The site owners banned these people because they don't see any value in a site without revenue.
And they un-banned them because they realized, belatedly, that without visitors there will be zero revenue. Why is that so hard to grasp? When users feel compelled to take extra steps (AdBlock), just to wade through the crap to get to what they value (content) you're doing it wrong.
"...full legal compliance..."
Riiiiht...
Meaning, "I'm crowding into traffic as much as I can get away with and so what if I'm moving twenty miles an hour slower than the flow of traffic would otherwise move. I'm making a statement here, so fuck those carbon belching asshole motorists." Right?
Sorry, pal. I support cycling, all things green, etc. I really do, but I have had far too many "activist" cyclists deliberately and needlessly make my life miserable too many times to give them any slack anymore. Share the road means "sharing", not deliberately holding up traffic when you could do otherwise.
What?!
But at the Tea Party rallies all over Dumbfuckistan they were telling us that this was legit. You don't fool me, you socialist liberal con artist.
...come immediatley to mind as I RTFA, "Terry Childs". This kid, admittedly, commits a crime by breaking into the school's computer system. Childs, on the other hand, did arguably prevent harm by carrying out his duty to maintain the network's security, and he's the one in jail.
[shakes head]
The problem is that just out of shot is a manager who has just told them that if they don't look happy for the photos they, and anyone from their family/friends, will be sacked and never again employed by that factory or any other that the owner has connections to the owners of.
True, but that's pretty much the point I was trying to make. Google "sarcasm".
Anyway, the whole thing makes me glad that I only by accessory hardware made in Mexican sweatshops.
And therein lies the reason for all the derision, folks. It may be an over-generalization to so label an entire country as "badly needs to get a fucking life", but it isn't racism. I'd say the same thing about the U.S. (and especially Texas) and their obsession with football. Then again, at least football is a game involving real people on a real playing field with a real ball.
Close. The returning of bonuses to the people you screwed should be a part of the government regulation covering people who fuck around with other peoples' money, e.g. "bankers". An escrow or trust account, could hold the money for n months, where n is long enough to determine guilt/blame. Sign whatever contracts you want, but when you lose at the tables, erm... "business", you'll never see your bonus. No restriction on the mythical free trade, just a means of ensuring that everyone plays fair.
The Interwebs are about freedom, and you are free not to view any site you feel is offensive in some way. Interweb freedom is about the freedom to choose. IE9 chooses certain voluntary standards, and not other voluntary standards, and even creates some of its own voluntary standards. All of which you are free not to use because of the freedom to choose a different browser. It's about freedom. Freedom to choose, not freedom to be restricted to RMS' view of how the Interweb should be.
Develop web pages that must work in all browsers much? I didn't think so. If you did, you'd know exactly why standards are important.
...I would like to thank this tool for reaching a new low for stupidity in a public servant. Having conservative ignoramuses trying to mess with history by inserting fiction into text books is bad, but stupid about history is, I guess, is better than stupid about sex. Not that we don't have our share of "stupid about sex" in The Lone Star State, but at least that particular shortcoming isn't being actively encouraged by a public servant.
I don't understand why these items aren't going to the National Archives. Its not like they are gonna raise enough money for a rocket or anything. The Smithsonian Institution would be a better home than some private collection.
Let's see... You wan't to have the government place these items in some government run institution, so we can all "share" equal access to them? Instead of letting the free market "take care" of priceless historical artifacts?
Sounds kind of like communism to me.
I'm sorry, but what military objective was obtained by gunning down a dozen people from a helicopter? Were they armed "bad guys"? OK, fine. Let's assume that at least some of them were. So we have less than 12 armed bad guys standing around in a street. Again, what military objective was gained?
Answer: None. There was no objective for which military force was the right tool. Suppressing insurgency from an Apache, a thousand yards off, is the wrong approach with the wrong tool. Fucking stupid.
Your understanding of science, and probably of religion, is... flawed. Science is the antithesis of religion, superstition, and all other things that require an unquestioning belief. Science, on the other hand, demands that we question every assumption and that, wherever we can, seek to disprove those assumptions which we have to date found to be reliable. By what twisted logic could you possibly suggest that the two are in any way similar?
