the right approach is offering something which doesn't give them a reason to "pirate" it. ... example: having your magazine available worldwide without restrictions. ... you can't pirate an ebook/magazine

I struggle to imagine how your example could be any more pointless. Like pissing into the wind and congratulating yourself because you remembered to keep your mouth closed.

Especially this -> You can't pirate and ebook/magazine? Is this just some petty terminology hangup, would you prefer the terms steal/infringe/plagiarize/redistribute illegally? The other possibility is that you're suggesting that copywrite doesn't exist, or that it isn't a crime. If so, I imagine you must also cheer when banker's foreclose on junk mortgages (and double-dip by shorting them) and wall streeter's game stocks and profit while Gramma's pension halves in value. After all, they're getting away with being thieving dicks too, gaming the system and smiling because it's so hard to get caught breaking the law ... what's the difference?

The fact is, you'll never get through to the poetmatt mentality. If you are distributing digitally there will always be tools too thick to realize the consequences of their petty arrogance, that their actions directly jeopardize the source of the material perhaps irrevocably (especially in niche markets).

If you can't find a way of monetizing the content through secondary channels (professional support, training, high charges for advertising, timely feeds, or perhaps just using digital only as a supplement or enhancement to subscribers) it's possible your business model isn't going to translate to the digital age. I'd suggest polling your clients directly, ask them what they are looking for and maybe you'll find a safe, no-hassle way of delivering it or a new way of operating that fits your current skill sets / resources.

I'm assuming its so that there is a bit more space for the next drop of tar to form, since the one that just fell is going to take some time to incorporate into the bottom mass. Probably didn't have to happen right right away, but it would allow the next drop to begin forming from the earliest possible fixed rest point.

I'm betting that the longish length of the previous one had the monitor worried for years that it would reach the bottom mass without pinching off first.

Supposedly this is to protect the identities of MIT staff who might be harassed — but government policy is to redact such information already.

There is nothing in the article that supports your conclusion. From the article:

In its motion, MIT asked the court to establish a process by which MIT could review and propose redactions to any such documents prior to their release. With this motion MIT does not oppose the release of these documents, but seeks only to redact information that could threaten the safety and privacy of its employees, or that could threaten the security of MIT’s computer network.

So your outrage is what, that MIT isn't proceeding in the good faith that the government would bear the burden of protecting their staff's identities. Yea, that makes sense.

If somebody solicits your attention through forced indignation, its a sure sign you are talking to either a) a zealot or b) a drum beater looking for a pat on the back. Nobody thinks what happened to Aaron was reasonable (other than those fetid US attorneys and prosecutors who build their careers by prosecuting beyond reason or justice), but selling shit as Shinola just tarnishes the overall conversation around it, even if there is a grain of truth in what you are selling.

Sky News showed the new plane — which was not carrying passengers at the time — had been sprayed by foam, but there were no signs of fire.

But there is! Scorch marks on the roof in front of the tail section.

Check it here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23295115 [bbc video feed]

... it crashes without even needing to leave the jetway.

To be fair, neither of the companies you cited actually have (had?) the mandate "Do No Evil" plastered next to their names. It's pretty ballsy to come out with that statement and yet then crap like this, especially when they just shrug their shoulders and say "um, yea, dude gives us tax breaks" when you call them on it.

Can't say I disagree about the rest, though. Corporations hijacked American democracy decades ago, everything they do is just smoke and mirrors to hide their unabashed self-interest.

-------

"Life is pain, Highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something." ... Man In Black

Wow, just no barrier to stupidity on the internet, is there. Do you realize how fantastically low the success rate is for e-books? No distribution, no public awareness, no marketing ... other than the seventeen people following you on twitter. I'm not saying publishers go out of their way to push every book (far, far from it) but without a physical presence on the bookshelves you chance of getting noticed or even an ounce of publicity is fantastically low.

Your suggestion is akin to suggesting a farmer open a fruit stand instead of working with wholesalers.

At this point you will likely point out one or two of those exceptions as some sort of straw man argument. Me, I've just worked in and around the industry for decades (on both sides).

Authors control the supply ... I'm going to laugh about that one for a while.

You sound like the sort of anonymous coward (appropriate) who's part of the "hey, why should I pay for support if the product is free" crowd. If you are using it, chances are you are making money off of it, and off the many devs who have contributed and the *paying* clients who pay for support, fixes and updates.

And where are you? Standing there whining with a cup in your hand, pissed off because nobody gives a shit about your problems. OS doesn't mean free, chuckles. You need something fixing according to your own needs and timeline, man up and give back something to the community. Doesn't even have to be code or cash, drop the dev a line and trade some documenting time or support work on the forums to get your issue dealt with.

