I knew China wasn't really going to do much about the advertised nuclear testing in North Korea. Just days ago, fellow Americans argued that China would help America every step of the way. The reports on BBC News beats a far different tone.
The problem with Nukes is two fold really. First, it's pretty much science and that much every man has the right to know; problem solving is a capability inherent in all humans. So, I think the main factors of developing such technology reside soley in ability to apply the acquired/developed knowledge of a group of scientists. Controlling who gets what materials currently known to work. Politics comes into play here, make the world look down on you if you do go through with it. But, nothing can stop a person from going to a library and picking up a book; and for men of the calibur to become Generals and National Leaders... determination is every bit as tangible as the solid brick wall infront of you.
I have little doubt in my mind that North Korea detonated a nuclear device. We all have a very basic and crude understanding of how it fundamentally works. It's really only a magnitude of elegance and stability between my 600lbs of home-made shock stabalized nitro-glycerin, nitrocelulos and gun-powder, all crudely shape charged towards colliding necessary fuels together with enough force to initiate a violent nuclear reaction. But, how on earth am I going to get the "fuel" from? All the other stuff is relatively easy to come by with a little effort.
Sooner or later, Afghanistan will have the capacity to build a thermo-nuclear device. Sri-Lanka, Madagascar, Iran, Chechnya perhaps. An elegant, stable one even; probably far more sophisticated and engineered than what we currently have, by the time they do. Along the way, those opponents against developing nuclear arms are left with their hands tied behind their back. Like I said, there's only two real controlling factors, politics and resources. Once an interest group gets their hands on the resources, they may ignore the politics if they so choose to. Which leads me to...
Perhaps, the only thing left to do is try to belittle the effort of the target (North Korea), hiding under the reality that not one authority in the entire world would have any allies at all should they pre-emptively launch a nuclear weapon at anyone. Then, quitely, accept the fact they have Nuclear Weapons. I'm surprised that one may often run into an American at a bar or club, who has yet to aware of the fact India and Pakistan are Nuclear. Even knowing so, still doesn't sit right due to how much poverty exists in those countries...
So, I think all of this hooplah (including the wikipedia implicitly saying that the explosion was conventional by adding it to a list of large conventional explosions.), is just aftermath propoganda warfare.
There are a whole slew of situations where, not only can a company ask you for your SSN, but they are required to take your SSN!
I stand corrected.
However, what laws, laws that are actively and vehemently enforced, or systems and measures are in place to invalidate the seemingly end-all-be-all of identification as the SSN, and for companies to protect those numbers exclusively with outrageous fines should they be leaked or the source for an identity compromise? None!
As far as I'm concerned, it's meant to be private. I don't say this as a cover-up for my initial post being wrong. But, apparently, there is little regard and little for self-assurance and civil faith in protective measures ensuring our identity. Take the case of so much private information being put in the care of those non-citizens in a foriegn country. Some hospitals "out-source" documentation and record keeping of medical files to India... not exactly heart warming, and I really don't care how much so-called legislation they might have in their country. Governments must look after their own before anyone else, and I couldn't give two cents about information of some guy in Shanghai China if I had it in hand, no matter how "personal" it was.
In the beginning the Social Security Number was issued by the government and is unique to each living citizen. This much still holds true.
But what was lost somewhere via the effects of Capitalism.... was that this number was supposed to be private to the individual assigned it. And, while there are laws protecting a citizens privacy. Companies were granted positions to effectively counter such laws. Only the government, state or law-enforcement officials may "demand" your Social Security Number. Visa can not demand you give it to them. Your landlord can not demand you give it to him. Private schools by law, can not demand you forfeit such information.
But no law is telling Visa or anyone else to accept alternate information for their personal records. As a result, you have to give out your Social Security Number, becuase if you don't, you can't apply for an Apartment, you can't buy a car, you can't have a credit card, you can't open a bank account, you can't get a job..... yeah, we have a choice.
*Some places do accept alternate information such as Drivers License Numbers.*
It is your job to see to the survival of your offspring. Period.
This mess with not letting children be themselves (which is inevitable of the effect of over control) is why we have such problems. First off, it's a open-ended complaint, to say that a parent isn't doing their job just becuase their child manages to evade them long enough to do something bad. If my child can't figure out how to have fun, I'd be very angry that he is so stupid. You have to sleep, you have to turn your back away, and claims of how difficult it is to manage children is no excuse to say that you have to be an all-knowing, omniscient God. You aren't!
Not to mention, society ties parents hands behind their backs. You can't spank them in public, some social worker will figure they have the right to take them from you.
So what are parents supposed to do, even when facing their children? Oh yeah, "talk" to them... any parent who actually believes this is either self-dellusional, ignorant, doesn't have a 17 year old teenager, or actually believes they are the Brady Bunch. It's not reality, and I know, becuase I remember how I regarded my parents advice when growing up. It's needed, it is absorbed, but they aren't going to live by much of it till years later. Infact, I still do a lot my mother warned me about, and the adverse affect is motivated by the fact I can evade all implied horrors she tried to teach me.
Parent's only need to be there for their children. Of course you're going to discipline them for doing something you don't agree with. Of course you will press your own views onto them (I'm Catholic, you have to be a Catholic too, and not anything else!).
BUT!
Don't make the mistake of thinking it's OK to blame a parent just becuase of what their children do. AND! Do not be so stupid to think that every little thing a child does is the responsibility of the parent. By the time I was 6, I had been arrested three times by police officers and MPs on base. I knew and understood, at such a young age, that adults were so naive to blame my parents instead of me. When I turned 18, and understood that I could go to jail, I miraculously stopped getting arrested. So no, it's not the parents absolute responsibility. Offspring are seperate, individual minds who think for themselves, and if they make the decision to do something they are going to do it regardless what you tell them to do. And you can't over-protect your children, and you have to give them some room to make their own mistakes otherwise they'll never learn how to cope with them when the rest of society WILL hold them responsible.
Don't be stupid people! Oh, and if you're an adult complaining about antics of a child, then you need to address your own maturity, position or self-integrity! Children are harsh. I made my 7th grade math teacher sit at his desk and cry. Literally cry. But he gained much respect, becuase he was always there, the next day and the next day.
Sun Microsystems first attempt was to do a massive, universal campaign in another popular online game, EVE-ONLINE. Reports are scarce, but from credible witnesses flying around in Polaris ships to monitor the event, the endeavour quickly became a fiasco.
Sun thought Querious, which permitted word play for 'query' and provided them to boast their server and sql database presentation, would be a good idea to rally tons of people to the event.
Unfortunately, a large in-game Alliance known as Band of Brothers [BoB], setup a trap to permit tons of people into pouring into their soverign territory. While Sun Microsystems (working with Quaff Marketing Agents) to launch the event, BoB came in with Interceptors, Heavy Assault Cruisers, Battleships, Carriers and Motherships and podded everyone except for the GMs. Many petitions were filed that day, even Sun Microsystems employees filed petitions. As usual, all those petitions fell on deaf ears. Across the street from CCP in Iceland, police received complaints from residents nearby for excessive laughter.
Don't be alarmed, there are a lot of idiots in leading positions in large companies, just as there are many idiots born into affluency a.k.a. Venture Capitalists.
First, Paul has attempted to apply traditional business philosophies and the illusion of value to that of Open Source development. "[hackers] don't have to support their product [or] be absolutely reliable", is one hint. The illusion of "support"... well, I paid 15,000 (USD) for this SunFire server... called up Sun Microsystems and I have to pay 125 dollars for a valid account just to access their knowledge database.... support my ass. Or, call up Microsoft, and watch as your told (after the 10-20 dollars you have to pay to talk to a rep), to go to Dell or whoever made your computer; support my ass again. Companies do NOT want to be responsible for their products, they never have, they never will be. At least you more often get a REAL NAME of someone on an Open Source project; as for companies, many Class Action lawsuits have been filed throughout the world and throughout history.
Deadlines... yeah, as a developer of both proprietary software and open source software. Nothing diminishes the value and quality of a software project more than a "deadline". This is fact. This is widely known amongst developers. Traditional, archaic business leaders are so ignorant that when this fact is mentioned they honestly think we are joking. Infact, the concept of a deadline is the single biggest factor why proprietary software will never compare to open source software when it comes to quality and usefulness.
But, of all that Paul Ducklin claimed in his article, take this one on for size. "I don't know why people think if you can trot out 10 or 20 or 100 viruses[sp], you would be great at actually producing some antivirus technology that can deal with 200,000 different bits of malware,"
Here, the moron decides to misdirect the reader with numbers. I've developed security software myself. And, I've also analysed a number of security software packages and implementations. When it comes to virus detection, intrusion detection and all that biz, 99% of it is nothing but pattern matching routines in a loop. That's why most NIDs have a data pack which is nothing more than a conglomeration of known patterns to published forms of attacks. It is no different for Antivirus software. In short.... if you know regex really well, you don't need to know flip about security or how to implement an attack to identify one with software. This part really ticked me off, becuase as a person who identifies and writes my own exploits which I might or might not publish, this line of logic Paul wishes onto others is completely bullshit. Then he goes in, and tries to relate the luxuries of production in a less-tangible world (the world of computers where resources is nothing more than imagination and virtually no effort goes into typing) to the real world where you have to chop down a tree to get wood. What I'm talking about is his falsely applied analogy with being shot by an attacker, asking if a victim might logically wonder if the doctor had ever been a criminal to be that much more familiar with gunshot wounds. What he's trying to say, is a person that is able to exploit a problem is far less intelligable than a IT "doctor" who only really writes up a regex string to identify a problem.
