Basically, we already have this with CC numbers, it's almost no hassle at all to get unauthorized charges removed. Yet CC fraud still happens, if anything, even more widespread than before. The little 3 digit number on the back was nice, but does it really slow anything down? After all, that number is now part of the databases, just like the expiration date.
So who pays for CC fraud? The CC company? No, they backcharge the merchant
And who's the merchant with phishing?
The difference here is the bank would no longer have the easy out of charging a third party since there was no third party, just the bank and the customer. The bank would of course have to pass the cost on to the customer, which would make the customers want to switch banks, and this is what would strongly encourage the banks to find a way to reduce phishing.
Funny how they rejected this court case stating that going forward would provide more information on this patent to the public, thus causing a "national security" concern due to its secret use. Of course doing so causes it to be national news.. Yep good way to keep it secret.
The patent, which is already public, isn't the thing they're trying to keep secret. It's the "underwater application" and/or whatever the government is planning to do with it they're worried about.
I'm not actually sure if the patent is important in this other than the fact it's what the dispute is over. The way I read it the core of the dispute is that Lucent violated an agreement with the inventors, the inventors however can't sue them about it since the details coming out in court, presumably even with protections they have for sensitive information, would violate national security.
The fact a patent is involved is only an interesting sidenote. I suspect that either some way will be found so that the case can be carried out without national security being violated, or it's just a bug in the legal system which will need to be fixed.
I've never seen such literate comments in a/. article!
I'm not sure if it's a function of every poster triple checking their comments for grammatical errors so they don't lose credibility, or merely the fact this article has attracted every grammar nazi out there.
But whatever the cause this is truly bizarre sight to behold.
I know there's some trollishness (and probably some sarcasm) to your post, but I gotta say, the movement is VERY, VERY happy with all the hate directed at Bush.
Bush is a lighning rod on the roof of the house of Neocon.
Once Bush is gone, they can put someone else in place to run for POTUS, and we'll not have solved a darn thing./Tinfoil hat securely on.
Sorry, I don't buy it.
Bush is too closely associated with the neocon movement for that to work. All the anger directed at Bush is automatically transferred to the neocon movement, then whoever replaces Bush will in turn inherit that anger.
In order to pull off your conspiracy the neocons would have to disavowe Bush to the degree that they would need to drastically change their policies after he left, something they certainly don't want to do. No, I'm quite sure that the neocons want as little hate directed at Bush as possible so that their next candidate can sell the same platform and pull the american public towards further accepting their view of the world.
"If you take a test tube of HIV and add crocodile serum it will have a greater effect than human serum. It can kill a much greater number of HIV viral organisms,"
Ummm.... So? The same thing can be said of chlorine bleach.
There are lots of known chemicals that kill HIV. The trick is finding one that leaves the patient alive. I know the/. editors don't read the articles submitted all the way to the end, so here's a bit towards the end that really matters:
Yes but I'm guessing that bleach along with most of those chemicals will also kill crocodiles. The encouraging part here is they've found something that leaves crocodiles alive, there's a good chance that if it leaves a crocodile alive and kills the virus it may be able to do the same for humans.
am I blind or is there no download link on spread firefox ? kinda silly aint it ?
It actually does make sense, from the page.
"Spread Firefox is the central meeting place for the Firefox open source marketing effort. We are an authentic, creative, action oriented, and user-driven community."
This site is for people already using firefox and wanting to spread its adoption, not for new users. It's kinda like separating user and developer mailing lists. A new user looking for firefox wouldn't likely be interested by some community siet promoting it, they just want to download the thing and would be better off at the home page. The community on the other hand really doesn't want users to grow accustomed to downloading firefox from a site that isn't mozilla.org (nore want to be responsible for maintaining download links).
That being said there really should be a link to http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/ somewhere prominant on the page incase some confused surfer ends up there as it's the 4th link on google.
Some people have expressed concern that organizations can take GPL'd code, modify it, and then run a web site with it. The act of running a web site using GPL code isn't considered distribution by the FSF, and the source code modifications therefore can be kept to themselves.
