Yes, argue with the man who founded and ran the world's largest and most profitable gaming company until last year, who then saw his entire company put together get passed up by a single browser game, about that you don't think something that already happened is likely.
And when the Swedish supreme court upholds his conviction, suddenly he'll claim they have no jurisdiction.
He's only interested in the courts while he thinks that he can win. As soon as he wakes up to that the law is not written by blog posts about how he imagines copyright ought to work, he'll go back to insisting that the courts are worthless.
The problem with warezers is that their belief systems shift to change their desires.
What really killed Linux was its corporate-averse licensure, the fact that the user experience is different every two machines you go to, and that KDE and Gnome are agonizing by Windows 3.1 standards.
The Packt book I bought - Spring Security 3 - is single handedly the worst technical book I've ever owned. The XML build scripts don't even have matching closing tags. When I told the company, they offered me half off on a PDF and asked me to stop telling people in public.
NoSQL never was necessary. Traditional SQL database - not just terascale, but even simple ones like MySQL - regularly deal with data volumes at Google and Walmart that make the sites that built these databases in desperation look positively tiny.
I had a small company with eleven employees, and as the first Nintendo GBA flash cart was released, we had our contract pulled out from under us. So not just one work, in our case, but two, and a company, costing a pregnant woman her job and her health insurance.
But carry on with the navel gazing, pretending that just because you don't know about it means it doesn't exist.
There's a reason that our entire modern world doesn't come crashing to a halt around us every 30 seconds. If every CPU was vulnerable to bit flips from random radiation, every part of your house would be on fire and arcing electricity. Times Square would look like the bridge of the 60s enterprise under attack.
This is just some douchebag professor trying to ride the tragedies to fame. There's a reason it's always hitting the same system in the car. It's because the system is defective. There's a reason the professor has nothing but speculation to back himself up.
This is the worst kind of charlatanry from someone who should know better. I hope his hosting school takes this very, very seriously.
It's a Skinner Box. It doesn't just apply to humans; it applies to most animals. It's the same effect that makes rats press levers for food, and that underlies Pavlov's Dog and standard drug dealer techniques.
Farmville short-circuits the reward relationship in a number of psychologically sophisticated ways. It's essentially a hoarding generator with addiction back-off.
That has nothing whatsoever to do with copyright law; as the article clearly explains, no part of copyright law in involved in that. That's an internet company overwhelmed by piracy that doesn't want the hassle of being some minor artist's personal defender, and a record label behaving poorly.
There are many, many other possibilities than the two derogative possibilities offered. The one which seems most likely to me is that Microsoft thought "well, it's in all new hardware, it probably isn't worth the time and cost of implementing a software solution," only to find out that market demand existed.
Another possibility is that it took them time to produce an implementation of sufficient quality.
Meanwhile, those indie artists who actually WANT free distribution get screwed by the general assumption that all songs/movies are controlled by the RIAA/MPAA.
When, and how? I can't name a single example of this ever actually happening.
The wiki article correctly cites an incorrect published article. There is incorrect data there, but it's not the wiki's fault.
There has never been a study of paraquat's impact on human health when smoked on pot. There have been many studies of what happens to rats when paraquat is smoked from tobacco, and despite how awful tobacco is, paraquat made things much worse.
There's no evidence that that wasn't paraquat combining with the tobacco to form Devastator, but it seems much more likely that it's just paraquat being awful.
Note that the citation you've got is a book on treatment of paraquat poisoning. That should tell you a fair amount of how paraquat interacts with humans.
Sure, most of it is converted into dipyridil - about 60%. The other 40% isn't. Incidentally, claiming dipyridil is in pot smoke is disingenuous in the same way that saying it's okay to eat a century old thermometer is okay because there's mercury in Coca Cola. Presence in trace amounts has nothing to do with presence in serious amounts. The characteristic flavor of almonds is hydrogen cyanide, one of the deadliest poisons there is, for example. Would you thus eat a bunch of hydrogen cyanide because you like almonds and cherries?
No?