I'll end this here. Becuase I doubt anyone here will take this article seriously. And if it's not enough to bash Paul Ducklin any more... he's a Chief Technical Officer of Sophos. Sophos is an antivirus company. As far as I'm concerned, his only target is the end-user, the moron, the impulse-double-clicker; those in his image.
DirectX does kick the shit out of OpenGL, but OpenGL is free.
How ignorant, and blind, can a person be to make this statement? DirectX, is probably... why even try to explain how much crap DirectX is. You're definately a consumer. In the most negative sense of the word.
DirectX, will, and you mark my words, NEVER be of enough quality to be used in CGI REALISM. OpenGL can, generate very realistic renders... so realistic, it's used in all major film FX.
The reason why OpenGL games aren't as good looking, is becuase it targets the consumer; you know, morons like yourself. Who, do not have the hardware to render heavy duty OpenGL sequences. Before you jump up and down, your lame GeForce 9999999 is crap and only geared towards the most common 3D calls for GAMERS and CONSUMER LEVEL 3d applications. There is NOT ONE consumer level card, even for a scant 400-500 dollar hot release, that has hardware acceleration for 100% of ANY 3D API... even DirectX.
Now, what Microsoft did, was compose a bunch of wiz-bang API calls into DirectX, while OpenGL programmers are left to write their own. OK, does this mean DirectX is better? The only thing "better", is time for development. As far as seeing an EXACT same effect used in ALL DirectX games???? Anyways... with all the exposure of the white collar sweat shops of EA Games and other such game development houses... no wonder a lot of games on the shelf were developed under pure management and they chose DirectX and Windows as their primary market. However, a few of those programming houses actually know a thing or two about 3D programming, actually have the resources and clout to take the time to do something RIGHT. idSoftware for one, and what API do they chose? Not DirectX! And, there's a reason why. Becuase it f*cking sucks, I can't put it anymore blatant than that.
We shall never submit into economic obligation to a company of any size, or intent. Doing so, will put us, inevitably, into their pockets and the hidden obligations and incentives to favor the flow of capital vs. what we favor currently (something that actually works).
Companies of all sizes shall bow to us, respect what experts say, and conform to Open and monetarily unconditional standards. Not the other way round. We shall NEVER attempt to globally PAY for a license to conform to the GPL, so we may distribute the technology and risk people developing towards that technology with an uncertain future due to the possibility of it being nulled due to non-payment. The Company shall respect open standards, comply with them and honor the sole and most important benefits of any devices or implication of Communications.
If a Company want's to make their protocol proprietary. Then, that protocol ceases to exist or any tangible device relying on that protocol metaphorically vanishes from reality. That's the way I see it. Proprietary communications implementations are not documented, or understood; it also follows that no certainty may follow such as it being tested or researched. Whether or not the black box may demonstrate operability, it relies on religious philosophies for acceptance, such as "faith" and "blind acceptance". Why it might work, is only an additional and mysterious query to ponder. Who needs that noise? Either the Company demonstrates the quality of their ability, or it's safer to assume that the reason they don't want it displayed is becuase it's flawed.
Companies should be paying Open Source Developers, for freely doing their research and development!
Linux is *not* user friendly, and until it is linux will stay with >1% marketshare.
Take installation. Linux zealots are now saying "oh installing is so easy, just do apt-get install package or emerge package": Yes, because typing in "apt-get" or "emerge" makes so much more sense to new users than double-clicking an icon that says "setup".
It's hard to explain to someone, that Vi is far easier/faster and more efficient than Notepad. Part of this, is becuase GUI translates to "Ease" to those that know no better. I assert, that Rule No. 1 be: "Ease of Use has NOTHING to do with whether something SEEMS 'Intuitive'." Why? Becuase the unspoken parts of "Ease of Use" are the parts you DON'T see so scratch the GUI... such as that icon labelled "Setup" actually doing what you would expect it to do. And, do it well... but wait, let's take a step back a second. What did I say? "...actually doing what you would expect it to do..." Yes, here's another rub for sure, need I elaborate on what an idiot might expect? For Christ's sake, the only reason Virus Scanners exist is becuase of an expectation of the idiot!
I don't care if Linux is EVER dominate on the desktop. I'd prefer it not be. Let Windows reign supreme on the backs of all cows and sheep for all I care. They deserve what they get. As for those that know the first thing about computing, let them make a most informed decision on what to use. I don't care about "market share", that is a capitalist phrase which means nothing to me and in no way effects my decision to contribute or release my own work for free. The moment someone uses capitalists jargon and phrases in reference to Open Source, I usually stop listening as they clearly have no idea what they are talking about; nevermind their blatant lack of vision to properly distinguish the two philosophies.
What we have here, is the value between experts and laymen. Linux has done well, will continue to do well, regardless if it ever overthrows Windows on the desktop and gain the hearts and minds of the sheep. Why? That's simple....
Take any hobby or interest. Creative is surely "larger" than MOTU, yet, who do you think actually has more clout to influence the industry? Not Creative, that's for damn sure. Why? Becuase professionals and experts, sound engineers and sound producers regard MOTU and their software/equipment much more than Creative's low-quality merchandise targetting the everyday person. Who, logically, do you think is following who? Creative follows the industry players that have the most approval of the experts within the field of music and audio production. MOTU doesn't go to Creative to ask what the mass "market" wants... they go to the multi-million dollar studios and big name musicians and ask THEM what THEY want.
The ONLY thing the Linux community needs to maintain is our level of expertise. So, when a CEO needs to ask a question, who better to ask? The Windows gang there, or the Linux gurus over there? Now, this might depend on the question. But, I highly doubt that any question regarding the bits and bytes of the technology will ever be addressed to the Windows crowd. "Is the structure of this protocol feasible for 'X' application?", "Should our new interface be openly defined as a standard or is it better at this point in time to keep it proprietary?" These kinds of questions, and the answers that are considered GOVERN the direction and application of upcoming and present technologies! Forget the GUI and Ease of Use crap that's only targetting people interested in 'after-the-fact' technologies awarded by a board that doesn't give a hoot about anything but profit and if that means confusing the consumer, decieving the consumer or outright taxing the consumer... they will do so.
Linux experts are listened too. Purchasing decisions are made based off our suggestions. Our small numbers only serve to saturate our experts into an identifiable group of people; which means, while there are a few very smart Windows programme
In Thompsons warped view of the world, games make children violent.
Not so sure his view is warped or even askewed in the slightest.
When I was in grade school, I was going to CAP (Civil Air Patrol). We flew flight simulators all day long. Come to find, every pilot has to pass simulator tests which are designed to assist the physical transition of sitting in a real cock-pit. Part of Navy SEAL training (among all the other simulation like trainings) involve them going through a controlled drowning, simulating what it feels like to actually drown, they are then revived as soon as they go under; this I believe is to eliminate a fear of the water, completely. FBI, CIA, KGB, Massad, Osama bin Laden... EVERYONE conducts simulation to condition their subjects for whatever task is at hand. Whether it's a SWAT team training to storm a building, or your local city cops training for a situation where a simple speeding ticket goes wrong. It's ALL simulation. And only a fool would suggest simulation is in pure vain.
There are many ways of simulating a scenerio to condition a person to be prepared for an actual hypothetical event. Cartoonish video game characters are no more comical and innocent than smiley faces drawn on water melons stuck on staffs for mounted calvary use to use to train for field combat. The blocky faces of the Unreal Tournament at least give a feel of depth and 3D, how can it be possible someone could take serious the traditional 2 dimensional spring loaded cardboard flap that pops up in many police simulations? And for those that might wish to draw the line of effective simulation for hostilities between mental capability and condition versus physical ability and condition... this is a very dangerous precedent. While physical ability is somewhat important, any person that has ever hunted large game, actually had shot another in combat will tell you flat out; 99% of the ability to perform your job in those situations to include pulling the trigger is all psychological. A computer simulation, can assist you in overcoming those psychological barriers... and it doesn't take much excercise at all to pull a hair trigger. You're done, and ready.
So don't try to make it out as if people aren't conditioned, affected, or change of sensitivity in the least by video games. Especially games today like Hitman, SOCOM and the like which actually try to encourage the player to think and discipline their actions as a real assassin or special ops soldier.
The military has used simulation for thousands of years... simulation of all the current technologies of their times. Given how much bloodshed has spilt throughout history... simulation and conditioning for battle is EXTREMELY effective. You can belittle this with calling it a "game" all you want though, noone has yet to stop you from that.
Some MMOs actually do allow players to pay for their accounts with in-game currency.
People in EVE-ONLINE do it all the time. CCP allows people to buy an EVE-ONLINE Time Card and resell it to gamers for in-game currency isks. So some people do pay for their accounts with virtual money; but, at some point, someone had to pay for with the less virtual but noless intangible hard formal currency.
What's funny, is that I wish most of the MIL-STD specs were freely available and open to the public. While some aren't *classified*, many are under export control. Anything other than a MIL-STD describing how soda stored in a ships magazine should be entered into a database is pretty much classified or under export control. You know, operational protocols... yes, there is a MIL-STD for everything, even the types of screws that can be used for assembling certain parts; which, for all the technology that might exist in launching an F18 off the flight deck of a carrier, to Air Force radar data streams...
I think it would be most optimal, and a great benefit for any military, if much of these protocols, specifications were public. I would *love* to develop OPEN SOURCE applications for military and aviation/aerospace applications. While there is a great deal of a myriad application in the field running on top of Open Source software such as Linux, or working with Open Source Software; it is all proprietary either developed "in-house" from within the branch of the military or agency, or directly contracted out to a private enterprise defense contractor.
I think, the only detrimental part of infrastructure that is widely known and specs available to the public is the phone system. Much of all other technologies, are kept hush hush as for specifications and standards; air traffic control, power-grid, nuclear reactors, etc.
