so let's see. you are not a subscriber so no early views...
Every registered user can, after logging in, look at http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl (not the static page you get redirected to in case you're not logged in) and see all stories that are submitted.
yet you wrote up all of this complete with links in the 4 minutes that elapsed between the story's posting and the submission of your own post.
Actually, he simply posted the contents of the main article referred to in the post, because the server hosting it has been slashdotted (I should have used an nyud.net link). And the reason he had a local copy is probably because he's on the same mailing lists as I am where the article was first announced.
You can bet that they did not post a reply out of politeness, but rather because they felt it was somehow required. That opinion by the academics was getting quoted all over the place and thrown at them at pretty much every opportunity.
The fact that their rebuttal contains several factual errors is very handy and in fact probably will have consequences in the further debate (because it can be used by members of the European Parliament that are critical of ACTA, and also in national political debates). Obviously, saying that they painted themselves in a corner is quite a bit of a hyperbole, but that's what (shameless attention grabbing) headlines are for...
I agree that has been extremely important until now. As the success of Android and iOS devices demonstrates, it's getting much less so though, even in the consumer space. Even migrations from one architecture to another have been pulled off by Apple already twice in a quite successful way (although in that case increasing performance of the new architecture is quite important). And in the server space, the underlying architecture is almost irrelevant.
Server farms? Kind of a bitch without ECC but I guess it works in some cases. Granted, what do I know, maybe they will be slapping ECC support into them.
Why do you believe ARM doesn't support ECC rightnow?
Features of x86 that are currently missing in ARM? How about out-of-order execution,
The Cortex-A9 is out-of-order.
64-bit operation,
They indeed don't have 64 bit ALU or memory addressing support yet.
speed boost (some cores shut down to let other cores run faster),
That's unrelated to the architecture. And at least NVidia's Tegra dual-core cpu's shut down one of the two cores if it's not in use. I don't think they automatically overclock the other one to run faster when doing so though.
and a top-end speed around 3GHz just to name a few.
Yes, in absolute performance per core they are still trailing x86. I was mainly reacting to the "anorexic featureless simpleton CPU" remark with my question though.
Of course the lack of those features lets it run cooler which makes the ARM processor ideal for low-power applications like cell phones.
Even Google doesn't guarantee there won't be trouble with patents.
As others have mentioned, neither does MPEG-LA. And after you've paid MPEG-LA for an H.264 patent license, you can pay AT&T for an additional patent license. And after that, you can pay Philips/Sisvel for an additional patent license. And who knows who will be the next one to come knocking at your door...
Simply put, the old saying about Socialism is true- it only works so long as you can keep taking wealth from other people and it quits working when you run out of people to rob.
So the financial crisis was caused by socialist Wall Street?
Ten years ago critics were worried that EU's agricultural support forced African farmers to give up on farming. Now we are worried that the rising food prices force African farmers to buy food from abroad. That confuses me.
The EU subsidies allowed EU farmers to export produce to Africa at dumping prices, putting local food farmers out of business. Those farmers then had to switch to economically more interesting products, such as coffee and tobacco. This kind of farming is often also practiced in an exhaustive way and at much larger scales (it doesn't make sense to produce much more food that you can locally sell, but if you can get a larger share of the world tobacco/coffee/tea/cotton/... market, you can make more profit -- as long as not every one else tries the same).
As a result they became dependent on food imports and are no longer self-sustainable. Simply switching back to actual food stuff is not easy if you don't have control over what you produce (if some international corporation that owns land and you simply work for them; even in Eastern Europe that sort of stuff still happens, e.g. since Poland has joined the EU most of its small time farmers have had to quit because they couldn't compete with the mega corporations that started to buy up lots of small "inefficient" farms), or if the soil simply does not support rich crops anymore,...
There's standing up for a "free" internet and then also making sure that people can't easily steal web video content with a simple click. NO business in their right mind would agree to something like that.
Several businesses in related fields already do, and do fine. All my paid for ebooks are from http://www.webscription.net/ which does not employ any kind of DRM. I've bought a ton of games from http://www.gog.com/ which are all without any DRM (I've also bought some games with online activation, but no Steam because even the one free game I have from them insists on half-updating itself from time to time and then refusing to run until it can finish its online verification process).
