I found myself in the same predicament--trust Microsoft and Silverlight(only god herself knows what MS is actually doing with it), or give up Netflix Instant View.
After a little rationalization, I came to the conclusion that Netflix itself could be trusted to make sure Microsoft wasn't jerking me around. So far, Netflix has been a relatively trustworthy company, IMHO. A decent product at a decent price and zero complaints from me. I can't say that about too many companies I have done business with.
""The USDA requires Microsoft to provide offline access which which we do view as a basic not something vendors can expect somewhere down the line," Rizzo wrote, a dig at Google."
So, the tax-payer is basically paying Microsoft to run a server-farm, access to it both offline and online and software to utilize it. How is this different then the previous arrangement, besides them providing the server farm??
Microsoft will have access to all of the data stored. "But wait!", you might say, "They already have that." The difference here is that now we are GIVING it to them. The data sets that the USDA have on hand are more then just farm reports--they include everything from mortgage arrangements(like my own) to the inner workings of arrangements with companies like Monsanto and ConAgra. Personally, I think such data should be public information but I do not think that any corporation should be privy to such information ALONE.
Do YOU trust Microsoft to stay away from all that shiny information? I don't.
"Batman: Arkham Asylum lets unauthorized users play through the game as if it were a normal copy, with a single exception: Batman's cape-glide ability doesn't work, rendering the game impossible to finish — although you might bash your head against it trying to make what are now impossible jumps. If you pirate Command & Conquer: Red Alert 2, brace yourself for an explosion, as your entire base will detonate within 30 seconds of loading the game..."
So how is this different then the purchased, bug-ridden, unfinished versions that are pawned off on us with every release?
"This appears to me a step in the right direction..."
I did not say it was the correct choice, but simply the right direction. At least they are acknowledging the significance of these websites. Would you rather they went back to trying to close them down instead?
"Liberal members of the Democratic caucus were reportedly angry at the decision to not punish Lieberman more severely. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont (who is also an Independent who caucuses with the Democrats) stated that he voted against Lieberman "because while millions of people worked hard for Obama, Lieberman actively worked for four more years of President Bush's policies."[49]
Lieberman's embrace of certain conservative policies and in particular his endorsement of John McCain have been cited as factors for his low approval rating in Connecticut: 38 approval to 54 disapproval. "This is the highest disapproval rating in any Quinnipiac University poll in any state for a sitting U.S. Senator — except for New Jersey's Robert Torricelli, just before he resigned in 2002. Among those who say they voted for Sen. Lieberman in 2006, 30 percent now say they would vote for someone else if they could."
Can someone please explain why this flip-flopping, opportunistic little man is still in office? What leverage does he have that allows him to stay seated in the face of such approval/disapproval ratings?
"I don't know what reality that is, but it's not ours. If you want to connect to someone else's network, you either pay or agree to a ratio of traffic. "
Morons? They are modifying their business model to include such websites. Hypocrisy aside, isn't that what everyone has been screaming for, a modernization of their business model?
This appears to me a step in the right direction, although it would be better if they backed down on some of the copyright issues as well (like stop suing their potential customers).
"I don't know what reality that is, but it's not ours. If you want to connect to someone else's network, you either pay or agree to a ratio of traffic."
But I, as a Comcast customer, already paid them to deliver said Netflix data to me. How do they figure they can charge Netflix for the SAME THING when I already paid for it?
Comcast lives in a world of double-dips, triple-dips and outright shenanigans.
Remember when cable was supposed to be user-supported Television (as opposed to ad-supported)? Now you have the ads back AND they are charging the content providers as well.
I've long suspected Comcast of injecting reset packets into my datastream as it pertains to my use of a Samsung set-top device I use to watch Netflix on my television--the service is seriously degraded on that device, but not others such as this PC I am using. I wrote an email to Netflix explaining my suspicions and was pleased to see a firmware update to my device within two weeks that seemed to fix the problem. It lasted about two months before the degradation started again.
Interestingly, if I run a Netflix movie on my PC (I just turn off the monitor) at the same time I am watching on the Samsung, the data to my Samsung unit is not degraded. It appears that specific device types are targeted--the ones that carry all of the Comcast advertising streams. Degrading the service on my PC wouldn't make sense--they would be degrading their own product. I just see this as further proof that my suspicions are correct.
As a customer, I am caught in a crossfire, but is plain to see who is wearing the black hat here and it ain't Netflix.
"Firstly, that is the most misleading signature I've ever seen. Secondly, don't call me Nut."