By the way, dipyridil is really, *really* bad stuff.
> Paraquat is a herbicide. It's effects on the marijuana should be fast enough that it can't be sold and used.
It's sprayed on marijuana fields. Marijuana fields contain already harvested marijuana. Paraquat does not destroy dried plant matter. Paraquat functions by interrupting Photosystem I, causing the plant, which is still consuming energy, to starve.
Since dead plants already have a shut down photosystem I, and are no longer consuming energy, that's not a problem.
> Statistics show that only a very small number of human deaths from the agent are unintentional
1) Failures will happen. Design for them. Have at least two hosts, in significantly different physical locations. If a host gets hacked, if their backups were silently failing, if they go out of business without warning like RedONE did, if they get hit by natural disaster, et cetera; there just isn't anything you can do to isolate from that. Redundancy is key.
2) Ask hosts about their backup policy and strategy, as well as their redundant disk setup, before you get started. It's not a perfect answer, but it gives you a decent sense of how on the ball they are - if they're spending for the extra disk space, then they're probably not cheaping out other places either.
3) A week or two in, request a backup restore. You don't have to make up a failure or anything; just say you've had problems with hosts lying about backups in the past, and you want to make sure you're on good ground. Make some changes to your setup beforehand every 10 minutes on a cron, so you know how old the backup is when it's restored.
4) Ask about gotcha policies like how they handle over-bandwidth (free day, shutoff, charge per unit, etc) and so forth. That'll give you a sense of how they'll behave if/when problems happen.
5) Expect problems to happen. The engineering overhead of replication isn't that big these days, and the cost of not having it is immense. Furthermore, in addition to replication, which secures against failure, also have backup, which secures against attack. Backup can be by FTP to one of those cheapo shared hosts that don't care about disk space, but it needs to be at a distinct third location.
Basically, don't try to find a host that won't have problems. You'll find Santa Claus sooner. Parts fail, people make errors, people do shady things, attacks are made, natural disasters and backhoes happen, et cetera.
Just have a contingency plan in place. If you can handle a failure, it's no longer a critical problem. It's usually cheaper to have three normal hosts than one super duper bullet proof host. Leverage economy. The internet is designed for handling the failure of cheap parts through massive redundancy.
Leverage that. It's the smartest thing in network history.
Algorithms and datastructures are an enormous gap in most autodidacts' knowledge sets. The NIST DADS is a great place to fight that, or alternatively an algorithms book like CLRS or Knuth 2.
I lol'd while reading Jobs talking about how awesome it is to look at something on a rotated screen on a laptop, because I was reading it on a rotated screen on my year old laptop, and I have been doing generally that for the last ten years on my various other laptops.
All the same, Apple fans will be sure Steve invented this, just like they're sure he invented multitouch, standardized motion control, et cetera.
Yes, I did. I wanted to make money on iPhone apps (and just barely broke even on the cost of the phone, plan and Macintosh). I also have an Android and a Palm Pre. None of them are my primary phone.
I also have several Nokia phones, a Motorola Razr, a bunch of cheapo J2ME phones, and quite a few others as well.
I'd love to see you prove that. Pretty sure the reason that AdWords makes money is actually because it's the eyeball dominant advertising network, which in turn is because they set it up so that anyone could join without proving themselves or talking to a salesperson or paying money, which back then was revolutionary.
I make my advertising purchase choices based on how many people are reached and the average payout per click (which is why I've largely moved away from AdWords). I don't know anyone who buys advertising based on what they imagine Google might be measuring behind the scenes.
You seem to believe that other advertising companies don't take statistics of any form. Why?
Slashdot Mirror
If the cheats are so obvious, why aren't you explaining how they were done?
FUD, sir.
> So when will the browser and operating system achieve a seamless integration?
1995.
Yes, argue with the man who founded and ran the world's largest and most profitable gaming company until last year, who then saw his entire company put together get passed up by a single browser game, about that you don't think something that already happened is likely.
Totally reasonable.
And when the Swedish supreme court upholds his conviction, suddenly he'll claim they have no jurisdiction.
