nuclear weapons on Japan, South Korea, and at least to Hawaii (if not the US mainland). His standing army is significantly larger than the number of troops that we have in South Korea. And recently, he has activated his nuclear enrichment program. If you want to talk about hypocrisy, there it is for you. Why is Saddam a greater threat than Kim Jong Il?
In closing, I know there is no way I could change your views. The two sides are already deadset on their viewpoints and now both sides are just talking at each other rather than to. But I just wanted to correct some of your argument.
I wouldn't take freerepublic as a reliable source of news. Check out some of the other "news" that they have on their... Infant Baptism in the nude
First of all..I agree Family Guy was the best ever. I can't wait till the DVDs come out in April. Already have it on pre-order!
Secondly, that episode was a parody of another movie or maybe Twilight Zone (don't remember). But I know for sure that it was not a Simpson's original.
According to the regulations on this [I'm speaking of US laws], the ISP only has to inform the user that they have received such letter. If the user does not cease and desist, Mediaforce would have to go after them directly. The ISP relinquishes responsibilities after they inform the user.
No, this is different. Microsoft committed a crime within the jurisdiction of the EU authorities. The EU was rightly so in sueing MS.
However, in this situation, it is harder to tell. When you illegally download a file from a computer in another country, under whose jurisdiction do you fall? The issue is that 1) MediaForce has no legal right to enforce the laws 2) In a case like this, which court/set of laws apply?
You are right, this is a part of globalization. However, even in globalization, a country must and still remain sovereign and be able to enforce its own laws.
I think you may be slightly confused. They aren't going after the people that download but the people that offer copyrighted material. So basically, they are just doing a search and if they are able to download it from you, you will be held liable.
Arrr??
It is VERY shortsighted if you try to claim that cracking the X-BOX encryption is the most "interesting problem with practical real-world implications." This is far from it. If anyone can crack the RSA encryption, the whole basis of the internet and business would collapse. Look at E-commerce or Online banking. Look at how much damage you can do if you are able to crack any encryption in any reasonable amount of time. Look at the CIA/FBI/Milnet infrascructure. There would be nothing that can be held "secure" on the internet.
So to say that XBOX is the most practical impact on the world is very shortsighted