I understand that those things are required, but I'm saying that variable wouldn't matter if all of them use the same forms. I don't see a reason why they would use different forms and add an additional variable to their data set when they are trying to determine if the presence of the Atheist branding is causing packages to not arrive.
You think that when they took all 178 packages to the German post office on the same day that they affixed different forms to different boxes? That doesn't sound like a realistic assumption to make.
TFA has a picture of the packages, they were both the same box except one had Atheist-branded packing tape, and the other didn't. The only difference between the two packages was the word "Atheist" on the packing tape.
If you would believe in a god when given evidence, doesn't that make you agnostic?
Are you trying to suggest that an atheist is a person who would deny the existence of an all-powerful god even in the face of direct evidence, like said god actually appearing? I think that most of the reason why atheists don't believe in god is because there is in fact no such evidence.
If you go behind the counter at a post office you will see that there are a number of bins that letters and packages are placed into. Similar bins appear throughout the entire process. The packages might travel together for awhile but each time they are sorted and placed into bins there is a chance they will be separated. As soon those packages are separated there is a chance that they will travel on different trucks, planes, or just not be sorted before close of business. Once that happens all bets are off that they will get to the same place at the same time.
So what's your theory on why the Athiest-branded packages were lost or delayed significantly more than the non-branded packages? If everything is chaotic and random then wouldn't they be delayed and lost in statistically equal numbers? I can understand any pair of packages arriving within one day of each other, but an average of 3 days longer? 10 times more likely to not arrive at all? That doesn't sound very random or chaotic to me, it sounds deterministic.
I'm hourly as well, but if I weren't, the analogy would be more like a dog shits on your lawn: you can either leave it there to turn white or you can pick the shit up. Either way, your life sucks a little bit more.
Option 3: ignore it for a few days until the landscapers show up and deal with it with their lawnmower.
I might just be someone who can read, but that article claims that the paid version was $35. Apparently they offered a free version as well, but the paid version included handwriting recognition and some other features.
complete nonsense implying that there was copyrighted content that digitalrev used without permission. Well, the DMCA latter doesn't even raise the issue of anything copyrighted being used illegally, merely alleged trademark law violations.
That's the first thing I noticed. The letter isn't even consistent. Here it talks about the trademarks that it believes are being used improperly:
We have a good faith belief that the Internet site found at digitalrev.com infringes the rights of the Company by using the following trademarks of the Company:
"GOPRO" Registered: 3/3/2009 US Registration# 3032989
"HERO" Registered: 12/20/2005 US Registration# 3308141
And here they threaten ISP with copyright infringement:
As you may know, if this information is not removed after notice that complies with the DMCA, the Internet Service Provider may also be held liable for the copyright infringement.
The letter doesn't even keep it straight whether they're talking about a copyright action or a trademark action.
Unlike in Windows, where you simply have to view an advert in Internet Explorer and your system is infected...
IE itself is exploited no more than 10% of the time to infect a Windows computer. Windows gets drive-by infections these days from exploits in Java, Acrobat, and Flash, which are not unique to Windows. There's no reason for attackers to focus on a single browser any more when they can instead target a plugin like Java that works across all browsers.
How does Krebs reach, let alone convince that boot.tw operator to give him a copy of their operations database and tell him other details?
He didn't have to, the SQL file was publicly-accessible if you knew the URL (how did he get the URL? I'm sure he has plenty of sources). He linked to it from his earlier article, still on their domain. It looks like that link is no longer in the article, but I downloaded the SQL file and went through it. It was a dump of what looked like their entire user/attack database, including each attack, who paid for it, how they paid, and how much.
Why would, so called, Phobia take Krebs' call? Why would he confess to this stuff?
Because he's a stupid, arrogant kid. It doesn't have to be complex. He even said he was the guy who was talking to Mat Honan, and that nothing bad came from that. Sounds like he wants to be important, or wants to be seen as important.
It makes me question Krebs' credibility.
I think if you'll look into Brian Krebs, his credibility is beyond question. He takes care to make sure that's true in what he publishes. He is very highly respected in the security journalism world.
Well, there's a reason they call copyright owners "rights owners"
You know, every time I hear that term I've taken it to mean that they are owners who have rights, or something similar to that. It seems more like the rights that they purport to own are my rights.