He's only interested in the courts while he thinks that he can win. As soon as he wakes up to that the law is not written by blog posts about how he imagines copyright ought to work, he'll go back to insisting that the courts are worthless.
The problem with warezers is that their belief systems shift to change their desires.
What really killed Linux was its corporate-averse licensure, the fact that the user experience is different every two machines you go to, and that KDE and Gnome are agonizing by Windows 3.1 standards.
The Packt book I bought - Spring Security 3 - is single handedly the worst technical book I've ever owned. The XML build scripts don't even have matching closing tags. When I told the company, they offered me half off on a PDF and asked me to stop telling people in public.
7/10 my ass. This is a slashvertisement.
My very first FiOS bill arrived at more than double the two year guaranteed price.
Weeks later, they still haven't sorted it out.
NoSQL never was necessary. Traditional SQL database - not just terascale, but even simple ones like MySQL - regularly deal with data volumes at Google and Walmart that make the sites that built these databases in desperation look positively tiny.
Digg's engineers wear clown shoes to work.
I had a small company with eleven employees, and as the first Nintendo GBA flash cart was released, we had our contract pulled out from under us. So not just one work, in our case, but two, and a company, costing a pregnant woman her job and her health insurance.
But carry on with the navel gazing, pretending that just because you don't know about it means it doesn't exist.
There's a reason that our entire modern world doesn't come crashing to a halt around us every 30 seconds. If every CPU was vulnerable to bit flips from random radiation, every part of your house would be on fire and arcing electricity. Times Square would look like the bridge of the 60s enterprise under attack.
This is just some douchebag professor trying to ride the tragedies to fame. There's a reason it's always hitting the same system in the car. It's because the system is defective. There's a reason the professor has nothing but speculation to back himself up.
This is the worst kind of charlatanry from someone who should know better. I hope his hosting school takes this very, very seriously.
It's a Skinner Box. It doesn't just apply to humans; it applies to most animals. It's the same effect that makes rats press levers for food, and that underlies Pavlov's Dog and standard drug dealer techniques.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skinner_Box
Farmville short-circuits the reward relationship in a number of psychologically sophisticated ways. It's essentially a hoarding generator with addiction back-off.
That has nothing whatsoever to do with copyright law; as the article clearly explains, no part of copyright law in involved in that. That's an internet company overwhelmed by piracy that doesn't want the hassle of being some minor artist's personal defender, and a record label behaving poorly.
There are many, many other possibilities than the two derogative possibilities offered. The one which seems most likely to me is that Microsoft thought "well, it's in all new hardware, it probably isn't worth the time and cost of implementing a software solution," only to find out that market demand existed.
Another possibility is that it took them time to produce an implementation of sufficient quality.
When, and how? I can't name a single example of this ever actually happening.
The wiki article correctly cites an incorrect published article. There is incorrect data there, but it's not the wiki's fault.
There has never been a study of paraquat's impact on human health when smoked on pot. There have been many studies of what happens to rats when paraquat is smoked from tobacco, and despite how awful tobacco is, paraquat made things much worse.
There's no evidence that that wasn't paraquat combining with the tobacco to form Devastator, but it seems much more likely that it's just paraquat being awful.
Note that the citation you've got is a book on treatment of paraquat poisoning. That should tell you a fair amount of how paraquat interacts with humans.
Sure, most of it is converted into dipyridil - about 60%. The other 40% isn't. Incidentally, claiming dipyridil is in pot smoke is disingenuous in the same way that saying it's okay to eat a century old thermometer is okay because there's mercury in Coca Cola. Presence in trace amounts has nothing to do with presence in serious amounts. The characteristic flavor of almonds is hydrogen cyanide, one of the deadliest poisons there is, for example. Would you thus eat a bunch of hydrogen cyanide because you like almonds and cherries?
No?
By the way, dipyridil is really, *really* bad stuff.
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=16196558
> Paraquat is a herbicide. It's effects on the marijuana should be fast enough that it can't be sold and used.
