Thanks, I was looking for mods which had been commercialized as full games. Sounds like there's been two (?) in the last decade.
I believe this also has to do with technology and attitudes. There is a growing trend of PC game makers to not release source for the client which enables mods, locking down of servers or simply not distributing them as well as not releasing development tools. Quake/Unreal had server only mods as well as client side. The only way to play multiplayer games is by renting servers for some titles, for others no server is ever released - you're hosed when the studio decides to pull the plug. Microtransactions seem to be the rage at the moment. Perhaps studios feel enabling modding competes with the content producers? Maybe there is just so much stuff out there and the attention spans are shorter? In the past things were released as free patches and free content packs wetting your appetite for an expansion or sequel. Although several developers toss in a lot of content, Blizzard has/had a good record for this. Bioware had a good thing with NWN and all the communities around that.
TLDR; It helps when developers make a product that easily enables content creation. A better question to ask is what caused the shift from the attitudes and expectations of 10+ years ago compared to today?
In the latter case, the only way for law enforcement to find out about these comments is if they're actively monitoring ALL messages on Facebook, ALL the time.
You do know many more things are monitored right? I haven't been on Facebook in awhile but most sites have a 'report this post' feature client facing. It's similar to a like but it's a dislike... pretty crazy concept right? I also don't find it shocking that there is active and most likely automated enforcement of their acceptable use policy. Perhaps you're familiar with how SPAM is dealt with? That doesn't seem to bother you. In some situations monitoring is a good thing. Like when they close peoples accounts who are known pedos, or idiots who post pictures of crimes. Please don't misconstrue this as support and/or endorsement of Fascist communications monitoring.
If that thought doesn't disturb you, then I can't help you, because there's obviously something wrong with you.
Indeed it does, which is why I'm very careful about what I choose to share online especially when my name and picture are associated with it. Did you even read what I wrote? I'm more alarmed at your lack of understanding of what privacy is and why you think people have it on Facebook. There is no privacy on Facebook. By sharing information you're doing the exact opposite of keeping it secret.
privacy/prvs/
Noun: The state or condition of being free from being observed or disturbed by other people.
The state of being free from public attention.
In the civilised world, we view people who refuse to help the sick and injured as evil scum. In your country you may be happy with people dying, untreated, on the streets. YMMV.
For the "person" making the real threats, set their address to be one of your neighbors.
Hmmm, defamation of character and libel? Since you like experiments maybe a neighbor can use your address and mention you're a sex offender and see what happens! (For the record I don't advocate this.)
Since no real people (only your fake sock poppets) can see any of this stuff, if you see a SWAT team show up at your neighbors' house, then we can surmise that Facebook does indeed allow the government to monitor private communications there.
Facebook employees can. The phone company can (or whomever you get your internet through). Also you may note that all of these companies respond to subpenas... so yes "private" information may be monitored. Regarding Facebook specifically this is mentioned in the legal terms you wantonly clicked through when creating an account (See Safety 7, 10, 12 and how they relate to your experiment) I say wantonly since you obviously aren't sure about their Privacy Policy specifically the "Some other things you need to know" section addressing "Responding to legal requests and preventing harm". In a related note you may find the following interesting:
The fact is that Facebook members own the intellectual property (IP) that is uploaded to the social network, but depending on their privacy and applications settings, users grant the social network "a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License)."
Facebook adds, "[t]his IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it."
While the social network does not technically own its members content, it has the right to use anything that is not protected with Facebook's privacy and applications settings. For instance, photos, videos and status updates set to public are fair game. article
Considering information you broadcast private? It's the exact opposite.
You accuse downloaders of being "entitled" while ignoring the abusive behavior of those their downloading in spite of. That's drooling ignorance, at best, and outright hypocrisy, at worst.
I'm not accusing them, they are. Their actions speak louder than any point you're making. Media companies do not have a monopoly on music or software. You must be ignorant to the fact that individuals also create things. Perhaps you've heard of Minecraft? Perhaps you know about local bands who make a living by performing and selling what they make. It's theirs to choose how it is distributed, unless they signed a contract. I'd love to see you tell these musicians what to do with what they've made and see how well that goes over.
The "right" of monopoly over a creation, especially one that has no material components to express ownership of (you can't own electrons) is granted by law, not inherent in its creation. Those laws were created with consideration given to both sides of the transaction: the creator gets a limited monopoly on reproduction, and after that time is up, it enters the public domain as a societal cultural good.
I'm not defending these companies business model, i'm specifically addressing something you've failed to answer: the right to someone else's work. If you're pissed about copyright duration go talk to Disney or better yet go motivate your peers to actually vote and give a shit. We're not talking about media companies, specifically downloaders and their "rights" to other people's work.
They broke their side of the bargain with endless extensions, long before the internet came into play. So, while they may still be in the right, legally (not surprising with our court system so firmly nestled in the corporate colon), it's not unreasonable (nor is it universal, so don't bother telling me that you disagree) to make the ethical argument that the agreement has been invalidated by the content creators failing to upkeep their end of the bargain.
I'm a content creator, what right do you have to my work? Morally, ethically, and legally: ZERO. I'm not affiliated with a media company nor do I make use of DRM. Oh but I don't own it, because it's electrons... so you have a right to it? Imagine if you tried to argue this with a research paper, or someone's tax information.
Um... because I paid for it, whether or not their idiotic schizoid DRM system believes it or not?
We're not talking about people paying for it (especially you) because then they'd have the right to access/use/own it whatever. We wouldn't be having this "discussion" if you even once mentioned paying customers (isn't that redundant? they'd just be consumers if they didn't pay...). Nor is all media wrapped in DRM (we're not discussing DRM or Media Companies either) We're talking about people who download (without paying!), hence the RIGHT to something they have not paid for or even acquired legally, which is why I correctly used the term entitled. What next, you want to redefine some words because you don't like them?
