AC to prevent an anonymous black van from showing up at my door.
Are you connecting from your own? Are you logged in, but ticked the "Post Anonymously" box? Do you use this PC for anything like internet banking, checking email, using social networking, visiting other sites you have an account on? Are you using public WiFi? Slashdot isn't over SSL; Do you know the guy next to you isn't running Wireshark and sniffing your post data? Are you behind a proxy? Can you trust the proxy owner to keep your info private, either through proper secure configuration or by only complying with a court-issued warrant? How about Tor? Is the exit node compromised? Finally, can Slashdot be trusted to keep your identity private?
I'm sure you've done everything you can to stop the black van. Personally, I vowed not to go to the US again. They can put me on any list they want:)
Not applicable. That's in-game mechanics. This is real life extortion.
If you sit on Ama-gank-me gate passive tanking the guns and bubble some noob flying through in his new AF, that's all part of the game. If you go around to his house and demand 100m ISK and all his faction modules or you'll beat him with a wrecking bar, that would be a similar to this situation.
Besides, natural justice is the law in Eve. If you get ganked, you fleet up and go get some revenge.
They have a European data centre in Sweden, and has at least nine across the US br.That's still only 0.35W per user, but an order of magnitude is huge no matter who you ask.
B) You may as well argue that people who don't lock their front door should be charged with a crime because someone steals from them. Because, that is exactly what you are doing.
No, I wouldn't expect that. What I would expect, however, is that if they are at work and they fail to secure their workstation when they leave their desk, that they are held accountable for any data loss through that connection. The Military isn't a home user, it's a government entity which frequently deals with highly sensitive information (none if which was accessed by McKinnon, BTW). I would expect, nay demand that those responsible for maintaining the security of those systems be investigated for incompetence. At the very least, this should merit dismissal for gross misconduct (as it would in the private sector).
They'll end up out of business if people wise-up and start doing this en masse. Quite frequently these discounted products are sold at a loss to bring people into the store. Hopefully they'll buy full price goods while they're there. If they're not buying the full price goods as well as the discounted goods, the company will go bust anyway.
Convenience is all they have going for them; All of your shopping in one location.
True. However, do you believe that a habitual copyright infringer (or a habitual used game buyer, for that matter) would buy many new games? Or would they spend their money on other stuff?
You are precariously close to the Broken Window fallacy with that one. A pirate / habitual used game purchaser is not a loss to the publisher, as they are not a sale, yet the pirate has money to spend elsewhere. This is a net gain to "society", not a loss.
I would think that the market would generally be divided up into a group of people who primarilly buy new games, and a group of people who primarilly infringe copyright or buy used. I'm not sure that preventing the second group from buying used games will tend to move them into the first group.
I disagree, but for reasons which are not relevant to the discussion. I believe that better service will move pirates to customers, as Valve have demonstrated.
No. The publisher is attempting to prevent resale of used games. The second hand seller still has the game, but cannot sell it (e.g. it has non-transferrable DRM, etc).
This is a "known loss" to the second hand seller, and therefore moot. They accept the inability to not resell the goods, or they decide not to buy the goods.
The second hand seller has less money to spend on games because they can't sell their used games any more - this means that they can't give the publisher as much money (they will buy cheaper games or fewer games).
This is a loss to the publisher. Less games sold second hand means less money to pay for new games. As you say, this means less new sales for the publisher. Alternatively, the second hand seller may be pushed into the position of a pirate, which again is a loss to the publisher. In this limited situation, the only gain for the publisher is to allow second hand sales (I understand that it is actually more complicated than this).
The pirate still has the money he saved by pirating the second hand game instead of buying it to pay for a different game. The second hand seller still has his game to sell. The publisher has lost nothing as neither transaction included them, yet both the second hand seller and the pirate are still in a position to buy from the publisher.
I've said this a few times on/. and I'll say it again; I would not have watched House had I not been able to stream the first episode from Megaupload (Thanks, Kimble! Megacar was awesome!)
Two years later, and I own all 7 series released on DVD so far, and I'll own series 8 on release day. Why? Because I fucking LOVE that show, and I'll pay to see it. Would I have known that I would enjoy it so much if I hadn't seen it on Megavideo? No, because I don't watch TV, much less pay for a Sky subscription.
