He obviously said the meaning, not the definition. We all use words we don't know the exact definition to, or all the definitions to. Nobody disagrees with what you're saying. But not understanding what plutocratic oligarchic means as opposed to just a strict definition of the terms is what he's getting at. Education enlightens the mind and reveals truth. If you pick up a text book teaching "history" and govt. in your kid's highschool and read through it, then go read a classic, you'll be shocked at how much is left out because it's questionable, revealing, and otherwise exemplifying the bad things that can happen if you don't stop it soon enough. The cool thing about that the overused but completely correct quote "Those who fail to learn from the mistakes of their predecessors are destined to repeat them" sums the problem up. Don't teach people about these things and the failures of man, and they won't know to recognize them. The fault of this is most definitely lying squarely on the shoulders of our education system, not the stupidity of people. You got a 4.0 from college (which doesn't mean a lot really, I don't understand why that metric is so holy to people) but you still don't know what you haven't learned. You may have an IQ of 150 (again a stupid metric) and have incredibly in-depth knowledge of a few areas of some field of study but you still don't know what you don't know. Not understanding that what you know is pathetically small to the sum of human knowledge and experience and assuming you're infallible because of it is the epitome of ignorance. Back inside the fence, Sheep.
Sounds like the kind of thing we should address with good regulation. "We.. uh.. stopped your service because... uh.. one of our really big customers decided they didn't like what you had hosted.. so yeah....... buh bye." Indirect censorship is cool.
I think you and others misread my comment. I didn't say "if there's something better, why wouldn't you switch?" The comment I replied to seemed to be discussing the choice of an SCM in regards to a necessity for a team, as if the team doesn't exist yet and/or just formed. The only relevant reasons not to use something like git or mercurial is if everyone on the team is so much more comfortable with another SCM that they feel the day or two it'd take to learn a DSCM would be a significant impact. It's free, it's not difficult to learn, so I don't see any reasons not to use it if you're at a point where you're making a decision: "what SCM should we use?"
to a point. If you're horribly terribly slow at typing on a computer, you won't be able to effectively execute ideas as they happen, sometimes you really just need to pound out that ~150 lines of code you have sitting in your brain queue, if you have a significant lag between the time of inception and the time of completion, you're stuck on the same idea for a long period of time -- you can't quickly type it up, compile/test, debug it, then move on all during that while you had in mind what you needed to do next. Instead you're hopelessly focused on the single task at hand.
However, how many programmers spend so little time working with computers that they don't have a natural typing speed of 60+ WPM? Surely most do, although I don't know anyone that can type as quickly as I do, they aren't slow at all. I'd imagine at around 50 WPM it ceases to matter really except that at 110+ you end up doing a lot of little corrections and formatting changes to your code. I find myself re-editing my code in several iterations at times, doing my thinking in text rather than all abstractly in the mind (it's easier to add up a large column of numbers on paper than it is in your mind btw), write out a quick obvious case implementation, do a quick optimization pass, then debug and write a unit test if needed.
I think the problem with counting in lines of code is that 1 BLOC != 1 GLOC. (bad vs good). 10000 bad lines of code can probably be replaced realistically with 1000 good ones (you may get ratios of up to 100:1 if you see code like on TDWTF). If a programmer consistently pumps out 5000+ lines of code a day with no problem may be far less productive realistically than someone who only makes little more than ten percent of that but has fully debugged it, implemented strong algorithms and well researched data structures and design patterns, and even has a unit test to verify that future modifications work as expected. In the end, it matters, sure, but I do think it's more about the intelligence and skill of the programmer, not how quickly they type.