While it's certainly possible that DRM-free business models are not applicable to every kind of company or market, I think it's quite wrong to categorically posit that no DRM means that that a company by definition is not going to be viable merely because its content can be more easily copied.
Even the most cautious entity has the chance to slip up and reveal something they didn't intend to, it's just a matter of waiting and being observant and being able to utilize the opportunity.
And even the best secured store has a chance of having a blind spot or error in its security system that facilitates stealing. That does not mean that walking out without paying is any less stealing.
Collecting DNA and fingerprints of people is illegal, unless you are a LEA that has been authorised to engage in such business. Being a diplomat does not change that, even if you may enjoy diplomatic immunity that prevents criminal prosecution if you get caught. It doesn't make you any less of a law breaker, and it most certainly doesn't make the behaviour "diplomatic".
So are dogs cats because they both have four legs and a tail?
Have you sent in your resume yet? It seems like you are exactly the kind of person they are looking for at the State Department.
"Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ordered American diplomats to collect information on foreign officials and diplomats"
People who view this as a revelation must have a very naive view of the world. Diplomats are just spies working in the open to both gather information and to spread misinformation (with the weight of a government official).
You seem to have completely failed to grasp the point of why embassies and diplomats exist in the first place. Hint: activities commonly associated with spying (blackmail, breaking and entering, identity theft,...) tend to trouble relations between people and nations and are punishable by criminal law.
Diplomacy and embassies on the other hand exist to further understanding between nations. And that's not from a "everyone is one happy family" starting point, but "if you live in our country, you'll better understand why certain things happen the way they do and hence hopefully react more appropriately". In fact, they partially exist exactly to avoid the need for sending out spies and carrying out spy operations.
Of course, diplomats also try to further the interests of their own nation, but again within the law. That doesn't main that none ever break the law (you'll find such people in all categories of the populace), but if you think that gather fingerprints from colleagues is "normal diplomatic behaviour" then it's you that needs a reality check (or a job in Hillary Clinton's department).
If they told the truth all the time they wouldn't be very diplomatic.
That has nothing to do with getting orders to collect DNA and fingerprints from other diplomats.
$1.5 million profit. $100,000 Euro fine and 20 months free room and board.
A fine is not a tax on illegally gotten gains to turn them legit. A fine is a punitive measure. The illegally gotten gains themselves get confiscated by the government and are normally used to reimburse the victims of the crime, and if anything is left afterwards (e.g. because not all victims could be identified, or e.g. in case of confiscated drugs money) it gets added to the government's budget (either a specific one or the general budget).
The definition of "working poor" people is not defined based on how much money someone has, but on raw income relative to an absolute poverty level (USA and Canada), or on a relative poverty level (e.g. 60% of the median income for the EU). How much they buy at WalMart or even how many children they have (like someone else mentioned) is irrelevant.
1. The NY Times and Wikileaks are two different beasts when it comes to "journalism". If they aren't, then every spy could be issued with a press pass from his intelligence agency's house organ and be immune to prosecution. This may be a matter for the courts to delineate further, but it's clear to reasonable observers.
The NT Times and Wikileaks are immune from prosecution under US law because they did not steal the information themselves (nor ordered anyone to steal it). That has already been delineated by the US Supreme Court. Whether or not they are journalists does not even enter the picture.
According to an article by the official Flemish news service, the beans were already spilled this afternoon in a documentary shown by a Dutch broadcast service (VPRO) on this topic. It's indeed about Mono lake and Felisa Wolfe-Simon. The article also contains a small film fragment in which they confirms that it's indeed about a life form that uses arsenic instead of phosphor (it also contains some sound bytes from the researcher, in English).
One more thing I forgot: the queens they breed and sell are selected for only two traits, namely producing offspring that is docile and with maximal honey production. And at least the former trait directly conflicts with the ability to survive.
The documentary also included an interview with a bee keeper from the Scottish highlands, who keeps the more aggressive black bees. He's been hit less hard by the mite infections that most other bee keepers, but then again his and his father's motto is: if a hive dies, good riddance. They quite strictly followed the "survival of the fittest" doctrine as far as their bee hives are concerned, rather than selecting for other traits.
I recently saw a documentary (in Dutch) on this topic on TV (which was a translated version of a French documentary).
