im not an american. do not give knee jerk responses. EVEN if i was an american, this wouldnt change anything, since a fact is a fact, regardless of who says it.
well, chinese payment providers stepped in at that point. even worse for u.s., since even despite wto, noone in the world can do shit against china in any respect.
imagine... and that's a game that is more targeted at younger audiences too. an entire generation will start with assassins creed 2 crack, and then move on to becoming a mainstay for the underground nature of the internet.
people are cheap, because our current socioeconomic system forces them to live lives they are not happy with, even they havent chosen, and in return pushes them crappy, mass produced products from all fronts.
but, ANYONE, when chances up with something s/he really likes, really really holds onto them. thats why we have grown up adults who are still clinging to some bands/games/products etc from the past decades, despite having moved on in all other fronts. they keep these and use these, because they like those. its as simple as that.
lets see now - there are ~80 songs in my permanent playlist. honestly, most of these, i wouldnt pay, in any way. they are 'ok'. but we do not want 'ok'. we want 'good'. for about 9 of these songs however, i would probably regularly go donate to their creators, have they had some format like what Radiohead did.
ah and by the way, Radiohead's experiment tramples all kinds of 'people are cheap' arguments. they made what they would have made in a year, touring, in approx 3 hours there, with no sweat.
gamers are no sheeps. gamers are technically affluent, organically connected through innumerable communities, and somehow have a common culture.
in layman's terms, they dont take no shit.
in the past numerous big companies had to eat their word in various issues related to gaming and drm and whatnot, due to the response of gaming community.
this, probably will be an even bigger case than others.
again, you need a lot of catching up to do. just search slashdot for britain. im turkish, and as a turkish citizen i have more rights in turkey now than a british citizen has in britain. considering turkey has been behind europe in most respects in these matters, it makes your situation much more appalling.
ill quote another response of mine - there seems to be a lot of people who doesnt have their legislative history straight:
you think this is something that can happen starting from 2006 and popping out in 2008 ? so, you think scamming ENTIRE world takes just 2 years ?
did you know that when then democratic congress, starting from 2006 attempted to check into banks, they were barred by bush administration and republicans, yelling 'hands off business - you'll cost americans jobs !' ?
did you know that this 'deregulation' process has been started with alan greenspan in reagan era and continued picking up pace, culminating in its apex with bushies getting elected on top of a republican congress ?
during 2001-2006 they went all out with that 'deregulation'. leave aside bringing new standards to financial institutions, they even didnt employ the existing regulation mechanics in that era. banks could do anything they want without any interference.
before having an opinion, get your history straight first.
you think this is something that can happen starting from 2006 and popping out in 2008 ? so, you think scamming ENTIRE world takes just 2 years ?
did you know that when then democratic congress, starting from 2006 attempted to check into banks, they were barred by bush administration and republicans, yelling 'hands off business - you'll cost americans jobs !' ?
did you know that this 'deregulation' process has been started with alan greenspan in reagan era and continued picking up pace, culminating in its apex with bushies getting elected on top of a republican congress ?
during 2001-2006 they went all out with that 'deregulation'. leave aside bringing new standards to financial institutions, they even didnt employ the existing regulation mechanics in that era. banks could do anything they want without any interference.
before having an opinion, get your history straight first.
you think this is something that can happen starting from 2006 and popping out in 2008 ? so, you think scamming ENTIRE world takes just 2 years ?
did you know that when then democratic congress, starting from 2006 attempted to check into banks, they were barred by bush administration and republicans, yelling 'hands off business - you'll cost americans jobs !' ?
did you know that this 'deregulation' process has been started with alan greenspan in reagan era and continued picking up pace, culminating in its apex with bushies getting elected on top of a republican congress ?
during 2001-2006 they went all out with that 'deregulation'. leave aside bringing new standards to financial institutions, they even didnt employ the existing regulation mechanics in that era. banks could do anything they want without any interference.
before having an opinion, get your history straight first.
its like tv ads. remember how the ad agencies in europe started to make funny/interesting ads so that viewers would at least watch them once, and tell them to other people ? its supposed to be like that. when an ad is funny, even if you havent seen it, you HEAR it from someone else. eventually you end up checking out the ads if the thing will come up or not, if you cant find it directly online. and then you watch it and laugh. you laugh, and the ad agency delivers their message. give and take, everyone is happy.
