Other than it being a crime for the programmer to play on the games.""
Well, of course. It would be illegal for the programmer. I think that's a given. But... wouldn't that make it NOT illegal for the other guy? I am pretty sure it would. Because he would only be doing what it was intentionally programmed to do.
"I wouldn't worry about it. This will never happen at any company that has any concern about security."
Besides that: if they want me to use my own hardware, they can damned well pay me for it.
I'm not going to erase (or endanger!) my personal software and files for the purpose of someone else's company, and as far as I am concerned, equipment works the same as simply showing up. That is: if they want me to be there, they can pay me for the time I am there. If they want the use of my equipment, they can pay for the use of it. Or they can buy their own. They aren't going to get it both ways.
"Yes, yes in fact they do. Not only do you attempt to reduce a word to a single definition, but you also fail to understand that definition: "an error in action, calculation, opinion, or judgment caused by poor reasoning, carelessness, insufficient knowledge, etc." In no way does this definition apply, because the secondary effects of this action were obvious and intended, which was the entire point of my comment in the first fucking place."
Just in case you didn't spot it (and I am pretty sure you did not) that is a circular argument.
And I did not "reduce it to one definition". I used the definition that was most representative of all that I found. But just for your information, none of the other definitions contradicted that one.
YOU are reducing the definition of "mistake" to equal something that was unintended. But nowhere have I found a definition that agrees with you on that.
Now go away. You lost this argument several posts ago. I'm not going to bother to reply to you again.
Maybe the guy who programmed the firmware did it intentionally. Just a thought. But it's a valid one. How the hell would this guy know?
Seriously. Maybe the programmer put in a "back door" so he could get a few dollars in winnings when he went to Vegas. How do we know otherwise? In which case this player was not committing fraud at all... the machine would have been doing exactly as it was intended to do by the programmer.
And there is probably no way to prove it either way. So let the guy go.
"Sure it does: it controls its value by adjusting how much money it prints."
It controls that indirectly by influencing the market. But that's not what I was talking about. Apples and oranges.
Corporations and government don't currently have the kind of "control" necessary to come into your house and physically take your money, or to influence its value directly.
But if "money" is made all electronic, then they would have that control.
"Since nearly all equipment supports that by default, then you'd have to work hard to build a system that didn't let them listen in whenever they wanted."
I take it you mean consumer equipment. Which is only a subset of the problem space here.
Dear Mystery Modder:
Please learn what "troll" means. Then maybe you'll understand why it applies more to the comment I was replying to than it does to me.
"And if everyone suddenly shifted to paying with cash do you really think that prices would suddenly drop? Maybe a few small stores with good owners would do it. But I doubt the rest would."
That may be so, but I don't see what it has to do with my point.
I was just making the observation that the costs are passed along. They're not "absorbed" by the business.
"Uh, cash _is_ government money, since there's no private currency in any developed country."
It's not the same thing, and if you think it is, you're deluded. Money is only money if other people accept it as money. The government may issue it (at this time, that is; it was not always that way). But the government doesn't CONTROL the money you have under your mattress. As long as other people accept it, it's still money.
Would you give the government the keys to your house? Why or why not? Would you give them carte blanche to mess with your bank account? Why or why not?
So why would you want to give them CONTROL over every penny you have? Just why?
"The police aren't running the tech world, they are just requesting that if you build something, that you allow warrants to be served against it."
No. The difference is subtle, but it is still a difference and one that makes a definite difference.
They are requesting that if you build something, you build it so that they can listen in. That's not the same as just "letting them" listen in when they have a warrant. You have to design your system so that they can.
"Sounds good to me. Devil is in the details, i.e., not allowing unathorized mods to the balance contained within the card, making sure debits and credits against the card work every time."
The devil is right there. The question is why you don't see him.
If cash is replaced with an "all electronic" economy, you can take that moment and kiss your freedom goodbye. You have just given government and corporations control of ALL your money.
When was the last time they proved they can be trusted? Eh? It has been so long, I don't remember.
Slashdot Mirror
I think all trackers should be removed from the (U.S.) internet immediately, because:
(A) Tracking of those 13 years of age and younger is illegal, and
(B) trackers can't possibly know for sure who is 13 and who is not.
Other than it being a crime for the programmer to play on the games.""
Well, of course. It would be illegal for the programmer. I think that's a given. But... wouldn't that make it NOT illegal for the other guy? I am pretty sure it would. Because he would only be doing what it was intentionally programmed to do.
"I wouldn't worry about it. This will never happen at any company that has any concern about security."
Besides that: if they want me to use my own hardware, they can damned well pay me for it.
I'm not going to erase (or endanger!) my personal software and files for the purpose of someone else's company, and as far as I am concerned, equipment works the same as simply showing up. That is: if they want me to be there, they can pay me for the time I am there. If they want the use of my equipment, they can pay for the use of it. Or they can buy their own. They aren't going to get it both ways.