TLDR: Let me summarize: Over time a Group of Companies create legal protections for their interests at the expense of everyone else. Creative individuals make things which fall under these laws, many of these individuals are not affiliated with these conglomerates, some individuals even get together to form companies/studios/etc. Some Downloaders aren't happy with the laws made by Group of Companies and download everything regardless of who or what created it, others simply do it because they can (for whatever reason, too expensive etc.). These downloaders feel entitled and their actions agree with this.
My point, which you seem to have only half gotten, is that unfortunately whenever someone talks about not having options to legally purchase content, invariably you'll have a ton of people showing up to link to Hulu, Netflix, Amazon MP3, etc - completely ignoring that said solutions are not available to, well, most of the world. I've yet to see someone on Slashdot start talking about how iPlayer has the content they want so clearly that is the solution.
I have first hand experience with the international annoyance. I regularly share things with a friend in Germany (links) and many times we cannot see or hear them due to the content not being available in our area. It's pretty lame.
For what it's worth, that GP also mentioned Craigslist so we can probably safely assume they're American - but still, every time someone goes on about awesome stuff like Amazon MP3 or Netflix, it might be a good idea to prepend that "if you're in the promised land" so that internationals are forewarned that they're about to be bitterly fucking disappointed - as usual.
Noted. I'm half joking when I say consider yourself blessed, reality television is a blight... In your opinion why haven't domestic services done what American companies are doing, locally? Is the demand not there? Is American entertainment that "good"? Is it legal hurdles?
Hm. Cut off my line for some reason, and I didn't even use any angle-brackets. The second line should read
Proof your work, you'll appear like less of a bumbling fuck that way. Also being called a "shilling ballsack" for disputing those who feel they're entitled to someone else's work LOL gotta love this place. I must've struck a nerve. I happen to make a living creating software and from time to time music among other things (commercials, radio spots, print for clients). I've included a definition since you seem to make a fantastic leap from those who take for whatever reasons (being poor, people testing out stuff, cheap fucks etc.) to controlling media companies who have bent laws and more to their will. I don't recall advocating that in my post and according to your hilarious baseless claim that my opinion is entirely dependent upon being paid by these media companies. It couldn't be for any other reason! I'll give you one: it's mine.
entitlement/enttlmnt/
Noun:
The fact of having a right to something.
The amount to which a person has a right.
Why do you believe you have a right to someone else's work you ballsack? I'm not talking about media companies, although it makes no difference even if I'm referring to one, or an individual since in both situations the work doesn't belong to you. Heaven forbid that you are denied the things you so desire because of a pesky price tag.
I think it says more that you're unable to deny yourself the product they produce no matter the price hence being weak willed. Also, ballsack.
They hate being shafted, or told what they can do with their content.
Ah, the entitled. Most interesting how it becomes "theirs". "Hey I really like the software/movie/game you're developing so much I don't want to pay for it. It's not like it costs anything to create. Your time is worthless! Don't tell me what to do you thieving bastards! You want me to pay? You're greedy!" One doesn't have an inherent right to someone's work. If you feel like you're getting shafted why support companies who treat you like that? If their products are not desirable they'll go away. Weak willed individuals unable to deny themselves something and entitlements speak volumes.
They hate having to buy 1500 copies of the same thing because they do anything and everything to try and prevent you from consuming your own content.
Let's use a car analogy: When buying a car, are you entitled to getting the newest model since you've already paid once? When I paid for a copy of Doom (original) does that grant me access to all of the future variants? Licenses, how do they work?
And since the more vocal media companies "have no plans to ever support internet distribution" (their words, paraphrased), it'll continue to happen.
Yet there are more places than ever to buy things online, especially music and software.
Those who take advantage of the internet are going to win out in the end since they are the ones who will be respected more. And it shows even now, never mind some time in the future.
The public has spoken and they don't give a shit about who or how as long as they get what they want easily. Look at iTunes and the ecosystem around it. Look at Xbox Live. Soon, the Windows Market Place. Walled gardens and proprietary systems are what people can't get enough of.
Most people who pirate would be converted easily to purchasing if there was a better service involved. Dealing with pirate copies of things isn't always easy or worth it either. (especially when it comes to games or subbed copies where the subbers were absolutely awful)
Better service eh? Also a great potential for malicious software. There is no consensus among people who download. Where does one go to rate their downloads? ([X] I would've bought this if it was $1 [ ] I'm only downloading this because there isn't a better system to get this [ ] It's not sold here / My country blocks it [ ] Because I can...)
Obviously not the angry bunch on here who hate anything and everything to do with advertising in some seriously childish / paranoid way (as if anyone cares about your boring lives, you're a number), but the general public yes.
Yet they're not climbing over themselves to pay for the services they use (instead of dealing with ads). Do these people forego Google since it's entire business model is based off of advertising?
A single solution doesn't work for everyone? Shocking.
Oh, of course. There is no rest of the world, the ocean simply falls off into space about 2 miles off the coast of America.
Because foreign countries don't have entities which prohibit distribution (read want $$$$)? BBC iplayer requires you to be in the UK. I guess the rest of the world doesn't exist to them either... I am unable to watch many streaming services auf Deutch due to my geolocation. I guess the rest of the world doesn't exist to them either? My choice in recommendation was based on the assumption that the GP is American. Perhaps if he was speaking Korean another recommendation would be in order... where is your recommendation?
Bummer he died so young. Unfortunately his Wiki page is pretty light so thanks for the link. I've got a friend who lives in Bend, too. I'm sure he would appreciate it, I'm pleasantly surprised that this slipped under my radar. Thanks again!