To state the concern more clearly say EvilCompany takes gcc, does some crazy optimizations, and starts running it on their server never releasing the code, call it pgcc (propietary gcc). Then they sell a small app ttpgcc (talking to propietary gcc) which communicates over the internet to pgcc. ttpgcc sends the code and whatever args to pgcc, which then compiles it and sends back the binary (assuming mad bandwidth and stuff). The user never recieves a copy of pgcc, thus they have no rights to the code under the gpl, however through ttpgcc EvilCompany is now selling an app which is effect a forked version of gcc.
I don't know how to disallow this scenario yet allow a webserver in a license but this certainly presents a problem.
IMHO, Red Hat would like to "differentiate" itself and be the dominant Linux vendor. SUSE is aiming to be the best among cooperating organisations.
I'm sorry, but your HO would be wrong.
I googled for a bit and unfortunately couldn't find a link but several times in the past I've seen figures where SuSE has about an order of magnitudes more patches to their kernel than RHEL.
If you want a Linux similar to upstream that won't lock you in SuSE is about the last distro you should be looking at.
Conservation is stupid. Conservation is simply artificially impoverishing yourself. There's no benefit.
You're saying:
I want to accomplish X. It would improve my life to accomplish X. I can afford to buy the energy to accomplish X. Spending the money and using the energy and accomplishing X would be better for me than not doing that.
Actually no.
The problem with capitalism is is bases costs on the human labour directly required, not on the full costs encountered. As a result indirect costs like the cost of damaging the environment are left out of the equation.
For example consider X = "robbing houses".
For your first test say you do want to accomplish X. You're improving your material wealth so it certainly passes the second test as well. It costs almost nothing to rob a house so there goes the third test. Therefore by your rules you've justified robbery.
For a more pertinant and nuanced example say you're driving your car, it costs $0.80/litre (don't know what it is in American), say you would be willing to pay as much as $1.00/litre for this gas so feel this is justified.
The problem is the pollutants that are released from you burning that gas actually cost $0.30/litre in increased health care costs, damage to the environment, and dozens of other side effects.
The problem is there's no easy way to come up with a figure like $0.30/litre that covers all the costs for the different side effects (which is why I had to make that figure up) so you can't always accuratly tax people to make up the proper difference (equivalent to robbery being illegal), nor do powerful industries like oil take kindly to taxes (though they are taxed plenty). Instead you need to encourage conservation. There are many things that can profit the individual but are disasterous for the whole, pollution is one of them, as a result I hope you consider conserving when you can and save all of us some money.
While I despise software patents like this it is likely just a defensive patent. Given the current patent system someone was inevitably going to patent this, given that google hasn't yet abused their patents I'd rather it be them than someone like amazon. Until the patent system is fixed the good guys need to get patents like this so they can fight back against other companies who are somewhat evil.
Last time I checked, 100% of the monies collected from the very beginning were still with the record companies. Nobody had been able to find a single example of an artist who had received even $1 from the levies. This may have changed in the last year, however.
Apparently it has. My friend used to play in a band who put out a CD. Some time ago he did received a check in the mail from that very levy, it was only for $1.29 but receive it he did.
The content was programmed into the game. It was unlocked with a code. The content WAS in the game, just unnaccessable until the code came along.
The game is what you can play by having the program in an unaltered form. Bits don't have an intrinsic meaning, they aren't a picture or a soundtrack, they're just bits, it's how they're read and processed which gives them meaning. Bits that are never read cannot be content, they can't be anything other than some arbitrary 1s and 0s. The content was not in the game, the code puts it in the game.
Suppose a year from now, parents are mystified that their 13 year old sons want to own some game called "Happy Bunny and the Carnival Mystery" (Rated "E" for Everyone). but how can they object? All of the game's content has been reviewed and approved by the ERSB and multiple gaming publications as being suitable for kids.
Then it turns out that a code, widely available on the web but largely unknown outside of gaming circles, unlocks the "freak show" mode, granting access to rooms full of violent and pornographic images. Some developer put it in as a joke, with the rationale that none of the kids will ever see it because it requires them to 'knowingly go out of their way to enable it.'
Again, GTA is an odd place to set the precedent because most conscientious parents wouldn't allow it in their houses in the first place, but no parent likes the idea that a gaming company might, willfully or accidentally, help their child smuggle obscene material through their door under the guise of a milder game.
