The whole idea of Intellectual Property comes in to play because companies wanted to assume monopoly over tech/entertainment markets. The current legislation behind patents and copyrights is a result of this effort via lobby, and on the public relation front of it is this crusade for IP.
Isn't it possible to use, I don't know, Suspend to Disk aka. Hibernation feature? That would save awful lot of time.
Is it just me who find it outrageous that councils are using these excuse for a software, like Office suit and all that, and piling up costs to update and maintain them, while a fucking free text editor do the job, on a lower spec pc, with little to no maintenance costs?
I mean, there's a host of reliable, powerful and well supported tool for all the stuff that a normal office person does: emailing, writing documents: plain text editing is at the heart of writing a document, formatting is only a secondary thing and is not needed until the point that you must print it, in which case, you a bloody asciidoc/markdown/whatever formatter and get done with it. Spreadsheets are just a poor excuse for doing something more complicated and confusing way than a simple script language and some elaborate, plain text formatted data. That is all what a simple office minion need to use, in any country, in any council. There are great, free ways to construct digital forms too, without a mess what Word is.
Yes, it requires training. So does Excel Fucking 2007. And then again, Excel Fucking 2010. And then agian... with, or without ribbons. And then, learn "Cloud Services". But once the person got comfortable of doing some basic calculations with plain ascii stored data, that knowledge will be useful for her entire career. These aren't user friendly systems: many spend most of their time to find the right templates, the right bloody styles, fixing their fonts placing and sizing the columns, scrolling back and forth (c'mon, in excell 2010 I can't even tell how that fucking scrolling works in the first place, and eventually every poor fucker must write macros because otherwise useless. Just get a fucking education in a user friendly programming language such as python, or I don't mind what and leave me alone with your digitally useless spreadsheets) instead of actually dealing with the work at hand. And the costs are enormous for basically worse productivity, crippled by updates and fragmentation, incompatibility, linked costs (like that of the operating system and million additional "app" to make it useful to some degree) and pay an army of "Microsoft expert" to locate files in hidden directories. The whole MS Office world is mess crippling public services.
File sharing is what you do with something you own.
No. File sharing is when you make files publicly available. Of course, you need to have permission to read in order to do that. Ownership however is not required.
Piracy is sharing files that you do not own.
No. Piracy is when you force the crew of a ship to hand over the control of a ship. For doing so, the pirate must possess the tools of coercion, arms. According to the United Nation, the piracy is a very serious, violent crime. I don't see any reference to file sharing in the text, do you? In any case, making the connection between the two is an act of exaggeration, association with one of the most violent behaviour, just like calling people who disagree with you, nazis or mass murderers.
Movies are about fiction (virtually always).
That may be true. However the mentioned fictional film is about the actual meaning of the word, piracy, not the fictional content that you just made up above.
Some educator uploading material they do not own is piracy. It may also be civil disobedience.
Again, no. I'm not aware from the story that the said teacher invaded private ships on the seas and forced the crew to hand over the load.
Some 12 year old downloading Katy Perry is piracy. It probably is not civil disobedience.
No, not even by your own definition. As long as the 12 year old takes the publicly available copy and only downloads it, there's no file sharing involved. It is only the case if she or he starts to make her own copy publicly available, being a leach or a seed in a torrent network, or the analogue in some other way. If someone leaves a Kate Perry CD on a bench in a box labelled free to take, and bring the CD for listening, would you still accuse her with hijacking ships, threaten ship crews with murder, and so on?
If the law says that file sharing you do not own is illegal, that is one thing. Using a label "pirate" for those who do so is an other, an act of magnifying of the act what they did. File sharing is not theft, not pirating. It is what it is: sharing files, sharing information. It may be debatable that the information sharing is a not a basic right, yet, it is not by default. One must sign non-disclosure agreements if one is expected to keep some information secret. This always happens before revealing the information. Consumers of digital media aren't restricted by two-side non-disclosure agreements before purchase. If the law is not consistent it can't be applied, and enforcement of laws which aren't consistent with the nature of acts it supposed to regulate can't be, by nature consistent either. Non-consistent law enforcement is the tell tale sign of an oppressive political system. In this case, the source of oppression is the political lobby of different publisher cartels. Civil disobedience is the right of the citizens in such a case, not an option.
You can apply the same idea here as for homosexual acts. For hundreds of years homosexual acts were illegal and inconsistent of the nature of sexual life. The justification was that homosexuality is a crime against nature. Of course, Nature as such, isn't a person, and is and was mostly linked to the idea of God, again, a non-person. But by citing God/Nature in the justification it exceeded the entire framework of the issue, and brought it in to a stage where it doesn't belong. Ditto with piracy and file sharing. This is a question about the way we handle information, and has nothing to do with piracy.
