From your description it doesn't sound like they'll have any problem at all. There is a strong perception of risk so unless they rig the rules so they never pay out under any realistically possible conditions they should be fine.
GP was right: insurance thrives where the actual risks/costs are significantly lower than the real risks/costs. There are some factors that can influence this (such as regulatory requirements to carry insurance and situations with undue burden), but the underlying mechanism (real costs lower than billed costs) is required -- otherwise the insurance company would go out of business -- and profitability is highest when real costs are significantly lower than actual costs.
Regulatory: there's a reason car insurance companies pay for legislation mandating car insurance, and it isn't out of a desire for safer roads.
Undue Burden: this is the usual excuse offered for insurance and it certainly is a factor, but it is not as fundamental as the real/billed cost differential. Essentially, when the potential cost of a risk exceeds an individual's ability to pay in order to survive the eventuality insurance is paid to cover it. In principle there's a balance between rate of incidence, average cost and billed costs.
I hear what you are saying, but I think the issue is one of price. If driverless vehicles become practical then if you are already paying $30,000 for a car you might be enticed to pay $45,000 -- particularly if the manufacturer has cut a deal with your car insurance company. But forget personal sales, an enterprise with a fleet of company cars can pay a bit more for driverless while likely driving down other costs.
What can an autonomous home robot do? Feed the pets? Let the dog out? Are people going to shell out $15,000 for that?
Does an industrial robot actually need to be autonomous? Will it save the company money to buy one versus using a paint trail for a cheaper model to follow?
Another point to consider is this: car insurance is a thriving business that makes a lot of money and is always looking for ways to line their pockets further. Although its possible a human driver will be better than a computer in edge cases, a lot of accidents are not edge cases and are trivially avoidable. Such as following too closely, running stop signs and running red lights. For the most part car insurance has a cap on what they will pay for the truly bad accidents, but the nickle-and-diming of paying out for minor accidents adds up given the large numbers. Google (or whoever) will find willing (if greedy) partners in the car insurance companies who will turn the screws on their customers.
If driverless cars come about, it will be the various incentives that drives adoption. Personally, I'd rather have an effective mass transit system in place, but the money is in selling individualized transportation. So companies will keep looking for ways to monetize that.
Ah, but no simple summary here in a post of equivalent size. Sorry, no interest in paging through some stupid slides. Only morons think powerpoint is the best way to convey that sort of information.
I mean, really, would we be better off if RFCs were powerpoint? Much less video? Eliminate white papers! Get rid of research papers -- it would be better to just have a video or slide deck.
If you want to believe you are relevant, you'll have to do better than pimping your slide deck and a friend who recorded video.
So the misdeeds of the few condemn the entire race?
I don't suppose an Italian with mob ties ever refused to cooperate with a police investigation: that would be unthinkable. And proof that Italians don't put the same value on life.
That's one of the things that make the recent "leak" appear to be a hoax. It was suggested in comments for the previous story that his new found fame may protect him. I think not, but that hope is a possible motivation for perpetrating a hoax. And, by being a "leak" without any absolute statements, it gives him plausible deniability. Of course, it could also have been "leaked" by someone wishing to harm his reputation.
Regardless, he has every appearance of being a well-financed early adopter rather than the founder.
if you actually read the Wired article you will notice how they acknowledge that him being the founder could be a hoax -- one perhaps perpetrated by Craig Wright himself. What they don't mention is his motivation. He has been fighting with Australian tax authorities for a long time and, whether or not it would pan out, he may (if it is in fact a hoax, I have no way of knowing) have been motivated by a desire to become too famous to imprison.
Personally, I don't see it having that sort of impact. That doesn't mean he didn't, though. And he is likely facing a huge fine/back taxes for tax evasion related to his bit coin activity. And as this has been building up over time the 20 months Wired was able to document for laying the ground work starts to become plausible.
Do I think it is a hoax? And that he orchestrated it? Honestly, I have no opinion. My point is that your comment provides the *motivation* for *why* he might be attempting a hoax (if he his).
The raid is essentially unrelated to the recent press releases. It hasn't been big press stuff, but he has been under investigation for what amounts to accusations of tax evasion for some time. Related to bit coin, yes, as the vehicle for avoiding taxes (that is the fact in question).
Guilty or not, the raid is about his possession of a lot of bit coin (revealed in financial statements, he used it to back one of his startups) and a long, on going investigation. It has zip, zero, nada, zilch to do with his "outing" by the press.