Looks like you can purchase the vinyl here. For anyone interested in the song (this guy was ahead of his time!) check it out here. You've just made me a fan =)
This situation isn't unique to the music industry, it happens with books as well. While you're never going to find a "complete" library of music from a single place you might want to check out Amazon.com. I'm not affiliated with them, in fact I mainly use them for books. Albums are available in MP3 format with no DRM. They've got some obscure stuff on there too which is how I came across it. I was unable to forage the album I wanted and after hearing the bands first album I liked them enough to purchase all of their music. I did some research (which I encourage you to do before pulling the trigger) and apparently the files are watermarked but they don't contain any unique information beyond that the file(s) originated from Amazon. It's convenient, reasonable (IMO), DRM free and it's from a big name company. Anyway, hope it helps!
I think what you'd really enjoy is discovering a site with users who have similar interests. I've come across some really amazing communities over the years with passionate people.
Ultimately the designer is at fault in this situation. Why would that graphic be made transparent if visibility is important everywhere? If you view that graphic on a webpage (as it may have been intended, since its on the web) you won't have a problem. There will always be edge cases. Are you aware that white (and light colored) images are now visible without having to highlight them?
He was so very offended by that page having a white background that he felt it necessary to ruin a feature that's been standard in browsers for over a decade.
You know what also was a standard feature for over a decade? No tabs.
This isn't just an issue of changing something for the sake of change, it's a plain stupid idea in the first place.
Arguably. What about people who seem to think a computer screen is a piece of paper and use white everywhere so you're staring at a light bulb (especially at night)? Many text editors feature "dark" themes for this reason, substituting a light grey instead of white helps immensely. I think raster graphics are pretty dated and inflexible, what if this guy wanted to print this graphic out, or use it in a text book where DPI matters?
And third, it destroys the usability of a very common entire class of images.
Browsers are great for viewing web pages. Viewing the wave form image in a web page is still possible. Browsers have grown to accommodate images, video, audio, Flash, QT, you name it, but these are not their primary function. Look at all the vulnerabilities these technologies enable! Think of these issues as growing pains. One thing for certain in the software world: change happens.
Right. Well, I guess to Americans, "racism" means using the "N word" or the "J word" Prejudice against foreigners is just good sense.
You are aware that China isn't a race, it's a country. And as a buyer of Chinese goods America buys many, so your racist comment is without merit, if anything it would be referred to as Nationalism (Nationalistic is often used to describe Chinese, here is result number 3 for 'how are foreigners treated in china'). Prejudice and ethnocentric view points are hardly unique to Americans. Prejudice of foreigners is alive and well outside of America and there are many more non-Americans than Americans. One can look nearly anywhere to see it from France to Korea. While America has its issues, it's referred to as the melting pot with good reason. This still applies because she admits over 1 million people a year with permanent resident status. This doesn't include illegal immigration. Asia, specifically China, Korea, Japan are tolerant of foreigners but the word xenophobic comes into play especially when you look at their demographics...
The summary leaps from a statement that a vulnerability has been found to implying that a foreign power is using it for espionage. Without bothering to establish that ANY espionage has taken place at all, let alone who might have dome it.
I'm not sure what rock you live under, but these devices do have back doors built into them. All of them do, even CISCO gear does, which these devices bear strong resemblance to. Screw foreign powers, wouldn't any owner be concerned with unauthorized use of their property? Let me guess, you give it a pass based on ethnicity? Wouldn't want to be racist after all!/sarcasm. You're in front of a computer connected to the internet with several search engines ready to provide information at your request. All that's required is a little effort on your part to educate yourself.
But feel free to "Kill them all and let God sort them out".
people who have detectable traces of illicit drugs in their bloodstream/urine:
But it's cool if they're legal? You imply that legal are not destructive.
1) Are breaking the law by using illegal drugs; (You can certainly argue that it's a stupid law, but at this point, it's the law of the land);
People also break the law by speeding, not signaling, not reporting income. All of those things affect more than just that person...
2) Are voluntarily ingesting a substance with demonstrable negative effects on the employee's mental faculties;
Legal substances also do this too. Alcohol. Your stance has no problem with functional alcoholics and pill poppers, after all it's legal!
3) Are engaging in behavior that is *often* self-destructive and leads to additional sickness, absenteeism, and possibly even crime;
Absenteeism: parents, additional sickness: parents of small children especially, possibly even crime: people who squander time at work by gabbing, using social media, making personal phone calls. All of these are much bigger issues which affect more people and all of these are done drug free individuals too.
Now you can argue that it's not their business, etc. etc. - but given the choice between someone who does coke recreationally, and someone who does not, who both have equal capabilities, I'm going to choose the guy without a substance habit, because there's less likelihood the "sober" guy is going to spiral out of control and leave my business hanging at the worst possible moment.
Work hard play hard. What someone does in their off hours is their own business, period. You have just as much a right to know how they like to fuck their SO. We're no longer in the 1950s. Sounds like you had a bad experience with someone and you like to paint with a large brush.
Drugs actually *do* affect performance, no matter how much you and your stoner friends like to pretend your habit doesn't impair you.
Why ELSE do they take them? Do you ever have a drink and enjoy it? It's doing the same thing, impairing and poisoning you! You know what else affects far more people at work? Lack of sleep and family problems. You completely side step sociopaths and people who might steal company secrets, client information, equipment, and most importantly as an employer: time. I've seen more of this than some lazy fuck existing at a company (who wasn't related to someone in power) I've worked for. Typically the biggest thieves resource wise have been bungling managers. At a web hosting company I was at a friend of the family lost us a decent account ($30,000) by being a (drug free!) prick. Almost all managers I've seen take longer lunches than anyone at the companies I've been at. These managers make more money than the "little folk" and that costs the company some bucks. Mindfuck: Next time you listen to some music or eat some food or buy something (all of which are trucked in), think about the drugs which make that possible.
because there's less likelihood the "sober" guy is going to spiral out of control and leave my business hanging at the worst possible moment.
