And how does an exemption list make any difference whatsoever? The concerns aren't over who are excepmpt from such tactics, but the fact that it's being considered or done to begin with.
That's still 30 feet too far for me. If (which it does) have such a "short" range, what's the problem in creating a card that only needs to come into contact with a reader? I mean, it's not really any more inconvenient to simply touch a card to a reader than it is to bring it within a few inches of the reader, right?
RFID is being pushed in every way you fucktards can think of, but I'm not having it. EVER.
Note: I generally hate bumper stickers, but damn... I've spent the last 5 years of my life pissed off with politics. It's nice to have a reason to care again.
Unreal. Look what a little public forums can do to a person. I just converted from "I hate all politicians and political parties" to "I'm 100% pure-blooded libertarian". Who'd have thought?
I guess I'll have to spread the word to my friends that tend to have the same views as I do....
The normal modern libertarian wants legal marijuana, tougher penalties on violence, lower welfare, lower taxes, lower gun control, and the gays to do whatever they want.
Holy crap... you just described me exactly. I didn't know that there was actually a party that catered specifically to me. Do they actually value privacy and freedom of expression, too???? Hell, I'd be in heaven.
To Be Banned
on
VoIP Security
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I wonder how long it will be until things like VoIP encryption is illegal to implement on the user-to-user end. Once the government catches wind via some wacked-out organization, they're going to be pushing legislation to ban such products - all in the name of preventing terrorism, of course.
Heck, my opinion is it's only because of the history of the open nature of computing that this industry is allowed to have encryptions like SSL where the government can't tap the line.
And if you don't believe me, see the recent treaty discussions going on in the senate right now that requires participating nations to take up laws which include wiretapping.
Of course it makes the infrastructure grow faster. If companies have monopolies over the lines, they don't have to compete, which means they can charge whatever prices they like while still getting people to sign on board, which means that they have the money to build new infrastructure in areas that aren't currently serviced with the latest fiber lines, giving them a monopoly over *those* lines, rinse and repeat.
It makes perfect sense.
What sucks is that consumers get raped in the process. No competition means that if it's a service you really want or need, you better start cutting out dessert from your supper meals....
.... market demand should keep things in check. What I mean by that is that while there may be no innovation and there will definitely be no shortage of pissed off people, if these companies keep raising the prices of internet access, they're just going to find that already-tight budgets are going to drop the net access because they really can live without it (or take care of their internet needs at work...).
I just signed up for Comcast cable in my area and my jaw dropped when I heard I was going to be charged $60/month for their lowest-priced internet package. The sad fact is that I have no other adequate choice, because I'd be paying more for DSL since I use my cell phone for my phone service, without having a land line at all (meaning I would be charged for a line into the house for the sole purpose of having internet access).
I'm really pissed about the situation, and I'm not even really that strapped for cash. The part that irks me the most is the Comcast treats me like shit, and it's my reasoning that they do that because they know that nobody else can serve me. Either I accept it up the ass, or nothing at all. *sigh*
In my online game, users have a negative effect occur to them if they try to aggress another player that they've already aggressed recently. I cross-reference this with a database query and remind them if they have aggressed the other player. I've been doing this for quite a while. Is that not prior art?
In all reality, Amazon just successfully patented a single database query.... absolutely ridiculous.
The search engines, archive sites, etc. should all make an industry-wide pact to *not* archive or index *anything* unless a robots.txt is found that authorizes it. Maybe it will get some of the useless spam sites out of the indexes in the process, as well as clear up all this legal crap, too.
So it's simple - if you don't want to be indexed or archived, that's fine. Nobody will know who you are. No problem.
Yahoo's customer service is absolutely horrendous. I've emailed them a number of times on various issues and have never received a response from them. I hope they lose this battle. Maybe it will wake them up to the fact that they should actually be paying attention to their users for a change.
I use Microsoft products and am really getting confused about their software roadmap.
Ooh ooh! I got this one! Ok, go get a pen and paper.
Ok, you back? Good, now place a dot on the paper. Now place the tip of your pen where you marked your dot, and draw a circle, connecting back to the dot again.
