Why? You're assuming the person is a criminal or if you present an opportunity to engage in potentially criminal activities then that must justify your misrepresentation. The media agent is engaging in corporate information theft by taking information unlawfully from the board member. At a minimum they are party to corporate espionage and contract violation or suspected of such... we just automatically give the media a pass because they're the "media".
I love how the media hates it when someone else obtains information under "false pretenses" or illegally and yet they do it all the time and call it tough journalism. They'll pretend they're children to trap child predators (I'm not defending child predators...), they take classified information from informants, I expect they do some of the same things that happened during this investigation.
That doesn't make HP right, but the media is certainly hypocritical.
Exactly! Also, if anyone thought about this seriously for a long period of time then you shoudl consider getting professional help. You have lost touch with reality.
Hum. Interesting. Considering only 7.7% of voters actually used an electronic voting machine in 1996. Assuming you just turned 18 in 2004, that would mean your church had a digital recording electronic voting machine atleast a full 2 years before 1996. Sounds interesting.
Also, the point of the article is that one switch can be used to boot the system with flash. It should not be very difficult at all to use hardware to certify a digitial signature on the code... if this isnt already happening in the machines. Did the article actually test load a full false voting system or exploit and confirm that the system COULD actually be exploited or did they just see a switch and way to plug in flash and think "Eureka! a flaw"?
The POTENTIAL for one individual to make a large voter fraud is greater with this system, but the fraud would require that the person has access to the machine. Is this any less secure than the existing system, or could existing security measures be used to secure the system?
One person can however organize many people to fraudelently vote. And since the barriers to commit this fraud (fake/steal an electric bill or another document) are so low the likelihood that this type of fraud could be executed, and could be executed on a large scale is more likely.
I think this issue needs to be addressed, but voting without an official picture ID is a more pressing and wide spread problem.
Kids are fat fat fat today. Pac Man came out over 25 years ago and the obesity problem in the US has skyrocketed in that same time frame. Video games make people fat! Keep eating all of those little goodies you fat little slobs.
Um, you're strange. You're not that funny... and uh... I was going to make a comment about that but then I read your website and the/. FAQ and saw your picture and thought to myself... this guys got balls and so I agree with you about "OSS Twits" and "bloatware" and if you think about it, part of MS' problem and part of the governments problem is the attempt to please end-users without much of an understanding of the consequenses, particularly long term and cumulative, of their actions. So uh... good site.
Re:Oh, for crying out loud...
on
Beginning GIMP
·
· Score: 1
You're dumb. Do you think that posts on/. should also go through an editing process before they're posted... actually, if that was the case your stupid comment would have never seen the light of day.
This is self correcting. Either small companies or enterprising product managers in large companies will take advantage of the high cost low play quality games and will offer a lower cost option that plays great or people will quit upgrading, some companies will go out of business, and the games will correct towards playability. All of this assumes that playability is what everyone wants... although it seems that the Wii, X-Box 360, PS3, etc. aren't actually emphasizing the playability of the games that much and nobody is saying... "Ah schucks, I just loving playing on my PS1 so much and the games are just so playable I don't need to upgrade."
But hey, I don't write for a game magazine or anything so what do I know.
I'm not sure I understood all of that... helicopters, and flying cars and all. But if I get your point your saying distribution has changed and is now cheaper (I agree, it has changed) and artists should go through other distribution channels (sure, if they can cut out the middle man then they can do that too). This has ZERO to do with consumers ignoring the copyrights owned by the media companies. Those comapnies LEGALLY purchase the rights from authors, musicians, and other creators of media in exchange for something. Whether or not you think that something is of value is meaningless, you're not a part of that transacation. All that matters is that someone owns a copyright and you should adhere to it... or if you don't want to adhere to it, make that point plain, admit that you don't adhere to copyrights because you don't want to... but quite hiding behind lame arguments about changing distribution methods and evil media companies and all of this other bull. These are justifications used by people to make it sound like they aren't just a guilty of violating copyrights as a Chinese CD duplicator.
Ok, so yes you're right specific clarifications and exemptions have been made to copyright law. But the original posters intent was to say that b/c he owned the physical media it gave him the right to copy that media, and thereby copy the content. That's completely wrong. Phsyical owenrship of a the media that contains content gives you no right to distribute and sell the content on that media.
That was the best game ever where you were commanded to rise from the grave and rescue that guy's daughter.
Close seconds (although you didn't get to rise from the grave or necessarily rescue that guy's daughter).
* Final Fight
* Bad Dudes
* Gun Smoke
* River City Ransom (GTA for the 80s yo!)
Oh and if you don't recall, in Altered Beast, you changed from a dead man into a beast... awesome!