Rockstar is being made into an example for all game companies to discourage the insertion of "easter eggs" that might change the rating of the game were they enabled by default.
The obscene content isn't the game, it's the code, you go in to the net looking for porn and violent images you're going to find it.
You can modify ANYTHING to have pornographic and violent content, the child didn't get the conent from the game, they downloaded it from the net.
Sorry, but you're being naive. Do you understand the point of ratings? It's to tell people what's IN THE GAME, even POTENTIALLY. So what if you have to download an unlock? The point is that the content is in the game, and the point of the ratings is to tell you what's in the game.
I understand your point but you have to remember that the game is what you can play, if you cannot play it then it's not in the game. If a parent can't trust the rating to reflect what a kid will be exposed to (since a lot of kids WILL download the unlock), then the rating is completely meaningless.
So what? Kids will download a lot of things. People can make mods to make anything pornographic, so what if it was a bit easier in this case, they still have to download an unlock. If you really want to make ratings completely meaningless then go ahead and rate every game by what it can be made to do, every game ever written would have to be given an AO rating or outright banned. The fact is if you work hard enough you can make a game do ANYTHING, you just change enough code.
You simply cannot rate a game on what it can be changed into, you have to rate it on what it is.
No, unfortunately. Too many people like you are too busy jerking their knee instead of using their brains.
If all you had to do to beat a rating was release a game with a tiny patch needing to be added as well, then every sleezy porn producer would do that, and get their T rating.
As I said in the original post you can already get pornographic content from the internet, it's not that tough.
Simply put San Andreas is a game, and as a game it DOESN'T have pornographic content. It doesn't matter how long you play it, you will never see pornographic content, is does not contain it, all it contains is a bunch of bits which represent a program, it doesn't matter how much some of those bits look like porn, they are what the program interprets them as, and that is not porn.
As it turns out its very easy to change a small part of the program, so it does contain pornographic content. However the game is what you can play, and what you can play contains no porn. The game does not contain porn, the game + patch does contain porn. You can't rate a game on what it can almost, but is completely incapable of, doing. You must rate it on what can do.
In the case of your example with shipping the game and a patch there's two ways to do that,
1. Officially as in offering the patch from your site. As I said the game would not contain porn (it doesn't have the patch) so you can sell it however you like. However when you ship the patch which intended to be used with the game you are shipping porn which now gets an AO rating.
2. Unofficially, this doesn't only mean you can't ship the patch yourself (relying on the community instead), you likely couldn't even make it yourself and leak it to the community as this would probably be seen as distribution as well and fall under #1. Thus you're counting on the community both to discover this hidden content and distribute the patch in an unofficial manner. Not much of a buisness strategy.
Doesn't really matter either way anyways, anyone who doesn't want to see the pornographic content can simply not go out of their way getting and installing a patch.
However #1, that actually might be a good buisness plan. Sell one game to everyone, but give people over 18 the option of also having some pornographic content added. People who don't want it get a nice clean game, never have to worry about glimpsing a renegade nipple, people who do want some adult content, well they got it.
Am I the only one completely overwhelmed by the sheer idiocy of this situation?
I mean ignoring the fact that violence is alright while sexual intercourse sparks a massive outrage.
The content is UNPLAYABLE!!! It cannot be played! If you get a copy of the game can you just pop it in and see this naughty content? No. Why? Because it's UNPLAYABLE!!
Wait!! You mean you can download something off the internet that lets you play this naughty content **GASP** What an outrage!! That someone going onto the internet could gain access to pornographic content. It's completely unheard of. Clearly this is a matter of national importance that a game can be made pornographic with things downloaded off the internet!
This whole situation is just a bizarre combination of sexual prudism combined with a complete lack of technical knowledge, I'm ashamed to be on the same continent where stuff this ignorent stupidity occurs.
Do you really think publishers are worried about the plight of the little book store?
Yes, because if all the little book stores go out of buisness the publishers would be at the mercy of the few big bookstores and have to jump through hoops to get their books carried.
A diversified customer base is definatly in the interests of any supplier
By your argument, why don't movie theaters just start playing movies the day the reel comes in (which is typically a couple of days before it airs) or why movies (dvds, etc) and games are released on specific days?
