I don't understand how your comment got modded Insightful, but here goes...
The car analogy isn't at all appropriate. Unlike physical car locks, software kernels can are are regularly patched. The types of risk are completely different.
Perhaps responsible disclosure is a better option. But your argument does not in any way support that statement.
Ahh, but if software kernels are regularly patched the immediate full disclosure isn't necessary, is it?
Pause.
Mmm. Right. The point is that if you don't expect a fix forthcoming - which is the alleged justification for disclosure - the analogy is sound.
Chances are quite good that blackhats already are using an exploit.
Studies show 87.3% of statistics are made up.
All I can offer in return is anecdotal evidence. All of the malware that I end up having to remove for customers (I have a lot of self-managed machines) that I've investigated have involved known flaws in software that could have been but wasn't patched (yet). I have yet to see zero-day exploits in the wild, personally.
Absolutely. Immediate disclosure to the public means that they can immediately take measures to reduce their risk. If you tell me that there's a bug in a package I use, I can stop using the package. If you tell the vendor that there's a bug in a package I use, I can't do anything to protect myself.
Absolutely not. Your fairy-world imagined utopia is unrealistic.
To use the inevitable car analogy, if a researcher discovers that all automobiles manufactured by GM, Ford, Chrysler, and Honda can be unlocked, started, and driven with the use of a paperclip and that researcher adopts your policy, what happens? Oh, no worries... we North Americans can just immediately take measures to reduce our risk. Like emptying our fuel tanks and buying a bicycle. Or taking our car to a wrecker and buying a nice new Tata import.
"I can stop using the package" is a mindless statement when that "package" is the best-selling OS on the planet. Just like replacing our vehicles so they don't vanish from our driveways, changing OS isn't something that can practically happen overnight. No, thanks to Mr. Full Disclosure we KNOW we're going to get digitally raped by an onslaught of blended-threat spyware-laden remote exploits that finally have a great way to install rootkits even on systems where users don't have admin rights.
Maybe immediate and full disclosure is the right policy for open-source hobbyist software like Linux. I mean, hey, just go compile your own kernel, right?
Clue: if he waited and waited until there WAS an exploit in the wild created by a Black Hat, MS might have patched in time. Because he didn't, MS definitely hasn't. Now he is the Black Hat.
No. What's selling extremely well: Windows 8 licenses. Lenovo (you know... that PC-maker that's actually increasing their shipped-units, profits, and market-share in an overall market decline) is shipping a LOT of machines pre-downgraded to Win7 for the end user. The license sold is still a Win8 license but that's not what's on the machine.
Microsoft doesn't much care. As long as Volume Licensing customers buy Office 2013 licenses (which is all MS sells now) they can tout great sales. Meanwhile Office 2010 or 2007 is what's getting installed.
You're going to see the same thing with Exchange 2013. "Best-selling version yet!" Yeah, well, it breaks a bunch of compatibility like no version before it since maybe 2000 did relative to 5.5 No worries... we'll just use our VL rights to install Exchange 2010 and Microsoft will declare a victory.
Battlestar Galactica also posited that connecting two computers together with an ethernet cable instantly makes them completely vulnerable to long-distance wireless hacking because "now it's a network and the cylons can hack networks", so I'd take the whole thing with a grain of salt.
Why a grain of salt?
Galactica DID have an internal network. It had several. It was connecting those networks to one another that Adama objected to.
Ship systems such as navigational sensors and communications being networked with weapons, defenses and damage-control introduced vulnerability that didn't need to be there. The little external "hacking" that did go on in the show wasn't unrealistic. Cylons would transmit code which attacked external-facing sensors, and then took down connected internal systems. There was no sign of direct-hacking of non-external-facing systems. They usually showed things like DRADIS going down, followed by engines.
You absolutely do see individual networks such as the intercom system, and the damage-control-assessment board. Sensible use of networks. Your idea that BSG was ethernet-o-phobic is simply false. Time to go re-watch the show.
If they are going to charge across the board and assume we are all pirates, perhaps we should get a discount when we do legally purchase something to offset this cost? I'm sure the Belgian Media group has done the math and with so few legal purchases they'd be more than happy to reimburse me every time I do it the right way.
Yes, the discount should be 100%. If they're going to assume we're pirates and build their kickback on the basis that we're getting their product for free, we should... get their product for free.
So, you've got one or more servers which have lapsed warranty. You applied BIOS updates and bricked your controllers.
I don't mean to be a knob but I think the fault doesn't particularly lie with the vendor. Unless the update bricks most or all cards out there, it's more likely your config or procedure resulted in this. The bottom line is that you're running a non-warrantied configuration and something something something, resulting in bad. It doesn't matter what the something is, nobody's obligated to support a set of hardware that doesn't have support maintenance in place on it. I absolutely cringe for you... your situation totally sucks, but even if the update was named "OMGWTF PONIES! CLICK HERE!", you still did a maintenance function on a machine while lacking the standard support safety net.