the situation of online advertising is more like american advertising of old times - obnoxious, intrusive, repetitive, stupid (or at least takes viewers as stupid) and makeshift. noone wants that.
and increasingly intrusive. leave those aside, they have increasingly became loaded with javascript, which are aimed in abstracting various information about the visitor on whose computer they are displayed on. and on top of these, they are incurring latency. often im finding that my page has paused loading because it is waiting a response from a 3rd party adserver serving a random ad on the page.
as long as there are fools like you who naively believe that crap, we can get out of this mess.
1 million americans risked losing their homes. lets say these were bought from $500,000 at the market's prime. now their value is devalued to $300,000. it makes $200,000 per house difference. multiply it with 1 million houses at risk, it makes $300 bn. it means that the total loss from this was $300 bn.
go even further, and TRIPLE the risk. make it $900 bn.
america itself provided more than $1.2 trillion to banks. europe provided similar ~$1 trillion amount. switzerland and other countries provided separate amounts to their banks.
it means that as of now, the governments worldwide covered approx SEVEN times the loss in this crisis.
then WHY the fuck we are not getting out of it ? despite ALL potential losses are covered in multiples ?
BECAUSE IT ISNT A HOUSING CRISIS.
it is a crisis of investment tools. the banks have created bonds indexed on these houses, and then moved to create EXTRA assets indexed on those bonds and so on. in the end, they created WATER VAPOR assets, which were traded at around SIXTY times the entire worth of all houses they were based upon.
this means wall street banks peddled worthless paper that is inflated over SIXTY times of what value they should have to people around the world. even leaving aside the big fraud that is creating derived assets over other derived assets in the first place.
and the SOLE reason this has happened is, because bush administration left banks unregulated, didnt even touch them, and let them do this immense fraud. while whole world has been trusting that since usa was a G5 country, its banking and finance mechanisms would work properly. it didnt. because fraud was allowed.
as said, as long as there are fools like you who still doesnt know how they really been screwed, and as long as there are fools like the one modded you insightful, this fraud is bound to repeat.
it is one of the bad reputation registrars in such cases, along with godaddy and 1&1. they should have gone with a more reliable and by the book registrar like enom
if you havent been following the news coming up in slashdot about britain in the last 2 years, noone can take the time to give you a briefing. just search for UK or britain or something in search engine and youll get your fix yourself.
just the laws and motions they have put in motion in the last month are appalling enough. leaving aside what has been happening in the last years. i guess a british citizen's freedoms in britain reached the level that is comparable with a moroccan in morocco. it really feels like a horror movie. albeit, real.
The laws the jury bases their decision on represent the will of the majority with safety guards to protect the minority. That's the basis of representative democracy.
the laws the jury bases their decision on represents the actual voters who cared enough to take the time to go and vote. in an 60 million country this can be as low as 6 million and less. moreover, laws are made after their back, nothing is asked to them while making those laws. it is just 'assumed' that because they elected a representative supposedly aligned with their views, what the representative will legislate according to their wishes. it never worked.
but in 4chan case, the actions and what happens reflect exactly the will of the people.
As for your other point, you're basically an idiot but let me explain why.
as for my and your other points, i wont reply. first learn to argue/discuss properly without having to resort calling names, and then talk.
i didnt say 'the' vast majority. i said that they are much closer to vast majority than anything we have now.
imagine a global '4chan' in which everyone from around the world participates and votes. the ones that care of course. that would be the vast majority.
pornography is not wrong. its just 3rd person view of the reproductive/love action that all the sentient people have been doing since 200.000 or so years ago.
Lynch mobs don't listen to reason, look at the 1850's-1900's when lynch mobs in the south were (vastly) more prevalent. They were acting on what the majority of people (in the south) thought was right, and that was that Black people should stay "in their place."
What if these people in China running this flesh search engine do something just as bad? They probably will and won't regret it after the act even if the person was exonerated through evidence.