So, as again I have said before, stick that in your piracy losses spreadsheet, Big Media Conglomerate.
Cyanogenmod allows you to restrict permissions on a per-app basis, but not at each launch. For per-launch permission management, LBE Privacy Guard is the most popular product (which I use on Cyanogenmod 7.1 on my Desire HD). I also have Lookout installed, but only as an anti-malware solution. I've no idea how effective it is, though, as I don't download LOLZ2URFONE FREE!!!1one apps from shady sources. The only test of Android AV solutions I've seen excluded Lookout, specifically because it was much more popular than the rest. I won't link it, as it's next to useless from an information-gathering perspective, and I'm getting off-topic.
So don't buy it. Seriously, just don't buy it. When enough people are as irritated as you are by these shenanigans, they'll stop buying it too, and companies will go bust.
Slashdot Mirror
Run a service he wants to make use of and you can have all that.
Isn't that how Google got into this position in the first place? Making a service people wanted to use, and collecting the data they submitted?
AC to prevent an anonymous black van from showing up at my door.
Are you connecting from your own? Are you logged in, but ticked the "Post Anonymously" box? Do you use this PC for anything like internet banking, checking email, using social networking, visiting other sites you have an account on? Are you using public WiFi? Slashdot isn't over SSL; Do you know the guy next to you isn't running Wireshark and sniffing your post data? Are you behind a proxy? Can you trust the proxy owner to keep your info private, either through proper secure configuration or by only complying with a court-issued warrant? How about Tor? Is the exit node compromised? Finally, can Slashdot be trusted to keep your identity private?
:)
I'm sure you've done everything you can to stop the black van. Personally, I vowed not to go to the US again. They can put me on any list they want
Might be used to discriminate against you on the next job hunt...without you even knowing or being able to prove such.
Why would this be a problem? It saves having to quit when I find out that I'm working for a piece of shit.
For all intents and purposes.
Just thought you should know.
Zynga tower, quite litterally is a new skin on tiny tower
Someone should re-skin Zynga Tower.
With the skin of Mark Pinkus.
Bad people can do good things. Good people can do bad things. Hitler turned Germany from post-WWI depression into economic powerhouse in 20 years.
And stop anthropomorphising corporations; They have no morality. A good corporation is one which makes the most money for its shareholders.
Does he have a 4 digit UID?
3?
2?!
HTPCs mess with the signal in all kinds of ways (YUV->RGB conversion is forced, even if you select YUV, it converts to RGB then converts back)
RGB to YUV is lossless in both directions.
But you lose the overtones
Resolved by using a Monster HDMI cable.
You really are on the wrong website, dude. This is absolutely "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters."
You do have to admit that there would be a ton of people purchasing the kit for no other reason than to save $3
Those people are idiots. The time taken to unpackage the damn thing would cost more than $3, even if you did it with a can of hair spray and a Zippo.
This should absolutely not be a kit. If you want to build your own gear, there's Arduino.
If it was WoW that got shut down we'd have impotent nerd rage in the MMO Champion forums...
FTFY.
Not applicable. That's in-game mechanics. This is real life extortion.
If you sit on Ama-gank-me gate passive tanking the guns and bubble some noob flying through in his new AF, that's all part of the game. If you go around to his house and demand 100m ISK and all his faction modules or you'll beat him with a wrecking bar, that would be a similar to this situation.
Besides, natural justice is the law in Eve. If you get ganked, you fleet up and go get some revenge.
28,000,000 / 800,000,000 = 0.035 Watts/user
If they only had one data centre.
They have a European data centre in Sweden, and has at least nine across the US
br.That's still only 0.35W per user, but an order of magnitude is huge no matter who you ask.
B) You may as well argue that people who don't lock their front door should be charged with a crime because someone steals from them. Because, that is exactly what you are doing.
No, I wouldn't expect that. What I would expect, however, is that if they are at work and they fail to secure their workstation when they leave their desk, that they are held accountable for any data loss through that connection. The Military isn't a home user, it's a government entity which frequently deals with highly sensitive information (none if which was accessed by McKinnon, BTW). I would expect, nay demand that those responsible for maintaining the security of those systems be investigated for incompetence. At the very least, this should merit dismissal for gross misconduct (as it would in the private sector).
