A better question is this: If you were in international waters is it even a violation of copyright? What jurisdication's rules would be followed? What court could the plaintiffs sue you in? And, after reading this, who is going to go set up a new floating island in international waters with massive bandwidth and call it a "download destination" for a piratical getaway? "Come stay a week with us and torrent every movie and song ever written." BYOS (Bring Your Own Storage).
They didn't, obviously, end up doing it. I was under the impression that the core reason was a circular dependency. Without putting laws respecting basic copyright on the books, established nations would not acknowledge their sovereignty. Without such an acknowledgement, somebody could just sail out there and murder everyone without consequence.
Do we have a lawyer out there in the crowd who could weigh in on this?
So, let me get this straight: You found your company on the concept of making PC games, and become famous for making good PC games. When the openness of PC gaming leads to piracy, you abandon your loyal PC gaming fans to make console games, citing insufficient profits, and then half-assedly attempt to placate your now-abandoned loyalist PC gamers with a shitty console port.
Then, when Blizzard, the one company in the entire world who didn't succumb to the bullshit you did, starts to turn significant profit in return for their diligent work for the PC, you immediately spin around and try and jump on the bandwagon again, as if nothing happened?
Fuck you, Bobby Kotick, fuck you and the horse you rode in on.
Surely there's plenty of countries who will fast track med-tech that the FDA always seems to drag their feet on. What's to stop a company from setting up shop on the Mexican border for the latest in treatment?
Actually we know the opposite, that none of the FF developers play Farmville. If they did the problem never would have made it into the wild.
I'd love to know if any / how many Mozilla developers knew about this flaw but didn't report / submit it because that would involve admitting to playing Farmville (perhaps while at work).
Assuming this is strictly online (I can't be bothered with reading TFA) then it sounds like a very clever scam or an awesome Turing competition with unwitting participants.
Every now and then I read a/. post that genuinely makes me go "Holy crap, I hadn't even considered that."
So the well is alive now and needs to have a platoon of 4-ton robotic pacemakers?
I think what parent tried to say is that "circulating" is the wrong word. It should say "A dozen robots are circling the wellhead."
Note to TFA author: While using big words makes you look smart, you undo all your hard work when you use the wrong word simply because it sounded close enough.
... customers will have free unrestricted access to various paid sites and services, such as wsj.com...
This is the part that caught my eye. I have a friend who's apartment is within range of the Starbucks Wi-Fi.
I'm thinkin' I'll take one of my cheap laptops kicking around, leave it running in his apartment, and let my friends and I proxy through it to peruse Murdoch's prized possessions.
Anyone know if they have systems in place to prevent such tomfoolery?
And this is what's going to really kill science (and later engineering) in the USA. I've read variations of this line many, many times.
Have you looked into moving out of the country? I don't have any suggestions, but I wonder if there's any places which would be interested in highly qualified, English-speaking scientists. Europe, perhaps? Sure, the cost-of-living is a little higher in the western side, but if the pay is better, and the working conditions a lot better, then it's probably worth it.
I've been considering exactly this problem, and exactly this solution, for a long time, and would love to know if anyone has any solid resources on the topic.
Summary (and article) claims "44 million stolen gaming credentials", which sounds like a lot of us English-speaking and English-game-playing Slashdot readers.
However, in the article, they analyze "a particular sample", with about ~18.3 million accounts in it. Of those ~18.3 million, ~16 million of them were game accounts for "Wayi Entertainment", which is an Asian company. They have no English website, that I can tell, and I think it's a safe assumption there are no English counterpart to these games.
So we're mainly talking about accounts for crazy Asian freemium sprite-based "MMO's". There were only ~210,000 World of Warcraft accounts, most of which, I assume, are also for the Chinese version of the game.
So if you're reading this, I'm going to go out on a limb and say your account is probably safe.
Any reputable confirmations that this is, in fact, even suicide, and not the government turning a blind eye when one of it's huge sources of technology hardware starts knocking off troublemakers?
I think the lack of preemptive security is self-balancing. Those who do not believe preemptive security is necessary are those who fall victim and promptly change their tune.
It is unfortunate that such victims traditionally pay an exorbitantly disproportional price for their misconception (such as identity theft victims), but again, I believe the system to be self-balancing. If the thousands and thousands of bone-chilling horror stories about identity theft aren't enough to get you to take it seriously, what more do you expect us to do?
Additionally, one must consider an additional angle. Much of what we would call "preemptive security" in the physical realm still falls under the blanket term of "reactive security" when translated to the digital realm. Allow me to provide an example:
In the physical realm, one looks at their house and says: "Now, if I was a thief, how would I get inside? I would go through the windows. I should install bars." This gets labeled as "preemptive security".