It's sprayed on marijuana fields. Marijuana fields contain already harvested marijuana. Paraquat does not destroy dried plant matter. Paraquat functions by interrupting Photosystem I, causing the plant, which is still consuming energy, to starve.
Since dead plants already have a shut down photosystem I, and are no longer consuming energy, that's not a problem.
> Statistics show that only a very small number of human deaths from the agent are unintentional
Where are these statistics, please?
Well, for one, it's toxic when smoked.
For two, the US DEA sought out foreign marijuana fields for the express purpose of soaking them with an herbicide that is toxic when smoked.
But yeah, the Drug Enforcement Agency totally just herbicides international plants that aren't drugs all the time.
This is still going on today with other illegal substances. The US has, for example, been poisoning marijuana fields with paraquat for decades.
1) Failures will happen. Design for them. Have at least two hosts, in significantly different physical locations. If a host gets hacked, if their backups were silently failing, if they go out of business without warning like RedONE did, if they get hit by natural disaster, et cetera; there just isn't anything you can do to isolate from that. Redundancy is key.
2) Ask hosts about their backup policy and strategy, as well as their redundant disk setup, before you get started. It's not a perfect answer, but it gives you a decent sense of how on the ball they are - if they're spending for the extra disk space, then they're probably not cheaping out other places either.
3) A week or two in, request a backup restore. You don't have to make up a failure or anything; just say you've had problems with hosts lying about backups in the past, and you want to make sure you're on good ground. Make some changes to your setup beforehand every 10 minutes on a cron, so you know how old the backup is when it's restored.
4) Ask about gotcha policies like how they handle over-bandwidth (free day, shutoff, charge per unit, etc) and so forth. That'll give you a sense of how they'll behave if/when problems happen.
5) Expect problems to happen. The engineering overhead of replication isn't that big these days, and the cost of not having it is immense. Furthermore, in addition to replication, which secures against failure, also have backup, which secures against attack. Backup can be by FTP to one of those cheapo shared hosts that don't care about disk space, but it needs to be at a distinct third location.
Basically, don't try to find a host that won't have problems. You'll find Santa Claus sooner. Parts fail, people make errors, people do shady things, attacks are made, natural disasters and backhoes happen, et cetera.
Just have a contingency plan in place. If you can handle a failure, it's no longer a critical problem. It's usually cheaper to have three normal hosts than one super duper bullet proof host. Leverage economy. The internet is designed for handling the failure of cheap parts through massive redundancy.
Leverage that. It's the smartest thing in network history.
Algorithms and datastructures are an enormous gap in most autodidacts' knowledge sets. The NIST DADS is a great place to fight that, or alternatively an algorithms book like CLRS or Knuth 2.
There's Amazon Payments, Moneybookers, and an entire industry of no-setup-fee credit card processors devoted to the porn industry.
Major company runs television ad during profitable sports event.
Gasp. Newsworthy indeed.
I lol'd while reading Jobs talking about how awesome it is to look at something on a rotated screen on a laptop, because I was reading it on a rotated screen on my year old laptop, and I have been doing generally that for the last ten years on my various other laptops.
All the same, Apple fans will be sure Steve invented this, just like they're sure he invented multitouch, standardized motion control, et cetera.
Yes, I did. I wanted to make money on iPhone apps (and just barely broke even on the cost of the phone, plan and Macintosh). I also have an Android and a Palm Pre. None of them are my primary phone.
I also have several Nokia phones, a Motorola Razr, a bunch of cheapo J2ME phones, and quite a few others as well.
I'd love to see you prove that. Pretty sure the reason that AdWords makes money is actually because it's the eyeball dominant advertising network, which in turn is because they set it up so that anyone could join without proving themselves or talking to a salesperson or paying money, which back then was revolutionary.
I make my advertising purchase choices based on how many people are reached and the average payout per click (which is why I've largely moved away from AdWords). I don't know anyone who buys advertising based on what they imagine Google might be measuring behind the scenes.
You seem to believe that other advertising companies don't take statistics of any form. Why?