If it were for the emails alone, and they weren't putting them up free-of-charge later, sure. But to my mind, this is a minor evil in return for keeping Wikileaks up and...well, leaking. Bandwidth isn't free, and there's no other way to make some modicum of money off of what they're doing.
Call me crazy, but I don't think they would have given the email to Wikileaks in the first place if they didn't have any contingency in place for getting the fuck out of there, or at least keeping their head down.
So what you're saying is less "Vista and full-fledged OSes are fine" and more "We need to keep using the level of tech we have now, but boot it faster ffs."
Considering their attempts to stifle it, I think Atari's going for the "No publicity is good publicity". Which, likewise, is long dead, since it turns into a censorship issue and gets picked up by every blog on the planet, a la Gerstmanngate.
Well, personally, I agree with your position on your terms. However, believe it or not, you're the first person I've heard, ever, deliver a straight and to-the-point definition of what Veganism actually is. The problem is that yes, some people are irrational, but unfortunately, these people seem to make up a very vocal (if minor) portion of your population, and since the vocal portion are what other people tend to hear, the source of the confusion of most people on what your stances are, let alone the reasoning behind them, seems to fairly apparent.
The simplicity of your definition of Veganism is easy enough. It's just that every Vegan seems to have a different version of what it consists of. It's like Christianity with none of those handily named subdivisions.
Except podcasts, by definition, aren't live. They're pre-recorded stuff. As soon as you're streaming it live, it stops being a podcast and starts being Last.fm or whatever you want to call it. And I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to get weather or traffic reports that're half an hour old, especially if I'm going to be driving into it.
Of course they won't. It's the same reason you have to pay extra to get XP preinstalled- even if people install their own pre-owned/pirated/free OS over the copy of Vista, Microsoft can justify Vista by saying "We've sold this many more copies, therefore, people love it!"
It seems like a great thing, but we don't know how they deem things incompatible. MS, in theory, has a big list of compatible hardware (which seems to be down atm, but providing an article with a link for completeness); however, for all we know it's one of those "Pay us and we'll 'certify' your software as Windows Compat, wink wink", just like the Nintendo Seal of Approval from all those years ago. Are these actually incompatible peripherals, or has the company making the hardware just not coughed up enough in fees to be deemed compatible?
If you're working or playing, then I'd think that even the click of the mouse or keys would drown out the sound of the hard drive. I think the GP's post would be better suited to be "Why not turn your computer off when you're sleeping".
Oh, please. Over 9000 is modded redundant and It's a trap is modded up? Someone hasn't been keeping up with their web memes. I'm going to have to revoke your geek club membership.
I'm not saying that they need to, I'm saying that they have the option of rebutting if they care enough to. And we already have plenty of rate random people sites; hotornot, facebook, and myspace all come to mind. And as for your final point, that's all they do: Allow people to rant. The payment for the site isn't coming out of your pocket, beyond that, it's free speech. I'm not sure what you're getting so worked up about.
Several things. One, free speech. Two, it even says in the summary about how they're hoping to allow cops to post rebuttals. Three, I'd rather have people venting at cops in a public forum then getting steamed enough to pop like the cork on bad wine (I recall a story a couple weeks ago about someone shooting up a town hall and killing several people therein over parking tickets).
If I sit down at a place and have the option to either A.) Connect to a free wireless hub, or B.) Pay exorbitant amounts to connect my phone to my computer and connect at a horrible speed, which one am I going to choose?
In other news, studies show that it costs less to distribute items when people come to the store and pick it up, versus the store delivering it to the people. GIFs at 11.
I'd just like to point out that all of these (mostly crappy) analogies are very much the reason tech law is in the state it's in today. You really can't equivocate tech and the net with physical analogies. And it's because of explanations like this that the laws for these things are in the mess they're in.
Someone needs to sit down and say Yes, this is legal or No, this isn't legal without trying to equate it to stealing a book, or walking into a movie theatre, or whatever, and actually make a law out of it.
Personally, I'm with the it's-not-wrong-crowd-- if you want restricted access, you have to take the steps to make sure it's restricted. It's like--ah, nevermind. But seriously, one way or another, someone intelligent has to actually start ruling on this or we'll have people saying "It's like breaking into someone's car!" "Oh, it is? Okay, guilty!" from now until the heat death of the universe.
Slashdot Mirror
If it were for the emails alone, and they weren't putting them up free-of-charge later, sure. But to my mind, this is a minor evil in return for keeping Wikileaks up and...well, leaking. Bandwidth isn't free, and there's no other way to make some modicum of money off of what they're doing.
Call me crazy, but I don't think they would have given the email to Wikileaks in the first place if they didn't have any contingency in place for getting the fuck out of there, or at least keeping their head down.