The write ups had nothing to do with it. They had warrants because he has been under investigation by the Australian tax authority for a long time. Probably something to do with hiding (from their point of view) millions of dollars in bit coin. Last year Australia declared that bit coin was taxable (as capital gains, IIRC). He hasn't paid the required taxes on his bit coin holdings. Which are extensive.
This has absolutely nothing to do with someone leaking real or fabricated documents to the press in an attempt to make it look like he is the founder of bit coin. This *does* have to do with bit coins, though, and taxes and the desire/need of governments to collect on that.
you've been posting a lot and seem intent on an assertion that the D-Wave is a "quantum computer" rather than an "analog computer utilizing quantum effect". The thing is, you don't really have anything to back your assertion. You admit that it is very limited and narrowly focused, but seem to believe that those facts are irrelevant because it utilizes a quantum effect.
Do you accept a flashlight as being a digital computer? It uses an on-off (digital) switch. Is any circuit board a digital computer by virtue of utilizing digital components?
Not only is the private key supplied with the certificate, unlike with SuperFish the certificate can also be used to sign executables. Which means that the bad guys can now sign their malware with eDellRoot and gain unwarranted trust. It figures that slashdot doesn't provide a good link. Try http://arstechnica.com/securit...
it can help to know something about the subject before commenting on it, and such failure is particularly egregious when the topic is very public with many details publicized.
Maybe you don't like the term "bricked", but systems were wiped, leaving them inoperable.
As to the capability of North Korea, people are I think significantly underestimating their ability. In any case, the allegation is that the attack was perpetrated by actors who previously worked for North Korea or had ties to North Korea. It is entirely possible the attack was orchestrated by North Korea.
However, the complaints/demands of the attackers (as recorded in the screen image that was displayed on attacked systems) had to do with outsourcing labor -- nothing to do with The Interview or its relationship to North Korea. Workers wanted fair treatment and took the matter into their own hands. The attack itself looks like someone on site (for example, someone who hadn't been downsized yet who had friends that had already been let go), not a network intrusion.
As relations with Cuba have (very slightly and very gradually) thawed, it appears that the US government is increasingly relying on North Korea as the exemplar of an unstable and dangerous regime.
Ah, yes, the ad hominem when you disagree with the message. Classy.
So if a human has any failings we should ignore any insights they happen to have. Not that your ad hominem is all that good anyway. You fail to demonstrate that he was plagiarizing John Locke (and be sure to know what plagiarism actually is before trying to do so).
Lets be clear: I'm not defending Thomas Jefferson. I'm just calling out one of the lamest attempts to discredit someone.
The one problem with their world view (which you describe so nicely) is that *eventually* the excesses become to much. People do not truly become inured, but they do want to live their own quiet lives and are willing to put up with a lot in the hopes of maintaining the illusion. But there is a limit, and when that is reached you have a very rough time. Like the French Revolution.
The end result of the turmoil may not be a better life for the average person and it may not wrest power from all of the incumbents -- but that is not something on which they can count. Regrettably, for many who are in power they do not acknowledge this inevitability and the closer things approach such a turning point the more they grasp for additional power in the belief that they can secure themselves from repercussion.
Here's hoping that the tide turns before things get to a point of blood and death. Its not pleasant for anyone to live in such turbulent times.
I'm not sure you have either, because if you had you would see that the violation of law is only one of the required qualifiers. In other words, the first hurdle to be passed is that a criminal act must be committed. Then, *in addition* to that it must also have other characteristics. But let's not mince words and instead quote:
`(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--
`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
`(B) appear to be intended--
`(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
`(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
`(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
`(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.'.
Unfortunately, I get the feeling few people got past your "hopes and dreams" line. The thing is, often what drives vegetarians is the closeness of cows as another animal so for some people it would not seem so much of a stretch to prefer eating insects.
So you tried to do something once and, surprisingly, without experience you didn't perform as well as you would want. Don't give up so easily, your ancestors didn't.
If you do some research on the subject you would discover a few things. Like the real critical point for "not starving" was not meat but fire. Eating meat (without using fire to cook it) has a detrimental effect because of the health hazards. But fire (used to cook food) has the property of increasing available caloric content.
The rated caloric content of a food is pretty much just theoretical with only a weak correlation to what the digestive system is able to extract from it. Cooking food improves the available caloric content with an effect ranging from mild to extreme (I forget the exact examples of top providers, but it is something like yams/potatoes/bananas).
