Comment Re:79% accuracy ... (Score 1) 132
"The result sets are independent of each other."
Yes, that's why he could just multiply them like that.
Comment I see a larger motive: (Score 1) 280
The cynic in me thinks it will go this way: They make this announcement today. For the next few months, they do absolutely nothing. Then, they fabricate a bunch of data, and announce that they've determined that 99% of all P2P traffic is protected by copyright. Authorities cowtow, and those "three-strikes" laws get put in place (and enforced) everywhere.
It doesn't matter that the data was faked...they expressly stated that it would all be anonymised and not linked to any specific customer...so how can anyone prove it's been faked?
Submission + - Irish ISP to block access to Pirate Bay (irishtimes.com)
flynn writes: "http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2009/0820/1224252952116.html?via=mr
The article speaks for itself. Irelands oldest and largest ISP will be blocking access to the pirate bay from September 1st while other ISPs have rejected the request to block TPB
From the Irish Times:
Under an out-of-court agreement with EMI Records, Sony Music, Universal Music and Warners in January, Eircom agreed to cut off customers found to be repeatedly downloading music illegally. The deal also required Eircom to cut off access to Pirate Bay if requested.
Yesterday, cable TV operator UPC, which has more than 120,000 broadband subscribers, announced it would not comply with a request to block access to Pirate Bay."
The article speaks for itself. Irelands oldest and largest ISP will be blocking access to the pirate bay from September 1st while other ISPs have rejected the request to block TPB
From the Irish Times:
Under an out-of-court agreement with EMI Records, Sony Music, Universal Music and Warners in January, Eircom agreed to cut off customers found to be repeatedly downloading music illegally. The deal also required Eircom to cut off access to Pirate Bay if requested.
Yesterday, cable TV operator UPC, which has more than 120,000 broadband subscribers, announced it would not comply with a request to block access to Pirate Bay."
Looking For a Link Between Sci-Fi UFOs and UFO Reports 202
NewsWatcher writes "The BBC has an interesting story about the link between sightings of UFOs and sci-fi films. From the article: 'Documents from the Ministry of Defence released by the National Archives show the department recorded 117 sightings in 1995 and 609 in 1996.' Those years correlate with the screening of the film Independence Day (1996) and when The X-Files was at the height of its popularity in the UK (1995).
'The more that alien life is covered in films or television documentaries, the more people look up at the sky and don't look down at their feet,' said an expert on UFO sightings based at Sheffield Hallam University."
Nearby, Recent Interplanetary Collision Inferred 88
The Bad Astronomer writes about a new discovery by the Spitzer Space Telescope, which detected signs of an interplanetary smashup only 100 light-years from here, and only a few thousand years ago. There's a NASA-produced animation of the collision between a Mercury-sized planet and a moon-sized impactor. The collision's aftermath was detected by the presence of what are essentially glass shards in orbit around the star. Here's NASA's writeup.
Submission + - Appeals Court Says RIAA Hearing Can't be Streamed (blogspot.com)
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes: "The US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has overturned a lower court order permitting webcast of an oral argument in an RIAA case, SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, in Boston. As one commentator put it, the decision gives the RIAA permission to 'cower behind the same legal system they're using to pillory innocent people'. Ironically, the appeals court's own hearing had been webcast, via an mp3 file. The court admitted that this was not an appropriate case for a 'prerogative writ' of 'mandamus', but claimed to have authority to issue a writ of 'advisory mandamus'. The opinion came as a bit of a surprise to me because the judges appeared, during the oral argument, to have a handle on the issues. The decision gave me no such impression. From where I sit, the decision was wrong in a number of respects, among them: (a) it contradicted the plain wording of the district court rule, (b) it ignored the First Amendment implications, and (c) there is no such thing as 'advisory' mandamus or 'advisory' anything — our federal courts are specifically precluded from giving advisory opinions."