As for morality, the most moral people I know are atheists. That's not to say that all atheists are moral, but those who are, become that way out of a deep regard for the notion of doing what is right because it is right. I contrast this with those whose moral compass is driven by fear of retribution. The concept of sin and punishment might modify behavior, but it most certainly does not make people more "moral".
Since when is running a database illegal? That's all any tracker is.
What, exactly, is illegal about "file sharing" per se?
IsoHunt, TBP, et al have never passed a single byte of copyrighted content across their servers. So where is this illegality you speak of?
Here, let me help...
Where it does exist (and you'll get no argument from me on that point) it exists on the machines of, and in the actions of, those who illegally share copyrighted material.
Hey, it's an election year and I need all the mileage I can get out of whatever "...protected the children..." headlines I can generate, you insensitive clod.
You should have a problem with this. Big time. A genuine DDOS attack will be motivation enough for the carriers and ISP's involved to act on their own. That's the beauty of the mythical "free market". No government involvement is required.
On the other hand, letting a single branch of the government pull the plug on "a web site", with no checks and balances has "abuse me" written all over it. No. Hell no.
You've obviously never driven/ridden a high performance racing vehicle. If you had, of course, you'd know that the physical demands of the sport are very real and the athlete's ability to deal with them, while performing at level required to be competitive, or even just safe, in a domain where the importance of awareness, reaction time, and finesse are is magnified because of the speeds involved, is absolutely a factor.
But no. You're probably one of the many who make the superficial (and markedly ignorant) view that motor racing is "...just a bunch of cars going 'round in a circle..."
It's not "extortion". That's such an ugly word. Clearly, there has been a misunderstanding. Yelp is merely offering "protection". You know, 'cause if youse don' have protection, t'ings coul' happen. You know, "t'ings". Maybe somebody trips and falls. Maybe a bun warmer overheats and there's a fire. Maybe people decide the food sucks and write about it. Like a whole lot'a people. You know?
Feeding trolls or not, there are probably some very technical, nerdy solutions to this problem which are way better than "big perfume guns".
There are, though I don't know if they'd qualify for nerdy. Like the "landfill engineer" says, "This ain't rocket surgery." The basics of running a landfill "properly" (as proper as the whole landfill thing can be, at least) were figured out decades ago, including steps to minimize the odor, of which, spraying the pile with hundreds of gallons of perfume isn't one. Of course, many of those steps cost money and require diligence on the part of the operators. So good luck to the downwinders.
Disclosure: I was one of the victims of this breach. Happily, my bank caught it and called to ask if it was really me who'd bought those gift cards at Wal-Mart.
mod parent + insightful, for truer words were never spoken. Seriously, someone should have gone to jail for being so negligent with sensitive information like that, and no, it almost certainly was not anyone whose job it was to see to such things. It was, most likely, someone with budget control over that department who "...didn't see the value in being so paranoid about security..."
Look, TJX is still in business, so $41 million probably didn't hurt enough to make that a lesson that would be learned by other businesses. If the negligence had ruined TJX, and landed some VP asses in jail, things would be different. But it didn't, and they're still not.
Maybe there should be a "terms and conditions" document that business, hospitals, anyone who collects and stores sensitive information, should have to sign each time the collect such information, acknowledging their responsibility to safeguard it. Maybe "putting it in writing" every time they add to the database would at least make the legal department take notice.
Wrong. Categorically wrong. Lobbyists, by definition, represent "special interests". The stereotypical example is the industry influence-buyer, with his wad of cash, free private jets to "golfing" getaways, etc., but any group with enough money to make the exercise worthwhile can buy influence too. Trade unions are a good example of the other end of the "who buys government influence" list. But the important point is that none of these groups, nor the government officials they "buy", are beholden to the electorate anywhere near as much as they are beholden to the group who wrote the check and handed it over with a wink. The result? Corruption of the very foundation of representative democracy. Yes, that's an assertion that borders on hyperbole, but it is, alas, often all too true.
My government is using the Internet to spy on me? Who knew?