Maybe you wouldn't have to work such long hours in hell if you'd get your job done instead of posting to/. you lazy sack of broker transistors and sludge.
Now, when I was a kid, I pirated shit left and right. Why? No money. I'm older now, I know better, and I can and do buy most things legit.
See... this againt is my point. It really isn't about sticking up the artist. It's about justifying your copyright violation. You don't have money or don't have a lot expendable money so you choose to pirate. Nothing changed in the music industry between then and now that somehow made it far better for the bands (although this whole "the band gets screwed" argument is played out).
I agree that big business copyright holders have had their interests pushed too far... I'd like to see the public domain expand and copyrights be limited to 30 years. But that doesn't justify copyrigh infringement.
Be man, and just admit that according to your ethic if you want something that's copyrighted it's ok to just take it.
My point exactly... consumers don't care about copyright owners. You'll notice that the rootkits came out after Napster, after P2P, after computing technology made it extremely easy to make exact digital copies in seconds. I'm not giving the big media giants a pass... they suck... but that doesn't justify violating their copyrights from a legal standpoint. Your just making justifications... admit that you violate copyrights, admit that you don't care that you violate the law, and move on... but don't be a puss and try to justify your actions w/ lame arguments.
You are wrong. If you live in the U.S., or are under any sort of international copyright law, you do not have the right to copy content unless the owner of that content gives it to you. I know it's fun to delude yourself into thinking you can, but you can't.
I can't wait for the day ruby on rails loses it's buz and the infinite amount of Ruby on Rails has been derailed jokes.
That's scheduled to occur in conjunction with Web 3.0. Ruby on Rails will be replaced with Pascalian Patterns a dynmaic, distributed, easy-to-use, personal lanuage based on Pascal.
Treat the consumers with respect, and honesty. Ninety-nine percent of them will treat you with money! (The other one percent you really don't (or shouldn't) give a shit about anyway.)
Huh? You're saying Napster and P2P was starting because the consumers felt like they got dissed yo... give me a break. People want free shit. Bottom line... they'll pay for it only when getting it free isn't worth it (e.g. AllofMp3). Consumers, on the whole, could give a shit about copyright owners... they only care about whether or not they'll get caught.
Slashdot Mirror
Why? You're assuming the person is a criminal or if you present an opportunity to engage in potentially criminal activities then that must justify your misrepresentation. The media agent is engaging in corporate information theft by taking information unlawfully from the board member. At a minimum they are party to corporate espionage and contract violation or suspected of such... we just automatically give the media a pass because they're the "media".
I love how the media hates it when someone else obtains information under "false pretenses" or illegally and yet they do it all the time and call it tough journalism. They'll pretend they're children to trap child predators (I'm not defending child predators...), they take classified information from informants, I expect they do some of the same things that happened during this investigation.
That doesn't make HP right, but the media is certainly hypocritical.
Exactly! Also, if anyone thought about this seriously for a long period of time then you shoudl consider getting professional help. You have lost touch with reality.
Hum. Interesting. Considering only 7.7% of voters actually used an electronic voting machine in 1996. Assuming you just turned 18 in 2004, that would mean your church had a digital recording electronic voting machine atleast a full 2 years before 1996. Sounds interesting.
Also, the point of the article is that one switch can be used to boot the system with flash. It should not be very difficult at all to use hardware to certify a digitial signature on the code... if this isnt already happening in the machines. Did the article actually test load a full false voting system or exploit and confirm that the system COULD actually be exploited or did they just see a switch and way to plug in flash and think "Eureka! a flaw"?
The POTENTIAL for one individual to make a large voter fraud is greater with this system, but the fraud would require that the person has access to the machine. Is this any less secure than the existing system, or could existing security measures be used to secure the system?
One person can however organize many people to fraudelently vote. And since the barriers to commit this fraud (fake/steal an electric bill or another document) are so low the likelihood that this type of fraud could be executed, and could be executed on a large scale is more likely.
I think this issue needs to be addressed, but voting without an official picture ID is a more pressing and wide spread problem.
Kids are fat fat fat today. Pac Man came out over 25 years ago and the obesity problem in the US has skyrocketed in that same time frame. Video games make people fat! Keep eating all of those little goodies you fat little slobs.
Please post your private self indulgent thoughts on you personal blog and leave this forum for insults, FUD, and trolling. Thank you.
Not requiring voters to show official picture ID.
The web has FAILED!
Thank goodness for Web 2.0!!
Um, you're strange. You're not that funny... and uh... I was going to make a comment about that but then I read your website and the /. FAQ and saw your picture and thought to myself... this guys got balls and so I agree with you about "OSS Twits" and "bloatware" and if you think about it, part of MS' problem and part of the governments problem is the attempt to please end-users without much of an understanding of the consequenses, particularly long term and cumulative, of their actions. So uh... good site.