Realistically, even just USING the server is at-your-own-risk. Anything you do beyond "shut it off and replace it" is - sadly - your own circumstance.
So you say someone is being sexist... and then follow up with a load of sexist bullcrap pseudo-psychology. Seriously?
Well, the GP post to which he was replying was highly sexist, so there is that. The take-home message that AC delivered was "no matter what, you aren't doing as much work as your woman, you don't experience as much stress as your woman, and you are Doing It Wrong." While that may be accurate in some or even many cases, it's not clear that it is in most, and it's pure speculation if it's accurate in the OP's case.
That being said, I'm of the opinion that the OP's premise is faulty. The correct answer is "ask her if she's got any interest." Asking how to get one's spouse to do such-and-such-a-hobby begs the response "same way she gets you to do the things she likes that you don't." People tend to do what they want to do. Weird. So, if she's not a gamer it's probably because she doesn't want to be. At best the OP can expose her to a couple video games to see if any genre happens to draw her interest, but I doubt that many adult Americans have no idea what video game variety looks like.
Place your valuables (cash, cards, passport) in a small bag - and stuff it down the front of your pants.
Bag being small or not, where are you coming by all this room in the front of your pants for traveling cash, ID, and cards? At least in my case, that storage area is at capacity. Using travel lingo one might say... overbooked.
I've never understood the desire to pirate apps iOS (or Android/WP) apps. If I'm paying over £500 for the device, then logic dictates that I have enough disposable income to pay the going rate for apps.
One: one of the ways people with disposable income stay that way is by being circumspect about when and where they dispose of said income.
Two: most mobile apps are crap. They either don't work (for the purpose they are desired for) or work poorly, or the purpose turns out to be pointless. Many of those don't have demos available. Piracy provides a try-before-you-buy avenue. Sure, not everyone buys, even if they like the app. But there's still a "legit" reason to want to circumvent the payment system.
Three: Not everything is worth the asking price to everyone. There are apps that a user plans on using extremely rarely for instance. Paying full price for something you might use once a year may not be justified. Sure, you could just do without (that's the legal, strictly honorable way) but if you're in that category, you don't represent a lost sale. Having the pirate version for extreme rare use does nobody harm.
Personally I know I've done #2 a couple times, for $10-$20 utilities. Most of the time the tool doesn't work as I need it to so it gets removed within a couple days. The rest of the time, the creator gets a sale. I may even have one program present Just In Case that I can't justify paying for. If my needs change and it becomes useful to me, I'll direct cash to the creator but for now it's just dead code sitting in a folder, benefiting nobody.
Wow, I guess someone forgot to tell them that souls do not exist. Someone should get on that ASAP. That is, unless someone has actually discovered some sort of evidence for one (not redefined to be identical to the mind).
See, while I personally agree with your assertion, the disdain and intolerance you exhibit certainly won't help you communicate with religious extremists. Their world-view is very important to them and being so casually dismissive won't allow for mutual understanding. Basically, understanding someone's viewpoint and at least acting as if it were valid is the first step in dialogue... dialogue that might one day make the other person less extreme.
Where your logic is (horrifyingly) wrong, so I'll explain instead: Child pornography is banned because it causes harm. THERE IS NO LAW AGAINST DRAWINGS OR ANIME DEPICTING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY in the U.S., because no one is harmed -- or potentially harmed -- in drawings or anime.
Incidentally, in Canada (for instance) such drawings or renderings are illegal.
More to-the-point, it is the view of religious exclusionist-extremists that blasphemy is harmful to the soul which is seen as a much more serious problem. Damage to the body can heal. Damage to the mind lasts a lifetime at worst. Damage to the soul is forever. The position of (extremist) religion is that one's relationship with God is more important than anything else. Which is to say... sensible regimes ban child pornography (which involves actual harm) while non-sensible regimes ban "blasphemy".
Except... perhaps it is said "February 14th" because of the stupid MM/DD/YY format.
What ticks me off in addition to that is that there are still places that use two digit years. Did we learn nothing from Y2K?
Or it could be that some people know how to be verbally efficient. Y'know, instead of slavishly trying to adhere to an attempt to placate one's OCD by listing the date components in a nice growth-pattern? This is sort of like insisting that toilet-paper needs to be hung with the paper away from the wall - it's the One True Enlightened Way - because... oh... that keeps dirty knuckles away from the wallpaper. Really? The difference between "makes sense" and "is arbitrary" is so marginal it's almost immeasurable. This isn't like "metric versus Yankee". This is like "colour versus color". Yeah, the bonus "u" assists suggestion of pronunciation but really on the grand scale of things it's irrelevant.