People have meltdowns all the time. How about they get offered a better job and you're such a tight fuck worrying about what people are doing in their off hours, they bail. Not everyone likes micromanagement into their personal lives. Even people in the military don't enjoy being told when they can use the toilet. You sound like you'd love the military. The last place I was at (prior to where I work now) several employees at various times left without notice. I am in an at will state BTW. These people didn't do drugs. They simply weren't happy for various reasons and as a final "fuck you" they left without telling anyone. One has a really nice tax business in another state, inherited nearly 100 clients. Your drug test won't discover those people.
They never fail! This is a problem because you never find out errors in your GL code until after you've shipped the product.
Or new drivers are released which break things like in Rage.
The upshot is that people incorrectly assume that ATI drivers suck. They don't. Nvidia drivers are the ones that suck!
Perhaps you missed the recent article stating AMD/ATI video drivers are incompatible with system-wide ASLR. 'Always On' DEP combined with 'Always On' ASLR are effective exploit mitigations. However, most people don't know about 'Always On' ASLR since Microsoft had to hide it from EMET with an 'EnableUnsafeSettings' registry key — because AMD/ATI video drivers will cause a BSOD on boot if 'Always On' ASLR is enabled.
It's impossible to keep small magnets away from young children even with the best efforts.
It is not. Buckyballs aren't ubiquitous. Honestly, if it's that big of a risk, why have them around babies/toddlers in the first place? These simply aren't for children.
The Buckeyballs are marketed to 14-year-olds.
Citations please? A Buckyballs 3rd party site states for Adults only, as does the GetBuckyBalls main site. AGoogle cache of Think Geek lists them as Adults Only.
Are you saying that 14-year-olds should be held responsible if younger children ingest them?
Way to put words in my mouth! I never mentioned anything about 14 year olds! But since you bring it up, did the hypothetical 14yo instruct the younger child(ren) to ingest them? If so, yes. Seriously though the responsibility for the well being of a child falls upon the parent. Are you arguing that it's not a parent's responsibility if a child does something out of sight then, like break someone's window? What if your child shoots up a school? the parents of two teenagers were sued after Columbine.
The only way to resolve this is in court. We'll see whether the jury thinks Zucker has any responsibility.
Curiously absent are the parents who weren't watching their snowflakes play hungry hungry hippos with something they're not supposed to have in the first place.
Automation will ultimately replace everyone... there will be no job a robot can't do better, faster, more accurately and more repeatably, than a human being. AI will replace people in thinking jobs, and cheap mechanical muscle will replace people everywhere else (DARPA is investing in the next generation of robots as we speak.)
And we'll have flying cars too! A funny thing about future predictions is they often don't happen as people think. Look at the disappearance of the payphone for one. You assume progress keeps marching forward and we don't experience another dark age or encountering a giant rock from space. AI runs our networks (routers) but we don't really think of that as AI since it's not Watson. As we make advances the bar is set higher.
Perhaps you've been in coma for the last 30 years... In simple fact, the United States has the largest "Poor Population" since 1965 (the date of the invention of the social security net) and the number is growing fast
Largest, hardly! Perhaps you've heard of India?
The wealth has all been shoved into the vanishingly small ultra-ultra-rich, and the middle class is falling off the table.
Has been? The whole middle class thing is relatively new. History of wealth: the wealth is and has been concentrated in the wealthy. What the common man has (specifically in first world countries) is access to so much, things like Thai Food, or off season fruits and veggies. When has that happened before?
I think bankers are now referring to the 99% as "The Expendables". All the new crowd control technology, the use of remote controlled and robotic drones. Buying at Target is quick gaining a new and dark meaning. My friends, we wrest back the helm of state, or we suffer what comes next, all indications so far suggest the people pushing the buttons are neither compassionate nor skilled at sharing. To hell with Skynet, its the Richnet that makes my hinny pucker.
The problem is that, if you have 2 of them, they don't pass through the intestine like the other stuff kids swallow. They pinch 2 sections of intestine together, crush them, and cause necrosis and blockage, and, like you said, perforation. The kids can die. They need fairly invasive surgery. There weren't too many deaths, but there were a few. The people who brought them to the attention of the CPSC were the emergency room doctors who were dealing with them.
Let me guess, let's blame Hungry Hungry Hippos or Crossfire for encouraging this behavior. WTF what were the parents doing while their children were gobbling these things down? And more importantly how did they get them?
Craig Zucker is an asshole.
Hardly unique to him. Unless you're trying to tie this to the poor victims digestive tract, no? Perhaps this is the beginning of a new Youtube Challenge akin to the ice and salt "challenge".
I realize his problem with selling a popular, profitable product, but they've been responsible for a couple of deaths. Too bad. You can't make a million dollars if a 6-year-old kid dies as a result.
You'll make more than a million! See Cigarettes, Alcohol, Cars, Hammers, Aspirin...
he's going to get sued by the next parent whose kid winds up in the ER over them... I can see Zucker being cross-examined: "You did know that several children had died from swallowing these buckeyballs, didn't you?"
Why are we allowing the parents to side step the responsibility? You're supposed to supervise children. The product isn't even marketed at children. Turn that around "You allowed your child who nearly died to ingest powerful rare earth magnets because...?" Ages: Adults only (Keep away from all children). Anyone who provides these to children and cries foul is an idiot.
Slashdot Mirror
As far as I have heard, it has been limited to federally controlled areas like National parks.
There is much more going on. Examples of federal efforts as well others.
Thanks, I was looking for mods which had been commercialized as full games. Sounds like there's been two (?) in the last decade.
I believe this also has to do with technology and attitudes. There is a growing trend of PC game makers to not release source for the client which enables mods, locking down of servers or simply not distributing them as well as not releasing development tools. Quake/Unreal had server only mods as well as client side. The only way to play multiplayer games is by renting servers for some titles, for others no server is ever released - you're hosed when the studio decides to pull the plug. Microtransactions seem to be the rage at the moment. Perhaps studios feel enabling modding competes with the content producers? Maybe there is just so much stuff out there and the attention spans are shorter? In the past things were released as free patches and free content packs wetting your appetite for an expansion or sequel. Although several developers toss in a lot of content, Blizzard has/had a good record for this. Bioware had a good thing with NWN and all the communities around that.
