For most families it would be more like "Oh, so you want a home, a way to get to work, health care AND food".
10,000-15,000 really will break most average people. Byt I guess to assholes like you, they can just go to hell as long ans you've got yours, right?
My first reaction to seeing a 10-15K / year number is - screw insurance, invest that cash! In ten years you can afford to pay that 100K med bill from your savings, for Pete's sake!
For as a point of comparison, my health insurance in Canada (in Alberta - not known for it's quality healthcare) runs less than $100 a month for a family of three. (And that's counting the half my company pays in). And that also includes glasses, dental, and a host of upkeep-type benefits, in addition to the "OMG I'm dying" coverage.)
And with such industrious countries as Liberia & Myanmar that aren't on Metric yet.
UK isn't really on the metric either -- not 100%. Grams / kilos seems to have taken root for lots of things; but most people still measure their weight in stone, for crying out loud. Speed limits and distance signs are still done in miles; pubs still serve pints. Temperature is measured in Celcius, and the younger generation don't have a "sense" for what numbers in Fahrenheit are. Things on the order of a meter are measured in meters, but feet are still bandied about quite a bit.
It's the same here in Canada. Partly because the older generation still thinks of things in Imperial (and teach that to their kids), and partly because of American Imperial Influence (pun absolutely intended).
At a glance, I'd say we're pretty much on Celsius over Fahrenheit, liters are beating gallons, and kgs over pounds (except for someone's weight). Lengths are hit and miss: distances are kilometers, but heights are feet/inches. And metric just doesn't supply good replacements for cups and ounces.
[q]Microsoft doesn't own it yet. This is all Skype.[/q]
And between this and the rumor they have quietly fired important execs right before the deal with Microsoft is finalized... makes you wonder if they're purposefuly trying to sabotage it.
As the article says, the presumption is that they're getting rid of execs to prep the company for buyout (less execs means less expensive payouts, or at least less payouts on MS's dime). And if you've ditched all the talent, don't be surprised if the remaining suckers start making poor decisions.
For me, living far away from most of my long-time friends, it's nice to be able to passively catch up with them. If you disagree with me, then you are a heartless bastard.;-)
That's about where I am with Facebook - a low-maintenance way to keep up with old high-school/university friends that doesn't require exceptional effort on either person's part. (Essentially the digital form of bumping into them on the street and having a two-minute "what's up!" chat).
The pyramid-scheme games ("get one more friend to sign up and we'll let you play our game more!") and the companies begging for "likes" everywhere.. I happily live without most of that.
True, you can charge for GPLed code. But as you note, you're usually really paying for hardware or support since you can't differentiate on the software.
I still think he cannot force them to release their code under the GPL. They can just say "no", and then he has the right to sue them and will win, making them pay damages and making them stop distributing their product.
I think the logic is thusly:
The gadget is either using GPLed code under a valid license (which means they can't prevent others from modifying it, thus they lose), or they are not using it under a valid license (which means that they're vulnerable to infringement claims themselves, and depending on exactly which bits were being modified, they might not have standing to protest in the first place).
To the second point I will argue that without copyright, everything looks like a BSD license or public - that is, a "here's the code, do whatever you want with it" license - so why don't people just use the BSD license? It's precisely because the authors of GPL software want to put restrictions on how people use their stuff.
That's true, but only in a very narrow sense. BSD is "freer" (less restrictions), but I believe it's more open to abuse - specifically, the kinds of abuse you see when people try to cheat around the GPL. Specifically, these cases where companies take the free code, stuff it in a box, tweak a line or two and magically lock it back down again. The reason I prefer GPL to BSD is simple - just because *I* don't want to make money from my code doesn't mean I'm OK with *you* making money from my code. GPL says "I'm giving this to you for free, because I'm nice - all I ask is that you do the same". It doesn't even prevent you from paying me for a "full rights" version that you can tweak and lock down. But if you don't want to pay for it, you can't make others pay for it.
I might have agreed with you before the lawyers got involved. But AVM have changed their position several times in response to gpl-violations.org complaints. They can no longer claim ignorance.
The changing positions also signal that they're more interested in winning than being right. Which puts them firmly in the "bad guy" camp.
I'm disappointed that the judge didn't slap them around a bit for working their way through three contradictory theories.
Q: Will players use two touchscreen controllers or will they use just one new controller and the original Wii controls with the new console?
