You're forgetting that local and overseas powers make great use of keeping countries like India in the condition of cheap labour camps. So I don't believe that cheap labour and poor living conditions will ever disappear.
Not advocating genocide, just stating that theoretically it would solve the problem. Unfortunately for many, lots of people who do have enough power to exercise genocide do not find it disgusting (as the history has shown multiple times). If you still don't get it, treat that part of my post as an ill joke.
Provided you have a sufficient number of dedicated employees, any technical problem is solvable. So when we have densely populated areas with extremely low cost of sustaining life (i.e. warm underdeveloped countries), it's much more rational to assign thousands of locals to perform simple recurring actions than to hire an adequate number of qualified professionals to develop software capable of the same thing.
A list of measures that could help includes eradication of population in warm underdeveloped countries, and making the said countries either cold (or otherwise unsuitable for life without certain expenses) or much better developed, which would ruin this business model as far as I can see.
Was bringing the video back Google's own idea or did someone from the government or a three-letter agency hint that it would be a good idea?
Would Google go to the same lengths if Fox News requested takedown of this inconvenient video?
How do you discriminate between free speech and propaganda at all? Counting anti-Chinese and anti-Russian videos as free speech and counting anti-American videos as propaganda might look like an attractive answer to some, but it will not be accepted.
Provided there is a definitive answer to the previous question, should commercial sites like YouTube allow propaganda videos?
If it walks like a duck and, um, talks like a duck...;)
Seriously, writing, fixing, implementing users' wishes and distributing free software can also be perceived as doing someone's work. Should we stop because we're not being paid (nor laid, mostly) for that?
I'm not shouting at anyone. I'm highlighting a problem that exists in the real world - companies often prefer to keep their formats and protocols closed and obfuscated. Nowhere in my post do I say that it is good or bad; I only say that it is.
As for the "my fantasy world" part, I leave trying to establish a logical connection between it and my post as an exercise to the reader: either my wording in #24105573 was poor, or you have significant difficulties with comprehension.
Vernor Vinge, then? I find 'A deepness in the sky' absolutely amazing, and while it contains a healthy portion of politics and cynism (lots of those, actually), it's geeky and well written enough to be exciting and not depressing to pre-teens at the same time.
then, after something proves successful, the standards body plods along and picks it up and makes it canon
Hm, nice idea! Let's begin with issuing open standards for such successful (in terms of marketshare) technologies as SMB, BluRay, Flash, doc/xls/ppt and so on. What do you mean 'no way'? Ah, the proprietors do not want to make a de facto standard a de jure one by opening it up... I should have known.
That's kind of self-defeating, no? Microsoft wants Silverlight to replace HTML altogether; why are you sure that Adobe wouldn't like to do the same with Flash? I'm pretty sure that Adobe would perfectly be OK with the situation when lion's share of web sites would only be implemented in Flash.
I think that the parent means that neutral bosons have no antiparticles. While neutron is a barion and thus has an antiparticle composed of (~u ~u ~d) quarks, neutral bosons (such as photon and Z0) do not have corresponding antiparticles.
We still haven't seen them act to the full extend of their ability. If they imprison a thousand people (preferably worldwide) for copyright infringement, TPB usage will plummet. If they imprison a thousand more nobody in their mind would touch bittorrent with a ten foot pole. After that, they will only need to jail a couple of people per month and heavily advertise these cases (and the sentences imposed) to keep interest in file sharing low.
You're completely correct, it's impossible to kill file sharing by targeting the middleman. However, I think it will not be hard to do if they target the consumers engaged in file sharing.
The universe as we know it might actually live that long and much longer, since the proton half-life (assuming that the Grand Unification Theory is correct and protons do decay after all) is currently estimated to be at least 10^35 years.
Hey. You and the GP are sort of off-topic. Could you at least read the damn summary please? The story has nothing to do with Adobe Flash, it's about modifying firmware thus causing obvious discomfort to the victim.
When person A comes to visit his neighbour and sees him lying in a pool of blood and shrieks "Oh my God!", does that mean that person A is religious, too?
The word is pretty deeply rooted in the language, so even if you completely dismiss the concept of God, you may find yourself using the word more or less frequently.
Yeah, pure hardcore GTK user wont install Qt because it's "not free" Huh? This point of view is horribly out of date: Qt is licensed under QPL and GPLv2 at your choice. Besides, there's a special clause according to which you can link a GPLv2-licensed copy of Qt to your app as long as you use one out of a large number of free software licenses, including Apache, MIT, GPLv3, BSD and so on.
There is some truth in GP's words. While Solaris is full of great ideas, and most of them are pretty well implemented, one must admit that the native userland hardly differs from what it has been in early '90s. Of course, the GNU environment is available, but it hasn't replaced the default one so far. Once that happens, I expect Solaris user base to boost.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, terminating the target market of spammers should work nicely, too :). Also please see my reply regarding "advocating genocide" here.