While I WISH I could write applications in the Open Source realm FOR the military, FOR the government, FOR the state, FOR the city... we have others that wish their applications were NOT available for military/government etc.
The Ironic part is... apparently, either "their" ego has inflated to ridiculous height, width and depth, or they are truelly stupid as for how MUCH of technology that we enjoy and take for granted was directly FUNDED or RESEARCHED by the military. Computers were initially designed for the sole purpose of simulating nuclear explosions; or so we say, but one thing is for certain, it was military interest that is to thank for all the peaces making up this "Internet".
Perhaps military application, inherently holds such a repulsive connotation, that we tend to forget the driving force and clout that enabled tons of money to be "wasted" on the R&D required for such projects. Who has the money for such large scale projects? Yes, the Government. What is the most useful application? Sadly, military applications... not pet shampoo or a more efficient espresso machine.
Becuase of this. I feel, that any person wishing to lock the government/military out of technology is only really biting the hand that fed them. Kinda like turning their back on their own parents in regards to their interests. It's not the best recognition to give, nor is it a decent "Thank You". I also think that becuase of how much research and development the military and government does for new technologies... locking them out will only increase the odds to say your idea will not have longevity whenever the government makes public a new technology to capitalize and market with.
I haven't played EVE in a while, and I've never played WoW, but doesn't farming have a different effect on the economy in Eve? Rather than inflation, doesn't it make things cheaper? If there is a huge influx of minerals, the price of them goes down and items get cheaper to manufacture. Where as in WoW you get raw gold coming in and devaluing the current gold that people have. Or am I way off here? What is the real problem with farming in Eve?
EVE's economy is so in-depth and profound... "macro-miners" in EVE is in many ways akin to illegal immigration controversies. "macro-miners" are stuck doing their thing in high-sec systems, and even there they can be hasseled so it's not a 100% free ride; i.e. I can steal ore from their can, I can kamakazi them, I can do number of things.
CCP takes what seems to be a bizarre stance on macro-miners. Given the depth of the economy within EVE, CCP probably doesn't see dire economic situations indicative to excessive macro-mining (where resources, work, wealth is diverted from the host system.... like billions of California dollars sent forever into Mexico and medical service bills pawned off on Americans and insane rise in medical costs to compensate for losses encurred by treating illegal immigrants...) The universal economy is so established, these atrocities are absorbed into the mix and their effect diluted; like, while most Californians can't even afford to see a doctor with the best insurance plans, they are able to go to Vons and buy food at a reasonable price becuase the harvest was completed by illegal immigrants--it's a love hate relationship.
CCP does, swiftly and almost clandestine like, make people who buy isks on eBay or elsewhere disappear. One day, you'll be wondering where so-and-so went and why they haven't been on for a long time. But, they seem rather impartial about complaints about macro-miners, and this really does make sense.... as we'll find below.
Over 15,000 people demand a product. To make that product, X amount of resources need to be attained. Manufacturing of said product should be within a reasonable timeframe, and distribution equally reasonable. Then you have the sale of said product.
Let's put this into real life percpective. Even well known restaurants like Taco Bell don't even see 15,000 demands in a month for any individual offering on their menu; most Taco Bells probably don't even reach 15,000 dollars in sales a month. But, once a month, the big eighteen wheeler rolls up and supplies that store for a months supply of produce used to create your taco. It is, by any practical standard, a LOT of food. Tomatoes, sour cream, syrup for cokes, pre-cooked meats, boxes and boxes of green onions... the point is, there are MASSIVE operations held honestly within EVE just becuase the demand and economy needs it. The secondary (and main) point is, from an individual standpoint, it can be difficult to identify a macro-miner(s) versus a serious EVE-ONLINE player(s). There *is* substantial demand in EVE, and it follows that there will be very impressive operations within EVE to meet those demands. I've seen mining operations in 0.0 where I'm just... "holy sh*t!!!", and they weren't macro miners...
So, it's a love hate relationship in EVE, which becuase this reflects real life economics... it is very impressive overall. And I think CCP simply keeps an eye and investigates blatant macro-mining and becuase of this reaction... well, I think this too reflects politicians seemingly slow response to illegal immigration. 1) to some degree illegal immigration is necessary or negligable 2) some of what appears to be illegal really isn't... etc etc.
Please.... someone, tell me why there needs to be an "officer"--much less a "cheif"--within a corporate environment. Aside from convention, what practical use would such a high paying position render? Management? Bah, the realities of management... is a given with shuttles exploding on international television and multi-billion dollar corporations such as Enron, to the everyday corporate life of meaningless and unproductive meetings setting deadlines, project goals and planning... it's all crap, and never useful.
But, even if it's "management"... it's interesting that a corporation would feel the need for such heirarchy to "manage" any aspect of a system which itself, has no such structure.
Besides, especially for Microsoft exploits... the moment I have time to share any info on something I found, I do. This is in part becuase of my lack of admiration for the company, and any bane for them is a gleeful gain for me. Come to think of it, I never contacted Microsoft to report anything remotely construed as intent for improvement; save one instance where I did specifically contacted Microsoft presenting just one reason why I would never condone the use of their Server Operating Systems for even casual use, and they opened up dialog even. But, I think they could tell, I wasn't their friend.
Bottom line here, is what is 'responsible' exploit exposure? Noone really has a hardened explanation. Companies would love for thier ideas governing exposure, basically it affords them the ability to flip the bird at one person (the discoverer) and hope noone else see's it; which is, the most likely scenerio becuase we all know, captialists think like this--'is it cost effective to address this bug? Is it cheaper to pay editors to belittle the effect of IE crashing by using phrases such as "[bugs within IE] MERELY causing IE to CRASH"?'.
Is it really responsible to notify the vendor first? Inherent to proprietary business interests, denial is an all too common tactic and if they want to sue you, they could even to suffer an obvious loss just to introduce you to the ringer. Or, is it more responsible to out right give full details to the first person you see on the street? I say, in regards to consumer business, it's much more effective and therefore responsible should you post all exploits, with details and working examples the moment you are able to muster the content and activate the 'Send' command. This approach is akin to starting a fire underneath the perverbial ass. Why give a company an option? Force them to live up to their end of the deal; deal being that you paid for a product, as advertised and within reasonable expectation of operation. There is no option to fix or not to fix a bug that crashes an application, it must be fixed; while this is the tendancy in the Open Source area, it is a philosophical obligation for a company.
So, light those fires is what I say. I think it's ridiculous that many exposing exploits do not give details and working example code, or some sites that do have that culture require registration and are less in the spotlight.
I'm a player of EVE-ONLINE. It didn't take long for the PvP aspects to have real effect. (Consequently, they have much less effect now; perhaps an end all be all definition of pirate depending on why?) Early, my heart beat would raise, adrenaline rush and all of a sudden I would get a real feeling of fight or flight mentality whenever a 'flasher' would warp in. That "oh shit" feeling, that even if kept silent is obvious to any onlookers. The effect is so strong, from myriad accounts not just my own, that I have often pondered if CCP will eventually have some sort of medical warning to those with heart conditions while starting to play the game. Not only does the game genuinely enduce physical and emotional characteristics of imminent hostile danger, but if you get to see your opponent pop you get a genuine sense of gain or power, if you die, you have a genuine sense of loss.
From these effects, they enduce real emotion as well. For example, hate mail or something within EVE known as 'smack talk', there has even been situations where the sentiment has been extended into real life threats and harrassment. Usually, becuase someone was attacked and killed by another pilot, but as involved as the game is, there are many ways to 'screw' over another player; such as undercutting their business stealing their customers or sabotaging political ties with alliances/corporations for your interest, or internal disloyalty and corp theft/betrayal.
This is all on account of game structure and mechanics. And, if this much can be enduced simply by interactive 'situational' analysis, then any other game could be developed to target a particular effect just by building up all the variables to justify the reaction whenever something happens. One of the chief causes for the seriousness of EVE, is that you do encur real loss and actual gain. If you die, you lose what you had and have to work towards acquiring it again, if you win, you may loot your victims wreckage for items valuable to you (that, and you get the killmail to further insult them by posting it on public forums.)
That's why it violates copyright laws for people to sell copies of their music collection.
This is inherently not true. Otherwise, garage sales, individual sales and even medium sized business sales would be illegal. Pawn shops, and record shops who, I garuntee do not pay royalties to noone on resale of digital content (whether it be a game medium or CD/DVD). For the price they buy it from the customers, it's often more expensive to download the CD (even on 'illegal' networks) than the return on selling one to a pawn shop (you might get a 0.25 cents from a pawn shop).
There is nothing illegal about me selling my Metallica Master of Puppets CD to a friend; in contrast, there's nothing illegal about me giving it to him either. There's nothing illegal about me buying a CD, and throwing it in the trash (to imply that the whole idea of 'you only get a license' is BS, becuase you OWN a physical peace of merchandise. In contrast, when you finance a car, the bank OWNs the car, and they have legal right to REPOSESS the car in the case of non-payment. Record companies have NO right to reposess a CD from any individual who has purchased one, so ownership of that property is more than just a license grant.)
A more dangerous scenerio, of which we are all victimized is when such a controversial situation is supported by either side under the shroud of authority.
Britannica decides to take a conservative political view, Time Life decides on a Liberal point of view. Both "respected", but for no real reason other than familiarity; be honest with your self, you don't know a single editor on a first name basis much less even challange any of the credentials implied or explicitly noted if noted within any "respected" source.