TLDR; It helps when developers make a product that easily enables content creation. A better question to ask is what caused the shift from the attitudes and expectations of 10+ years ago compared to today?
Red Orchestra began as a mod. Garry's Mod for source. Desert Combat mod. Battlefield 2142 is essentially a mod for BF2. Not to mention Fallout, New Vegas series mods, Skyrim etc.
I was hinting at the usefulness of SSH in situations like that.
I see you haven't managed to lock X before.
In the latter case, the only way for law enforcement to find out about these comments is if they're actively monitoring ALL messages on Facebook, ALL the time.
You do know many more things are monitored right? I haven't been on Facebook in awhile but most sites have a 'report this post' feature client facing. It's similar to a like but it's a dislike... pretty crazy concept right? I also don't find it shocking that there is active and most likely automated enforcement of their acceptable use policy. Perhaps you're familiar with how SPAM is dealt with? That doesn't seem to bother you. In some situations monitoring is a good thing. Like when they close peoples accounts who are known pedos, or idiots who post pictures of crimes. Please don't misconstrue this as support and/or endorsement of Fascist communications monitoring.
If that thought doesn't disturb you, then I can't help you, because there's obviously something wrong with you.
Indeed it does, which is why I'm very careful about what I choose to share online especially when my name and picture are associated with it. Did you even read what I wrote? I'm more alarmed at your lack of understanding of what privacy is and why you think people have it on Facebook. There is no privacy on Facebook. By sharing information you're doing the exact opposite of keeping it secret.
privacy/prvs/
Noun:
The state or condition of being free from being observed or disturbed by other people.
The state of being free from public attention.
You have no expectation of privacy Facebook here too here. By posting information you are sharing information.
TLDR; "I can keep a secret but the people I tell cannot."
In the civilised world, we view people who refuse to help the sick and injured as evil scum. In your country you may be happy with people dying, untreated, on the streets. YMMV.
The same civilized world which in many places don't have the right to free speech? You might not be aware of the fact that people here DO get treatment. If you look at any of the border states especially you'll see the Hospitals filled with people. At one point in Los Angeles 60% of the patients aren't even citizens. How about Hospitals faltering because of massive influx of non citizens.
For the "person" making the real threats, set their address to be one of your neighbors.
Hmmm, defamation of character and libel? Since you like experiments maybe a neighbor can use your address and mention you're a sex offender and see what happens! (For the record I don't advocate this.)
Since no real people (only your fake sock poppets) can see any of this stuff, if you see a SWAT team show up at your neighbors' house, then we can surmise that Facebook does indeed allow the government to monitor private communications there.
Facebook employees can. The phone company can (or whomever you get your internet through). Also you may note that all of these companies respond to subpenas... so yes "private" information may be monitored. Regarding Facebook specifically this is mentioned in the legal terms you wantonly clicked through when creating an account (See Safety 7, 10, 12 and how they relate to your experiment) I say wantonly since you obviously aren't sure about their Privacy Policy specifically the "Some other things you need to know" section addressing "Responding to legal requests and preventing harm". In a related note you may find the following interesting:
The fact is that Facebook members own the intellectual property (IP) that is uploaded to the social network, but depending on their privacy and applications settings, users grant the social network "a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License)."
Facebook adds, "[t]his IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it."
While the social network does not technically own its members content, it has the right to use anything that is not protected with Facebook's privacy and applications settings. For instance, photos, videos and status updates set to public are fair game. article
Considering information you broadcast private? It's the exact opposite.
You accuse downloaders of being "entitled" while ignoring the abusive behavior of those their downloading in spite of. That's drooling ignorance, at best, and outright hypocrisy, at worst.
I'm not accusing them, they are. Their actions speak louder than any point you're making. Media companies do not have a monopoly on music or software. You must be ignorant to the fact that individuals also create things. Perhaps you've heard of Minecraft? Perhaps you know about local bands who make a living by performing and selling what they make. It's theirs to choose how it is distributed, unless they signed a contract. I'd love to see you tell these musicians what to do with what they've made and see how well that goes over.
The "right" of monopoly over a creation, especially one that has no material components to express ownership of (you can't own electrons) is granted by law, not inherent in its creation. Those laws were created with consideration given to both sides of the transaction: the creator gets a limited monopoly on reproduction, and after that time is up, it enters the public domain as a societal cultural good.
I'm not defending these companies business model, i'm specifically addressing something you've failed to answer: the right to someone else's work. If you're pissed about copyright duration go talk to Disney or better yet go motivate your peers to actually vote and give a shit. We're not talking about media companies, specifically downloaders and their "rights" to other people's work.
They broke their side of the bargain with endless extensions, long before the internet came into play. So, while they may still be in the right, legally (not surprising with our court system so firmly nestled in the corporate colon), it's not unreasonable (nor is it universal, so don't bother telling me that you disagree) to make the ethical argument that the agreement has been invalidated by the content creators failing to upkeep their end of the bargain.
I'm a content creator, what right do you have to my work? Morally, ethically, and legally: ZERO. I'm not affiliated with a media company nor do I make use of DRM. Oh but I don't own it, because it's electrons... so you have a right to it? Imagine if you tried to argue this with a research paper, or someone's tax information.
Um... because I paid for it, whether or not their idiotic schizoid DRM system believes it or not?