Focusing on protein alone is not silly, its stupid. You need protein, you need calories, you need fiber, and so on.
There are all sorts of attempts to justify a particular diet. A popular one is that a lack of red meat leads to diminished stature (which makes the error of assuming that great stature is even desirable and lacks strong evidence for the claim). Another popular one is that humans digest meat more easily -- and conversely that humans digest vegetables more easily. In both cases there is an agenda attached to the claim.
Having surveyed available research data on the "ease of digestion" claim I can say that both are wrong. There is too much individual variability. It is sufficiently difficult to measure both rate and extent of digestion that only very narrow studies have been done with scope and results that preclude making any strong statements.
Accept that digestion is not that well understood. Make a reasonable attempt to eat well, whatever that means to you. And accept that others will make reasonable attempts to eat well that do not follow the same diet as you. Not only is there no need for you to be right, there is too much individual variability for there to be "one right way" and too much over time variability in an individual for one diet to best suit a person over time.
Be flexible. Avoid foods that cause upset (e.g., if you suffer from IBS it is wise to at least try cutting out tomatoes). Be willing to try new things. Be willing to try old things. Avoid mandating specific regimens or insisting that another person's diet is wrong (except in unusually extreme cases, like parents that insisted on a diet solely consisting of bananas to the detriment of the children's health -- IIRC they lost their children over that one).
Actually, bit torrent has been marketed to the copyright cartel and they have actively investigated it and there is increasing adoption. Not in the way the pirates want, of course, but as a means to reduce their bandwidth costs by offloading it to their viewers. Such schemes do not allow freeloaders, of course, nor do they interoperate with other bit torrent clients like utorrent. Nor do the copyright cartel describe them as bit torrent, but one of the issues for any traffic shaping service is to discriminate between the various bit torrent clients, permitting some and rejecting or throttling others.
You also have some weird understanding of reality. "Old school piracy" was nothing like streaming. Old school piracy was using a client to find music and pictures being shared by other people and downloading them. In fact, originally it was direct download and single source. But ISPs make good use of asymmetric bandwidth and "swarming" was invented to improve performance -- particularly important as the content being pirated shifted to video. But single source or swarmed, there was never any streaming involved, it was always download in total, then consume.
Or did you mean *real* old school, back in the day with Usenet and binary postings? Where the files were split and encoded, then had to be decoded and combined? This was also not streaming.
Or did you mean *really* old school, when piracy was done with sneakernet? Which was also not streaming.
BTW: the actual reason Netflix went to streaming was in order to lower costs. They paid for the shipping -- each way -- of those disks. They have to pay for the streaming bandwidth, but doing so is cheaper than shipping. Pirates had nothing to do with it.
The actual precursors to streaming movies/tv shows have nothing to do with piracy and rather more to do with corporations like Real and Macromedia.
But, hey, what's a little real history between random people on the Internet?
Although you are certainly right that the protocol is nearly entirely used for piracy (despite vociferous claims to the contrary) there is at least one issue with claiming use of the protocol as evidence of piracy and that is of standing.
I may know with certainty that Bob is using bit torrent. I might even happen to know he is using it for piracy. But unless he is redistributing a work to which I hold the copyright then I have no standing to complain. In point of fact, the *one* thing a DMCA complaint says under penalty of perjury is that they work which is claimed to being infringed is owned by the plaintiff. In other words, unless I'm a duly authorized agent of HBO I cannot file a DMCA complaint about someone pirating Game of Thrones.
Just because someone is using bit torrent, even if it is for copyright infringing purposes, that is not evidence of a *specific* infringement.
Bring up YouTube is beside the point. Google is in no way legally obligated to have the system they put in place. In point of fact, their system was put in place specifically to benefit wealthy copyright holders. The only reason for Google to do this is for some consideration from them and it is clear that both Google and the wealthy copyright holders benefit from this. But merely holding the copyright to material that is being infringed on YouTube is not enough, you have to be a wealthy copyright holder to qualify for Google's "expedited process".
If this practice were codified into law it would be an affront and disservice to the public. It is pretty clear why you would not want an account associated with such fascist views.
Slashdot Mirror
Married men live longer, but then again, so do unhappy men. Correlation? Causation?
I can see why you are posting anonymously...
From your description it doesn't sound like they'll have any problem at all. There is a strong perception of risk so unless they rig the rules so they never pay out under any realistically possible conditions they should be fine.