I don't know about games but it would be a lot harder for a theatre to quietly show a movie a couple days early. As it happens another poster mentioned with movie rentals (a better analogy) this apparently happens a lot.
We were using it where I worked and discovered upon upgrading to 3.1 RC3 that our app wouldn't compile. It still doesn't on this release. Backup your old copy before you upgrade.
Can you be more specific as to why it wouldn't compile?
If your app is a plugin there may have been some interface changes which might break code relying on old interfaces, I suspect not but it's possible, especially if your code reaches into the eclipse internals (which it shouldn't).
If your code isn't a plugin but some other app then maybe you could give a more verbose explaination of what kind of errors you're getting that your app is not compiling?
Is Eclipse any faster than when they first released it.
Yes. The site is down at the moment so I don't have any links but I know they've done a lot of great work on performance, especially on linux, since 3.0. GUI operations are way faster and the whole app is way more responsive as a result.
... that the dollar is more important than freedom or principles.
Of course they have, it wasn't even a choice.
Corporations are legally obliged to maximize shareholder value, given the choice between money, freedom, and democracy they legally, and one could even argue morally, must choose money. For PR reasons they try to help freedom and priciples if it's convenient and pay as much lip service as they can but that's as far as it goes. The reason the shareholders come together isn't freedom or democracy, it's money, for a the leaders of a corporation to impose values of freedom and democracy on shareholders who have only exhibited an interest in profit is unethical and bait for a lawsuit.
This isn't a troll or a left wing rant, it's just how it works, corporations due to their single minded determination can be great for the economy and they can be generous if it fulfills their self-interest. But at the end of the day if you create an entity for the express purpose of earning money you shouldn't be surprised when at the cost of things like freedom and democracy it starts doing exactly that.
By your calculations, Calvin Klein thong underwear for men will soon be more popular than cell phones because its users probably wear the underwear for upwards of 14 hours a day continuous!
The parent was referring to visibility, if you're looking at men's thong underwear 14 hours a day I think you need professional help.
Slashdot Mirror
Basically, we already have this with CC numbers, it's almost no hassle at all to get unauthorized charges removed. Yet CC fraud still happens, if anything, even more widespread than before. The little 3 digit number on the back was nice, but does it really slow anything down? After all, that number is now part of the databases, just like the expiration date.
So who pays for CC fraud? The CC company? No, they backcharge the merchant
And who's the merchant with phishing?
The difference here is the bank would no longer have the easy out of charging a third party since there was no third party, just the bank and the customer. The bank would of course have to pass the cost on to the customer, which would make the customers want to switch banks, and this is what would strongly encourage the banks to find a way to reduce phishing.
Funny how they rejected this court case stating that going forward would provide more information on this patent to the public, thus causing a "national security" concern due to its secret use. Of course doing so causes it to be national news.. Yep good way to keep it secret.
The patent, which is already public, isn't the thing they're trying to keep secret. It's the "underwater application" and/or whatever the government is planning to do with it they're worried about.
I'm not actually sure if the patent is important in this other than the fact it's what the dispute is over. The way I read it the core of the dispute is that Lucent violated an agreement with the inventors, the inventors however can't sue them about it since the details coming out in court, presumably even with protections they have for sensitive information, would violate national security.
The fact a patent is involved is only an interesting sidenote. I suspect that either some way will be found so that the case can be carried out without national security being violated, or it's just a bug in the legal system which will need to be fixed.
I've never seen such literate comments in a /. article!
I'm not sure if it's a function of every poster triple checking their comments for grammatical errors so they don't lose credibility, or merely the fact this article has attracted every grammar nazi out there.
But whatever the cause this is truly bizarre sight to behold.
I know there's some trollishness (and probably some sarcasm) to your post, but I gotta say, the movement is VERY, VERY happy with all the hate directed at Bush.
/Tinfoil hat securely on.
Bush is a lighning rod on the roof of the house of Neocon.
Once Bush is gone, they can put someone else in place to run for POTUS, and we'll not have solved a darn thing.
Sorry, I don't buy it.
Bush is too closely associated with the neocon movement for that to work. All the anger directed at Bush is automatically transferred to the neocon movement, then whoever replaces Bush will in turn inherit that anger.