I can see why the Chinese (or any nation) would want to do this, especially for closed source software. If I were the Chinese, I'd make the policy to allow software from open sourced products, though.
The logic in that is very straightforward. If some other nation is selling you closed source software, there's no guarantee that the government hasn't gotten their hands in there to make sure that all the computers in the world run "their way" in the event that something ever goes down the tubes....
At least with OSS, they would be able to verify that everything was locked down tight.
Imagine, if you will, the ability for all those old multiplayer Nintendo games to be playable online. If Nintendo could make it so that any of those old multiplayer Nintendo games could be played against another person online instead of having him or her right next to you..... that would be the ultimate killer scenario. Is it possible? I don't know. A guy should be allowed to speculate, though.
Everyone would own one. Forget about market share. It will be 50% XBox 360 and 50% PS3... with 100% having a Revolution.
I uninstalled Google's desktop search and went to give this one a shot. However, after I installed it, it said that the search failed to start and to uninstall and reinstall it again. I did so, only to be presented with the same message yet again. When I tried to manually invoke the indexing, the only thing it would index is subdirectories of "My Documents".
It looks like Microsoft has dropped the bomb yet again. At least, for me....
With "some, but not all" games being supported for backwards compatibility, there's no reason to believe that *any* games will work as originally intended. You can't call it backwards compatible if... well, it's not backwards compatible.
I can just see it already. Microsoft will heavily promote the XBox 360 as being "Backwards Compatible**"
** But not really. Actually, only Halo2 is compatible. Everything else is subject to this nice little disclaimer here.
As lame as this sounds, this is the single and only reason why I will not be able to own a PS3.
For 3D games, the analog stick NEEDS to be in the primary position on the controller. Still having the D-Pad in the primary position was left behind in every console since the Nintendo 64, yet Sony still refuses to acknowledge this basic premise! Even Microsoft of all companies managed to figure it out!
This is extremely disappointing for me. It's the only reason I don't own a PS2, and it will be the only reason I don't own a PS3. The hardware not only gorgeous, but it's powerful beyond belief as well. Yet, with all the power, I still find that the base controller design limits my ability to play damn near any game released in the last 10 years because of the awkward feeling of trying to use an analog stick that is not in the "natural" position on the controller.
If Sony would change this one basic thing, I would own the PS3 in a heartbeat. Put the analog stick in the primary spot, and give it a little resistance! That's all I ask!!!
I think that Microsoft has an ethical responsibility to provide free AV to its consumers.
First off, a large number of virus' out there are a direct result if the software flaws of the M$ OS. If M$ were to charge for AV, for the conspiracy theorists, it could almost seem that they were intentionally putting out flawed software to drive sales of their AV.
It's been reported that Microsoft was going to sell their AV, but at a price that completely undercuts the likes of Symantec. In other words, Microsoft is trying to bully their way into the market and make sure they get at least "enough" of their share to make it profitable, but while still trying to fend off anti-trust lawsuits.
With all the software that M$ has been putting out lately, including the anti-spyware tool and firewall, this is the LAST thing that Microsoft should be charging for. With such a small market out there actually keeping anti-virus, and up-to-date anti-virus, this has a big potential for Microsoft to really cut down on those rampant virus outbreaks. That alone would boost their image in regards to security with the general public.
As for anti-competitive behavior by offering it for free? Screw it. Anybody who's had to deal with Symantec tech support will be able to sympathize with the rest of those who have had to deal with their lousy support practices. From that perspective, I don't care if Symantec were to go out of business. Innovate or die. The same goes for the others. Come up with something better that people will want to use, or go under. This kind of security too big of a deal to charge people for.
I'm not asking for some completely revolutionary AV software with uber functionality. However, I believe that M$ would be alienating consumers that are going to give them a really funny look when they see that the same company that is a result of the reason they lost all their data last time they had to reformat their HDD is now trying to hustle AV software onto them.
As I said earlier, I think it's both an ethical responsibility for M$ to provide AV software to their consumers at no additional charge, as well as a PR responsibility.
I think that Microsoft has an ethical responsibility to provide free AV to its consumers.