Our basic premise is that you can use one with a system. If we got to an idea of having multiple (controllers) it might be just more convenient for people to use their Nintendo 3DS and have a way to connect that.
That being said, we are doing research about if someone brings their controller to their friends house and they want to play together on Wii U to whether or not something like that would be possible.
No way to know for sure, but it doesn't sound like a terribly hard limit - the article says "at launch" twice, for instance. And the quote implies that it could be a business decision, rather than a technical one - "it might just be more convenient" doesn't sound like "it's impossible".
But since the console is a year away, who knows what the thing will do when it comes out.
Except we're not discussing software application, but money. So a comparison of two methods of storing "currency" (BitCoin wallets vs. USD wallets) is valid.
There's no mention in the article that the BitCoin application was the vulnerable point in the hack, so the merits of the application are irrelevant to the merits of BitCoin.
Saying "BitCoin isn't secure" isn't much of an argument, either (I could go Wiki around to find the proper Latin). Question is, "is it more secure than other means of holding currency (particularly digitally)?". And I haven't seen any particular reason why a BitCoin would be more vulnerable to theft than say, your credit card information.
Well... on the flip side, couldn't you wear an IR thing to prevent people from photographing you?
Probably, but I would expect that any cameras that you'd want to prevent from photographing you (security, journalist, paparazzi) won't respect the IR signal.
So, when the cops are beating someone, will they be deploying or wearing these nifty IR devices to prevent us, the general public from filming them?!?!?
I mean, aside from the lameness of this, fixing a problem that isn't there....what about the abuses of this?
Oh, I'd expect to see this "feature" deployed damned near everywhere. Museums, theme parks, schools, jails... yeah, I'd be amused to see where you *would* be allowed to take a picture once this was commonplace.
I suspect this is a defensive patent, though - being the first with "third-party deactivation" is a sure way to tank market share (yes, yes, Apple does lots of dumb-ass things that hose security - but generally not as overt as a user getting told "no, you may not take this picture").
If we got to an idea of having multiple (controllers) it might be just more convenient for people to use their Nintendo 3DS and have a way to connect that
I interpret that as "we're launching with support for one controller so we don't crank the cost of the machine any higher than necessary - we can always up the limit later". If memory serves, there was already a few references to football games using the touchscreen to select plays, and you'd definitely need 1/player for that to make any sense.
Tu quoque arguments appear to be very common when the subject of Bitcoin comes up.
Only because it's the appropriate rebuttal. There's plenty of legitimate reasons to dislike or distrust Bitcoin - why focus on the ones that are a common issue for every physical or digital object in existence?
Might as well claim that bikes aren't usable because one was stolen, so you'll stick with your skateboard instead.
Disclosure: I find the concept of bitcoins interesting (mostly in the "digital money that doesn't require me to give my life story" way), but don't own any myself.
Unless the markup on a Wii was less than $9 that's still coming out of profit. And as others have said, compare that to the costs of designing and tooling factories to produce your bespoke disks and the difference is certainly going to be even less.
But I suspect Nintendo would happily prefer to spend that $9 on themselves (or on their factories), rather than giving Sony a cut of all their products.
Sony, on the other hand, would love to be able to make a profit on every console Nintendo and Microsoft makes.
The problems here are threefold in the normal bitcoin client:
The wallet in bitcoin is not encrypted. It's plaintext.
The wallet is stored in a predictable location, %APPDATA%/bitcoin/wallet.dat
There is nothing tying the wallet to a particular machine (e.g. encryption).
As such all one would need to do is steal the wallet, either through a trojan or possibly even a browser exploit (which guessed the APPDATA path by trying someone's likely login id) and that is that. Their copy of the wallet can initiate the transaction as readily as the original.
Well, let's compare these problems with the US Dollar:
The wallet in Dollars is not encrypted, but plaintext. (If you have physical access to a wallet, you can easily count how much money is in it.)
Wallets are stored in predicable locations (pants pockets, purses, on top of the dresser).
There is nothing tying a particular wallet to a particular user.
As such all one would need to do is steal the wallet (pickpockets through the ages can tell you how), and you've also removed the owner's copy of the wallet as well.
All these problems can be mitigated, in both cases. (Physical cash can be stored in safes or banks; BitCoins can be stored on offline media.) One isn't specifically less secure than the other at this point.
To my mind, this isn't a story about "OMG BitCoins can be stolen". This is a story about "OMG someone thought BitCoins were worth stealing".
