Unless you can point to an actual court case, I doubt if this is true.
Various Dallas Buyer's Club, LLC v. Does lawsuits. Here is one example: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/washington/wawdce/2:2014cv01819/207565/
Mr. Nydam, along with several other defendants, is alleged to have participated in a peer-to-peer network using the BitTorrent protocol to download and share Dallas Buyers Club
... Plaintiff has alleged and presented evidence that the IP address assigned to Mr. Nydam copied and distributed pieces of the film.
The court ruling makes clear that the defendant is guilty not just of downloading the movie, but also of distributing it because he used BitTorrent.
"Criminals need the internet to make money. They do not want to kill the net and they do not want to make it unusable for their victims."
But the tragedy of the commons shows how a group of criminals, none of whom want to kill off the net may end up doing so anyway because they are (a) greedy and (b) unable to coordinate their actions to keep their greed in check.
The net is a classic common pool resource, which means that Tragedy of the Commons is a real threat when each additional attack increases the profit to an individual black hat while reducing the collective profits taken by all of the black hats (the marginal utility to the individual is positive, but the marginal utility to the whole dark economy is negative). Over-fishing is a classic example.
Elinor Ostrom showed that in real life, common pool resources can be successfully managed against this threat, but only when there is a mechanism to set and enforce rules (either through formal governance or through informal norms and sanctions). Essentially, unless black hats develop their own dark government to effectively control and limit attacks, there is a real possibility, in principle at least, of tragedy of the commons bringing down the net.
However, just because it is possible does not make it likely. I am not qualified to assess the probability of this kind of collapse.
Well, he also doesn't know what he is talking about either. John Kasich has publicly said that humans contribute to climate change but he doesn't agree with the approaches to it with the EPA.
Kasich frequently asserts that "we don't know how much humans actually contribute" to climate change." And since scientific assessments can determine that there is greater than 90% probability that human activity is responsible for more most of the observed warming of the last half-century, Kasich is either dishonest or ignorant about the science.
Is that the one where the guy admits that he has done absolutely no research and just makes the whole thing up?
For TED talks, that doesn't exactly narrow it down.
You are right, I think it is an American problem (I'm British, living in the USA).
The British libel laws seem to be a lot farther from common sense and to threaten free expression far more than anything the US courts do.
"Justice is what the judge had for breakfast" isn't just a silly blurb, there was a study that showed increased parole rates for cases after lunch hours. Granted, it was probably American courts, but I doubt UK courts are equipped with enough checks and balances to avoid the fallibility of arbitrary law.
It was Israeli courts. http://www.pnas.org/content/10...
And everyone warmist and denialist knows this one is due to El Nino, but that won't stop the warmists from crowing over it.
The point being that there have been lots of El Niños before, and yet this El Niño is a lot warmer than any previous El Niño on record.
It turns out there's a massive amount of stuff that ultra-low latency isn't that important for.
I have no expertise here, but it strikes me that it's not just about latency due to path length and signal-propagation speed. It's also about traffic congestion.
If you shift a huge amount of traffic from inside the continent to overseas sites, you are moving form a highly connected network to one in which all the traffic has to move through a much smaller number of edges. If lots of companies moved lots of high-traffic data centers overseas, how would this traffic impact congestion on the international connections?
Child porn is illegal, even if it involves NO CHILDREN whatsoever. Many of the people being prosecuted were making or viewing animations or adult actors, not anything involving actual children.
Didn't Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition 535 US 234 (2002) overturn that and rule that the First Amendment protects cartoons, animations, and other works that do not show the sexual violation of actual children?
Thermal plants are usually not build to load follow either, they are build for base load.
Good point. You're right.
I wonder, if you are slow, or am I so unclear... Did you not see the requirement for pairs of links? One to a prediction, the other — to its confirmation?
Raymond Pierrehumbert's lecture at AGU about successful predictions from climate models is well worth watching.
Honesty is for the most part less profitable than dishonesty. -- Plato