GP was right: insurance thrives where the actual risks/costs are significantly lower than the real risks/costs. There are some factors that can influence this (such as regulatory requirements to carry insurance and situations with undue burden), but the underlying mechanism (real costs lower than billed costs) is required -- otherwise the insurance company would go out of business -- and profitability is highest when real costs are significantly lower than actual costs.
Regulatory: there's a reason car insurance companies pay for legislation mandating car insurance, and it isn't out of a desire for safer roads.
Undue Burden: this is the usual excuse offered for insurance and it certainly is a factor, but it is not as fundamental as the real/billed cost differential. Essentially, when the potential cost of a risk exceeds an individual's ability to pay in order to survive the eventuality insurance is paid to cover it. In principle there's a balance between rate of incidence, average cost and billed costs.
I hear what you are saying, but I think the issue is one of price. If driverless vehicles become practical then if you are already paying $30,000 for a car you might be enticed to pay $45,000 -- particularly if the manufacturer has cut a deal with your car insurance company. But forget personal sales, an enterprise with a fleet of company cars can pay a bit more for driverless while likely driving down other costs.
What can an autonomous home robot do? Feed the pets? Let the dog out? Are people going to shell out $15,000 for that?
Does an industrial robot actually need to be autonomous? Will it save the company money to buy one versus using a paint trail for a cheaper model to follow?
Another point to consider is this: car insurance is a thriving business that makes a lot of money and is always looking for ways to line their pockets further. Although its possible a human driver will be better than a computer in edge cases, a lot of accidents are not edge cases and are trivially avoidable. Such as following too closely, running stop signs and running red lights. For the most part car insurance has a cap on what they will pay for the truly bad accidents, but the nickle-and-diming of paying out for minor accidents adds up given the large numbers. Google (or whoever) will find willing (if greedy) partners in the car insurance companies who will turn the screws on their customers.
If driverless cars come about, it will be the various incentives that drives adoption. Personally, I'd rather have an effective mass transit system in place, but the money is in selling individualized transportation. So companies will keep looking for ways to monetize that.
Ah, but no simple summary here in a post of equivalent size. Sorry, no interest in paging through some stupid slides. Only morons think powerpoint is the best way to convey that sort of information.
I mean, really, would we be better off if RFCs were powerpoint? Much less video? Eliminate white papers! Get rid of research papers -- it would be better to just have a video or slide deck.
If you want to believe you are relevant, you'll have to do better than pimping your slide deck and a friend who recorded video.
So the misdeeds of the few condemn the entire race?
I don't suppose an Italian with mob ties ever refused to cooperate with a police investigation: that would be unthinkable. And proof that Italians don't put the same value on life.
Did you just recommend a duress code for use by children in school? Wow!
That's one of the things that make the recent "leak" appear to be a hoax. It was suggested in comments for the previous story that his new found fame may protect him. I think not, but that hope is a possible motivation for perpetrating a hoax. And, by being a "leak" without any absolute statements, it gives him plausible deniability. Of course, it could also have been "leaked" by someone wishing to harm his reputation.
Regardless, he has every appearance of being a well-financed early adopter rather than the founder.
if you actually read the Wired article you will notice how they acknowledge that him being the founder could be a hoax -- one perhaps perpetrated by Craig Wright himself. What they don't mention is his motivation. He has been fighting with Australian tax authorities for a long time and, whether or not it would pan out, he may (if it is in fact a hoax, I have no way of knowing) have been motivated by a desire to become too famous to imprison.
Personally, I don't see it having that sort of impact. That doesn't mean he didn't, though. And he is likely facing a huge fine/back taxes for tax evasion related to his bit coin activity. And as this has been building up over time the 20 months Wired was able to document for laying the ground work starts to become plausible.
Do I think it is a hoax? And that he orchestrated it? Honestly, I have no opinion. My point is that your comment provides the *motivation* for *why* he might be attempting a hoax (if he his).
The raid is essentially unrelated to the recent press releases. It hasn't been big press stuff, but he has been under investigation for what amounts to accusations of tax evasion for some time. Related to bit coin, yes, as the vehicle for avoiding taxes (that is the fact in question).
Guilty or not, the raid is about his possession of a lot of bit coin (revealed in financial statements, he used it to back one of his startups) and a long, on going investigation. It has zip, zero, nada, zilch to do with his "outing" by the press.
