The point, which you could easily find in the fine article by simply searching for the word 'physics,' - is that all the things which make piracy attractive - cheap fat network pipes, easy access to tons of storage, easy connectivity to millions of people, etc won't go away just because they ratchet up the legal restrictions. In fact, just the opposite, all of those things will continue to get fatter, cheaper, bigger and better due to engineering progress riding on the back of better applied physics.
Comprehension is hard when you are irrational, I know.
Oh I comprehended you perfectly well. Your argument is precisely that 5% or 0% it doesn't matter, its just as bad because you only found illegal content. If that's not the case, then why did you even bother to relate your personal experience in the first place?
The pirate bay 'caters' to ALL content. With the possible exception of kiddie porn (and face it, anyone using the pirate bay for kiddie porn is going to get picked up by the cops real fast), they don't editorialize at all.
Linux may have 1k+ hits, but IF the site were up right now, I bet you'd find more hits for the 'This Is It' movie download alone than you'd find for Linux. You'd CERTAINLY find more people torrenting the movie than than Linux. If you think otherwise you have some pretty thick blinders on.
And precisely what does that have to do with anything? You want them to throttle users on 'illegal' torrents? That's just a load of circular reasoning you've trotted out in acknowledgment that gee, maybe there is more Free content than you realized so lets change the argument from what the pirate bay does to what its users - essentially anyone on the net - do.
And what's this about the site not being up? Working fine for me.
The only time I can see people making statements like yours is when they are simply pathological lairs and really believe this nonsense.
Blow me. The only time I can see people making statements like yours is when they are simply pathologically incapable of seeing a viewpoint outside of their own.
As long as they don't subject all airport service personnel, like baggage handlers, to the same level of screening, then these games will provide no significant improvement in security.
My citation is admittedly anecdotal. But her surgeries weren't. They were damn painful.
Anecdotal, yet really painful. Well, that clinches it! Just like that guy accused of being a child rapist and murderer, it was a horrible fate for the kid, therefore that slimeball is guilty as sin.
I have never seen anything legal on TPB, I'm sure its there somewhere, but its not something I've noticed. I've certainly never used it for anything legal.
So, because all you ever looked for was illegal, you presume that's all there is? Was it really so hard to type linux into that search box and notice that there were 1000+ hits?
Wikileaks is hosted by PRQ, a Sweden-based company providing "highly secure, no-questions-asked hosting services". PRQ is said to have "almost no information about its clientele and maintains few if any of its own logs". PRQ is owned by Gottfrid Svartholm and Fredrik Neij who, through their involvement in The Pirate Bay, have significant experience in withstanding legal challenges from authorities. Being hosted by PRQ makes it difficult to take Wikileaks offline.
See those two names - the people who own the company that hosts wikileaks? See how those are the two people being sued in the article summary? Next time, try doing a little more research, like maybe checking the wikipedia article for the topic.
I think we should be more worried about wikileaks and other assorted projects that the piratebay guys have been supporting. I have no idea how much of the piratebay's advertising revenues have gone into wikileaks, but my understanding, as superficial as it may be, is that they are the primary group behind it. Maybe fundraising efforts have replaced them, but I haven't heard one way or the other.
I always thought the general logic must be "sign it at 55mph and people will go 10mph faster, i.e. 65mph. If you went and signed it at 65mph everyone would go 75." 10mph faster than the signed speed limit (sometimes 15) seems to be the target most people actually go for, so if you were actually interested in highway safety that's what you'd need to do.
Nope. Studies have found that posted limits have very little effect on average driving speeds. People tend to drive at speeds up to what they feel are safe and no more. The only reason you get the "10mph faster" effect is because the limit is set lower than what most people feel is safe and it is rare for law enforcement to ticket anyone going less than 10mph over the limit - so that's factored into the 'danger' of speeding. If the posted limits were really set according to the DoT standard of 85th percentile, then then there would be a lot fewer people doing the 10mph over the limit thing.
As pointed out in earlier posts, it is likely our progress is more attributable to polymath efforts.