We're not talking about people paying for it (especially you) because then they'd have the right to access/use/own it whatever. We wouldn't be having this "discussion" if you even once mentioned paying customers (isn't that redundant? they'd just be consumers if they didn't pay...). Nor is all media wrapped in DRM (we're not discussing DRM or Media Companies either) We're talking about people who download (without paying!), hence the RIGHT to something they have not paid for or even acquired legally, which is why I correctly used the term entitled. What next, you want to redefine some words because you don't like them?
TLDR: Let me summarize: Over time a Group of Companies create legal protections for their interests at the expense of everyone else. Creative individuals make things which fall under these laws, many of these individuals are not affiliated with these conglomerates, some individuals even get together to form companies/studios/etc. Some Downloaders aren't happy with the laws made by Group of Companies and download everything regardless of who or what created it, others simply do it because they can (for whatever reason, too expensive etc.). These downloaders feel entitled and their actions agree with this.
My point, which you seem to have only half gotten, is that unfortunately whenever someone talks about not having options to legally purchase content, invariably you'll have a ton of people showing up to link to Hulu, Netflix, Amazon MP3, etc - completely ignoring that said solutions are not available to, well, most of the world. I've yet to see someone on Slashdot start talking about how iPlayer has the content they want so clearly that is the solution.
I have first hand experience with the international annoyance. I regularly share things with a friend in Germany (links) and many times we cannot see or hear them due to the content not being available in our area. It's pretty lame.
For what it's worth, that GP also mentioned Craigslist so we can probably safely assume they're American - but still, every time someone goes on about awesome stuff like Amazon MP3 or Netflix, it might be a good idea to prepend that "if you're in the promised land" so that internationals are forewarned that they're about to be bitterly fucking disappointed - as usual.
Noted. I'm half joking when I say consider yourself blessed, reality television is a blight... In your opinion why haven't domestic services done what American companies are doing, locally? Is the demand not there? Is American entertainment that "good"? Is it legal hurdles?
Hm. Cut off my line for some reason, and I didn't even use any angle-brackets. The second line should read
Proof your work, you'll appear like less of a bumbling fuck that way. Also being called a "shilling ballsack" for disputing those who feel they're entitled to someone else's work LOL gotta love this place. I must've struck a nerve. I happen to make a living creating software and from time to time music among other things (commercials, radio spots, print for clients). I've included a definition since you seem to make a fantastic leap from those who take for whatever reasons (being poor, people testing out stuff, cheap fucks etc.) to controlling media companies who have bent laws and more to their will. I don't recall advocating that in my post and according to your hilarious baseless claim that my opinion is entirely dependent upon being paid by these media companies. It couldn't be for any other reason! I'll give you one: it's mine.
entitlement/enttlmnt/
Noun:
The fact of having a right to something.
The amount to which a person has a right.
Why do you believe you have a right to someone else's work you ballsack? I'm not talking about media companies, although it makes no difference even if I'm referring to one, or an individual since in both situations the work doesn't belong to you. Heaven forbid that you are denied the things you so desire because of a pesky price tag.
I think it says more that you're unable to deny yourself the product they produce no matter the price hence being weak willed. Also, ballsack.
They hate being shafted, or told what they can do with their content.
Ah, the entitled. Most interesting how it becomes "theirs". "Hey I really like the software/movie/game you're developing so much I don't want to pay for it. It's not like it costs anything to create. Your time is worthless! Don't tell me what to do you thieving bastards! You want me to pay? You're greedy!" One doesn't have an inherent right to someone's work. If you feel like you're getting shafted why support companies who treat you like that? If their products are not desirable they'll go away. Weak willed individuals unable to deny themselves something and entitlements speak volumes.
They hate having to buy 1500 copies of the same thing because they do anything and everything to try and prevent you from consuming your own content.
Let's use a car analogy: When buying a car, are you entitled to getting the newest model since you've already paid once? When I paid for a copy of Doom (original) does that grant me access to all of the future variants? Licenses, how do they work?
And since the more vocal media companies "have no plans to ever support internet distribution" (their words, paraphrased), it'll continue to happen.
Yet there are more places than ever to buy things online, especially music and software.
Those who take advantage of the internet are going to win out in the end since they are the ones who will be respected more. And it shows even now, never mind some time in the future.
The public has spoken and they don't give a shit about who or how as long as they get what they want easily. Look at iTunes and the ecosystem around it. Look at Xbox Live. Soon, the Windows Market Place. Walled gardens and proprietary systems are what people can't get enough of.
Most people who pirate would be converted easily to purchasing if there was a better service involved. Dealing with pirate copies of things isn't always easy or worth it either. (especially when it comes to games or subbed copies where the subbers were absolutely awful)
Better service eh? Also a great potential for malicious software. There is no consensus among people who download. Where does one go to rate their downloads? ([X] I would've bought this if it was $1 [ ] I'm only downloading this because there isn't a better system to get this [ ] It's not sold here / My country blocks it [ ] Because I can...)
Obviously not the angry bunch on here who hate anything and everything to do with advertising in some seriously childish / paranoid way (as if anyone cares about your boring lives, you're a number), but the general public yes.
Yet they're not climbing over themselves to pay for the services they use (instead of dealing with ads). Do these people forego Google since it's entire business model is based off of advertising?
Oh, of course. There is no rest of the world, the ocean simply falls off into space about 2 miles off the coast of America.
Because foreign countries don't have entities which prohibit distribution (read want $$$$)? BBC iplayer requires you to be in the UK. I guess the rest of the world doesn't exist to them either... I am unable to watch many streaming services auf Deutch due to my geolocation. I guess the rest of the world doesn't exist to them either? My choice in recommendation was based on the assumption that the GP is American. Perhaps if he was speaking Korean another recommendation would be in order... where is your recommendation?
TLDR: Licenses, how do they work?
Try finding info on that old-and-gone company
Which?