Obvious answer - only the super rich can afford to run. They also have the connections to parlay their position into future earnings once they're out of office.
Hell, just to run for mayor in town here ends up costing about $100K, alderman runs about half that. Either you're rich enough to pay all that outright (in which case, why are you screwing around in local politics?), or you have to take donations and loans from people who expect their "interest" to pay paid in favors once you're in.
The older I get, the more I see that being elected is a sucker's bet - far better to spend that money on the guy who *will* be elected, and call in the favors later.
Except that banning guns is a good idea that is implemented in most western countries, with good results (compare the US with the rest).
Except that guns don't have a use other than shooting things. Since there are very few "good" times to shoot at something, and even fewer that require easy access to a weapon. Therefore, I don't have a lot of objections to restricting where and how guns can be used.
This is different from banning them, by the way - I have lots of family who live in rural areas, and a gun is a useful tool. And oddly, I find the people who have the greatest use for a gun (hunters, farmers, people who live waay out in the boonies) are generally *far* more accepting of sane restrictions (keep it unloaded, keep it locked up) than the city folks who just like the fairy tale of bloodless shootouts.
No. They mean "malicious software designed to create botnets or unrightfully obtained computer passwords." The wording is certainly vague, but that wouldn't include text editor or compilers.
A text editor or a compiler is certainly "software designed to create botnets".
Someone needs to remind these people that when you call the AMA to get you back into your car, they're using the exact same tool that thieves use to break into your car. The tool is just that - a tool, with no more malicious intent than your pencil. [1]
[1] not applicable if you possess a haunted or otherwise cursed pencil
I can't believe this is on slashdot. They control it using long wires? Man, if they had some wireless stuff going on with an Arduino or something, then it would be news. Long wires are sooo 1990's./sarcasm
Sarcasm aside, it shows a certain level of sophistication and planning. Hardwires can't be jammed, can't be detected, and are far more reliable.
The only downside I can see is limited range (which doesn't appear to be an issue with their use case) and that you can follow the wire back to the controller (which leads to interesting ambush possibilities).
"They say we're bringing democracy to Iraq. I can't wait to see how we do it."
Re:This is confusing, a little
on
Righthaven Loses
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
So a company can't hire a third party law firm to blanket sue? Based on the previous slashdot story and TFA, that's the gist of what this is saying. A copyright holder can't have a generic contract with a litigation firm; they must hire them under contract to sue on their behalf in a specific case.
As I understand it, the ruling is that you can't split off the "right to sue" from the actual copyright - either you have the rights to the property (and can thus sue to defend those rights), or you don't.
Slashdot Mirror
For most families it would be more like "Oh, so you want a home, a way to get to work, health care AND food".
10,000-15,000 really will break most average people. Byt I guess to assholes like you, they can just go to hell as long ans you've got yours, right?
My first reaction to seeing a 10-15K / year number is - screw insurance, invest that cash! In ten years you can afford to pay that 100K med bill from your savings, for Pete's sake!
For as a point of comparison, my health insurance in Canada (in Alberta - not known for it's quality healthcare) runs less than $100 a month for a family of three. (And that's counting the half my company pays in). And that also includes glasses, dental, and a host of upkeep-type benefits, in addition to the "OMG I'm dying" coverage.)
UK isn't really on the metric either -- not 100%. Grams / kilos seems to have taken root for lots of things; but most people still measure their weight in stone, for crying out loud. Speed limits and distance signs are still done in miles; pubs still serve pints. Temperature is measured in Celcius, and the younger generation don't have a "sense" for what numbers in Fahrenheit are. Things on the order of a meter are measured in meters, but feet are still bandied about quite a bit.
It's the same here in Canada. Partly because the older generation still thinks of things in Imperial (and teach that to their kids), and partly because of American Imperial Influence (pun absolutely intended).
At a glance, I'd say we're pretty much on Celsius over Fahrenheit, liters are beating gallons, and kgs over pounds (except for someone's weight). Lengths are hit and miss: distances are kilometers, but heights are feet/inches. And metric just doesn't supply good replacements for cups and ounces.
[q]Microsoft doesn't own it yet. This is all Skype.[/q]
And between this and the rumor they have quietly fired important execs right before the deal with Microsoft is finalized... makes you wonder if they're purposefuly trying to sabotage it.
As the article says, the presumption is that they're getting rid of execs to prep the company for buyout (less execs means less expensive payouts, or at least less payouts on MS's dime). And if you've ditched all the talent, don't be surprised if the remaining suckers start making poor decisions.
