You take your harddrive , I'll take my tape. We'll both drop them from four feet to the floor a couple times and then see which one still works.
...At which point we'll observe that the hard drive failed. Then I'll pull out one of the several other copies of it which I was able to make thanks to the large amount of money I saved by not using tape. We'll finish by making a note not to repeatedly throw backup media on to the floor from four feet and conclude that hard drives are a fine backup medium.
That isn't their "ban policy". That isn't a policy at all. this is their policy.
The only way you can get banned is if VAC gets you banned.
Really? Because their actual policy above doesn't say that. Here's a complaint from someone being banned not after cheating but after a credit card chargeback.
we have no evidence other than our gut feeling that the'll honor the promise.
Except that's not what GP said. He said "if Steam's servers are taken offline, access controls will be removed.". You're saying that we really have no idea or guarantees as to what valve will do in the future... which is true. There is no "if valve goes away, then they will do X".
Take it one step further, and why not put cameras in people's homes?
Because people's homes are private property. The streets are not. The cameras aren't doing anything that a regular human cop couldn't, given enough manpower.
A toyota truck becomes scrap in 8-13 years and they buy it back for 150% of its value? Damn, that's awesome. I wish I had bought one of those. That's a way better deal than what I got with the 3 american cars I've had till they died, which died in 7-10 years (one of them with a known manufacturing defect) and I got $0 back from the manufacturer.
I like how you spun the fact that one vendor fully controls the distribution of software on to iphone in to a feature. I would say that's a considerable drawback.
When most of your users are chosing passwords like "password" and "1234" no hashing is going to help. Those are the first things anyone will try when using brute force.
Hashing would buy competent, caring* users with strong passwords a little bit of time to change their password, assuming the intrusion is discovered and the users are notified quickly enough.
*: That's another mistake a lot of site designers make: assuming that the users care about the security of the accounts they set up. Many times the users simply want access to some content on a web site and once they have it couldn't care less about their account. It was just a meaningless hoop they had to jump through to get something. If the compromise affects the web site more than its users then its time to stop making people create an account for every little thing so your marketing department can gather personal information.
Sometimes it might be a pain to reinstall and sometimes it might be easy. Whatever costs less time. But its not something you just ought to be doing all the time. kernel patches: boot the other image. config file tweaks: version control, package manager. custom glibc builds: uh, what is this, a linux distro from 1995 or something? If the application needs its own special libc you're almost certainly not going to replace the whole system's with it...
Not really. You really don't have to reinstall the whole operating system every time you switch applications around, unless you have no idea what you're doing, or it is windows.
Why on earth would you put the company name in the host name? We have this System of Names that can group hosts into hierarchical Domains, you know. It can even have many levels of such domains, possibly representing geographical areas.
Purposes in names is a bad idea as well. One reason being that if you wind up moving services around and repurposing machines you don wind up with hostnames that don't make any sense.
Not that either can provide the kind of hardware support that many industrial applications for PDPs and VAX rely on
Industrial applications? A Niagra or IBM 360?? Hardware virtualization on X86?? Not sure what you're talking about here, but we're talking about somebody installing NetBSD on ancient hardware to play with sendmail. A cheap junk desktop PC will accomplish that a lot more easily.
But hey, I happened to have the hardware, and since of course it runs NetBSD, it's a learning experience if nothing else.
As another learning experience you should try finding practically any PC made in the last 7-8 years, get virtualization software set up and do all of that in VMs and learn how to save a bunch of time and electricity.
How would they implement the silly restrictions they currently among the various windows versions, like the restricted maximum number of file sharing connections, or hidden advanced file permissions tab? "Change 4 bytes in the registry" app pack for $699? It would fit...
I believe that enough people are dumb enough and incapable of controlling themselves with very dangerous substances, that some substances need to be banned to prevent the risk of collapse or significant decay of society.
"enough people"? You don't think it would be better for people to demonstrate their responsibility (or lack thereof) and be restrained accordingly first?
Smoking pot is really freaking bad for you. but smoking enough to get high is pretty much really bad for you.
That just isn't true. It would have to be an vast amount, or only affect a small number of people that way. The free flow of pot in a society would certainly not cause its collapse or significant decay. There are examples available to prove that.
Your comment makes no sense as a response to mine.
Alcohol is also a mind altering drug which is easily abused--why isn't alcohol illegal?
Why it isn't isn't relevant. Why it should not be is because we're Big Boys and Girls who should make their own choices and take responsibility for them.
health concerns? Ask someone with cirrhosis.
That someone chose to drink so much that it screwed up their liver is not a reason why it should be illegal.
These are the type of people who deny global warming and evolution.
Why is it illegal. Because it is a mind altering drug, which can easily be abused (recreational use of this drug is abuse), Being in an altered state of mind isn't productive to society, as well as health concerns.
