Are you really going to be THAT guy who takes a potentially ambiguous PARAPHRASING and then uses it to derail the larger point? Blizzard didn't even say this "contradiction". The article paraphrased it as such.
Blizzard said this "Defendants’ sale and distribution of the Bossland Hacks in the United States has caused Blizzard to lose millions or tens of millions of dollars in revenue, and to suffer irreparable damage to its goodwill and reputation."
It's fine to disagree with the larger point, but there's no need to start a side-show based on hearsay.
If you still need to nitpick, OK
"These bots and cheats also cause millions of dollars in lost sales, as they ruin the games for many legitimate players. "
There's no contradiction. They never said that the lost sales were from legitimate players. They just say that the game is ruined for legitimate players, and this results in lost sales.
If a brand of rice has been known to kill people because of listeria, this will result in lost sales. See? No contradiction.
What am I missing here? If the customer gets the same service, whether or not they agree to the new terms, how can the new terms justify a contract? Is it true that there has to be something in it for both parties for a contract to be legal?
What trend are you talking about? How do cookies see each other? Cookies for a given domain are meant to be given to the server by the browser along with an http request. That domain is allowed to set cookies upon an http response. This is how it works now and has worked for quite some time.
"Why not something simple like each *window* have separate data that's shared between tabs? Then you don't have any UI changes or usability problems."
That could be confusing for people who WANT multiple windows that share sessions. I use a multi-monitor workflow, for instance. Some sites use new windows (often as popups) as part of their functionality.
That would suck for people who use a multi-monitor workflow, or sites that legitimately make use of new-window / popups. Grandpa would sure have trouble grasping why it just DIDN'T work.
And it doesn't claim to (this is mentioned in TFA). If privacy and security are concerns, don't consider this feature. It's a great way to help companies to correlate your online identities. With browser finger-printing, it wouldn't be too tricky for them to merge your online activity.
However, what if this were to be extended so that each contextual container allowed it's own settings / plugins / configuration / auto-complete / history data? This would at least make it equivalent to using different browsers with the convenience of sharing a tabbed interface.
"Work with IT or outside security experts to quickly identify the source of the breach and stop any more data leakage"
I imagine this includes doing a security audit, and fixing any holes, which should be done regardless of a breach. Perhaps the breach even made it easier to find certain holes.
This is sort of like asking a tree full of squirrels if they think plastic domes should be banned from bird feeders. We've been coming here rattling our cranky fists about this for the past 18 years or so (about digital rights, not bird feeders).
>Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. This logic is actually flawed. You can have two infinite groups where one is a subset of the other. It's the equivalent of this faulty argument:
There are an infinite number of integers. However, not every one of them is a natural number. Therefore, there must be a finite number of natural numbers.
I agree. Computers don't have to lie. Meaning, they will be able to arrive at the same actions without knowing that we'd see it as lying. But they'd still do it. They don't have to know why, they just have to know that certain actions correlate to success given certain situations.
And the flagship product of Prime, the free shipping is sort of a scam, too. You'll see many sellers on Amazon selling the same product, and surprise, surprise, the ones that are Prime eligible happen to cost more, and the increase is pretty much exactly the price of shipping.
The problem isn't often the hardware, but the software. Maintaining old gadgets should be OK if you're willing to stay away from walled-gardens or jail-break your device. This post is probably a testament that we should, in fact be doing one of those, or opt for open systems. In other words, you must also choose a device that CAN be maintained easily.
I have a first-generation iPad and it technically works fine. The battery still lasts long enough for it to be useful, and the device is in near-new shape. However, because it's no longer supported, it's becoming more and more useless for the following reasons:
1) New apps can no longer be installed because even the most trivial programs are written with libraries only supported by a recent OS version, which the device does not support. 2) Most currently installed apps can no longer be upgraded for the same reason as above. Those that can be upgraded often have bugs, leaving the user with a broken app, as there's no easy way to revert. 3) Existing apps that worked great yesterday start to require more memory, and begin to crash more and more often. If the app uses an external service, this can start happening even if the app was never upgraded.
PCs are a little easier. My last PC was a decade old before I stopped using it as my main machine. My current one is six years old and going strong.
The noise of other people typing, even on quiet keyboards can really get under my skin when I am trying to focus. At work it's OK. I can pop on some headphones. But if I were a student now, I'm not so sure that I'd be able to sit through a lecture for very long if people were taking notes on laptops.
And then let Apple pay them $20,000 to show them how they did it, so Apple can plug that vulnerability too. That being said, I'm less worried about there being a way to hack a device if the hack requires physical possession. It's remote carte blanche access I that concerns me the most.
And save it for when they actually have something. They are starting to sound like Best North Korea. They "exposed" Hillary recently, but all they did was mention public knowledge. I guess you get what you pay for.
Slashdot Mirror
Amazon's lead is over when they've lost the market share, not when someone who wishes it were over announces it as such.
Are you really going to be THAT guy who takes a potentially ambiguous PARAPHRASING and then uses it to derail the larger point? Blizzard didn't even say this "contradiction". The article paraphrased it as such.