No, we learned nothing from Y2K. The masses think they learned that computer people are alarmists - as opposed to learning that we know how to react to a technical problem and address it. Computer people think we learned to not place limits anywhere attainable values, but we really haven't.
If only I'd thought of that and had a whole example outlining it - and it's superfluous word; "of".
When's the Doctor Who Christmas special broadcasting?
The Twen Ty Fifth Of De Cem Ber (8 syllables)
De Cem Ber Twen Ty Fifth (6 syllables)
Conversationally here in Canada I find the shorter version (much) more common. But that's the discussion... it's regional. I posted my comment with regards to the use of the word "irrational". Too many people seem to think things done differently from the way they are taught to do them are stupid or worse. It's a civilization (or civilisation, depending) thing to get it that Other does not automatically mean Wrong.
MM/DD/YYYY, it's a format that irrational people use. I see it frequently from my fellow Americans. Personally, I've always liked YYYY/MM/DD, because it can't get confused for the other two common formats, and because it sorts nicely in ls.
Not an American by the way, but it's hardly irrational. It's the numeric representation of the way dates are usually spoken. "February 14th, 2003 was notable because while an exceptional number of normal people were busy getting laid, most Slashdotters weren't." The closest similar format adds a superfluous word. "The 14th of February 2004 was no different with regards to the carnal delights not enjoyed by Slashdotters." Nobody except voice-overs in movies use your preferred format in speech. "2005... February 14th... all over the world human beings are overcome by erotic satisfaction... except one man. That man is... Anonymous Coward."
The best way is to stop being moronic and insist every date needs to be expressed numerically. I prefer to never write months numerically. I use "Feb 14/2006". If your hard drive is too full of porn to fit those extra bytes, well, you're beyond help.
It's Apple's platform. I agree that a 30% cut is a bit too much, and there could be tiers introduced based on company size, revenue, etc., but to manage this would probably be a bit too much for them, although it would be beneficial for small startups.
Devil's advocate here. If I manufacture a brick, I set the price that I am willing to sell that brick to a brick store. That brick store can then apply whatever margin they wish to my brick before they sell it to the public. While I can recommend a retail price (MSRP) I cannot enforce that price without simply not selling my bricks to the brick store. I set the price of my brick at the amount I need to cover cost of manufacturing plus some profit. If the brick store's retail price is so high that it discourages people from buying my bricks, I have no recourse. I can certainly request a price drop but have no real influence other than ceasing my supply.
Why would the digital distribution model be any different?
To be fair, that doesn't say "we sell nothing but bundles of cross-platform, DRM-free video games...". McDonalds sells Big Macs. They also sell orange juice. Heck, they'll sell you a cup of water for the price of a cup though you won't find it on the menu.
Not that the average user you reference has any business reinstalling their O/S. With extra steps like needing chipset drivers, Joe Average doesn't have the resources or experience to do the job. If they do, they're not average.
Final comment... a few minutes of Google searching results in MD5/SHA hashes for known MS media. So... grabbing ISOs from non-MS sites isn't as dangerous as it seems.
Has something changed there? Because in the past Microsoft has been quite clear that the OEM license on your machine does not permit you to download a retail copy from wherever you want to install it, and being that the only Windows CD that comes with most machines is the restore CD (which is loaded with all the garbage) I'd love to hear how exactly you are supposed to legally acquire a clean copy of Windows to install on that machine that came with the OEM version on a restore CD (not an install CD)
So... download an OEM copy from wherever you want and install it. Because that results in a 100% legitimate licensed install. You're using the media you are permitted to use with the license you paid for. While the act of downloading the media is questionable and even potentially unsafe, it's quite justifiable and would be impractical to be prosecuted for.
See, one of the ways advertising works is "limit 10 per customer". You don't need 10 but the mind finds "10" available because it just heard that number. So. Your brain starts at 10 and works its way down to arrive at a number it thinks you might need. Say... a nice half-dozen. On the other hand, if the advertising industry had said "you can buy as few as 1", your brain would start at 1 and work its way up until it reached a number it thinks you might need. Say... four.
This is just one way that advertising manipulates the consumer. How about "one of the best [whatever] available today... buy one now!"? Well, know what? Literally every single [whatever] except the absolute worst is in fact one of the best. One hundred competing [whatevers]? The 99th best is still one of the best though you might want to find the 1st or 2nd best. But they don't give you real numbers in this case.
Oh wait. What about false authority? "Nine out of ten dentists recommend Crelm toothpaste to brighten your pearly whites." Is there a stack of "rejects" that they're conveniently dropping, where 90 out of 90 don't recommend Crelm? I mean, that'd be a 91% rejection-rate overall, but if you just ignore statistics you don't like, you're off to the races manipulating your consumers into believing they've heard a meaningful and reliable figure. They'll buy your product because their mind remembers your figures even though they're meaningless without fine print.
