Great straw man there, but the Conservatives *support* the punishment measures of the digital economy bill; of the "big 3", so far only the Liberal Democrats have come out against the bill.
That's largely because people who are big movie fans tend to want as much as possible, so they'll download the CAM, watch it in the theatre, download the R5, download the DVDRIP, download the 1080p.mkv, buy the super extended director's cut box edition, etc. Equally, music fans will download all the bootlegs and remixes; or the stuff that's no longer on sale, like B-sides or early albums.
Somewhat counter-intuitively, people who download loads of pirated stuff tend to buy loads more legit stuff as well, whereas people who only download a little pirated stuff tend not to buy as much legit stuff because they're only "casual" consumers of it.
To be perfectly honest, Google can do whatever the fuck they want. If they say or do things that are illegal in the countries they operate in or that simply piss off the governments of those countries then the countries have every right to stop them doing business there and/or take legal action against them. Conversely, if Google don't like things that governments are doing in countries they are operating in then they too are free to withdraw their services (á la China).
If it were another *government* saying or doing the above then I could understand people getting worked up about it, but this is a private company and, barring illegal acts, they are free to do whatever they want, subject ultimately to the will of their shareholders. I'm not saying that's a good thing per se - just look at all the companies that screw customers to make more money for the shareholders - but that's how it is.
See my post below - afaik this judgement applies only to movies that MPA members hold the copyright to and not to other movies or, indeed, other media.
As far as I can tell from the limited information available and still pending the final injunction details, this judgement only applies to movies and not any other content that may or may not be indexed on Usenet.
At least the judge showed sense in ruling that the MPA couldn't get an injection banning the publishing of content that they didn't hold the copyright to; I know they like to think that they control everything, but sometimes reality gets in the way.
They haven't "activated" anything, there have always been restrictions on the content available via the iPlayer, both downloadable and streaming - thanks mostly to all the spanners in the "content" industry demanding time limits and (more reasonably) geographic limits.
I have to say I'm torn here; on the one hand I understand that while a lot of the content on the iPlayer is owned in whole or in part by the BBC, there's a lot that isn't and they have to play nice with the owners of that content - in this case preventing 3rd party applications from downloading or re-streaming their content outside of the above limits - but at the same time, as a licence fee payer, I want the BBC to play nice with me as well.
The BBC do a pretty good job when you compare the iPlayer to offerings from other media organisations, but I'd rather lose a few imported shows to the commercial networks if it means they can be less restrictive about what they broadcast.
It's the raw capacity of the filesystem compared to the maximum amount of deduplicated data it can handle. So you can have 8Pb of raw disk space, on which you can store up to 8Eb of deduplicated data (depending on the dedupe ratios you get - I think 1000x is a little optimistic, 30x-40x is more common).
All good dedupe systems are block-level, not file-level so you don't just save where whole files are identical but on *any* identical data that's on the disks.
If you're running VMs with the same OS you'll probably find that close to 70% of the data can be de-duplicated - and that's before you consider things like farms of clustered servers where you have literally identical config or fileservers with lots of idiots saving 40 "backup" copies of the same 2Gb access database just in case they need it.
Our deduped backup array is currently storing ~70Tb of backups on 10Tb of raw space and it's only about 40% full - to me, that's useful.
It's not so much a matter of things being "pointed" anywhere, more a side-effect of anycasting the root DNS servers so that if your current routing happens to put root servers in China as closer than any others, you'll get your results returned from them.
Of course, one could argue that countries shouldn't be allowed to mess with root DNS servers that they host and have them return invalid addresses for valid domains, but that's besides the point here.
The Sun links this to a survey last month suggesting that the region is Britain's Facebook capital - "figures released last month showed that people in Sunderland, Durham and Teesside were 25% more likely to log on regularly."
But Mr Kunonga points out that Sunderland and Durham are not in the NHS Tees area - so the syphilis statistics do not apply to those apparently Facebook-mad cities.
