Sony needs to learn that you can't use a legal sledgehammer to fix a bad technological band-aid on a legal/cultural problem.
Any business model that requires the rest of to sit down and STFU is not just broken -- it's pure evil.
For all the idiots whining that GeoHot forced Sony to take this action -- gosh, I'm sorry you forced your dad to beat you every night when you were growing up, but you should man up, go get some psychoanalysis, and figure out that you really weren't responsible for your dad's dickheaded behavior, just like George Hotz is not responsible for Sony's dickheaded behavior.
I think you yourself are misunderstanding the article and position of the website.
Their position is that the first amendment prohibits others from forcing them to take the defamatory material down. Nowhere did they claim that any law required that they themselves had to leave it up. And, BTW, they apparently did make some minor edits to the article for the exact reason you cite.
Without knowing about the "before" and "after" algorithm, it's hard to know if the "after" algorithm couldn't have been run earlier because there wasn't enough memory.
I've written a lot of stuff that runs a hell of a lot faster lately, but I use a lot more memory than I did 20 years ago.
Any realistic scenario will chalk up around a factor of at least 8000 to memory improvements, leaving, oh, maybe a factor of 5 to pure algorithmic improvements.
Actually, I realized I wasn't browsing at -1; I was browsing at 1, but I saw and responded before the parent got torched into -1 oblivion. So, bad on me for paying attention to the trolls before somebody else had a chance to kill 'em.
OK, bad on me for browsing at -1, bad on you for not looking at what I was responding to, but good on you for giving enough context that it became obvious what the disconnect was.
Whether by DMCA or even just shrink-wrap licenses. The government seems to have bought into the theory that a company which wants to do a razor/razorblade strategy ought to be able to keep any other possible vendor of razorblades from using its razor.
So the argument that "you bought it, you own it" that several here seem to be making (and that I personally believe is the way the world should work) is not the way the world always works.
Your defense that they're "removing spam" is bizarre
Your definition of bizarre is bizarre. Sure, in a narrow sense, "spam" is an email, but in a broader sense, "spam" is something that uses some technological magic to trick you into looking at something you have absolutely no interest in.
No, if they really wanted to "do no evil" they would put a lot more people on combating bogus SEO.
I've never thought "man, there aren't enough content-void link farms in the top 10 results from google!"
Think how many man-hours are wasted all over the globe clicking on that crap.
I want google to remove spam from my web searches just like the remove spam from my email. Evil is not google. Evil is any government that tries to dissuade them from performing that valuable function in the name of "competition".
The slashdot "we" who implicitly know about other search engines?
The facebook/IM "we" who can transmit news of how well a search engine works instantaneously to other users?
The grandma "we" who just accepts what her grandson set up?
Your bullshit argument is that google got where they are by being good, but now they're abusing their position. Personally, I think you're confusing google with Microsoft, but if you could show, you know, some evidence that is more compelling than the whining of a bunch of bogus "search engine" firms that just repackage content in an ad-heavy environment, I would be interested in seeing that.
However, I wouldn't be interested at all in seeing google cater to those losers. I have never thought "man, google's results suck because they don't show me enough parasite link farm sites!" Quite the opposite -- whenever the link farms manage to game the system enough that they get ranked highly at google, I get pissed at google for not weeding their garden quickly enough.
To all those who have posted, essentially, that whatever debt-collectors do is "justified" -- fuck off and die. Slowly.
Seriously.
I have owned my current house for 11 years. A few months ago I started getting calls on my landline for debts incurred by one of the previous owner's kids.
The kid hasn't lived here in over 10 years. The kid never had my telephone number.
The scummy debt collectors cross-referenced an old address to a phone number, completely ignored the directory information on the number, and started harassing me mercilessly.
It took many weeks to get them to understand that I was perfectly serious about taking them to court if they didn't lay off.
Why does the supermarket put milk on sale below cost?
If a local used bookstore is trying to maintain their "unique" character, they might want to have a lot of hidden gems among the rest of the merchandise. Most of their real customers (the ones generating profit for the store) buy lots of different books on a regular basis. Perhaps having some priced extra low adds to the thrill of the chase for those customers. The same thing is true for those library sales. From the library's perspective, the usual customers they are trying to attract are going to buy several books, at wildly different price points and margins. The library is probably trying to balance four variables: get rid of as many books as possible, making as much money as possible, in as short a time as possible, without any of the citizens who support the library feeling ripped off because they just sold the books wholesale.
So, just like the supermarket can say "milk on sale; limit 2" to lure the regular customers without giving away too much to people coming into the store just to buy milk, so too is the used bookstore or library justified in banning the scanner.
Slashdot Mirror
Bring it!
Sony needs to learn that you can't use a legal sledgehammer to fix a bad technological band-aid on a legal/cultural problem.
Any business model that requires the rest of to sit down and STFU is not just broken -- it's pure evil.