This isn't unique to China, it happens everywhere, and it is wrong EVERYWHERE.
lynch mobs of 1850s were just 100-200 people from small time small towns.
had the 'lynch mob' included 300.000 people all across america, the views of the lynch mob would be much different, and probably it would resemble the political climate of the society that day.
if those people in china, in majority, were disposed evilly enough to decide to use the flesh search engine to do something bad, it wouldnt differ anymore from the current situation.
in current situation views of the 'mob' is reflected in the representatives they elect, and they instead do evil things according to their character. AND some more, because it is a person entrusted with too much power over others.
at least in mob's case, the actions directly reflect the views of the mob. basically it reflects the views and beliefs of 'the people'.
you cant fix problems by educating people in a representative democracy. for, the few who are given power will always use the power for their own aims or views. however, you can fix problems of a direct democracy by educating people.
now the thing is, as you concede to these people, they just keep pushing to their end. that's why im saying that it wont stop there. to stop the trend we need to push back, so we can reach an equilibrium.
considering how badly the equilibrium is leaning to the draconian side, i think that we shouldnt condone anything until we get to a reasonable point.
They don't do it perfectly, but they definitely do it much better.
and how better ? better as in rushing the case in order to handle the next case in waiting in the case of judge, and rushing a decision to get to their daily lives in the case of jury members ?
It's not about bigger or smaller. It's about selection bias.
randomly selecting jury members wont remove bias. its basically gambling. lottery.
a greater selection group has higher chances of reducing bias. especially if it is a huge crowd like 4c or chinese people. especially, internet communities tend to contain people from all kinds of views and opinions.
in any cases, this is the future. direct democracy. in potential future people are going to vote directly on things, thereby setting the rules. a lot may just skip it, ignore it and just not vote. but then again this also happens with current election and legislation system.
Slashdot Mirror
im not an american. do not give knee jerk responses. EVEN if i was an american, this wouldnt change anything, since a fact is a fact, regardless of who says it.
well, chinese payment providers stepped in at that point. even worse for u.s., since even despite wto, noone in the world can do shit against china in any respect.
up their ass ... im giving around 2 days. what's your bet.
imagine ... and that's a game that is more targeted at younger audiences too. an entire generation will start with assassins creed 2 crack, and then move on to becoming a mainstay for the underground nature of the internet.
people are cheap, because our current socioeconomic system forces them to live lives they are not happy with, even they havent chosen, and in return pushes them crappy, mass produced products from all fronts.
but, ANYONE, when chances up with something s/he really likes, really really holds onto them. thats why we have grown up adults who are still clinging to some bands/games/products etc from the past decades, despite having moved on in all other fronts. they keep these and use these, because they like those. its as simple as that.
lets see now - there are ~80 songs in my permanent playlist. honestly, most of these, i wouldnt pay, in any way. they are 'ok'. but we do not want 'ok'. we want 'good'. for about 9 of these songs however, i would probably regularly go donate to their creators, have they had some format like what Radiohead did.
ah and by the way, Radiohead's experiment tramples all kinds of 'people are cheap' arguments. they made what they would have made in a year, touring, in approx 3 hours there, with no sweat.
in europe you cant put 'you cant sue us' bullshit in eulas and get away with it. that only * may * work in usa.
in eu if you sell something, you have to deliver it. else, your product gets shoved in your butt by Eu regulations.
you are talking about the elite of the elite of the most elite in the underground circle.
no chance in hell it would happen.
gamers are no sheeps. gamers are technically affluent, organically connected through innumerable communities, and somehow have a common culture.
in layman's terms, they dont take no shit.
in the past numerous big companies had to eat their word in various issues related to gaming and drm and whatnot, due to the response of gaming community.
this, probably will be an even bigger case than others.
again, you need a lot of catching up to do. just search slashdot for britain. im turkish, and as a turkish citizen i have more rights in turkey now than a british citizen has in britain. considering turkey has been behind europe in most respects in these matters, it makes your situation much more appalling.
ill quote another response of mine - there seems to be a lot of people who doesnt have their legislative history straight :
you think this is something that can happen starting from 2006 and popping out in 2008 ? so, you think scamming ENTIRE world takes just 2 years ?