Re:It is bad, wrong way to go about it
on
Health Care Reform
·
· Score: 1
Wrong on tort reform. It is an inconsequential expense, compared to many other things that could be addressed by real reform.
Wrong on "the AMA cartel". It doesn't exist, at least not in any fashion that drives rates for services. There is no simple illustration of this than a personal experience of mine. Wife visits emergency room, at a hospital that is "in plan" with our insurance, however the doctor who sees her is not "in plan". Insurance pays ER bill, doesn't pay the doctor's bill. We complain. Dr. reduces bill by 70%. So her healthcare would have cost 70% more if the insurance had paid for it. A system that has a built in overhead of 70% is seriously broken and it's not because of the physicians. It is caused by a system where profit is derived from the very process of paying for healthcare. The insurance company takes a piece of the action, a percentage. Obviously, it's in their interest to make that percentage as large as possible and they spend a great deal of time doing just that, by making it hard for vendors (doctors, hospitals, labs, etc) to get their money, but more importantly, much more importantly, it is in the insurance companies' interest to make the whole process cost as as much as possible. Sure, a 10% cut of the action is better than 5%, as long as the percentage is positive, more action (money flowing through the system) = more profit. That's rather antithetical to the whole concept of "cost control", don't you think?
And, as is typical of people who only listen to Faux News, wrong on the notion that the government is always less efficient. "Government run healthcare", or more precisely, government run healthcare compensation - Medicare, is far, far more efficient than the private insurance industry, for the very reasons outlined above. Don't believe me? Look it up. The figures vary, depending on whose you're reading, but every single study has shown that the private insurance industry's overhead is at least twice, and usually several times that of Medicare's. Then again there's that pesky fact that of all the industrialized western nations, all of whom have (to at least some extent) socialized healthcare, the U.S. ranks dead last in value derived versus money spent on healthcare. How is it, exactly, that all these other countries, which spend less and have better outcomes, are less efficient at delivering healthcare?
Slashdot Mirror
What is the value of a site without visitors?
The site owners banned these people because they don't see any value in a site without revenue.
And they un-banned them because they realized, belatedly, that without visitors there will be zero revenue. Why is that so hard to grasp? When users feel compelled to take extra steps (AdBlock), just to wade through the crap to get to what they value (content) you're doing it wrong.
"...full legal compliance..."
Riiiiht...
Meaning, "I'm crowding into traffic as much as I can get away with and so what if I'm moving twenty miles an hour slower than the flow of traffic would otherwise move. I'm making a statement here, so fuck those carbon belching asshole motorists." Right?
Sorry, pal. I support cycling, all things green, etc. I really do, but I have had far too many "activist" cyclists deliberately and needlessly make my life miserable too many times to give them any slack anymore. Share the road means "sharing", not deliberately holding up traffic when you could do otherwise.
What?!
But at the Tea Party rallies all over Dumbfuckistan they were telling us that this was legit. You don't fool me, you socialist liberal con artist.
...come immediatley to mind as I RTFA, "Terry Childs". This kid, admittedly, commits a crime by breaking into the school's computer system. Childs, on the other hand, did arguably prevent harm by carrying out his duty to maintain the network's security, and he's the one in jail.
[shakes head]
The problem is that just out of shot is a manager who has just told them that if they don't look happy for the photos they, and anyone from their family/friends, will be sacked and never again employed by that factory or any other that the owner has connections to the owners of.
True, but that's pretty much the point I was trying to make. Google "sarcasm". Anyway, the whole thing makes me glad that I only by accessory hardware made in Mexican sweatshops.
I see pictures. I see many pictures. All contain images of smiling, happy workers, joyously engaging in their labor. What is problem?
Well..., duh. Back in them days, "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM..." was a literal truism. Still didn't make it a good idea, then or now.
"the private sector" isn't good enough. Only lavishly expensive government programs are good enough. Fucking hypocrites.
In Korea, video gaming is a professional sport...
And therein lies the reason for all the derision, folks. It may be an over-generalization to so label an entire country as "badly needs to get a fucking life", but it isn't racism. I'd say the same thing about the U.S. (and especially Texas) and their obsession with football. Then again, at least football is a game involving real people on a real playing field with a real ball.
