This one is my favorite. Why any retailer is running Windows on a POS PC is beyond anyone that knows how computers work. It should be illegal.
So you're saying that you're a security by obscurity advocate then.
Not running on an embedded Windows installation might seem like a safe bet, but as TFA mentions, this vector had to do with processing the payments in the clear -- simply running another OS doesn't necessarily give you that for free.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that they release new titles on iOS or Android, but they have an enormous catalogue of older titles to capitalize on. 3DS hardware sells because of new 3DS software, not because of thousands of back catalogue titles.
Kinda like how other warrants relating to the 4th amendment are executed when there's a suspicion that the prior notification of such a writ could endanger the evidence sought or those executing the order?
'There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.' - John Adams, 1980 http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Adams#Quotes
Um, don't the republicans hold a majority in the House of Representatives? Didn't the voters choose to give them the power to run that aspect of the country? And isn't the House of Representatives part of the trifecta of elected federal government? This isn't something where one party holding two of the elements of power 'wins' - particularly when the position of president is so weak.
I'm not an American, so maybe I'm wrong here, but I'm pretty sure you can't simply point at the Republicans and blame them for this when your citizens elected them.
For someone who agrees with his overall point, it missed your head by a mile or two. Try looking up the definition of 'asynchronous'.
His point is that the sender may know someone is driving but expect that driver to show reasonable judgement before reading or responding. Simply knowing someone is driving shouldn't hold the sender liable. My wife sends me text messages frequently while I'm driving, but that doesn't mean I whip out my phone to check it immediately upon alert.
I'm convicted of committing a crime that I did not commit. During the legal process I am questioned and, because I have no right to remain silent, I must tell the investigators/prosecution/whomever that I did not do it (truth). That denial is then used against me during sentencing because I 'lied' and thus I receive a harsh sentence.
In a world in which I have the right to remain silent, I say nothing during the legal process. While I'm still incorrectly found guilty, I have no denial on which to pin a lie and therefore am sentenced more lightly.
I'll no doubt get modded down for this, but why can't it be a new product category? Why does everything have to be considered either a laptop or a iPad?
What about all the identity theft that happens? Or online bullying? Wouldn't it be easier just to ban tech devices entirely? Would that satisfy your odd urge for knee-jerk regulation?
And ignores the fact that once published, there's no reliable corrective mechanism to propagate those results down beyond a standard literature search. I'm posting as AC because quite a few years ago I published results that I believed at the time to be correct, but were shown to be wrong in a subsequent paper. Despite this, I'm *still* being cited in new papers while the paper that refuted mine is seldom cited. Science isn't some infallible field. We make mistakes; Sometimes those mistakes are accidental, sometimes they're sloppy, and yes, sometimes they're even intentional. That doesn't reduce the validity of science, but it requires us to be more vigilant.
Claiming credit is not a predicate for receiving a reward. The reward in such a case may simply be feeling good about yourself. Don't confuse that with altruism.
Assume my income is high enough that I'm not only paying for the services I receive but that I'm also paying extra. Please explain to me how I'm not being forced to be charitable - and while you're at it, explain to me what ultimately happens if I refuse to 'donate' this extra amount. You've got the most creative use of the word 'disincentivized' of anyone I've ever seen.:)
Semantics aside, this report is actually pretty cool.
Define 'good money' and someone will still decide that they're worth more.
Besides, there's no evidence that a developer leaked it intentionally. If that were the case, I would have expected to see the source code likewise leaked. Rather, my guess would be that it was leaked by someone who was given a dev copy. Now whether this leak was intentional or inadvertent is another matter altogether.
Slashdot Mirror
This one is my favorite. Why any retailer is running Windows on a POS PC is beyond anyone that knows how computers work. It should be illegal.
So you're saying that you're a security by obscurity advocate then.
Not running on an embedded Windows installation might seem like a safe bet, but as TFA mentions, this vector had to do with processing the payments in the clear -- simply running another OS doesn't necessarily give you that for free.
And of course that was the wrong quote. Epic :) Good job, me!