"Yes, yes in fact they do. Not only do you attempt to reduce a word to a single definition, but you also fail to understand that definition: "an error in action, calculation, opinion, or judgment caused by poor reasoning, carelessness, insufficient knowledge, etc." In no way does this definition apply, because the secondary effects of this action were obvious and intended, which was the entire point of my comment in the first fucking place."
Just in case you didn't spot it (and I am pretty sure you did not) that is a circular argument.
And I did not "reduce it to one definition". I used the definition that was most representative of all that I found. But just for your information, none of the other definitions contradicted that one.
YOU are reducing the definition of "mistake" to equal something that was unintended. But nowhere have I found a definition that agrees with you on that.
Now go away. You lost this argument several posts ago. I'm not going to bother to reply to you again.
Maybe the guy who programmed the firmware did it intentionally. Just a thought. But it's a valid one. How the hell would this guy know?
Seriously. Maybe the programmer put in a "back door" so he could get a few dollars in winnings when he went to Vegas. How do we know otherwise? In which case this player was not committing fraud at all... the machine would have been doing exactly as it was intended to do by the programmer.
And there is probably no way to prove it either way. So let the guy go.
"No, it's 224"
Haha. Yes. But 224 CUBIC units.
"Sure it does: it controls its value by adjusting how much money it prints."
It controls that indirectly by influencing the market. But that's not what I was talking about. Apples and oranges.
Corporations and government don't currently have the kind of "control" necessary to come into your house and physically take your money, or to influence its value directly.
But if "money" is made all electronic, then they would have that control.
"You're not only wrong, but you're a liar too."
If you want to start name-calling, then I can prove that (A) I am neither wrong OR a liar, and (B) you're a clueless asshole.
All you need to do is look up "mistake" in the dictionary. In fact I've already done it for you.
See here.
The words "mistake" has nothing to do with INTENTIONS.
You need to learn how to read.
Goodbye now, troll. I've made my point, and I have no further need for this exchange.
Sigh. Never mind. I see there's no point continuing this conversation.
Have a great day.
s/nount/noun
MIS TAKE
nount
1. an error in action, calculation, opinion, or judgment caused by poor reasoning, carelessness, insufficient knowledge, etc.
It has nothing to do with intentions.
"I think there are two aspects to appreciating node.js"
It isn't that I don't appreciate it. It's that I have never -- ever -- found it to be necessary or even terribly desirable for my particular work.
Maybe other people have. Fine. I have no problem with that.
"There is currently no way to wiretap some of these communications methods easily..."
Now, tell me again how this equipment "supports that by default".
"Since nearly all equipment supports that by default, then you'd have to work hard to build a system that didn't let them listen in whenever they wanted."
I take it you mean consumer equipment. Which is only a subset of the problem space here.
"It has functioned precisely as intended."
THAT'S WHAT I SAID. Learn to read.
Dear Mystery Modder: Please learn what "troll" means. Then maybe you'll understand why it applies more to the comment I was replying to than it does to me.
"And if everyone suddenly shifted to paying with cash do you really think that prices would suddenly drop? Maybe a few small stores with good owners would do it. But I doubt the rest would."
That may be so, but I don't see what it has to do with my point.
I was just making the observation that the costs are passed along. They're not "absorbed" by the business.
"Uh, cash _is_ government money, since there's no private currency in any developed country."
It's not the same thing, and if you think it is, you're deluded. Money is only money if other people accept it as money. The government may issue it (at this time, that is; it was not always that way). But the government doesn't CONTROL the money you have under your mattress. As long as other people accept it, it's still money.
Would you give the government the keys to your house? Why or why not? Would you give them carte blanche to mess with your bank account? Why or why not?
So why would you want to give them CONTROL over every penny you have? Just why?
"The police aren't running the tech world, they are just requesting that if you build something, that you allow warrants to be served against it."
No. The difference is subtle, but it is still a difference and one that makes a definite difference.
They are requesting that if you build something, you build it so that they can listen in. That's not the same as just "letting them" listen in when they have a warrant. You have to design your system so that they can.
"How could you get everything else right, and get this so very wrong? There was no mistake involved. They did precisely what they wanted to do."
I did not write that they did it unintentionally. What I meant was that doing it turned out to be a mistake.
Please put spaces around your "/".
25x16/25x14 is 3 dimensions.
"I really wish the alternatives in the recent elections weren't more in bed with corporate interests."
Your wish was granted the moment Obama was elected President.
" Merchants cannot charge an additional fee for credit cards, and they cannot offer a discount for cash."
They may not be able to charge a "fee", but they can and do raise their prices to compensate, so it amounts to the same thing.
The only difference is that cash customers end up helping to pay for the credit card transactions.
"Sounds good to me. Devil is in the details, i.e., not allowing unathorized mods to the balance contained within the card, making sure debits and credits against the card work every time."
The devil is right there. The question is why you don't see him.
If cash is replaced with an "all electronic" economy, you can take that moment and kiss your freedom goodbye. You have just given government and corporations control of ALL your money.
When was the last time they proved they can be trusted? Eh? It has been so long, I don't remember.
I could have been more clear. I didn't mean all other technologies. Just some of them.