So, go ahead and piss into the wind while the rest of us make the most out of OS by treating as part of our business instead of something the world owes us.

Yes, it does.

Sorry, you are comparing causative and cognitive experiences.

In this context (head on a new body), hungry and horny or arthritic are as environmental as living on a ship, up the side of a mountain or in the middle of the desert. Differences in environment shape your experiences, but your mind is the system that defines how you react to them. So, losing a body is just a magnification of what a person would experience if they lost, say, an arm or leg. Some will excel in their new circumstance, some will wither, some will continue to plod along. That's because there's no change in the conscious self, only the circumstances in which the self now exists.

Your examples are too reductive. Switching bodies isn't going to make you like eggs any better than the last body, or hate birds or want to go fishing. The body, on the other hand, will never get to fishing again if the brain now attached to it doesn't like to.

No, you don't. If you did you'd have built your system to make *them* aware first, instead of posting a "don't blame the messenger" shame tool that exposes their vulnerabilities.

The hacking-promotes-security argument is weak sauce, even more so in your case. The vast percentage of people you've exposed (i.e. not anonymous mega-corps, but rather small mom-and-pops set up and left un-managed by unskilled sysadmins, innocuous self-hosting newbies, etc.) will likely never encounter your list, even after it provides scriptkiddies with an easily digestible list of opportunities who wipe their servers and turn them into warez hubs only to be rinse-repeated because they will *never* know any better.

You are merely a new vector for the disease, selling itself as a cure. Where in this is your moment to feel proud?

So by that logic, I assume you rape every woman you pass on a dark street, mug the elderly who don't go out in groups, and commit every other crime of opportunity to shame people into what *you* consider proper, minimum safe behavior. How brave and noble of you.

I'm so tired of people dressing up shitty behavior under the guise of protecting them when really all they are doing is being selfish, self-satisfying little asshats.

If this guy wasn't such a douche, he'd be emailing the websites a notice letting them know of the vulnerabilities, not making the list available for everybody. This would have been a good example of how decent behavior could have helped protect both visitors and the site owners, instead of what at best will become a life lesson taught through severe litigation and (if we are lucky) state prosecution.

Seriously, so is Earth.

'

I call bullshit, FUD-boy. I doubt you could prove even a single one one of your claims.

I too am Canadian, and wouldn't have the foggiest idea how to get a "black market gun", and doubt many of my neighbors would either. Never mind some meek, socially damaged dude who'd probably set warning flags off where-ever he went. Even scum who would *sell* these kinds of guns wouldn't be interested in the couple of hundred bucks the Columbine-looking shit would be offering. And in the end if you did manage to find one, you can sure as hell bet it was made or at least traffic'd through good old America so you've just circled around to the stated problem.

The fact is, the gun is the enabler. There is no way this kid would have killed 2 people let alone 26 if all he'd had to work with was a set of steak knives, and possibly wouldn't have even considered attempting it without the firepower to back his cowardly bullshit move. The same would apply to all the cowards who kill this way. The gun (or knife, for that matter) carrier is the easiest way to identify the sniveling cowards in the crowd. I've never understood the damaged logic some 2-bit self-entitled sack of shit has that convinces him that attacking an unarmed person makes him anything more than a cowardly worm.

The NRA might as well relabel themselves as the Paranoid People's Association of Cowards, sponsored by the Unethical Abusement of Nonsequiter Statistics and Random Bullshit, Inc. We, being Socialist Pinkos, would not qualify for membership.

Being a white males is not a "background", it is a skin color and gender.

Cheers to this. One of my best friends is Indian. We code the same way, solve problems in similar ways, and often borrow code from each other because our methods and approaches are interchangeable even though we've only known each other for a couple of years. When it comes to code we share zero fucking diversity, even though I'm a middle-aged white guy and he's a Sikh styling in his dastar. Conversely I spend hours every week arguing with a stubborn white-male colleague who's methodologies and coding style are completely different than mine. Diversity galore.

Diversity cheerleaders are simply shallow thinkers. They base their opinions on all the bigoted ideas that the rest of us either see beyond or don't even factor into our decisions. I won't go as far as accusing Josh Susser of being a reverse and/or closet bigot, but by fostering the concept of carefully orchestrated tokenism and posting passive-aggressive tweets he fails to understand that a) he is the divisive one and b) he hinders, rather than furthers the cause of true blind equality we'd all like to see in the world.