Sure, but the real problem here isn't that someone said something that got them in trouble (as this happens a lot), the problem is the entire reason that this trial even happened, and that is that Blizzard has made an argument that any software designed to prevent unwanted gameplay enhancements (aka: cheats, bots, etc) is a DRM and that they can use the DMCA as a result -- nevermind that we're not protecting copyrighted material here, nevermind that this has NOTHING to do with copyrights, we're just abusing the DMCA. MDY is pretty much fucked for being stupid about things, but we really, really don't want them walking away being guilty because of a DMCA violation because the above points stand. With this in hand, as I said, Blizzard can sue antivirus companies and anyone who's ever made intrusive (read: possibly malicious, like trojans etc) software for violating their copyright because all of that software does similar things to the BlizzGame.exe process and does so "bypassing" Warden. (or, more accurately, as you said, having no effect on Warden)
All sorts of erroneous logic results when you allow an arbitrary piece of software with some goal to be conflated with a rights management scheme when it isn't. The judges should have thrown the DMCA claim out along with their realization that Warden doesn't actually protect copyrighted content. Instead they assigned some virtual "copyrighted material" idea that has no basis in law to the "online experience" of the game (oh wait, btw, protocols aren't copyrightable, but that's what we're saying here.. oh fun!) and claim that Warden is somehow protecting that -- even though Glider does not in any way (even so) allow you to circumvent the psuedo-DRM. This is a bad judgement and a very bad ruling and possibly one of the worst precedents ever set. Surely it will be appealed.
First, I'd like to say that not only is the DC9 a steaming pile of shit, but they also store their summaries in PDF format which makes them assholes too. And finally, slashdot developers can eat my shit for disallowing paste. That's just horrible, you cunts.
Let's quote from the summary: The district court, however, ruled for Blizzard following the trial as to its 1201(a)(2) and (b)(1) claims with respect to WoW's dynamic non-literal elements, or the "real-time experience" of playing WoW. It reasoned that Warden effectively controlled access to these elements, which could not be accessed without connecting to Blizzard's servers. It also found that Glider allowed its users to circumvent Warden by avoiding or bypassing its detection features, and that MDY marketed Glider for use in circumventing Warden. We turn to whether Glider violates DMCA 1201(a)(2) and (b)(1) by allowing users to circumvent Warden to access WoW's various elements. MDY contends that Warden's scan.dll and resident components are separate, and only scan.dll should be considered as a potential access control measure under 1201(a)(2). However, in our view, and access control measure can both (1) attempt to block initial access and (2) revoke access if a secondary check determines that access was unauthorized. Our analysis considers Warden's scan.dll and resident components together because the two components have the same purpos: to prevent players using detectable bots from continuing to access WoW software.
So in summary of summary, they reasoned that access to the actual copyrighted content (the client and media distributed with it) were not seen as infringement, however because Glider is a bot that is undetected by Warden that it violates a DMCA -- Warden therefore is a DRM technology protecting the "copyrighted content" of the "online experience." That's right, the online experience is considered copyrighted (what next, are you going to copyright my thoughts you fucktards?). Further, this ruling is bad because it exposes an issue with the DMCA which I fully believe is unintended. People here say "this is what the DMCA is supposed to stop" -- no, you moron, it is not. Glider did not enable access to copyrighted content. You HAVE ACCESS already, you can log-in to the fucking game and play it. You do not need Glider to allow you to have access to the game. Nor does it remove a DRM so that you can pirate the game -- everyone using Glider had a legitimate copy because Glider interacts WITH A LEGITIMATE COPY OF THE GAME, it does not enable the use of it without a fully licensed copy. Let me quote from the DMCA the referenced portions:
(a)(2): (2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that --
(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological manner that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or
(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
(b)(1): (1) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that--
(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof;
(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright own
Those problems I mentioned, I do those just for fun sometimes too. Can take 6+ hours to days for a problem, no way to validate your answer is correct outside of asking other people to review it. That just makes me a math major, and I've done my share of these puzzles too. So there are much more engaging problems available, none of which comes with an award unless it happens to be one of those few famous unsolved ones. I still don't get it.
This has become the de-facto standard for e-puzzles these days. Step 1 - provide puzzle that results in very large number of some kind. Step 2 - have some kind of splitting and/or decoding step that's somewhat obvious that will convert the result to text. Step 3 - set up url, award prize of some kind to first N visitors. It's old and worn down, I would've expected better.