On Wikipedia, controversial issues are blatantly controversial. Furthermore, it gives a feel that the whole issue is for debate. While some would prefer not to debate with just anyone, the danger in Britannica is that you can not demonstrate your retort after composition; no matter how truthful, logical, reasonable it might be. All you can do, is scribble in the pages... which might hold merit, might not, regardless the most probable situation is that your arguement is never seen by anyone than yourself. Others, will rebuke your propositions based off the fact they might have the same book; minus your scribbles, and becuase they are mentally lazy, they will consider Britannica's "opinion" (if you can even manage to convince them it's an opinion) as "factual".
One of the reasons I hate citing sources. Not that I'm unable to, but Truth is absolute and if the listeners only gauge for acceptance is who else agrees, then he suffers from a number of things; he doesn't know enough of the subject to really hold a discussion, he doesn't understand your view and is looking for someone to blame should he be wrong (he want's 'easy' knowledge), he really isn't listening and just wants to tally up who else might agree (with whatever) or, as the usual case, trying to find a reason to discredit your argument without actually thinking it through as you had (the lazy sage technique).
Van Gogh's ability to properly depict (even closely) one of Nature's most chaotic of events only implies that somehow, his brain was able to calculate his efforts. Without getting into pseudo-science, crystals and all that biz; it is rather obvious that those who extend deep into the extremes of various mental illnesses or retardations display extrodinary abilities, such as high level autism.
Without any psychology or neuroscience, I speculate that perhaps such abilities are so taxing that their brains aren't able to function with common tasks, or their taxing abilities require such a unique percpective extreme rendering them unacceptable to the average person. The latter isn't too far-fetched; as some of the greatest poetry, music, visual arts and philosophical insights have been visioned from deep within the altered reality of euphoria/inebriation.
There are a lot of things, how the brain calculates everything involved in pouring a glass of water. Or, even more fascinating, how you can immediately calculate and compensate for varying viscosities in fluids within a cup after first grabbing it; such as rubbing alcohol, or honey, to adjust how you handle the cup to prevent excessive spilling of the fluids... face recognition, voice recognition, 'perfect pitch', et al. Some of these tasks, we can create a machine to do... very inefficiently and most are haphazard at best.
Is there a science or 'ology' that attempts to crack Nature's algorithms; which must be the most simplistic implementations that occur within the brains of any living organism? Even a flea's brain calculates tons of calculus, even if nothing more than trajectory, range and how much force to use to get to a secondary position. It's brain is a bit small; yet, so much is hidden. Is there even a starting point? Is there any sensors and analytical equipment so precise to detect the chemical reactions and associate them to mathematical representations?
This is perhaps the dumbest thing ever written on Slashdot. The depth of your ignorance is matched only by its breadth. The one topic on which you come close to expressing some level of reasonable expertise, EVE Online, is overshadowed by your obvious contempt for a wide swath of human existence which you seem determined to not understand.
It's easy to make a claim. As you have.
At least I gave examples, which were also factual. So you don't agree, or perhaps you are defensive. What is also a fact, which might ruffle your feathers even more is the tendancy of those who strongly disagree for no cause or reason, to do nothing more in retort than attempt to negatively comment on their opponents mental aptitude.
If you can't explain your side, don't bother trying to determine if a proposition is "right" or "wrong".
You know how you can order an iPod from Apple with a custom etching on the back?
Microsoft just placed an order for a few thousand blue iPods with "Microsoft" etched on the back. Internal reports suggest they won't even bother opening up the boxes as they come in the mail, instead just redirect them to their "customers".
I'm an EVE-ONLINE player. Training up HAC skills as we speak, only 8 days from time of this post for Cruiser level 5.
EVE will never be very big in America. There is a portion of the population in America who play, I myself am American. But, while the entire world loves soccer, Americans typically don't care much for the sport. Probably, the reasons why Americans don't like soccer is the very same reasons why EVE will not gain much widespread appeal in America.
Not to belittle any sportsman, let's do consider the facts of raw game mechanics:
Basketball, Baseball, NASCAR and Football... the four big American sports.
NASCAR is an exception. It is a difficult (in that the drivers are all, highly skilled, no doubt), and very dangerous sport. This is odd, why so many Americans like this sport yet they might shun X-Games. (It's my belief that X-Games is a social backlash of a small group of peoples at the dumbness of the mainstream sports to include, all the safety associated with those sports.) In NASCAR, people do die, you can become seriously injured... and though the same is possible in all other sports, as it is in everyday life for that matter, the difference is... in NASCAR, it's even PROBABLE you will face mortal danger. It's not common, infact it's even mind blowing and bewildering, to hear of a basketball player dieing on the court; it's just not a common event.
So, danger and tangible loss does not appeal to Americans. (With the exception of NASCAR and a select few alternate forms of such sport like top-fuel dragracing.) This is inline with generalized social characteristics of an American. In that, being so common for an American to refuse to be held responsible and always trying to blame someone else, even for his own self-enduced misfortune. This is very important to consider, becuase the fear of being held responsible stems from the prospect of suffering consequences and in suffering, danger and loss is implied. (Going to prison, certainly jeopardizes 'serenity' and 'sanction' and the apparent loss of 'freedom' which whether 'freedom' is infact tangible, is an entirely other discussion.)
How does this relate to EVE? In EVE, you do suffer tangible loss. If you "die" in EVE, you lose your ship and all modules you worked hard for. The components are simply.... *gone*. Now, you might have a friend loot your own "can", but things are always destroyed during ship destruction so you will never get 100% of all your fittings back even in the best scenerio. You can even lose skillpoints if you do not update your clone... this is a very big deal, moreso than losing "property" as in real life during a hostile engagement (such as getting robbed). Losing skillpoints in EVE really hurts, becuase it's takes a long time to attain them and the skillpoints govern what functionality are capable of. (Such as flying certain ships, using certain modules.)
Basketball, baseball and football are all mechanically... very simple. Afterall, a jock has to understand what to do.
"Take this ball... no not that one, this one... and run there.... no no, wrong direction... ok, stop, turn around.... ok start RUNNING. Don't stop, just run straight into the wall... SCORE!!! you are a hero!"
Americans don't like 'options', which is bizarre becuase the general population are supposed to be 'consumers'. Options, require making a choice and making a choice requires some degree of analysis which is another way of saying "thinking". Americans don't want to think... and this is apparent on so many levels, from VCRs with only three buttons, to the noticeable amount of Americans with degrees from an American college is... get this... English or maybe psychology. All of this is for the sake of simplicity... hell, no matter what interest you take... mainstream music isn't even as musically "advanced" as even 30 years ago. Compare the melodic sophistication of GreenDay with that of Jimi Hendrix, or The Beatles. We can even take this one step forward and compare most A
The information transferred may or may not be 'sensitive' but this could be considered an invasion of privacy.
The information from Groklaw's site is invasion of privacy... or via inference.
1) Windows product key (OK, so it's Microsoft... we can let this one slide.)
BUT, where we shall stand up and say NO!
2) BIOS MD5 Checksum 3) Hard drive serial number
The last two, well, they seem harmless but they are far too specific. Now, the FBI and other authorities have been known, with court order, to acquire a paper trail on 'evidence' etched with such information as a serial number or some unique identifier. From that, they can get the entire story from who designed the component to what time it was bought. Usually, purchases are done with a credit card, and here's the rub. If you buy ANYTHING with a serial number on it with a credit card, someone willing to shuffle the papers can track down the full identity of the customer.
While, if you call Seagate up and ask them for purchase histories on , they'll tell you where to go. But, how much you wanna bet to say Microsoft's milage will fair much better? A situation can go something like this.
They have their own product key, and they can verify WHO bought the software.
Now, they have unique hardware identifiers, so they then can (probably) verify who bought it too. If the computer is a prebuilt, now that information can be cross referenced to verify all other hardware claims (such as the BIOS MD5) against the "PC Manufacturer" to determine if "Dell" even ever put that harddrive in that particular machine. Before you know it, they might do some integrity challanges that are two or three steps further than what credit card companies employ (which I don't mind, their wonderful algorithms to flag suspected purchases based on historical data).
So, it's Christmas time, and you're a geek.
Grannie managed to pick the right box, and you get Windows 2010 Daddy gave you a couple of new shiny fiber channel harddrives. Mommy bought you a shiny new IBM desktop....
You run off, and unpack your desktop, "upgrade" it's drives, and slap the Windows DISC inside.
*DONG* Microsoft calls BS, and denies you the ability to install the software. (but, maybe if your grannie had bought a computer, then they could have referenced a family tree of purchases to conclude it is likely legit....)
I've been to the dentist many times in my life. Many cavities filled, crowns added et al.
The worst part of the dentist isn't that medical scent in every dentists office, with the faint mix of dried plaque... yeah, you know what I'm talking about. It's not even the part about getting poked with a needle here and there. (This shot goes in the roof of your mouth, you might feel a little prick... OK done.)
Aside from the insane bill you get (which, do NOT get me started on this.), the worst experience is after you visit the dentist.
Sitting outside, half your face numb. Try to spit, try to smoke a cigarette, try to drink a Mt. Dew. Try to kiss your girlfriend... YOU CAN'T! You instantly become a fumbling idiot looking stupid for the rest of the day.
What I want... is the ability for them to poke you again, and counter all the local anaethetics. General anaethetics are much better in this regard, you go under, when you wake up all is well. But that Lidocaine crap has got to go. Seriously. They need to be able to deaden the nerves, this is a godsend, but when they are done, perk them back up please. If they can reverse local anaethetics at their whim, I'd be less hesitant on going to the dentist. As it stands, man, I won't think about the dentist until tears are falling from my eyes due to pain.
Defraud the government, with devious intent, for a tune of 3 million USD and receive a 1 year sentence in a work camp.
Copy a movie and get fined up to 250,000 dollars and face upto a 10 year sentence? After, getting beaten up by people who dress like cops but aren't, in public?