They indicated many different causes:
the parasite (a kind of mite) mentioned in the summary, and the fact that it spreads viruses. Good news: a few colonies have learned to adapt by recognising and killing larvae infected with mite eggs, and removing them from the colony
The current bee population is way too homogeneous. All bee queens that are currently sold on the global market are bred in the US by a handful of people. Moreover, the bee population in the US is was already not very diverse in the first place because honey bees are not native to North America, they were imported by European settlers (so they all descend from a few colonies).
The global bee trade from the previous point also results in quickly spreading diseases and parasites all over the world.
Bee colonies are "abused" in many parts of the world. For example, California has immense almond plantations, with hundreds of thousands of acres that contain nothing but grass and almond trees (apparently it's the state's larges source of income). These flower at the end of winter and have to be fertilised within a period of a few weeks. In order to be achieve this, they import bee colonies from all over the US.
Problem: bees are normally still hibernating at that point. "Solution": a few weeks in advance they put patties with antibiotics and food concentrate in the colonies to "warm them up". Problem: apart from the forced de-hibernation, many bees die of malnutrition in those plantations because even though there is an abundance of pollen, it's all almond pollen and these do not contain all different kinds of nutrients that bees requires.
Pesticides, in particular neonicotinoids (but not just those). There were some pretty horrible stories in the documentary about Bayer refusing all responsibility in the face of all evidence, which included negative effects on bees even when researchers diluted the pesticides to the extent that they could no longer detect them.
It has become that bad that several beekeepers now take their colonies "on holidays" (e.g. to the Provence in France) to allow them to recuperate from all the poison they get from the farmlands and plantations. Even more surreal was that apparently a number of beekeepers are moving from the countryside into cities, because the lack of pesticides in urban settings more than compensates for the other pollution and the reduced availability of pollen.
I agree. Last I heard, they only enforced IP rights when non-Chinese companies infringed (or appeared to infringe) upon a Chinese company's IP.
Anyone know if China's still doing that? (with references)
Where are your references that they actually did that?
On a side note, several years back I attended a speech by David Martin, who is founder/CEO of the company M-CAM, which is specialised in evaluating patent portfolios (such as determining how many claims overlap with other patents, likely validity etc). It was so interesting that I transcribed it. That page also contains the audio recording.
One of the things he mentioned is that China has a requirement that whenever the state purchases technology from a foreign interest, all "IP" for enabling technologies and know-how must be transferred as well. Many Western companies figured the Chinese wouldn't know/comprehend the exact patent rights they gave to the Chinese, so they only transferred rights to second-rate patents that weren't worth the paper they weren't printed on (crappy patents don't only exist in the software world). Once the Chinese caught up with this practice,
Western companies suddenly started losing out on a lot of bids to large projects
the Chinese started closely scrutinising the patents supposedly held by these foreign companies
It's easy to accuse the Chinese of "stealing" everything, but (just making up these numbers) what if 48% of what's supposedly stolen should actually have been transferred to them in the first place according to contractual obligations (nobody ever forced those companies to do business there if they didn't like the terms), 48% consists of bogus patents and the other 2% is simply the equivalent of the Nokia/Apple/Google/Microsoft/HTC/LG/... patent infringement lawsuits that you have in the US mobile industry (are all those companies "thieves", copycats etc)?
I also think the "Probably stolen?" subject of this thread shows incredible ignorance. China probably has more engineering majors graduating every year than any other country in the world. Do you honestly think that the Chinese for some reason are inherently more stupid than us Westerners and cannot come up with anything innovative? Especially "innovative according to patent office standards"?
As far as I can tell, they've simply learned the tricks of the trade. For decades, "intellectual property" allowed us to have the best of both worlds: cheap labor from China and nevertheless preventing them from making cheap knock-offs and importing those back into our territories (they could sell them over there, but nobody cared about that since nobody had any money so there was no real profit to be made anyway).
Now they are starting to beat us at our own idiotic game. And still some people think they have the moral high ground and yell "but they steal everything from us, this cannot be". Wake up.
Slashdot Mirror
so let's see. you are not a subscriber so no early views...
Every registered user can, after logging in, look at http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl (not the static page you get redirected to in case you're not logged in) and see all stories that are submitted.
yet you wrote up all of this complete with links in the 4 minutes that elapsed between the story's posting and the submission of your own post.