did you know that when then democratic congress, starting from 2006 attempted to check into banks, they were barred by bush administration and republicans, yelling 'hands off business - you'll cost americans jobs !' ?
did you know that this 'deregulation' process has been started with alan greenspan in reagan era and continued picking up pace, culminating in its apex with bushies getting elected on top of a republican congress ?
during 2001-2006 they went all out with that 'deregulation'. leave aside bringing new standards to financial institutions, they even didnt employ the existing regulation mechanics in that era. banks could do anything they want without any interference.
before having an opinion, get your history straight first.
ill quote another response of mine :
you think this is something that can happen starting from 2006 and popping out in 2008 ? so, you think scamming ENTIRE world takes just 2 years ?
did you know that when then democratic congress, starting from 2006 attempted to check into banks, they were barred by bush administration and republicans, yelling 'hands off business - you'll cost americans jobs !' ?
did you know that this 'deregulation' process has been started with alan greenspan in reagan era and continued picking up pace, culminating in its apex with bushies getting elected on top of a republican congress ?
during 2001-2006 they went all out with that 'deregulation'. leave aside bringing new standards to financial institutions, they even didnt employ the existing regulation mechanics in that era. banks could do anything they want without any interference.
before having an opinion, get your history straight first.
you think this is something that can happen starting from 2006 and popping out in 2008 ? so, you think scamming ENTIRE world takes just 2 years ?
did you know that when then democratic congress, starting from 2006 attempted to check into banks, they were barred by bush administration and republicans, yelling 'hands off business - you'll cost americans jobs !' ?
did you know that this 'deregulation' process has been started with alan greenspan in reagan era and continued picking up pace, culminating in its apex with bushies getting elected on top of a republican congress ?
during 2001-2006 they went all out with that 'deregulation'. leave aside bringing new standards to financial institutions, they even didnt employ the existing regulation mechanics in that era. banks could do anything they want without any interference.
before having an opinion, get your history straight first.
its like tv ads. remember how the ad agencies in europe started to make funny/interesting ads so that viewers would at least watch them once, and tell them to other people ? its supposed to be like that. when an ad is funny, even if you havent seen it, you HEAR it from someone else. eventually you end up checking out the ads if the thing will come up or not, if you cant find it directly online. and then you watch it and laugh. you laugh, and the ad agency delivers their message. give and take, everyone is happy.
the situation of online advertising is more like american advertising of old times - obnoxious, intrusive, repetitive, stupid (or at least takes viewers as stupid) and makeshift. noone wants that.
and increasingly intrusive. leave those aside, they have increasingly became loaded with javascript, which are aimed in abstracting various information about the visitor on whose computer they are displayed on. and on top of these, they are incurring latency. often im finding that my page has paused loading because it is waiting a response from a 3rd party adserver serving a random ad on the page.
1 - Disable direct root login - allow login only with a wheel user that is allowed to su-
2 - Use hosts_deny to deny ssh service to any ip other than clients'. you can allow clients' ip ranges in narrow range if they have dynamic ip.
3 - Change ssh port.
as long as there are fools like you who naively believe that crap, we can get out of this mess.
1 million americans risked losing their homes. lets say these were bought from $500,000 at the market's prime. now their value is devalued to $300,000. it makes $200,000 per house difference. multiply it with 1 million houses at risk, it makes $300 bn. it means that the total loss from this was $300 bn.
go even further, and TRIPLE the risk. make it $900 bn.
america itself provided more than $1.2 trillion to banks. europe provided similar ~$1 trillion amount. switzerland and other countries provided separate amounts to their banks.
it means that as of now, the governments worldwide covered approx SEVEN times the loss in this crisis.
then WHY the fuck we are not getting out of it ? despite ALL potential losses are covered in multiples ?