Except the polymaths would not have had an opportunity to do their thing unless others had specialized in the basics needed to support a civilization. Einstein was a patent clerk with free time on his hands - if he had been a farmer, chances are he would have been laboring from sun-up to sun-down seven days a week and to worn out to do much thinking for the remaining hours of his waking life.
It's that Americans like to root for the underdog.
Bingo. Those storylines, cliched as they may be, are all about overcoming adversity to achieve success. They are definitely not about wallowing in failure or even accepting "loserdom" as a livable situation. On the other hand, he got one thing right - those movies do embody the traditional American psyche - its just not the fatalistic one that he thought was.
That wasn't necessarily RAH, that was one of his characters. A lot of his characters were kinda fucked up - like the guy who cloned two female versions of himself and had a three-way, or the guy who went back in time and fucked his own mother.
So, I'm just saying, you might want to take what he wrote with a big grain of salt. After all, specialization is what got our society where it is today - without it we would all still be living the agrarian lifestyle.
The parent to your post makes a decent point... those with multiple and varying interests are probably more likely to be less of an outcast, and thus less likely to be picked on.
I don't buy it. If anything, "jocks" are even less well-rounded than "nerds." The only way being more "well rounded" is going to improve one's social status is simple statistics - if one of your interests puts you in a "cool group" then you'll be "cool." It's a quantity versus quality situation. Pick the right group and you'll only need that one group, pick 100 wrong groups and your social status will be just as bad as if you had only picked one wrong group.
So, why don't the studios include a CD partition on every DVD with at least one song on it. Suddenly, that DVD is a "phonorecord", and can't be rented.
Because they would be immediately sued and since it would be pretty obvious that the only reason they did that was to affect video rentals, they would probably lose. The law is not software that is blindly executed by the legal system, intent is usually taken into account.
This is why you can go to walmart and buy their entire stock and open a DVD rental store. you USED to have to buy the $250.00 a copy VHS tapes for rental, but the movie industry lost a lawsuit and now you dont have to pay for special rental movies.
Yes and no. You used to have pay "rental pricing" for VHS because that was the only price tapes were sold at for the first month or two of sales. Eliminating rental pricing was a deliberate strategy by the studios to increase sales to end users (and cut out those pesky video rental stores), especially Paramount who dragged the other studios kicking-and-screaming into the new era.
There have been a few lawsuits regarding rental pricing and what-not, but they had very little to do with the lack of rental pricing for DVDs.
We should try to think about the things which we are outside our idea of the scope of terrorist operations. Prior to 911 we didn't consider suicide hijackings to be a threat.
I disagree. While it may be entertaining to worry about new and innovative ways to cause mass hysteria and panic, we should only give minor attention to potential attacks because, frankly, the field is so wide open that we could spend all our money and not protect us from 1% of it.
For example, even if we had taken suicide hijackers seriously before 911, what would we have done about it? Even after 911 99% of the effort is a total waste - the only useful measures taken have been reinforcing the cockpit doors, everything else has been a huge waste of money. Would we have been smart enough to do the cockpit doors before 911? Maybe, or maybe we would have spent the money somewhere else in that 99% of useless crap.
I think that attention and money should be spent primarily on making society robust, so that for any kind of failure, we can recover from it fairly quickly. Making sure first responders are well trained and well equipped with good communications ability is probably the best place to spend money because it covers almost all bases. Considering that acts of nature/god are orders of magnitude more frequent than acts of terrorism we get the added bonus of having our money spent on resources that make a difference in the both rare and the common case.
After first responders I think the best place to spend money is in the design phases of public systems, a stronger emphasis on fault tolerance and flexibility - in other words, simply good engineering. Sure, part of that design work should include considering concerted attacks, but we should assume that eventually an attack will succeed and then the question becomes "what are we going to do about it?" Some remote attack that causes a nuke power plant to shut down, or a generator to burn itself out is going to have the same consequences as any other reason for those events to occur for like an earthquake or even operator error. So the bulk of the engineering needs to go into efficiently recovering from those kinds of events regardless of cause - better failsafes and more redundancy for example.