None of those are valid reasons why it or any such things shouldn't be personal, individual choices in a free society.
Because the burden of proof is on those that believe that it's harmless rather than those that don't believe it to be safe. Which is just the way that it should be.
No, it isn't, and nor should it be, because
There really isn't that much evidence to support the idea that legalization is the appropriate course of action.
It is a basic principle in the US and any supposedly free country that things shouldn't be illegal "by default". Anything should be allowed unless a law is written specifically against it, and there should be specific and good reasons for that - not arbitrary religious nonsense.
Slashdot Mirror
Does apple sell and support a completely unlocked iphone like google does for the G1?
That isn't their "ban policy". That isn't a policy at all. this is their policy.
Really? Because their actual policy above doesn't say that. Here's a complaint from someone being banned not after cheating but after a credit card chargeback.
There's reply to this very story about a guy who had his account disabled because he logged on from too many different places.
Except that's not what GP said. He said "if Steam's servers are taken offline, access controls will be removed.". You're saying that we really have no idea or guarantees as to what valve will do in the future... which is true. There is no "if valve goes away, then they will do X".
Um, yeah, kinda... they've been known to disable accounts and access to games that people paid for arbitrarily.
Where does it say that?
Because people's homes are private property. The streets are not. The cameras aren't doing anything that a regular human cop couldn't, given enough manpower.
A toyota truck becomes scrap in 8-13 years and they buy it back for 150% of its value? Damn, that's awesome. I wish I had bought one of those. That's a way better deal than what I got with the 3 american cars I've had till they died, which died in 7-10 years (one of them with a known manufacturing defect) and I got $0 back from the manufacturer.
Really? What kind of loan was this called?
The convenience of it doesn't really outweigh the danger of it.
I like how you spun the fact that one vendor fully controls the distribution of software on to iphone in to a feature. I would say that's a considerable drawback.
I think he means free as in freedom. That's what I'd care about, anyway.
When most of your users are chosing passwords like "password" and "1234" no hashing is going to help. Those are the first things anyone will try when using brute force.
Hashing would buy competent, caring* users with strong passwords a little bit of time to change their password, assuming the intrusion is discovered and the users are notified quickly enough.
*: That's another mistake a lot of site designers make: assuming that the users care about the security of the accounts they set up. Many times the users simply want access to some content on a web site and once they have it couldn't care less about their account. It was just a meaningless hoop they had to jump through to get something. If the compromise affects the web site more than its users then its time to stop making people create an account for every little thing so your marketing department can gather personal information.
Sometimes it might be a pain to reinstall and sometimes it might be easy. Whatever costs less time. But its not something you just ought to be doing all the time. kernel patches: boot the other image. config file tweaks: version control, package manager. custom glibc builds: uh, what is this, a linux distro from 1995 or something? If the application needs its own special libc you're almost certainly not going to replace the whole system's with it...
Not really. You really don't have to reinstall the whole operating system every time you switch applications around, unless you have no idea what you're doing, or it is windows.
Why on earth would you put the company name in the host name? We have this System of Names that can group hosts into hierarchical Domains, you know. It can even have many levels of such domains, possibly representing geographical areas.
Purposes in names is a bad idea as well. One reason being that if you wind up moving services around and repurposing machines you don wind up with hostnames that don't make any sense.
Industrial applications? A Niagra or IBM 360?? Hardware virtualization on X86?? Not sure what you're talking about here, but we're talking about somebody installing NetBSD on ancient hardware to play with sendmail. A cheap junk desktop PC will accomplish that a lot more easily.
As another learning experience you should try finding practically any PC made in the last 7-8 years, get virtualization software set up and do all of that in VMs and learn how to save a bunch of time and electricity.
How would they implement the silly restrictions they currently among the various windows versions, like the restricted maximum number of file sharing connections, or hidden advanced file permissions tab? "Change 4 bytes in the registry" app pack for $699? It would fit...
"enough people"? You don't think it would be better for people to demonstrate their responsibility (or lack thereof) and be restrained accordingly first?
That just isn't true. It would have to be an vast amount, or only affect a small number of people that way. The free flow of pot in a society would certainly not cause its collapse or significant decay. There are examples available to prove that.
You idiot,
Your comment makes no sense as a response to mine.
Why it isn't isn't relevant. Why it should not be is because we're Big Boys and Girls who should make their own choices and take responsibility for them.
That someone chose to drink so much that it screwed up their liver is not a reason why it should be illegal.
That is stupid and wrong.
None of those are valid reasons why it or any such things shouldn't be personal, individual choices in a free society.
No, it isn't, and nor should it be, because
It is a basic principle in the US and any supposedly free country that things shouldn't be illegal "by default". Anything should be allowed unless a law is written specifically against it, and there should be specific and good reasons for that - not arbitrary religious nonsense.
And why shouldn't they be pissed off?