Allstars was a great package. It had the first 3 North American Super Mario titles, Super Mario 2 from Japan, and some versions bundled Super Mario World as well. Plus all the games let you save your progress so that you didn't have to start from the beginning every time you powered on the console. And of course the graphics were astounding!
The fantastic Retronauts podcast talked about this milestone recently. They determined that as ownership of the Wii increases, Virtual Console purchases per person decreases. They surmise that all the hardcore fanboys who rushed out to buy the console bought a disproportionately large number of VC titles. It will be interesting to see the numbers after a year.
But really, does the White House need to send a memo to every household in America stating they must buy one-way mirrors for all their outward facing windows to prevent their home interiors from being published on the web? I really think the government should rule in favour of personal privacy on this matter. Legislation or no, It'd sure be classy of Google to be proactive and simply find a way to blur windows. Their product would be equally useful and people could rest easy.
This is a zero-day issue, you might say. I doubt there is precedent. It's inevitable that someone will sue Google for this. I'll be very interested to see what US law says about this. Google is a company like any other but they're not as stubborn as the RIAA so I doubt they'll proactively petition the government for permission to film inside homes.
I really don't like your answer but I think it's the only one. I do feel that there's a distinction though. Unlike passers-by, Google is publishing and profiting from that picture of your property.
I'm sad to say it, but I think we're not far off from the general populace expecting that they are being photographed 24/7. At that point nobody should really mind anymore. It makes me uneasy though.
The government's intent is for crimefighting, so I'm not thrilled about the guilty-until-proven-innocent connotations. Google's intent is to make their product more useful, which it does extremely well, but nobody needs directions to the coffeemaker in my kitchen.
You are totally correct when you speak of the invisible line to be drawn. There is the real world and there is the internet where the real world is represented by data. The line should stipulate how closely the internet may describe the real world.
Please don't talk to me in plural. I'm one guy and I'm not a king.
I was just making a statement on the parent's specific wording. I'm not saying either government or Google is better than the other. All I know is that both have employed measures to peek into the personal lives of ordinary citizens. The government is secretive and keeps this information to themselves for their internal purposes, and Google exposes their information to the world for all to see. I'm not happy about either prospect. The contents of my property are my business. I'd feel much better about the Google service if they'd find a way to blur windows.
That's almost precisely the same line the Bush administration used to justify residential wiretapping. You're playing with fire there. People should have the right to privacy in their own homes. I say it's okay for Google to photograph a house's exterior, but not the interior.
You can "zoom" in pretty close with Google Street, even if no zoom lens was used while taking the picture. Is zoom really an issue anymore with 20 megapixel cameras?
"Slingbox owners who stream home games while traveling are breaking the law because it allows consumers to circumvent geographical boundaries written in to broadcast deals"
What about unicast deals? MLB doesn't have those? That's the end of that then, I guess.
I love applications featuring multiple ways to execute a command. GUI is a must these days, but I admire software like Gmail and Firefox for featuring vi-style shortcuts that ride silently on the GUI. Geeks can do their jobs that much quicker, but noobs get by just fine with grope and click.
A quarter million bucks is peanuts for this guy. He made his fortune by hijacking people's personal computers and corporate and public email servers. He is responsible for reducing people's trust in computers and telecommunication and is partly responsible for the billions of dollars worth of preventive maintenance and lost productivity in corporations worldwide.
I agree that 65 years would be overkill, but I'm sure this is the maximum penalty. Then again, it's important to make an example of this guy to remove the glamour from the prospect of becoming a new spam king.
In my opinion this guy should lose every penny he made from spam, should go to jail for 10 years, and be banned from using computers for life.
WASTE is a great option for darknets. It not only features traffic encryption, but may optionally generate fake random traffic when no files are being transferred. That's a good way to make Stanford spend their $100 fines.
Thanks for the correction. I remembered both the PDP-1 and PDP-5 being mentioned in the book but couldn't remember which it was. I took a quick gander at Wikipedia which said the PDP-1 only had printed output so I assumed the latter.
I was just about say the same thing. Spacewar was created by students at MIT on a DEC PDP-5 mainframe. They even created a special input device with dials and switches just to control this game. Incidentally, Spacewar was one of my first and favourite games I played on my first computer, the Compaq Deskpro 8086 with 4.33MHz CPU and a 10MB hard drive.
For more information on this and other big innovators at the birth of the computer age I cannot sufficiently recommend the fantastic book "Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution" by Steven Levy.
Your point is perfectly valid, but not in Germany. They've got some of the strictest video game "morality" laws in the world. German iterations of games are well known to feature robots in place of humans, green blood instead of red, and nice words instead of naughty.
What's really interesting is that gaming is such a huge market there that many developers bend over backwards (or is it bending over forwards?) to modify their games exclusively for Germany. This is a huge undertaking as it requires creation of new assets like art and sound, and even redesigning of gameplay mechanics and rewriting of dialogue and objectives.
Japan may "enjoy" a low rate of sex crime convictions, but public gropings are a huge issue there. Commuter trains often have whole cars exclusively for women who wish to be segregated from men while travelling.