Hold people accountable for their actions - don't blame the system when someone cheats.
In principle I have to disagree. Some systems just make cheating easier. That is not to say that the #1 goal of a system should be to minimize cheating, just that because of human nature, ease of 'cheating' is going to be strongly correlated with the amount of cheating.
Think about it: why do large companies get more subsidies than small ones?
If your goal is to show that the government is not the problem with the creation of monopolies then using subsidies, which by definition are from the government, isn't really the best place to start.
Does that also mean that, when a rich person does get convicted and go to jail, they must have really done it? Whereas a poor person who goes to jail is likely just a victim of the system?
Probably. But having really "done it" according to the law doesn't mean the law itself is good law. Don't confuse being technically correct with being fair or right.
Even if his suspension of foreclosures was a stunt to get him publicity, there are still reasonable people (like me) who thought it was the right thing to do.
I think that eldavojohn's intention was to say that once Dart tasted the drug of national fame for his stance against foreclosure evictions, that he probably became addicted and would continue to seek out his drug by any means possible, craigslist being an example.
On that note, did anybody see Gretchen kiss Claire on Heroes? HOT!
Dexter has been replaced by Heroes as my favorite TV show!
Then you need to be watching some californication - the actress who played Gretchen was topless a couple of times in previous seasons and I don't think a single episode goes by without some female nudity. Although, if Kathleen Turner starts showing some skin, I think that'll be the end of it...
Slashdot Mirror
What bearing does physics have on this?
The point, which you could easily find in the fine article by simply searching for the word 'physics,' - is that all the things which make piracy attractive - cheap fat network pipes, easy access to tons of storage, easy connectivity to millions of people, etc won't go away just because they ratchet up the legal restrictions. In fact, just the opposite, all of those things will continue to get fatter, cheaper, bigger and better due to engineering progress riding on the back of better applied physics.
Comprehension is hard when you are irrational, I know.
Oh I comprehended you perfectly well. Your argument is precisely that 5% or 0% it doesn't matter, its just as bad because you only found illegal content. If that's not the case, then why did you even bother to relate your personal experience in the first place?
The pirate bay 'caters' to ALL content. With the possible exception of kiddie porn (and face it, anyone using the pirate bay for kiddie porn is going to get picked up by the cops real fast), they don't editorialize at all.
Linux may have 1k+ hits, but IF the site were up right now, I bet you'd find more hits for the 'This Is It' movie download alone than you'd find for Linux. You'd CERTAINLY find more people torrenting the movie than than Linux. If you think otherwise you have some pretty thick blinders on.
And precisely what does that have to do with anything? You want them to throttle users on 'illegal' torrents? That's just a load of circular reasoning you've trotted out in acknowledgment that gee, maybe there is more Free content than you realized so lets change the argument from what the pirate bay does to what its users - essentially anyone on the net - do.
And what's this about the site not being up? Working fine for me.
The only time I can see people making statements like yours is when they are simply pathological lairs and really believe this nonsense.
Blow me. The only time I can see people making statements like yours is when they are simply pathologically incapable of seeing a viewpoint outside of their own.
If you want to help, get some perspective.
As long as they don't subject all airport service personnel, like baggage handlers, to the same level of screening, then these games will provide no significant improvement in security.
My citation is admittedly anecdotal. But her surgeries weren't. They were damn painful.
Anecdotal, yet really painful. Well, that clinches it!
Just like that guy accused of being a child rapist and murderer, it was a horrible fate for the kid, therefore that slimeball is guilty as sin.
I have never seen anything legal on TPB, I'm sure its there somewhere, but its not something I've noticed. I've certainly never used it for anything legal.
So, because all you ever looked for was illegal, you presume that's all there is?
Was it really so hard to type linux into that search box and notice that there were 1000+ hits?