Blizzard said this "Defendants’ sale and distribution of the Bossland Hacks in the United States has caused Blizzard to lose millions or tens of millions of dollars in revenue, and to suffer irreparable damage to its goodwill and reputation."
It's fine to disagree with the larger point, but there's no need to start a side-show based on hearsay.
If you still need to nitpick, OK
"These bots and cheats also cause millions of dollars in lost sales, as they ruin the games for many legitimate players. "
There's no contradiction. They never said that the lost sales were from legitimate players. They just say that the game is ruined for legitimate players, and this results in lost sales.
If a brand of rice has been known to kill people because of listeria, this will result in lost sales. See? No contradiction.
Oh. That's new to me. I at least see a check box, one for MacAffee, the other for Intel True Key. But both are checked by default.
Trying to monetize the security upgrade process just reveals that you have an incentive to ship an insecure product.
For undermining security to try and trick users into installing McAffe when upgrading. That should be opt IN not opt OUT.
What am I missing here? If the customer gets the same service, whether or not they agree to the new terms, how can the new terms justify a contract? Is it true that there has to be something in it for both parties for a contract to be legal?
What trend are you talking about? How do cookies see each other? Cookies for a given domain are meant to be given to the server by the browser along with an http request. That domain is allowed to set cookies upon an http response. This is how it works now and has worked for quite some time.
"Why not something simple like each *window* have separate data that's shared between tabs? Then you don't have any UI changes or usability problems."
That could be confusing for people who WANT multiple windows that share sessions. I use a multi-monitor workflow, for instance. Some sites use new windows (often as popups) as part of their functionality.
That would suck for people who use a multi-monitor workflow, or sites that legitimately make use of new-window / popups. Grandpa would sure have trouble grasping why it just DIDN'T work.
And it doesn't claim to (this is mentioned in TFA). If privacy and security are concerns, don't consider this feature. It's a great way to help companies to correlate your online identities. With browser finger-printing, it wouldn't be too tricky for them to merge your online activity.
However, what if this were to be extended so that each contextual container allowed it's own settings / plugins / configuration / auto-complete / history data? This would at least make it equivalent to using different browsers with the convenience of sharing a tabbed interface.
Because of this:
"Work with IT or outside security experts to quickly identify the source of the breach and stop any more data leakage"
I imagine this includes doing a security audit, and fixing any holes, which should be done regardless of a breach. Perhaps the breach even made it easier to find certain holes.
This is sort of like asking a tree full of squirrels if they think plastic domes should be banned from bird feeders.
We've been coming here rattling our cranky fists about this for the past 18 years or so (about digital rights, not bird feeders).
Google cancels Spaces Group-Sharing App.
Google Sues Sue Googe.
>Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds.
This logic is actually flawed. You can have two infinite groups where one is a subset of the other.
It's the equivalent of this faulty argument:
There are an infinite number of integers. However, not every one of them is a natural number. Therefore, there must be a finite number of natural numbers.
I agree. Computers don't have to lie. Meaning, they will be able to arrive at the same actions without knowing that we'd see it as lying. But they'd still do it. They don't have to know why, they just have to know that certain actions correlate to success given certain situations.
And the flagship product of Prime, the free shipping is sort of a scam, too. You'll see many sellers on Amazon selling the same product, and surprise, surprise, the ones that are Prime eligible happen to cost more, and the increase is pretty much exactly the price of shipping.
The problem isn't often the hardware, but the software. Maintaining old gadgets should be OK if you're willing to stay away from walled-gardens or jail-break your device. This post is probably a testament that we should, in fact be doing one of those, or opt for open systems. In other words, you must also choose a device that CAN be maintained easily.
I have a first-generation iPad and it technically works fine. The battery still lasts long enough for it to be useful, and the device is in near-new shape. However, because it's no longer supported, it's becoming more and more useless for the following reasons:
1) New apps can no longer be installed because even the most trivial programs are written with libraries only supported by a recent OS version, which the device does not support.
2) Most currently installed apps can no longer be upgraded for the same reason as above. Those that can be upgraded often have bugs, leaving the user with a broken app, as there's no easy way to revert.
3) Existing apps that worked great yesterday start to require more memory, and begin to crash more and more often. If the app uses an external service, this can start happening even if the app was never upgraded.
PCs are a little easier. My last PC was a decade old before I stopped using it as my main machine. My current one is six years old and going strong.
The noise of other people typing, even on quiet keyboards can really get under my skin when I am trying to focus. At work it's OK. I can pop on some headphones. But if I were a student now, I'm not so sure that I'd be able to sit through a lecture for very long if people were taking notes on laptops.
s/get/seek/
There, fixed that for you.
I do not think it means what you think it means. "prove that probably"?
And then let Apple pay them $20,000 to show them how they did it, so Apple can plug that vulnerability too.
That being said, I'm less worried about there being a way to hack a device if the hack requires physical possession.
It's remote carte blanche access I that concerns me the most.
It's Facebook and Wikimedia's job to give Angolans access to the rest of the Internet?
This has crossed my mind too. I guess that's what you get with a decentralized (supposedly) action group.
And save it for when they actually have something. They are starting to sound like Best North Korea. They "exposed" Hillary recently, but all they did was mention public knowledge. I guess you get what you pay for.