Except that the recent RIAA case ruling that you don't need to have actually seen a copyright notice in order to be bound by it, due to the ubiquity of the notice, ToS are similarly ubiquitous, so you should be bound by that as well, seeing it or not.
OSX requires you to put your admin password in. It's called security.
I know *why* it does that, thanks. My point was that it's not an unattended process. You can't set your machine to update overnight, because it needs your password before it'll install updates. You can't do it at the very end of the day, because it reboots, not "shutdown, and then finish on next start." So you'd have to wait around until it finishes, so you can properly shut down your system. That leaves the start of the day, or else you're interrupting your workflow. And the start of the day delays you getting down to work.
As for "needing to update webkit," just to really get in at the fanbois, MS got in major shit for entangling IE so deep in to Windows, why not Apple? If Safari is that entangled, they should have faced the same action as MS. If it's a browser update, I shouldn't have to do shit. If it's an OS update, it's disingenuous to mask it as a browser update, since it allows Apple to skew figures if they so choose.
Uh, no. Because those patches all come *on the same day.* (Windows Update ones all come on the same day, and I said most of them come through there). Smooth. Your fanboi is showing.
60mb? What the hell are you USING?! Anything I've used, it's 60KB, 120KB max. Avast, AVG (granted, two years ago), MSE, Spy-Bot. Even the Windows Defender ones.
and I surely do not experience that amount of 'patching.' I also think updating virus signatures shouldn't be considered a 'patch' per se.
I'm with you. I don't know if I'm a "typical" home user, but close enough. If I don't include Windows Defender updates, or anti-virus definitions updates, I get maybe a half-dozen patches a month, with most of those delivered automatically through windows update. Flash isn't updated often, my browser isn't updated often, my games aren't updated often... pretty much *nothing* on my computer is updated as often as the OS.
Yes, because it's completely reasonable that the *monthly* patches my Mac at work gets 95% of the time require a restart. Why do iTunes or Safari need the system to be restarted? I'm only forced to reboot my Win7 machine due to patches... Hmm, I think once in the time I've had it.
And OS X requires me to put in my password in order to install patches, so it can't patch unattended, or in the background. It's a choice between delaying my work or delaying the patch. Most people are going to pick "delaying the patch," especially if they've got anything open. And that's how security starts to fall apart.
*sigh* You're taking it too literally. Or perhaps not literally enough, depending on your point of view. I suppose, if not for the drug connotations, they'd have more accurately called it "Altered Reality Game." It's a blending of the real world and the game world. Things like seeing a URL in a movie, going there on your real-world browser, and finding a working website that treats the movie as real would be part of it. That's the "alternate reality" part. The "game" comes in when there's clues buried in that site that lead you to other information. There was actually a commercially released game that took this to a rather insane degree. You put in your phone number, fax, email, and the game's servers would actually send you clues in how to proceed in the game at pre-determined points, rather than having to hunt down the appropriate NPC in-game. So, by "Alternate Reality Game," they're saying it's a game that's pretending it's not a game.
problem is, they are saying something is illegal when its not.
I don't believe they've actually said it's illegal. If they receive a DMCA, they take the video down. They don't investigate. They're not making any kind of judgement. If it trips their "copyright infringeor detector," they take it down, they don't say "hey, it's illegal." Most you'll get is probably "this video has been taken down due to a ToS violation" or "at the request of" notifications.
Irrelevant. Talking about freedom of speech as it relates to private companies is taking the argument in the completely wrong direction. The guy basically crippled himself by bringing up freedom of speech.
Single pedestals can be brought down, but a million can't.
Well, that's a good sentiment, but unfortunately, that's incorrect. Especially as goes with the Internet. Here's your easy two-step guide to shutting down unapproved videos from being streamed over the Internet:
1. Mandate deep packet inspection, block all video not coming from approved servers. 2. Any data that's encrypted is automatically dropped by ISP routers.
Congratulations, you've now effectively shut down unauthorized video sharing on the Internet. Sure, you can get around it by directly connecting to computers via phone lines, or some such, or convert the file to non-video, and then send it, and have the recipient convert it back to video, but you're going to have a bitch of a time with any kind of meaningful distribution.
The Internet is a tool, can be used for good or ill, like any other, but it's much easier to censor and control than most if there's co-operation at the correct levels.
Thank you. Free speech isn't for allowing you to say whatever you want in a video that's being hosted by someone else. YouTube has every right to take down the video for absolutely no reason other than they don't like his face, if they so desire. Free speech means that the government is the one that simply cannot go to YouTube and tell them to take down the video without certain circumstances. Is it right that corporations have more ability to muzzle people than the government? I don't know. My opinion is that neither should be able to, barring defamation of character or other malicious speech.
However, that's currently beyond the scope of free speech as commonly enshrined in the laws of countries. It only applies to governmental abilities.
