1) Why the hell are third parties cutting off traffic to other networks? This affects other businesses that have nothing to do with this dispute.
2) Why was no one notified? My customer is a large scale business with locations all over the world; their Canadian locations cannot connect (via VPN) to their American counterparts. This is VERY BAD, and is causing my customer to incur additional costs to get in a secondary ISP ASAP.
3) How is Sprint going to legitimately justify themselves when customers decide that this is a breach of contract and decide to go elsewhere?
The issue I have is that ANY third party can just not route to whoever they want, leaving their customers in the lurch; just how many people found out about this issue because it was on Slashdot? Hell, the person we were working with found it because he just happened to think of Googling "Sprint + Cogent".
(Since it wasn't my issue, I spent the majority of my time on the call playing the new Star Ocean)
Anyone that believes that by pirating games, they're sending a message is only partly right. What they're really saying is "Please! Make more restrictive DRM! We and everyone need to be punished, like the obnoxious 12 year olds that we are!". It's not sticking it to the man, because the man can stick back 10X harder, and will only stick good, honest customers. If you're saying to hell with them, well, then the market is toxic, and shouldn't be developed for, now should it? And if that's the case, then hell, there's not going to be many PC games to pirate anymore, is there?
And do what, exactly? Tell that to someone that now knows you're not going to be a purchaser, so they can move on somewhere else? That's a waste of gas, if you ask me.
Yes, but for the most part, there's only minor changes in code, and very minor changes in the science of wiring your house.
How much has the IT industry changed in the last five years alone? When I was starting out, I had to get my MCP; this was in 2005. That MCP is virtually useless now from a practical standpoint. Considering how slow these organizations catch up to even the glacial changes in, say, the electrician's field or the plumber's field, the LAST thing we need is an overbody that will surely get lost in the sea of change that is our industry.
I thought it was completely daft that I had to get A+, MCP, and all these other glorified toilet paper certificates before anyone would look at me, despite the fact that I knew the information. To have it be mandated will do nothing but turn out less innovation in the industry, and more script monkeys.
Did you read a fucking word I said? Here, I'll C+P it for you. If you STILL don't get it, then you're too stupid to worry about:
"Time is money" is an accurate statement; these people spent a lot of time and energy making this software. They charge an acceptable rate for their service, which is just the same as charging for a physical item. Without monetary motivation, we would not have these services. you are stealing that service, plain and simple! YOU ARE TAKING SOMETHING THEY MADE AND NOT PAYING FOR IT. THAT IS AT THE EXPENSE OF THEIR TIME AND MONEY. (emphasis added)
But really, I think you're too stupid to understand how any economical system works. You can't see beyond "free shit yay", but it's people like you that cause software developers to overreact and impose Draconian DRM restrictions on their software. YOU are the problem, and your actions directly contribute to the problems we have today.
It's wrong because it's STEALING, you bloody pillock!
"Time is money" is an accurate statement; these people spent a lot of time and energy making this software. They charge an acceptable rate for their service, which is just the same as charging for a physical item. Without monetary motivation, we would not have these services. you are stealing that service, plain and simple! You are taking something they made and not paying for it. That is at their expense of time and money.
But really, I think you're too stupid to understand how any economical system works. You can't see beyond "free shit yay", but it's people like you that cause software developers to overreact and impose Draconian DRM restrictions on their software. YOU are the problem, and your actions directly contribute to the problems we have today.
Why, no! We haven't declared "hostility" with any nation! We just bombed the shit out of them, and have troops in them actively fighting and dying!
We're not hostile, though! When we accidentally bomb a wedding as a terrorist get-together, we at least cordially apolog-- wait, we don't even do that. But we feel REALLY BAD about it!
For any effective revolt, you need to have the will of the majority of the populace. Otherwise, you are effectively - or literally - eliminated, branded a nutjob, your past is conveniently disseminated to support your nutjobery (even if they have to make some "edits"), and anything you did is rendered moot, as the government then goes on a counterattack; he posted at Slashdot? Let's check those people out...
I understand your point. But citizens in both America and the UK are placated to the point of being useless; it would take a tremendous amount of things to go wrong for the government for them to rise up enough to possibly wage a successful revolt. You're hoping on the iPod and O'Reilly crowd to back you up, and as long as the government protects them from darkies and kissing boys, they'll give up anything they have to.
The fact of the matter is that someone was advertising something that others would consider "taboo", and other people contributed themselves; in order to elicit a response, and specifically to humiliate these people, he pretended he was one of them.
I think that's a dangerous slope, honestly. Irregardless of what you think of the people in question, the fact is that there was a level of trust there that was blatantly abused by your friend. To me, this is like that show To Catch A Predator; while some can argue that the people that are getting caught in those stings get what they deserve, I think it's a dangerous slope to resort to such vigilante justice by people ill equipped for the task.