First off, a large number of virus' out there are a direct result if the software flaws of the M$ OS. If M$ were to charge for AV, for the conspiracy theorists, it could almost seem that they were intentionally putting out flawed software to drive sales of their AV.
It's been reported that Microsoft was going to sell their AV, but at a price that completely undercuts the likes of Symantec. In other words, Microsoft is trying to bully their way into the market and make sure they get at least "enough" of their share to make it profitable, but while still trying to fend off anti-trust lawsuits.
With all the software that M$ has been putting out lately, including the anti-spyware tool and firewall, this is the LAST thing that Microsoft should be charging for. With such a small market out there actually keeping anti-virus, and up-to-date anti-virus, this has a big potential for Microsoft to really cut down on those rampant virus outbreaks. That alone would boost their image in regards to security with the general public.
As for anti-competitive behavior by offering it for free? Screw it. Anybody who's had to deal with Symantec tech support will be able to sympathize with the rest of those who have had to deal with their lousy support practices.
I'm not asking for some completely revolutionary AV software with uber functionality. However, I believe that M$ would be alienating consumers that are going to give them a really funny look when they see that the same company that is a result of the reason they lost all their data last time they had to reformat their HDD is now trying to hustle AV software onto them.
As I said earlier, I think it's both an ethical responsibility for M$ to provide AV software to their consumers at no additional charge, as well as a PR responsibility.
Is there any merit to somebody filing a lawsuit in the RIAA for requiring DRM on music downloads from the premise that they are effectively writing their own copyright laws, and therefore breaking established law?
Slashdot Mirror
I think that this would be the government "giving it to you up the ass".
And how does an exemption list make any difference whatsoever? The concerns aren't over who are excepmpt from such tactics, but the fact that it's being considered or done to begin with.
That's still 30 feet too far for me. If (which it does) have such a "short" range, what's the problem in creating a card that only needs to come into contact with a reader? I mean, it's not really any more inconvenient to simply touch a card to a reader than it is to bring it within a few inches of the reader, right?
RFID is being pushed in every way you fucktards can think of, but I'm not having it. EVER.
hEhE, I've been to all those sites now except for the first one. Also, I'll have to consider educating the rest of the world via my personal mobile library service...:w se/Ntt-libertarian_Nao-1_Ntk-All_pv-digitalgarden. 18402571_No-1_N-1332_D-libertarian
http://216.105.53.41/
http://www.cafepress.com/shop/bumper-stickers/bro
Note: I generally hate bumper stickers, but damn... I've spent the last 5 years of my life pissed off with politics. It's nice to have a reason to care again.
Unreal. Look what a little public forums can do to a person. I just converted from "I hate all politicians and political parties" to "I'm 100% pure-blooded libertarian". Who'd have thought?
I guess I'll have to spread the word to my friends that tend to have the same views as I do....
It's funny what makes your day, isn't it?
The normal modern libertarian wants legal marijuana, tougher penalties on violence, lower welfare, lower taxes, lower gun control, and the gays to do whatever they want.
Holy crap... you just described me exactly. I didn't know that there was actually a party that catered specifically to me. Do they actually value privacy and freedom of expression, too???? Hell, I'd be in heaven.
I wonder how long it will be until things like VoIP encryption is illegal to implement on the user-to-user end. Once the government catches wind via some wacked-out organization, they're going to be pushing legislation to ban such products - all in the name of preventing terrorism, of course.
Heck, my opinion is it's only because of the history of the open nature of computing that this industry is allowed to have encryptions like SSL where the government can't tap the line.
And if you don't believe me, see the recent treaty discussions going on in the senate right now that requires participating nations to take up laws which include wiretapping.
Of course it makes the infrastructure grow faster. If companies have monopolies over the lines, they don't have to compete, which means they can charge whatever prices they like while still getting people to sign on board, which means that they have the money to build new infrastructure in areas that aren't currently serviced with the latest fiber lines, giving them a monopoly over *those* lines, rinse and repeat.
It makes perfect sense.
What sucks is that consumers get raped in the process. No competition means that if it's a service you really want or need, you better start cutting out dessert from your supper meals....