You're saying that it takes less concentration to throw an oddly-shaped chunk of leather at an erratically moving target, in a wide variety of weather conditions, while a half dozen people who are built like a brick house try to attack you, while wearing a face mask and forty pounds of protective gear, and quite possibly doing this while in a degree of physical pain that would cause many to curl up in a corner and whimper "make it stop", than it does to hit a ball with a club on a warm sunny day, wearing naught but some light cotton clothing and a hat?
Yeah, pretty much. It takes less focus to run a pattern or throw a ball in football (where you're surrounded by your team), than it does to estimate range, power, spin, curve, etc when it's just you versus the golf course. Football players have a pretty wide margin of error compared to needing to put a 1.6 ounce, 1.5 inch ball within feet of your 4.25 inch target that is 300 yards away. The receiver is also not erratically moving, they are running a specific play and the quarterback expects the receiver to be at a certain position at a certain time. It's obvious when their timing is off. Apparently it would also surprise you that golf is not only played on warm, sunny days while you're wearing your favorite sun dress and designer hat. The recent tournament in Tuscon had snow in some areas of the course and a nice 30-40mph wind that we felt here in Phoenix also. It's not easy. It's a whole lot harder than throwing a ball, and I have a lot of respect for quarterbacks that are able to lay a ball right in their receivers' hands. Moreover, in order to win a tournament you need to be the best player out of maybe 100 or so, over 4 days. So yeah, that's what I'm saying, golf requires more focus than football.
I don't think you're showing very much respect at all to the people that take concussions, broken bones, and all manner of other physical injury, just so you can be entertained.
Don't delude yourself. They don't do that to entertain me. They do that to make money.
In football, the hazards are angry men who want to crush your bones into dust and scream obscenities while they chase you.
Which each and every one of them knew going into it, and they accepted it. That's what the game is about, right? It's about crushing people, hitting as hard as you can. It's a perfect analogy for war. I'm not saying football isn't dangerous, I'm saying that golf requires more focus.
I would argue that golf requires a level of focus when you're hitting that those other sports do not require. A wide receiver needs to know his route, a linebacker or tackle needs to know who his man is, etc. They aren't thinking about their foot placement, balance, hand position, the power they're going to need, which direction they're aiming for, the amount of curve or backspin they need to put on the ball, etc. If you disagree though, go out golfing with a group that goes regularly and start talking while they're teeing off. They'll be happy to fill you in on why you need to shut the hell up when they're hitting. Then you can step up to the tee and invite them to carry on a conversation while you're trying to keep the ball in the fairway. Basically though, it really just comes down to respect.
From the video on the page, the sound roughly equals about 10,000 angry hornets. No way anyone could focus on a golf swing with that thing hovering right behind them.
You don't "force" your customers to do anything. If they make a popular game that people paid for suddenly unplayable, that's not a good thing. Customers don't like it when that happens.
The headline is strictly correct. He was ousted from his position (in his letter he cites accountability for missing financial targets, which probably means he didn't decide to quit on his own - which CEO would?), and this did in fact happen in the wake of SimCity's launch (which was, in fact, a disaster). The summary obviously tries to conflate his being fired with SimCity's DRM, but the headline seems fine to me.
I sincerely doubt it. Ultimately, EA's problem with SimCity was that they had too many paying customers.
In general yeah, too many customers caused problems. But maybe when they had to rush to add additional servers and hardware, someone along the chain of command decided that it's pretty stupid for EA to be paying monthly bills to run an online requirement of a pay-once game. Customers only have to pay once, EA gets a monthly bill for it.
I should have put this in my original post, but I think this line is pretty funny:
All these names are availabe to transfer to the Vatican without charge....not that they would want any.
"Uhh... Rick? Hi Rick, this is Sam over at the Vatican. Yeah, doing fine, thanks. Listen Rick, the pope is starring in a new reality TV show, and we understand that you own popefrank.tv. Yeah, of course, well done on snapping up that gem. Well, obviously popefrank.tv is a pretty valuable name, so we'd like to have you transfer that one over. Thanks so much."
What is clear is we should not just vilify these people who are legally exercising their rights.
Yeah, it makes total sense that someone in Australia would register Popefrancis.fr, a French domain name, to publish a news site about the pope. Or that eRealEstate.com, from Florida, would register Popefrancis.co.uk, a British domain, for the same reason. These people aren't out to make a quick buck, they obviously just want to spread news and praise about the pope and Catholics.
Or maybe, and just maybe, I mean stick with me here, there are people like this, part of the "domainer" community, complete with their own domain news sites, magazines, etc, saying things like this:
On Tuesday I saw a list of 20 possible picks for pope. So I decided to hon my skill as I usually do on events of great interest. Being Jewish I was not aware the parameters for the pope changing his name but I was glad to see I had no shot anyways.