You judge these people as perverts, among other adjectives. The fact of the matter is that these people were looking for mutual, consensual sex. Key words are mutual and consensual. Who is Jason to judge these people? Who are you? Nothing they wanted is in any way, shape or form abusive or harming anyone.
I do not share their views; I find the acts reprehensible. But I am not about to resort to vigilante justice to humiliate others. Even if there's no "crime", Jason deserves some comeuppance for how he's affected their lives, especially in a world where anything about you online - whether voluntarily put there or not - is grounds to affect your job, and other things that affect items in "real" life that have nothing to do whatsoever with that subject.
Our administration is manned by two people who earned their money in the oil industry.
Said administration has used policies that have given tax breaks to said oil companies, invaded a country rich in oil on flimsy information, and have more or less legislated around the oil industry.
THAT is what defines a profit as outrageous. They did it with help, at the cost of the average layperson.
I'm... not quite sure I get where you're coming from. Don't we want MORE freedom, meaning LESS repression? I think you're trying to connect the dots the right way, but you went from A to K.
Uselessness is in the eye of the beholder... so really, I'd rather have almost 9,000 results that are utter pants than be told to have nothing and like it.
Companies are going to great lengths to search for anything particularly incriminating on people that are applying for a job, and when you're starting out in a law firm - where your basically doing bitch work anyway, and your #1 job is fitting in - anything that they could find that could make a person look bad is going to be held against them. No one has any privacy left anymore, so things that used to get passed off as "kids being kids" have long-reaching consequences later in life. I cry for that.
With all that said, no, I don't think that this case sets a good precedent. The fault here is anyone that would listen to anonymous slander and use it against the women in question for any reason.
So you have a choice: either you can purchase the 360 and PS3 versions for $60, and get the full benefits of their GPUs and more powerful systems, or you can spend $50 on a game that will only be "pretty enough", and will also probably have some dumb gimmicks to add false value.
I don't see enough people in the latter category to make this a viable business decision for a company that lost money in their last report.
Not so fast... there are some good Sony first person titles. The Jax series is pretty good, as is Ratchet and Clank, for those that like those type of games. Sports gamers can also enjoy MLB '08, which is an amazing baseball game.
Their first party lineup isn't as good on PS3 as it was on PS2, but it's not ALL duds.
You will buy multi-hundreds of dollars in system hardware for the rights to play... two games per generation? Three? There were three Final Fantasy games on the PS2, and one of them (XI) was a shitty MMO that played better on the PC. PLEASE tell me you played other games for the system than that. Even if it's tripe like.Hack.
New system? No, don't forget that the most comparable game to FFXIII on the 360 - Lost Odyssey - took four discs. They'll likely do something similar. And Lost Odyssey looked amazing, at that.
The games sold well, but you could shit in a box and put "Final Fantasy" on it at this point, and it would sell. It was like that when those games came out for the PC, too.
Your second point is all over the place, and I don't honestly see any point that applies in this case. For one, the PS3 doesn't necessarily run games the "best", mainly due to the fact that too many of them require an installation of about 5GB just in order to run them; compare a game like, for example, Devil May Cry 4 for the PS3 and the 360, and though you get better loading times on the PS3, you really don't get anything else for the right of installing 5GB worth of data, eating up your proprietary and (I'm not sure about this part as I don't own the system) irreplaceable hard drive; you're burning gigs for no reason.
And I don't understand where EA's exclusivity contracts play into this point, as they're different altogether. EA bought licenses to make games for certain respective sports organizations; for example, they are the only ones that make NFL games. But since they'll whore their games on every system that will take them, that's much different than system exclusivity. You will always be able to buy Madden and NBA Live no matter what system you own; still have an original XBox? No problem! Just $50! But that's not the case with a game like Metal Gear Solid 4 or (until now) Final Fantasy XIII.
The thought of a Wii port for Final Fantasy XIII makes me cringe.
For one, the system isn't nearly as powerful as the 360, let alone the PS3. Those pretty graphics you see on GameTrailers would have to be seriously toned down.
That, and virtually no developers can make a Wii game without stepping up on the gimmicks. It would be a different game altogether because of the controller bullshit, much like how Wii's Alone In The Dark is a different - and much shittier - version than the 360's version (which in itself is shit).
Slashdot Mirror
That disregards the problem entirely.
1) Why the hell are third parties cutting off traffic to other networks? This affects other businesses that have nothing to do with this dispute.
2) Why was no one notified? My customer is a large scale business with locations all over the world; their Canadian locations cannot connect (via VPN) to their American counterparts. This is VERY BAD, and is causing my customer to incur additional costs to get in a secondary ISP ASAP.