You're dumb. Do you think that posts on /. should also go through an editing process before they're posted... actually, if that was the case your stupid comment would have never seen the light of day.
This is self correcting. Either small companies or enterprising product managers in large companies will take advantage of the high cost low play quality games and will offer a lower cost option that plays great or people will quit upgrading, some companies will go out of business, and the games will correct towards playability. All of this assumes that playability is what everyone wants... although it seems that the Wii, X-Box 360, PS3, etc. aren't actually emphasizing the playability of the games that much and nobody is saying... "Ah schucks, I just loving playing on my PS1 so much and the games are just so playable I don't need to upgrade."
But hey, I don't write for a game magazine or anything so what do I know.
I'm not sure I understood all of that... helicopters, and flying cars and all. But if I get your point your saying distribution has changed and is now cheaper (I agree, it has changed) and artists should go through other distribution channels (sure, if they can cut out the middle man then they can do that too). This has ZERO to do with consumers ignoring the copyrights owned by the media companies. Those comapnies LEGALLY purchase the rights from authors, musicians, and other creators of media in exchange for something. Whether or not you think that something is of value is meaningless, you're not a part of that transacation. All that matters is that someone owns a copyright and you should adhere to it... or if you don't want to adhere to it, make that point plain, admit that you don't adhere to copyrights because you don't want to... but quite hiding behind lame arguments about changing distribution methods and evil media companies and all of this other bull. These are justifications used by people to make it sound like they aren't just a guilty of violating copyrights as a Chinese CD duplicator.
You do realize that's insulting to those of us that are Scientologists.
Yes, yes I do.
Ok, so yes you're right specific clarifications and exemptions have been made to copyright law. But the original posters intent was to say that b/c he owned the physical media it gave him the right to copy that media, and thereby copy the content. That's completely wrong. Phsyical owenrship of a the media that contains content gives you no right to distribute and sell the content on that media.
I'm not sure exactly what all of this gibberish means... but I'm pretty sure it has something to do with Scientology and body thetans.
That was the best game ever where you were commanded to rise from the grave and rescue that guy's daughter.
Close seconds (although you didn't get to rise from the grave or necessarily rescue that guy's daughter).
* Final Fight
* Bad Dudes
* Gun Smoke
* River City Ransom (GTA for the 80s yo!)
Oh and if you don't recall, in Altered Beast, you changed from a dead man into a beast... awesome!
Maybe you wouldn't have to work such long hours in hell if you'd get your job done instead of posting to /. you lazy sack of broker transistors and sludge.
A sane voice amoungst the insanity... thank you! Thank you!
Now, when I was a kid, I pirated shit left and right. Why? No money. I'm older now, I know better, and I can and do buy most things legit.
See... this againt is my point. It really isn't about sticking up the artist. It's about justifying your copyright violation. You don't have money or don't have a lot expendable money so you choose to pirate. Nothing changed in the music industry between then and now that somehow made it far better for the bands (although this whole "the band gets screwed" argument is played out).
I agree that big business copyright holders have had their interests pushed too far... I'd like to see the public domain expand and copyrights be limited to 30 years. But that doesn't justify copyrigh infringement.
Be man, and just admit that according to your ethic if you want something that's copyrighted it's ok to just take it.
My point exactly... consumers don't care about copyright owners. You'll notice that the rootkits came out after Napster, after P2P, after computing technology made it extremely easy to make exact digital copies in seconds. I'm not giving the big media giants a pass... they suck... but that doesn't justify violating their copyrights from a legal standpoint. Your just making justifications... admit that you violate copyrights, admit that you don't care that you violate the law, and move on... but don't be a puss and try to justify your actions w/ lame arguments.
You are wrong. If you live in the U.S., or are under any sort of international copyright law, you do not have the right to copy content unless the owner of that content gives it to you. I know it's fun to delude yourself into thinking you can, but you can't.
because I just read that old games' graphics will never age!
I can't wait for the day ruby on rails loses it's buz and the infinite amount of Ruby on Rails has been derailed jokes.
That's scheduled to occur in conjunction with Web 3.0. Ruby on Rails will be replaced with Pascalian Patterns a dynmaic, distributed, easy-to-use, personal lanuage based on Pascal.
Treat the consumers with respect, and honesty. Ninety-nine percent of them will treat you with money! (The other one percent you really don't (or shouldn't) give a shit about anyway.)
Huh? You're saying Napster and P2P was starting because the consumers felt like they got dissed yo... give me a break. People want free shit. Bottom line... they'll pay for it only when getting it free isn't worth it (e.g. AllofMp3). Consumers, on the whole, could give a shit about copyright owners... they only care about whether or not they'll get caught.