No, that's not how the internet works. I'm sure that's how you'd *like* the internet to work, but that's some kind of fantasy you perpetuate so you don't feel bad by taking someone's content for free.
Nice analogy about adverts in German cinema (I live in Germany), and the newspaper adverts. They're flawed, though, as the cinema will get money for showing those adverts regardless of whether you are in your seat or not, and the paper will get money just for including the adverts - internet adverts get sites money when they're viewed, which as you don't view them, the site in question won't get.
Keep your attention as clean as you want - stay away from sites with adverts you don't like. If (when, according to you) enough people don't patronise their sites, their revenue streams will change, and flash adverts will disappear.
Then as soon as you see those flash adverts, leave the site, and don't come back. If everyone with AdBlock did that, then the flash adverts would go away, as alternate non-annoying revenue streams are found. You are perpetuating the situation, and rather selfishly at that.
Or just don't go to sites that have advertisements you don't want to see. That seems a bit more fair than using resources of a site you clearly want to visit while denying them income...
Hardly. If a freedom fighter can't get close enough to the military targets they want to attack, they'll go for what they can - their support. That support is always civilians. It's very easy for us in the west to not think about that. Terrorists and freedom fighters are two sides of the same damned coin. The sooner we realise that, the sooner we have neither. Your logic perpetuates the violence. Just look at the IRA - were they freedom fighters or terrorists? They attacked both, because they couldn't get to the military targets as well as they'd want. They started to blow up people instead, in order to get the attention of the British government. And guess what - it worked.
I'd risk being labelled a sex offender to save a kid's life. I think one outweighs the other by rather a lot. I bet you're one of those folks who won't slowly pass a red light to get out of the way of an ambulance in case you get a ticket. I apologise if I'm wrong on either count.
It's most likely not your ISP but your network infrastructure in your house. All those people using the internet are probably creating too many connections for your network to handle, causing the already-established connections to choke, killing them. It might be a good idea to determine if that is the issue before launching into a tirade against your ISP, as you might look a bit foolish. Also, if you saturate your upstream, your downstream will suffer, as the necessary overhead of creating and maintaining connections is included in the bandwidth your ISP offers you. So if you have, say, 1mb up, and you are uploading something at 1mb/s, your internet connection might become totally unusable.
2) I hope that was a joke:) The issue with guns passing through a foreign country is still there - I doubt many countries will take kindly to boxes of weapons being lugged around.
As others have stated, it affects the ability of the ships to dock, but it also raises the chances that pirates will actually use their weapons against people. Currently it's very rare for people being hijacked to be hurt. If people are armed, there will be a spate of gun battles at sea, resulting in deaths on both sides. As pirates are doing this out of desperation, they'll keep doing it even if some die. They're not looking for a quick buck, but any buck. Also if you have guns on a ship, you need to have the facilities to heal people who've been shot, which costs even more money (to install, maintain, and staff). Basically it's easier and safer to not arm people.
Tell that to their customs agencies when the ship in question tries to dock in their ports to transfer cargo. That weapons locker on board the ship, metres from land, suddenly becomes rather interesting to them, as it damn well should. It's not a military threat, but a civil one. Some sailors looking for extra cash selling off their weapons to dockers. I'm sure loads of countries would love that.
They can carry what they want (within reason - no nukes, etc.), it's when they get to port that the problems ensue. Some ports won't let them in, some will require a shit-tonne or paperwork, and some will require massively-lengthy customs checks that eats in to the profits of the vessel quite considerably.
It's not just that, but it ups the ante considerably. If the pirates know that some merchant vessels are armed, they'll be far more aggressive, which will lead to more casualties. The best defence, as most people in the region have figured out, is to do everything to stop the pirates from being able to board their ships. No one wants merchants to have to be armed to the teeth just to sail.
The pirates rarely sail up and start firing. They sneak up, climb on to the target ship, and take hostages. It *is* judge and jury time, as they might just be struggling fishermen when out at 400m. If merchant vessels start shooting up any fishing vessel that comes near them, there'll be a lot more dead innocent people.
That raises the stakes somewhat, which is what every merchant ship in dangerous waters wants to avoid. It's bad enough having the sea swarming with pirates, but when the pirates know they have to actually attack (instead of sneaking up and taking hostages without firing a shot), we're going to end up with a lot more dead folks on both sides.
Slashdot Mirror
No, that's not how the internet works. I'm sure that's how you'd *like* the internet to work, but that's some kind of fantasy you perpetuate so you don't feel bad by taking someone's content for free.
Nice analogy about adverts in German cinema (I live in Germany), and the newspaper adverts. They're flawed, though, as the cinema will get money for showing those adverts regardless of whether you are in your seat or not, and the paper will get money just for including the adverts - internet adverts get sites money when they're viewed, which as you don't view them, the site in question won't get.
