Also, Btdigg needs to connect to the swarm in order to obtain the torrent information. Perhaps Btdigg never "saw" the torrents you are looking for when they were actually being shared.
The Pirate Bay used magnet links for all new uploads, which means that they use DHT, correct?
No. The magnet links are simply a replacement for the original .torrent files and contain the file information and tracker urls and whatnot.
DHT is a distributed "database" that allows the client to find peers, like a tracker does.
If the private flag is set when the torrent was created, regardless if it's a .torrent or magnet link, most clients will disallow the use of DHT for that torrent, which means it most likely never will be indexed by Btdigg.
I just tried searching for a couple more obscure things that I know where listed on TPB, and despite my having entered the titles exactly, it couldn't find them.
I'm not sure exactly how Btdigg works, but I think that it can only find things that are being shared via the DHT, which means most stuff using private trackers won't be there because most clients turn off DHT for those.
To be honest, I've never really used nor verified the accuracy of Btdigg - I'm more interested in observing how technology adapts to and routes around obstacles in it's way.
Not only that, but PB (or any other indexing site) isn't even needed anymore when one can search the DHT itself using Btdigg.org (or Btdigg.i2p for more privacy).
Did you forget to mention which party we're talking about?
Techdirt only indicates the political party of someone when it's actually important to the story.
This is a good thing. It keeps our usually intelligent discussions from breaking down into "Ho-ray for my team!" bipartisan silliness and keeps the focus on the actual issue.
Resist, and get thrown down and arrested. Oh, you were asthmatic? Then I guess resisting arrest was a bad decision on your part Eric.
Is it just me or does this argument sound familiar to this one: "It was her fault I raped her because she was wearing that mini-skirt. I guess dressing like that was a bad decision on her part."?
Someone else's bad decisions do not justify the officer's bad decisions.
Re: Re: Re: Re: The definition of broadband should include ping time
(for example, no consumer satellite broadband system transmits to the satellite -- the phone is usually used for the upstream link)
That information is out of date. I know that HughesNet Gen4 does actually upload to the satellite via microwave (like a sat phone). No phone lines are needed.
When I was a DirecTV Installer (DirecTV used to be affiliated with Hughes) satellite internet installers were warned not to aim the dish anywhere near trees or telephone lines or place the dish near the ground so you don't end up frying squirrels, birds or kids playing by the dish.
I'd say just charge an insanely low rate per employee supported using Zenefits.
I had that same thought also - until I read to quote above dealing with Utah's Insurance Department Bulletin 2010-7:
This includes offering benefits not specified in the insurance contract at no cost or at a cost below fair market value. Also explained is the fact that providing other value added services not specified in an insurance contract are also insurance violations.
That last part confuses me a little too. Does that mean an insurance agent cannot do a "discount double check" because it's a "value added service"?
Most of the objection to Uber et al comes from their blatant attempt to dodge regulations that are in place for a damned good reason. The position of cab services as operating potentially lethal equipment and frequently dealing with isolated and vulnerable customers justifies a proactive approach to regulation.
Care to elaborate on which of these "regulations" are not dealt with in an efficient manner using the instantaneous feedback from customers and drivers that are inherent to these new business models?
Then my summation of your position is accurate. Thank you for clarifying.
Actually, your summation was a weak attempt at taking the argument to it's extremes, which is why I only commented on the overall concept instead.
All of those things that you listed are actions that we, as a consensus of society, have already found to to be immoral and we have made laws against them. You find me 10,000 random people where 51% believe those things are not immoral and we will have this part of the discussion again.
Constructed based on a set of moral principles. And the only principle I'm aware of that is moral is the non-aggression principle.
Constructed based on whose moral principles? Yours? Mine? Morals are subjective and mine are different than yours. So whose do you plan on basing the law on?
That you believe a society couldn't function without some people stealing, raping or defrauding other people is very telling.
