It figgers that that sumbitch Galois would try and learn us about cardinality and set theory. What's next, Mr. Smartypants? A lecture on symmetry of roots?
More recently sites like Suprnova and BTefnet [...] have been subject to successful legal action.
See, that's the thing. They've been sued, but nothing in the strict legal sense has been successful yet. No P2P cases have been decided by a court yet. This is why the Grokster case is so important.
I never liked Winamp because it does not support Unicode and because it does not support multi-user setups. They claim that because only a very small fraction of their users need anything beyond chr(255), they won't implement it. In fact, one mod at Winamp referred me to Foobar2000 for my Unicode-needs. I haven't looked back since.
In this case, it is the tool. Or more precisely, misusing the tool.
You mean kind of like the tool "P2P" and the misuse of the tool "piracy"? Are you suggesting that copyright infringement is the fault of the tool? Because you sure do sound like you're saying that!
I saw "Spike and Mike's Sick and Twisted Animation Festival" there my freshman year at UT, and it completely flabbergasted me how awesome a movie experience could be. The Drafthouse is amazing, and I'm looking forward to getting back to Austin from Japan so I can go see movies there again.
I see absolutely no argument in that piece. I only see reference to a quote from a comic strip, and a loose statement that computer science and business language are weird, and have impediments to understanding that arise from verbing.
I posit that many of the verbs in our language that are commonly used originated as verbified nouns. Take the word "photograph" for example. I acknowledge that "-graph" comes from "draw" in Greek, but don't forget "spectrograph", "telegraph" and others that are nouns ending in "graph". I would bet money that "photograph" was a noun and became a verb through verbification. Hell, "graph" even be a noun that was verbified!
In any case, I guarantee you that verbification doesn't weird Japanese. In fact, it's practically the only simple way to express many concepts! There is even a verbification suffix (suru) which, when appended to a noun, makes the noun a verb. So I think Calvin (am I really trying to argue with a comic strip?) is refuted in his statement that "verbing weirds language," because obviously it doesn't automatically weird a language.
I apologize; I thought you were being sarcastic and ridiculing the verbification of "SCO". I had a knee-jerk response to someone that I took as being a "prescriptive grammarian" ("this way is correct, all others are wrong!"-type person). In the immortal words of some guy playing CS, "whops sry".
I don't understand what the gripe with making new verbs is. I consider it one of English's great strengths, that one can make new verbs at will. English is very flexible due to this.
If nominalization in English is acceptable, I would hope the opposite (verbification) is OK. Among other languages, Japanese and Latin both have it.
Please, just give me one reason why what the gp said was poor communication (and that is, after all, the whole point of language -- to communicate).
It's funny you should mention Lain. Aside from the fact that it was made to sell a game (just like Dot Hack [insert random word here] series was), the creator also wanted to get a rise out of Americans. He purposefully wrote it as a critique of Japan becoming too Westernized. http://www.cjas.org/~leng/pubs.htm#animer Check the 6th page in the Animerica interview scan. In the third column, he states very clearly,
[Americans] won't understand [Lain]. I don't want them to understand [Lain]. This work is based on [...] Japanese people. This work is a [...] cultural war against American culture[...]
Assume that no one can DoS the entire internet for a second. Thus, a censored people, prior to Tor, had no recourse of action to speak their mind safely. After Tor, they have a chance (remember, we assumed that no one can DoS the entire internet!).
I posit that, by stating that any forum a Chinese person would join would be DoSed, you made the assumption that the entire internet can be DoSed simultaneously, bringing the entire internet crashing down. Now doesn't that sound a bit silly?
Actually you've just given me an idea: surely it's virtually impossible for two files of the same size to have a certain high number of the same hashes and not be the same file (or set of files).
Could this be used to the advantage of combining files in the distributed client? It lessens the load (there are less unique "torrents" to be distributed, as they are combined) also.
Even if there is a spurious hash of two different files, they wouldn't have -all- the same hashes for each chunk that bittorrent uses, right? Perhaps this could work after all.
I'm sure that the distributed tracker could be modified in such a way that the download would be done via hash instead of.torrent file (as may already be the case). This way, the identical data the you and your friend are sharing gets lumped together automatically due to the fact that it has the same hash (perhaps also shares filename, to prevent hash collisions?).
This would in fact be a -huge- step forward, because then you would have everyone sharing the file together instead of people on The Pirate Bay sharing it, and people on BT Efnet (RIP) sharing it, and people on TV Torrents sharing it, all via different trackers, diluting the potential upload power by separating rather than combining.
Of course, this distributed tracker might in fact eliminates all safeguards against leechers. Of course, those who really cared about that could just keep using their online sites instead of the distributed tracker.