In order to pull off your conspiracy the neocons would have to disavowe Bush to the degree that they would need to drastically change their policies after he left, something they certainly don't want to do. No, I'm quite sure that the neocons want as little hate directed at Bush as possible so that their next candidate can sell the same platform and pull the american public towards further accepting their view of the world.
"If you take a test tube of HIV and add crocodile serum it will have a greater effect than human serum. It can kill a much greater number of HIV viral organisms,"
/. editors don't read the articles submitted all the way to the end, so here's a bit towards the end that really matters:
Ummm.... So? The same thing can be said of chlorine bleach.
There are lots of known chemicals that kill HIV. The trick is finding one that leaves the patient alive. I know the
Yes but I'm guessing that bleach along with most of those chemicals will also kill crocodiles. The encouraging part here is they've found something that leaves crocodiles alive, there's a good chance that if it leaves a crocodile alive and kills the virus it may be able to do the same for humans.
am I blind or is there no download link on spread firefox ? kinda silly aint it ?
It actually does make sense, from the page.
"Spread Firefox is the central meeting place for the Firefox open source marketing effort. We are an authentic, creative, action oriented, and user-driven community."
This site is for people already using firefox and wanting to spread its adoption, not for new users. It's kinda like separating user and developer mailing lists. A new user looking for firefox wouldn't likely be interested by some community siet promoting it, they just want to download the thing and would be better off at the home page. The community on the other hand really doesn't want users to grow accustomed to downloading firefox from a site that isn't mozilla.org (nore want to be responsible for maintaining download links).
That being said there really should be a link to http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/ somewhere prominant on the page incase some confused surfer ends up there as it's the 4th link on google.
Some people have expressed concern that organizations can take GPL'd code, modify it, and then run a web site with it. The act of running a web site using GPL code isn't considered distribution by the FSF, and the source code modifications therefore can be kept to themselves.
To state the concern more clearly say EvilCompany takes gcc, does some crazy optimizations, and starts running it on their server never releasing the code, call it pgcc (propietary gcc). Then they sell a small app ttpgcc (talking to propietary gcc) which communicates over the internet to pgcc. ttpgcc sends the code and whatever args to pgcc, which then compiles it and sends back the binary (assuming mad bandwidth and stuff). The user never recieves a copy of pgcc, thus they have no rights to the code under the gpl, however through ttpgcc EvilCompany is now selling an app which is effect a forked version of gcc.
I don't know how to disallow this scenario yet allow a webserver in a license but this certainly presents a problem.
IMHO, Red Hat would like to "differentiate" itself and be the dominant Linux vendor. SUSE is aiming to be the best among cooperating organisations.
I'm sorry, but your HO would be wrong.
I googled for a bit and unfortunately couldn't find a link but several times in the past I've seen figures where SuSE has about an order of magnitudes more patches to their kernel than RHEL.
If you want a Linux similar to upstream that won't lock you in SuSE is about the last distro you should be looking at.
Conservation is stupid. Conservation is simply artificially impoverishing yourself. There's no benefit.
You're saying:
Actually no.
The problem with capitalism is is bases costs on the human labour directly required, not on the full costs encountered. As a result indirect costs like the cost of damaging the environment are left out of the equation.
For example consider X = "robbing houses".
For your first test say you do want to accomplish X.
You're improving your material wealth so it certainly passes the second test as well.
It costs almost nothing to rob a house so there goes the third test.
Therefore by your rules you've justified robbery.
For a more pertinant and nuanced example say you're driving your car, it costs $0.80/litre (don't know what it is in American), say you would be willing to pay as much as $1.00/litre for this gas so feel this is justified.
The problem is the pollutants that are released from you burning that gas actually cost $0.30/litre in increased health care costs, damage to the environment, and dozens of other side effects.
The problem is there's no easy way to come up with a figure like $0.30/litre that covers all the costs for the different side effects (which is why I had to make that figure up) so you can't always accuratly tax people to make up the proper difference (equivalent to robbery being illegal), nor do powerful industries like oil take kindly to taxes (though they are taxed plenty). Instead you need to encourage conservation. There are many things that can profit the individual but are disasterous for the whole, pollution is one of them, as a result I hope you consider conserving when you can and save all of us some money.