The write ups had nothing to do with it. They had warrants because he has been under investigation by the Australian tax authority for a long time. Probably something to do with hiding (from their point of view) millions of dollars in bit coin. Last year Australia declared that bit coin was taxable (as capital gains, IIRC). He hasn't paid the required taxes on his bit coin holdings. Which are extensive.
This has absolutely nothing to do with someone leaking real or fabricated documents to the press in an attempt to make it look like he is the founder of bit coin. This *does* have to do with bit coins, though, and taxes and the desire/need of governments to collect on that.
you've been posting a lot and seem intent on an assertion that the D-Wave is a "quantum computer" rather than an "analog computer utilizing quantum effect". The thing is, you don't really have anything to back your assertion. You admit that it is very limited and narrowly focused, but seem to believe that those facts are irrelevant because it utilizes a quantum effect.
Do you accept a flashlight as being a digital computer? It uses an on-off (digital) switch. Is any circuit board a digital computer by virtue of utilizing digital components?
so what you are saying is that it is misleading. How else, other than presentation, would you expect something to be misleading?
Not only is the private key supplied with the certificate, unlike with SuperFish the certificate can also be used to sign executables. Which means that the bad guys can now sign their malware with eDellRoot and gain unwarranted trust. It figures that slashdot doesn't provide a good link. Try http://arstechnica.com/securit...
it can help to know something about the subject before commenting on it, and such failure is particularly egregious when the topic is very public with many details publicized.
Maybe you don't like the term "bricked", but systems were wiped, leaving them inoperable.
As to the capability of North Korea, people are I think significantly underestimating their ability. In any case, the allegation is that the attack was perpetrated by actors who previously worked for North Korea or had ties to North Korea. It is entirely possible the attack was orchestrated by North Korea.
However, the complaints/demands of the attackers (as recorded in the screen image that was displayed on attacked systems) had to do with outsourcing labor -- nothing to do with The Interview or its relationship to North Korea. Workers wanted fair treatment and took the matter into their own hands. The attack itself looks like someone on site (for example, someone who hadn't been downsized yet who had friends that had already been let go), not a network intrusion.
As relations with Cuba have (very slightly and very gradually) thawed, it appears that the US government is increasingly relying on North Korea as the exemplar of an unstable and dangerous regime.
Ah, yes, the ad hominem when you disagree with the message. Classy.
So if a human has any failings we should ignore any insights they happen to have. Not that your ad hominem is all that good anyway. You fail to demonstrate that he was plagiarizing John Locke (and be sure to know what plagiarism actually is before trying to do so).
Lets be clear: I'm not defending Thomas Jefferson. I'm just calling out one of the lamest attempts to discredit someone.
The one problem with their world view (which you describe so nicely) is that *eventually* the excesses become to much. People do not truly become inured, but they do want to live their own quiet lives and are willing to put up with a lot in the hopes of maintaining the illusion. But there is a limit, and when that is reached you have a very rough time. Like the French Revolution.
The end result of the turmoil may not be a better life for the average person and it may not wrest power from all of the incumbents -- but that is not something on which they can count. Regrettably, for many who are in power they do not acknowledge this inevitability and the closer things approach such a turning point the more they grasp for additional power in the belief that they can secure themselves from repercussion.
Here's hoping that the tide turns before things get to a point of blood and death. Its not pleasant for anyone to live in such turbulent times.
I'm not sure you have either, because if you had you would see that the violation of law is only one of the required qualifiers. In other words, the first hurdle to be passed is that a criminal act must be committed. Then, *in addition* to that it must also have other characteristics. But let's not mince words and instead quote:
`(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--
`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
`(B) appear to be intended--
`(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
`(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
`(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
`(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.'.
Unfortunately, I get the feeling few people got past your "hopes and dreams" line. The thing is, often what drives vegetarians is the closeness of cows as another animal so for some people it would not seem so much of a stretch to prefer eating insects.
Not me though!
citation needed.
Your post demonstrates no understanding of "everything the human body needs to survive".
Dunning-Krueger may be in evidence: things are never "very complicated to understand" when you know nothing about them.
So you tried to do something once and, surprisingly, without experience you didn't perform as well as you would want. Don't give up so easily, your ancestors didn't.
If you do some research on the subject you would discover a few things. Like the real critical point for "not starving" was not meat but fire. Eating meat (without using fire to cook it) has a detrimental effect because of the health hazards. But fire (used to cook food) has the property of increasing available caloric content.
