Posts by SteveH
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Mega Strange, in reply to nzlemming,
The encryption point is one I’d missed in passing, but that would also wreck de-duping, yes?
Yes, but that's a feature. One of the arguments against Megaupload was that when an infringement notice was issued against a particular file, Megaupload failed to delete duplicate copies (although without a notice I can't see how Megaupload could know that those copies were also infringing). Since duplicates cannot be detected by Mega at all it is not susceptible to this argument.
-
Hard News: Mega Strange, in reply to Vikram Kumar,
I saw a tweet that pointed to the blog post on Whaleoil. There were screenshots of the two files, partially obscured. MEGA URLs have two parts- the first points to the file on MEGA and the second (optional) part is the decryption key. Our tech team were able to look at the screenshots and locate them from the first part of the respective links.
Thanks for the clarification Vikram. Can you confirm that the files were only ever downloaded by the same customer who uploaded them as Russell states? In his story Cameron Slater admits to downloading the files (presumably he'll be turning himself into the copyright tribunal momentarily), so if both claims are true then Slater must be the uploader.
Incidentally we only have Slater's word that the files in question were in fact the novel The Luminaries. So we should be calling this alleged copyright infringement.
-
Hard News: Mega Strange, in reply to giovanni tiso,
does Orcon or any other ISP for that matter, profit from the volume of illegitimately shared material?
Given that ISPs in NZ still charge based on volume they clearly do. So why are Cam Slater and publishers not railing against the ISPs?
-
the infringing e-book file has only ever been accessed by the same customer who uploaded it
If it has only ever been accessed by the uploader how do we even know that this is copyright infringement? The uploader could have been someone from the publisher who had (explicit or implied) permission to do so. And I believe an owner of and ebook could legally upload it to Mega provided they did not share the link.
Mega identified the two instances of the infringing e-book
How did they identify those two instances? Mega are not able to access the file contents, right? If they identified the files by name, how did they verify those files were in fact the book itself and not (for example) someone's review of the book?
-
Hard News: Moving right along?, in reply to DexterX,
I am pretty sure you get it – a person can behave in a stupid way regardless of any other characteristic or attribute they possess – I am pretty sure you understand that as a concept that is without contradiction.
Yes, but that's not quite what you said in your previous post, or at least not how I understood it. In that post you seemed to be talking about a person being stupid, not just making a single stupid decision or action. If a person's stupidity is independent of their other characteristics then the revelation of their stupidity cannot tell you anything about their other characteristics (i.e their "true nature").
But I think you were meaning simply that their recent stupid decision(s) (and I still don't concede that Banks' decision was stupid as opposed to morally bankrupt) shows that the are fundamentally stupid. I don't believe that a single stupid action/decision defines a person as stupid - I doubt anyone can honestly claim they've never done something stupid.
-
Hard News: Moving right along?, in reply to Hilary Stace,
And conversely, people considered to have a low IQ can be very wise.
Yes IQ is a flawed measure of general intelligence. Generally reducing anything even slightly complex to a single number is questionable IMO.
-
Hard News: Moving right along?, in reply to DexterX,
The generally accepted definition of stupidity is “lacking in intelligence”. This is what most people understand the term to mean. You’ve redefined it to be something different which is probably why some people here are disagreeing with you.
Stupidity is not inherent, for Brown and Banks their stupidity is an active choice, they each chose to act in their own worst interest and to the detriment of those around them and at a no gain themselves and at some considerable loss to themselves. This is basically the third law of stupidity. The behaviours are different but they are stupid
If you’re saying that stupidity is a conscious decision to do something self-damaging then I don’t agree. In both cases they thought they were gaining something (sexual gratification, or possibly love in one case, and campaign finance without possible negative publicity in the other), and in both cases they thought there would be no negative consequences. In Brown’s case I think most people would recognise that the risk of negative consequences was very high and therefore his behaviour can be described as stupid. In Bank’s case I believe the risk was very low and it therefore can’t be described as stupid.
The second law of stupidity is that a person may be stupid independent of any other characteristic or advantage they possess. The stupidity of Banks and Brown reveals their true character.
Those two sentences seem contradictory to me. First you’re saying that stupidity is unrelated to a person’s other characteristics and then you’re saying the opposite: that it is evidence of a person’s other characteristics.
Intelligence itself is the ability of someone to profit from his or her experience. I wiould say they both lack intelligence.
Intelligence has many facets, I think your definition is way too narrow. It also makes your conclusion questionable: Brown made a comment that implied he had committed infidelity in his first marriage so his experience may have been that an affair was personally profitable in some sense. Banks either has not committed electoral fraud before or he has not been caught. So neither case shows a lack of intelligence by your definition.
I don’t know either of them personally so I can’t really judge their intelligence, though they are both successful people and are unlikely to lack intelligence IMO. I don’t think it’s reasonable to say someone is stupid or unintelligent based on a couple of poor decisions.
-
Hard News: Moving right along?, in reply to DexterX,
They are comparably stupid, so there.
I guess I'd say it was stupid of Brown to have the affair, though all too common. I don't think it was so stupid that he should lose his elected position (given what we know so far).
Banks appears to have deliberated subverted electoral law. I don't think you can describe that as stupid unless you believe there was a high likelihood that he would get caught and prosecuted and he wilfully ignored that risk. I don't think the chance of him getting caught was at all high - it only happened because his donor turned on him, and even then the police didn't feel they could prosecute. So no, I don't think Banks was stupid at all.
-
Hard News: Moving right along?, in reply to Seamus Harris,
What’s next? Post my photograph and place of work?
Have you googled your name lately?
-
Hard News: Moving right along?, in reply to Rob Stowell,
It does seem a tad curious that while most of Bevan Chuang’s account seems to be accepted by commenters here, her belief that the mayor was offered and accepted free hotel rooms is not.
She wasn't sure and he and the hotels deny it. I think people here are willing to accept that she was mistaken unless further evidence comes to light. Similarly, the explanations for the reference are reasonable, so no fire there either at this time. It's not even clear if they were in sexual relationship when the reference was given (Brown has implied they were not).
(Seamus:) And yet none of that matters, because the main thing for readers of Public Address (as always) is to endlessly obsess about evil right-wing people.
The only story right now is around how this affair came to light and the friction within the National party that it has revealed. Until the inquiry is complete or new allegations surface (and it's been a few days so that seems unlikely) there isn't much to discuss on the Brown side.