Downloading it without paying for it instead of not buying it without paying for it does not punish the publisher at all.
But that actually punishes every other publisher, including indie games, since you're getting your entertainment fix from your pirated game and don't buy some other game instead.
For this same reason pirating apps punishes open source.
like a 30 day period for sending a written, notarized opt-out via certified mail
If Sony is so bad, why do you need to resort to lies to attack them? If they were so bad shouldn't you be able to make them look bad even without lies?
You should had bought an actual media box or built one yourself to begin with, not buy a game console. Use the right tool for the job if you want something done.
If this EULA update worries you, then just give them a written notice that you don't accept that clause. They allow it as long as you notice Sony, and they still let you accept rest of the EULA and use PSN. It's even written there right next to the clause. Read it.
In this specific case Sony also allowed you to opt-out from that specific provision and still accept the rest and use PSN, you only had to give them written notice about it. So if you want to bash Sony, it would be good to at least stay in truth.
So that seems to imply that "a search engine provider" paid them around $87 million in 2009, and $102 million in 2010. Of course, the current deal may be substantially higher or lower, but that's probably a ballpark figure.
It's not a fixed amount, it's revenue share from ad clicks. When Firefox user clicks any Google ads, Firefox also gains revenue. It's the same with Opera and other browsers. The only thing they need to negotiate is how high that percent is. Since Firefox market share has gone down, the amount Google pays them has as well.
People are always ranting about RIAA/MPAA while what they should really be worrying about is lecture book publishers. Music and movies are just entertainment, but these book publishers are preventing education and others from learning.
Book publishers are going to be crying about online learning and courses if they can't get their books required for them. They are already doing all kinds of shady monopoly deals and trying to hinder reselling of books by updating their course material almost every year, resulting in incompatible books for classes. I'm sure that if they cannot get their books forced in other ways, they're going to be doing some suing or forcing schools to shut down these online learning courses.
I'm not sure why people cry so much about RIAA and MPAA when there is such an assholish industry preventing people from learning. That has real results on whole advancement of humankind.
How is it idiotic to say that most people use web for socializing? Because RockMelt is browser made exactly for that. It already has like 2 million users and $40 million from investors, so yes it's a real thing used by many people. It's good to provide alternative views because most of the people get stuck in their own minds.
And just because I work in advertising doesn't mean my job involves advertising on slashdot. There are many geeks that do, but obviously they're bit hesitant to say so because on slashdot it's like admitting that you work for the devil (this probably counts for those slashdotters who work for MS too).
Mozilla really screwed up both their long-time users and new users. There really haven't been good improvements in a long time. Most of their time has went to making it more Chrome like, and playing with version numbers.
I've seen many old Firefox users change their engine, on top of those that have been using IE. They aren't using Firefox, they're using Chrome or RockMelt now. Especially RockMelt is an interesting browser - it completely abandons geeky stuff like NoScript or Adblock but instead caters to casual, normal people and how they use the internet. RockMelt has online Facebook friends directly on the site, along with recent news and updates from all social networks. It lets you easily add social bookmarks to sites like Reddit and Digg, along with sharing to Facebook and Twitter. Most people have been saying how wonderful it is compared to Firefox. It's an browser that actual people want.
Still, it would most likely be your own fault. But with Google driverless car it doesn't matter if you're a good driver and drive carefully or not, because you could get killed anyway. I know it's not always your own fault, but you can affect that. With driverless you cannot.
The worst part is that Google wants to build a driverless car. Flight pilots have been trained to react to emergencies in a calm manner and they have time to do so while in air. Neither is true for cars. People will panic when something goes wrong, and there won't be any time to react to them. Your life (and others life) will be completely dependent on the AI, and lets face it, there will be bugs.. Google isn't exactly known for bug free products. Hell, even NASA has bugs and they use billions so that there wouldn't be any. I just think it's a really bad idea and Google is being irresponsible and malicious with such project. Of course they will also hide some "we are not responsible for accidents in any way" under some clause. Let me just say that somewhere in the future we will be hearing how Google killed some innocent people and children.