Looks like you can purchase the vinyl here. For anyone interested in the song (this guy was ahead of his time!) check it out here. You've just made me a fan =)
This situation isn't unique to the music industry, it happens with books as well. While you're never going to find a "complete" library of music from a single place you might want to check out Amazon.com. I'm not affiliated with them, in fact I mainly use them for books. Albums are available in MP3 format with no DRM. They've got some obscure stuff on there too which is how I came across it. I was unable to forage the album I wanted and after hearing the bands first album I liked them enough to purchase all of their music. I did some research (which I encourage you to do before pulling the trigger) and apparently the files are watermarked but they don't contain any unique information beyond that the file(s) originated from Amazon. It's convenient, reasonable (IMO), DRM free and it's from a big name company. Anyway, hope it helps!
I think what you'd really enjoy is discovering a site with users who have similar interests. I've come across some really amazing communities over the years with passionate people.
He was so very offended by that page having a white background that he felt it necessary to ruin a feature that's been standard in browsers for over a decade.
You know what also was a standard feature for over a decade? No tabs.
This isn't just an issue of changing something for the sake of change, it's a plain stupid idea in the first place.
Arguably. What about people who seem to think a computer screen is a piece of paper and use white everywhere so you're staring at a light bulb (especially at night)? Many text editors feature "dark" themes for this reason, substituting a light grey instead of white helps immensely. I think raster graphics are pretty dated and inflexible, what if this guy wanted to print this graphic out, or use it in a text book where DPI matters?
And third, it destroys the usability of a very common entire class of images.
Browsers are great for viewing web pages. Viewing the wave form image in a web page is still possible. Browsers have grown to accommodate images, video, audio, Flash, QT, you name it, but these are not their primary function. Look at all the vulnerabilities these technologies enable! Think of these issues as growing pains. One thing for certain in the software world: change happens.
Right. Well, I guess to Americans, "racism" means using the "N word" or the "J word" Prejudice against foreigners is just good sense.
You are aware that China isn't a race, it's a country. And as a buyer of Chinese goods America buys many, so your racist comment is without merit, if anything it would be referred to as Nationalism (Nationalistic is often used to describe Chinese, here is result number 3 for 'how are foreigners treated in china'). Prejudice and ethnocentric view points are hardly unique to Americans. Prejudice of foreigners is alive and well outside of America and there are many more non-Americans than Americans. One can look nearly anywhere to see it from France to Korea. While America has its issues, it's referred to as the melting pot with good reason. This still applies because she admits over 1 million people a year with permanent resident status. This doesn't include illegal immigration. Asia, specifically China, Korea, Japan are tolerant of foreigners but the word xenophobic comes into play especially when you look at their demographics...
The summary leaps from a statement that a vulnerability has been found to implying that a foreign power is using it for espionage. Without bothering to establish that ANY espionage has taken place at all, let alone who might have dome it.
I'm not sure what rock you live under, but these devices do have back doors built into them. All of them do, even CISCO gear does, which these devices bear strong resemblance to. Screw foreign powers, wouldn't any owner be concerned with unauthorized use of their property? Let me guess, you give it a pass based on ethnicity? Wouldn't want to be racist after all! /sarcasm. You're in front of a computer connected to the internet with several search engines ready to provide information at your request. All that's required is a little effort on your part to educate yourself.
But feel free to "Kill them all and let God sort them out".
You mean like the Cultural Revolution?
people who have detectable traces of illicit drugs in their bloodstream/urine:
But it's cool if they're legal? You imply that legal are not destructive.
1) Are breaking the law by using illegal drugs; (You can certainly argue that it's a stupid law, but at this point, it's the law of the land);
People also break the law by speeding, not signaling, not reporting income. All of those things affect more than just that person...
2) Are voluntarily ingesting a substance with demonstrable negative effects on the employee's mental faculties;
Legal substances also do this too. Alcohol. Your stance has no problem with functional alcoholics and pill poppers, after all it's legal!
3) Are engaging in behavior that is *often* self-destructive and leads to additional sickness, absenteeism, and possibly even crime;
Absenteeism: parents, additional sickness: parents of small children especially, possibly even crime: people who squander time at work by gabbing, using social media, making personal phone calls. All of these are much bigger issues which affect more people and all of these are done drug free individuals too.
Now you can argue that it's not their business, etc. etc. - but given the choice between someone who does coke recreationally, and someone who does not, who both have equal capabilities, I'm going to choose the guy without a substance habit, because there's less likelihood the "sober" guy is going to spiral out of control and leave my business hanging at the worst possible moment.
Work hard play hard. What someone does in their off hours is their own business, period. You have just as much a right to know how they like to fuck their SO. We're no longer in the 1950s. Sounds like you had a bad experience with someone and you like to paint with a large brush.
Drugs actually *do* affect performance, no matter how much you and your stoner friends like to pretend your habit doesn't impair you.
Why ELSE do they take them? Do you ever have a drink and enjoy it? It's doing the same thing, impairing and poisoning you! You know what else affects far more people at work? Lack of sleep and family problems. You completely side step sociopaths and people who might steal company secrets, client information, equipment, and most importantly as an employer: time. I've seen more of this than some lazy fuck existing at a company (who wasn't related to someone in power) I've worked for. Typically the biggest thieves resource wise have been bungling managers. At a web hosting company I was at a friend of the family lost us a decent account ($30,000) by being a (drug free!) prick. Almost all managers I've seen take longer lunches than anyone at the companies I've been at. These managers make more money than the "little folk" and that costs the company some bucks. Mindfuck: Next time you listen to some music or eat some food or buy something (all of which are trucked in), think about the drugs which make that possible.
because there's less likelihood the "sober" guy is going to spiral out of control and leave my business hanging at the worst possible moment.
People have meltdowns all the time. How about they get offered a better job and you're such a tight fuck worrying about what people are doing in their off hours, they bail. Not everyone likes micromanagement into their personal lives. Even people in the military don't enjoy being told when they can use the toilet. You sound like you'd love the military. The last place I was at (prior to where I work now) several employees at various times left without notice. I am in an at will state BTW. These people didn't do drugs. They simply weren't happy for various reasons and as a final "fuck you" they left without telling anyone. One has a really nice tax business in another state, inherited nearly 100 clients. Your drug test won't discover those people.