Slashdot Mirror
I knew China wasn't really going to do much about the advertised nuclear testing in North Korea. Just days ago, fellow Americans argued that China would help America every step of the way. The reports on BBC News beats a far different tone.
The problem with Nukes is two fold really. First, it's pretty much science and that much every man has the right to know; problem solving is a capability inherent in all humans. So, I think the main factors of developing such technology reside soley in ability to apply the acquired/developed knowledge of a group of scientists. Controlling who gets what materials currently known to work. Politics comes into play here, make the world look down on you if you do go through with it. But, nothing can stop a person from going to a library and picking up a book; and for men of the calibur to become Generals and National Leaders... determination is every bit as tangible as the solid brick wall infront of you.
I have little doubt in my mind that North Korea detonated a nuclear device. We all have a very basic and crude understanding of how it fundamentally works. It's really only a magnitude of elegance and stability between my 600lbs of home-made shock stabalized nitro-glycerin, nitrocelulos and gun-powder, all crudely shape charged towards colliding necessary fuels together with enough force to initiate a violent nuclear reaction. But, how on earth am I going to get the "fuel" from? All the other stuff is relatively easy to come by with a little effort.
Sooner or later, Afghanistan will have the capacity to build a thermo-nuclear device. Sri-Lanka, Madagascar, Iran, Chechnya perhaps. An elegant, stable one even; probably far more sophisticated and engineered than what we currently have, by the time they do. Along the way, those opponents against developing nuclear arms are left with their hands tied behind their back. Like I said, there's only two real controlling factors, politics and resources. Once an interest group gets their hands on the resources, they may ignore the politics if they so choose to. Which leads me to...
Perhaps, the only thing left to do is try to belittle the effort of the target (North Korea), hiding under the reality that not one authority in the entire world would have any allies at all should they pre-emptively launch a nuclear weapon at anyone. Then, quitely, accept the fact they have Nuclear Weapons. I'm surprised that one may often run into an American at a bar or club, who has yet to aware of the fact India and Pakistan are Nuclear. Even knowing so, still doesn't sit right due to how much poverty exists in those countries...
So, I think all of this hooplah (including the wikipedia implicitly saying that the explosion was conventional by adding it to a list of large conventional explosions.), is just aftermath propoganda warfare.
There are a whole slew of situations where, not only can a company ask you for your SSN, but they are required to take your SSN!
I stand corrected.
However, what laws, laws that are actively and vehemently enforced, or systems and measures are in place to invalidate the seemingly end-all-be-all of identification as the SSN, and for companies to protect those numbers exclusively with outrageous fines should they be leaked or the source for an identity compromise? None!
As far as I'm concerned, it's meant to be private. I don't say this as a cover-up for my initial post being wrong. But, apparently, there is little regard and little for self-assurance and civil faith in protective measures ensuring our identity. Take the case of so much private information being put in the care of those non-citizens in a foriegn country. Some hospitals "out-source" documentation and record keeping of medical files to India... not exactly heart warming, and I really don't care how much so-called legislation they might have in their country. Governments must look after their own before anyone else, and I couldn't give two cents about information of some guy in Shanghai China if I had it in hand, no matter how "personal" it was.
In the beginning the Social Security Number was issued by the government and is unique to each living citizen. This much still holds true.
But what was lost somewhere via the effects of Capitalism.... was that this number was supposed to be private to the individual assigned it. And, while there are laws protecting a citizens privacy. Companies were granted positions to effectively counter such laws. Only the government, state or law-enforcement officials may "demand" your Social Security Number. Visa can not demand you give it to them. Your landlord can not demand you give it to him. Private schools by law, can not demand you forfeit such information.
But no law is telling Visa or anyone else to accept alternate information for their personal records. As a result, you have to give out your Social Security Number, becuase if you don't, you can't apply for an Apartment, you can't buy a car, you can't have a credit card, you can't open a bank account, you can't get a job..... yeah, we have a choice.
*Some places do accept alternate information such as Drivers License Numbers.*
NO.
It is your job to see to the survival of your offspring. Period.
This mess with not letting children be themselves (which is inevitable of the effect of over control) is why we have such problems. First off, it's a open-ended complaint, to say that a parent isn't doing their job just becuase their child manages to evade them long enough to do something bad. If my child can't figure out how to have fun, I'd be very angry that he is so stupid. You have to sleep, you have to turn your back away, and claims of how difficult it is to manage children is no excuse to say that you have to be an all-knowing, omniscient God. You aren't!
Not to mention, society ties parents hands behind their backs. You can't spank them in public, some social worker will figure they have the right to take them from you.
So what are parents supposed to do, even when facing their children? Oh yeah, "talk" to them... any parent who actually believes this is either self-dellusional, ignorant, doesn't have a 17 year old teenager, or actually believes they are the Brady Bunch. It's not reality, and I know, becuase I remember how I regarded my parents advice when growing up. It's needed, it is absorbed, but they aren't going to live by much of it till years later. Infact, I still do a lot my mother warned me about, and the adverse affect is motivated by the fact I can evade all implied horrors she tried to teach me.
Parent's only need to be there for their children. Of course you're going to discipline them for doing something you don't agree with. Of course you will press your own views onto them (I'm Catholic, you have to be a Catholic too, and not anything else!).
BUT!
Don't make the mistake of thinking it's OK to blame a parent just becuase of what their children do. AND! Do not be so stupid to think that every little thing a child does is the responsibility of the parent. By the time I was 6, I had been arrested three times by police officers and MPs on base. I knew and understood, at such a young age, that adults were so naive to blame my parents instead of me. When I turned 18, and understood that I could go to jail, I miraculously stopped getting arrested. So no, it's not the parents absolute responsibility. Offspring are seperate, individual minds who think for themselves, and if they make the decision to do something they are going to do it regardless what you tell them to do. And you can't over-protect your children, and you have to give them some room to make their own mistakes otherwise they'll never learn how to cope with them when the rest of society WILL hold them responsible.
Don't be stupid people! Oh, and if you're an adult complaining about antics of a child, then you need to address your own maturity, position or self-integrity! Children are harsh. I made my 7th grade math teacher sit at his desk and cry. Literally cry. But he gained much respect, becuase he was always there, the next day and the next day.
Sun Microsystems first attempt was to do a massive, universal campaign in another popular online game, EVE-ONLINE. Reports are scarce, but from credible witnesses flying around in Polaris ships to monitor the event, the endeavour quickly became a fiasco.
Sun thought Querious, which permitted word play for 'query' and provided them to boast their server and sql database presentation, would be a good idea to rally tons of people to the event.
Unfortunately, a large in-game Alliance known as Band of Brothers [BoB], setup a trap to permit tons of people into pouring into their soverign territory. While Sun Microsystems (working with Quaff Marketing Agents) to launch the event, BoB came in with Interceptors, Heavy Assault Cruisers, Battleships, Carriers and Motherships and podded everyone except for the GMs. Many petitions were filed that day, even Sun Microsystems employees filed petitions. As usual, all those petitions fell on deaf ears. Across the street from CCP in Iceland, police received complaints from residents nearby for excessive laughter.
Don't be alarmed, there are a lot of idiots in leading positions in large companies, just as there are many idiots born into affluency a.k.a. Venture Capitalists.
First, Paul has attempted to apply traditional business philosophies and the illusion of value to that of Open Source development. "[hackers] don't have to support their product [or] be absolutely reliable", is one hint. The illusion of "support"... well, I paid 15,000 (USD) for this SunFire server... called up Sun Microsystems and I have to pay 125 dollars for a valid account just to access their knowledge database.... support my ass. Or, call up Microsoft, and watch as your told (after the 10-20 dollars you have to pay to talk to a rep), to go to Dell or whoever made your computer; support my ass again. Companies do NOT want to be responsible for their products, they never have, they never will be. At least you more often get a REAL NAME of someone on an Open Source project; as for companies, many Class Action lawsuits have been filed throughout the world and throughout history.
Deadlines... yeah, as a developer of both proprietary software and open source software. Nothing diminishes the value and quality of a software project more than a "deadline". This is fact. This is widely known amongst developers. Traditional, archaic business leaders are so ignorant that when this fact is mentioned they honestly think we are joking. Infact, the concept of a deadline is the single biggest factor why proprietary software will never compare to open source software when it comes to quality and usefulness.
But, of all that Paul Ducklin claimed in his article, take this one on for size. "I don't know why people think if you can trot out 10 or 20 or 100 viruses[sp], you would be great at actually producing some antivirus technology that can deal with 200,000 different bits of malware,"
Here, the moron decides to misdirect the reader with numbers. I've developed security software myself. And, I've also analysed a number of security software packages and implementations. When it comes to virus detection, intrusion detection and all that biz, 99% of it is nothing but pattern matching routines in a loop. That's why most NIDs have a data pack which is nothing more than a conglomeration of known patterns to published forms of attacks. It is no different for Antivirus software. In short.... if you know regex really well, you don't need to know flip about security or how to implement an attack to identify one with software. This part really ticked me off, becuase as a person who identifies and writes my own exploits which I might or might not publish, this line of logic Paul wishes onto others is completely bullshit. Then he goes in, and tries to relate the luxuries of production in a less-tangible world (the world of computers where resources is nothing more than imagination and virtually no effort goes into typing) to the real world where you have to chop down a tree to get wood. What I'm talking about is his falsely applied analogy with being shot by an attacker, asking if a victim might logically wonder if the doctor had ever been a criminal to be that much more familiar with gunshot wounds. What he's trying to say, is a person that is able to exploit a problem is far less intelligable than a IT "doctor" who only really writes up a regex string to identify a problem.
I'll end this here. Becuase I doubt anyone here will take this article seriously. And if it's not enough to bash Paul Ducklin any more... he's a Chief Technical Officer of Sophos. Sophos is an antivirus company. As far as I'm concerned, his only target is the end-user, the moron, the impulse-double-clicker; those in his image.