Now you are putting words into my mouth. I never said that at all. I said society couldn't function effectively if individual rights are placed above the good of society as a whole.
Yet another example: You have the Right to Free Speech in the US, but that right is not all encompassing. You do not have the right to defame another person. You also do not have the right to use your speech to cause imminent danger to another. As a society, we have even limited the Right to Free Speech for the benefit of society as a whole.
Just so we're clear, you think stealing (or rape or fraud or any other action) is just fine and dandy so long as 50% + 1 of the population believes it's an OK thing to do. And your answer to the people who are being stolen from or raped or defrauded is "too bad, you lost". How do you not see the problem with this?
As I said above - laws should reflect the values and morals of those being governed. If you don't agree with that please explain your view of how laws should be constructed. Should it be your personal morals? The whims of a monarch? Dictates handed down from the Spaghetti Monster? Or something else?
You understand an appeal to tradition represents a terrible defense, right?
It's not an appeal to tradition - it's how our society functions. Some individual rights get violated for the benefit of society as a whole. Please tell me how any society could function effectively if every single individual right was held in higher regard than the benefit of society as a whole.
PS: Just stop with the silly "Your logical fallacy is..." crap. Twice now you have been wrong and also failed to respond to that specific point. It seems like you use that as shield to avoid points you don't wish to discuss.
Right.. we've determined peoples' feelings should outweigh the rights of others. We are no longer a society based on morals but a society of wants. Thank you for helping make my point.
Once again, what do you think laws should be based on, if not a consensus of those being governed? You still haven't answered that question.
But what if the majority of the society benefits from this legalized theft and does not want it to end? How can the minority which is being trampled upon convince the majority to act against their collective self interest?
Then the minority loses. Not sure where the problem with that lies. I'm pretty sure Henry Ford and his buddies (the minority) didn't want safe labor laws when they were enacted either, since they would "steal" resources from Ford Motor Co's bottom line.
Sure I would; rights don't come from laws. Laws are (were?) supposed to be a codification of the negative rights we already possess (e.g. Bill of Rights).
Legal rights come from laws. Your "natural" right to own property only exists up to the point where you can successfully defend against someone else taking it. Beyond that, all other property rights are legal rights which most definitely come from statutes and case law and are enforced with the might of a government.
Because you haven't defined what "access" means.
Yes. I agree that "access" to the internet would need to be defined in more concrete terms. Personally, I think it would along the lines of "access to drinkable water". That doesn't mean that water is free to everyone. It just means that access to water isn't inhibited or denied to anyone and that we, as a society, provide the ways and means to get water for those who cannot afford it.
Because a good cannot be a right in the moral sense since it would require the forced action of another and coercion violates one's rights.
Whether it's a good or not has no bearing on that. We require forced action of others that violate their rights all the time. As another example: we force restaurant owners not to discriminate against anyone based on their religion, creed or color. That violates the restaurant owners right to refuse service to whomever they wish, but society has determined that the benefits to society outweigh the restaurant owner's rights.
And what happens when a moral right collides with a legal right?
Then we, as a society, change the law. For example - it was once legal to own other people as slaves, now it's not legal because we, as a society, decided that that moral argument was greater than the property rights of the plantation owners.
What happens when the right to one's property (aka it's immoral/illegal to steal) conflicts with what "society" wants (the legal right to steal from some people and give to others)? I'll answer for you -- you cease to have a society based on morals and instead have a society based on wants.
You seem to be putting the cart before the horse here. You wouldn't have property rights in the first place if society hadn't decided that property rights enforced with laws was a better solution than everyone just taking what they want by force.
Sounds more like you don't want to take your desire to its logical conclusion.
No, I have thought this through. I just fail to see where your argument that internet access cannot be considered a fundamental human right because it is good that is traded has any merit whatsoever.
The desires of the minority should outweigh the rights of the minority, is that your argument? For example if 83% of the world's population believed that it was OK to take from someone else what they don't have, that would be OK because it was a "societal consensus"?
