But Microsoft isn't taking kindly to the bounty offer. "Microsoft does not condone the modification of its products,"
Once you sell one to me, it's my product, morons.
With Kinect, Microsoft built in numerous hardware and software safeguards designed to reduce the chances of product tampering. Microsoft will continue to make advances in these types of safeguards and work closely with law enforcement and product safety groups to keep Kinect tamper-resistant.
What the hell, are these X-ray machines or something with radioactive material in them that would sicken the user if he opened it up?!? I had better be sure thisn't some strange dream.
Being OLD is never a good excuse to replace it. There may be other issues that need addressing but OLD is never it. If anything, OLD is a good reason to keep it. It's "survival of the fittest" and X11 apparently outlasted many attempts to replace it.
And by your logic, if it gets "replaced" with Wayland, then Wayland was obviously better. I mean, how do you think survival of the fittest works, if it doesn't involve competing entities?
I think the comment is entirely appropriate. After all, as someone who contributes to Slashdot comments, I have no reason to recommend any other website to anyone. Why would I? Clearly, if it's not Slashdot, nobody could benefit from it. For the same reason, a GNOME developer would never have any reason to recommend any other desktop environment to GNOME to anyone.
I love Flashblock for browsing YouTube. Then if you hit the back button a few times, you don't have to wait for the video to reload each time. Or you can go to a video and decide whether you even want to wait for it to load.
No, they infringed on her copyright for it. She still has the article, and wherever she published it. Since it's still there, it was not stolen. That's the litmus test for theft.
Exactly. The terms just mean the new generation of technology, an informal thing at best. It's like game consoles. Every cycle you have the "next generation" consoles. It's just a way to informally let someone know which cycle the technology comes from, relative to the current one in use and the new one being rolled in. Why don't people get up in arms about actual objective claims, like bandwidth or whatever?
And yet there are no images in the article, just video. Is it just me who's annoyed at the growing number of stories with just a couple of sentences and a video? I just skip those. Oh well.
On many juries nobody is aware of the purpose of juries, as a judge of facts and as a check on abuses of law, so they think they have to deliver a guilty verdict, even if it's against their conscience. This is exactly why juries exist, to avoid abuses of the law, but our wonderful educational system has ensured that they are ignorant of their power.
Assessing the risk of people is not evil, it is what they should be doing to run a good business. However, making conclusions about that risk--to the tune of 1.2% APR--based upon a single factor that is easily manipulated and impossible to verify is just stupid.
Is there a law against a business making stupid business decisions? Maybe this filtering has actually been useful to them... only they know. I suspect that the real outrage is simply due to businesses doing exactly what buyers do, that is, trying to maximize profit and minimize loss. It's fine when we do it, but not when companies do it, even though in both cases it's a holder of something of value exercising discretion as to what he will exchange it for, in order to maximize the value he gets from it.
One would think that credit analysis would be done by generally accepted rules, like credit score. I like to use Firefox, but I have a score over 800. Should I pay a high rate because of my browser choice when I've 'done it right' in every other way?
You should pay if you find the offer worth paying for. Just as the company offering the loan/insurance should offer only if they find it worth the risk, however they decide to calculate risk. Then, a voluntary exchange takes place in which both parties are happy. If not, then no exchange takes place. One party may be angry that the other was charging so much, or offered so little, but that's the nature of voluntary exchange. Are you suggesting that they should be required to calculate risk in a certain way, because they're otherwise violating your rights by exercising full control over how they manage their capital?
You were floored because they don't charge everyone the same rate, instead basing it on the likely risk the person offers? I, for one, am glad they do this, because it means I'm not subsidizing other more risky people when I get insurance.
Yes, using the Internet for transporting data between machines will destroy it. We must avoid using the Internet in order to save it so that it will be there for future generations to not use!
If you model the risk and revenue of applicants, the type of browser shows up as a significant variable.
Not anymore, now that this story is circulating. Maybe they'll be able to detect Firefox users who have spoofed their useragent string, and give them even higher rates.:)
So by hiding this information that allows them to better assess risk, they'll spread the higher risk to the lower-risk people, effectively having them subsidize the higher-risk people. Because assessing the risk of people is evil.
Well - the internet has become an integral and vital part of many things indeed - so I personally do not believe it should be in the hands of companies at all - rather beside the point - but its the incentive for the rest of it.