DirectX does kick the shit out of OpenGL, but OpenGL is free.
How ignorant, and blind, can a person be to make this statement? DirectX, is probably... why even try to explain how much crap DirectX is. You're definately a consumer. In the most negative sense of the word.
DirectX, will, and you mark my words, NEVER be of enough quality to be used in CGI REALISM. OpenGL can, generate very realistic renders... so realistic, it's used in all major film FX.
The reason why OpenGL games aren't as good looking, is becuase it targets the consumer; you know, morons like yourself. Who, do not have the hardware to render heavy duty OpenGL sequences. Before you jump up and down, your lame GeForce 9999999 is crap and only geared towards the most common 3D calls for GAMERS and CONSUMER LEVEL 3d applications. There is NOT ONE consumer level card, even for a scant 400-500 dollar hot release, that has hardware acceleration for 100% of ANY 3D API... even DirectX.
Now, what Microsoft did, was compose a bunch of wiz-bang API calls into DirectX, while OpenGL programmers are left to write their own. OK, does this mean DirectX is better? The only thing "better", is time for development. As far as seeing an EXACT same effect used in ALL DirectX games???? Anyways... with all the exposure of the white collar sweat shops of EA Games and other such game development houses... no wonder a lot of games on the shelf were developed under pure management and they chose DirectX and Windows as their primary market. However, a few of those programming houses actually know a thing or two about 3D programming, actually have the resources and clout to take the time to do something RIGHT. idSoftware for one, and what API do they chose? Not DirectX! And, there's a reason why. Becuase it f*cking sucks, I can't put it anymore blatant than that.
We shall never submit into economic obligation to a company of any size, or intent. Doing so, will put us, inevitably, into their pockets and the hidden obligations and incentives to favor the flow of capital vs. what we favor currently (something that actually works).
Companies of all sizes shall bow to us, respect what experts say, and conform to Open and monetarily unconditional standards. Not the other way round. We shall NEVER attempt to globally PAY for a license to conform to the GPL, so we may distribute the technology and risk people developing towards that technology with an uncertain future due to the possibility of it being nulled due to non-payment. The Company shall respect open standards, comply with them and honor the sole and most important benefits of any devices or implication of Communications.
If a Company want's to make their protocol proprietary. Then, that protocol ceases to exist or any tangible device relying on that protocol metaphorically vanishes from reality. That's the way I see it. Proprietary communications implementations are not documented, or understood; it also follows that no certainty may follow such as it being tested or researched. Whether or not the black box may demonstrate operability, it relies on religious philosophies for acceptance, such as "faith" and "blind acceptance". Why it might work, is only an additional and mysterious query to ponder. Who needs that noise? Either the Company demonstrates the quality of their ability, or it's safer to assume that the reason they don't want it displayed is becuase it's flawed.
Companies should be paying Open Source Developers, for freely doing their research and development!
Linux is *not* user friendly, and until it is linux will stay with >1% marketshare.
Take installation. Linux zealots are now saying "oh installing is so easy, just do apt-get install package or emerge package": Yes, because typing in "apt-get" or "emerge" makes so much more sense to new users than double-clicking an icon that says "setup".
It's hard to explain to someone, that Vi is far easier/faster and more efficient than Notepad. Part of this, is becuase GUI translates to "Ease" to those that know no better. I assert, that Rule No. 1 be: "Ease of Use has NOTHING to do with whether something SEEMS 'Intuitive'." Why? Becuase the unspoken parts of "Ease of Use" are the parts you DON'T see so scratch the GUI... such as that icon labelled "Setup" actually doing what you would expect it to do. And, do it well... but wait, let's take a step back a second. What did I say? "...actually doing what you would expect it to do..." Yes, here's another rub for sure, need I elaborate on what an idiot might expect? For Christ's sake, the only reason Virus Scanners exist is becuase of an expectation of the idiot!
I don't care if Linux is EVER dominate on the desktop. I'd prefer it not be. Let Windows reign supreme on the backs of all cows and sheep for all I care. They deserve what they get. As for those that know the first thing about computing, let them make a most informed decision on what to use. I don't care about "market share", that is a capitalist phrase which means nothing to me and in no way effects my decision to contribute or release my own work for free. The moment someone uses capitalists jargon and phrases in reference to Open Source, I usually stop listening as they clearly have no idea what they are talking about; nevermind their blatant lack of vision to properly distinguish the two philosophies.
What we have here, is the value between experts and laymen. Linux has done well, will continue to do well, regardless if it ever overthrows Windows on the desktop and gain the hearts and minds of the sheep. Why? That's simple....
Take any hobby or interest. Creative is surely "larger" than MOTU, yet, who do you think actually has more clout to influence the industry? Not Creative, that's for damn sure. Why? Becuase professionals and experts, sound engineers and sound producers regard MOTU and their software/equipment much more than Creative's low-quality merchandise targetting the everyday person. Who, logically, do you think is following who? Creative follows the industry players that have the most approval of the experts within the field of music and audio production. MOTU doesn't go to Creative to ask what the mass "market" wants... they go to the multi-million dollar studios and big name musicians and ask THEM what THEY want.
The ONLY thing the Linux community needs to maintain is our level of expertise. So, when a CEO needs to ask a question, who better to ask? The Windows gang there, or the Linux gurus over there? Now, this might depend on the question. But, I highly doubt that any question regarding the bits and bytes of the technology will ever be addressed to the Windows crowd. "Is the structure of this protocol feasible for 'X' application?", "Should our new interface be openly defined as a standard or is it better at this point in time to keep it proprietary?" These kinds of questions, and the answers that are considered GOVERN the direction and application of upcoming and present technologies! Forget the GUI and Ease of Use crap that's only targetting people interested in 'after-the-fact' technologies awarded by a board that doesn't give a hoot about anything but profit and if that means confusing the consumer, decieving the consumer or outright taxing the consumer... they will do so.
Linux experts are listened too. Purchasing decisions are made based off our suggestions. Our small numbers only serve to saturate our experts into an identifiable group of people; which means, while there are a few very smart Windows programme
In Thompsons warped view of the world, games make children violent.
Not so sure his view is warped or even askewed in the slightest.
When I was in grade school, I was going to CAP (Civil Air Patrol). We flew flight simulators all day long. Come to find, every pilot has to pass simulator tests which are designed to assist the physical transition of sitting in a real cock-pit. Part of Navy SEAL training (among all the other simulation like trainings) involve them going through a controlled drowning, simulating what it feels like to actually drown, they are then revived as soon as they go under; this I believe is to eliminate a fear of the water, completely. FBI, CIA, KGB, Massad, Osama bin Laden... EVERYONE conducts simulation to condition their subjects for whatever task is at hand. Whether it's a SWAT team training to storm a building, or your local city cops training for a situation where a simple speeding ticket goes wrong. It's ALL simulation. And only a fool would suggest simulation is in pure vain.
There are many ways of simulating a scenerio to condition a person to be prepared for an actual hypothetical event. Cartoonish video game characters are no more comical and innocent than smiley faces drawn on water melons stuck on staffs for mounted calvary use to use to train for field combat. The blocky faces of the Unreal Tournament at least give a feel of depth and 3D, how can it be possible someone could take serious the traditional 2 dimensional spring loaded cardboard flap that pops up in many police simulations? And for those that might wish to draw the line of effective simulation for hostilities between mental capability and condition versus physical ability and condition... this is a very dangerous precedent. While physical ability is somewhat important, any person that has ever hunted large game, actually had shot another in combat will tell you flat out; 99% of the ability to perform your job in those situations to include pulling the trigger is all psychological. A computer simulation, can assist you in overcoming those psychological barriers... and it doesn't take much excercise at all to pull a hair trigger. You're done, and ready.
So don't try to make it out as if people aren't conditioned, affected, or change of sensitivity in the least by video games. Especially games today like Hitman, SOCOM and the like which actually try to encourage the player to think and discipline their actions as a real assassin or special ops soldier.
The military has used simulation for thousands of years... simulation of all the current technologies of their times. Given how much bloodshed has spilt throughout history... simulation and conditioning for battle is EXTREMELY effective. You can belittle this with calling it a "game" all you want though, noone has yet to stop you from that.
Some MMOs actually do allow players to pay for their accounts with in-game currency.
People in EVE-ONLINE do it all the time. CCP allows people to buy an EVE-ONLINE Time Card and resell it to gamers for in-game currency isks. So some people do pay for their accounts with virtual money; but, at some point, someone had to pay for with the less virtual but noless intangible hard formal currency.
What's funny, is that I wish most of the MIL-STD specs were freely available and open to the public. While some aren't *classified*, many are under export control. Anything other than a MIL-STD describing how soda stored in a ships magazine should be entered into a database is pretty much classified or under export control. You know, operational protocols... yes, there is a MIL-STD for everything, even the types of screws that can be used for assembling certain parts; which, for all the technology that might exist in launching an F18 off the flight deck of a carrier, to Air Force radar data streams...
I think it would be most optimal, and a great benefit for any military, if much of these protocols, specifications were public. I would *love* to develop OPEN SOURCE applications for military and aviation/aerospace applications. While there is a great deal of a myriad application in the field running on top of Open Source software such as Linux, or working with Open Source Software; it is all proprietary either developed "in-house" from within the branch of the military or agency, or directly contracted out to a private enterprise defense contractor.
I think, the only detrimental part of infrastructure that is widely known and specs available to the public is the phone system. Much of all other technologies, are kept hush hush as for specifications and standards; air traffic control, power-grid, nuclear reactors, etc.