BECAUSE IT ISNT A HOUSING CRISIS.
it is a crisis of investment tools. the banks have created bonds indexed on these houses, and then moved to create EXTRA assets indexed on those bonds and so on. in the end, they created WATER VAPOR assets, which were traded at around SIXTY times the entire worth of all houses they were based upon.
this means wall street banks peddled worthless paper that is inflated over SIXTY times of what value they should have to people around the world. even leaving aside the big fraud that is creating derived assets over other derived assets in the first place.
and the SOLE reason this has happened is, because bush administration left banks unregulated, didnt even touch them, and let them do this immense fraud. while whole world has been trusting that since usa was a G5 country, its banking and finance mechanisms would work properly. it didnt. because fraud was allowed.
as said, as long as there are fools like you who still doesnt know how they really been screwed, and as long as there are fools like the one modded you insightful, this fraud is bound to repeat.
it is one of the bad reputation registrars in such cases, along with godaddy and 1&1. they should have gone with a more reliable and by the book registrar like enom
if you havent been following the news coming up in slashdot about britain in the last 2 years, noone can take the time to give you a briefing. just search for UK or britain or something in search engine and youll get your fix yourself.
just the laws and motions they have put in motion in the last month are appalling enough. leaving aside what has been happening in the last years. i guess a british citizen's freedoms in britain reached the level that is comparable with a moroccan in morocco. it really feels like a horror movie. albeit, real.
yea. i wasnt able to reply, because im an idiot. thats why im not going to continue discussing with you.
The laws the jury bases their decision on represent the will of the majority with safety guards to protect the minority. That's the basis of representative democracy.
the laws the jury bases their decision on represents the actual voters who cared enough to take the time to go and vote. in an 60 million country this can be as low as 6 million and less. moreover, laws are made after their back, nothing is asked to them while making those laws. it is just 'assumed' that because they elected a representative supposedly aligned with their views, what the representative will legislate according to their wishes. it never worked.
but in 4chan case, the actions and what happens reflect exactly the will of the people.
As for your other point, you're basically an idiot but let me explain why.
as for my and your other points, i wont reply. first learn to argue/discuss properly without having to resort calling names, and then talk.
i didnt say 'the' vast majority. i said that they are much closer to vast majority than anything we have now.
imagine a global '4chan' in which everyone from around the world participates and votes. the ones that care of course. that would be the vast majority.
pornography is not wrong. its just 3rd person view of the reproductive/love action that all the sentient people have been doing since 200.000 or so years ago.
Lynch mobs don't listen to reason, look at the 1850's-1900's when lynch mobs in the south were (vastly) more prevalent. They were acting on what the majority of people (in the south) thought was right, and that was that Black people should stay "in their place."
What if these people in China running this flesh search engine do something just as bad? They probably will and won't regret it after the act even if the person was exonerated through evidence.
This isn't unique to China, it happens everywhere, and it is wrong EVERYWHERE.
lynch mobs of 1850s were just 100-200 people from small time small towns.
had the 'lynch mob' included 300.000 people all across america, the views of the lynch mob would be much different, and probably it would resemble the political climate of the society that day.
if those people in china, in majority, were disposed evilly enough to decide to use the flesh search engine to do something bad, it wouldnt differ anymore from the current situation.
in current situation views of the 'mob' is reflected in the representatives they elect, and they instead do evil things according to their character. AND some more, because it is a person entrusted with too much power over others.
at least in mob's case, the actions directly reflect the views of the mob. basically it reflects the views and beliefs of 'the people'.
you cant fix problems by educating people in a representative democracy. for, the few who are given power will always use the power for their own aims or views. however, you can fix problems of a direct democracy by educating people.
now the thing is, as you concede to these people, they just keep pushing to their end. that's why im saying that it wont stop there. to stop the trend we need to push back, so we can reach an equilibrium.
considering how badly the equilibrium is leaning to the draconian side, i think that we shouldnt condone anything until we get to a reasonable point.
They don't do it perfectly, but they definitely do it much better.
and how better ? better as in rushing the case in order to handle the next case in waiting in the case of judge, and rushing a decision to get to their daily lives in the case of jury members ?
It's not about bigger or smaller. It's about selection bias.
randomly selecting jury members wont remove bias. its basically gambling. lottery.
a greater selection group has higher chances of reducing bias. especially if it is a huge crowd like 4c or chinese people. especially, internet communities tend to contain people from all kinds of views and opinions.
in any cases, this is the future. direct democracy. in potential future people are going to vote directly on things, thereby setting the rules. a lot may just skip it, ignore it and just not vote. but then again this also happens with current election and legislation system.