For me, living far away from most of my long-time friends, it's nice to be able to passively catch up with them. If you disagree with me, then you are a heartless bastard. ;-)
That's about where I am with Facebook - a low-maintenance way to keep up with old high-school/university friends that doesn't require exceptional effort on either person's part. (Essentially the digital form of bumping into them on the street and having a two-minute "what's up!" chat).
The pyramid-scheme games ("get one more friend to sign up and we'll let you play our game more!") and the companies begging for "likes" everywhere.. I happily live without most of that.
True, you can charge for GPLed code. But as you note, you're usually really paying for hardware or support since you can't differentiate on the software.
I still think he cannot force them to release their code under the GPL. They can just say "no", and then he has the right to sue them and will win, making them pay damages and making them stop distributing their product.
I think the logic is thusly:
The gadget is either using GPLed code under a valid license (which means they can't prevent others from modifying it, thus they lose), or they are not using it under a valid license (which means that they're vulnerable to infringement claims themselves, and depending on exactly which bits were being modified, they might not have standing to protest in the first place).
To the second point I will argue that without copyright, everything looks like a BSD license or public - that is, a "here's the code, do whatever you want with it" license - so why don't people just use the BSD license? It's precisely because the authors of GPL software want to put restrictions on how people use their stuff.
That's true, but only in a very narrow sense. BSD is "freer" (less restrictions), but I believe it's more open to abuse - specifically, the kinds of abuse you see when people try to cheat around the GPL. Specifically, these cases where companies take the free code, stuff it in a box, tweak a line or two and magically lock it back down again. The reason I prefer GPL to BSD is simple - just because *I* don't want to make money from my code doesn't mean I'm OK with *you* making money from my code. GPL says "I'm giving this to you for free, because I'm nice - all I ask is that you do the same". It doesn't even prevent you from paying me for a "full rights" version that you can tweak and lock down. But if you don't want to pay for it, you can't make others pay for it.
I might have agreed with you before the lawyers got involved. But AVM have changed their position several times in response to gpl-violations.org complaints. They can no longer claim ignorance.
The changing positions also signal that they're more interested in winning than being right. Which puts them firmly in the "bad guy" camp.
I'm disappointed that the judge didn't slap them around a bit for working their way through three contradictory theories.
No way to know for sure, but it doesn't sound like a terribly hard limit - the article says "at launch" twice, for instance. And the quote implies that it could be a business decision, rather than a technical one - "it might just be more convenient" doesn't sound like "it's impossible".
But since the console is a year away, who knows what the thing will do when it comes out.
Except we're not discussing software application, but money. So a comparison of two methods of storing "currency" (BitCoin wallets vs. USD wallets) is valid.
There's no mention in the article that the BitCoin application was the vulnerable point in the hack, so the merits of the application are irrelevant to the merits of BitCoin.
Saying "BitCoin isn't secure" isn't much of an argument, either (I could go Wiki around to find the proper Latin). Question is, "is it more secure than other means of holding currency (particularly digitally)?". And I haven't seen any particular reason why a BitCoin would be more vulnerable to theft than say, your credit card information.
Well... on the flip side, couldn't you wear an IR thing to prevent people from photographing you?
Probably, but I would expect that any cameras that you'd want to prevent from photographing you (security, journalist, paparazzi) won't respect the IR signal.
So, when the cops are beating someone, will they be deploying or wearing these nifty IR devices to prevent us, the general public from filming them?!?!?
I mean, aside from the lameness of this, fixing a problem that isn't there....what about the abuses of this?
Oh, I'd expect to see this "feature" deployed damned near everywhere. Museums, theme parks, schools, jails... yeah, I'd be amused to see where you *would* be allowed to take a picture once this was commonplace.
I suspect this is a defensive patent, though - being the first with "third-party deactivation" is a sure way to tank market share (yes, yes, Apple does lots of dumb-ass things that hose security - but generally not as overt as a user getting told "no, you may not take this picture").
I'd read the emphasis there as "at launch":
If we got to an idea of having multiple (controllers) it might be just more convenient for people to use their Nintendo 3DS and have a way to connect that
I interpret that as "we're launching with support for one controller so we don't crank the cost of the machine any higher than necessary - we can always up the limit later". If memory serves, there was already a few references to football games using the touchscreen to select plays, and you'd definitely need 1/player for that to make any sense.