It's not just America. The so-called socialist/communist block also praised labour as the only thing that makes human beings worthy, and if you don't drone all bloody day, you don't deserve your food, shelter, children. At the end of the day, the problem here is the protestant work-ethic that will not hold on the long term.
"Lump of labour" fallacy doesn't apply here. The whole purpose of industrialization and automation is to lower the need of labour in the production. Industrialization made major changes in our society, changing the model of the family. Automation made it possible to employ women and children in factories, automation also enabled to run the house holds without the permanent need of a person labouring at home. It went onward to basically replace majority of the human labour needed in most of the stuff we produce. Even in the not so long term, you see that economies resort to human labour in roles where the human is a servant, rather than a producer. The waiter, the parking guard, the security guard, the cleaner, etc.. The face of labour changes, and that changes do make difference in the social relationships. The politics of increasing industrialization and automation is the really horrifying part, because most of the planet is still place the value of human life on its labour.
Politicians and economists can perform miracles with the statistics of employment, the rate of unemployment however doesn't tell much about the wider social issues. There's a huge population on Earth that was never even close to be employed in the first place. Good part of the lowest social strata, house-wives, struggling agricultural families in Asia, South-America, or Africa isn't even counted in the population, or the work-capable population. My point is, that amount of labour needed is a political issue. At some point, individual profit will not work as a good incentive to create more chance to work, more chance to connect these groups in to the circulation of the world economy. Capitalism has its limits, and that limit is closely linked to the human labour.
According to this, there's 680 million logins per day.
I couldn't find an official Facebook word on it, and the latest estimates are from last August, but they say a magnitude lower, 180k. I highly doubt that within 7 months there would be a 10 fold increase in server numbers.
So going by these numbers, there's 680.000k/180k = 3778 user/server/day. For a web server, this is pretty good number, as I can imagine, serving 3778 users is a sort of continuous thing, unlike many other websites. Notifications are polled pretty frequently, and as you scroll requests are made constantly to the servers.
I don't like Facebook, and I think this is a waste of energy and space for storing cat videos and sex-quizzes but the numbers in this case do add up.
Alright, dude, but watch something twice, and you will download exactly the same data again... why? And how on Earth does this make any healthy network ecosystem?
Did that below in this thread. My personal favourite is Qt Creator for C++, free, and platform independent, plus better productivity IMHO.
No need to encourage me. I don't use DRMed or any other media service. Torrent is doing just fine for me...
OK, I thought you're one of Those Guys... who think that debuggers encourage bad coding practices. My understanding of a good debugger is sort of the ones that are available today. I don't expect debuggers will expand their feature set anyway, they are good as they are. In fact, MS debuggers are in some aspect are inferior as they can't be scripted AFAIK.
DRM doesn't work. It doesn't work because there's an already working technology, that is, downloading media files over the internet. DRM doesn't add anything to that. Media players, browsers, your display connector, etc. is in your possession, and is yours to use them in a way you like. DRM is a bunch of method to deprive you from that basic right. DRM doesn't add up to your service quality, at best(!) you don't notice. But even then, you need to have an equipment that is able to decode the DRM encryption, which would require better hardware, and more electricity spent. There's no harmless DRM in the world.
Inviting DRM in to standard browser tech is a sort of thing, that directly turn the internet to be more closed information system. For the moment, the reason that not all media provider goes with DRM is that DRM still loomes over the user and exclude a portion of the population, because it can't be done without user interaction. If user interaction won't be required any more we'll soon will see large migration to DRM scheme.
The problem is that if content providers move en mass to DRM schemes, your choice is not simply not discard DRMed providers, but not to consume entertainment at all or install god-knows-what binary blobs on your system, forced to use software which you wouldn't normally buy or even trust, and so on. DRM scheme, along with many "invention" of the tech/entertainment industry is a fraudulent scheme, nothing else.
Yep, TBH will feature the same shows in the same time, plus 2 seconds.
Your metaphor doesn't work here. It's rather than copy the key with brute force (i'm not sure what would be that IRL), and send the copies out all over the place, without going back to the original lock. Not every user has to brute force it, only a single one. The whole idea of DRM is completely broken.
You can, however, make it enough of a pain in the ass that most people won't bother.
Yet it's enough a single person to decrypt their streams with the necessary means, and distribute the content over p2p networks, where people can easily download and that's it.