You're forgetting that local and overseas powers make great use of keeping countries like India in the condition of cheap labour camps. So I don't believe that cheap labour and poor living conditions will ever disappear.
Not advocating genocide, just stating that theoretically it would solve the problem. Unfortunately for many, lots of people who do have enough power to exercise genocide do not find it disgusting (as the history has shown multiple times). If you still don't get it, treat that part of my post as an ill joke.
Provided you have a sufficient number of dedicated employees, any technical problem is solvable. So when we have densely populated areas with extremely low cost of sustaining life (i.e. warm underdeveloped countries), it's much more rational to assign thousands of locals to perform simple recurring actions than to hire an adequate number of qualified professionals to develop software capable of the same thing.
A list of measures that could help includes eradication of population in warm underdeveloped countries, and making the said countries either cold (or otherwise unsuitable for life without certain expenses) or much better developed, which would ruin this business model as far as I can see.
If it walks like a duck and, um, talks like a duck... ;)
Seriously, writing, fixing, implementing users' wishes and distributing free software can also be perceived as doing someone's work. Should we stop because we're not being paid (nor laid, mostly) for that?
I'm not shouting at anyone. I'm highlighting a problem that exists in the real world - companies often prefer to keep their formats and protocols closed and obfuscated. Nowhere in my post do I say that it is good or bad; I only say that it is.
As for the "my fantasy world" part, I leave trying to establish a logical connection between it and my post as an exercise to the reader: either my wording in #24105573 was poor, or you have significant difficulties with comprehension.
Vernor Vinge, then? I find 'A deepness in the sky' absolutely amazing, and while it contains a healthy portion of politics and cynism (lots of those, actually), it's geeky and well written enough to be exciting and not depressing to pre-teens at the same time.
then, after something proves successful, the standards body plods along and picks it up and makes it canon
Hm, nice idea! Let's begin with issuing open standards for such successful (in terms of marketshare) technologies as SMB, BluRay, Flash, doc/xls/ppt and so on. What do you mean 'no way'? Ah, the proprietors do not want to make a de facto standard a de jure one by opening it up... I should have known.
That's kind of self-defeating, no? Microsoft wants Silverlight to replace HTML altogether; why are you sure that Adobe wouldn't like to do the same with Flash? I'm pretty sure that Adobe would perfectly be OK with the situation when lion's share of web sites would only be implemented in Flash.
Because none of the carriers available where you live sells devices that do not implement this functionality?
Sorry, a typo! ~u ~d ~d is an antineutron; ~u ~u ~d is an antiproton.
I think that the parent means that neutral bosons have no antiparticles. While neutron is a barion and thus has an antiparticle composed of (~u ~u ~d) quarks, neutral bosons (such as photon and Z0) do not have corresponding antiparticles.
We still haven't seen them act to the full extend of their ability. If they imprison a thousand people (preferably worldwide) for copyright infringement, TPB usage will plummet. If they imprison a thousand more nobody in their mind would touch bittorrent with a ten foot pole. After that, they will only need to jail a couple of people per month and heavily advertise these cases (and the sentences imposed) to keep interest in file sharing low.
You're completely correct, it's impossible to kill file sharing by targeting the middleman. However, I think it will not be hard to do if they target the consumers engaged in file sharing.
That's what I said: "it is currently estimated to be at least 10^35 years".
The universe as we know it might actually live that long and much longer, since the proton half-life (assuming that the Grand Unification Theory is correct and protons do decay after all) is currently estimated to be at least 10^35 years.
Hey. You and the GP are sort of off-topic. Could you at least read the damn summary please? The story has nothing to do with Adobe Flash, it's about modifying firmware thus causing obvious discomfort to the victim.
The downsides? You probably won't be able to work in the airplane, but is it worth it now that the Customs are being so much trouble?
When person A comes to visit his neighbour and sees him lying in a pool of blood and shrieks "Oh my God!", does that mean that person A is religious, too?
The word is pretty deeply rooted in the language, so even if you completely dismiss the concept of God, you may find yourself using the word more or less frequently.
The parent is perhaps the most insightful post in this whole thread. However, I still wonder two things:
1) While the footage that comes in from mobile phones and cameras is surely interesting to watch, how much does it really help people and how?
2) If it really vital ( = it does help), is there a chance that the Chinese censorship will be made more selective or even lifted altogether?
Are there meeting twenty men?
Hours will pass by, dumb and dull.
If there are instead just ten,
There's a chance of a result.
The work is skillfully and quickly done
Only if there's a committee of one.
There is some truth in GP's words. While Solaris is full of great ideas, and most of them are pretty well implemented, one must admit that the native userland hardly differs from what it has been in early '90s. Of course, the GNU environment is available, but it hasn't replaced the default one so far. Once that happens, I expect Solaris user base to boost.
Read the original research. It's 17Mb of errors generated while validating a 60Mb document [100Mb if pretty printed]