From the wikipedia entry for Wikileaks:
Wikileaks is hosted by PRQ, a Sweden-based company providing "highly secure, no-questions-asked hosting services". PRQ is said to have "almost no information about its clientele and maintains few if any of its own logs". PRQ is owned by Gottfrid Svartholm and Fredrik Neij who, through their involvement in The Pirate Bay, have significant experience in withstanding legal challenges from authorities. Being hosted by PRQ makes it difficult to take Wikileaks offline.
See those two names - the people who own the company that hosts wikileaks? See how those are the two people being sued in the article summary?
Next time, try doing a little more research, like maybe checking the wikipedia article for the topic.
I think we should be more worried about wikileaks and other assorted projects that the piratebay guys have been supporting.
I have no idea how much of the piratebay's advertising revenues have gone into wikileaks, but my understanding, as superficial as it may be, is that they are the primary group behind it. Maybe fundraising efforts have replaced them, but I haven't heard one way or the other.
Being graded on the quality of the ideas in the thesis and not the implementation?
Why even implement then? Just write a paper and be done with it.
In other words, if the MSc thesis requirements include an implementation then clearly the quality of the implementation is going to be evaluated.
If that guy ever gets a real job outside of academia the lesson he learned from that singular experience will probably define his career.
that in movies losers win,
You appear to be having difficulty with the definition of the word "loser."
I always thought the general logic must be "sign it at 55mph and people will go 10mph faster, i.e. 65mph. If you went and signed it at 65mph everyone would go 75." 10mph faster than the signed speed limit (sometimes 15) seems to be the target most people actually go for, so if you were actually interested in highway safety that's what you'd need to do.
Nope. Studies have found that posted limits have very little effect on average driving speeds. People tend to drive at speeds up to what they feel are safe and no more. The only reason you get the "10mph faster" effect is because the limit is set lower than what most people feel is safe and it is rare for law enforcement to ticket anyone going less than 10mph over the limit - so that's factored into the 'danger' of speeding. If the posted limits were really set according to the DoT standard of 85th percentile, then then there would be a lot fewer people doing the 10mph over the limit thing.
As pointed out in earlier posts, it is likely our progress is more attributable to polymath efforts.
Except the polymaths would not have had an opportunity to do their thing unless others had specialized in the basics needed to support a civilization. Einstein was a patent clerk with free time on his hands - if he had been a farmer, chances are he would have been laboring from sun-up to sun-down seven days a week and to worn out to do much thinking for the remaining hours of his waking life.
It's that Americans like to root for the underdog.
Bingo. Those storylines, cliched as they may be, are all about overcoming adversity to achieve success. They are definitely not about wallowing in failure or even accepting "loserdom" as a livable situation. On the other hand, he got one thing right - those movies do embody the traditional American psyche - its just not the fatalistic one that he thought was.
That wasn't necessarily RAH, that was one of his characters.
A lot of his characters were kinda fucked up - like the guy who cloned two female versions of himself and had a three-way, or the guy who went back in time and fucked his own mother.
So, I'm just saying, you might want to take what he wrote with a big grain of salt.
After all, specialization is what got our society where it is today - without it we would all still be living the agrarian lifestyle.
The parent to your post makes a decent point... those with multiple and varying interests are probably more likely to be less of an outcast, and thus less likely to be picked on.
I don't buy it. If anything, "jocks" are even less well-rounded than "nerds." The only way being more "well rounded" is going to improve one's social status is simple statistics - if one of your interests puts you in a "cool group" then you'll be "cool." It's a quantity versus quality situation. Pick the right group and you'll only need that one group, pick 100 wrong groups and your social status will be just as bad as if you had only picked one wrong group.
So, why don't the studios include a CD partition on every DVD with at least one song on it. Suddenly, that DVD is a "phonorecord", and can't be rented.
Because they would be immediately sued and since it would be pretty obvious that the only reason they did that was to affect video rentals, they would probably lose. The law is not software that is blindly executed by the legal system, intent is usually taken into account.
This is why you can go to walmart and buy their entire stock and open a DVD rental store. you USED to have to buy the $250.00 a copy VHS tapes for rental, but the movie industry lost a lawsuit and now you dont have to pay for special rental movies.