So what you're saying is less "Vista and full-fledged OSes are fine" and more "We need to keep using the level of tech we have now, but boot it faster ffs."
Which is a sentiment I can toast to, personally.
"Traffic and roadworks" shows planned roadworks, and presumably accidents (none, currently)
Good thing, too; if they were showing planned accidents on it I'd be worried.
Considering their attempts to stifle it, I think Atari's going for the "No publicity is good publicity". Which, likewise, is long dead, since it turns into a censorship issue and gets picked up by every blog on the planet, a la Gerstmanngate.
Well, personally, I agree with your position on your terms. However, believe it or not, you're the first person I've heard, ever, deliver a straight and to-the-point definition of what Veganism actually is. The problem is that yes, some people are irrational, but unfortunately, these people seem to make up a very vocal (if minor) portion of your population, and since the vocal portion are what other people tend to hear, the source of the confusion of most people on what your stances are, let alone the reasoning behind them, seems to fairly apparent.
The simplicity of your definition of Veganism is easy enough. It's just that every Vegan seems to have a different version of what it consists of. It's like Christianity with none of those handily named subdivisions.
Neither can I. Imaginary numbers and fingers don't go well together. :(
Except podcasts, by definition, aren't live. They're pre-recorded stuff. As soon as you're streaming it live, it stops being a podcast and starts being Last.fm or whatever you want to call it. And I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to get weather or traffic reports that're half an hour old, especially if I'm going to be driving into it.
Of course they won't. It's the same reason you have to pay extra to get XP preinstalled- even if people install their own pre-owned/pirated/free OS over the copy of Vista, Microsoft can justify Vista by saying "We've sold this many more copies, therefore, people love it!"
What's in your inbox?
It seems like a great thing, but we don't know how they deem things incompatible. MS, in theory, has a big list of compatible hardware (which seems to be down atm, but providing an article with a link for completeness); however, for all we know it's one of those "Pay us and we'll 'certify' your software as Windows Compat, wink wink", just like the Nintendo Seal of Approval from all those years ago. Are these actually incompatible peripherals, or has the company making the hardware just not coughed up enough in fees to be deemed compatible?
So what the article's really saying is that hard drives with Vista installed should be listed as an "incompatible peripheral".
If you stop to think and your computer's constantly accessing your hard drive, I'd say you have bigger problems than how loud it is.
If you're working or playing, then I'd think that even the click of the mouse or keys would drown out the sound of the hard drive. I think the GP's post would be better suited to be "Why not turn your computer off when you're sleeping".
Oh, please. Over 9000 is modded redundant and It's a trap is modded up? Someone hasn't been keeping up with their web memes. I'm going to have to revoke your geek club membership.
It's over 9000!
Clearly you're not a Discordian.
I'm not saying that they need to, I'm saying that they have the option of rebutting if they care enough to. And we already have plenty of rate random people sites; hotornot, facebook, and myspace all come to mind. And as for your final point, that's all they do: Allow people to rant. The payment for the site isn't coming out of your pocket, beyond that, it's free speech. I'm not sure what you're getting so worked up about.
Several things. One, free speech. Two, it even says in the summary about how they're hoping to allow cops to post rebuttals. Three, I'd rather have people venting at cops in a public forum then getting steamed enough to pop like the cork on bad wine (I recall a story a couple weeks ago about someone shooting up a town hall and killing several people therein over parking tickets).
Actually, it's debatable that seeding torrents is good too, but yes, my wifi net is open.
If I sit down at a place and have the option to either A.) Connect to a free wireless hub, or B.) Pay exorbitant amounts to connect my phone to my computer and connect at a horrible speed, which one am I going to choose?
Wait, don't tell me, I can figure this one out...
World of Warcraft: 10fps under Wine.
In other news, studies show that it costs less to distribute items when people come to the store and pick it up, versus the store delivering it to the people. GIFs at 11.
I'd just like to point out that all of these (mostly crappy) analogies are very much the reason tech law is in the state it's in today. You really can't equivocate tech and the net with physical analogies. And it's because of explanations like this that the laws for these things are in the mess they're in.
Someone needs to sit down and say Yes, this is legal or No, this isn't legal without trying to equate it to stealing a book, or walking into a movie theatre, or whatever, and actually make a law out of it.
Personally, I'm with the it's-not-wrong-crowd-- if you want restricted access, you have to take the steps to make sure it's restricted. It's like--ah, nevermind. But seriously, one way or another, someone intelligent has to actually start ruling on this or we'll have people saying "It's like breaking into someone's car!" "Oh, it is? Okay, guilty!" from now until the heat death of the universe.