Close. The returning of bonuses to the people you screwed should be a part of the government regulation covering people who fuck around with other peoples' money, e.g. "bankers". An escrow or trust account, could hold the money for n months, where n is long enough to determine guilt/blame. Sign whatever contracts you want, but when you lose at the tables, erm... "business", you'll never see your bonus. No restriction on the mythical free trade, just a means of ensuring that everyone plays fair.
The Interwebs are about freedom, and you are free not to view any site you feel is offensive in some way. Interweb freedom is about the freedom to choose. IE9 chooses certain voluntary standards, and not other voluntary standards, and even creates some of its own voluntary standards. All of which you are free not to use because of the freedom to choose a different browser. It's about freedom. Freedom to choose, not freedom to be restricted to RMS' view of how the Interweb should be.
Develop web pages that must work in all browsers much? I didn't think so. If you did, you'd know exactly why standards are important.
...I would like to thank this tool for reaching a new low for stupidity in a public servant. Having conservative ignoramuses trying to mess with history by inserting fiction into text books is bad, but stupid about history is, I guess, is better than stupid about sex. Not that we don't have our share of "stupid about sex" in The Lone Star State, but at least that particular shortcoming isn't being actively encouraged by a public servant.
I don't understand why these items aren't going to the National Archives. Its not like they are gonna raise enough money for a rocket or anything. The Smithsonian Institution would be a better home than some private collection.
Let's see... You wan't to have the government place these items in some government run institution, so we can all "share" equal access to them? Instead of letting the free market "take care" of priceless historical artifacts?
Sounds kind of like communism to me.
I'm sorry, but what military objective was obtained by gunning down a dozen people from a helicopter? Were they armed "bad guys"? OK, fine. Let's assume that at least some of them were. So we have less than 12 armed bad guys standing around in a street. Again, what military objective was gained?
Answer: None. There was no objective for which military force was the right tool. Suppressing insurgency from an Apache, a thousand yards off, is the wrong approach with the wrong tool. Fucking stupid.
Your understanding of science, and probably of religion, is... flawed. Science is the antithesis of religion, superstition, and all other things that require an unquestioning belief. Science, on the other hand, demands that we question every assumption and that, wherever we can, seek to disprove those assumptions which we have to date found to be reliable. By what twisted logic could you possibly suggest that the two are in any way similar?
As for morality, the most moral people I know are atheists. That's not to say that all atheists are moral, but those who are, become that way out of a deep regard for the notion of doing what is right because it is right. I contrast this with those whose moral compass is driven by fear of retribution. The concept of sin and punishment might modify behavior, but it most certainly does not make people more "moral".
Since when is running a database illegal?
That's all any tracker is. What, exactly, is illegal about "file sharing" per se?
IsoHunt, TBP, et al have never passed a single byte of copyrighted content across their servers. So where is this illegality you speak of?
Here, let me help...
Where it does exist (and you'll get no argument from me on that point) it exists on the machines of, and in the actions of, those who illegally share copyrighted material.
Hey, it's an election year and I need all the mileage I can get out of whatever "...protected the children..." headlines I can generate, you insensitive clod.
You should have a problem with this. Big time. A genuine DDOS attack will be motivation enough for the carriers and ISP's involved to act on their own. That's the beauty of the mythical "free market". No government involvement is required.
On the other hand, letting a single branch of the government pull the plug on "a web site", with no checks and balances has "abuse me" written all over it. No. Hell no.
I've always wanted to stop calling it a "sport".
You've obviously never driven/ridden a high performance racing vehicle. If you had, of course, you'd know that the physical demands of the sport are very real and the athlete's ability to deal with them, while performing at level required to be competitive, or even just safe, in a domain where the importance of awareness, reaction time, and finesse are is magnified because of the speeds involved, is absolutely a factor.
But no. You're probably one of the many who make the superficial (and markedly ignorant) view that motor racing is "...just a bunch of cars going 'round in a circle..."