While I WISH I could write applications in the Open Source realm FOR the military, FOR the government, FOR the state, FOR the city... we have others that wish their applications were NOT available for military/government etc.
The Ironic part is... apparently, either "their" ego has inflated to ridiculous height, width and depth, or they are truelly stupid as for how MUCH of technology that we enjoy and take for granted was directly FUNDED or RESEARCHED by the military. Computers were initially designed for the sole purpose of simulating nuclear explosions; or so we say, but one thing is for certain, it was military interest that is to thank for all the peaces making up this "Internet".
Perhaps military application, inherently holds such a repulsive connotation, that we tend to forget the driving force and clout that enabled tons of money to be "wasted" on the R&D required for such projects. Who has the money for such large scale projects? Yes, the Government. What is the most useful application? Sadly, military applications... not pet shampoo or a more efficient espresso machine.
Becuase of this. I feel, that any person wishing to lock the government/military out of technology is only really biting the hand that fed them. Kinda like turning their back on their own parents in regards to their interests. It's not the best recognition to give, nor is it a decent "Thank You". I also think that becuase of how much research and development the military and government does for new technologies... locking them out will only increase the odds to say your idea will not have longevity whenever the government makes public a new technology to capitalize and market with.
Just my thoughts... but, to each his own.
I haven't played EVE in a while, and I've never played WoW, but doesn't farming have a different effect on the economy in Eve? Rather than inflation, doesn't it make things cheaper? If there is a huge influx of minerals, the price of them goes down and items get cheaper to manufacture. Where as in WoW you get raw gold coming in and devaluing the current gold that people have. Or am I way off here? What is the real problem with farming in Eve?
EVE's economy is so in-depth and profound... "macro-miners" in EVE is in many ways akin to illegal immigration controversies. "macro-miners" are stuck doing their thing in high-sec systems, and even there they can be hasseled so it's not a 100% free ride; i.e. I can steal ore from their can, I can kamakazi them, I can do number of things.
CCP takes what seems to be a bizarre stance on macro-miners. Given the depth of the economy within EVE, CCP probably doesn't see dire economic situations indicative to excessive macro-mining (where resources, work, wealth is diverted from the host system.... like billions of California dollars sent forever into Mexico and medical service bills pawned off on Americans and insane rise in medical costs to compensate for losses encurred by treating illegal immigrants...) The universal economy is so established, these atrocities are absorbed into the mix and their effect diluted; like, while most Californians can't even afford to see a doctor with the best insurance plans, they are able to go to Vons and buy food at a reasonable price becuase the harvest was completed by illegal immigrants--it's a love hate relationship.
CCP does, swiftly and almost clandestine like, make people who buy isks on eBay or elsewhere disappear. One day, you'll be wondering where so-and-so went and why they haven't been on for a long time. But, they seem rather impartial about complaints about macro-miners, and this really does make sense.... as we'll find below.
Over 15,000 people demand a product. To make that product, X amount of resources need to be attained. Manufacturing of said product should be within a reasonable timeframe, and distribution equally reasonable. Then you have the sale of said product.
Let's put this into real life percpective. Even well known restaurants like Taco Bell don't even see 15,000 demands in a month for any individual offering on their menu; most Taco Bells probably don't even reach 15,000 dollars in sales a month. But, once a month, the big eighteen wheeler rolls up and supplies that store for a months supply of produce used to create your taco. It is, by any practical standard, a LOT of food. Tomatoes, sour cream, syrup for cokes, pre-cooked meats, boxes and boxes of green onions... the point is, there are MASSIVE operations held honestly within EVE just becuase the demand and economy needs it. The secondary (and main) point is, from an individual standpoint, it can be difficult to identify a macro-miner(s) versus a serious EVE-ONLINE player(s). There *is* substantial demand in EVE, and it follows that there will be very impressive operations within EVE to meet those demands. I've seen mining operations in 0.0 where I'm just... "holy sh*t!!!", and they weren't macro miners...
So, it's a love hate relationship in EVE, which becuase this reflects real life economics... it is very impressive overall. And I think CCP simply keeps an eye and investigates blatant macro-mining and becuase of this reaction... well, I think this too reflects politicians seemingly slow response to illegal immigration. 1) to some degree illegal immigration is necessary or negligable 2) some of what appears to be illegal really isn't... etc etc.
Please.... someone, tell me why there needs to be an "officer"--much less a "cheif"--within a corporate environment. Aside from convention, what practical use would such a high paying position render? Management? Bah, the realities of management... is a given with shuttles exploding on international television and multi-billion dollar corporations such as Enron, to the everyday corporate life of meaningless and unproductive meetings setting deadlines, project goals and planning... it's all crap, and never useful.
But, even if it's "management"... it's interesting that a corporation would feel the need for such heirarchy to "manage" any aspect of a system which itself, has no such structure.
Three months is too long.
Besides, especially for Microsoft exploits... the moment I have time to share any info on something I found, I do. This is in part becuase of my lack of admiration for the company, and any bane for them is a gleeful gain for me. Come to think of it, I never contacted Microsoft to report anything remotely construed as intent for improvement; save one instance where I did specifically contacted Microsoft presenting just one reason why I would never condone the use of their Server Operating Systems for even casual use, and they opened up dialog even. But, I think they could tell, I wasn't their friend.
Bottom line here, is what is 'responsible' exploit exposure? Noone really has a hardened explanation. Companies would love for thier ideas governing exposure, basically it affords them the ability to flip the bird at one person (the discoverer) and hope noone else see's it; which is, the most likely scenerio becuase we all know, captialists think like this--'is it cost effective to address this bug? Is it cheaper to pay editors to belittle the effect of IE crashing by using phrases such as "[bugs within IE] MERELY causing IE to CRASH"?'.
Is it really responsible to notify the vendor first? Inherent to proprietary business interests, denial is an all too common tactic and if they want to sue you, they could even to suffer an obvious loss just to introduce you to the ringer. Or, is it more responsible to out right give full details to the first person you see on the street? I say, in regards to consumer business, it's much more effective and therefore responsible should you post all exploits, with details and working examples the moment you are able to muster the content and activate the 'Send' command. This approach is akin to starting a fire underneath the perverbial ass. Why give a company an option? Force them to live up to their end of the deal; deal being that you paid for a product, as advertised and within reasonable expectation of operation. There is no option to fix or not to fix a bug that crashes an application, it must be fixed; while this is the tendancy in the Open Source area, it is a philosophical obligation for a company.
So, light those fires is what I say. I think it's ridiculous that many exposing exploits do not give details and working example code, or some sites that do have that culture require registration and are less in the spotlight.
I'm a player of EVE-ONLINE. It didn't take long for the PvP aspects to have real effect. (Consequently, they have much less effect now; perhaps an end all be all definition of pirate depending on why?) Early, my heart beat would raise, adrenaline rush and all of a sudden I would get a real feeling of fight or flight mentality whenever a 'flasher' would warp in. That "oh shit" feeling, that even if kept silent is obvious to any onlookers. The effect is so strong, from myriad accounts not just my own, that I have often pondered if CCP will eventually have some sort of medical warning to those with heart conditions while starting to play the game. Not only does the game genuinely enduce physical and emotional characteristics of imminent hostile danger, but if you get to see your opponent pop you get a genuine sense of gain or power, if you die, you have a genuine sense of loss.
From these effects, they enduce real emotion as well. For example, hate mail or something within EVE known as 'smack talk', there has even been situations where the sentiment has been extended into real life threats and harrassment. Usually, becuase someone was attacked and killed by another pilot, but as involved as the game is, there are many ways to 'screw' over another player; such as undercutting their business stealing their customers or sabotaging political ties with alliances/corporations for your interest, or internal disloyalty and corp theft/betrayal.
This is all on account of game structure and mechanics. And, if this much can be enduced simply by interactive 'situational' analysis, then any other game could be developed to target a particular effect just by building up all the variables to justify the reaction whenever something happens. One of the chief causes for the seriousness of EVE, is that you do encur real loss and actual gain. If you die, you lose what you had and have to work towards acquiring it again, if you win, you may loot your victims wreckage for items valuable to you (that, and you get the killmail to further insult them by posting it on public forums.)
That's why it violates copyright laws for people to sell copies of their music collection.
This is inherently not true. Otherwise, garage sales, individual sales and even medium sized business sales would be illegal. Pawn shops, and record shops who, I garuntee do not pay royalties to noone on resale of digital content (whether it be a game medium or CD/DVD). For the price they buy it from the customers, it's often more expensive to download the CD (even on 'illegal' networks) than the return on selling one to a pawn shop (you might get a 0.25 cents from a pawn shop).
There is nothing illegal about me selling my Metallica Master of Puppets CD to a friend; in contrast, there's nothing illegal about me giving it to him either. There's nothing illegal about me buying a CD, and throwing it in the trash (to imply that the whole idea of 'you only get a license' is BS, becuase you OWN a physical peace of merchandise. In contrast, when you finance a car, the bank OWNs the car, and they have legal right to REPOSESS the car in the case of non-payment. Record companies have NO right to reposess a CD from any individual who has purchased one, so ownership of that property is more than just a license grant.)
A more dangerous scenerio, of which we are all victimized is when such a controversial situation is supported by either side under the shroud of authority.
Britannica decides to take a conservative political view, Time Life decides on a Liberal point of view. Both "respected", but for no real reason other than familiarity; be honest with your self, you don't know a single editor on a first name basis much less even challange any of the credentials implied or explicitly noted if noted within any "respected" source.