Actually quite basic math there too. Why did solving this come with an award? I can point to several thousand problems in various books on my shelves that are orders of magnitude more difficult than that entire problem, all of which are commonly assigned as nothing more than homework problems. Hell, I just did it in Wolfram Alpha in 5 mins. The only really tricky part was the URL bit but EVERYONE does that these days so it's assumption #1. Old puzzle methodology is old. Come on Google, be original. And to the winnars, enjoy the Chromebook.
While WiFi in these areas would be useful for various reasons (welcome to 2000 guys, seriously), mandating it specifically to "free up cell phone networks" is ridiculous. Where I'm from, when you sell someone a product, it's your responsibility to verify that it works. We have these providers spewing ads all over every channel on TV, all over the internet, and constantly telling us deceptive things like "we cover 97% of all Americans." It is not our govt's job to provide cellular telephone service in federal buildings. It is the job of the cellular providers. If the service is inadequate, throw their lobbyists out on their asses until they fix it themselves, morons. This is borderline disgusting, honestly. I was paying $80 a month for wireless service (AT&T) in the center of a decent sized city and not at work, not at home, nor anywhere except right next to a tower was I able to get more than 2 bars, and don't get me started on dropped calls, LOL, even at 5 bars.
I'm confused by how you've written this. Are you saying he's into fucking women on their periods to the extent that he fucked two women that were having their periods at the same time? That would explain the story a little better, though. It went from consensual to "unconsensual" when they went down on him but he refused to go down on them. Can you blame him?
The difference is that we consider real journalism a form of terrorism these days, apparently. Apply our current atmosphere of "war on terror" and brainwashed hatred of anything labeled "terrorism" and the result is pretty clear. It's amazing how the media can brainwash people.
Obviously the answer is GoToMyPC. Look, it even says it on the website, "Access your Mac or PC from Anywhere." How can you argue with that? Clearly they've even solved the problematic issue of 'anywhere' including private IP spaces, so they're effectively proxying or tunneling access, which is awesome, and scary as shit at the same time. If you're looking for cheap thrills at the expense of your data (yes, I mean you govt. officials, I heard rumors Assange has his hands in on this operation *wink, wink*), this is one hell of a solution.
This type of provision is utterly stupid. Who's going to stop every company from claiming the retail price of every copyrightable product they sell is $2000, for instance, but if you "buy now!!!!!111one!!!eleven" you get a 99% discount ($20). Suddenly all "copyright infringement" becomes felonious. Just one more thing our congressional morons didn't think out before putting into a bill and signing it. It should be how it was before, nonprofit infringement remains a civil matter.
According to that legislation, for it to be criminal, the infringement must exceed $1000 in any 180 day period of the retail price of the works copied. She infringed 24 songs. At the iTunes rate (which I call retail), wouldn't that just be $24 + tax? It's still not criminal, but these "damages" claimed are clearly punitive and excessive. Why doesn't the constitution hold much weight these days?
For the obvious counter-argument of "but she shared it," note that the law as of now indicates it must be willful infringement. Mere transmission, SPECIFICALLY BY THE 'NET' ACT, does not indicate willful infringement (if the option is on by default but the software does not explicitly tell you that you're sharing files in a manner that may constitute a criminal offense, it may not be willful). So since it doesn't seem that they're seeking criminal charges, I will assume they don't have proof of willful infringement beyond the 24 downloads.
I, for one, keep a list of every product that has ever forced an ad into my life in a way that was inconvenient to me. Those products, I will never, ever buy. Not even if it'll save the entire planet. I find it completely immoral to condone shoving advertisement down peoples' throats.
That said, I usually try out different brands to find which I like the best. So while I may have heard of a brand, it doesn't mean it has any more value in terms of decision making. It helps to realize that companies that spend a huge portion of their revenue stream on advertising could be spending it on improving their product instead, and if their product was really just amazing, it wouldn't need to be advertised (for instance, a male enhancement drug that actually worked, every man would already be buying it, no ads necessary). So I see MASSIVE ad campaign = potentially shitty product with a lot of hype.