Doubtless there are people who do, just like there are people who value animal lives over human lives, unborn babies' lives over doctors' lives, or even white peoples' lives over minority lives. Newsflash! The world has its fair share of irrational nutjobs, so let's stop using edge cases to justify our own world view, eh Glenn?
Don't make the mistake of conflating young people who are comfortable using computers with people who are genuinely computer literate.
My brother is comfortable using a computer; he's on the facebook and twitter & youtube and whathaveyou, but he certainly isn't what I would call computer literate. Anything outside of his "routine" uses will usually result in a phonecall to me asking how to do it. He does at least tend to retain that information for a little longer than, say my mum does, but that doesn't mean he understands it well enough to apply that knowledge to new situations in a logical way.
The computer industry is largely to blame for user's attitudes; they've spent years convincing everyone that computers would make their lives easier and do everything for them without requiring any specialist knowledge and we all know that's bollocks.
We simply wouldn't accept it if the same proportion of people who outright refuse to even try and understand the basics of the IT tasks they perform every day did the same thing with cars or washing machines or lawn mowers. The roads would be carnage - tens of thousands of drivers refusing to learn how to use the stearing wheel or brakes because they "Just want it to take me to the shops, I dont' care how it works".
I really don't think there's any short-term solution to the problem.
That may well be the case, but that doesn't change the fact that this is from the Daily Mail, who prefer headlines of the form: "Immigrant Paedophiles in Gay Abortion Benefit Scam linked to Diana Conspiracy"
Slashdot Mirror
Great straw man there, but the Conservatives *support* the punishment measures of the digital economy bill; of the "big 3", so far only the Liberal Democrats have come out against the bill.
I've got it running on Win 7 x86 and x64 without any issues or warnings.
Sadly I haven't been able to find anything better to replace it; it is terribly sluggish.
http://blog.didierstevens.com/2010/03/31/escape-from-foxit-reader/
He got it working in Foxit pretty quickly after the first post about the PoC.
Because perverts and only perverts have "sexually charged" usernames on the internet!
That's largely because people who are big movie fans tend to want as much as possible, so they'll download the CAM, watch it in the theatre, download the R5, download the DVDRIP, download the 1080p .mkv, buy the super extended director's cut box edition, etc. Equally, music fans will download all the bootlegs and remixes; or the stuff that's no longer on sale, like B-sides or early albums.
Somewhat counter-intuitively, people who download loads of pirated stuff tend to buy loads more legit stuff as well, whereas people who only download a little pirated stuff tend not to buy as much legit stuff because they're only "casual" consumers of it.
Because it doesn't usually cost them thousands to repair.
Just like people who leave their car unlocked are implicitly giving people permission to take it.
To be perfectly honest, Google can do whatever the fuck they want. If they say or do things that are illegal in the countries they operate in or that simply piss off the governments of those countries then the countries have every right to stop them doing business there and/or take legal action against them. Conversely, if Google don't like things that governments are doing in countries they are operating in then they too are free to withdraw their services (á la China).
If it were another *government* saying or doing the above then I could understand people getting worked up about it, but this is a private company and, barring illegal acts, they are free to do whatever they want, subject ultimately to the will of their shareholders. I'm not saying that's a good thing per se - just look at all the companies that screw customers to make more money for the shareholders - but that's how it is.
That's obviously because China is a repressive dictatorship, whereas the US and Australia simply want to protect their citizens from harmful material.
See my post below - afaik this judgement applies only to movies that MPA members hold the copyright to and not to other movies or, indeed, other media.
As far as I can tell from the limited information available and still pending the final injunction details, this judgement only applies to movies and not any other content that may or may not be indexed on Usenet.
At least the judge showed sense in ruling that the MPA couldn't get an injection banning the publishing of content that they didn't hold the copyright to; I know they like to think that they control everything, but sometimes reality gets in the way.
Well, it is, technically. They didn't just save the pictures directly off Hubble and post them on the internet, you know.