The rated caloric content of a food is pretty much just theoretical with only a weak correlation to what the digestive system is able to extract from it. Cooking food improves the available caloric content with an effect ranging from mild to extreme (I forget the exact examples of top providers, but it is something like yams/potatoes/bananas).
Focusing on protein alone is not silly, its stupid. You need protein, you need calories, you need fiber, and so on.
There are all sorts of attempts to justify a particular diet. A popular one is that a lack of red meat leads to diminished stature (which makes the error of assuming that great stature is even desirable and lacks strong evidence for the claim). Another popular one is that humans digest meat more easily -- and conversely that humans digest vegetables more easily. In both cases there is an agenda attached to the claim.
Having surveyed available research data on the "ease of digestion" claim I can say that both are wrong. There is too much individual variability. It is sufficiently difficult to measure both rate and extent of digestion that only very narrow studies have been done with scope and results that preclude making any strong statements.
Accept that digestion is not that well understood. Make a reasonable attempt to eat well, whatever that means to you. And accept that others will make reasonable attempts to eat well that do not follow the same diet as you. Not only is there no need for you to be right, there is too much individual variability for there to be "one right way" and too much over time variability in an individual for one diet to best suit a person over time.
Be flexible. Avoid foods that cause upset (e.g., if you suffer from IBS it is wise to at least try cutting out tomatoes). Be willing to try new things. Be willing to try old things. Avoid mandating specific regimens or insisting that another person's diet is wrong (except in unusually extreme cases, like parents that insisted on a diet solely consisting of bananas to the detriment of the children's health -- IIRC they lost their children over that one).
A shame I ran out of mod points. Reason and facts don't seem to be going very far in this discussion.
Actually, bit torrent has been marketed to the copyright cartel and they have actively investigated it and there is increasing adoption. Not in the way the pirates want, of course, but as a means to reduce their bandwidth costs by offloading it to their viewers. Such schemes do not allow freeloaders, of course, nor do they interoperate with other bit torrent clients like utorrent. Nor do the copyright cartel describe them as bit torrent, but one of the issues for any traffic shaping service is to discriminate between the various bit torrent clients, permitting some and rejecting or throttling others.
You also have some weird understanding of reality. "Old school piracy" was nothing like streaming. Old school piracy was using a client to find music and pictures being shared by other people and downloading them. In fact, originally it was direct download and single source. But ISPs make good use of asymmetric bandwidth and "swarming" was invented to improve performance -- particularly important as the content being pirated shifted to video. But single source or swarmed, there was never any streaming involved, it was always download in total, then consume.
Or did you mean *real* old school, back in the day with Usenet and binary postings? Where the files were split and encoded, then had to be decoded and combined? This was also not streaming.
Or did you mean *really* old school, when piracy was done with sneakernet? Which was also not streaming.
BTW: the actual reason Netflix went to streaming was in order to lower costs. They paid for the shipping -- each way -- of those disks. They have to pay for the streaming bandwidth, but doing so is cheaper than shipping. Pirates had nothing to do with it.
The actual precursors to streaming movies/tv shows have nothing to do with piracy and rather more to do with corporations like Real and Macromedia.
But, hey, what's a little real history between random people on the Internet?
Although you are certainly right that the protocol is nearly entirely used for piracy (despite vociferous claims to the contrary) there is at least one issue with claiming use of the protocol as evidence of piracy and that is of standing.
I may know with certainty that Bob is using bit torrent. I might even happen to know he is using it for piracy. But unless he is redistributing a work to which I hold the copyright then I have no standing to complain. In point of fact, the *one* thing a DMCA complaint says under penalty of perjury is that they work which is claimed to being infringed is owned by the plaintiff. In other words, unless I'm a duly authorized agent of HBO I cannot file a DMCA complaint about someone pirating Game of Thrones.
Just because someone is using bit torrent, even if it is for copyright infringing purposes, that is not evidence of a *specific* infringement.
Bring up YouTube is beside the point. Google is in no way legally obligated to have the system they put in place. In point of fact, their system was put in place specifically to benefit wealthy copyright holders. The only reason for Google to do this is for some consideration from them and it is clear that both Google and the wealthy copyright holders benefit from this. But merely holding the copyright to material that is being infringed on YouTube is not enough, you have to be a wealthy copyright holder to qualify for Google's "expedited process".
If this practice were codified into law it would be an affront and disservice to the public. It is pretty clear why you would not want an account associated with such fascist views.