.... market demand should keep things in check. What I mean by that is that while there may be no innovation and there will definitely be no shortage of pissed off people, if these companies keep raising the prices of internet access, they're just going to find that already-tight budgets are going to drop the net access because they really can live without it (or take care of their internet needs at work...).
I just signed up for Comcast cable in my area and my jaw dropped when I heard I was going to be charged $60/month for their lowest-priced internet package. The sad fact is that I have no other adequate choice, because I'd be paying more for DSL since I use my cell phone for my phone service, without having a land line at all (meaning I would be charged for a line into the house for the sole purpose of having internet access).
I'm really pissed about the situation, and I'm not even really that strapped for cash. The part that irks me the most is the Comcast treats me like shit, and it's my reasoning that they do that because they know that nobody else can serve me. Either I accept it up the ass, or nothing at all. *sigh*
Uh huh....
e ss
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=aggr
In my online game, users have a negative effect occur to them if they try to aggress another player that they've already aggressed recently. I cross-reference this with a database query and remind them if they have aggressed the other player. I've been doing this for quite a while. Is that not prior art?
In all reality, Amazon just successfully patented a single database query.... absolutely ridiculous.
The search engines, archive sites, etc. should all make an industry-wide pact to *not* archive or index *anything* unless a robots.txt is found that authorizes it. Maybe it will get some of the useless spam sites out of the indexes in the process, as well as clear up all this legal crap, too.
So it's simple - if you don't want to be indexed or archived, that's fine. Nobody will know who you are. No problem.
Yahoo's customer service is absolutely horrendous. I've emailed them a number of times on various issues and have never received a response from them. I hope they lose this battle. Maybe it will wake them up to the fact that they should actually be paying attention to their users for a change.
Ooh ooh! I got this one! Ok, go get a pen and paper.
Ok, you back? Good, now place a dot on the paper. Now place the tip of your pen where you marked your dot, and draw a circle, connecting back to the dot again.
That should give you an idea of M$' roadmap!
This is certainly good news, but human eggs are still needed, and from what I understand, harvesting them is still time-consuming, painful, and risky.
Damn! I'd be willing to donate sperm. That isn't painful, time consuming, or risky!
I can see why the Chinese (or any nation) would want to do this, especially for closed source software. If I were the Chinese, I'd make the policy to allow software from open sourced products, though.
The logic in that is very straightforward. If some other nation is selling you closed source software, there's no guarantee that the government hasn't gotten their hands in there to make sure that all the computers in the world run "their way" in the event that something ever goes down the tubes....
At least with OSS, they would be able to verify that everything was locked down tight.
Imagine, if you will, the ability for all those old multiplayer Nintendo games to be playable online. If Nintendo could make it so that any of those old multiplayer Nintendo games could be played against another person online instead of having him or her right next to you..... that would be the ultimate killer scenario. Is it possible? I don't know. A guy should be allowed to speculate, though.
Everyone would own one. Forget about market share. It will be 50% XBox 360 and 50% PS3... with 100% having a Revolution.
Heck, it may be anyway..... *drool*.
I uninstalled Google's desktop search and went to give this one a shot. However, after I installed it, it said that the search failed to start and to uninstall and reinstall it again. I did so, only to be presented with the same message yet again. When I tried to manually invoke the indexing, the only thing it would index is subdirectories of "My Documents".
It looks like Microsoft has dropped the bomb yet again. At least, for me....
With "some, but not all" games being supported for backwards compatibility, there's no reason to believe that *any* games will work as originally intended. You can't call it backwards compatible if... well, it's not backwards compatible.
I can just see it already. Microsoft will heavily promote the XBox 360 as being "Backwards Compatible**"
** But not really. Actually, only Halo2 is compatible. Everything else is subject to this nice little disclaimer here.
I really do hope some 3rd party comes up with a controller design to facilitate that. Maybe it would open up the doors of the PS3 to me, then.
Also, the XBox 360 controllers reportedly use frequency hopping to minimize interference issues...
As lame as this sounds, this is the single and only reason why I will not be able to own a PS3.