But how does this translate to the digital realm? Your average user, perhaps even, unfortunately, your average programmer, lacks the creativity and foresight to consider how programs might be exploited. Instead, you task other people with figuring out how to get inside, so that you can turn around and fix it. This is commonly referred to as "penetration testing". Now, is this "preemptive security" or is this "reactive security"? (Hint: That's not an easy answer)
Consider, finally, the notion of the "white hat" hacker that performs penetration testing on his own, and then publishes this, either privately or publicly, in order to force the offender to increase their security. Is this "preemptive security" or is this "reactive security"? If this is "reactive security", what exactly would you call "preemptive security"?
Reactive security is not necessarily a bad thing. Only by challenging today's security can we seek to inspire people to improve security for tomorrow.
I do, however, feel that security in the digital age is laughable at best. It turns out telling a computer not to do what it's told is significantly harder than telling it to do what it's told.
Re:There's a hot GPU offloading support as well
on
Linux 2.6.34 Released
·
· Score: 1
There's experimental support for 'hotswitching' called 'PRIME' (for obvious reasons:) ).
For anyone too lazy to read all the comments, let alone the article, allow me to summarize them:
1) "I am a guy or know a guy in a datacenter who once sneezed and took down the entire eastern seaboard. This is perfectly understandable."
2) "I am a guy or know a guy in a datacenter. You could set off a nuclear bomb inside it and everyone could keep playing Farmville without missing a beat. This is unacceptable."
3) "This is capitalism's fault. The United States is a terrible country. People are fat and lazy."
4) "I'm pretending I don't know what cloud computing is so I can make a pun about meteorological clouds."
5) "I honestly don't even know which thread I'm posting in. The comment I'm responding to is already entirely off topic."
Slashdot Mirror
Only when Starbucks reaches the ocean will seasteading finally become a reality. That might be a ways off, though.
Everybody knows how this one turns out.
A better question is this: If you were in international waters is it even a violation of copyright? What jurisdication's rules would be followed? What court could the plaintiffs sue you in? And, after reading this, who is going to go set up a new floating island in international waters with massive bandwidth and call it a "download destination" for a piratical getaway? "Come stay a week with us and torrent every movie and song ever written." BYOS (Bring Your Own Storage).
If memory serves me correctly, The Pirate Bay nearly did exactly that a few years back.
They didn't, obviously, end up doing it. I was under the impression that the core reason was a circular dependency. Without putting laws respecting basic copyright on the books, established nations would not acknowledge their sovereignty. Without such an acknowledgement, somebody could just sail out there and murder everyone without consequence.
Do we have a lawyer out there in the crowd who could weigh in on this?
Alright, I'll ask what everyone is thinking:
I love you. No homo. Mod parent up.
So, let me get this straight: You found your company on the concept of making PC games, and become famous for making good PC games. When the openness of PC gaming leads to piracy, you abandon your loyal PC gaming fans to make console games, citing insufficient profits, and then half-assedly attempt to placate your now-abandoned loyalist PC gamers with a shitty console port.
Then, when Blizzard, the one company in the entire world who didn't succumb to the bullshit you did, starts to turn significant profit in return for their diligent work for the PC, you immediately spin around and try and jump on the bandwagon again, as if nothing happened?
Fuck you, Bobby Kotick, fuck you and the horse you rode in on.
Surely there's plenty of countries who will fast track med-tech that the FDA always seems to drag their feet on. What's to stop a company from setting up shop on the Mexican border for the latest in treatment?
Pretty much this.
Actually we know the opposite, that none of the FF developers play Farmville. If they did the problem never would have made it into the wild.
I'd love to know if any / how many Mozilla developers knew about this flaw but didn't report / submit it because that would involve admitting to playing Farmville (perhaps while at work).
It's pretty well known that the US's version of "left" is about the same as most European countries' version of "right".
You drop a line like that and you don't spin a car analogy about driving on different sides of the road? Really?
The man at the door will be confiscating your posting privileges on your way out.
Assuming this is strictly online (I can't be bothered with reading TFA) then it sounds like a very clever scam or an awesome Turing competition with unwitting participants.
Every now and then I read a /. post that genuinely makes me go "Holy crap, I hadn't even considered that."
This is one of them. Mod parent up, please.
So the well is alive now and needs to have a platoon of 4-ton robotic pacemakers?
I think what parent tried to say is that "circulating" is the wrong word. It should say "A dozen robots are circling the wellhead."
Note to TFA author: While using big words makes you look smart, you undo all your hard work when you use the wrong word simply because it sounded close enough.
http://xkcd.com/660/
Your link is really, really, really broken.