They haven't "activated" anything, there have always been restrictions on the content available via the iPlayer, both downloadable and streaming - thanks mostly to all the spanners in the "content" industry demanding time limits and (more reasonably) geographic limits.
I have to say I'm torn here; on the one hand I understand that while a lot of the content on the iPlayer is owned in whole or in part by the BBC, there's a lot that isn't and they have to play nice with the owners of that content - in this case preventing 3rd party applications from downloading or re-streaming their content outside of the above limits - but at the same time, as a licence fee payer, I want the BBC to play nice with me as well.
The BBC do a pretty good job when you compare the iPlayer to offerings from other media organisations, but I'd rather lose a few imported shows to the commercial networks if it means they can be less restrictive about what they broadcast.
http://www.usgpe.com/
They almost managed to build a car in time.
It's the raw capacity of the filesystem compared to the maximum amount of deduplicated data it can handle. So you can have 8Pb of raw disk space, on which you can store up to 8Eb of deduplicated data (depending on the dedupe ratios you get - I think 1000x is a little optimistic, 30x-40x is more common).
All good dedupe systems are block-level, not file-level so you don't just save where whole files are identical but on *any* identical data that's on the disks.
If you're running VMs with the same OS you'll probably find that close to 70% of the data can be de-duplicated - and that's before you consider things like farms of clustered servers where you have literally identical config or fileservers with lots of idiots saving 40 "backup" copies of the same 2Gb access database just in case they need it.
Our deduped backup array is currently storing ~70Tb of backups on 10Tb of raw space and it's only about 40% full - to me, that's useful.
Not to 90% of users there isn't.
It's not so much a matter of things being "pointed" anywhere, more a side-effect of anycasting the root DNS servers so that if your current routing happens to put root servers in China as closer than any others, you'll get your results returned from them.
Of course, one could argue that countries shouldn't be allowed to mess with root DNS servers that they host and have them return invalid addresses for valid domains, but that's besides the point here.
Reloaded beat them to it
The Sun links this to a survey last month suggesting that the region is Britain's Facebook capital - "figures released last month showed that people in Sunderland, Durham and Teesside were 25% more likely to log on regularly."
But Mr Kunonga points out that Sunderland and Durham are not in the NHS Tees area - so the syphilis statistics do not apply to those apparently Facebook-mad cities.
Keep up the good work guys!
But the same people will happily answer as many or more questions on that magazine competition entry or store card application form...
Doubtless there are people who do, just like there are people who value animal lives over human lives, unborn babies' lives over doctors' lives, or even white peoples' lives over minority lives. Newsflash! The world has its fair share of irrational nutjobs, so let's stop using edge cases to justify our own world view, eh Glenn?
Don't make the mistake of conflating young people who are comfortable using computers with people who are genuinely computer literate.
My brother is comfortable using a computer; he's on the facebook and twitter & youtube and whathaveyou, but he certainly isn't what I would call computer literate. Anything outside of his "routine" uses will usually result in a phonecall to me asking how to do it. He does at least tend to retain that information for a little longer than, say my mum does, but that doesn't mean he understands it well enough to apply that knowledge to new situations in a logical way.
The computer industry is largely to blame for user's attitudes; they've spent years convincing everyone that computers would make their lives easier and do everything for them without requiring any specialist knowledge and we all know that's bollocks.
We simply wouldn't accept it if the same proportion of people who outright refuse to even try and understand the basics of the IT tasks they perform every day did the same thing with cars or washing machines or lawn mowers. The roads would be carnage - tens of thousands of drivers refusing to learn how to use the stearing wheel or brakes because they "Just want it to take me to the shops, I dont' care how it works".
I really don't think there's any short-term solution to the problem.
That may well be the case, but that doesn't change the fact that this is from the Daily Mail, who prefer headlines of the form: "Immigrant Paedophiles in Gay Abortion Benefit Scam linked to Diana Conspiracy"