Affording Cable isn't the issue, but there is simply no reason to waste money on that shit.
I might be special (in the "special kid" sense, I know...), but TV never really captivated me in the first place. Watching something without doing something meaningful myself was already something I couldn't really stand while at school where I had to be, and I certainly wasn't going to do it during the time I actually could decide for myself what to do.
Way past Millennial age here (GenXer, IIRC). It might be due to me living in a different country where the networks buy from other networks without taking care that they only buy from Fox, ABC or whoever else there is, but then again, I also don't know what networks bought what series. Why? Because it doesn't matter AT ALL.
Pretty much any premeditated murder is usually not because you think fondly of the person you waste. Actually, killing someone because you dislike the group he belongs to requires less hate than killing the guy that slept with your wife, independent of the subgroup he belongs to.
Simply because any hate you may have for a group distributes better than hate concentrated on a single person. But I guess we needed to put a label on something, and it should of course be one that is loaded negatively enough so people quickly realize how they should think of it.
Target should have known their target audience better. When your only sales argument is your low, low price, your target audience is probably not the hipster crowd.
And I am a private citizen and can decide whether I approve of their censorship and buy their crap or whether I decide to not honor their politics and abstain.
Like any from anyone who "made it big". And it's not even that they try to deceive and mislead you because they don't want you to succeed.
Any time one of those self-made billionaires tells you how he made it and what to do, you're essentially listening to someone who won the jackpot in the life lottery telling you the numbers he played. At the same time, you could ask a thousand people who didn't make it who will tell you exactly the same, but they just didn't have the luck to be at that right place at the right time that this guy was.
That what he did worked for him at that time when he did it is obvious. Just like playing those numbers on that day worked for the lottery player. You will not reliably repeat this by doing the same, for this too many variables changed in the game. Even if there was no FUBU today, opening a chain like this today would fail simply because the market changed and there is no longer the amount of young people with expendable money, just to name one factor that makes or breaks this business.
This is where you have to start talking to people and ask them to trade shifts with you, and then convince them to actually do so. In other words, communication and salesmanship, two things you should have if you want to start your own business in the first place.
Legal? Nah. FUD is the message here, didn't see that? Basically they're saying "This cannot fly. Look at Transmeta. See? We left them in the dust. And this, this HAS to go the way of the Dodo too!"
They're trying to badmouth it, not fight it with patents.
Yes, some things are hard to verify. Or falsify, more correctly. But in the end, what we "dress up" as science is in such a case simply the most likely scenario. You are not expected to accept them with faith, you are expected to come up with an equally likely alternative scenario and weigh them against each other.
In the end, usually the one that requires the least (note: least, not fewest) assumptions is the one that gets picked. For good reason. When you hear hooves, expect horses, not zebras.
Ah, those. Yes, if you're renting from the city and they find it more useful to give the flat to someone else, you get evicted. The solution is to rent from a private owner. Yes, this is a bit more expensive and you might have a hard time financing a 1000 sqft flat in the middle of the town as a single tenant on retirement money, but at least they can't simply kick you out as they please.
Organize using the internet, hit the streets. What are they going to do, gun down a few millions of people? Any government as much as trying to do that is done for.
With other malware I'd agree, with ransomware this isn't the case. Ransomware doesn't actually require any elevated permissions, that's what makes it so successful. What does ransomware want to access? Local files in the user storage space. I.e. exactly the files that the user needs to be able to manipulate in his every day business. It needn't install a service, it needn't create files in non-user spaces, it has no reason to write into the registry.
What ransomware needs to do, and I agree with you on that ground, is to run software from an "odd" place, like the download directory, the temp directory or the user directory, i.e. from places where there should be no executable file in a normal work environment. That can be dealt with via software policies and execution prevention of software from places other than whitelisted directories where executables are stored.
At least as long as you don't have some harebrained copy protection mechanism that does some unpacking to/tmp to run from there.
Malware is a business. For the same reason there is no malware working on some obscure NeXT clone OS, it doesn't work on Windows 10S: Why bother writing malware for a system nobody uses?
Slashdot Mirror
No, it's FABULOUS!
Affording Cable isn't the issue, but there is simply no reason to waste money on that shit.
I might be special (in the "special kid" sense, I know...), but TV never really captivated me in the first place. Watching something without doing something meaningful myself was already something I couldn't really stand while at school where I had to be, and I certainly wasn't going to do it during the time I actually could decide for myself what to do.
Way past Millennial age here (GenXer, IIRC). It might be due to me living in a different country where the networks buy from other networks without taking care that they only buy from Fox, ABC or whoever else there is, but then again, I also don't know what networks bought what series. Why? Because it doesn't matter AT ALL.