Keep your attention as clean as you want - stay away from sites with adverts you don't like. If (when, according to you) enough people don't patronise their sites, their revenue streams will change, and flash adverts will disappear.
Your position is lazy and selfish.
Then as soon as you see those flash adverts, leave the site, and don't come back. If everyone with AdBlock did that, then the flash adverts would go away, as alternate non-annoying revenue streams are found. You are perpetuating the situation, and rather selfishly at that.
No, it's more simple - if you are on a site that has ads like that, go elsewhere, and never return. Problem solved.
Or just don't go to sites that have advertisements you don't want to see. That seems a bit more fair than using resources of a site you clearly want to visit while denying them income...
Zippo-style lighters are not, butane lighters are.
Hardly. If a freedom fighter can't get close enough to the military targets they want to attack, they'll go for what they can - their support. That support is always civilians. It's very easy for us in the west to not think about that. Terrorists and freedom fighters are two sides of the same damned coin. The sooner we realise that, the sooner we have neither. Your logic perpetuates the violence. Just look at the IRA - were they freedom fighters or terrorists? They attacked both, because they couldn't get to the military targets as well as they'd want. They started to blow up people instead, in order to get the attention of the British government. And guess what - it worked.
Transport planes can hold 600-1500 fully-armed soldiers?
I'd risk being labelled a sex offender to save a kid's life. I think one outweighs the other by rather a lot. I bet you're one of those folks who won't slowly pass a red light to get out of the way of an ambulance in case you get a ticket. I apologise if I'm wrong on either count.
The sheer number of Chinese folks, I'd guess.
Diagnostics?
It's most likely not your ISP but your network infrastructure in your house. All those people using the internet are probably creating too many connections for your network to handle, causing the already-established connections to choke, killing them. It might be a good idea to determine if that is the issue before launching into a tirade against your ISP, as you might look a bit foolish. Also, if you saturate your upstream, your downstream will suffer, as the necessary overhead of creating and maintaining connections is included in the bandwidth your ISP offers you. So if you have, say, 1mb up, and you are uploading something at 1mb/s, your internet connection might become totally unusable.
There were many different kinds of Italian even 400 years ago, so you're not necessarily right.
They didn't want to endanger the crew of the yacht, which is fair enough.
Says someone with a comfortable life.
2) I hope that was a joke :) The issue with guns passing through a foreign country is still there - I doubt many countries will take kindly to boxes of weapons being lugged around.
As others have stated, it affects the ability of the ships to dock, but it also raises the chances that pirates will actually use their weapons against people. Currently it's very rare for people being hijacked to be hurt. If people are armed, there will be a spate of gun battles at sea, resulting in deaths on both sides. As pirates are doing this out of desperation, they'll keep doing it even if some die. They're not looking for a quick buck, but any buck. Also if you have guns on a ship, you need to have the facilities to heal people who've been shot, which costs even more money (to install, maintain, and staff). Basically it's easier and safer to not arm people.
When the carpenter's chisel blade falls off when it's removed from the box, it's only a stupid carpenter who doesn't.
So more guns is the answer? You're asking to give them a reason to start using the guns, which they very rarely do now.
Tell that to their customs agencies when the ship in question tries to dock in their ports to transfer cargo. That weapons locker on board the ship, metres from land, suddenly becomes rather interesting to them, as it damn well should. It's not a military threat, but a civil one. Some sailors looking for extra cash selling off their weapons to dockers. I'm sure loads of countries would love that.
They can carry what they want (within reason - no nukes, etc.), it's when they get to port that the problems ensue. Some ports won't let them in, some will require a shit-tonne or paperwork, and some will require massively-lengthy customs checks that eats in to the profits of the vessel quite considerably.
How many merchant seamen have been killed by Somalian pirates?
It's not just that, but it ups the ante considerably. If the pirates know that some merchant vessels are armed, they'll be far more aggressive, which will lead to more casualties. The best defence, as most people in the region have figured out, is to do everything to stop the pirates from being able to board their ships. No one wants merchants to have to be armed to the teeth just to sail.
The pirates rarely sail up and start firing. They sneak up, climb on to the target ship, and take hostages. It *is* judge and jury time, as they might just be struggling fishermen when out at 400m. If merchant vessels start shooting up any fishing vessel that comes near them, there'll be a lot more dead innocent people.
That raises the stakes somewhat, which is what every merchant ship in dangerous waters wants to avoid. It's bad enough having the sea swarming with pirates, but when the pirates know they have to actually attack (instead of sneaking up and taking hostages without firing a shot), we're going to end up with a lot more dead folks on both sides.