Three words: new and improved. Seriously? "Now tastes better than ever." Speaking of bullshit. Are our whites really any whiter than laundry detergent made them 35 years ago? I don't see any evidence of that yet the makers are always touting their new formula.
This stuff flies below the radar. Most people aren't nearly cynical enough to pay attention to advertisement and notice how little it really says about the products its for. We let it go in one ear and out another, patting ourselves on the back about how we're immune to marketing. Well guess what? Much of what we see and hear is retained and that retention is absolutely at a subconscious level. It doesn't control us but it does influence us. I get the point you're trying to make otherwise but I couldn't let this stand without replying because it's just wrong. There is a HUGE amount of psychology behind advertising. It's not about black helicopters and men in trench-coats coming to get me. Its about very, very educated people who know how to extract the maximum amount from my wallet that is humanly possible while I don't want them to. Mind-control by any other name, yes?
May I ask you why do you visit these offensive ad-supported web sites?
A fair question, certainly. I strenuously object to mental manipulation. Have no doubt; advertisement is all about manipulating and altering the target's opinion and mind-set. Everything from the tone of voice to the colors displayed to the choice of words are carefully crafted to convince you to see products and vendors differently. While some techniques sound reasonable on the surface - such as brand recognition - others are downright sleazy. "Sex sells." I like sex... that's good, but using sexy models to sell cars is manipulation. There's no real reason to believe owning a particular model will get me laid, but the advertising industry would have me think exactly that.
Is there something which forces you enter their URL into your browser? Are there armed thugs in your house sent by these disgusting sites? Do you hear voices in your head urging you to suffer?
Wait, what? Since you're dipping into sarcasm mode, I guess I'd like to ask... where did I imply or state that I'm visiting advertisers' web sites? I'm not. I'm happily planning on visiting sites that have content interesting to me when unrelated content is injected into that experience. I might think I'm going to get news stories - and I do - but in addition I get other things.
I don't enter the ads URLs into my browser but strangely the content appears regardless. Your supposition that the thugs involved are armed isn't one I support, but the fact is someone else enters advertising A HREFs into the data I request. Without ad-blocking tech, that content is in fact forced upon me.
By the way, I see that you are regularly using Slashdot. Have you bought a Slashdot subscription to not get advertisements? Or do you use an ad-blocker, which is free after all, and the Slashdot employees are gladly work for free for your entertainment anyway? Maybe you can add a third candidate for being a parasite to your analysis.
Hey, there's an angle I never thought of before I didn't click the little box beside the "you are eligible for less advertising" text Slashdot rewarded me with years ago. Or... not. While I do run Adblock, and while I don't universally whitelist everything Slashdot sends my way, the only thing that's blocked here are things caught by universal keywords. I regularly see advertisements for products I sell to my customers. Thank you very much for informing me that GFI sells FaxMaker. Very useful information. I'll be sure to remember that while I'm installing this year's support key. Yay tracking cookies.
I'm just smarming back. Yes, I see ads here. No, I haven't purchased an account. Yes, I have at other sites, so while obviously I don't fund every site I visit, I have been willing to put my money where my mouth is.
I understand why you don't like ads and I support your right to avoid them, but are you sure you understand who is exhibiting parasitic behavior in this situation?
Let's see.
The person running the web site. Seriously. They're accepting money from the advertising company that provides the ads. The advertising company ultimately gets nothing out of the deal because I - the viewer - am not going to buy their crap. Ergo the ad-funded web site owner is the parasite, feeding upon the false assumptions of the advertising industry.
Not good enough? Let's try again.
The advertising company providing the ads. They are using my compute resources and bandwidth to display content that is offensive to me. Without asking my permission, they utilize my time as well, consuming the moments my brain spends viewing their intrusion. While it can be argued that I benefit in the form of the content I DO want being paid for by the ads, there are other revenue models that mysteriously work for much content.
Just a thought... we - the consumers - should be suing the advertising industry (out of existence). If their model is snake-oil and does not work (as in generate sales) then they should be persecuted as frauds. If their model is effective and "generates" sales, they are guilty of the monetary equivalent of date-rape. Their images, sound clips, product-placement and so on act to manipulate us into spending money we do not otherwise wish to spend. It's coercion. It's just like hypnotizing their "marks" and "suggesting" the target voluntarily empties their wallet. If advertising works, it's disgusting.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't understand how your comment got modded Insightful, but here goes...
The car analogy isn't at all appropriate. Unlike physical car locks, software kernels can are are regularly patched. The types of risk are completely different.
Perhaps responsible disclosure is a better option. But your argument does not in any way support that statement.
Ahh, but if software kernels are regularly patched the immediate full disclosure isn't necessary, is it?
Pause.
Mmm. Right. The point is that if you don't expect a fix forthcoming - which is the alleged justification for disclosure - the analogy is sound.