But while I did not hit the bullseye on this mission, I circled around that eye.
I got these 24 hours before the announcement: PopeJorge.com, PopeGeorge.com, PopeJorge.tv, PopeJorge.me, PopeJorgeBergoggio.com PopeJorgeBergoggio.org,
PopeFrancis.co.uk got the most traffic yesterday. 82 visitors in the first 5 hours and 45 as of 10AM today.
All these names are availabe to transfer to the Vatican without charge....not that they would want any.
I can only imagine the amount of traffic the REAL domain got. PopeFrancis.com could have easily gotten over 1 million TYPE INS! Type ins! What more proof would folks like about type ins?
If the.com gets 1 million visitors and the.net gets 5000 visitors and all the rest combined get 5000 visitors, does that not illustrate the power of.com?
And this:
Godaddy came out with a press release and said theu sold 500 in the first 1 hour of Pope related domain names. So you could assume worldwide many thousands were registered. It is now a cottage industry in and of itself. We will see in what form this plays out. But a popular Pope could make for some very interesting domain stories.
As I write this I registered 2 more. popefrancissouvenirs.com, popefrancisinfo.com. Like I said, a cottage industry is likely to spring up. PopeFrancisMass.com
Here is one of his domain names. Go ahead, click on that and get all of the pope news and Catholic praise you can stand. Surely he's not in it just to try his luck gambling. (by the way, every time you click that link, you probably earn the guy fractions of a cent)
In case it isn't obvious, I have very little respect for people who go around registering domain names wholesale and trying to monetize them. Talk about a worthless existence. If they aren't going to use it, don't register it. But that's just my opinion.
Slashdot Mirror
I understand that those things are required, but I'm saying that variable wouldn't matter if all of them use the same forms. I don't see a reason why they would use different forms and add an additional variable to their data set when they are trying to determine if the presence of the Atheist branding is causing packages to not arrive.
You think that when they took all 178 packages to the German post office on the same day that they affixed different forms to different boxes? That doesn't sound like a realistic assumption to make.
TFA has a picture of the packages, they were both the same box except one had Atheist-branded packing tape, and the other didn't. The only difference between the two packages was the word "Atheist" on the packing tape.
If you would believe in a god when given evidence, doesn't that make you agnostic?
Are you trying to suggest that an atheist is a person who would deny the existence of an all-powerful god even in the face of direct evidence, like said god actually appearing? I think that most of the reason why atheists don't believe in god is because there is in fact no such evidence.
If you go behind the counter at a post office you will see that there are a number of bins that letters and packages are placed into. Similar bins appear throughout the entire process. The packages might travel together for awhile but each time they are sorted and placed into bins there is a chance they will be separated. As soon those packages are separated there is a chance that they will travel on different trucks, planes, or just not be sorted before close of business. Once that happens all bets are off that they will get to the same place at the same time.
So what's your theory on why the Athiest-branded packages were lost or delayed significantly more than the non-branded packages? If everything is chaotic and random then wouldn't they be delayed and lost in statistically equal numbers? I can understand any pair of packages arriving within one day of each other, but an average of 3 days longer? 10 times more likely to not arrive at all? That doesn't sound very random or chaotic to me, it sounds deterministic.
I'm hourly as well, but if I weren't, the analogy would be more like a dog shits on your lawn: you can either leave it there to turn white or you can pick the shit up. Either way, your life sucks a little bit more.
Option 3: ignore it for a few days until the landscapers show up and deal with it with their lawnmower.
FM radio is a touch above phone quality, *everything* sounds compressed. Not to mention the static mixed in.
I might just be someone who can read, but that article claims that the paid version was $35. Apparently they offered a free version as well, but the paid version included handwriting recognition and some other features.
complete nonsense implying that there was copyrighted content that digitalrev used without permission. Well, the DMCA latter doesn't even raise the issue of anything copyrighted being used illegally, merely alleged trademark law violations.
That's the first thing I noticed. The letter isn't even consistent. Here it talks about the trademarks that it believes are being used improperly:
We have a good faith belief that the Internet site found at digitalrev.com infringes the rights of the Company by using the following trademarks of the Company:
"GOPRO" Registered: 3/3/2009 US Registration# 3032989
"HERO" Registered: 12/20/2005 US Registration# 3308141
And here they threaten ISP with copyright infringement:
As you may know, if this information is not removed after notice that complies with the DMCA, the Internet Service Provider may also be held liable for the copyright infringement.