Especially in radio ads. And in music. And a low-level background noise at the exact frequency as a siren (such as a tornado warning) or a train. This kind of shit makes me instantly turn off the radio, because it invokes an illusory perception that's incredibly distracting and dangerous. I get more distracted looking around for the source of such noises than I do while texting. But texting while driving is evil, yes.
It's the Republicans too. Both parties are horrible. All we see from them is finger pointing at the other party to distract our attention while they both secretly do shit that's promoting fascism and systematically destroying freedom. This bill is just a "hey, we're all good people, trust us!" You can't pass so many consecutively horrible bills followed up with "derp de derp" level common sense bill and think it undoes all the retardation that proceeded it.
What is this, 5th grade debate? "You're losing the debate" is not a valid argument in your favor, nor is it even factually correct. Try again. Your argument so far is "because people get it wrong, and you got it right, you must be wrong." Maybe you should think about that for a little while.
We're talking about the potential advanced warning of hurricanes and the prediction of their path. These impact very few people and those who would greatly benefit from this knowledge (those who lose homes and lives to them) are an even smaller and almost insignificant percentage of the population of this planet.
Contrast that with bacteria which affect EVERY single person on this planet. In most, bacteria even result in disease and sickness, and the availability of antibiotics to most people in the world benefits just about everyone. Your argument hinges on these not being readily available to most people but for instance a bar of antibacterial soap is incredibly cheap and lends itself a lot to the prevention of disease. Further, for those that cannot afford ingested antibiotics to fight off serious infection, the availability of antibiotics to them would almost certainly prove effective.
Now consider the absolute availability of predictive information for hurricanes. This information, even if totally pervasive and given for free to every single individual on the planet, would still benefit very few people. By your logic, it will greatly benefit humanity for our governments to make it illegal to inhabit areas hit hardest by hurricanes.
You were correct about a single thing: this is getting tedious.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfCDjwHBBuM&feature=BF&list=PLDE23FAC8A681FA46&index=14
See: 4:25. Get to it!
He obviously said the meaning, not the definition. We all use words we don't know the exact definition to, or all the definitions to. Nobody disagrees with what you're saying. But not understanding what plutocratic oligarchic means as opposed to just a strict definition of the terms is what he's getting at. Education enlightens the mind and reveals truth. If you pick up a text book teaching "history" and govt. in your kid's highschool and read through it, then go read a classic, you'll be shocked at how much is left out because it's questionable, revealing, and otherwise exemplifying the bad things that can happen if you don't stop it soon enough. The cool thing about that the overused but completely correct quote "Those who fail to learn from the mistakes of their predecessors are destined to repeat them" sums the problem up. Don't teach people about these things and the failures of man, and they won't know to recognize them. The fault of this is most definitely lying squarely on the shoulders of our education system, not the stupidity of people. You got a 4.0 from college (which doesn't mean a lot really, I don't understand why that metric is so holy to people) but you still don't know what you haven't learned. You may have an IQ of 150 (again a stupid metric) and have incredibly in-depth knowledge of a few areas of some field of study but you still don't know what you don't know. Not understanding that what you know is pathetically small to the sum of human knowledge and experience and assuming you're infallible because of it is the epitome of ignorance. Back inside the fence, Sheep.
Sounds like the kind of thing we should address with good regulation. "We .. uh.. stopped your service because... uh.. one of our really big customers decided they didn't like what you had hosted.. so yeah....... buh bye." Indirect censorship is cool.
screw over customers to get favors (read: money and favorable legislation) from the federal govt. How many lobbyists does Amazon have again?
I think you and others misread my comment. I didn't say "if there's something better, why wouldn't you switch?" The comment I replied to seemed to be discussing the choice of an SCM in regards to a necessity for a team, as if the team doesn't exist yet and/or just formed. The only relevant reasons not to use something like git or mercurial is if everyone on the team is so much more comfortable with another SCM that they feel the day or two it'd take to learn a DSCM would be a significant impact. It's free, it's not difficult to learn, so I don't see any reasons not to use it if you're at a point where you're making a decision: "what SCM should we use?"