Yes. I believe laws should reflect the values and morals of those being governed. What do you believe laws should be based on? Divine intervention? Space aliens? Your own personal morals? A roll of the dice?
And how does one get access? If I build a house in a rural area I have the right to legally force an ISP to run a cable to my home irregardless as to the cost because I have a right to internet access?
I don't know the answer to that question and neither does society at the moment, since we haven't actually codified the right to internet access into laws - yet.
There are some solutions to those issues currently available though - things like Open WiFi and other free access options.
I pointed that out because your appeal to authority still fails.
It's not an appeal to authority. Perhaps you missed my second comment up there, it's a consensus of society. 83% of the world's population believes that internet access should be considered a basic human right.
To claim that a good is actually a right is to endorse (implicitly) the serving of one group by another (aka slavery).
You are conflating different things here. Sure water and internet service are goods that are sold and purchased. That doesn't mean that access to such things cannot be considered a basic human right.
And I'm not really sure what you are trying to say with the "slavery" part there. Personally, I am glad that access to drinkable water is considered a basic human right and that we, as a society here in the US, have pretty much kept the control of potable water in the hands of local and regional governments, as opposed to corporations and individuals.
On the post: Dick Cheney Says CIA Torture Report Is 'Full Of Crap' -- Then Admits He Hasn't Read It
Re: Re: Hawking
I should probably cover my ass here and say that I'm not actually "sure" about that.
Although, IMHO, I suspect that it is true.
On the post: Dick Cheney Says CIA Torture Report Is 'Full Of Crap' -- Then Admits He Hasn't Read It
Re: Hawking
Of course he does. Halliburton, the company he was CEO of (and I'm sure he still owns tons of stock in) profits from war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halliburton#Controversies
On the post: Dick Cheney Says CIA Torture Report Is 'Full Of Crap' -- Then Admits He Hasn't Read It
Re:
Catch up, Sparky. That was the whole point of this article.
On the post: Swedish Law Enforcement Delivers Long-Awaited Pirate Bay Raid Sequel; Seizes Servers And Knocks Site Offline
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Swedish Law Enforcement Delivers Long-Awaited Pirate Bay Raid Sequel; Seizes Servers And Knocks Site Offline
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No. The magnet links are simply a replacement for the original .torrent files and contain the file information and tracker urls and whatnot.
DHT is a distributed "database" that allows the client to find peers, like a tracker does.
If the private flag is set when the torrent was created, regardless if it's a .torrent or magnet link, most clients will disallow the use of DHT for that torrent, which means it most likely never will be indexed by Btdigg.
On the post: Swedish Law Enforcement Delivers Long-Awaited Pirate Bay Raid Sequel; Seizes Servers And Knocks Site Offline
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not sure exactly how Btdigg works, but I think that it can only find things that are being shared via the DHT, which means most stuff using private trackers won't be there because most clients turn off DHT for those.
To be honest, I've never really used nor verified the accuracy of Btdigg - I'm more interested in observing how technology adapts to and routes around obstacles in it's way.
On the post: Swedish Law Enforcement Delivers Long-Awaited Pirate Bay Raid Sequel; Seizes Servers And Knocks Site Offline
Re: Re:
https://btdigg.org/search?q=Fury%202014&p=0&order=1
On the post: Sen. Rockefeller Sitting On FOIA Improvement Act, Despite Two Unanimous Votes In Favor Of Passage
Re: Party Missing? (D)
Techdirt only indicates the political party of someone when it's actually important to the story.
This is a good thing. It keeps our usually intelligent discussions from breaking down into "Ho-ray for my team!" bipartisan silliness and keeps the focus on the actual issue.
On the post: The Homicide No One Committed: Eric Garner's Death At The Hands Of An NYPD Officer No-Billed By Grand Jury
Re: Re: Don't resist arrest, don't die.