Actually, he simply posted the contents of the main article referred to in the post, because the server hosting it has been slashdotted (I should have used an nyud.net link). And the reason he had a local copy is probably because he's on the same mailing lists as I am where the article was first announced.
And he didn't submit the article, I did.
You can bet that they did not post a reply out of politeness, but rather because they felt it was somehow required. That opinion by the academics was getting quoted all over the place and thrown at them at pretty much every opportunity.
The fact that their rebuttal contains several factual errors is very handy and in fact probably will have consequences in the further debate (because it can be used by members of the European Parliament that are critical of ACTA, and also in national political debates). Obviously, saying that they painted themselves in a corner is quite a bit of a hyperbole, but that's what (shameless attention grabbing) headlines are for...
I agree that has been extremely important until now. As the success of Android and iOS devices demonstrates, it's getting much less so though, even in the consumer space. Even migrations from one architecture to another have been pulled off by Apple already twice in a quite successful way (although in that case increasing performance of the new architecture is quite important). And in the server space, the underlying architecture is almost irrelevant.
Server farms? Kind of a bitch without ECC but I guess it works in some cases. Granted, what do I know, maybe they will be slapping ECC support into them.
Why do you believe ARM doesn't support ECC right now?
Features of x86 that are currently missing in ARM? How about out-of-order execution,
The Cortex-A9 is out-of-order.
64-bit operation,
They indeed don't have 64 bit ALU or memory addressing support yet.
speed boost (some cores shut down to let other cores run faster),
That's unrelated to the architecture. And at least NVidia's Tegra dual-core cpu's shut down one of the two cores if it's not in use. I don't think they automatically overclock the other one to run faster when doing so though.
and a top-end speed around 3GHz just to name a few.
Yes, in absolute performance per core they are still trailing x86. I was mainly reacting to the "anorexic featureless simpleton CPU" remark with my question though.
Of course the lack of those features lets it run cooler which makes the ARM processor ideal for low-power applications like cell phones.
And server farms.
Which features is the ARM architecture missing compared to x86?
Even Google doesn't guarantee there won't be trouble with patents.
As others have mentioned, neither does MPEG-LA. And after you've paid MPEG-LA for an H.264 patent license, you can pay AT&T for an additional patent license. And after that, you can pay Philips/Sisvel for an additional patent license. And who knows who will be the next one to come knocking at your door...
Simply put, the old saying about Socialism is true- it only works so long as you can keep taking wealth from other people and it quits working when you run out of people to rob.
So the financial crisis was caused by socialist Wall Street?
Here's some more background: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=eu+food+dumping
Ten years ago critics were worried that EU's agricultural support forced African farmers to give up on farming. Now we are worried that the rising food prices force African farmers to buy food from abroad. That confuses me.
The EU subsidies allowed EU farmers to export produce to Africa at dumping prices, putting local food farmers out of business. Those farmers then had to switch to economically more interesting products, such as coffee and tobacco. This kind of farming is often also practiced in an exhaustive way and at much larger scales (it doesn't make sense to produce much more food that you can locally sell, but if you can get a larger share of the world tobacco/coffee/tea/cotton/... market, you can make more profit -- as long as not every one else tries the same).
As a result they became dependent on food imports and are no longer self-sustainable. Simply switching back to actual food stuff is not easy if you don't have control over what you produce (if some international corporation that owns land and you simply work for them; even in Eastern Europe that sort of stuff still happens, e.g. since Poland has joined the EU most of its small time farmers have had to quit because they couldn't compete with the mega corporations that started to buy up lots of small "inefficient" farms), or if the soil simply does not support rich crops anymore, ...
There's standing up for a "free" internet and then also making sure that people can't easily steal web video content with a simple click. NO business in their right mind would agree to something like that.
Several businesses in related fields already do, and do fine. All my paid for ebooks are from http://www.webscription.net/ which does not employ any kind of DRM. I've bought a ton of games from http://www.gog.com/ which are all without any DRM (I've also bought some games with online activation, but no Steam because even the one free game I have from them insists on half-updating itself from time to time and then refusing to run until it can finish its online verification process).
While it's certainly possible that DRM-free business models are not applicable to every kind of company or market, I think it's quite wrong to categorically posit that no DRM means that that a company by definition is not going to be viable merely because its content can be more easily copied.