While I despise software patents like this it is likely just a defensive patent. Given the current patent system someone was inevitably going to patent this, given that google hasn't yet abused their patents I'd rather it be them than someone like amazon. Until the patent system is fixed the good guys need to get patents like this so they can fight back against other companies who are somewhat evil.
Last time I checked, 100% of the monies collected from the very beginning were still with the record companies. Nobody had been able to find a single example of an artist who had received even $1 from the levies. This may have changed in the last year, however.
Apparently it has. My friend used to play in a band who put out a CD. Some time ago he did received a check in the mail from that very levy, it was only for $1.29 but receive it he did.
The content was programmed into the game. It was unlocked with a code. The content WAS in the game, just unnaccessable until the code came along.
The game is what you can play by having the program in an unaltered form. Bits don't have an intrinsic meaning, they aren't a picture or a soundtrack, they're just bits, it's how they're read and processed which gives them meaning. Bits that are never read cannot be content, they can't be anything other than some arbitrary 1s and 0s. The content was not in the game, the code puts it in the game.
Suppose a year from now, parents are mystified that their 13 year old sons want to own some game called "Happy Bunny and the Carnival Mystery" (Rated "E" for Everyone). but how can they object? All of the game's content has been reviewed and approved by the ERSB and multiple gaming publications as being suitable for kids.
Then it turns out that a code, widely available on the web but largely unknown outside of gaming circles, unlocks the "freak show" mode, granting access to rooms full of violent and pornographic images. Some developer put it in as a joke, with the rationale that none of the kids will ever see it because it requires them to 'knowingly go out of their way to enable it.'
Again, GTA is an odd place to set the precedent because most conscientious parents wouldn't allow it in their houses in the first place, but no parent likes the idea that a gaming company might, willfully or accidentally, help their child smuggle obscene material through their door under the guise of a milder game.
Rockstar is being made into an example for all game companies to discourage the insertion of "easter eggs" that might change the rating of the game were they enabled by default.
The obscene content isn't the game, it's the code, you go in to the net looking for porn and violent images you're going to find it.
You can modify ANYTHING to have pornographic and violent content, the child didn't get the conent from the game, they downloaded it from the net.
Sorry, but you're being naive. Do you understand the point of ratings? It's to tell people what's IN THE GAME, even POTENTIALLY. So what if you have to download an unlock? The point is that the content is in the game, and the point of the ratings is to tell you what's in the game.
I understand your point but you have to remember that the game is what you can play, if you cannot play it then it's not in the game.
If a parent can't trust the rating to reflect what a kid will be exposed to (since a lot of kids WILL download the unlock), then the rating is completely meaningless.
So what? Kids will download a lot of things. People can make mods to make anything pornographic, so what if it was a bit easier in this case, they still have to download an unlock. If you really want to make ratings completely meaningless then go ahead and rate every game by what it can be made to do, every game ever written would have to be given an AO rating or outright banned. The fact is if you work hard enough you can make a game do ANYTHING, you just change enough code.
You simply cannot rate a game on what it can be changed into, you have to rate it on what it is.
No, unfortunately. Too many people like you are too busy jerking their knee instead of using their brains.
If all you had to do to beat a rating was release a game with a tiny patch needing to be added as well, then every sleezy porn producer would do that, and get their T rating.
As I said in the original post you can already get pornographic content from the internet, it's not that tough.
Simply put San Andreas is a game, and as a game it DOESN'T have pornographic content. It doesn't matter how long you play it, you will never see pornographic content, is does not contain it, all it contains is a bunch of bits which represent a program, it doesn't matter how much some of those bits look like porn, they are what the program interprets them as, and that is not porn.
As it turns out its very easy to change a small part of the program, so it does contain pornographic content. However the game is what you can play, and what you can play contains no porn. The game does not contain porn, the game + patch does contain porn. You can't rate a game on what it can almost, but is completely incapable of, doing. You must rate it on what can do.
In the case of your example with shipping the game and a patch there's two ways to do that,
1. Officially as in offering the patch from your site. As I said the game would not contain porn (it doesn't have the patch) so you can sell it however you like. However when you ship the patch which intended to be used with the game you are shipping porn which now gets an AO rating.