Chances are quite good that blackhats already are using an exploit.
Studies show 87.3% of statistics are made up.
All I can offer in return is anecdotal evidence. All of the malware that I end up having to remove for customers (I have a lot of self-managed machines) that I've investigated have involved known flaws in software that could have been but wasn't patched (yet). I have yet to see zero-day exploits in the wild, personally.
Absolutely. Immediate disclosure to the public means that they can immediately take measures to reduce their risk. If you tell me that there's a bug in a package I use, I can stop using the package. If you tell the vendor that there's a bug in a package I use, I can't do anything to protect myself.
Absolutely not. Your fairy-world imagined utopia is unrealistic.
To use the inevitable car analogy, if a researcher discovers that all automobiles manufactured by GM, Ford, Chrysler, and Honda can be unlocked, started, and driven with the use of a paperclip and that researcher adopts your policy, what happens? Oh, no worries... we North Americans can just immediately take measures to reduce our risk. Like emptying our fuel tanks and buying a bicycle. Or taking our car to a wrecker and buying a nice new Tata import.
"I can stop using the package" is a mindless statement when that "package" is the best-selling OS on the planet. Just like replacing our vehicles so they don't vanish from our driveways, changing OS isn't something that can practically happen overnight. No, thanks to Mr. Full Disclosure we KNOW we're going to get digitally raped by an onslaught of blended-threat spyware-laden remote exploits that finally have a great way to install rootkits even on systems where users don't have admin rights.
Maybe immediate and full disclosure is the right policy for open-source hobbyist software like Linux. I mean, hey, just go compile your own kernel, right?
Clue: if he waited and waited until there WAS an exploit in the wild created by a Black Hat, MS might have patched in time. Because he didn't, MS definitely hasn't. Now he is the Black Hat.
Windows 8 is selling extremely well.
No. What's selling extremely well: Windows 8 licenses. Lenovo (you know... that PC-maker that's actually increasing their shipped-units, profits, and market-share in an overall market decline) is shipping a LOT of machines pre-downgraded to Win7 for the end user. The license sold is still a Win8 license but that's not what's on the machine.
Microsoft doesn't much care. As long as Volume Licensing customers buy Office 2013 licenses (which is all MS sells now) they can tout great sales. Meanwhile Office 2010 or 2007 is what's getting installed.
You're going to see the same thing with Exchange 2013. "Best-selling version yet!" Yeah, well, it breaks a bunch of compatibility like no version before it since maybe 2000 did relative to 5.5 No worries... we'll just use our VL rights to install Exchange 2010 and Microsoft will declare a victory.
Marketing is what these companies do. Spin.
Battlestar Galactica also posited that connecting two computers together with an ethernet cable instantly makes them completely vulnerable to long-distance wireless hacking because "now it's a network and the cylons can hack networks", so I'd take the whole thing with a grain of salt.
Why a grain of salt?
Galactica DID have an internal network. It had several. It was connecting those networks to one another that Adama objected to.
Ship systems such as navigational sensors and communications being networked with weapons, defenses and damage-control introduced vulnerability that didn't need to be there. The little external "hacking" that did go on in the show wasn't unrealistic. Cylons would transmit code which attacked external-facing sensors, and then took down connected internal systems. There was no sign of direct-hacking of non-external-facing systems. They usually showed things like DRADIS going down, followed by engines.
You absolutely do see individual networks such as the intercom system, and the damage-control-assessment board. Sensible use of networks. Your idea that BSG was ethernet-o-phobic is simply false. Time to go re-watch the show.
If they are going to charge across the board and assume we are all pirates, perhaps we should get a discount when we do legally purchase something to offset this cost? I'm sure the Belgian Media group has done the math and with so few legal purchases they'd be more than happy to reimburse me every time I do it the right way.
Yes, the discount should be 100%. If they're going to assume we're pirates and build their kickback on the basis that we're getting their product for free, we should... get their product for free.
Or to charge a micropayment for each sitting.
Or to charge a micropayment for each sitter. I'm sorry, you're not licensed for that chair.
Interestingly enough - and not mentioned in the summary - this doesn't impact BES 10. It's only BES for legacy devices that are affected.
So, you've got one or more servers which have lapsed warranty. You applied BIOS updates and bricked your controllers.
I don't mean to be a knob but I think the fault doesn't particularly lie with the vendor. Unless the update bricks most or all cards out there, it's more likely your config or procedure resulted in this. The bottom line is that you're running a non-warrantied configuration and something something something, resulting in bad. It doesn't matter what the something is, nobody's obligated to support a set of hardware that doesn't have support maintenance in place on it. I absolutely cringe for you... your situation totally sucks, but even if the update was named "OMGWTF PONIES! CLICK HERE!", you still did a maintenance function on a machine while lacking the standard support safety net.
