If you want to be that nickpicky about something that was supposed to be a joke in the first place, I'll note that kasvotkunnia.com does not exist either (Faceglory's primary domain is a.com). And I'll also note that querying TLD registrar databases using the whois tool will return results for all domains that have been registered (i.e. bought), not just those that are, to use your word, "active".
You're not married to my husband. Two weeks after he gets a new phone, it looks like he's run it through the clothes dryer in a box of rocks. I don't know how he does it.
I can't speak for the Windows and Linux versions, but I know from Little Snitch that the Mac version attempts to talk to port 443 on their webserver when it starts up, presumably for an update check. Additionally, it attempts to contact doubleclick.net and googleapis.com when you search for location. I just block all this traffic and haven't seen any adverse effects.
Thanks for the pointers to g.lux and redshift. I'll check those out and see if they offer anything better for me.
f.lux isn't designed for outdoor use (although there's no reason you couldn't use it there). The idea is that the light coming off your screen matches the colour temperature of the natural light you'd be receiving if you were outdoors (and whatever might be coming through your windows), so that your brain's neurochemistry (melatonin in particular) matches what it should be doing at that time of day, helping you maintain a natural circadian rhythm, which it seems to accomplish in spades.
I use f.lux on my MacBook and it's great (also available for Windows and Linux, but I haven't tried those versions). It adjusts the colour temperature of the screen, using your location and the time of day, to match the colour temperature of the natural light of that time of day. I have noticed a significant difference in the quality of my sleep since I started using it. Plus, whenever I happen to get up during the night and want use the computer for something, I'm not blinded by the screen.
You're missing the point. They didn't choose not to show the movie because of a terrorist threat. They chose not to show the movie because it would cost them money. Regardless of what they say, they are not taking the threat seriously. What they are taking seriously is the number of customers who would choose not to come see The Interview, and particularly the number of customers who would choose not to come see anything at a theatre that is merely showing The Interview, out of fear for their own safety. The potential for empty theatre complexes for an entire holiday season scared the shit out of the theatres, and they made the safe financial decision.
Their reaction has nothing to do with terrorism, and everything to do with the almighty dollar. Claming it's a reaction to the terrorist threat is merely the popular way to present the financial decision to the terrorist-sensitive public.
Everybody's said it already, but here's another vote for Anker. I've bought batteries from them for three phones and they've all been great, and if you read Amazon reviews, you'll find their customer service in the rare event of problems is second to none.
Except that in my example (which is my real life), water is not billed by consumption. My water comes with my rent, no matter how much I use. But I'm sure it's still "unlimited" just as "unlimited" net connections are. However, the leasing company doesn't tell me that I can use water to bathe, but not to make tea, so that's really where my comparison falls apart.
Regardless, the point was more about the renter of a property having some rights, even if unwise to exercise, to control the use of resources that are provided as an extra feature in a tenant's rent. In OP's situation, I think it would be unwise of the rental company to attempt to wield that power, but there's nothing legally to prevent them doing so.
If you provide network access as part of your rent, you provide network access as part of your rent, period.
It's not really that simple. My apartment provides water as part of my rent. If I start filling swimming pools, they're going to get upset. I realize this is more akin to data caps on internet access rather than net neutrality, but the point is that "providing network access" isn't completely cut and dry. If some service is provided with a property rental, and not billed separately by consumption, the renter does have some rights to restrict the use of said service, especially in cases where the tenant has other options to receive the same service himself, at his own expense.
However, blocking access to certain sites unless said sites pay up is akin to extortion, so I think it's a very bad idea. The points made by CrankyFool are exactly right. Big companies like Amazon and Netflix don't care if 35,000 people can't access them because of some apartment company's attempts at extortion. They will ignore the situation, accepting that those 35,000 people can't access them, and many of those 35,000 people will get pissed off at the property rental company and rebel in one way or another. It wouldn't be pretty, and in the end would only harm the property rental company, whose reputation would be damaged when they are painted by their own tenants as censors at the same time as those tenants circumvent or move.
They are definitely trying to make a profit, just not in the short term. Bezos has always had a very long term outlook when it comes to profit, and apparently his shareholders are okay with that.
Okay, maybe your post (if it was yours) wasn't a complaint, but I have seen this complaint time and again when it comes to companies like Amazon, as if we should expect big companies not to try to make a profit for their shareholders (which would be considered negligent). I think there are many more important things to be worried about (privacy being the most obvious) before people are concerned about capitalism being capitalist.
I am glad to see companies and individuals succeed, be it monetarily or otherwise, and I don't think we should let their success, or perhaps our own avarice, get in the way of asking the actually important questions about things like ethics, morals, and integrity.
Of course Amazon wants your money. They're a business trying to make a profit. There are plenty of things people can complain about when it comes to Amazon or to any of their competitors in this arena, so why do people keep complaining that Amazon is trying to make a profit for itself and its shareholders?
Slashdot Mirror
If you want to be that nickpicky about something that was supposed to be a joke in the first place, I'll note that kasvotkunnia.com does not exist either (Faceglory's primary domain is a .com). And I'll also note that querying TLD registrar databases using the whois tool will return results for all domains that have been registered (i.e. bought), not just those that are, to use your word, "active".
Fine.
I would have thought that was already a fetish site.
To be fair, Finnish is an impossible language.