Why is that in any way important knowledge?
Pretty much any premeditated murder is usually not because you think fondly of the person you waste. Actually, killing someone because you dislike the group he belongs to requires less hate than killing the guy that slept with your wife, independent of the subgroup he belongs to.
Simply because any hate you may have for a group distributes better than hate concentrated on a single person. But I guess we needed to put a label on something, and it should of course be one that is loaded negatively enough so people quickly realize how they should think of it.
Target should have known their target audience better. When your only sales argument is your low, low price, your target audience is probably not the hipster crowd.
And I am a private citizen and can decide whether I approve of their censorship and buy their crap or whether I decide to not honor their politics and abstain.
Yes, that is actually a choice you have.
Go buy a device that offers it.
Like any from anyone who "made it big". And it's not even that they try to deceive and mislead you because they don't want you to succeed.
Any time one of those self-made billionaires tells you how he made it and what to do, you're essentially listening to someone who won the jackpot in the life lottery telling you the numbers he played. At the same time, you could ask a thousand people who didn't make it who will tell you exactly the same, but they just didn't have the luck to be at that right place at the right time that this guy was.
That what he did worked for him at that time when he did it is obvious. Just like playing those numbers on that day worked for the lottery player. You will not reliably repeat this by doing the same, for this too many variables changed in the game. Even if there was no FUBU today, opening a chain like this today would fail simply because the market changed and there is no longer the amount of young people with expendable money, just to name one factor that makes or breaks this business.
Time is money.
It's fairly easy to convert time to money, provided you have a job, of course.
It's pretty hard to do it the other way 'round. And the few times you can, it tends to be expensive. Ask Steve Jobs how it worked out for him.
In other words, when you have the choice, sacrifice money instead. It's cheaper.
This is where you have to start talking to people and ask them to trade shifts with you, and then convince them to actually do so. In other words, communication and salesmanship, two things you should have if you want to start your own business in the first place.
Legal? Nah. FUD is the message here, didn't see that? Basically they're saying "This cannot fly. Look at Transmeta. See? We left them in the dust. And this, this HAS to go the way of the Dodo too!"
They're trying to badmouth it, not fight it with patents.
Or how about the good old tradition of paying your debt off with your last possession: Yourself.
Actually competent people go into business instead of politics and actually get shit done.
Yes, some things are hard to verify. Or falsify, more correctly. But in the end, what we "dress up" as science is in such a case simply the most likely scenario. You are not expected to accept them with faith, you are expected to come up with an equally likely alternative scenario and weigh them against each other.
In the end, usually the one that requires the least (note: least, not fewest) assumptions is the one that gets picked. For good reason. When you hear hooves, expect horses, not zebras.
What? Government owning land? What are you, a commie?
Ah, those. Yes, if you're renting from the city and they find it more useful to give the flat to someone else, you get evicted. The solution is to rent from a private owner. Yes, this is a bit more expensive and you might have a hard time financing a 1000 sqft flat in the middle of the town as a single tenant on retirement money, but at least they can't simply kick you out as they please.
And he was sentenced to housing Muslims in his home and let them behead his children? Now that's what I call cruel and unusual punishment!
Love it!
Why waste the pig intestines?
Organize using the internet, hit the streets. What are they going to do, gun down a few millions of people? Any government as much as trying to do that is done for.
Then she'll get the support of the aristocracy by making fox hunting not only a sport but a duty for national safety.
Don't worry, I'm pretty sure they already forgot who crippled the internal security in the first place to make all of this possible.
Or just get their appstore to do the malware distribution for you.
Or do you really think MS will check more about your software than whether its revenue stream is flowing?
With other malware I'd agree, with ransomware this isn't the case. Ransomware doesn't actually require any elevated permissions, that's what makes it so successful. What does ransomware want to access? Local files in the user storage space. I.e. exactly the files that the user needs to be able to manipulate in his every day business. It needn't install a service, it needn't create files in non-user spaces, it has no reason to write into the registry.
What ransomware needs to do, and I agree with you on that ground, is to run software from an "odd" place, like the download directory, the temp directory or the user directory, i.e. from places where there should be no executable file in a normal work environment. That can be dealt with via software policies and execution prevention of software from places other than whitelisted directories where executables are stored.
At least as long as you don't have some harebrained copy protection mechanism that does some unpacking to /tmp to run from there.
Malware is a business. For the same reason there is no malware working on some obscure NeXT clone OS, it doesn't work on Windows 10S: Why bother writing malware for a system nobody uses?