Realistically, even just USING the server is at-your-own-risk. Anything you do beyond "shut it off and replace it" is - sadly - your own circumstance.
Outside the ISS seems like the last place you'd want to practice refueling.
No. Inside the ISS is the last place I'd want to practice refueling.
So you say someone is being sexist... and then follow up with a load of sexist bullcrap pseudo-psychology. Seriously?
Well, the GP post to which he was replying was highly sexist, so there is that. The take-home message that AC delivered was "no matter what, you aren't doing as much work as your woman, you don't experience as much stress as your woman, and you are Doing It Wrong." While that may be accurate in some or even many cases, it's not clear that it is in most, and it's pure speculation if it's accurate in the OP's case.
That being said, I'm of the opinion that the OP's premise is faulty. The correct answer is "ask her if she's got any interest." Asking how to get one's spouse to do such-and-such-a-hobby begs the response "same way she gets you to do the things she likes that you don't." People tend to do what they want to do. Weird. So, if she's not a gamer it's probably because she doesn't want to be. At best the OP can expose her to a couple video games to see if any genre happens to draw her interest, but I doubt that many adult Americans have no idea what video game variety looks like.
Place your valuables (cash, cards, passport) in a small bag - and stuff it down the front of your pants.
Bag being small or not, where are you coming by all this room in the front of your pants for traveling cash, ID, and cards? At least in my case, that storage area is at capacity. Using travel lingo one might say... overbooked.
I've never understood the desire to pirate apps iOS (or Android/WP) apps. If I'm paying over £500 for the device, then logic dictates that I have enough disposable income to pay the going rate for apps.
One: one of the ways people with disposable income stay that way is by being circumspect about when and where they dispose of said income.
Two: most mobile apps are crap. They either don't work (for the purpose they are desired for) or work poorly, or the purpose turns out to be pointless. Many of those don't have demos available. Piracy provides a try-before-you-buy avenue. Sure, not everyone buys, even if they like the app. But there's still a "legit" reason to want to circumvent the payment system.
Three: Not everything is worth the asking price to everyone. There are apps that a user plans on using extremely rarely for instance. Paying full price for something you might use once a year may not be justified. Sure, you could just do without (that's the legal, strictly honorable way) but if you're in that category, you don't represent a lost sale. Having the pirate version for extreme rare use does nobody harm.
Personally I know I've done #2 a couple times, for $10-$20 utilities. Most of the time the tool doesn't work as I need it to so it gets removed within a couple days. The rest of the time, the creator gets a sale. I may even have one program present Just In Case that I can't justify paying for. If my needs change and it becomes useful to me, I'll direct cash to the creator but for now it's just dead code sitting in a folder, benefiting nobody.
Wow, I guess someone forgot to tell them that souls do not exist. Someone should get on that ASAP. That is, unless someone has actually discovered some sort of evidence for one (not redefined to be identical to the mind).
See, while I personally agree with your assertion, the disdain and intolerance you exhibit certainly won't help you communicate with religious extremists. Their world-view is very important to them and being so casually dismissive won't allow for mutual understanding. Basically, understanding someone's viewpoint and at least acting as if it were valid is the first step in dialogue... dialogue that might one day make the other person less extreme.
Where your logic is (horrifyingly) wrong, so I'll explain instead: Child pornography is banned because it causes harm. THERE IS NO LAW AGAINST DRAWINGS OR ANIME DEPICTING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY in the U.S., because no one is harmed -- or potentially harmed -- in drawings or anime.
Incidentally, in Canada (for instance) such drawings or renderings are illegal.
More to-the-point, it is the view of religious exclusionist-extremists that blasphemy is harmful to the soul which is seen as a much more serious problem. Damage to the body can heal. Damage to the mind lasts a lifetime at worst. Damage to the soul is forever. The position of (extremist) religion is that one's relationship with God is more important than anything else. Which is to say... sensible regimes ban child pornography (which involves actual harm) while non-sensible regimes ban "blasphemy".
Except... perhaps it is said "February 14th" because of the stupid MM/DD/YY format. What ticks me off in addition to that is that there are still places that use two digit years. Did we learn nothing from Y2K?
Or it could be that some people know how to be verbally efficient. Y'know, instead of slavishly trying to adhere to an attempt to placate one's OCD by listing the date components in a nice growth-pattern? This is sort of like insisting that toilet-paper needs to be hung with the paper away from the wall - it's the One True Enlightened Way - because... oh... that keeps dirty knuckles away from the wallpaper. Really? The difference between "makes sense" and "is arbitrary" is so marginal it's almost immeasurable. This isn't like "metric versus Yankee". This is like "colour versus color". Yeah, the bonus "u" assists suggestion of pronunciation but really on the grand scale of things it's irrelevant.
