It's not like there's any useful information there after the 7th time you've heard it and read the info card out of boredom. Video/speech is a very slow, ineffecient way of transferring information compared to vanilla text. I find it ver yfrustartaing to be presented with a video to teach/explain something when simple text would do. Maybe hte reason those damn young ones on your lawn don't pay attention is because there's nothing useful being expressed.
Cell phones can mess with ground towers due to the speeds at which the planes are moving which is a reason to turn them off[line] (not like you're going to get good reception in a plane anyway)
To solve problems like this. No matter what Mark Z decides to Zuckerpunch my privacy settings into tomorrow or the next time he secretly changes them, or not matter what bullshit he opts me into, the rest of my webbrowsing (slashdot and wikipedia) will remain separate from FB's braindead "features".
I already removed almost all my personal info of course, but facebook is simply too big to close completely. It would close off a useful service. Again, it's not that I object to FB trying to make a profit to support a free service, I expect that. It's that I don't like being tricked and worn down into doing things I don't want.
This really is the right way to combat the massive piracy while not harassing people who want to backup their media, put it on more than one device, or possibly lend/give it to a friend or two. The fear of massive distribution would scare people off putting it online. Of course you want to make it known to the buyer that it contains watermarks, but not what kind.
Sure people/could/ remove them if they learned how, but they will be too lazy. Everybody wins.
Although I complain about privacy etc, the only one that's a deal breaker for me is the reliability problem where you need constant internet to access your data. It's fine with me if I can't IM people without internet (how would I anyway) or perform DNS lookups, but when I can't access my email, my calendar, my pictures, or my very documents, something is very fucked up.
I still don't get why people think this "cloud" thing is a step forward, given it means less privacy, less control, less reliability, and requires constant net access, not to mention shifting terms of service and the like. And for what? Cross-device access? I can see this being good for some people but I'll pass.
but won't this "activation" business complicate reinstallation onto new OS/computer? And what about the lack of LAN play?
Don't get me wrong, less intrusive DRM is better than more intrusive DRM and I laud both Blizzard's actions and words here, but don't the standard criticisms still apply: that it only hurts paying customers (though it hurts fewer of them than worse DRM) and is ineffective against pirates?
I do appreciate that they have the rudimentary form of an idea that results are an indicator of success. Sure, sure, I'd love it if they'd learn what variance and statistical tests do, but this is a baby step in the right direction.
Maybe if we ask people what they want and then give it to them, they will tell their friends, blog positively, continue to subscribe to our subscription-based service instead of wandering off in boredom.
The Internet makes a lot of things possible when it comes to unprecedented communication between suppliers and consumers. Of course, this only works if you believe your users know what they want.
"Everyone is born Christian. Only later in life do people choose to stray from Jesus and worship satan instead. Atheists have the greatest “cover” of all, they insist they believe in no god yet most polls done and the latest research indicates that they are actually a different sect of Muslims." --fstdt
It's not to get a rise out of htem, it's to demonstrate to a small minority of radicals that their extreme religious beliefs do not trump the free speech of others, and that the attempts of extremists to kill and censor such speech will not be tolerated by the world community.
Good plan if you're a terrorist/spy/etc. If you're someone who isn't breaking any laws he knows of but likes to protect his privacy, it's a bit too tinfoil. I'm safe from the NSA because I don't do anything they care about.
I seem to recall the party line is that the radiation from one of the scanners is about two minutes of flight time. Of course the government would never lie to use or misstate facts, would it?
We need to kill this thing but I don't think we can do so on safety grounds. Better to appeal to genital insecurity and think of the children panic, in my mind.
Both companies make it clear: MS will sell you a product for money, and now it appears they're being forthright about the vendor lock in too. If you actually read Google's ToS (the non-legalese version even) it makes it quite clear what your data is being used for: being mined to hell and to serve targeted ads. It also makes it clear that it lives in a little box in Google that no human is ever allowed to see*.
I choose not to accept either of these options, but I don't feel like there's any serious deception going on.
* Except the US government, of course, and that on a regular basis
Is it going to be usable by people who don't leave their computers on 24/7? And I noticed the phrase "pgp" in the description. While I agree this is the right way to do it in abstract, I question if it will be too complex for the average person to care enoug hto bother with.
This. I nuked pretty much everything but friend lists and an email address, but one does not turn away from a total monopoly overnight. I can count on one hand the number of people I know who don't have facebook (and consider that unlike most situations, the set of people I know is actually quite relevant here)
Slashdot Mirror
-1 depressing
This is why I intend to get a smartphone with a cheap, low-throughput data plan and then tether for internet when traveling.
It's not like there's any useful information there after the 7th time you've heard it and read the info card out of boredom. Video/speech is a very slow, ineffecient way of transferring information compared to vanilla text. I find it ver yfrustartaing to be presented with a video to teach/explain something when simple text would do. Maybe hte reason those damn young ones on your lawn don't pay attention is because there's nothing useful being expressed.