If something is nicer to have than most of the other SCMs, and still free, why wouldn't you get it?
to a point. If you're horribly terribly slow at typing on a computer, you won't be able to effectively execute ideas as they happen, sometimes you really just need to pound out that ~150 lines of code you have sitting in your brain queue, if you have a significant lag between the time of inception and the time of completion, you're stuck on the same idea for a long period of time -- you can't quickly type it up, compile/test, debug it, then move on all during that while you had in mind what you needed to do next. Instead you're hopelessly focused on the single task at hand.
However, how many programmers spend so little time working with computers that they don't have a natural typing speed of 60+ WPM? Surely most do, although I don't know anyone that can type as quickly as I do, they aren't slow at all. I'd imagine at around 50 WPM it ceases to matter really except that at 110+ you end up doing a lot of little corrections and formatting changes to your code. I find myself re-editing my code in several iterations at times, doing my thinking in text rather than all abstractly in the mind (it's easier to add up a large column of numbers on paper than it is in your mind btw), write out a quick obvious case implementation, do a quick optimization pass, then debug and write a unit test if needed.
I think the problem with counting in lines of code is that 1 BLOC != 1 GLOC. (bad vs good). 10000 bad lines of code can probably be replaced realistically with 1000 good ones (you may get ratios of up to 100:1 if you see code like on TDWTF). If a programmer consistently pumps out 5000+ lines of code a day with no problem may be far less productive realistically than someone who only makes little more than ten percent of that but has fully debugged it, implemented strong algorithms and well researched data structures and design patterns, and even has a unit test to verify that future modifications work as expected. In the end, it matters, sure, but I do think it's more about the intelligence and skill of the programmer, not how quickly they type.
Sure, but the real problem here isn't that someone said something that got them in trouble (as this happens a lot), the problem is the entire reason that this trial even happened, and that is that Blizzard has made an argument that any software designed to prevent unwanted gameplay enhancements (aka: cheats, bots, etc) is a DRM and that they can use the DMCA as a result -- nevermind that we're not protecting copyrighted material here, nevermind that this has NOTHING to do with copyrights, we're just abusing the DMCA. MDY is pretty much fucked for being stupid about things, but we really, really don't want them walking away being guilty because of a DMCA violation because the above points stand. With this in hand, as I said, Blizzard can sue antivirus companies and anyone who's ever made intrusive (read: possibly malicious, like trojans etc) software for violating their copyright because all of that software does similar things to the BlizzGame.exe process and does so "bypassing" Warden. (or, more accurately, as you said, having no effect on Warden)
All sorts of erroneous logic results when you allow an arbitrary piece of software with some goal to be conflated with a rights management scheme when it isn't. The judges should have thrown the DMCA claim out along with their realization that Warden doesn't actually protect copyrighted content. Instead they assigned some virtual "copyrighted material" idea that has no basis in law to the "online experience" of the game (oh wait, btw, protocols aren't copyrightable, but that's what we're saying here.. oh fun!) and claim that Warden is somehow protecting that -- even though Glider does not in any way (even so) allow you to circumvent the psuedo-DRM. This is a bad judgement and a very bad ruling and possibly one of the worst precedents ever set. Surely it will be appealed.
First, I'd like to say that not only is the DC9 a steaming pile of shit, but they also store their summaries in PDF format which makes them assholes too. And finally, slashdot developers can eat my shit for disallowing paste. That's just horrible, you cunts.
Let's quote from the summary:
The district court, however, ruled for Blizzard following the trial as to its 1201(a)(2) and (b)(1) claims with respect to WoW's dynamic non-literal elements, or the "real-time experience" of playing WoW. It reasoned that Warden effectively controlled access to these elements, which could not be accessed without connecting to Blizzard's servers. It also found that Glider allowed its users to circumvent Warden by avoiding or bypassing its detection features, and that MDY marketed Glider for use in circumventing Warden. We turn to whether Glider violates DMCA 1201(a)(2) and (b)(1) by allowing users to circumvent Warden to access WoW's various elements. MDY contends that Warden's scan.dll and resident components are separate, and only scan.dll should be considered as a potential access control measure under 1201(a)(2). However, in our view, and access control measure can both (1) attempt to block initial access and (2) revoke access if a secondary check determines that access was unauthorized. Our analysis considers Warden's scan.dll and resident components together because the two components have the same purpos: to prevent players using detectable bots from continuing to access WoW software.