Now for the promised strange and, yes, disturbing comments on Kotick's part. What may have been music to bean counters' ears still has ours ringing, as he described tailoring developer bonuses to "really [reward] profit and nothing else" and how an air of "skepticism, pessimism, and fear" is promoted within the company with the goal of "keeping people focused on the deep depression." You know, so they focus on profit and nothing else. It's all to plan, though, seeing as Kotick confided that, "The goal that I had in bringing a lot of the packaged goods folks into Activision about 10 years ago was to take all the fun out of making video games."
You missed the point. The scalper did you a service by even giving you the chance to see the concert. If there were no scalpers and every ticket sold was legit then there would be no tickets on ebay and your action of missing the ticket sale means you have zero options to attend.
Logical fallacy present. You're assuming tickets would have sold at the same rate whether scalpers were present or not. This is pretty laughable (appeal to ridicule *points and laughs* ). If there wasn't monetary interests being indulged, you'd have much slower movement of tickets by people with legitimate interests involved. This is patently obvious simply because there's fewer people involved. Scalpers create *artificial* demand. They are the antithesis of free market. After all, they don't care if they sell ALL their tickets, just that they make a profit, so the more they buy, the higher they can set *their* per ticket price, and the fewer overall they'd have to sell. Scalpers don't provide a service, they break the system.
Also, God should be capitalized since it is a proper noun. In fact, in your context, you used it as a name/title. If you were speaking of Obama by title, you would write "The American President would..." not "The American president would..."
Actually, in proper style usage, titles are lower-case, unless properly attached to a name. So it would be President Obama, but simply the president. I suggest picking up a copy of the Chicago Manual of Style. I think it'd be a big help for you.
It's really ridiculous. What ever happened to modding based on how reasonably a person is debating rather than whether the person matches your political ideology?
Eh, when I get mod points, I only use negatives on stuff that's actually trolling. Goatse, the copypasta stuff, that sort of thing. I figure I do my side better by upping the good posts, rather than minusing the opposing posts, ya know? Even then, yes, if I hit a post that makes me reevaluate my position, even for a second, I'll give it a bump too. I'm just wacky that way.
Slashdot Mirror
Wait, which one's which again?
I guess you missed this story:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/02/former-teen-cheerleader-dinged-27750-for-infringing-37-songs/
Most specifically this part: " the Copyright Act precludes such a defense if the legitimate CDs of the music in question provide copyright notices."
This, despite her claim that she never had the actual CDs to see the notice.
... Not while they were high, no...
Except that the recent RIAA case ruling that you don't need to have actually seen a copyright notice in order to be bound by it, due to the ubiquity of the notice, ToS are similarly ubiquitous, so you should be bound by that as well, seeing it or not.
OSX requires you to put your admin password in. It's called security.
I know *why* it does that, thanks. My point was that it's not an unattended process. You can't set your machine to update overnight, because it needs your password before it'll install updates. You can't do it at the very end of the day, because it reboots, not "shutdown, and then finish on next start." So you'd have to wait around until it finishes, so you can properly shut down your system. That leaves the start of the day, or else you're interrupting your workflow. And the start of the day delays you getting down to work.
As for "needing to update webkit," just to really get in at the fanbois, MS got in major shit for entangling IE so deep in to Windows, why not Apple? If Safari is that entangled, they should have faced the same action as MS. If it's a browser update, I shouldn't have to do shit. If it's an OS update, it's disingenuous to mask it as a browser update, since it allows Apple to skew figures if they so choose.
Uh, no. Because those patches all come *on the same day.* (Windows Update ones all come on the same day, and I said most of them come through there). Smooth. Your fanboi is showing.
60mb? What the hell are you USING?! Anything I've used, it's 60KB, 120KB max. Avast, AVG (granted, two years ago), MSE, Spy-Bot. Even the Windows Defender ones.
and I surely do not experience that amount of 'patching.' I also think updating virus signatures shouldn't be considered a 'patch' per se.
I'm with you. I don't know if I'm a "typical" home user, but close enough. If I don't include Windows Defender updates, or anti-virus definitions updates, I get maybe a half-dozen patches a month, with most of those delivered automatically through windows update. Flash isn't updated often, my browser isn't updated often, my games aren't updated often... pretty much *nothing* on my computer is updated as often as the OS.
Yes, because it's completely reasonable that the *monthly* patches my Mac at work gets 95% of the time require a restart. Why do iTunes or Safari need the system to be restarted? I'm only forced to reboot my Win7 machine due to patches... Hmm, I think once in the time I've had it.
And OS X requires me to put in my password in order to install patches, so it can't patch unattended, or in the background. It's a choice between delaying my work or delaying the patch. Most people are going to pick "delaying the patch," especially if they've got anything open. And that's how security starts to fall apart.
*sigh*
You're taking it too literally. Or perhaps not literally enough, depending on your point of view. I suppose, if not for the drug connotations, they'd have more accurately called it "Altered Reality Game." It's a blending of the real world and the game world. Things like seeing a URL in a movie, going there on your real-world browser, and finding a working website that treats the movie as real would be part of it. That's the "alternate reality" part. The "game" comes in when there's clues buried in that site that lead you to other information. There was actually a commercially released game that took this to a rather insane degree. You put in your phone number, fax, email, and the game's servers would actually send you clues in how to proceed in the game at pre-determined points, rather than having to hunt down the appropriate NPC in-game. So, by "Alternate Reality Game," they're saying it's a game that's pretending it's not a game.
problem is, they are saying something is illegal when its not.
