Correction, it appears he has had a total of 10 years of work experience. The shoddy methodology still casts suspicion, especially when in the comments section the first comment reports an error in his math. Mr. Saam responds that he fixed the issue, but somehow the original incorrect numbers still appear in the article.
I am a suspicious sort of person, but I will give the benefit of the doubt and say he isn't a paid shill of Microsoft. Perhaps Bing's search results ARE better. I used Bing exclusively for about a month after it launched to see how good it was. In my personal opinion, I got better results with Google. Perhaps my own search methods have unconsciously tailored themselves to Google's search algorithms. I don't really believe that though. I think Google is still better.
I would, however, appreciate someone coming up with a proper comparison using better methods.
More than his methodology is suspect. From the authors linked in profile
Conrad Saam’s Experience
Director
Avvo
(Privately Held; Internet industry)
2006 — Present (5 years )
Avvo is a Seattle-based website revolutionizing the way consumers navigate the highly confusing legal industry. By focusing on the needs of the consumer, Avvo went from concept to market leader within three years. I oversee our Marketing.
Notice the proximity to Microsoft Corp, I am highly suspicious when a nobody with 4 years of experience hailing from Washington claims to have discovered that Microsoft is better after all.
You need to rethink that, because the entire argument isn't about freeware or shareware, where there is a paypal link that asks for voluntary donations. This is about a game that is only available by paying for it, until someone takes the software and manipulates it in order to make it available for free. The developer never wanted it available for free or they would have put it out for free.
Thus, there is your expectation of getting the money back.
Pirates are well aware of this, which is why most times they have to remove DRM from the product, which the developer put on there in order to prevent people from playing it for free.
As for the people who aren't harming anyone, just downloading and playing the game for free. They are aware that the developer of the game has an expectation of payment for their software. They just don't care. They are spoiled little babies who just want everything for free. They are the broken part of the system you keep talking about.
Well how about you don't expect to be able to get stuff when you don't have the money. I would love to have a copy of Call of Duty: Black Ops right now. But I can't afford it. So, should I whine about how I should be allowed to pirate the game just because I want it?
Hell no. What I am going to do is save up my money until I have enough extra to buy a copy for myself. The problem with people nowdays is that they are whiny little bitches who cry, "I want, I want, I want."
Bloodless, for now. Perhaps the next stealthy virus will target air traffic control systems instead of centrifuges. Or perhaps a stuxnet 2 could affect the speed at which centrifuges at hospitals operate. This was bloodless, true. But now that the US had unleashed the hounds of cyberware, what is the next escalation going to be? Yes, I am assuming this is the US or allied power. And I am sure the Iranians are assuming the same thing.
Of course, the Iranians have been claiming we are at fault for stuxnet for months and we have shook our heads and said, that is so sad that they hate us for no reason. Well, I guess they have reason. But then, the Iranians still blame the US for overthrowing their government and installing a brutal dictator. Like we would have done something so.... um.... nevermind.
Very analytical. However, the post you replied to never mentioned that he needed to know the previous condition of rainfall, only that he didn't need to know the previous condition of the river. Perhaps he thought that the previous baseline of rainfall you were referring to was, as you put it, "pretty basic stuff", and didn't need to be mentioned.
In terms of the actual article, I interpreted that MozeeToby was saying that just because one don't know current amount of government sponsored IT attacks doesn't mean you can't guess it will go up. Just like MozeeToby, I can safely assume it will only increase, once more and more countries create dedicated cyber-warfare groups.
As far as the history of rainfall (or cyber attacks) goes, it had never even sprinkled before 29 October 1969.
How often do jets leaving LAX leave trails that appear to be missile launches, while there is a distinct appearance of what looks like solid rocket burn coming from the UFO? Plus, if it was this airliner, why did traffic control state it wasn't one of their airplanes?
I don't run active antivirus at all, the trick is never to touch the internet explorer browser. Another tip is don't download a bunch of pirated program and run them without scanning them first. I suggest malwarebytes.
I also keep a copy of combofix on a usb drive just in case.
They do perform journalism. They receive raw data from sources, fact check and validate to the best of their ability, and publish it only if they think it appears genuine.
Yes, I expect free content. There are plenty of ways to monetize content without directly charging for it. The idiocy of newspaper paywalls is a good example of this. Why charge when you can make more money giving it away?
Because A) Thomas didn't sell the material and B) 1.5M for a couple of Brittney songs is bullshit.
If Thomas had sold the copyrighted material, then by all means she should be liable for the money the copyright holder should have made for those sales. Jammie Thomas, however, did not sell any copyrighted material.
IANAL, but it seems to be Cooks Source should have to pay $50K per copy of the article to the author. Since they possibly printed ten thousand magazines, that would be a half a billion in damages. That is also clearly insane, which is why many here on Slashdot oppose the legal abomination which is copyright law.
Slashdot Mirror
It does stand for it, its a recursive acronym.
instead of a programmable calculator, you should just jump on the next hot thing and use a cuecat!
Correction, it appears he has had a total of 10 years of work experience. The shoddy methodology still casts suspicion, especially when in the comments section the first comment reports an error in his math. Mr. Saam responds that he fixed the issue, but somehow the original incorrect numbers still appear in the article.