Is it just me or does this argument sound similar to this one:...
On the post: Utah Wants To Kill Zenefits For Giving Away HR Software For Free
Re: Re: Re: Charge a low rate
Lol. That is a good point.
Although, I would imagine that an average price of similar software would be used, which would most likely never be zero.
On the post: The Homicide No One Committed: Eric Garner's Death At The Hands Of An NYPD Officer No-Billed By Grand Jury
Re: Don't resist arrest, don't die.
Is it just me or does this argument sound familiar to this one: "It was her fault I raped her because she was wearing that mini-skirt. I guess dressing like that was a bad decision on her part."?
Someone else's bad decisions do not justify the officer's bad decisions.
On the post: AT&T's Regulatory Hypocrisy On Proud Display In Kansas, Where It's Fighting To Keep The State A Broadband Backwater
Re: Re: Re: Re: The definition of broadband should include ping time
That information is out of date. I know that HughesNet Gen4 does actually upload to the satellite via microwave (like a sat phone). No phone lines are needed.
When I was a DirecTV Installer (DirecTV used to be affiliated with Hughes) satellite internet installers were warned not to aim the dish anywhere near trees or telephone lines or place the dish near the ground so you don't end up frying squirrels, birds or kids playing by the dish.
On the post: Utah Wants To Kill Zenefits For Giving Away HR Software For Free
Re: Charge a low rate
I had that same thought also - until I read to quote above dealing with Utah's Insurance Department Bulletin 2010-7:
That last part confuses me a little too. Does that mean an insurance agent cannot do a "discount double check" because it's a "value added service"?
On the post: Ride Sharing Services Lead Taxi Medallion Values To Plummet (And That's A Good Thing)
Re:
Care to elaborate on which of these "regulations" are not dealt with in an efficient manner using the instantaneous feedback from customers and drivers that are inherent to these new business models?
On the post: T-Mobile Still Doesn't Understand (Or Simply Doesn't Care) That Their 'Music Freedom' Plan Tramples Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, your summation was a weak attempt at taking the argument to it's extremes, which is why I only commented on the overall concept instead.
All of those things that you listed are actions that we, as a consensus of society, have already found to to be immoral and we have made laws against them. You find me 10,000 random people where 51% believe those things are not immoral and we will have this part of the discussion again.
Constructed based on a set of moral principles. And the only principle I'm aware of that is moral is the non-aggression principle.
Constructed based on whose moral principles? Yours? Mine? Morals are subjective and mine are different than yours. So whose do you plan on basing the law on?
That you believe a society couldn't function without some people stealing, raping or defrauding other people is very telling.
Now you are putting words into my mouth. I never said that at all. I said society couldn't function effectively if individual rights are placed above the good of society as a whole.
Yet another example: You have the Right to Free Speech in the US, but that right is not all encompassing. You do not have the right to defame another person. You also do not have the right to use your speech to cause imminent danger to another. As a society, we have even limited the Right to Free Speech for the benefit of society as a whole.
On the post: T-Mobile Still Doesn't Understand (Or Simply Doesn't Care) That Their 'Music Freedom' Plan Tramples Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As I said above - laws should reflect the values and morals of those being governed. If you don't agree with that please explain your view of how laws should be constructed. Should it be your personal morals? The whims of a monarch? Dictates handed down from the Spaghetti Monster? Or something else?
You understand an appeal to tradition represents a terrible defense, right?
It's not an appeal to tradition - it's how our society functions. Some individual rights get violated for the benefit of society as a whole. Please tell me how any society could function effectively if every single individual right was held in higher regard than the benefit of society as a whole.
PS: Just stop with the silly "Your logical fallacy is..." crap. Twice now you have been wrong and also failed to respond to that specific point. It seems like you use that as shield to avoid points you don't wish to discuss.
Right.. we've determined peoples' feelings should outweigh the rights of others. We are no longer a society based on morals but a society of wants. Thank you for helping make my point.
