Google should do the same. Manipulating popular taste is possible.
Unfortunately, many of my users work at sites that block BT, forcing them to revert to a horrible HTTP option.
And no, rsync isn't a solution for our situation.
As to what is needed, the primary thing is better tracker and seeder daemons. I use opentracker, which is OK but hardly perfect. I seed with deluge because it's one of the few seeders that can be run as a daemon (almost all BT clients expect you to dedicate a GUI window to them or they stop running--imagine what running a Web service would be like if you had to have a GUI for every instance of Apache).
> Rather, they are saying, "I don't want my taxes to pay for other people to read this trash."
Not quite. In fact, not at all. What they are saying (and you seem to be supporting) is "Even though my tax money has already been spent, and even though other people contributed THEIR tax money to help buy this book, and even though those people might think the money was well-spent, I want to remove this book from the shelves so that it will be more difficult--or better, impossible--for anyone to read this book that I personally dislike, despite the fact that there is no financial benefit to doing so." It's all about suppressing ideas, and the people who make the complaints make that position quite clear.
There are mechanisms (e.g., elections) for changing future spending priorities. After-the-fact censorship isn't one of them.
Your ignorance of the issues is glaring and appalling.
If the people were really objecting to the choices made by librarians, they would be clamoring for particular purchases as well as objecting to the books that were currently on the shelves. That's not the case. Nor are the citizens asking for the librarian to be replaced or instructed in their tastes. They are quite simply saying, "I don't think anybody in my school/town should be allowed to read this particular book." That's a hugely different question.
You seriously misunderstand. Most of these libraries are government-operated, either public libraries or schools. While it's true that SOME of the libraries rightfully resisted, the ALA's primary point is to illustrate the pressure that is being put on these libraries. And in many cases, the books were actually removed (note that the second-most-frequent challengers were administrators). Sometimes, lawsuits got them back, sometimes not. So yes, it's censorship.
Nor is your claim that "All these materials are easily available elsewhere" supported by the facts. In many cases, the library facing the challenge is the only library in a small town that doesn't have a bookstore, and often the readers can't afford to buy their own books. So your argument really boils down to "If you're poor, you don't get to read what you want."
At least your dig at Twilight gets humor points.
Clearly, the Mozilla folks are clueles. But there's hope: they should just ask Netflix for business advice, and then all will be well.
Can they get any more clueless than this? Are they TRYING to drive their company into bankruptcy?"
Link to Original Source
Has anybody actually read the complaint? IANAL by a long shot, but I would have no trouble whatsoever writing a better complaint. And this guy seems to have a law degree!
The suit starts with a rambling recitation of accusations, none of which is even properly stated as an allegation, none of which is supported, and many of which are completely irrelevant to the alleged harm. Then it makes two complaints: assault and negligence. The assault charge is unsupported on its face, since it alleges damage without specifying what damage occurred. The negligence is apparently based on the same unsupported claim of damage.
So the suit will be thrown out instantly for failure to state an actionable claim. But I doubt that it'll make the news at that point.
Sorry, not impressed. 99% of long takes are just directors showing off. They drive me nuts, because in the vain attempt to demonstrate skill, the director winds up calling attention to himself and either robbing the audience of reaction shots, or swinging the camera wildly as if an earthquake had hit the set. Spare me the artsy "look at me, I'm so talented and trendy" crap and give me a movie that actually tells a story in the best way possible instead of trying to wow the brainless "in" crowd.
As someone who has been trying for some time to offer BitTorrent as a download option, I think a big part of the problem is that the server software is lousy. Many of the trackers out there are slow, flaky, fragile, and horribly documented. You also need a seeder, and again the server-side seeder software is consistently poor.
If you could go to bittorrent.org, download a couple of programs, and set up bittorrent distribution in an hour or two, that would make a huge difference in adoption rates. As it is, you have to REALLY want to set up a site because of the crappy distributions you have to wade through.