I find it absolutely hilarious that you actually got modded + Insightful. What a fucking waste of points...you guys act like their free or something.
The sig was stolen from a/. poster that was actually claiming that, well...that he wasn't a conspiracy theorist nut when it was quite obvious he was exactly that. But, in your honor it shall be amended forthwith. Thanks.
"I find it most hypocritical that this relatively pro-privacy site is pushing wikileaks just because it's interesting."
Just because it is interesting? Are you serious? I've been waiting for something like this to happen most of my adult life.
If there is one thing I have learned in that adult life it is that honesty is always the best policy. Wikileaks is just making it easier for the governed to see who is actually being honest and not just paying lip service.
This is the stuff that brings about great changes and I suspect that is what you really fear, and express by trying to instill that very same fear in others. Most of your post consists of fear-mongering and supposition--precisely the tactics of governments and Big Business around the world that I so despise.
"It is somewhat useful, depending upon one's use of google earth."
It also depends on whether or not Google is putting trees where they actually exist. As soon as people start using this as a means to calculate forest/jungle coverage it will be manipulated to someone's advantage, probably the lumber industry.
Hopefully someone verifies they are not manipulating/guiding public opinion with false information, as that would be bad and might give people a poor impression of Google...*cough*.
"Or you can use noscript and enable it on the fly in the browser..."
Or you can just use NoScript ALL THE TIME. And I'll second that with Ghostery.
If you use Flash, use FlashBlock and only let through the stuff you want. Flash Cookies seem to be the way everyone is working these last few months, so much so that I think people are using Flash in their webpages as a pretext to drop Flash Cookies.
"Antibacterial soap does not contain antibiotics. It contains simpler chemicals (alcohol, etc) which kill cells on contact. Antibiotics are more specific"
As a teen I had horrible acne. I was told to wash with soap and water several times a day. I now know that was the WORST possible advice I could have been given. The acne was a direct result of infections that took root simply because the soap had wiped out the beneficial bacteria on my skin leaving it wide open to NON-beneficial bacteria. This "teen" acne followed me for most of my adult life simply because I kept taking bad advice--I washed my face with soap.
I did NOT use anti-bacterial soap, but regular Dove bar soap. The problem is that the soap changes the PH of your skin just long enough to kill off the bacteria living there (swinging too far alkaline or acid is sufficient to kill them off). I imagine the damage from using anti-bacterial soap would have made matters even worse.
I now use nothing but very hot water to wash my face (the heat seems to break up fatty oils better) and the acne has entirely vanished, and remained that way for years. The idea is to remove dirt, not lay waste to all things living.
The PH balance thing was just sort of a conclusion I came to--I have no real evidence other then the results. But, I do have some other evidence to back it up. One Christmas, I made a skin moisturizer for my wife as most moisturizers on the market irritate her skin. The one thing I focused on was making sure that it was PH balanced. I am able to use this lotion on my face without incurring any acne and it also worked out well for my wife--no irritation.
In the end I have come to the conclusion that we shouldn't be so concerned with fighting bacterial infections by killing them off, but rather reinforcing the health of the beneficial bacteria we possess.
"...Also, scroll down and mod this comment more highly [slashdot.org] as it is not a troll, and is simply representative of moderation abuse here on Slashdot..."
How about you simply let the post stand on it's own merits? I think the vast majority of the/. community are capable of deciding whether or not something is "well-written and not inflammatory". In fact, some might actually take offense at being told how to moderate. Moderation-steering is abuse as well.
You are absolutely correct. This latest release is damaging to everyone that set themselves up in a role that the general public does not condone.
This is the true value of these documents--accountability. When our governments no longer see themselves as accountable to those that they govern, they should be dragged out under the full glare of the public eye and treated accordingly.
I do not give a shit WHO is involved so long as they are held accountable.
Short-term results being a shooting war? Who do you suppose will be shooting who? I think most people are capable of deciding which side they are on and now they get to see which side everyone else is really on.
"And what is treason if it doesn't include releasing top secret military information in time of war?"
C'mon, man. We're not fucking stupid.
Every government involved here is not concerned about one side or the other gaining an advantage, but rather quite concerned that the PUBLIC will find out what they have really been up to--that is the threat these documents represent, disclosure of things that our governments would rather WE didn't hear.
The vast majority of the stuff released by Wikileaks, so far, should have been public knowledge from the beginning--there needs to be accountability, especially when it comes to war. Far too much is hidden from us in the name of state security and this is the one recourse that is left to us.