You're not married to my husband. Two weeks after he gets a new phone, it looks like he's run it through the clothes dryer in a box of rocks. I don't know how he does it.
I like your affect.
Don't you mean boobies?
Heh, I almost thought of adding a disclaimer. No, I have nothing to do with the software. Just a happy user.
I can't speak for the Windows and Linux versions, but I know from Little Snitch that the Mac version attempts to talk to port 443 on their webserver when it starts up, presumably for an update check. Additionally, it attempts to contact doubleclick.net and googleapis.com when you search for location. I just block all this traffic and haven't seen any adverse effects.
Thanks for the pointers to g.lux and redshift. I'll check those out and see if they offer anything better for me.
f.lux isn't designed for outdoor use (although there's no reason you couldn't use it there). The idea is that the light coming off your screen matches the colour temperature of the natural light you'd be receiving if you were outdoors (and whatever might be coming through your windows), so that your brain's neurochemistry (melatonin in particular) matches what it should be doing at that time of day, helping you maintain a natural circadian rhythm, which it seems to accomplish in spades.
I use f.lux on my MacBook and it's great (also available for Windows and Linux, but I haven't tried those versions). It adjusts the colour temperature of the screen, using your location and the time of day, to match the colour temperature of the natural light of that time of day. I have noticed a significant difference in the quality of my sleep since I started using it. Plus, whenever I happen to get up during the night and want use the computer for something, I'm not blinded by the screen.
but what was emailed was not a physical object either.
Hence my pedantic preference for putting the quotes around the physical object.
Shouldn't that be "NASA Emails a 'Socket Wrench' to the ISS"? The realness of the email is not in question. The realness of the wrench is.
But since Sony has caved by deferring its release, Sony has joined the ranks of the chicken-droppings.
Sony didn't cave. Sony stood by their guns the whole time. It's the theatre chains who caved, so blame them, not Sony.
You're missing the point. They didn't choose not to show the movie because of a terrorist threat. They chose not to show the movie because it would cost them money. Regardless of what they say, they are not taking the threat seriously. What they are taking seriously is the number of customers who would choose not to come see The Interview, and particularly the number of customers who would choose not to come see anything at a theatre that is merely showing The Interview, out of fear for their own safety. The potential for empty theatre complexes for an entire holiday season scared the shit out of the theatres, and they made the safe financial decision.
Their reaction has nothing to do with terrorism, and everything to do with the almighty dollar. Claming it's a reaction to the terrorist threat is merely the popular way to present the financial decision to the terrorist-sensitive public.
The whole point of the chip is that it isn't copyable. That's not the delay.
It was cool in 1992.
Everybody's said it already, but here's another vote for Anker. I've bought batteries from them for three phones and they've all been great, and if you read Amazon reviews, you'll find their customer service in the rare event of problems is second to none.
Okay, that is a valid point. I wasn't thinking one level higher about the difference.
Except that in my example (which is my real life), water is not billed by consumption. My water comes with my rent, no matter how much I use. But I'm sure it's still "unlimited" just as "unlimited" net connections are. However, the leasing company doesn't tell me that I can use water to bathe, but not to make tea, so that's really where my comparison falls apart.
Regardless, the point was more about the renter of a property having some rights, even if unwise to exercise, to control the use of resources that are provided as an extra feature in a tenant's rent. In OP's situation, I think it would be unwise of the rental company to attempt to wield that power, but there's nothing legally to prevent them doing so.
If you provide network access as part of your rent, you provide network access as part of your rent, period.
It's not really that simple. My apartment provides water as part of my rent. If I start filling swimming pools, they're going to get upset. I realize this is more akin to data caps on internet access rather than net neutrality, but the point is that "providing network access" isn't completely cut and dry. If some service is provided with a property rental, and not billed separately by consumption, the renter does have some rights to restrict the use of said service, especially in cases where the tenant has other options to receive the same service himself, at his own expense.
However, blocking access to certain sites unless said sites pay up is akin to extortion, so I think it's a very bad idea. The points made by CrankyFool are exactly right. Big companies like Amazon and Netflix don't care if 35,000 people can't access them because of some apartment company's attempts at extortion. They will ignore the situation, accepting that those 35,000 people can't access them, and many of those 35,000 people will get pissed off at the property rental company and rebel in one way or another. It wouldn't be pretty, and in the end would only harm the property rental company, whose reputation would be damaged when they are painted by their own tenants as censors at the same time as those tenants circumvent or move.
I'm going to go with "he thinks he looks k00l if he can use words like 'telnet' and 'GET' on a Slashdot post".
They are definitely trying to make a profit, just not in the short term. Bezos has always had a very long term outlook when it comes to profit, and apparently his shareholders are okay with that.
Okay, maybe your post (if it was yours) wasn't a complaint, but I have seen this complaint time and again when it comes to companies like Amazon, as if we should expect big companies not to try to make a profit for their shareholders (which would be considered negligent). I think there are many more important things to be worried about (privacy being the most obvious) before people are concerned about capitalism being capitalist.
I am glad to see companies and individuals succeed, be it monetarily or otherwise, and I don't think we should let their success, or perhaps our own avarice, get in the way of asking the actually important questions about things like ethics, morals, and integrity.
Of course Amazon wants your money. They're a business trying to make a profit. There are plenty of things people can complain about when it comes to Amazon or to any of their competitors in this arena, so why do people keep complaining that Amazon is trying to make a profit for itself and its shareholders?