$5 a month for the rest of your life? That is $60 a year, and say it's a college student, he's got 70 more years of life to go -- $4200, which is still larger than the average settlement (which I believe is somewhere around $3000).
I could take adult porn, and photoshop it to look like child porn if I so wished.
Incidentally, as of 1996 (Child Pornography Prevention Act), that is also illegal. 1(5) - This makes simulated child pornography (photoshopped faces on adults' bodies) illegal 1(6)(A) - This makes blocking out someone's face in pornography illegal because it would "obscure their identity"? 1(6)(B) and (C) - This also makes simulated child pornography (photoshopping) illegal 1(8) - This justifies the illegality as preventing a person from being "seduced" into becoming a child molester.
Re:It shouldnt be created in the first place.
on
Revamping Freenet
·
· Score: 1
For the tobacco companies to say that tobacco does not cause cancer but makes your breath minty fresh is also not protected under free speech.
I think that is absurd. I do not smoke. I have never smoked in my life. If a company had told me, even when I was ten years old, that smoking was healthy, I still would have looked at them and laughed due to all the education campaigns and information from adults. This is a perfect example of something good about Freenet. I completely disagree with that limitation of free speech mentioned above. However, it is illegal. The question remains: if something is illegal, and Freenet polices and removes that content, yet someone like me does not see it as something worthy of removal, doesn't that make Freenet censored?
In any case, removing anything makes Freenet censored. Where do you draw the line? I imagine Freenet could just say "fine, child pornography is against the rules", but then how do you stop it? If you begin policing, then all speech that is illegal should be removed, for fear of prosecution for hosting it:
Freenet: "Oh, but we can't help it!" Police: "Sure you can. You got rid of the child pornography, didn't you?"
Thus, speech effectively becomes not free, even on Freenet. Once you begin censoring content, even outrageously morally offensive content, you will eventually have to censor all content that is illegal, for fear of prosecution.
Slashdot Mirror
I am going to push back, not sit around and take it like a @#$$Y.
What is an ahssy?
It figgers that that sumbitch Galois would try and learn us about cardinality and set theory. What's next, Mr. Smartypants? A lecture on symmetry of roots?
More recently sites like Suprnova and BTefnet [...] have been subject to successful legal action.
See, that's the thing. They've been sued, but nothing in the strict legal sense has been successful yet. No P2P cases have been decided by a court yet. This is why the Grokster case is so important.
I never liked Winamp because it does not support Unicode and because it does not support multi-user setups. They claim that because only a very small fraction of their users need anything beyond chr(255), they won't implement it. In fact, one mod at Winamp referred me to Foobar2000 for my Unicode-needs. I haven't looked back since.
In this case, it is the tool. Or more precisely, misusing the tool.
You mean kind of like the tool "P2P" and the misuse of the tool "piracy"? Are you suggesting that copyright infringement is the fault of the tool? Because you sure do sound like you're saying that!
'Y' is the Michael Jackson of the alphabet -- you don't know if it's one or the other.
I always thought Sumi Das was hot, and I had a little crush on Meagan Marrone (sp?) back when I was in high school.
I saw "Spike and Mike's Sick and Twisted Animation Festival" there my freshman year at UT, and it completely flabbergasted me how awesome a movie experience could be. The Drafthouse is amazing, and I'm looking forward to getting back to Austin from Japan so I can go see movies there again.
Those fucking grammar police; you'd think they were a copper something like one!
I see absolutely no argument in that piece. I only see reference to a quote from a comic strip, and a loose statement that computer science and business language are weird, and have impediments to understanding that arise from verbing.
I posit that many of the verbs in our language that are commonly used originated as verbified nouns. Take the word "photograph" for example. I acknowledge that "-graph" comes from "draw" in Greek, but don't forget "spectrograph", "telegraph" and others that are nouns ending in "graph". I would bet money that "photograph" was a noun and became a verb through verbification. Hell, "graph" even be a noun that was verbified!
In any case, I guarantee you that verbification doesn't weird Japanese. In fact, it's practically the only simple way to express many concepts! There is even a verbification suffix (suru) which, when appended to a noun, makes the noun a verb. So I think Calvin (am I really trying to argue with a comic strip?) is refuted in his statement that "verbing weirds language," because obviously it doesn't automatically weird a language.
I apologize; I thought you were being sarcastic and ridiculing the verbification of "SCO". I had a knee-jerk response to someone that I took as being a "prescriptive grammarian" ("this way is correct, all others are wrong!"-type person). In the immortal words of some guy playing CS, "whops sry".
When PHBs see our 733T audits-required letter
Pfss, and you call yourselves 1337.