Submission + - Swedish ISP Deletes Customer ID Info (thelocal.se) 1
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes: "A Swedish internet service provider, Bahnhof, has begun deleting customer identification information in order to prevent its being used as evidence against its customers under Sweden's new legislation against copyright infringement via peer to peer file sharing. According to this report on 'The Local', it is entirely legal for it to do so. The company's CEO, Jon Karlung, is identified as 'a vociferous opponent of the measures that came into force on April 1st', and is quoted saying that he is determined to protect the company's clients, and that 'It's about the freedom to choose, and the law makes it possible to retain details. We're not acting in breach of IPRED; we're following the law and choosing to destroy the details.'"
Comment Join the wrong party. (Score 1) 531
When you steal something from a store, you are necessarily depriving some other person of that particular item. If I walk into Best Buy and walk out with a stolen eMachine, that's an eMachine that somebody else will never have. Granted, I'm sure there are those who would classify depriving somebody of an eMachine as "good Samitarianship" - but you get my basic point.
It should be needless to say, but by downloading the game through piratebay, I am not directly depriving anybody of that game*. So the two cases are different enough that you can't really take a "good for the goose, good for the gander" approach to this.
* - I suppose one could make the argument that by grabbing a working CD key and registering it online, I may be depriving somebody of that CD key. It'd be a technicality, but this is slashdot, after all. What remains, though, is that the eMachine in the above example is a limited resource by its very nature. The CD-key is an artificially limited construct, and while perhaps similar, I still do not feel the two situations really equate.
It should be needless to say, but by downloading the game through piratebay, I am not directly depriving anybody of that game*. So the two cases are different enough that you can't really take a "good for the goose, good for the gander" approach to this.
* - I suppose one could make the argument that by grabbing a working CD key and registering it online, I may be depriving somebody of that CD key. It'd be a technicality, but this is slashdot, after all. What remains, though, is that the eMachine in the above example is a limited resource by its very nature. The CD-key is an artificially limited construct, and while perhaps similar, I still do not feel the two situations really equate.
Comment Re:no (Score 2, Interesting) 531
Twist it around. By not pirating the game, you're putting some trust in Rockstar to attribute the shitty sales of the game to the copy protection, rather than one of the myriad "'old Hollywood' style" excuses of the past ("they didn't like it because the lead character was from Eastern Europe / because the packaging contained too much muave / because they were confused by the "open world" / because it was released on an odd-numbered day"). By not pirating the game, you're trusting Rockstar to get over the perhaps-well-intentioned but certainly-shallow advice of the suits. By not pirating the game, you're trusting the little guys of Rockstar to strike a blow for common sense, rather than go all Milgram on our asses. By not pirating the game, you're trusting Rockstar to give a fuck.
Why should we, the potential consumer, trust Rockstar, if that's how the majority of large game companies act?
Why should we, the potential consumer, trust Rockstar, if that's how the majority of large game companies act?
Comment Re:no (Score 2, Insightful) 531
Yes, that is exactly it.
Anyone hoping to avoid SecuROM by downloading the game form Steam will also be disappointed,
I am going to avoid SecuROM by downloading the game from the pirate bay. Even though I'll buy the game.
Awesome, so Rockstar has the chance to get your $50, then have a shot at busting you for piracy as well? BONUS!
Comment Re:no (Score 0, Flamebait) 531
One man's "intellectual honesty" is another man's "simple mindedness". Just look at the hard-hitting "intellectual honesty" of the far-Right.
Comment Re:no (Score 2, Funny) 531
God bless the benevolent corporation. May They continue to shine Their light down upon us. Thou shalt not steal. Thieving infidels be cursed. Buy a product everyday. Peace®.
Comment Re:no (Score 2, Interesting) 531
Yeah, peaceful, non-harmful, "honorable citizen" Democratic-approved non-threatening "protest" really gets results. After all, that's how President McGovern was able to end the Vietnam War...
Comment Re:Live longer, know more--who'd vote for a Bush? (Score 1) 359
The "mellowing and depth" of the aged mind which you cherish may well be a natural by-product of the aging process. Cells die, neurons don't fire in the quick staccato of youth, and in the ever-lengthening gaps, we find "wisdom".
Comment Re:Immortality is scary (Score 1) 359
"Kill the rich" = "purge the academics"? Brilliant logic there, comrade.
And, no, I am NOT an American.
No, but you have the rethorical skills of one.