They'll end up out of business if people wise-up and start doing this en masse. Quite frequently these discounted products are sold at a loss to bring people into the store. Hopefully they'll buy full price goods while they're there. If they're not buying the full price goods as well as the discounted goods, the company will go bust anyway.
Convenience is all they have going for them; All of your shopping in one location.
I got your "angry customers" right here
People want their shiny shiny. You could punch them in the face as they leave the store, and they'd still come back to save 2c on the dollar.
from the quoted article: "(For statistical reasons, I chose to use figures that include mining and utilities as part of manufacturing.)"
i'd like to know those statistical reasons.
The same reason anyone else picks favourable numbers for their statistics; It proves their point.
Why take the chance? Put the US on your own personal No-Fly list.
True. However, do you believe that a habitual copyright infringer (or a habitual used game buyer, for that matter) would buy many new games? Or would they spend their money on other stuff?
You are precariously close to the Broken Window fallacy with that one. A pirate / habitual used game purchaser is not a loss to the publisher, as they are not a sale, yet the pirate has money to spend elsewhere. This is a net gain to "society", not a loss.
I would think that the market would generally be divided up into a group of people who primarilly buy new games, and a group of people who primarilly infringe copyright or buy used. I'm not sure that preventing the second group from buying used games will tend to move them into the first group.
I disagree, but for reasons which are not relevant to the discussion. I believe that better service will move pirates to customers, as Valve have demonstrated.
No. The publisher is attempting to prevent resale of used games. The second hand seller still has the game, but cannot sell it (e.g. it has non-transferrable DRM, etc).
This is a "known loss" to the second hand seller, and therefore moot. They accept the inability to not resell the goods, or they decide not to buy the goods.
The second hand seller has less money to spend on games because they can't sell their used games any more - this means that they can't give the publisher as much money (they will buy cheaper games or fewer games).
This is a loss to the publisher. Less games sold second hand means less money to pay for new games. As you say, this means less new sales for the publisher. Alternatively, the second hand seller may be pushed into the position of a pirate, which again is a loss to the publisher. In this limited situation, the only gain for the publisher is to allow second hand sales (I understand that it is actually more complicated than this).
The pirate still has the money he saved by pirating the second hand game instead of buying it to pay for a different game. The second hand seller still has his game to sell. The publisher has lost nothing as neither transaction included them, yet both the second hand seller and the pirate are still in a position to buy from the publisher.
I've said this a few times on /. and I'll say it again; I would not have watched House had I not been able to stream the first episode from Megaupload (Thanks, Kimble! Megacar was awesome!)
Two years later, and I own all 7 series released on DVD so far, and I'll own series 8 on release day. Why? Because I fucking LOVE that show, and I'll pay to see it. Would I have known that I would enjoy it so much if I hadn't seen it on Megavideo? No, because I don't watch TV, much less pay for a Sky subscription.
So, as again I have said before, stick that in your piracy losses spreadsheet, Big Media Conglomerate.
Cyanogenmod allows you to restrict permissions on a per-app basis, but not at each launch. For per-launch permission management, LBE Privacy Guard is the most popular product (which I use on Cyanogenmod 7.1 on my Desire HD). I also have Lookout installed, but only as an anti-malware solution. I've no idea how effective it is, though, as I don't download LOLZ2URFONE FREE!!!1one apps from shady sources. The only test of Android AV solutions I've seen excluded Lookout, specifically because it was much more popular than the rest. I won't link it, as it's next to useless from an information-gathering perspective, and I'm getting off-topic.
So don't buy it. Seriously, just don't buy it. When enough people are as irritated as you are by these shenanigans, they'll stop buying it too, and companies will go bust.
Just stop buying.
I'm one step ahead of you!
Have at it, boys!
Ahhh... I read "22 member states had signed ACTA" and assumed the worst. More fool me. Now I've read the back-story to that, I'm a little less irate.
Fuck you very much, samzenpus, for your once again inflammatory stub posting. kdawson would be proud.