My home PC is an integral part of me accessing the Internet, just as the backbone is. If a company wants to be a dick about it, let them; we can just use another company, or let one form in the void left by the dickish one. This applies regardless of the component: my PC, electricity, hard drives, networking gear, last-mile providers, backbone providers, whatever.
The fact that its such a vital area - similar to electricity, the road network, plumbing et cetera makes me think that it shouldn't be handed over on a silver platter to just anyone's whims.
I don't see anything magical about any part of it. If a company wants to build backbone access and sell it, fine. If they want to stop, fine. If the market is open, other companies will fill the void, because there's untapped profit if some other company just closed shop. Putting restrictions on the market can only make it less efficient, less-able to deliver the best solution.
What if the electrical company (assume the only one present in that region) randomly decided that people with more than 2 people in the family should pay more? That's the sort of thing. How do you protest against that?
If it did that, it would be leaving an opening for another power company to deliver power more cheaply. If not, then the overcharge is small, or there aren't very many families with more than 2 people. Why should the power company not be able to charge whatever it wants? (again, assuming it acquired all its property via voluntary exchange). After all, nobody else is providing power to these people. Why should the company that decided to do so have dictated how it will run its business? Surely it's not illegal for it to just close up shop and go out of business, yet that would leave everyone without power. Maybe I'm missing something here, I just don't get the logic.
BTW, I appreciate your civil tone, and hope I haven't been too disrespectful in reply.:)
They get money from the state... to build out a network that they were supposed to maintain and let anyone use, or provide services on.
And you believed them? See the common thread: everyone's a selfish bastard, so you don't give anyone the keys to the kingdom, because they will be misused. Let a company acquire its own property via voluntary exchange (not money from the government), and then it can do whatever it wants with that property. Stop there. Don't give anyone property without having to make voluntary exchanges for it. Don't make it legal for anyone to take property, period.
Now I realise that the government representing the 'people' has long gone - but at least you are allowed to fight back if you want to. Try complaining against large-company-X-which-supplies-the-only-internet-in-the-area and see where that gets you.
If the company has used its own reasources to build that service, how are they hurting anyone by charging whatever they want, on whatever terms they want? If they are in business, obviously their customers consider them worth it. What if the company decided to close and stop providing service? It sounds like you'd consider that a good thing, yet if that were the case, the people could simply stop buying the company's services and make that happen.
Now I know that other people who don't bother reading the parent post will reply about the company getting government money etc. Note the first line of the previous paragraph. If you still whine, "but the government gave them monopoly etc." then your problem is with the government, not the company. Haedrian's comment was about the company itself, in some hypothetical situation where it received nothing from the government, and that's what I'm responding to.
Boucher introduced legislation to allow consumers to break digital locks for lawful purposes
So they pass laws that outlaw breaking locks on things you physically own, and now they're being oh-so-gracious to "allow" us to break them, without putting us in jail for it?
Slashdot Mirror
Possibly (hint: summarize the event, put your comments/questions in a normal posting, not in the summary)
Once you sell one to me, it's my product, morons.
What the hell, are these X-ray machines or something with radioactive material in them that would sicken the user if he opened it up?!? I had better be sure thisn't some strange dream.
And by your logic, if it gets "replaced" with Wayland, then Wayland was obviously better. I mean, how do you think survival of the fittest works, if it doesn't involve competing entities?
I think the comment is entirely appropriate. After all, as someone who contributes to Slashdot comments, I have no reason to recommend any other website to anyone. Why would I? Clearly, if it's not Slashdot, nobody could benefit from it. For the same reason, a GNOME developer would never have any reason to recommend any other desktop environment to GNOME to anyone.
I love Flashblock for browsing YouTube. Then if you hit the back button a few times, you don't have to wait for the video to reload each time. Or you can go to a video and decide whether you even want to wait for it to load.
No, they infringed on her copyright for it. She still has the article, and wherever she published it. Since it's still there, it was not stolen. That's the litmus test for theft.
Exactly. The terms just mean the new generation of technology, an informal thing at best. It's like game consoles. Every cycle you have the "next generation" consoles. It's just a way to informally let someone know which cycle the technology comes from, relative to the current one in use and the new one being rolled in. Why don't people get up in arms about actual objective claims, like bandwidth or whatever?
And yet her recipe and article are still where she put them. They did not take either! So your own summary is bad. They infringed on her copyrights.
And yet there are no images in the article, just video. Is it just me who's annoyed at the growing number of stories with just a couple of sentences and a video? I just skip those. Oh well.
