221–230 of 386 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a telegram bot for sci-hub?
https://telegram.me/scihubbot Much more convenient than the web interface, if you ask me. And without the problem of remembering the right URL.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hard to block, yes, but the problem would be to find people who'd publicly share a copy or parts of scihub from their IP address.
I was just thinking about a solution for this. What if two users share files A and B, where both A and B look like noise, but when XOR-ed, they form the copyrighted work? Both users can claim plausible deniability. Especially if A XOR-ed with another file C results in a copyright-free work (and similarly for B and another file D).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who cares about what that guy wanted or didn't want. The question is whether we should let people distribute his manifesto for the sake of freedom of expression or if we consider it to be dangerous and worthy of a ban. The opinion of the guy who committed this heinous crime is frankly irrelevant IMO. If I was to commit some atrocities tomorrow and write a pamphlet outlining my motive and calling for others to do the…
> The question is whether we should let people distribute his manifesto for the sake of freedom of expression or if we consider it to be dangerous and worthy of a ban. Speaking as a us citizen, that is crazy talk. Why should the government be let to decide what is "too dangerous" for me to read? It seems incredible that first world democracies still engage in that kind of censorship.
Obviously the risk is not that reasonably educated HN readers could stumble upon this manifesto and start a massacre, the risk is that the material could be used as propaganda to brainwash more easily-influenced people. People become radicalized on the web, actually the shooter himself kept spouting "memes" straight from /pol/ and other alt-right websites. Similarly many Islamist terrorists who carried attacks in recent years also radicalized online, feeding on propaganda websites and fake news.
Does banning 4chan or the manifesto achieve anything? I'm not sure. But dismissing any attempt to curb this very real problem as "crazy talk" is not really constructive criticism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, everyone is so defiant that they don't realize that IP and VPN blocks are coming if we continue down this road.
This is what Merkel meant with "Neuland"(engl. uncharted territory) in 2013. In Germany she is heavily mocked for not understanding the Internet. Of course, it's the bright populace of high class forums such as Facebook and r/de who know better than the Physicist Chancellor of a G7 nation... In reality, she meant it is legal Neuland. That authorities and courts had little established ways of enforcing laws online, th…
I for one have no faith in educating the government as long as companies with multi-million-dollar lobbying budgets are free to sway politicians to legislate in their favor. Happy to be convinced otherwise, though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Those 2 libraries are the closest thing to the modern internet equivalent of the "Library of Alexandria". I hope they don't manage to burn in down. This just reminds of how in the late nineties and early 2000s we used to have torrent sites for music enthusiasts with an archive of all the different versions, editions, bootlegs, all painstakingly added and catalogued, representing tens if not hundreds of man-hours wo…
Well, they weren't torrent sites in the late 90s and probably not the early 2000s either. The Bittorrent protocol wasn't released until July 2001 and it took a few years to get popular. Back then, they were just servers you downloaded stuff from.
Those 2 libraries are the closest thing to the modern internet equivalent of the "Library of Alexandria". I hope they don't manage to burn in down. Yes, for now governments only caught up to DNS level blocking, but more effective measures will follow if we don't change the political willingness to withhold knowledge from the masses.
> Those 2 libraries are the closest thing to the modern internet equivalent of the "Library of Alexandria". I hope they don't manage to burn in down. This just reminds of how in the late nineties and early 2000s we used to have torrent sites for music enthusiasts with an archive of all the different versions, editions, bootlegs, all painstakingly added and catalogued, representing tens if not hundreds of man-hours wo…
It was a gaming historian's wet dream. They were even beginning to record the releases from different warez scene groups.
But everything went away because, form what I gathered, someone in EA noticed you could download FIFA 96 for the Mega Drive/Genesis.
Unfortunately, I don't remember the name of the site. RIP
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The question is whether we should let people distribute his manifesto for the sake of freedom of expression or if we consider it to be dangerous and worthy of a ban. Speaking as a us citizen, that is crazy talk. Why should the government be let to decide what is "too dangerous" for me to read? It seems incredible that first world democracies still engage in that kind of censorship.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance is worth reading
Another instance, I think fox and Breitbart are scourges for their disinformation campaign (not that they're "conservative" or have an "agenda", the wsj is also conservative and has an agenda), but making them illegal is a line too far. It provides too much power to a government who already has too much.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/food/wp/2017/08/14/charl...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who cares about what that guy wanted or didn't want. The question is whether we should let people distribute his manifesto for the sake of freedom of expression or if we consider it to be dangerous and worthy of a ban. The opinion of the guy who committed this heinous crime is frankly irrelevant IMO. If I was to commit some atrocities tomorrow and write a pamphlet outlining my motive and calling for others to do the…
Eh, if a murderous white supremacist has a strategy we should at least ask if the strategy can work before we exactly play into it.
In my opinion his main objective was to get attention and put his nauseous ideology in the spotlight. I don't know if banning it is the right solution but frankly I won't waste my time playing devil's advocate for a mass murderer.
"First they came for the terrorists and I did nothing because I wasn't a terrorist... And nothing of value was lost".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Yesterday those weird scientints gave to you the rights to their works. Yesterday there weren't any, let alone good, alternatives. Even today with good alternatives, the way publishing in "high impact" journals is tied to pay can make the issue not really have other options. Free access to knowledge is fairly foundational to science and something that's has been talked about for a while. This isn't a new problem. I…
But today, even with alternatives present, scientists still give away or sell their rights to the journals. The scientists are often paid be the government. So it is the government that creates this situation and makes "high impact" journals what they are. It is the government that doesn't mandate free access to the knowledge.
My case, by the way.