The letter doesn't even keep it straight whether they're talking about a copyright action or a trademark action.
Unlike in Windows, where you simply have to view an advert in Internet Explorer and your system is infected...
IE itself is exploited no more than 10% of the time to infect a Windows computer. Windows gets drive-by infections these days from exploits in Java, Acrobat, and Flash, which are not unique to Windows. There's no reason for attackers to focus on a single browser any more when they can instead target a plugin like Java that works across all browsers.
I can just imagine how each piece has destroyed some part of the reef.
What do you mean "the reef"? Which reef grows 3 miles under the Atlantic several miles offshore? I'm not seeing much of a reef around this.
How does Krebs reach, let alone convince that boot.tw operator to give him a copy of their operations database and tell him other details?
He didn't have to, the SQL file was publicly-accessible if you knew the URL (how did he get the URL? I'm sure he has plenty of sources). He linked to it from his earlier article, still on their domain. It looks like that link is no longer in the article, but I downloaded the SQL file and went through it. It was a dump of what looked like their entire user/attack database, including each attack, who paid for it, how they paid, and how much.
Why would, so called, Phobia take Krebs' call? Why would he confess to this stuff?
Because he's a stupid, arrogant kid. It doesn't have to be complex. He even said he was the guy who was talking to Mat Honan, and that nothing bad came from that. Sounds like he wants to be important, or wants to be seen as important.
It makes me question Krebs' credibility.
I think if you'll look into Brian Krebs, his credibility is beyond question. He takes care to make sure that's true in what he publishes. He is very highly respected in the security journalism world.
Well, there's a reason they call copyright owners "rights owners"
You know, every time I hear that term I've taken it to mean that they are owners who have rights, or something similar to that. It seems more like the rights that they purport to own are my rights.
You're saying that it takes less concentration to throw an oddly-shaped chunk of leather at an erratically moving target, in a wide variety of weather conditions, while a half dozen people who are built like a brick house try to attack you, while wearing a face mask and forty pounds of protective gear, and quite possibly doing this while in a degree of physical pain that would cause many to curl up in a corner and whimper "make it stop", than it does to hit a ball with a club on a warm sunny day, wearing naught but some light cotton clothing and a hat?
Yeah, pretty much. It takes less focus to run a pattern or throw a ball in football (where you're surrounded by your team), than it does to estimate range, power, spin, curve, etc when it's just you versus the golf course. Football players have a pretty wide margin of error compared to needing to put a 1.6 ounce, 1.5 inch ball within feet of your 4.25 inch target that is 300 yards away. The receiver is also not erratically moving, they are running a specific play and the quarterback expects the receiver to be at a certain position at a certain time. It's obvious when their timing is off. Apparently it would also surprise you that golf is not only played on warm, sunny days while you're wearing your favorite sun dress and designer hat. The recent tournament in Tuscon had snow in some areas of the course and a nice 30-40mph wind that we felt here in Phoenix also. It's not easy. It's a whole lot harder than throwing a ball, and I have a lot of respect for quarterbacks that are able to lay a ball right in their receivers' hands. Moreover, in order to win a tournament you need to be the best player out of maybe 100 or so, over 4 days. So yeah, that's what I'm saying, golf requires more focus than football.
I don't think you're showing very much respect at all to the people that take concussions, broken bones, and all manner of other physical injury, just so you can be entertained.
Don't delude yourself. They don't do that to entertain me. They do that to make money.
In football, the hazards are angry men who want to crush your bones into dust and scream obscenities while they chase you.
Which each and every one of them knew going into it, and they accepted it. That's what the game is about, right? It's about crushing people, hitting as hard as you can. It's a perfect analogy for war. I'm not saying football isn't dangerous, I'm saying that golf requires more focus.
I would argue that golf requires a level of focus when you're hitting that those other sports do not require. A wide receiver needs to know his route, a linebacker or tackle needs to know who his man is, etc. They aren't thinking about their foot placement, balance, hand position, the power they're going to need, which direction they're aiming for, the amount of curve or backspin they need to put on the ball, etc. If you disagree though, go out golfing with a group that goes regularly and start talking while they're teeing off. They'll be happy to fill you in on why you need to shut the hell up when they're hitting. Then you can step up to the tee and invite them to carry on a conversation while you're trying to keep the ball in the fairway. Basically though, it really just comes down to respect.