3) How is Sprint going to legitimately justify themselves when customers decide that this is a breach of contract and decide to go elsewhere?
This goes beyond one company.
The issue I have is that ANY third party can just not route to whoever they want, leaving their customers in the lurch; just how many people found out about this issue because it was on Slashdot? Hell, the person we were working with found it because he just happened to think of Googling "Sprint + Cogent".
(Since it wasn't my issue, I spent the majority of my time on the call playing the new Star Ocean)
But yet, almost the entirety of Ontario voted Tory. Strange, that.
Exactly.
Anyone that believes that by pirating games, they're sending a message is only partly right. What they're really saying is "Please! Make more restrictive DRM! We and everyone need to be punished, like the obnoxious 12 year olds that we are!". It's not sticking it to the man, because the man can stick back 10X harder, and will only stick good, honest customers. If you're saying to hell with them, well, then the market is toxic, and shouldn't be developed for, now should it? And if that's the case, then hell, there's not going to be many PC games to pirate anymore, is there?
And do what, exactly? Tell that to someone that now knows you're not going to be a purchaser, so they can move on somewhere else? That's a waste of gas, if you ask me.
Yes, but at least Linux evangelists are only on forums, and in basements. These guys are RIGHT IN YOUR FACE. :(
Yes, but for the most part, there's only minor changes in code, and very minor changes in the science of wiring your house.
How much has the IT industry changed in the last five years alone? When I was starting out, I had to get my MCP; this was in 2005. That MCP is virtually useless now from a practical standpoint. Considering how slow these organizations catch up to even the glacial changes in, say, the electrician's field or the plumber's field, the LAST thing we need is an overbody that will surely get lost in the sea of change that is our industry.
I thought it was completely daft that I had to get A+, MCP, and all these other glorified toilet paper certificates before anyone would look at me, despite the fact that I knew the information. To have it be mandated will do nothing but turn out less innovation in the industry, and more script monkeys.
Did you read a fucking word I said? Here, I'll C+P it for you. If you STILL don't get it, then you're too stupid to worry about:
"Time is money" is an accurate statement; these people spent a lot of time and energy making this software. They charge an acceptable rate for their service, which is just the same as charging for a physical item. Without monetary motivation, we would not have these services. you are stealing that service, plain and simple! YOU ARE TAKING SOMETHING THEY MADE AND NOT PAYING FOR IT. THAT IS AT THE EXPENSE OF THEIR TIME AND MONEY. (emphasis added)
But really, I think you're too stupid to understand how any economical system works. You can't see beyond "free shit yay", but it's people like you that cause software developers to overreact and impose Draconian DRM restrictions on their software. YOU are the problem, and your actions directly contribute to the problems we have today.
It's wrong because it's STEALING, you bloody pillock!
"Time is money" is an accurate statement; these people spent a lot of time and energy making this software. They charge an acceptable rate for their service, which is just the same as charging for a physical item. Without monetary motivation, we would not have these services. you are stealing that service, plain and simple! You are taking something they made and not paying for it. That is at their expense of time and money.
But really, I think you're too stupid to understand how any economical system works. You can't see beyond "free shit yay", but it's people like you that cause software developers to overreact and impose Draconian DRM restrictions on their software. YOU are the problem, and your actions directly contribute to the problems we have today.
Why, no! We haven't declared "hostility" with any nation! We just bombed the shit out of them, and have troops in them actively fighting and dying!
We're not hostile, though! When we accidentally bomb a wedding as a terrorist get-together, we at least cordially apolog-- wait, we don't even do that. But we feel REALLY BAD about it!
For any effective revolt, you need to have the will of the majority of the populace. Otherwise, you are effectively - or literally - eliminated, branded a nutjob, your past is conveniently disseminated to support your nutjobery (even if they have to make some "edits"), and anything you did is rendered moot, as the government then goes on a counterattack; he posted at Slashdot? Let's check those people out...
I understand your point. But citizens in both America and the UK are placated to the point of being useless; it would take a tremendous amount of things to go wrong for the government for them to rise up enough to possibly wage a successful revolt. You're hoping on the iPod and O'Reilly crowd to back you up, and as long as the government protects them from darkies and kissing boys, they'll give up anything they have to.
The fact of the matter is that someone was advertising something that others would consider "taboo", and other people contributed themselves; in order to elicit a response, and specifically to humiliate these people, he pretended he was one of them.
I think that's a dangerous slope, honestly. Irregardless of what you think of the people in question, the fact is that there was a level of trust there that was blatantly abused by your friend. To me, this is like that show To Catch A Predator; while some can argue that the people that are getting caught in those stings get what they deserve, I think it's a dangerous slope to resort to such vigilante justice by people ill equipped for the task.