On many juries nobody is aware of the purpose of juries, as a judge of facts and as a check on abuses of law, so they think they have to deliver a guilty verdict, even if it's against their conscience. This is exactly why juries exist, to avoid abuses of the law, but our wonderful educational system has ensured that they are ignorant of their power.
Is there a law against a business making stupid business decisions? Maybe this filtering has actually been useful to them... only they know. I suspect that the real outrage is simply due to businesses doing exactly what buyers do, that is, trying to maximize profit and minimize loss. It's fine when we do it, but not when companies do it, even though in both cases it's a holder of something of value exercising discretion as to what he will exchange it for, in order to maximize the value he gets from it.
You should pay if you find the offer worth paying for. Just as the company offering the loan/insurance should offer only if they find it worth the risk, however they decide to calculate risk. Then, a voluntary exchange takes place in which both parties are happy. If not, then no exchange takes place. One party may be angry that the other was charging so much, or offered so little, but that's the nature of voluntary exchange. Are you suggesting that they should be required to calculate risk in a certain way, because they're otherwise violating your rights by exercising full control over how they manage their capital?
You were floored because they don't charge everyone the same rate, instead basing it on the likely risk the person offers? I, for one, am glad they do this, because it means I'm not subsidizing other more risky people when I get insurance.
Yes, using the Internet for transporting data between machines will destroy it. We must avoid using the Internet in order to save it so that it will be there for future generations to not use!
Too late
Not anymore, now that this story is circulating. Maybe they'll be able to detect Firefox users who have spoofed their useragent string, and give them even higher rates. :)
I hesitate to reveal that the whole Slashdot site is a fake, designed to get insightful comments from you. Everyone else is an AI, including me.
So by hiding this information that allows them to better assess risk, they'll spread the higher risk to the lower-risk people, effectively having them subsidize the higher-risk people. Because assessing the risk of people is evil.
My home PC is an integral part of me accessing the Internet, just as the backbone is. If a company wants to be a dick about it, let them; we can just use another company, or let one form in the void left by the dickish one. This applies regardless of the component: my PC, electricity, hard drives, networking gear, last-mile providers, backbone providers, whatever.
I don't see anything magical about any part of it. If a company wants to build backbone access and sell it, fine. If they want to stop, fine. If the market is open, other companies will fill the void, because there's untapped profit if some other company just closed shop. Putting restrictions on the market can only make it less efficient, less-able to deliver the best solution.
If it did that, it would be leaving an opening for another power company to deliver power more cheaply. If not, then the overcharge is small, or there aren't very many families with more than 2 people. Why should the power company not be able to charge whatever it wants? (again, assuming it acquired all its property via voluntary exchange). After all, nobody else is providing power to these people. Why should the company that decided to do so have dictated how it will run its business? Surely it's not illegal for it to just close up shop and go out of business, yet that would leave everyone without power. Maybe I'm missing something here, I just don't get the logic.
BTW, I appreciate your civil tone, and hope I haven't been too disrespectful in reply. :)
And you believed them? See the common thread: everyone's a selfish bastard, so you don't give anyone the keys to the kingdom, because they will be misused. Let a company acquire its own property via voluntary exchange (not money from the government), and then it can do whatever it wants with that property. Stop there. Don't give anyone property without having to make voluntary exchanges for it. Don't make it legal for anyone to take property, period.
If the company has used its own reasources to build that service, how are they hurting anyone by charging whatever they want, on whatever terms they want? If they are in business, obviously their customers consider them worth it. What if the company decided to close and stop providing service? It sounds like you'd consider that a good thing, yet if that were the case, the people could simply stop buying the company's services and make that happen.
Now I know that other people who don't bother reading the parent post will reply about the company getting government money etc. Note the first line of the previous paragraph. If you still whine, "but the government gave them monopoly etc." then your problem is with the government, not the company. Haedrian's comment was about the company itself, in some hypothetical situation where it received nothing from the government, and that's what I'm responding to.
So they pass laws that outlaw breaking locks on things you physically own, and now they're being oh-so-gracious to "allow" us to break them, without putting us in jail for it?
Stop, there's your problem: the state taking money from people and giving it to companies.
Yes, it's much better to have the big-governemtn-with-no-ulterior-motives-whatsoever control all the companies' data lines.
I figured it had something to do with the water in skin (which makes it conductive, and thus act as one plate of a capacitor).