What is the advantage of having to keep your data storage ALIVE as opposed to...well, just sitting there? This seems like a serious drawback to me.
And besides, terrorists will start using data storage devices to transport biological weaponry and all storage devices will have to be sequenced before travelers will be allowed into the boarding areas.
"You'd have to randomize all the features of your OS and your browser and then you'd have to reboot between pretty much every website you visit."
Precisely why I simply sneak into my neighbors' houses and use their devices to do my nefarious deeds on the Internet.
Of course my plan will be foiled when an anomalous trend of interest in infectious diseases, video games and free thumbnail porn presents itself in geographic disproportion and is noticed by a Google algorithm specifically designed to search out such anomalies and exploit them for data-mining purposes. > > > >>>>>Posted on my neighbors iPhone!
I cry foul as well and I am perfectly willing to tell you why.
Remember when game releases were preceded by a demo release? What ever happened to that? I'll tell you. People didn't buy games that were obvious pieces of shit, but SOME would if you didn't give them a chance to test it first. So, gone are the demos of yore.
Unless there is a playable demo available to test the game, I have zero way of knowing if the game is actually finished (in terms of development), has more then a few hours of gameplay, has replay value and, most importantly, actually runs on my system. I have a dozen or so games in my garage that never ran on my machine (although my machine was well within specs) but could not be returned for a refund.
In short, I want to know what I am paying for before I do so. Reviews are all manipulated to one extent or another and I quite simply do not trust them anymore nor do I expect anyone but me to know what runs on my machine, or not.
I suspect that the producers of The Witcher 2 are more afraid of people finding out the game wasn't ready for release BEFORE they pay for it.
Slashdot Mirror
"A hug."
Hilarious, heart-warming and creepy, all-in-one.
"You say whack-a-mole. I say fragmentation and infighting."
Maybe "mole" is accurate, with fragmentation and infighting the goal.
Stay on course, folks.
(Somewhat offtopic: LOIC can be run in as many instances as the machine it is running on can handle)
"He probably means them using silverlight"
I am sure he does.
I found myself in the same predicament--trust Microsoft and Silverlight(only god herself knows what MS is actually doing with it), or give up Netflix Instant View.
After a little rationalization, I came to the conclusion that Netflix itself could be trusted to make sure Microsoft wasn't jerking me around. So far, Netflix has been a relatively trustworthy company, IMHO. A decent product at a decent price and zero complaints from me. I can't say that about too many companies I have done business with.
From the article:
""The USDA requires Microsoft to provide offline access which which we do view as a basic not something vendors can expect somewhere down the line," Rizzo wrote, a dig at Google."
So, the tax-payer is basically paying Microsoft to run a server-farm, access to it both offline and online and software to utilize it. How is this different then the previous arrangement, besides them providing the server farm??
Microsoft will have access to all of the data stored. "But wait!", you might say, "They already have that." The difference here is that now we are GIVING it to them. The data sets that the USDA have on hand are more then just farm reports--they include everything from mortgage arrangements(like my own) to the inner workings of arrangements with companies like Monsanto and ConAgra. Personally, I think such data should be public information but I do not think that any corporation should be privy to such information ALONE.
Do YOU trust Microsoft to stay away from all that shiny information? I don't.
"I don't think anyone in the public knows the full, true story."
Hopefully, that information will be leaked and released soon.
I'm speaking from a PC gamer perspective.
We have a lot more latitude in that regard.
"Vuvuzelas Blare On Pirated Copies of Music Game..."
Not anymore. Easy enough to make all the game files read-only (just leave the save files alone).
Thanks, dude(ette).
"Batman: Arkham Asylum lets unauthorized users play through the game as if it were a normal copy, with a single exception: Batman's cape-glide ability doesn't work, rendering the game impossible to finish — although you might bash your head against it trying to make what are now impossible jumps. If you pirate Command & Conquer: Red Alert 2, brace yourself for an explosion, as your entire base will detonate within 30 seconds of loading the game..."
So how is this different then the purchased, bug-ridden, unfinished versions that are pawned off on us with every release?
"This appears to me a step in the right direction..."
I did not say it was the correct choice, but simply the right direction. At least they are acknowledging the significance of these websites. Would you rather they went back to trying to close them down instead?