You judge these people as perverts, among other adjectives. The fact of the matter is that these people were looking for mutual, consensual sex. Key words are mutual and consensual. Who is Jason to judge these people? Who are you? Nothing they wanted is in any way, shape or form abusive or harming anyone.
I do not share their views; I find the acts reprehensible. But I am not about to resort to vigilante justice to humiliate others. Even if there's no "crime", Jason deserves some comeuppance for how he's affected their lives, especially in a world where anything about you online - whether voluntarily put there or not - is grounds to affect your job, and other things that affect items in "real" life that have nothing to do whatsoever with that subject.
Our administration is manned by two people who earned their money in the oil industry.
Said administration has used policies that have given tax breaks to said oil companies, invaded a country rich in oil on flimsy information, and have more or less legislated around the oil industry.
THAT is what defines a profit as outrageous. They did it with help, at the cost of the average layperson.
The thing is, the Democrats did the exact same thing to the Republicans that the Republicans used to do to the Democrats when they had the majority.
I'm... not quite sure I get where you're coming from. Don't we want MORE freedom, meaning LESS repression? I think you're trying to connect the dots the right way, but you went from A to K.
What were we taught as children? Sticks and stones and all that?
Let's keep perspective; either way, we're on a slick slope, and if I have to err, I'm going to err on the side of no censorship.
Uselessness is in the eye of the beholder... so really, I'd rather have almost 9,000 results that are utter pants than be told to have nothing and like it.
The problem is... it is.
Companies are going to great lengths to search for anything particularly incriminating on people that are applying for a job, and when you're starting out in a law firm - where your basically doing bitch work anyway, and your #1 job is fitting in - anything that they could find that could make a person look bad is going to be held against them. No one has any privacy left anymore, so things that used to get passed off as "kids being kids" have long-reaching consequences later in life. I cry for that.
With all that said, no, I don't think that this case sets a good precedent. The fault here is anyone that would listen to anonymous slander and use it against the women in question for any reason.
The idea is to gauge the reaction when the police know they're being recorded.
"Freeze, fucker!"
"You're being recorded!"
"Oh, OK... *PHONE SMASH* *PERP SMASH* *PERP SMASH* PERP SM--SPLAT* Ewwwwww..."
So you have a choice: either you can purchase the 360 and PS3 versions for $60, and get the full benefits of their GPUs and more powerful systems, or you can spend $50 on a game that will only be "pretty enough", and will also probably have some dumb gimmicks to add false value.
I don't see enough people in the latter category to make this a viable business decision for a company that lost money in their last report.
Not so fast... there are some good Sony first person titles. The Jax series is pretty good, as is Ratchet and Clank, for those that like those type of games. Sports gamers can also enjoy MLB '08, which is an amazing baseball game.
Their first party lineup isn't as good on PS3 as it was on PS2, but it's not ALL duds.
You will buy multi-hundreds of dollars in system hardware for the rights to play... two games per generation? Three? There were three Final Fantasy games on the PS2, and one of them (XI) was a shitty MMO that played better on the PC. PLEASE tell me you played other games for the system than that. Even if it's tripe like .Hack.
New system? No, don't forget that the most comparable game to FFXIII on the 360 - Lost Odyssey - took four discs. They'll likely do something similar. And Lost Odyssey looked amazing, at that.
The games sold well, but you could shit in a box and put "Final Fantasy" on it at this point, and it would sell. It was like that when those games came out for the PC, too.
Your second point is all over the place, and I don't honestly see any point that applies in this case. For one, the PS3 doesn't necessarily run games the "best", mainly due to the fact that too many of them require an installation of about 5GB just in order to run them; compare a game like, for example, Devil May Cry 4 for the PS3 and the 360, and though you get better loading times on the PS3, you really don't get anything else for the right of installing 5GB worth of data, eating up your proprietary and (I'm not sure about this part as I don't own the system) irreplaceable hard drive; you're burning gigs for no reason.
And I don't understand where EA's exclusivity contracts play into this point, as they're different altogether. EA bought licenses to make games for certain respective sports organizations; for example, they are the only ones that make NFL games. But since they'll whore their games on every system that will take them, that's much different than system exclusivity. You will always be able to buy Madden and NBA Live no matter what system you own; still have an original XBox? No problem! Just $50! But that's not the case with a game like Metal Gear Solid 4 or (until now) Final Fantasy XIII.
The thought of a Wii port for Final Fantasy XIII makes me cringe.
For one, the system isn't nearly as powerful as the 360, let alone the PS3. Those pretty graphics you see on GameTrailers would have to be seriously toned down.
That, and virtually no developers can make a Wii game without stepping up on the gimmicks. It would be a different game altogether because of the controller bullshit, much like how Wii's Alone In The Dark is a different - and much shittier - version than the 360's version (which in itself is shit).