I don't understand what the gripe with making new verbs is. I consider it one of English's great strengths, that one can make new verbs at will. English is very flexible due to this.
If nominalization in English is acceptable, I would hope the opposite (verbification) is OK. Among other languages, Japanese and Latin both have it.
Please, just give me one reason why what the gp said was poor communication (and that is, after all, the whole point of language -- to communicate).
It's funny you should mention Lain. Aside from the fact that it was made to sell a game (just like Dot Hack [insert random word here] series was), the creator also wanted to get a rise out of Americans. He purposefully wrote it as a critique of Japan becoming too Westernized. http://www.cjas.org/~leng/pubs.htm#animer Check the 6th page in the Animerica interview scan. In the third column, he states very clearly,
;)
[Americans] won't understand [Lain]. I don't want them to understand [Lain]. This work is based on [...] Japanese people. This work is a [...] cultural war against American culture[...]
Pretty awesome, huh?
Assume that no one can DoS the entire internet for a second. Thus, a censored people, prior to Tor, had no recourse of action to speak their mind safely. After Tor, they have a chance (remember, we assumed that no one can DoS the entire internet!).
I posit that, by stating that any forum a Chinese person would join would be DoSed, you made the assumption that the entire internet can be DoSed simultaneously, bringing the entire internet crashing down. Now doesn't that sound a bit silly?
Sue Arri!
What an excellent name for an IP pirate.
I thought it was, "Every time you leech from BitTorrent, God masturbates."
provide BitTorrent users with a closed 'single-stop' solution
I think you meant to say open solution.
I have just patented the .sig file
So...does that mean that we have to take off every sig or else face great justice?
Actually you've just given me an idea: surely it's virtually impossible for two files of the same size to have a certain high number of the same hashes and not be the same file (or set of files).
Could this be used to the advantage of combining files in the distributed client? It lessens the load (there are less unique "torrents" to be distributed, as they are combined) also.
Even if there is a spurious hash of two different files, they wouldn't have -all- the same hashes for each chunk that bittorrent uses, right? Perhaps this could work after all.
I'm sure that the distributed tracker could be modified in such a way that the download would be done via hash instead of .torrent file (as may already be the case). This way, the identical data the you and your friend are sharing gets lumped together automatically due to the fact that it has the same hash (perhaps also shares filename, to prevent hash collisions?).
This would in fact be a -huge- step forward, because then you would have everyone sharing the file together instead of people on The Pirate Bay sharing it, and people on BT Efnet (RIP) sharing it, and people on TV Torrents sharing it, all via different trackers, diluting the potential upload power by separating rather than combining.
Of course, this distributed tracker might in fact eliminates all safeguards against leechers. Of course, those who really cared about that could just keep using their online sites instead of the distributed tracker.
However, in a recent study it was revealed that if you drink too much alcohol, you begin to drive as if you were talking on a cellphone.
$5 a month for the rest of your life? That is $60 a year, and say it's a college student, he's got 70 more years of life to go -- $4200, which is still larger than the average settlement (which I believe is somewhere around $3000).
I could take adult porn, and photoshop it to look like child porn if I so wished.
Incidentally, as of 1996 (Child Pornography Prevention Act), that is also illegal.
1(5) - This makes simulated child pornography (photoshopped faces on adults' bodies) illegal
1(6)(A) - This makes blocking out someone's face in pornography illegal because it would "obscure their identity"?
1(6)(B) and (C) - This also makes simulated child pornography (photoshopping) illegal
1(8) - This justifies the illegality as preventing a person from being "seduced" into becoming a child molester.
For the tobacco companies to say that tobacco does not cause cancer but makes your breath minty fresh is also not protected under free speech.
I think that is absurd. I do not smoke. I have never smoked in my life. If a company had told me, even when I was ten years old, that smoking was healthy, I still would have looked at them and laughed due to all the education campaigns and information from adults. This is a perfect example of something good about Freenet. I completely disagree with that limitation of free speech mentioned above. However, it is illegal. The question remains: if something is illegal, and Freenet polices and removes that content, yet someone like me does not see it as something worthy of removal, doesn't that make Freenet censored?
In any case, removing anything makes Freenet censored. Where do you draw the line? I imagine Freenet could just say "fine, child pornography is against the rules", but then how do you stop it? If you begin policing, then all speech that is illegal should be removed, for fear of prosecution for hosting it:
Freenet: "Oh, but we can't help it!"
Police: "Sure you can. You got rid of the child pornography, didn't you?"
Thus, speech effectively becomes not free, even on Freenet. Once you begin censoring content, even outrageously morally offensive content, you will eventually have to censor all content that is illegal, for fear of prosecution.