From Wikipedia:
"Liberal members of the Democratic caucus were reportedly angry at the decision to not punish Lieberman more severely. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont (who is also an Independent who caucuses with the Democrats) stated that he voted against Lieberman "because while millions of people worked hard for Obama, Lieberman actively worked for four more years of President Bush's policies."[49]
Lieberman's embrace of certain conservative policies and in particular his endorsement of John McCain have been cited as factors for his low approval rating in Connecticut: 38 approval to 54 disapproval. "This is the highest disapproval rating in any Quinnipiac University poll in any state for a sitting U.S. Senator — except for New Jersey's Robert Torricelli, just before he resigned in 2002. Among those who say they voted for Sen. Lieberman in 2006, 30 percent now say they would vote for someone else if they could."
Can someone please explain why this flip-flopping, opportunistic little man is still in office? What leverage does he have that allows him to stay seated in the face of such approval/disapproval ratings?
"I don't know what reality that is, but it's not ours. If you want to connect to someone else's network, you either pay or agree to a ratio of traffic. "
Morons? They are modifying their business model to include such websites. Hypocrisy aside, isn't that what everyone has been screaming for, a modernization of their business model?
This appears to me a step in the right direction, although it would be better if they backed down on some of the copyright issues as well (like stop suing their potential customers).
"I don't know what reality that is, but it's not ours. If you want to connect to someone else's network, you either pay or agree to a ratio of traffic."
But I, as a Comcast customer, already paid them to deliver said Netflix data to me. How do they figure they can charge Netflix for the SAME THING when I already paid for it?
Comcast lives in a world of double-dips, triple-dips and outright shenanigans.
Remember when cable was supposed to be user-supported Television (as opposed to ad-supported)? Now you have the ads back AND they are charging the content providers as well.
I've long suspected Comcast of injecting reset packets into my datastream as it pertains to my use of a Samsung set-top device I use to watch Netflix on my television--the service is seriously degraded on that device, but not others such as this PC I am using. I wrote an email to Netflix explaining my suspicions and was pleased to see a firmware update to my device within two weeks that seemed to fix the problem. It lasted about two months before the degradation started again.
Interestingly, if I run a Netflix movie on my PC (I just turn off the monitor) at the same time I am watching on the Samsung, the data to my Samsung unit is not degraded. It appears that specific device types are targeted--the ones that carry all of the Comcast advertising streams. Degrading the service on my PC wouldn't make sense--they would be degrading their own product. I just see this as further proof that my suspicions are correct.
As a customer, I am caught in a crossfire, but is plain to see who is wearing the black hat here and it ain't Netflix.
"Firstly, that is the most misleading signature I've ever seen. Secondly, don't call me Nut."
I find it absolutely hilarious that you actually got modded + Insightful. What a fucking waste of points...you guys act like their free or something.
The sig was stolen from a /. poster that was actually claiming that, well...that he wasn't a conspiracy theorist nut when it was quite obvious he was exactly that. But, in your honor it shall be amended forthwith. Thanks.
"I find it most hypocritical that this relatively pro-privacy site is pushing wikileaks just because it's interesting."
Just because it is interesting? Are you serious? I've been waiting for something like this to happen most of my adult life.
If there is one thing I have learned in that adult life it is that honesty is always the best policy. Wikileaks is just making it easier for the governed to see who is actually being honest and not just paying lip service.
This is the stuff that brings about great changes and I suspect that is what you really fear, and express by trying to instill that very same fear in others. Most of your post consists of fear-mongering and supposition--precisely the tactics of governments and Big Business around the world that I so despise.
But thanks for your two-cents.
"It is somewhat useful, depending upon one's use of google earth."
It also depends on whether or not Google is putting trees where they actually exist. As soon as people start using this as a means to calculate forest/jungle coverage it will be manipulated to someone's advantage, probably the lumber industry.
Hopefully someone verifies they are not manipulating/guiding public opinion with false information, as that would be bad and might give people a poor impression of Google...*cough*.
We're old hands at this shit. Last I checked, the US was on pretty good terms with Sweden, too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_Sex_scandals_of_the_United_States
"Or you can use noscript and enable it on the fly in the browser..."
Or you can just use NoScript ALL THE TIME. And I'll second that with Ghostery.
If you use Flash, use FlashBlock and only let through the stuff you want. Flash Cookies seem to be the way everyone is working these last few months, so much so that I think people are using Flash in their webpages as a pretext to drop Flash Cookies.
"Antibacterial soap does not contain antibiotics. It contains simpler chemicals (alcohol, etc) which kill cells on contact. Antibiotics are more specific"
As a teen I had horrible acne. I was told to wash with soap and water several times a day. I now know that was the WORST possible advice I could have been given. The acne was a direct result of infections that took root simply because the soap had wiped out the beneficial bacteria on my skin leaving it wide open to NON-beneficial bacteria. This "teen" acne followed me for most of my adult life simply because I kept taking bad advice--I washed my face with soap.