So in summary of summary, they reasoned that access to the actual copyrighted content (the client and media distributed with it) were not seen as infringement, however because Glider is a bot that is undetected by Warden that it violates a DMCA -- Warden therefore is a DRM technology protecting the "copyrighted content" of the "online experience." That's right, the online experience is considered copyrighted (what next, are you going to copyright my thoughts you fucktards?). Further, this ruling is bad because it exposes an issue with the DMCA which I fully believe is unintended. People here say "this is what the DMCA is supposed to stop" -- no, you moron, it is not. Glider did not enable access to copyrighted content. You HAVE ACCESS already, you can log-in to the fucking game and play it. You do not need Glider to allow you to have access to the game. Nor does it remove a DRM so that you can pirate the game -- everyone using Glider had a legitimate copy because Glider interacts WITH A LEGITIMATE COPY OF THE GAME, it does not enable the use of it without a fully licensed copy. Let me quote from the DMCA the referenced portions:
(a)(2):
(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that --
(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological manner that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or
(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
(b)(1):
(1) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that--
(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof;
(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright own
Those problems I mentioned, I do those just for fun sometimes too. Can take 6+ hours to days for a problem, no way to validate your answer is correct outside of asking other people to review it. That just makes me a math major, and I've done my share of these puzzles too. So there are much more engaging problems available, none of which comes with an award unless it happens to be one of those few famous unsolved ones. I still don't get it.
Read the comments again. I congratulated the winner. I still reserve the judgement that the contest was trivial. This is simple observation.
This has become the de-facto standard for e-puzzles these days. Step 1 - provide puzzle that results in very large number of some kind. Step 2 - have some kind of splitting and/or decoding step that's somewhat obvious that will convert the result to text. Step 3 - set up url, award prize of some kind to first N visitors. It's old and worn down, I would've expected better.
Actually quite basic math there too. Why did solving this come with an award? I can point to several thousand problems in various books on my shelves that are orders of magnitude more difficult than that entire problem, all of which are commonly assigned as nothing more than homework problems. Hell, I just did it in Wolfram Alpha in 5 mins. The only really tricky part was the URL bit but EVERYONE does that these days so it's assumption #1. Old puzzle methodology is old. Come on Google, be original. And to the winnars, enjoy the Chromebook.
While WiFi in these areas would be useful for various reasons (welcome to 2000 guys, seriously), mandating it specifically to "free up cell phone networks" is ridiculous. Where I'm from, when you sell someone a product, it's your responsibility to verify that it works. We have these providers spewing ads all over every channel on TV, all over the internet, and constantly telling us deceptive things like "we cover 97% of all Americans." It is not our govt's job to provide cellular telephone service in federal buildings. It is the job of the cellular providers. If the service is inadequate, throw their lobbyists out on their asses until they fix it themselves, morons. This is borderline disgusting, honestly. I was paying $80 a month for wireless service (AT&T) in the center of a decent sized city and not at work, not at home, nor anywhere except right next to a tower was I able to get more than 2 bars, and don't get me started on dropped calls, LOL, even at 5 bars.
I'm confused by how you've written this. Are you saying he's into fucking women on their periods to the extent that he fucked two women that were having their periods at the same time? That would explain the story a little better, though. It went from consensual to "unconsensual" when they went down on him but he refused to go down on them. Can you blame him?
The difference is that we consider real journalism a form of terrorism these days, apparently. Apply our current atmosphere of "war on terror" and brainwashed hatred of anything labeled "terrorism" and the result is pretty clear. It's amazing how the media can brainwash people.