So what? I don't have Comcast.
A valid question for discussion. What implications does this have for those of us who use neither the services of NBC nor the services of Comcast?
This is the part that caught my eye. I have a friend who's apartment is within range of the Starbucks Wi-Fi.
I'm thinkin' I'll take one of my cheap laptops kicking around, leave it running in his apartment, and let my friends and I proxy through it to peruse Murdoch's prized possessions.
Anyone know if they have systems in place to prevent such tomfoolery?
We have encouraged our son not to into science.
And this is what's going to really kill science (and later engineering) in the USA. I've read variations of this line many, many times.
Have you looked into moving out of the country? I don't have any suggestions, but I wonder if there's any places which would be interested in highly qualified, English-speaking scientists. Europe, perhaps? Sure, the cost-of-living is a little higher in the western side, but if the pay is better, and the working conditions a lot better, then it's probably worth it.
I've been considering exactly this problem, and exactly this solution, for a long time, and would love to know if anyone has any solid resources on the topic.
Mod parent up. This might be the only new thing I learn today.
I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic/rhetorical
Where I come from, we shorten that sentence to "wooosh".
Mod parent up, please.
This guy nailed it.
Clearly, the only people who would object to such legislation are criminals.
Those of us who aren't doing anything illegal would have absolutely no reason to fear the loss of anonymous communication.
Summary (and article) claims "44 million stolen gaming credentials", which sounds like a lot of us English-speaking and English-game-playing Slashdot readers.
However, in the article, they analyze "a particular sample", with about ~18.3 million accounts in it. Of those ~18.3 million, ~16 million of them were game accounts for "Wayi Entertainment", which is an Asian company. They have no English website, that I can tell, and I think it's a safe assumption there are no English counterpart to these games.
So we're mainly talking about accounts for crazy Asian freemium sprite-based "MMO's". There were only ~210,000 World of Warcraft accounts, most of which, I assume, are also for the Chinese version of the game.
So if you're reading this, I'm going to go out on a limb and say your account is probably safe.
Any reputable confirmations that this is, in fact, even suicide, and not the government turning a blind eye when one of it's huge sources of technology hardware starts knocking off troublemakers?
I think the lack of preemptive security is self-balancing. Those who do not believe preemptive security is necessary are those who fall victim and promptly change their tune.
It is unfortunate that such victims traditionally pay an exorbitantly disproportional price for their misconception (such as identity theft victims), but again, I believe the system to be self-balancing. If the thousands and thousands of bone-chilling horror stories about identity theft aren't enough to get you to take it seriously, what more do you expect us to do?
Additionally, one must consider an additional angle. Much of what we would call "preemptive security" in the physical realm still falls under the blanket term of "reactive security" when translated to the digital realm. Allow me to provide an example:
In the physical realm, one looks at their house and says: "Now, if I was a thief, how would I get inside? I would go through the windows. I should install bars." This gets labeled as "preemptive security".
But how does this translate to the digital realm? Your average user, perhaps even, unfortunately, your average programmer, lacks the creativity and foresight to consider how programs might be exploited. Instead, you task other people with figuring out how to get inside, so that you can turn around and fix it. This is commonly referred to as "penetration testing". Now, is this "preemptive security" or is this "reactive security"? (Hint: That's not an easy answer)
Consider, finally, the notion of the "white hat" hacker that performs penetration testing on his own, and then publishes this, either privately or publicly, in order to force the offender to increase their security. Is this "preemptive security" or is this "reactive security"? If this is "reactive security", what exactly would you call "preemptive security"?
Reactive security is not necessarily a bad thing. Only by challenging today's security can we seek to inspire people to improve security for tomorrow.
I do, however, feel that security in the digital age is laughable at best. It turns out telling a computer not to do what it's told is significantly harder than telling it to do what it's told.
There's experimental support for 'hotswitching' called 'PRIME' (for obvious reasons :) ).
http://xkcd.com/541/
For anyone too lazy to read all the comments, let alone the article, allow me to summarize them:
1) "I am a guy or know a guy in a datacenter who once sneezed and took down the entire eastern seaboard. This is perfectly understandable."
2) "I am a guy or know a guy in a datacenter. You could set off a nuclear bomb inside it and everyone could keep playing Farmville without missing a beat. This is unacceptable."
3) "This is capitalism's fault. The United States is a terrible country. People are fat and lazy."
4) "I'm pretending I don't know what cloud computing is so I can make a pun about meteorological clouds."
5) "I honestly don't even know which thread I'm posting in. The comment I'm responding to is already entirely off topic."