Yes and no. You used to have pay "rental pricing" for VHS because that was the only price tapes were sold at for the first month or two of sales.
Eliminating rental pricing was a deliberate strategy by the studios to increase sales to end users (and cut out those pesky video rental stores), especially Paramount who dragged the other studios kicking-and-screaming into the new era.
There have been a few lawsuits regarding rental pricing and what-not, but they had very little to do with the lack of rental pricing for DVDs.
You should tell that to every public library I've visited in the last 20 years, all of which have an audio section filled with rock/pop/etc. CDs.
The Record Rental Amendment of 1984 only applies to the lending of phonorecords for direct or indirect commercial purposes.
Public libraries are therefore exempt.
Reporters carry laptops. We will here about anything that inconveniences reporters.
Reporters wear shoes, drink fluids, use toothpaste and shampoo, but hearing about those inconveniences hasn't made an iota of difference.
We should try to think about the things which we are outside our idea of the scope of terrorist operations. Prior to 911 we didn't consider suicide hijackings to be a threat.
I disagree. While it may be entertaining to worry about new and innovative ways to cause mass hysteria and panic, we should only give minor attention to potential attacks because, frankly, the field is so wide open that we could spend all our money and not protect us from 1% of it.
For example, even if we had taken suicide hijackers seriously before 911, what would we have done about it? Even after 911 99% of the effort is a total waste - the only useful measures taken have been reinforcing the cockpit doors, everything else has been a huge waste of money. Would we have been smart enough to do the cockpit doors before 911? Maybe, or maybe we would have spent the money somewhere else in that 99% of useless crap.
I think that attention and money should be spent primarily on making society robust, so that for any kind of failure, we can recover from it fairly quickly. Making sure first responders are well trained and well equipped with good communications ability is probably the best place to spend money because it covers almost all bases. Considering that acts of nature/god are orders of magnitude more frequent than acts of terrorism we get the added bonus of having our money spent on resources that make a difference in the both rare and the common case.
After first responders I think the best place to spend money is in the design phases of public systems, a stronger emphasis on fault tolerance and flexibility - in other words, simply good engineering. Sure, part of that design work should include considering concerted attacks, but we should assume that eventually an attack will succeed and then the question becomes "what are we going to do about it?" Some remote attack that causes a nuke power plant to shut down, or a generator to burn itself out is going to have the same consequences as any other reason for those events to occur for like an earthquake or even operator error. So the bulk of the engineering needs to go into efficiently recovering from those kinds of events regardless of cause - better failsafes and more redundancy for example.
Hold people accountable for their actions - don't blame the system when someone cheats.
In principle I have to disagree. Some systems just make cheating easier. That is not to say that the #1 goal of a system should be to minimize cheating, just that because of human nature, ease of 'cheating' is going to be strongly correlated with the amount of cheating.
wooosh
That's precisely what a corp is - limited liability for the actions of members with protection for such provided by the government.
Think about it: why do large companies get more subsidies than small ones?
If your goal is to show that the government is not the problem with the creation of monopolies then using subsidies, which by definition are from the government, isn't really the best place to start.
Does that also mean that, when a rich person does get convicted and go to jail, they must have really done it? Whereas a poor person who goes to jail is likely just a victim of the system?
Probably. But having really "done it" according to the law doesn't mean the law itself is good law.
Don't confuse being technically correct with being fair or right.
Even if his suspension of foreclosures was a stunt to get him publicity, there are still reasonable people (like me) who thought it was the right thing to do.
I think that eldavojohn's intention was to say that once Dart tasted the drug of national fame for his stance against foreclosure evictions, that he probably became addicted and would continue to seek out his drug by any means possible, craigslist being an example.
On that note, did anybody see Gretchen kiss Claire on Heroes? HOT!
Dexter has been replaced by Heroes as my favorite TV show!
Then you need to be watching some californication - the actress who played Gretchen was topless a couple of times in previous seasons and I don't think a single episode goes by without some female nudity. Although, if Kathleen Turner starts showing some skin, I think that'll be the end of it...