No, we learned nothing from Y2K. The masses think they learned that computer people are alarmists - as opposed to learning that we know how to react to a technical problem and address it. Computer people think we learned to not place limits anywhere attainable values, but we really haven't.
If only I'd thought of that and had a whole example outlining it - and it's superfluous word; "of".
When's the Doctor Who Christmas special broadcasting?
The Twen Ty Fifth Of De Cem Ber (8 syllables)
De Cem Ber Twen Ty Fifth (6 syllables)
Conversationally here in Canada I find the shorter version (much) more common. But that's the discussion... it's regional. I posted my comment with regards to the use of the word "irrational". Too many people seem to think things done differently from the way they are taught to do them are stupid or worse. It's a civilization (or civilisation, depending) thing to get it that Other does not automatically mean Wrong.
MM/DD/YYYY, it's a format that irrational people use. I see it frequently from my fellow Americans. Personally, I've always liked YYYY/MM/DD, because it can't get confused for the other two common formats, and because it sorts nicely in ls.
Not an American by the way, but it's hardly irrational. It's the numeric representation of the way dates are usually spoken. "February 14th, 2003 was notable because while an exceptional number of normal people were busy getting laid, most Slashdotters weren't." The closest similar format adds a superfluous word. "The 14th of February 2004 was no different with regards to the carnal delights not enjoyed by Slashdotters." Nobody except voice-overs in movies use your preferred format in speech. "2005... February 14th... all over the world human beings are overcome by erotic satisfaction... except one man. That man is... Anonymous Coward."
The best way is to stop being moronic and insist every date needs to be expressed numerically. I prefer to never write months numerically. I use "Feb 14/2006". If your hard drive is too full of porn to fit those extra bytes, well, you're beyond help.
It's Apple's platform. I agree that a 30% cut is a bit too much, and there could be tiers introduced based on company size, revenue, etc., but to manage this would probably be a bit too much for them, although it would be beneficial for small startups.
Devil's advocate here. If I manufacture a brick, I set the price that I am willing to sell that brick to a brick store. That brick store can then apply whatever margin they wish to my brick before they sell it to the public. While I can recommend a retail price (MSRP) I cannot enforce that price without simply not selling my bricks to the brick store. I set the price of my brick at the amount I need to cover cost of manufacturing plus some profit. If the brick store's retail price is so high that it discourages people from buying my bricks, I have no recourse. I can certainly request a price drop but have no real influence other than ceasing my supply.
Why would the digital distribution model be any different?
To be fair, that doesn't say "we sell nothing but bundles of cross-platform, DRM-free video games...". McDonalds sells Big Macs. They also sell orange juice. Heck, they'll sell you a cup of water for the price of a cup though you won't find it on the menu.
Not free I will grant, but you can use this link: https://om.one.microsoft.com/opa/Validation.aspx?StoreID=b19f4ce9-dfcb-44e4-9abe-1c9dfbad47d0&LocaleCode=en-us&JavaScriptOn=yes
Not that the average user you reference has any business reinstalling their O/S. With extra steps like needing chipset drivers, Joe Average doesn't have the resources or experience to do the job. If they do, they're not average.
Final comment... a few minutes of Google searching results in MD5/SHA hashes for known MS media. So... grabbing ISOs from non-MS sites isn't as dangerous as it seems.
Has something changed there? Because in the past Microsoft has been quite clear that the OEM license on your machine does not permit you to download a retail copy from wherever you want to install it, and being that the only Windows CD that comes with most machines is the restore CD (which is loaded with all the garbage) I'd love to hear how exactly you are supposed to legally acquire a clean copy of Windows to install on that machine that came with the OEM version on a restore CD (not an install CD)
So... download an OEM copy from wherever you want and install it. Because that results in a 100% legitimate licensed install. You're using the media you are permitted to use with the license you paid for. While the act of downloading the media is questionable and even potentially unsafe, it's quite justifiable and would be impractical to be prosecuted for.
This anti-ad blind hate is foolish. This conspiracy "hypnosis" BS is just that: BS.
Excuse me? Two words; availability heuristic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic
See, one of the ways advertising works is "limit 10 per customer". You don't need 10 but the mind finds "10" available because it just heard that number. So. Your brain starts at 10 and works its way down to arrive at a number it thinks you might need. Say... a nice half-dozen. On the other hand, if the advertising industry had said "you can buy as few as 1", your brain would start at 1 and work its way up until it reached a number it thinks you might need. Say... four.
This is just one way that advertising manipulates the consumer. How about "one of the best [whatever] available today... buy one now!"? Well, know what? Literally every single [whatever] except the absolute worst is in fact one of the best. One hundred competing [whatevers]? The 99th best is still one of the best though you might want to find the 1st or 2nd best. But they don't give you real numbers in this case.