Cell phones can mess with ground towers due to the speeds at which the planes are moving which is a reason to turn them off[line] (not like you're going to get good reception in a plane anyway)
To solve problems like this. No matter what Mark Z decides to Zuckerpunch my privacy settings into tomorrow or the next time he secretly changes them, or not matter what bullshit he opts me into, the rest of my webbrowsing (slashdot and wikipedia) will remain separate from FB's braindead "features".
I already removed almost all my personal info of course, but facebook is simply too big to close completely. It would close off a useful service. Again, it's not that I object to FB trying to make a profit to support a free service, I expect that. It's that I don't like being tricked and worn down into doing things I don't want.
This really is the right way to combat the massive piracy while not harassing people who want to backup their media, put it on more than one device, or possibly lend/give it to a friend or two. The fear of massive distribution would scare people off putting it online. Of course you want to make it known to the buyer that it contains watermarks, but not what kind.
Sure people /could/ remove them if they learned how, but they will be too lazy. Everybody wins.
Although I complain about privacy etc, the only one that's a deal breaker for me is the reliability problem where you need constant internet to access your data. It's fine with me if I can't IM people without internet (how would I anyway) or perform DNS lookups, but when I can't access my email, my calendar, my pictures, or my very documents, something is very fucked up.
I still don't get why people think this "cloud" thing is a step forward, given it means less privacy, less control, less reliability, and requires constant net access, not to mention shifting terms of service and the like. And for what? Cross-device access? I can see this being good for some people but I'll pass.
Which means I'll be buying it for Battle.net and pirating it for LAN play. Everybody wins.
but won't this "activation" business complicate reinstallation onto new OS/computer? And what about the lack of LAN play?
Don't get me wrong, less intrusive DRM is better than more intrusive DRM and I laud both Blizzard's actions and words here, but don't the standard criticisms still apply: that it only hurts paying customers (though it hurts fewer of them than worse DRM) and is ineffective against pirates?
Too many ads in dead-tree magazines, I'll stick to the internet with adblock.
Bad analogies are like pigs eating ice cream, they both float through a sea of orange soda.
I do appreciate that they have the rudimentary form of an idea that results are an indicator of success. Sure, sure, I'd love it if they'd learn what variance and statistical tests do, but this is a baby step in the right direction.
Maybe if we ask people what they want and then give it to them, they will tell their friends, blog positively, continue to subscribe to our subscription-based service instead of wandering off in boredom.
The Internet makes a lot of things possible when it comes to unprecedented communication between suppliers and consumers. Of course, this only works if you believe your users know what they want.
"Everyone is born Christian. Only later in life do people choose to stray from Jesus and worship satan instead. Atheists have the greatest “cover” of all, they insist they believe in no god yet most polls done and the latest research indicates that they are actually a different sect of Muslims."
--fstdt
It's not to get a rise out of htem, it's to demonstrate to a small minority of radicals that their extreme religious beliefs do not trump the free speech of others, and that the attempts of extremists to kill and censor such speech will not be tolerated by the world community.
Is this so the government can more easily infiltrate vulnerable systems or so it can protect itself if it's using MS products?
Good plan if you're a terrorist/spy/etc. If you're someone who isn't breaking any laws he knows of but likes to protect his privacy, it's a bit too tinfoil. I'm safe from the NSA because I don't do anything they care about.
Becuase they full body cavity search 2/3 of people who fly? Wow, the odds of my never being searched (which I wasn't) are like 1/11057332
I seem to recall the party line is that the radiation from one of the scanners is about two minutes of flight time. Of course the government would never lie to use or misstate facts, would it?
We need to kill this thing but I don't think we can do so on safety grounds. Better to appeal to genital insecurity and think of the children panic, in my mind.
Security theatre evangelists first. Then me.
My recollection of the ToS when I first signed up for gmail back in '04. I should add that I'm referring to the personal accounts.
Both companies make it clear: MS will sell you a product for money, and now it appears they're being forthright about the vendor lock in too. If you actually read Google's ToS (the non-legalese version even) it makes it quite clear what your data is being used for: being mined to hell and to serve targeted ads. It also makes it clear that it lives in a little box in Google that no human is ever allowed to see*.
I choose not to accept either of these options, but I don't feel like there's any serious deception going on.
* Except the US government, of course, and that on a regular basis
Is it going to be usable by people who don't leave their computers on 24/7? And I noticed the phrase "pgp" in the description. While I agree this is the right way to do it in abstract, I question if it will be too complex for the average person to care enoug hto bother with.
This. I nuked pretty much everything but friend lists and an email address, but one does not turn away from a total monopoly overnight. I can count on one hand the number of people I know who don't have facebook (and consider that unlike most situations, the set of people I know is actually quite relevant here)
> If the CIA wanted to further fuck with the Anarchist's Cookbook,...
Fixed that for you;)