On Wikipedia, controversial issues are blatantly controversial. Furthermore, it gives a feel that the whole issue is for debate. While some would prefer not to debate with just anyone, the danger in Britannica is that you can not demonstrate your retort after composition; no matter how truthful, logical, reasonable it might be. All you can do, is scribble in the pages... which might hold merit, might not, regardless the most probable situation is that your arguement is never seen by anyone than yourself. Others, will rebuke your propositions based off the fact they might have the same book; minus your scribbles, and becuase they are mentally lazy, they will consider Britannica's "opinion" (if you can even manage to convince them it's an opinion) as "factual".
One of the reasons I hate citing sources. Not that I'm unable to, but Truth is absolute and if the listeners only gauge for acceptance is who else agrees, then he suffers from a number of things; he doesn't know enough of the subject to really hold a discussion, he doesn't understand your view and is looking for someone to blame should he be wrong (he want's 'easy' knowledge), he really isn't listening and just wants to tally up who else might agree (with whatever) or, as the usual case, trying to find a reason to discredit your argument without actually thinking it through as you had (the lazy sage technique).
Van Gogh's ability to properly depict (even closely) one of Nature's most chaotic of events only implies that somehow, his brain was able to calculate his efforts. Without getting into pseudo-science, crystals and all that biz; it is rather obvious that those who extend deep into the extremes of various mental illnesses or retardations display extrodinary abilities, such as high level autism.
Without any psychology or neuroscience, I speculate that perhaps such abilities are so taxing that their brains aren't able to function with common tasks, or their taxing abilities require such a unique percpective extreme rendering them unacceptable to the average person. The latter isn't too far-fetched; as some of the greatest poetry, music, visual arts and philosophical insights have been visioned from deep within the altered reality of euphoria/inebriation.
There are a lot of things, how the brain calculates everything involved in pouring a glass of water. Or, even more fascinating, how you can immediately calculate and compensate for varying viscosities in fluids within a cup after first grabbing it; such as rubbing alcohol, or honey, to adjust how you handle the cup to prevent excessive spilling of the fluids... face recognition, voice recognition, 'perfect pitch', et al. Some of these tasks, we can create a machine to do... very inefficiently and most are haphazard at best.
Is there a science or 'ology' that attempts to crack Nature's algorithms; which must be the most simplistic implementations that occur within the brains of any living organism? Even a flea's brain calculates tons of calculus, even if nothing more than trajectory, range and how much force to use to get to a secondary position. It's brain is a bit small; yet, so much is hidden. Is there even a starting point? Is there any sensors and analytical equipment so precise to detect the chemical reactions and associate them to mathematical representations?
This is perhaps the dumbest thing ever written on Slashdot. The depth of your ignorance is matched only by its breadth. The one topic on which you come close to expressing some level of reasonable expertise, EVE Online, is overshadowed by your obvious contempt for a wide swath of human existence which you seem determined to not understand.
It's easy to make a claim. As you have.
At least I gave examples, which were also factual. So you don't agree, or perhaps you are defensive. What is also a fact, which might ruffle your feathers even more is the tendancy of those who strongly disagree for no cause or reason, to do nothing more in retort than attempt to negatively comment on their opponents mental aptitude.
If you can't explain your side, don't bother trying to determine if a proposition is "right" or "wrong".
You know how you can order an iPod from Apple with a custom etching on the back?
Microsoft just placed an order for a few thousand blue iPods with "Microsoft" etched on the back. Internal reports suggest they won't even bother opening up the boxes as they come in the mail, instead just redirect them to their "customers".
I'm an EVE-ONLINE player. Training up HAC skills as we speak, only 8 days from time of this post for Cruiser level 5.
EVE will never be very big in America. There is a portion of the population in America who play, I myself am American. But, while the entire world loves soccer, Americans typically don't care much for the sport. Probably, the reasons why Americans don't like soccer is the very same reasons why EVE will not gain much widespread appeal in America.
Not to belittle any sportsman, let's do consider the facts of raw game mechanics:
Basketball, Baseball, NASCAR and Football... the four big American sports.
NASCAR is an exception. It is a difficult (in that the drivers are all, highly skilled, no doubt), and very dangerous sport. This is odd, why so many Americans like this sport yet they might shun X-Games. (It's my belief that X-Games is a social backlash of a small group of peoples at the dumbness of the mainstream sports to include, all the safety associated with those sports.) In NASCAR, people do die, you can become seriously injured... and though the same is possible in all other sports, as it is in everyday life for that matter, the difference is... in NASCAR, it's even PROBABLE you will face mortal danger. It's not common, infact it's even mind blowing and bewildering, to hear of a basketball player dieing on the court; it's just not a common event.
So, danger and tangible loss does not appeal to Americans. (With the exception of NASCAR and a select few alternate forms of such sport like top-fuel dragracing.) This is inline with generalized social characteristics of an American. In that, being so common for an American to refuse to be held responsible and always trying to blame someone else, even for his own self-enduced misfortune. This is very important to consider, becuase the fear of being held responsible stems from the prospect of suffering consequences and in suffering, danger and loss is implied. (Going to prison, certainly jeopardizes 'serenity' and 'sanction' and the apparent loss of 'freedom' which whether 'freedom' is infact tangible, is an entirely other discussion.)
How does this relate to EVE? In EVE, you do suffer tangible loss. If you "die" in EVE, you lose your ship and all modules you worked hard for. The components are simply.... *gone*. Now, you might have a friend loot your own "can", but things are always destroyed during ship destruction so you will never get 100% of all your fittings back even in the best scenerio. You can even lose skillpoints if you do not update your clone... this is a very big deal, moreso than losing "property" as in real life during a hostile engagement (such as getting robbed). Losing skillpoints in EVE really hurts, becuase it's takes a long time to attain them and the skillpoints govern what functionality are capable of. (Such as flying certain ships, using certain modules.)
Basketball, baseball and football are all mechanically... very simple. Afterall, a jock has to understand what to do.
"Take this ball... no not that one, this one... and run there.... no no, wrong direction... ok, stop, turn around.... ok start RUNNING. Don't stop, just run straight into the wall... SCORE!!! you are a hero!"
Americans don't like 'options', which is bizarre becuase the general population are supposed to be 'consumers'. Options, require making a choice and making a choice requires some degree of analysis which is another way of saying "thinking". Americans don't want to think... and this is apparent on so many levels, from VCRs with only three buttons, to the noticeable amount of Americans with degrees from an American college is... get this... English or maybe psychology. All of this is for the sake of simplicity... hell, no matter what interest you take... mainstream music isn't even as musically "advanced" as even 30 years ago. Compare the melodic sophistication of GreenDay with that of Jimi Hendrix, or The Beatles. We can even take this one step forward and compare most A
The information transferred may or may not be 'sensitive' but this could be considered an invasion of privacy.
The information from Groklaw's site is invasion of privacy... or via inference.
1) Windows product key (OK, so it's Microsoft... we can let this one slide.)
BUT, where we shall stand up and say NO!
2) BIOS MD5 Checksum
3) Hard drive serial number
The last two, well, they seem harmless but they are far too specific. Now, the FBI and other authorities have been known, with court order, to acquire a paper trail on 'evidence' etched with such information as a serial number or some unique identifier. From that, they can get the entire story from who designed the component to what time it was bought. Usually, purchases are done with a credit card, and here's the rub. If you buy ANYTHING with a serial number on it with a credit card, someone willing to shuffle the papers can track down the full identity of the customer.
While, if you call Seagate up and ask them for purchase histories on , they'll tell you where to go. But, how much you wanna bet to say Microsoft's milage will fair much better? A situation can go something like this.
They have their own product key, and they can verify WHO bought the software.
Now, they have unique hardware identifiers, so they then can (probably) verify who bought it too. If the computer is a prebuilt, now that information can be cross referenced to verify all other hardware claims (such as the BIOS MD5) against the "PC Manufacturer" to determine if "Dell" even ever put that harddrive in that particular machine. Before you know it, they might do some integrity challanges that are two or three steps further than what credit card companies employ (which I don't mind, their wonderful algorithms to flag suspected purchases based on historical data).
So, it's Christmas time, and you're a geek.
Grannie managed to pick the right box, and you get Windows 2010
Daddy gave you a couple of new shiny fiber channel harddrives.
Mommy bought you a shiny new IBM desktop....
You run off, and unpack your desktop, "upgrade" it's drives, and slap the Windows DISC inside.
*DONG* Microsoft calls BS, and denies you the ability to install the software. (but, maybe if your grannie had bought a computer, then they could have referenced a family tree of purchases to conclude it is likely legit....)
I've been to the dentist many times in my life. Many cavities filled, crowns added et al.
The worst part of the dentist isn't that medical scent in every dentists office, with the faint mix of dried plaque... yeah, you know what I'm talking about. It's not even the part about getting poked with a needle here and there. (This shot goes in the roof of your mouth, you might feel a little prick... OK done.)
Aside from the insane bill you get (which, do NOT get me started on this.), the worst experience is after you visit the dentist.
Sitting outside, half your face numb. Try to spit, try to smoke a cigarette, try to drink a Mt. Dew. Try to kiss your girlfriend... YOU CAN'T! You instantly become a fumbling idiot looking stupid for the rest of the day.
What I want... is the ability for them to poke you again, and counter all the local anaethetics. General anaethetics are much better in this regard, you go under, when you wake up all is well. But that Lidocaine crap has got to go. Seriously. They need to be able to deaden the nerves, this is a godsend, but when they are done, perk them back up please. If they can reverse local anaethetics at their whim, I'd be less hesitant on going to the dentist. As it stands, man, I won't think about the dentist until tears are falling from my eyes due to pain.
OK, let me get this straight.
Defraud the government, with devious intent, for a tune of 3 million USD and receive a 1 year sentence in a work camp.
Copy a movie and get fined up to 250,000 dollars and face upto a 10 year sentence? After, getting beaten up by people who dress like cops but aren't, in public?