I was misled! I was told that DRM would help me to manage my rights. Is this no longer the case?
From the video on the page, the sound roughly equals about 10,000 angry hornets. No way anyone could focus on a golf swing with that thing hovering right behind them.
You don't "force" your customers to do anything. If they make a popular game that people paid for suddenly unplayable, that's not a good thing. Customers don't like it when that happens.
You mean, a smashing success like selling a million copies in less than two weeks?
No, I mean a smashing success as in critics and customers love the game and it is well-received.
Think of it this way: if the SimCity launch had been a smashing success, do you think the CEO would be stepping down?
The headline is strictly correct. He was ousted from his position (in his letter he cites accountability for missing financial targets, which probably means he didn't decide to quit on his own - which CEO would?), and this did in fact happen in the wake of SimCity's launch (which was, in fact, a disaster). The summary obviously tries to conflate his being fired with SimCity's DRM, but the headline seems fine to me.
I sincerely doubt it. Ultimately, EA's problem with SimCity was that they had too many paying customers.
In general yeah, too many customers caused problems. But maybe when they had to rush to add additional servers and hardware, someone along the chain of command decided that it's pretty stupid for EA to be paying monthly bills to run an online requirement of a pay-once game. Customers only have to pay once, EA gets a monthly bill for it.
Would I nuke someone for spying on me? No, I wouldn't. For one, I don't have a nuke.
I should have put this in my original post, but I think this line is pretty funny:
All these names are availabe to transfer to the Vatican without charge....not that they would want any.
"Uhh... Rick? Hi Rick, this is Sam over at the Vatican. Yeah, doing fine, thanks. Listen Rick, the pope is starring in a new reality TV show, and we understand that you own popefrank.tv. Yeah, of course, well done on snapping up that gem. Well, obviously popefrank.tv is a pretty valuable name, so we'd like to have you transfer that one over. Thanks so much."
What is clear is we should not just vilify these people who are legally exercising their rights.
Yeah, it makes total sense that someone in Australia would register Popefrancis.fr, a French domain name, to publish a news site about the pope. Or that eRealEstate.com, from Florida, would register Popefrancis.co.uk, a British domain, for the same reason. These people aren't out to make a quick buck, they obviously just want to spread news and praise about the pope and Catholics.
Or maybe, and just maybe, I mean stick with me here, there are people like this, part of the "domainer" community, complete with their own domain news sites, magazines, etc, saying things like this:
On Tuesday I saw a list of 20 possible picks for pope. So I decided to hon my skill as I usually do on events of great interest. Being Jewish I was not aware the parameters for the pope changing his name but I was glad to see I had no shot anyways.
But while I did not hit the bullseye on this mission, I circled around that eye.
I got these 24 hours before the announcement: PopeJorge.com, PopeGeorge.com, PopeJorge.tv, PopeJorge.me, PopeJorgeBergoggio.com PopeJorgeBergoggio.org,
Then after the announcement I got these.
PopeFrancis.co.uk, PopeFrancis.de, PopeFrancis.be, PopeFrank.tv, PopeFrank.net, PopeFrancis.tv
PopeFrancis.co.uk got the most traffic yesterday. 82 visitors in the first 5 hours and 45 as of 10AM today.
All these names are availabe to transfer to the Vatican without charge....not that they would want any.
I can only imagine the amount of traffic the REAL domain got. PopeFrancis.com could have easily gotten over 1 million TYPE INS! Type ins! What more proof would folks like about type ins?
If the .com gets 1 million visitors and the .net gets 5000 visitors and all the rest combined get 5000 visitors, does that not illustrate the power of .com?
And this:
Godaddy came out with a press release and said theu sold 500 in the first 1 hour of Pope related domain names. So you could assume worldwide many thousands were registered. It is now a cottage industry in and of itself. We will see in what form this plays out. But a popular Pope could make for some very interesting domain stories.
As I write this I registered 2 more. popefrancissouvenirs.com, popefrancisinfo.com. Like I said, a cottage industry is likely to spring up. PopeFrancisMass.com
Here is one of his domain names. Go ahead, click on that and get all of the pope news and Catholic praise you can stand. Surely he's not in it just to try his luck gambling. (by the way, every time you click that link, you probably earn the guy fractions of a cent)
In case it isn't obvious, I have very little respect for people who go around registering domain names wholesale and trying to monetize them. Talk about a worthless existence. If they aren't going to use it, don't register it. But that's just my opinion.