2. Unofficially, this doesn't only mean you can't ship the patch yourself (relying on the community instead), you likely couldn't even make it yourself and leak it to the community as this would probably be seen as distribution as well and fall under #1. Thus you're counting on the community both to discover this hidden content and distribute the patch in an unofficial manner. Not much of a buisness strategy.
Doesn't really matter either way anyways, anyone who doesn't want to see the pornographic content can simply not go out of their way getting and installing a patch.
However #1, that actually might be a good buisness plan. Sell one game to everyone, but give people over 18 the option of also having some pornographic content added. People who don't want it get a nice clean game, never have to worry about glimpsing a renegade nipple, people who do want some adult content, well they got it.
Am I the only one completely overwhelmed by the sheer idiocy of this situation?
I mean ignoring the fact that violence is alright while sexual intercourse sparks a massive outrage.
The content is UNPLAYABLE!!! It cannot be played! If you get a copy of the game can you just pop it in and see this naughty content?
No.
Why?
Because it's UNPLAYABLE!!
Wait!! You mean you can download something off the internet that lets you play this naughty content **GASP** What an outrage!! That someone going onto the internet could gain access to pornographic content. It's completely unheard of. Clearly this is a matter of national importance that a game can be made pornographic with things downloaded off the internet!
This whole situation is just a bizarre combination of sexual prudism combined with a complete lack of technical knowledge, I'm ashamed to be on the same continent where stuff this ignorent stupidity occurs.
"- cell phone reception in the tube: ass."
You should find a better place to keep your phone.
Well with all the people talking out of there it only seems natural.
Do you really think publishers are worried about the plight of the little book store?
Yes, because if all the little book stores go out of buisness the publishers would be at the mercy of the few big bookstores and have to jump through hoops to get their books carried.
A diversified customer base is definatly in the interests of any supplier
By your argument, why don't movie theaters just start playing movies the day the reel comes in (which is typically a couple of days before it airs) or why movies (dvds, etc) and games are released on specific days?
I don't know about games but it would be a lot harder for a theatre to quietly show a movie a couple days early. As it happens another poster mentioned with movie rentals (a better analogy) this apparently happens a lot.
That this whole universe as we see it is not an experiment in somebody's supercomputer?
Take a look around you.
Now I've met some messed up developers but I've yet to see anyone who's nearly screwed up enough to come up with this universe!!
We were using it where I worked and discovered upon upgrading to 3.1 RC3 that our app wouldn't compile. It still doesn't on this release. Backup your old copy before you upgrade.
Can you be more specific as to why it wouldn't compile?
If your app is a plugin there may have been some interface changes which might break code relying on old interfaces, I suspect not but it's possible, especially if your code reaches into the eclipse internals (which it shouldn't).
If your code isn't a plugin but some other app then maybe you could give a more verbose explaination of what kind of errors you're getting that your app is not compiling?
Is Eclipse any faster than when they first released it.
Yes.
The site is down at the moment so I don't have any links but I know they've done a lot of great work on performance, especially on linux, since 3.0. GUI operations are way faster and the whole app is way more responsive as a result.
... that the dollar is more important than freedom or principles.
Of course they have, it wasn't even a choice.
Corporations are legally obliged to maximize shareholder value, given the choice between money, freedom, and democracy they legally, and one could even argue morally, must choose money. For PR reasons they try to help freedom and priciples if it's convenient and pay as much lip service as they can but that's as far as it goes. The reason the shareholders come together isn't freedom or democracy, it's money, for a the leaders of a corporation to impose values of freedom and democracy on shareholders who have only exhibited an interest in profit is unethical and bait for a lawsuit.
This isn't a troll or a left wing rant, it's just how it works, corporations due to their single minded determination can be great for the economy and they can be generous if it fulfills their self-interest. But at the end of the day if you create an entity for the express purpose of earning money you shouldn't be surprised when at the cost of things like freedom and democracy it starts doing exactly that.
As for pausing the movie, get an attention span.
I have an attention span, it's a 2L bladder I need by the start of the final act.
But that server is going down like a stone...
By your calculations, Calvin Klein thong underwear for men will soon be more popular than cell phones because its users probably wear the underwear for upwards of 14 hours a day continuous!
The parent was referring to visibility, if you're looking at men's thong underwear 14 hours a day I think you need professional help.