It's not "extortion". That's such an ugly word. Clearly, there has been a misunderstanding. Yelp is merely offering "protection". You know, 'cause if youse don' have protection, t'ings coul' happen. You know, "t'ings". Maybe somebody trips and falls. Maybe a bun warmer overheats and there's a fire. Maybe people decide the food sucks and write about it. Like a whole lot'a people. You know?
Feeding trolls or not, there are probably some very technical, nerdy solutions to this problem which are way better than "big perfume guns".
There are, though I don't know if they'd qualify for nerdy. Like the "landfill engineer" says, "This ain't rocket surgery." The basics of running a landfill "properly" (as proper as the whole landfill thing can be, at least) were figured out decades ago, including steps to minimize the odor, of which, spraying the pile with hundreds of gallons of perfume isn't one. Of course, many of those steps cost money and require diligence on the part of the operators. So good luck to the downwinders.
Disclosure: I was one of the victims of this breach. Happily, my bank caught it and called to ask if it was really me who'd bought those gift cards at Wal-Mart.
mod parent + insightful, for truer words were never spoken. Seriously, someone should have gone to jail for being so negligent with sensitive information like that, and no, it almost certainly was not anyone whose job it was to see to such things. It was, most likely, someone with budget control over that department who "...didn't see the value in being so paranoid about security..." Look, TJX is still in business, so $41 million probably didn't hurt enough to make that a lesson that would be learned by other businesses. If the negligence had ruined TJX, and landed some VP asses in jail, things would be different. But it didn't, and they're still not.
Maybe there should be a "terms and conditions" document that business, hospitals, anyone who collects and stores sensitive information, should have to sign each time the collect such information, acknowledging their responsibility to safeguard it. Maybe "putting it in writing" every time they add to the database would at least make the legal department take notice.
Wrong. Categorically wrong. Lobbyists, by definition, represent "special interests". The stereotypical example is the industry influence-buyer, with his wad of cash, free private jets to "golfing" getaways, etc., but any group with enough money to make the exercise worthwhile can buy influence too. Trade unions are a good example of the other end of the "who buys government influence" list. But the important point is that none of these groups, nor the government officials they "buy", are beholden to the electorate anywhere near as much as they are beholden to the group who wrote the check and handed it over with a wink. The result? Corruption of the very foundation of representative democracy. Yes, that's an assertion that borders on hyperbole, but it is, alas, often all too true.
My government is using the Internet to spy on me? Who knew?
Wrong on tort reform. It is an inconsequential expense, compared to many other things that could be addressed by real reform.
Wrong on "the AMA cartel". It doesn't exist, at least not in any fashion that drives rates for services. There is no simple illustration of this than a personal experience of mine. Wife visits emergency room, at a hospital that is "in plan" with our insurance, however the doctor who sees her is not "in plan". Insurance pays ER bill, doesn't pay the doctor's bill. We complain. Dr. reduces bill by 70%. So her healthcare would have cost 70% more if the insurance had paid for it.
A system that has a built in overhead of 70% is seriously broken and it's not because of the physicians. It is caused by a system where profit is derived from the very process of paying for healthcare. The insurance company takes a piece of the action, a percentage. Obviously, it's in their interest to make that percentage as large as possible and they spend a great deal of time doing just that, by making it hard for vendors (doctors, hospitals, labs, etc) to get their money, but more importantly, much more importantly, it is in the insurance companies' interest to make the whole process cost as as much as possible. Sure, a 10% cut of the action is better than 5%, as long as the percentage is positive, more action (money flowing through the system) = more profit. That's rather antithetical to the whole concept of "cost control", don't you think?
And, as is typical of people who only listen to Faux News, wrong on the notion that the government is always less efficient. "Government run healthcare", or more precisely, government run healthcare compensation - Medicare, is far, far more efficient than the private insurance industry, for the very reasons outlined above. Don't believe me? Look it up. The figures vary, depending on whose you're reading, but every single study has shown that the private insurance industry's overhead is at least twice, and usually several times that of Medicare's. Then again there's that pesky fact that of all the industrialized western nations, all of whom have (to at least some extent) socialized healthcare, the U.S. ranks dead last in value derived versus money spent on healthcare. How is it, exactly, that all these other countries, which spend less and have better outcomes, are less efficient at delivering healthcare?