Tu quoque arguments appear to be very common when the subject of Bitcoin comes up.
Only because it's the appropriate rebuttal. There's plenty of legitimate reasons to dislike or distrust Bitcoin - why focus on the ones that are a common issue for every physical or digital object in existence?
Might as well claim that bikes aren't usable because one was stolen, so you'll stick with your skateboard instead.
Disclosure: I find the concept of bitcoins interesting (mostly in the "digital money that doesn't require me to give my life story" way), but don't own any myself.
Unless the markup on a Wii was less than $9 that's still coming out of profit. And as others have said, compare that to the costs of designing and tooling factories to produce your bespoke disks and the difference is certainly going to be even less.
But I suspect Nintendo would happily prefer to spend that $9 on themselves (or on their factories), rather than giving Sony a cut of all their products.
Sony, on the other hand, would love to be able to make a profit on every console Nintendo and Microsoft makes.
And if you want to see how quickly the US currency becomes devalued, simply encourage your congresscritter to vote against raising the dept limit.
The problems here are threefold in the normal bitcoin client:
As such all one would need to do is steal the wallet, either through a trojan or possibly even a browser exploit (which guessed the APPDATA path by trying someone's likely login id) and that is that. Their copy of the wallet can initiate the transaction as readily as the original.
Well, let's compare these problems with the US Dollar:
As such all one would need to do is steal the wallet (pickpockets through the ages can tell you how), and you've also removed the owner's copy of the wallet as well.
All these problems can be mitigated, in both cases. (Physical cash can be stored in safes or banks; BitCoins can be stored on offline media.) One isn't specifically less secure than the other at this point.
To my mind, this isn't a story about "OMG BitCoins can be stolen". This is a story about "OMG someone thought BitCoins were worth stealing".
Why do you only elect the super rich?
Obvious answer - only the super rich can afford to run. They also have the connections to parlay their position into future earnings once they're out of office.
Hell, just to run for mayor in town here ends up costing about $100K, alderman runs about half that. Either you're rich enough to pay all that outright (in which case, why are you screwing around in local politics?), or you have to take donations and loans from people who expect their "interest" to pay paid in favors once you're in.
The older I get, the more I see that being elected is a sucker's bet - far better to spend that money on the guy who *will* be elected, and call in the favors later.
Except that banning guns is a good idea that is implemented in most western countries, with good results (compare the US with the rest).
Except that guns don't have a use other than shooting things. Since there are very few "good" times to shoot at something, and even fewer that require easy access to a weapon. Therefore, I don't have a lot of objections to restricting where and how guns can be used.
This is different from banning them, by the way - I have lots of family who live in rural areas, and a gun is a useful tool. And oddly, I find the people who have the greatest use for a gun (hunters, farmers, people who live waay out in the boonies) are generally *far* more accepting of sane restrictions (keep it unloaded, keep it locked up) than the city folks who just like the fairy tale of bloodless shootouts.
But oddly, people have no problems keeping a difference between "freedom fighter" and "terrorist" straight...
No. They mean "malicious software designed to create botnets or unrightfully obtained computer passwords." The wording is certainly vague, but that wouldn't include text editor or compilers.
A text editor or a compiler is certainly "software designed to create botnets".
Someone needs to remind these people that when you call the AMA to get you back into your car, they're using the exact same tool that thieves use to break into your car. The tool is just that - a tool, with no more malicious intent than your pencil. [1]
[1] not applicable if you possess a haunted or otherwise cursed pencil
I can't believe this is on slashdot. They control it using long wires? Man, if they had some wireless stuff going on with an Arduino or something, then it would be news. Long wires are sooo 1990's. /sarcasm
Sarcasm aside, it shows a certain level of sophistication and planning. Hardwires can't be jammed, can't be detected, and are far more reliable.
The only downside I can see is limited range (which doesn't appear to be an issue with their use case) and that you can follow the wire back to the controller (which leads to interesting ambush possibilities).
"They say we're bringing democracy to Iraq. I can't wait to see how we do it."
So a company can't hire a third party law firm to blanket sue? Based on the previous slashdot story and TFA, that's the gist of what this is saying. A copyright holder can't have a generic contract with a litigation firm; they must hire them under contract to sue on their behalf in a specific case.
As I understand it, the ruling is that you can't split off the "right to sue" from the actual copyright - either you have the rights to the property (and can thus sue to defend those rights), or you don't.