Civilization with lyrics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aL6wlTDPiPU
Even the most cautious entity has the chance to slip up and reveal something they didn't intend to, it's just a matter of waiting and being observant and being able to utilize the opportunity.
And even the best secured store has a chance of having a blind spot or error in its security system that facilitates stealing. That does not mean that walking out without paying is any less stealing.
Collecting DNA and fingerprints of people is illegal, unless you are a LEA that has been authorised to engage in such business. Being a diplomat does not change that, even if you may enjoy diplomatic immunity that prevents criminal prosecution if you get caught. It doesn't make you any less of a law breaker, and it most certainly doesn't make the behaviour "diplomatic".
So are dogs cats because they both have four legs and a tail?
Have you sent in your resume yet? It seems like you are exactly the kind of person they are looking for at the State Department.
Or in other words "pay attention and take advantage of an opportunity should it present itself".
You never saw the difference between a bargain hunter and a shoplifter either I guess, since both also act according to that same principle.
Not all spies are James Bond 007 spies. Spying can be as simple as observing and reporting.
As I said: this was about orders to gather DNA, fingerprints, passwords, personal encryption keys and iris scans of UN diplomats. That is unrelated to diplomacy and straight spy business.
"Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ordered American diplomats to collect information on foreign officials and diplomats"
People who view this as a revelation must have a very naive view of the world. Diplomats are just spies working in the open to both gather information and to spread misinformation (with the weight of a government official).
You seem to have completely failed to grasp the point of why embassies and diplomats exist in the first place. Hint: activities commonly associated with spying (blackmail, breaking and entering, identity theft, ...) tend to trouble relations between people and nations and are punishable by criminal law.
Diplomacy and embassies on the other hand exist to further understanding between nations. And that's not from a "everyone is one happy family" starting point, but "if you live in our country, you'll better understand why certain things happen the way they do and hence hopefully react more appropriately". In fact, they partially exist exactly to avoid the need for sending out spies and carrying out spy operations.
Of course, diplomats also try to further the interests of their own nation, but again within the law. That doesn't main that none ever break the law (you'll find such people in all categories of the populace), but if you think that gather fingerprints from colleagues is "normal diplomatic behaviour" then it's you that needs a reality check (or a job in Hillary Clinton's department).
If they told the truth all the time they wouldn't be very diplomatic.
That has nothing to do with getting orders to collect DNA and fingerprints from other diplomats.
$1.5 million profit. $100,000 Euro fine and 20 months free room and board.
A fine is not a tax on illegally gotten gains to turn them legit. A fine is a punitive measure. The illegally gotten gains themselves get confiscated by the government and are normally used to reimburse the victims of the crime, and if anything is left afterwards (e.g. because not all victims could be identified, or e.g. in case of confiscated drugs money) it gets added to the government's budget (either a specific one or the general budget).
Do you seriously not see any difference between the privacy of an individual and the transparency of government/corporate dealings?
The definition of "working poor" people is not defined based on how much money someone has, but on raw income relative to an absolute poverty level (USA and Canada), or on a relative poverty level (e.g. 60% of the median income for the EU). How much they buy at WalMart or even how many children they have (like someone else mentioned) is irrelevant.
1. The NY Times and Wikileaks are two different beasts when it comes to "journalism". If they aren't, then every spy could be issued with a press pass from his intelligence agency's house organ and be immune to prosecution. This may be a matter for the courts to delineate further, but it's clear to reasonable observers.
The NT Times and Wikileaks are immune from prosecution under US law because they did not steal the information themselves (nor ordered anyone to steal it). That has already been delineated by the US Supreme Court. Whether or not they are journalists does not even enter the picture.
According to an article by the official Flemish news service, the beans were already spilled this afternoon in a documentary shown by a Dutch broadcast service (VPRO) on this topic. It's indeed about Mono lake and Felisa Wolfe-Simon. The article also contains a small film fragment in which they confirms that it's indeed about a life form that uses arsenic instead of phosphor (it also contains some sound bytes from the researcher, in English).
In our next episode: did little Lisa survive her heart surgery?
4chan: Nope.
One more thing I forgot: the queens they breed and sell are selected for only two traits, namely producing offspring that is docile and with maximal honey production. And at least the former trait directly conflicts with the ability to survive.