Obviously the answer is GoToMyPC. Look, it even says it on the website, "Access your Mac or PC from Anywhere." How can you argue with that? Clearly they've even solved the problematic issue of 'anywhere' including private IP spaces, so they're effectively proxying or tunneling access, which is awesome, and scary as shit at the same time. If you're looking for cheap thrills at the expense of your data (yes, I mean you govt. officials, I heard rumors Assange has his hands in on this operation *wink, wink*), this is one hell of a solution.
but.. pics or it didn't happen. Thx.
This type of provision is utterly stupid. Who's going to stop every company from claiming the retail price of every copyrightable product they sell is $2000, for instance, but if you "buy now!!!!!111one!!!eleven" you get a 99% discount ($20). Suddenly all "copyright infringement" becomes felonious. Just one more thing our congressional morons didn't think out before putting into a bill and signing it. It should be how it was before, nonprofit infringement remains a civil matter.
According to that legislation, for it to be criminal, the infringement must exceed $1000 in any 180 day period of the retail price of the works copied. She infringed 24 songs. At the iTunes rate (which I call retail), wouldn't that just be $24 + tax? It's still not criminal, but these "damages" claimed are clearly punitive and excessive. Why doesn't the constitution hold much weight these days?
For the obvious counter-argument of "but she shared it," note that the law as of now indicates it must be willful infringement. Mere transmission, SPECIFICALLY BY THE 'NET' ACT, does not indicate willful infringement (if the option is on by default but the software does not explicitly tell you that you're sharing files in a manner that may constitute a criminal offense, it may not be willful). So since it doesn't seem that they're seeking criminal charges, I will assume they don't have proof of willful infringement beyond the 24 downloads.
I, for one, keep a list of every product that has ever forced an ad into my life in a way that was inconvenient to me. Those products, I will never, ever buy. Not even if it'll save the entire planet. I find it completely immoral to condone shoving advertisement down peoples' throats.
That said, I usually try out different brands to find which I like the best. So while I may have heard of a brand, it doesn't mean it has any more value in terms of decision making. It helps to realize that companies that spend a huge portion of their revenue stream on advertising could be spending it on improving their product instead, and if their product was really just amazing, it wouldn't need to be advertised (for instance, a male enhancement drug that actually worked, every man would already be buying it, no ads necessary). So I see MASSIVE ad campaign = potentially shitty product with a lot of hype.
Especially in radio ads. And in music. And a low-level background noise at the exact frequency as a siren (such as a tornado warning) or a train. This kind of shit makes me instantly turn off the radio, because it invokes an illusory perception that's incredibly distracting and dangerous. I get more distracted looking around for the source of such noises than I do while texting. But texting while driving is evil, yes.
It's the Republicans too. Both parties are horrible. All we see from them is finger pointing at the other party to distract our attention while they both secretly do shit that's promoting fascism and systematically destroying freedom. This bill is just a "hey, we're all good people, trust us!" You can't pass so many consecutively horrible bills followed up with "derp de derp" level common sense bill and think it undoes all the retardation that proceeded it.
What is this, 5th grade debate? "You're losing the debate" is not a valid argument in your favor, nor is it even factually correct. Try again. Your argument so far is "because people get it wrong, and you got it right, you must be wrong." Maybe you should think about that for a little while.
We're talking about the potential advanced warning of hurricanes and the prediction of their path. These impact very few people and those who would greatly benefit from this knowledge (those who lose homes and lives to them) are an even smaller and almost insignificant percentage of the population of this planet.
Contrast that with bacteria which affect EVERY single person on this planet. In most, bacteria even result in disease and sickness, and the availability of antibiotics to most people in the world benefits just about everyone. Your argument hinges on these not being readily available to most people but for instance a bar of antibacterial soap is incredibly cheap and lends itself a lot to the prevention of disease. Further, for those that cannot afford ingested antibiotics to fight off serious infection, the availability of antibiotics to them would almost certainly prove effective.
Now consider the absolute availability of predictive information for hurricanes. This information, even if totally pervasive and given for free to every single individual on the planet, would still benefit very few people. By your logic, it will greatly benefit humanity for our governments to make it illegal to inhabit areas hit hardest by hurricanes.
You were correct about a single thing: this is getting tedious.