>Except for the problem that being a single parent is 100% an individual choice for individuals born with their reproductive systems on the inside.
Way to generalize and automagically convict via the 'Think of the Children' Act anyone who suggests a cut to food programs.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that they release new titles on iOS or Android, but they have an enormous catalogue of older titles to capitalize on. 3DS hardware sells because of new 3DS software, not because of thousands of back catalogue titles.
Kinda like how other warrants relating to the 4th amendment are executed when there's a suspicion that the prior notification of such a writ could endanger the evidence sought or those executing the order?
You speak as if this is something new.
'There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.' - John Adams, 1980 http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Adams#Quotes
Um, don't the republicans hold a majority in the House of Representatives? Didn't the voters choose to give them the power to run that aspect of the country? And isn't the House of Representatives part of the trifecta of elected federal government? This isn't something where one party holding two of the elements of power 'wins' - particularly when the position of president is so weak.
I'm not an American, so maybe I'm wrong here, but I'm pretty sure you can't simply point at the Republicans and blame them for this when your citizens elected them.
They'll also send a W2.
For someone who agrees with his overall point, it missed your head by a mile or two. Try looking up the definition of 'asynchronous'.
His point is that the sender may know someone is driving but expect that driver to show reasonable judgement before reading or responding. Simply knowing someone is driving shouldn't hold the sender liable. My wife sends me text messages frequently while I'm driving, but that doesn't mean I whip out my phone to check it immediately upon alert.
I'm convicted of committing a crime that I did not commit. During the legal process I am questioned and, because I have no right to remain silent, I must tell the investigators/prosecution/whomever that I did not do it (truth). That denial is then used against me during sentencing because I 'lied' and thus I receive a harsh sentence.
In a world in which I have the right to remain silent, I say nothing during the legal process. While I'm still incorrectly found guilty, I have no denial on which to pin a lie and therefore am sentenced more lightly.
Careful, that arbitrary Crayola is a bitch to get out of clothing.
Shame that a book can also be an 'entertainment product'. But we don't need to defend those, do we?
At this scale? That'd be interesting.
+1
I'd love an upgrade to my precious Kindle Keyboard 3G.
Please AC, provide an alternative that isn't merely a synonym of either of those words.
One word: patents.
I'll no doubt get modded down for this, but why can't it be a new product category? Why does everything have to be considered either a laptop or a iPad?
What about all the identity theft that happens? Or online bullying? Wouldn't it be easier just to ban tech devices entirely? Would that satisfy your odd urge for knee-jerk regulation?
Because there are no phony identities on Facebook or anything.
Crap. I only thought I was posting as AC. Doh! :)
And ignores the fact that once published, there's no reliable corrective mechanism to propagate those results down beyond a standard literature search. I'm posting as AC because quite a few years ago I published results that I believed at the time to be correct, but were shown to be wrong in a subsequent paper. Despite this, I'm *still* being cited in new papers while the paper that refuted mine is seldom cited. Science isn't some infallible field. We make mistakes; Sometimes those mistakes are accidental, sometimes they're sloppy, and yes, sometimes they're even intentional. That doesn't reduce the validity of science, but it requires us to be more vigilant.
This. +4 million
Or that fewer younger players are being inducted.
Claiming credit is not a predicate for receiving a reward. The reward in such a case may simply be feeling good about yourself. Don't confuse that with altruism.
Assume my income is high enough that I'm not only paying for the services I receive but that I'm also paying extra. Please explain to me how I'm not being forced to be charitable - and while you're at it, explain to me what ultimately happens if I refuse to 'donate' this extra amount. You've got the most creative use of the word 'disincentivized' of anyone I've ever seen. :)
Semantics aside, this report is actually pretty cool.
Define 'good money' and someone will still decide that they're worth more. Besides, there's no evidence that a developer leaked it intentionally. If that were the case, I would have expected to see the source code likewise leaked. Rather, my guess would be that it was leaked by someone who was given a dev copy. Now whether this leak was intentional or inadvertent is another matter altogether.