The documentary also included an interview with a bee keeper from the Scottish highlands, who keeps the more aggressive black bees. He's been hit less hard by the mite infections that most other bee keepers, but then again his and his father's motto is: if a hive dies, good riddance. They quite strictly followed the "survival of the fittest" doctrine as far as their bee hives are concerned, rather than selecting for other traits.
I recently saw a documentary (in Dutch) on this topic on TV (which was a translated version of a French documentary).
They indicated many different causes:
the parasite (a kind of mite) mentioned in the summary, and the fact that it spreads viruses. Good news: a few colonies have learned to adapt by recognising and killing larvae infected with mite eggs, and removing them from the colony
The current bee population is way too homogeneous. All bee queens that are currently sold on the global market are bred in the US by a handful of people. Moreover, the bee population in the US is was already not very diverse in the first place because honey bees are not native to North America, they were imported by European settlers (so they all descend from a few colonies).
The global bee trade from the previous point also results in quickly spreading diseases and parasites all over the world.
Bee colonies are "abused" in many parts of the world. For example, California has immense almond plantations, with hundreds of thousands of acres that contain nothing but grass and almond trees (apparently it's the state's larges source of income). These flower at the end of winter and have to be fertilised within a period of a few weeks. In order to be achieve this, they import bee colonies from all over the US.
Problem: bees are normally still hibernating at that point. "Solution": a few weeks in advance they put patties with antibiotics and food concentrate in the colonies to "warm them up". Problem: apart from the forced de-hibernation, many bees die of malnutrition in those plantations because even though there is an abundance of pollen, it's all almond pollen and these do not contain all different kinds of nutrients that bees requires.
Pesticides, in particular neonicotinoids (but not just those). There were some pretty horrible stories in the documentary about Bayer refusing all responsibility in the face of all evidence, which included negative effects on bees even when researchers diluted the pesticides to the extent that they could no longer detect them.
It has become that bad that several beekeepers now take their colonies "on holidays" (e.g. to the Provence in France) to allow them to recuperate from all the poison they get from the farmlands and plantations. Even more surreal was that apparently a number of beekeepers are moving from the countryside into cities, because the lack of pesticides in urban settings more than compensates for the other pollution and the reduced availability of pollen.
I agree. Last I heard, they only enforced IP rights when non-Chinese companies infringed (or appeared to infringe) upon a Chinese company's IP.
Anyone know if China's still doing that? (with references)
Where are your references that they actually did that?
On a side note, several years back I attended a speech by David Martin, who is founder/CEO of the company M-CAM, which is specialised in evaluating patent portfolios (such as determining how many claims overlap with other patents, likely validity etc). It was so interesting that I transcribed it. That page also contains the audio recording.
One of the things he mentioned is that China has a requirement that whenever the state purchases technology from a foreign interest, all "IP" for enabling technologies and know-how must be transferred as well. Many Western companies figured the Chinese wouldn't know/comprehend the exact patent rights they gave to the Chinese, so they only transferred rights to second-rate patents that weren't worth the paper they weren't printed on (crappy patents don't only exist in the software world). Once the Chinese caught up with this practice,
It's easy to accuse the Chinese of "stealing" everything, but (just making up these numbers) what if 48% of what's supposedly stolen should actually have been transferred to them in the first place according to contractual obligations (nobody ever forced those companies to do business there if they didn't like the terms), 48% consists of bogus patents and the other 2% is simply the equivalent of the Nokia/Apple/Google/Microsoft/HTC/LG/... patent infringement lawsuits that you have in the US mobile industry (are all those companies "thieves", copycats etc)?
I also think the "Probably stolen?" subject of this thread shows incredible ignorance. China probably has more engineering majors graduating every year than any other country in the world. Do you honestly think that the Chinese for some reason are inherently more stupid than us Westerners and cannot come up with anything innovative? Especially "innovative according to patent office standards"?
As far as I can tell, they've simply learned the tricks of the trade. For decades, "intellectual property" allowed us to have the best of both worlds: cheap labor from China and nevertheless preventing them from making cheap knock-offs and importing those back into our territories (they could sell them over there, but nobody cared about that since nobody had any money so there was no real profit to be made anyway).
Now they are starting to beat us at our own idiotic game. And still some people think they have the moral high ground and yell "but they steal everything from us, this cannot be". Wake up.