For 3D games, the analog stick NEEDS to be in the primary position on the controller. Still having the D-Pad in the primary position was left behind in every console since the Nintendo 64, yet Sony still refuses to acknowledge this basic premise! Even Microsoft of all companies managed to figure it out!
This is extremely disappointing for me. It's the only reason I don't own a PS2, and it will be the only reason I don't own a PS3. The hardware not only gorgeous, but it's powerful beyond belief as well. Yet, with all the power, I still find that the base controller design limits my ability to play damn near any game released in the last 10 years because of the awkward feeling of trying to use an analog stick that is not in the "natural" position on the controller.
If Sony would change this one basic thing, I would own the PS3 in a heartbeat. Put the analog stick in the primary spot, and give it a little resistance! That's all I ask!!!
I think that Microsoft has an ethical responsibility to provide free AV to its consumers.
First off, a large number of virus' out there are a direct result if the software flaws of the M$ OS. If M$ were to charge for AV, for the conspiracy theorists, it could almost seem that they were intentionally putting out flawed software to drive sales of their AV.
It's been reported that Microsoft was going to sell their AV, but at a price that completely undercuts the likes of Symantec. In other words, Microsoft is trying to bully their way into the market and make sure they get at least "enough" of their share to make it profitable, but while still trying to fend off anti-trust lawsuits.
With all the software that M$ has been putting out lately, including the anti-spyware tool and firewall, this is the LAST thing that Microsoft should be charging for. With such a small market out there actually keeping anti-virus, and up-to-date anti-virus, this has a big potential for Microsoft to really cut down on those rampant virus outbreaks. That alone would boost their image in regards to security with the general public.
As for anti-competitive behavior by offering it for free? Screw it. Anybody who's had to deal with Symantec tech support will be able to sympathize with the rest of those who have had to deal with their lousy support practices. From that perspective, I don't care if Symantec were to go out of business. Innovate or die. The same goes for the others. Come up with something better that people will want to use, or go under. This kind of security too big of a deal to charge people for.
I'm not asking for some completely revolutionary AV software with uber functionality. However, I believe that M$ would be alienating consumers that are going to give them a really funny look when they see that the same company that is a result of the reason they lost all their data last time they had to reformat their HDD is now trying to hustle AV software onto them.
As I said earlier, I think it's both an ethical responsibility for M$ to provide AV software to their consumers at no additional charge, as well as a PR responsibility.
I think that Microsoft has an ethical responsibility to provide free AV to its consumers.
First off, a large number of virus' out there are a direct result if the software flaws of the M$ OS. If M$ were to charge for AV, for the conspiracy theorists, it could almost seem that they were intentionally putting out flawed software to drive sales of their AV.
It's been reported that Microsoft was going to sell their AV, but at a price that completely undercuts the likes of Symantec. In other words, Microsoft is trying to bully their way into the market and make sure they get at least "enough" of their share to make it profitable, but while still trying to fend off anti-trust lawsuits.
With all the software that M$ has been putting out lately, including the anti-spyware tool and firewall, this is the LAST thing that Microsoft should be charging for. With such a small market out there actually keeping anti-virus, and up-to-date anti-virus, this has a big potential for Microsoft to really cut down on those rampant virus outbreaks. That alone would boost their image in regards to security with the general public.
As for anti-competitive behavior by offering it for free? Screw it. Anybody who's had to deal with Symantec tech support will be able to sympathize with the rest of those who have had to deal with their lousy support practices.
I'm not asking for some completely revolutionary AV software with uber functionality. However, I believe that M$ would be alienating consumers that are going to give them a really funny look when they see that the same company that is a result of the reason they lost all their data last time they had to reformat their HDD is now trying to hustle AV software onto them.
As I said earlier, I think it's both an ethical responsibility for M$ to provide AV software to their consumers at no additional charge, as well as a PR responsibility.
For any of you legal buff's out there....
Is there any merit to somebody filing a lawsuit in the RIAA for requiring DRM on music downloads from the premise that they are effectively writing their own copyright laws, and therefore breaking established law?
I agree that it would definitely be nice to be able for, say, paying members to "vote" on news to be submitted, or something of that sort.
In other news, I got my first 5-modded post yesterday!