Once again, what do you think laws should be based on, if not a consensus of those being governed? You still haven't answered that question.
On the post: T-Mobile Still Doesn't Understand (Or Simply Doesn't Care) That Their 'Music Freedom' Plan Tramples Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then the minority loses. Not sure where the problem with that lies. I'm pretty sure Henry Ford and his buddies (the minority) didn't want safe labor laws when they were enacted either, since they would "steal" resources from Ford Motor Co's bottom line.
Sure I would; rights don't come from laws. Laws are (were?) supposed to be a codification of the negative rights we already possess (e.g. Bill of Rights).
Legal rights come from laws. Your "natural" right to own property only exists up to the point where you can successfully defend against someone else taking it. Beyond that, all other property rights are legal rights which most definitely come from statutes and case law and are enforced with the might of a government.
Because you haven't defined what "access" means.
Yes. I agree that "access" to the internet would need to be defined in more concrete terms. Personally, I think it would along the lines of "access to drinkable water". That doesn't mean that water is free to everyone. It just means that access to water isn't inhibited or denied to anyone and that we, as a society, provide the ways and means to get water for those who cannot afford it.
Because a good cannot be a right in the moral sense since it would require the forced action of another and coercion violates one's rights.
Whether it's a good or not has no bearing on that. We require forced action of others that violate their rights all the time. As another example: we force restaurant owners not to discriminate against anyone based on their religion, creed or color. That violates the restaurant owners right to refuse service to whomever they wish, but society has determined that the benefits to society outweigh the restaurant owner's rights.
On the post: T-Mobile Still Doesn't Understand (Or Simply Doesn't Care) That Their 'Music Freedom' Plan Tramples Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then we, as a society, change the law. For example - it was once legal to own other people as slaves, now it's not legal because we, as a society, decided that that moral argument was greater than the property rights of the plantation owners.
What happens when the right to one's property (aka it's immoral/illegal to steal) conflicts with what "society" wants (the legal right to steal from some people and give to others)? I'll answer for you -- you cease to have a society based on morals and instead have a society based on wants.
You seem to be putting the cart before the horse here. You wouldn't have property rights in the first place if society hadn't decided that property rights enforced with laws was a better solution than everyone just taking what they want by force.
Sounds more like you don't want to take your desire to its logical conclusion.
No, I have thought this through. I just fail to see where your argument that internet access cannot be considered a fundamental human right because it is good that is traded has any merit whatsoever.
On the post: T-Mobile Still Doesn't Understand (Or Simply Doesn't Care) That Their 'Music Freedom' Plan Tramples Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes. I believe laws should reflect the values and morals of those being governed. What do you believe laws should be based on? Divine intervention? Space aliens? Your own personal morals? A roll of the dice?
And how does one get access? If I build a house in a rural area I have the right to legally force an ISP to run a cable to my home irregardless as to the cost because I have a right to internet access?
I don't know the answer to that question and neither does society at the moment, since we haven't actually codified the right to internet access into laws - yet.
There are some solutions to those issues currently available though - things like Open WiFi and other free access options.
On the post: T-Mobile Still Doesn't Understand (Or Simply Doesn't Care) That Their 'Music Freedom' Plan Tramples Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's not an appeal to authority. Perhaps you missed my second comment up there, it's a consensus of society. 83% of the world's population believes that internet access should be considered a basic human right.
To claim that a good is actually a right is to endorse (implicitly) the serving of one group by another (aka slavery).
You are conflating different things here. Sure water and internet service are goods that are sold and purchased. That doesn't mean that access to such things cannot be considered a basic human right.
And I'm not really sure what you are trying to say with the "slavery" part there. Personally, I am glad that access to drinkable water is considered a basic human right and that we, as a society here in the US, have pretty much kept the control of potable water in the hands of local and regional governments, as opposed to corporations and individuals.
Next >>