DDOSing can be easily separated from actual attacks do nothing to "evaluate responses and defenses". It's only a nuisance and does nothing else than overload the systems or bandwidth. It does absolutely nothing to hide traces or provide information about security vulnerabilities.
You can, however, connect to the server via ssh tunnel and then make a database connection from there. This way the data is encrypted with remote locations too.
Why not just encrypt the database files on HDD and memory directly? That way database can still act really fast and you can use any existing database software.
Why do you think free speech is good for the humankind, overally? There are many issues with it too, just like there is with true democracy. Most countries in the world aren't even democracy, they're republic, just for the reason that true democracy would make things worse. For example, majority would really trump on some minority and would likely even attempt to make law to kill them.
I swear to you I could do better than Kim Jong Il. I would start by allowing free speech, criticism of the government. That alone would make me a better leader.
Yes, true armchair general here. Do you really think it would do good to make such radical change? Hell, it doesn't even work for China. The people won't accept that change.
Good example is Thailand where it's unlawful to call the king with names. This while in fact the king himself has said that people should be able to do so and they should be allowed to criticize him. But the people love him and just won't allow that law to be taken off. They want punishment for people who do so, even while the king himself doesn't.
You really need to think effects such actions would do. It seriously isn't just as straightforward as "there you go, free speech to all".
That happens elsewhere too. You really need to think about the scale of things. Whatever that cognac cost would not had end the starving. You can't really run a country either if you're starving yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
Nice referral code you got there.
My contribution is right there in the summary ;-)
Downloading it without paying for it instead of not buying it without paying for it does not punish the publisher at all.
But that actually punishes every other publisher, including indie games, since you're getting your entertainment fix from your pirated game and don't buy some other game instead.
For this same reason pirating apps punishes open source.
No, it's pure math. Since Firefox gets revenue share from Google, it also means that if they user count goes down, their revenue does too.
like a 30 day period for sending a written, notarized opt-out via certified mail
If Sony is so bad, why do you need to resort to lies to attack them? If they were so bad shouldn't you be able to make them look bad even without lies?
It's not a subjective opinion. While I could probably use it too, I still don't go out to buy screwdriver when I want to hit nails to a wall.
So all in all, there is a provision that lets you do just what I said.
You should had bought an actual media box or built one yourself to begin with, not buy a game console. Use the right tool for the job if you want something done.
If this EULA update worries you, then just give them a written notice that you don't accept that clause. They allow it as long as you notice Sony, and they still let you accept rest of the EULA and use PSN. It's even written there right next to the clause. Read it.
In this specific case Sony also allowed you to opt-out from that specific provision and still accept the rest and use PSN, you only had to give them written notice about it. So if you want to bash Sony, it would be good to at least stay in truth.
So that seems to imply that "a search engine provider" paid them around $87 million in 2009, and $102 million in 2010. Of course, the current deal may be substantially higher or lower, but that's probably a ballpark figure.
It's not a fixed amount, it's revenue share from ad clicks. When Firefox user clicks any Google ads, Firefox also gains revenue. It's the same with Opera and other browsers. The only thing they need to negotiate is how high that percent is. Since Firefox market share has gone down, the amount Google pays them has as well.
People are always ranting about RIAA/MPAA while what they should really be worrying about is lecture book publishers. Music and movies are just entertainment, but these book publishers are preventing education and others from learning.
Book publishers are going to be crying about online learning and courses if they can't get their books required for them. They are already doing all kinds of shady monopoly deals and trying to hinder reselling of books by updating their course material almost every year, resulting in incompatible books for classes. I'm sure that if they cannot get their books forced in other ways, they're going to be doing some suing or forcing schools to shut down these online learning courses.