You are behind the times, and should really be firing your complaints at Nvidia.
Discussions on graphics card performance show both suck in different areas.
They never fail! This is a problem because you never find out errors in your GL code until after you've shipped the product.
Or new drivers are released which break things like in Rage.
The upshot is that people incorrectly assume that ATI drivers suck. They don't. Nvidia drivers are the ones that suck!
Perhaps you missed the recent article stating AMD/ATI video drivers are incompatible with system-wide ASLR. 'Always On' DEP combined with 'Always On' ASLR are effective exploit mitigations. However, most people don't know about 'Always On' ASLR since Microsoft had to hide it from EMET with an 'EnableUnsafeSettings' registry key — because AMD/ATI video drivers will cause a BSOD on boot if 'Always On' ASLR is enabled.
It's impossible to keep small magnets away from young children even with the best efforts.
It is not. Buckyballs aren't ubiquitous. Honestly, if it's that big of a risk, why have them around babies/toddlers in the first place? These simply aren't for children.
The Buckeyballs are marketed to 14-year-olds.
Citations please? A Buckyballs 3rd party site states for Adults only, as does the GetBuckyBalls main site. AGoogle cache of Think Geek lists them as Adults Only.
Are you saying that 14-year-olds should be held responsible if younger children ingest them?
Way to put words in my mouth! I never mentioned anything about 14 year olds! But since you bring it up, did the hypothetical 14yo instruct the younger child(ren) to ingest them? If so, yes. Seriously though the responsibility for the well being of a child falls upon the parent. Are you arguing that it's not a parent's responsibility if a child does something out of sight then, like break someone's window? What if your child shoots up a school? the parents of two teenagers were sued after Columbine.
The only way to resolve this is in court. We'll see whether the jury thinks Zucker has any responsibility.
Curiously absent are the parents who weren't watching their snowflakes play hungry hungry hippos with something they're not supposed to have in the first place.
Automation will ultimately replace everyone... there will be no job a robot can't do better, faster, more accurately and more repeatably, than a human being. AI will replace people in thinking jobs, and cheap mechanical muscle will replace people everywhere else (DARPA is investing in the next generation of robots as we speak.)
And we'll have flying cars too! A funny thing about future predictions is they often don't happen as people think. Look at the disappearance of the payphone for one. You assume progress keeps marching forward and we don't experience another dark age or encountering a giant rock from space. AI runs our networks (routers) but we don't really think of that as AI since it's not Watson. As we make advances the bar is set higher.
Perhaps you've been in coma for the last 30 years... In simple fact, the United States has the largest "Poor Population" since 1965 (the date of the invention of the social security net) and the number is growing fast
Largest, hardly! Perhaps you've heard of India?
The wealth has all been shoved into the vanishingly small ultra-ultra-rich, and the middle class is falling off the table.
Has been? The whole middle class thing is relatively new. History of wealth: the wealth is and has been concentrated in the wealthy. What the common man has (specifically in first world countries) is access to so much, things like Thai Food, or off season fruits and veggies. When has that happened before?
I think bankers are now referring to the 99% as "The Expendables". All the new crowd control technology, the use of remote controlled and robotic drones. Buying at Target is quick gaining a new and dark meaning. My friends, we wrest back the helm of state, or we suffer what comes next, all indications so far suggest the people pushing the buttons are neither compassionate nor skilled at sharing. To hell with Skynet, its the Richnet that makes my hinny pucker.
This is awesome.
The problem is that, if you have 2 of them, they don't pass through the intestine like the other stuff kids swallow. They pinch 2 sections of intestine together, crush them, and cause necrosis and blockage, and, like you said, perforation. The kids can die. They need fairly invasive surgery. There weren't too many deaths, but there were a few. The people who brought them to the attention of the CPSC were the emergency room doctors who were dealing with them.
Let me guess, let's blame Hungry Hungry Hippos or Crossfire for encouraging this behavior. WTF what were the parents doing while their children were gobbling these things down? And more importantly how did they get them?
Craig Zucker is an asshole.
Hardly unique to him. Unless you're trying to tie this to the poor victims digestive tract, no? Perhaps this is the beginning of a new Youtube Challenge akin to the ice and salt "challenge".
I realize his problem with selling a popular, profitable product, but they've been responsible for a couple of deaths. Too bad. You can't make a million dollars if a 6-year-old kid dies as a result.
You'll make more than a million! See Cigarettes, Alcohol, Cars, Hammers, Aspirin...
he's going to get sued by the next parent whose kid winds up in the ER over them ... I can see Zucker being cross-examined: "You did know that several children had died from swallowing these buckeyballs, didn't you?"
Why are we allowing the parents to side step the responsibility? You're supposed to supervise children. The product isn't even marketed at children. Turn that around "You allowed your child who nearly died to ingest powerful rare earth magnets because...?" Ages: Adults only (Keep away from all children). Anyone who provides these to children and cries foul is an idiot.
GZ0J\UNQN"E 40UN ' BUH BUV HK /HKEX$$
QN
QQ/10UT QH+QT+48UW QW-58"E 48UW %V ' QV"N QV^T ' QWUV QQ-(QT*10)UH >
QV^T @^A/
The code snippet factors pi to an arbitrary digit (wiki).
Why should you have to download the DLC you have no intention of paying for just to continue playing the game?
In this case if you play online and other people have the new weapons/vehicles/uniforms you'll be able to see them (with the 6 gigs you downloaded).
BBC2
Agreed, it's a fun game.
I used the data protection act to get hold of all of the data they hold on me, and my DOB was correct, so that's two big fails.
Ha!