I am a suspicious sort of person, but I will give the benefit of the doubt and say he isn't a paid shill of Microsoft. Perhaps Bing's search results ARE better. I used Bing exclusively for about a month after it launched to see how good it was. In my personal opinion, I got better results with Google. Perhaps my own search methods have unconsciously tailored themselves to Google's search algorithms. I don't really believe that though. I think Google is still better.
I would, however, appreciate someone coming up with a proper comparison using better methods.
Notice the proximity to Microsoft Corp, I am highly suspicious when a nobody with 4 years of experience hailing from Washington claims to have discovered that Microsoft is better after all.
Eat your heart out.
People always complain about how great the good old days were. I guess this is a pretty solid evidence that they sucked.
The next time i wipe my hard drive, I could do it with bleach?
no expectation of getting the money back???
You need to rethink that, because the entire argument isn't about freeware or shareware, where there is a paypal link that asks for voluntary donations. This is about a game that is only available by paying for it, until someone takes the software and manipulates it in order to make it available for free. The developer never wanted it available for free or they would have put it out for free.
Thus, there is your expectation of getting the money back.
Pirates are well aware of this, which is why most times they have to remove DRM from the product, which the developer put on there in order to prevent people from playing it for free.
As for the people who aren't harming anyone, just downloading and playing the game for free. They are aware that the developer of the game has an expectation of payment for their software. They just don't care. They are spoiled little babies who just want everything for free. They are the broken part of the system you keep talking about.
He didn't rape; her he showed her goetse and two girls one cup. That steals anyone's innocence.
Well how about you don't expect to be able to get stuff when you don't have the money. I would love to have a copy of Call of Duty: Black Ops right now. But I can't afford it. So, should I whine about how I should be allowed to pirate the game just because I want it?
Hell no. What I am going to do is save up my money until I have enough extra to buy a copy for myself. The problem with people nowdays is that they are whiny little bitches who cry, "I want, I want, I want."
I get tired of their shit.
GO EARN IT
Sincerely,
Get the hell off my lawn...
I wish I had mod points, that was awesomely funny.
Bloodless, for now. Perhaps the next stealthy virus will target air traffic control systems instead of centrifuges. Or perhaps a stuxnet 2 could affect the speed at which centrifuges at hospitals operate. This was bloodless, true. But now that the US had unleashed the hounds of cyberware, what is the next escalation going to be? Yes, I am assuming this is the US or allied power. And I am sure the Iranians are assuming the same thing.
.... nevermind.
Of course, the Iranians have been claiming we are at fault for stuxnet for months and we have shook our heads and said, that is so sad that they hate us for no reason. Well, I guess they have reason. But then, the Iranians still blame the US for overthrowing their government and installing a brutal dictator. Like we would have done something so.... um
Until you have to go and justify your budget in front of Congress...
Very analytical. However, the post you replied to never mentioned that he needed to know the previous condition of rainfall, only that he didn't need to know the previous condition of the river. Perhaps he thought that the previous baseline of rainfall you were referring to was, as you put it, "pretty basic stuff", and didn't need to be mentioned.
In terms of the actual article, I interpreted that MozeeToby was saying that just because one don't know current amount of government sponsored IT attacks doesn't mean you can't guess it will go up. Just like MozeeToby, I can safely assume it will only increase, once more and more countries create dedicated cyber-warfare groups.
As far as the history of rainfall (or cyber attacks) goes, it had never even sprinkled before 29 October 1969.
Hmm, miscellaneous blog writer contradicts missile expert. Why its obvious, the expert MUST be wrong.
How often do jets leaving LAX leave trails that appear to be missile launches, while there is a distinct appearance of what looks like solid rocket burn coming from the UFO? Plus, if it was this airliner, why did traffic control state it wasn't one of their airplanes?
I don't run active antivirus at all, the trick is never to touch the internet explorer browser. Another tip is don't download a bunch of pirated program and run them without scanning them first. I suggest malwarebytes.
I also keep a copy of combofix on a usb drive just in case.
of computer users don't care about macs
Comcast filters 100mbps cable speed news from its customers...
They do perform journalism. They receive raw data from sources, fact check and validate to the best of their ability, and publish it only if they think it appears genuine.
The RIAA (aka Major Labels) already pay musicians nothing, which is why they are facing a 6 billion dollar lawsuit in Canada
Yes, I expect free content. There are plenty of ways to monetize content without directly charging for it. The idiocy of newspaper paywalls is a good example of this. Why charge when you can make more money giving it away?
Because A) Thomas didn't sell the material and B) 1.5M for a couple of Brittney songs is bullshit.
If Thomas had sold the copyrighted material, then by all means she should be liable for the money the copyright holder should have made for those sales. Jammie Thomas, however, did not sell any copyrighted material.
IANAL, but it seems to be Cooks Source should have to pay $50K per copy of the article to the author. Since they possibly printed ten thousand magazines, that would be a half a billion in damages. That is also clearly insane, which is why many here on Slashdot oppose the legal abomination which is copyright law.
So the first websites British ISP's will be asked to censor are:
www.direct.gov.uk
www.parliament.uk
www.fco.gov.uk
www.number10.gov.uk
Did I miss any important British websites responsible for spreading bullshit?
the wallet?