I'm not sure why people cry so much about RIAA and MPAA when there is such an assholish industry preventing people from learning. That has real results on whole advancement of humankind.
How is it idiotic to say that most people use web for socializing? Because RockMelt is browser made exactly for that. It already has like 2 million users and $40 million from investors, so yes it's a real thing used by many people. It's good to provide alternative views because most of the people get stuck in their own minds.
And just because I work in advertising doesn't mean my job involves advertising on slashdot. There are many geeks that do, but obviously they're bit hesitant to say so because on slashdot it's like admitting that you work for the devil (this probably counts for those slashdotters who work for MS too).
Mozilla really screwed up both their long-time users and new users. There really haven't been good improvements in a long time. Most of their time has went to making it more Chrome like, and playing with version numbers.
I've seen many old Firefox users change their engine, on top of those that have been using IE. They aren't using Firefox, they're using Chrome or RockMelt now. Especially RockMelt is an interesting browser - it completely abandons geeky stuff like NoScript or Adblock but instead caters to casual, normal people and how they use the internet. RockMelt has online Facebook friends directly on the site, along with recent news and updates from all social networks. It lets you easily add social bookmarks to sites like Reddit and Digg, along with sharing to Facebook and Twitter. Most people have been saying how wonderful it is compared to Firefox. It's an browser that actual people want.
There is also that: most of people I communicate with use GMail and as the message does not leave the server
Wait, you really think that GMail has only one server serving all of its users? And that they host only at one location?
Still, it would most likely be your own fault. But with Google driverless car it doesn't matter if you're a good driver and drive carefully or not, because you could get killed anyway. I know it's not always your own fault, but you can affect that. With driverless you cannot.
The worst part is that Google wants to build a driverless car. Flight pilots have been trained to react to emergencies in a calm manner and they have time to do so while in air. Neither is true for cars. People will panic when something goes wrong, and there won't be any time to react to them. Your life (and others life) will be completely dependent on the AI, and lets face it, there will be bugs.. Google isn't exactly known for bug free products. Hell, even NASA has bugs and they use billions so that there wouldn't be any. I just think it's a really bad idea and Google is being irresponsible and malicious with such project. Of course they will also hide some "we are not responsible for accidents in any way" under some clause. Let me just say that somewhere in the future we will be hearing how Google killed some innocent people and children.
DDOSing can be easily separated from actual attacks do nothing to "evaluate responses and defenses". It's only a nuisance and does nothing else than overload the systems or bandwidth. It does absolutely nothing to hide traces or provide information about security vulnerabilities.
FBI, because Anonymous is just bunch of script kiddies.
You can, however, connect to the server via ssh tunnel and then make a database connection from there. This way the data is encrypted with remote locations too.
Why not just encrypt the database files on HDD and memory directly? That way database can still act really fast and you can use any existing database software.
Why are you constantly calling him a pedophile? Or is that a lame attempt to discredit him?
Why do you think free speech is good for the humankind, overally? There are many issues with it too, just like there is with true democracy. Most countries in the world aren't even democracy, they're republic, just for the reason that true democracy would make things worse. For example, majority would really trump on some minority and would likely even attempt to make law to kill them.
I swear to you I could do better than Kim Jong Il. I would start by allowing free speech, criticism of the government. That alone would make me a better leader.
Yes, true armchair general here. Do you really think it would do good to make such radical change? Hell, it doesn't even work for China. The people won't accept that change.
Good example is Thailand where it's unlawful to call the king with names. This while in fact the king himself has said that people should be able to do so and they should be allowed to criticize him. But the people love him and just won't allow that law to be taken off. They want punishment for people who do so, even while the king himself doesn't.
You really need to think effects such actions would do. It seriously isn't just as straightforward as "there you go, free speech to all".
That happens elsewhere too. You really need to think about the scale of things. Whatever that cognac cost would not had end the starving. You can't really run a country either if you're starving yourself.