For all the idiots whining that GeoHot forced Sony to take this action -- gosh, I'm sorry you forced your dad to beat you every night when you were growing up, but you should man up, go get some psychoanalysis, and figure out that you really weren't responsible for your dad's dickheaded behavior, just like George Hotz is not responsible for Sony's dickheaded behavior.
You shouldn't have to be a little kid to be able to get away with pointing out that the emperor is naked.
Industrial espionage.
Their position is that the first amendment prohibits others from forcing them to take the defamatory material down. Nowhere did they claim that any law required that they themselves had to leave it up. And, BTW, they apparently did make some minor edits to the article for the exact reason you cite.
Without knowing about the "before" and "after" algorithm, it's hard to know if the "after" algorithm couldn't have been run earlier because there wasn't enough memory.
I've written a lot of stuff that runs a hell of a lot faster lately, but I use a lot more memory than I did 20 years ago.
Any realistic scenario will chalk up around a factor of at least 8000 to memory improvements, leaving, oh, maybe a factor of 5 to pure algorithmic improvements.
Actually, I realized I wasn't browsing at -1; I was browsing at 1, but I saw and responded before the parent got torched into -1 oblivion. So, bad on me for paying attention to the trolls before somebody else had a chance to kill 'em.
OK, bad on me for browsing at -1, bad on you for not looking at what I was responding to, but good on you for giving enough context that it became obvious what the disconnect was.
Man, I'd be happy to contribute some bandwidth and cycles for a DDOS on this shit.
Yeah, "Where's Qualdows?" I looked all over for it, and Microsoft assures me it's there, but I just can't see it.
You know, sort of a cross between your quadriceps and your deltoids.
For example, there are several people serving serious time for reselling prepaid phones.
So the argument that "you bought it, you own it" that several here seem to be making (and that I personally believe is the way the world should work) is not the way the world always works.
Your definition of bizarre is bizarre. Sure, in a narrow sense, "spam" is an email, but in a broader sense, "spam" is something that uses some technological magic to trick you into looking at something you have absolutely no interest in.
I've never thought "man, there aren't enough content-void link farms in the top 10 results from google!"
Think how many man-hours are wasted all over the globe clicking on that crap.
I want google to remove spam from my web searches just like the remove spam from my email. Evil is not google. Evil is any government that tries to dissuade them from performing that valuable function in the name of "competition".
The slashdot "we" who implicitly know about other search engines?
The facebook/IM "we" who can transmit news of how well a search engine works instantaneously to other users?
The grandma "we" who just accepts what her grandson set up?
Your bullshit argument is that google got where they are by being good, but now they're abusing their position. Personally, I think you're confusing google with Microsoft, but if you could show, you know, some evidence that is more compelling than the whining of a bunch of bogus "search engine" firms that just repackage content in an ad-heavy environment, I would be interested in seeing that.
However, I wouldn't be interested at all in seeing google cater to those losers. I have never thought "man, google's results suck because they don't show me enough parasite link farm sites!" Quite the opposite -- whenever the link farms manage to game the system enough that they get ranked highly at google, I get pissed at google for not weeding their garden quickly enough.
Did anybody else wonder about the technology behind a drone that you can set to work autonomously stealing code for you?
Seriously.
I have owned my current house for 11 years. A few months ago I started getting calls on my landline for debts incurred by one of the previous owner's kids.
The kid hasn't lived here in over 10 years. The kid never had my telephone number.
The scummy debt collectors cross-referenced an old address to a phone number, completely ignored the directory information on the number, and started harassing me mercilessly.
It took many weeks to get them to understand that I was perfectly serious about taking them to court if they didn't lay off.
You must be one of those whacko religious types who thinks God's going to give us another planet after we thoroughly fuck this one over.
I guess the place I go that pays me money is merely a figment of my imagination.
Or weren't you paying attention when Warren Buffett explained how he pays a smaller percentage tax than anybody who works for him?
Or maybe you don't know that social security is regressive? The working poor not only get taxed more, but they die early and don't collect.
Or maybe you don't realize that deduction phaseouts mean that people at the very top are paying a smaller percentage than some people in the middle?
In other words, what makes you think the regressive system we have right now is fair?
Not very well.
The device is allowed to draw up to 100 mA, then must negotiate for more.
If a local used bookstore is trying to maintain their "unique" character, they might want to have a lot of hidden gems among the rest of the merchandise. Most of their real customers (the ones generating profit for the store) buy lots of different books on a regular basis. Perhaps having some priced extra low adds to the thrill of the chase for those customers. The same thing is true for those library sales. From the library's perspective, the usual customers they are trying to attract are going to buy several books, at wildly different price points and margins. The library is probably trying to balance four variables: get rid of as many books as possible, making as much money as possible, in as short a time as possible, without any of the citizens who support the library feeling ripped off because they just sold the books wholesale.
So, just like the supermarket can say "milk on sale; limit 2" to lure the regular customers without giving away too much to people coming into the store just to buy milk, so too is the used bookstore or library justified in banning the scanner.
I guess all those warnings about how Tylenol can damage your liver are true!
Also Cromix