Oh wait. What about false authority? "Nine out of ten dentists recommend Crelm toothpaste to brighten your pearly whites." Is there a stack of "rejects" that they're conveniently dropping, where 90 out of 90 don't recommend Crelm? I mean, that'd be a 91% rejection-rate overall, but if you just ignore statistics you don't like, you're off to the races manipulating your consumers into believing they've heard a meaningful and reliable figure. They'll buy your product because their mind remembers your figures even though they're meaningless without fine print.
Three words: new and improved. Seriously? "Now tastes better than ever." Speaking of bullshit. Are our whites really any whiter than laundry detergent made them 35 years ago? I don't see any evidence of that yet the makers are always touting their new formula.
This stuff flies below the radar. Most people aren't nearly cynical enough to pay attention to advertisement and notice how little it really says about the products its for. We let it go in one ear and out another, patting ourselves on the back about how we're immune to marketing. Well guess what? Much of what we see and hear is retained and that retention is absolutely at a subconscious level. It doesn't control us but it does influence us. I get the point you're trying to make otherwise but I couldn't let this stand without replying because it's just wrong. There is a HUGE amount of psychology behind advertising. It's not about black helicopters and men in trench-coats coming to get me. Its about very, very educated people who know how to extract the maximum amount from my wallet that is humanly possible while I don't want them to. Mind-control by any other name, yes?
May I ask you why do you visit these offensive ad-supported web sites?
A fair question, certainly. I strenuously object to mental manipulation. Have no doubt; advertisement is all about manipulating and altering the target's opinion and mind-set. Everything from the tone of voice to the colors displayed to the choice of words are carefully crafted to convince you to see products and vendors differently. While some techniques sound reasonable on the surface - such as brand recognition - others are downright sleazy. "Sex sells." I like sex... that's good, but using sexy models to sell cars is manipulation. There's no real reason to believe owning a particular model will get me laid, but the advertising industry would have me think exactly that.
Is there something which forces you enter their URL into your browser? Are there armed thugs in your house sent by these disgusting sites? Do you hear voices in your head urging you to suffer?
Wait, what? Since you're dipping into sarcasm mode, I guess I'd like to ask... where did I imply or state that I'm visiting advertisers' web sites? I'm not. I'm happily planning on visiting sites that have content interesting to me when unrelated content is injected into that experience. I might think I'm going to get news stories - and I do - but in addition I get other things.
I don't enter the ads URLs into my browser but strangely the content appears regardless. Your supposition that the thugs involved are armed isn't one I support, but the fact is someone else enters advertising A HREFs into the data I request. Without ad-blocking tech, that content is in fact forced upon me.
By the way, I see that you are regularly using Slashdot. Have you bought a Slashdot subscription to not get advertisements? Or do you use an ad-blocker, which is free after all, and the Slashdot employees are gladly work for free for your entertainment anyway? Maybe you can add a third candidate for being a parasite to your analysis.
Hey, there's an angle I never thought of before I didn't click the little box beside the "you are eligible for less advertising" text Slashdot rewarded me with years ago. Or... not. While I do run Adblock, and while I don't universally whitelist everything Slashdot sends my way, the only thing that's blocked here are things caught by universal keywords. I regularly see advertisements for products I sell to my customers. Thank you very much for informing me that GFI sells FaxMaker. Very useful information. I'll be sure to remember that while I'm installing this year's support key. Yay tracking cookies.
I'm just smarming back. Yes, I see ads here. No, I haven't purchased an account. Yes, I have at other sites, so while obviously I don't fund every site I visit, I have been willing to put my money where my mouth is.
I understand why you don't like ads and I support your right to avoid them, but are you sure you understand who is exhibiting parasitic behavior in this situation?
Let's see.
The person running the web site. Seriously. They're accepting money from the advertising company that provides the ads. The advertising company ultimately gets nothing out of the deal because I - the viewer - am not going to buy their crap. Ergo the ad-funded web site owner is the parasite, feeding upon the false assumptions of the advertising industry.
Not good enough? Let's try again.
The advertising company providing the ads. They are using my compute resources and bandwidth to display content that is offensive to me. Without asking my permission, they utilize my time as well, consuming the moments my brain spends viewing their intrusion. While it can be argued that I benefit in the form of the content I DO want being paid for by the ads, there are other revenue models that mysteriously work for much content.
Just a thought... we - the consumers - should be suing the advertising industry (out of existence). If their model is snake-oil and does not work (as in generate sales) then they should be persecuted as frauds. If their model is effective and "generates" sales, they are guilty of the monetary equivalent of date-rape. Their images, sound clips, product-placement and so on act to manipulate us into spending money we do not otherwise wish to spend. It's coercion. It's just like hypnotizing their "marks" and "suggesting" the target voluntarily empties their wallet. If advertising works, it's disgusting.
TLDR? Just read the bold parts.