I don't believe they've actually said it's illegal. If they receive a DMCA, they take the video down. They don't investigate. They're not making any kind of judgement. If it trips their "copyright infringeor detector," they take it down, they don't say "hey, it's illegal." Most you'll get is probably "this video has been taken down due to a ToS violation" or "at the request of" notifications.
Irrelevant. Talking about freedom of speech as it relates to private companies is taking the argument in the completely wrong direction. The guy basically crippled himself by bringing up freedom of speech.
Single pedestals can be brought down, but a million can't.
Well, that's a good sentiment, but unfortunately, that's incorrect. Especially as goes with the Internet. Here's your easy two-step guide to shutting down unapproved videos from being streamed over the Internet:
1. Mandate deep packet inspection, block all video not coming from approved servers.
2. Any data that's encrypted is automatically dropped by ISP routers.
Congratulations, you've now effectively shut down unauthorized video sharing on the Internet. Sure, you can get around it by directly connecting to computers via phone lines, or some such, or convert the file to non-video, and then send it, and have the recipient convert it back to video, but you're going to have a bitch of a time with any kind of meaningful distribution.
The Internet is a tool, can be used for good or ill, like any other, but it's much easier to censor and control than most if there's co-operation at the correct levels.
Thank you. Free speech isn't for allowing you to say whatever you want in a video that's being hosted by someone else. YouTube has every right to take down the video for absolutely no reason other than they don't like his face, if they so desire. Free speech means that the government is the one that simply cannot go to YouTube and tell them to take down the video without certain circumstances. Is it right that corporations have more ability to muzzle people than the government? I don't know. My opinion is that neither should be able to, barring defamation of character or other malicious speech.
However, that's currently beyond the scope of free speech as commonly enshrined in the laws of countries. It only applies to governmental abilities.
Here you go: http://www.joystiq.com/2009/09/14/activision-ceo-talks-console-less-guitar-hero-turning-fear-into/
Now for the promised strange and, yes, disturbing comments on Kotick's part. What may have been music to bean counters' ears still has ours ringing, as he described tailoring developer bonuses to "really [reward] profit and nothing else" and how an air of "skepticism, pessimism, and fear" is promoted within the company with the goal of "keeping people focused on the deep depression." You know, so they focus on profit and nothing else. It's all to plan, though, seeing as Kotick confided that, "The goal that I had in bringing a lot of the packaged goods folks into Activision about 10 years ago was to take all the fun out of making video games."
You missed the point. The scalper did you a service by even giving you the chance to see the concert. If there were no scalpers and every ticket sold was legit then there would be no tickets on ebay and your action of missing the ticket sale means you have zero options to attend.
Logical fallacy present. You're assuming tickets would have sold at the same rate whether scalpers were present or not. This is pretty laughable (appeal to ridicule *points and laughs* ). If there wasn't monetary interests being indulged, you'd have much slower movement of tickets by people with legitimate interests involved. This is patently obvious simply because there's fewer people involved. Scalpers create *artificial* demand. They are the antithesis of free market. After all, they don't care if they sell ALL their tickets, just that they make a profit, so the more they buy, the higher they can set *their* per ticket price, and the fewer overall they'd have to sell. Scalpers don't provide a service, they break the system.
i liar is someone that tells lies.
the first two times i didn't care, but the third, and all the high and mighty caps forced me to step in and point out how silly you look.
why do you spell so bad?
One could ask you the same question, and have a much better case for it to boot.
And your point is? Proper nouns aren't jargon. Slang for it would be jargon.
Oh lighten up you twat, this is one of the few instances that joke actually works.
Besides, what would you call spending your high school years at home with your mom?
Well, since my mom *worked* at my school, *I'd* call it "Not a heck of a lot different."
*WOOSH*
The joke was, *He's not been to hell, thus he didn't go to high school*. And I SWEAR, I'm NEVER explaining a joke again.
Also, God should be capitalized since it is a proper noun. In fact, in your context, you used it as a name/title. If you were speaking of Obama by title, you would write "The American President would..." not "The American president would..."
Actually, in proper style usage, titles are lower-case, unless properly attached to a name. So it would be President Obama, but simply the president. I suggest picking up a copy of the Chicago Manual of Style. I think it'd be a big help for you.
It's really ridiculous. What ever happened to modding based on how reasonably a person is debating rather than whether the person matches your political ideology?
Eh, when I get mod points, I only use negatives on stuff that's actually trolling. Goatse, the copypasta stuff, that sort of thing. I figure I do my side better by upping the good posts, rather than minusing the opposing posts, ya know? Even then, yes, if I hit a post that makes me reevaluate my position, even for a second, I'll give it a bump too. I'm just wacky that way.
Home schooled then, were you?
it is currently a which hunt on both sides.
Well, man, don't leave me hanging! Which hunt is it?