I did NOT use anti-bacterial soap, but regular Dove bar soap. The problem is that the soap changes the PH of your skin just long enough to kill off the bacteria living there (swinging too far alkaline or acid is sufficient to kill them off). I imagine the damage from using anti-bacterial soap would have made matters even worse.
I now use nothing but very hot water to wash my face (the heat seems to break up fatty oils better) and the acne has entirely vanished, and remained that way for years. The idea is to remove dirt, not lay waste to all things living.
The PH balance thing was just sort of a conclusion I came to--I have no real evidence other then the results. But, I do have some other evidence to back it up. One Christmas, I made a skin moisturizer for my wife as most moisturizers on the market irritate her skin. The one thing I focused on was making sure that it was PH balanced. I am able to use this lotion on my face without incurring any acne and it also worked out well for my wife--no irritation.
In the end I have come to the conclusion that we shouldn't be so concerned with fighting bacterial infections by killing them off, but rather reinforcing the health of the beneficial bacteria we possess.
"...Also, scroll down and mod this comment more highly [slashdot.org] as it is not a troll, and is simply representative of moderation abuse here on Slashdot..."
How about you simply let the post stand on it's own merits? I think the vast majority of the /. community are capable of deciding whether or not something is "well-written and not inflammatory". In fact, some might actually take offense at being told how to moderate. Moderation-steering is abuse as well.
"It is not only damaging to the US..."
You are absolutely correct. This latest release is damaging to everyone that set themselves up in a role that the general public does not condone.
This is the true value of these documents--accountability. When our governments no longer see themselves as accountable to those that they govern, they should be dragged out under the full glare of the public eye and treated accordingly.
I do not give a shit WHO is involved so long as they are held accountable.
Short-term results being a shooting war? Who do you suppose will be shooting who? I think most people are capable of deciding which side they are on and now they get to see which side everyone else is really on.
"And what is treason if it doesn't include releasing top secret military information in time of war?"
C'mon, man. We're not fucking stupid.
Every government involved here is not concerned about one side or the other gaining an advantage, but rather quite concerned that the PUBLIC will find out what they have really been up to--that is the threat these documents represent, disclosure of things that our governments would rather WE didn't hear.
The vast majority of the stuff released by Wikileaks, so far, should have been public knowledge from the beginning--there needs to be accountability, especially when it comes to war. Far too much is hidden from us in the name of state security and this is the one recourse that is left to us.
Am I missing something here?
What is the advantage of having to keep your data storage ALIVE as opposed to...well, just sitting there? This seems like a serious drawback to me.
And besides, terrorists will start using data storage devices to transport biological weaponry and all storage devices will have to be sequenced before travelers will be allowed into the boarding areas.
Wait a second, what thread was I in?
"You'd have to randomize all the features of your OS and your browser and then you'd have to reboot between pretty much every website you visit."
Precisely why I simply sneak into my neighbors' houses and use their devices to do my nefarious deeds on the Internet.
Of course my plan will be foiled when an anomalous trend of interest in infectious diseases, video games and free thumbnail porn presents itself in geographic disproportion and is noticed by a Google algorithm specifically designed to search out such anomalies and exploit them for data-mining purposes.
>
>
>
>>>>>Posted on my neighbors iPhone!
"Honest question: why would you cry foul?"
I cry foul as well and I am perfectly willing to tell you why.
Remember when game releases were preceded by a demo release? What ever happened to that? I'll tell you. People didn't buy games that were obvious pieces of shit, but SOME would if you didn't give them a chance to test it first. So, gone are the demos of yore.
Unless there is a playable demo available to test the game, I have zero way of knowing if the game is actually finished (in terms of development), has more then a few hours of gameplay, has replay value and, most importantly, actually runs on my system. I have a dozen or so games in my garage that never ran on my machine (although my machine was well within specs) but could not be returned for a refund.
In short, I want to know what I am paying for before I do so. Reviews are all manipulated to one extent or another and I quite simply do not trust them anymore nor do I expect anyone but me to know what runs on my machine, or not.
I suspect that the producers of The Witcher 2 are more afraid of people finding out the game wasn't ready for release BEFORE they pay for it.
*sigh*
And buried in a previous /. article about the man...
http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/Stock%20News/2474527/
I really should have finished researching him before posting. Sorry.
I'll shut up now.