It can't be said whether this has any correlation to relief, or lack of, afforded by video games. It may be that grabby types don't play those games, or it may be that it encourages them. Germany, however, has traditionally employed censorship before (if ever) conducting research to substantiate it.
I've noticed a few Starbucks in Toronto charging $8/month for wifi that can be used in any Starbucks restaurant. Wifi is pretty widespread in Toronto so you can usually access Starbucks' neighbour's signal from inside the cafe. $8 is a good fee for municipal wifi, though in Toronto that pretty much sums up the Starbucks penetration.
Thanks. I actually found this information shortly after commenting on/. on Steam's forums, but it was a reply by a regional Steam administrator to a poorly titled post by an ordinary user. Hardly a professional or exhaustive means of easing the minds of over a million subscribers.
That's what public statements are for. Regardless, the least they could have done was reply saying "We are currently investigating and will get back to you."
Slashdot Mirror
Allstars was a great package. It had the first 3 North American Super Mario titles, Super Mario 2 from Japan, and some versions bundled Super Mario World as well. Plus all the games let you save your progress so that you didn't have to start from the beginning every time you powered on the console. And of course the graphics were astounding!
Neo Geo is definitely forthcoming, and there's a very good chance many Commodore 64 titles will be added as well!
The fantastic Retronauts podcast talked about this milestone recently. They determined that as ownership of the Wii increases, Virtual Console purchases per person decreases. They surmise that all the hardcore fanboys who rushed out to buy the console bought a disproportionately large number of VC titles. It will be interesting to see the numbers after a year.
But really, does the White House need to send a memo to every household in America stating they must buy one-way mirrors for all their outward facing windows to prevent their home interiors from being published on the web? I really think the government should rule in favour of personal privacy on this matter. Legislation or no, It'd sure be classy of Google to be proactive and simply find a way to blur windows. Their product would be equally useful and people could rest easy.
This is a zero-day issue, you might say. I doubt there is precedent. It's inevitable that someone will sue Google for this. I'll be very interested to see what US law says about this. Google is a company like any other but they're not as stubborn as the RIAA so I doubt they'll proactively petition the government for permission to film inside homes.
I really don't like your answer but I think it's the only one. I do feel that there's a distinction though. Unlike passers-by, Google is publishing and profiting from that picture of your property.
I'm sad to say it, but I think we're not far off from the general populace expecting that they are being photographed 24/7. At that point nobody should really mind anymore. It makes me uneasy though.
The government's intent is for crimefighting, so I'm not thrilled about the guilty-until-proven-innocent connotations. Google's intent is to make their product more useful, which it does extremely well, but nobody needs directions to the coffeemaker in my kitchen.
You are totally correct when you speak of the invisible line to be drawn. There is the real world and there is the internet where the real world is represented by data. The line should stipulate how closely the internet may describe the real world.
Please don't talk to me in plural. I'm one guy and I'm not a king.
I was just making a statement on the parent's specific wording. I'm not saying either government or Google is better than the other. All I know is that both have employed measures to peek into the personal lives of ordinary citizens. The government is secretive and keeps this information to themselves for their internal purposes, and Google exposes their information to the world for all to see. I'm not happy about either prospect. The contents of my property are my business. I'd feel much better about the Google service if they'd find a way to blur windows.
If you have nothing to hide, who cares?
That's almost precisely the same line the Bush administration used to justify residential wiretapping. You're playing with fire there. People should have the right to privacy in their own homes. I say it's okay for Google to photograph a house's exterior, but not the interior.
You can "zoom" in pretty close with Google Street, even if no zoom lens was used while taking the picture. Is zoom really an issue anymore with 20 megapixel cameras?
"Slingbox owners who stream home games while traveling are breaking the law because it allows consumers to circumvent geographical boundaries written in to broadcast deals"
What about unicast deals? MLB doesn't have those? That's the end of that then, I guess.
I love applications featuring multiple ways to execute a command. GUI is a must these days, but I admire software like Gmail and Firefox for featuring vi-style shortcuts that ride silently on the GUI. Geeks can do their jobs that much quicker, but noobs get by just fine with grope and click.
A quarter million bucks is peanuts for this guy. He made his fortune by hijacking people's personal computers and corporate and public email servers. He is responsible for reducing people's trust in computers and telecommunication and is partly responsible for the billions of dollars worth of preventive maintenance and lost productivity in corporations worldwide.
I agree that 65 years would be overkill, but I'm sure this is the maximum penalty. Then again, it's important to make an example of this guy to remove the glamour from the prospect of becoming a new spam king.
In my opinion this guy should lose every penny he made from spam, should go to jail for 10 years, and be banned from using computers for life.
More like:
Lesson: If you're going to be a nuisance then annoy the proletariat, not millionaires.
If you create throwaway addresses, don't forget to disable any catchall address so you don't get bombarded with 50 addresses worth of spam!
WASTE is a great option for darknets. It not only features traffic encryption, but may optionally generate fake random traffic when no files are being transferred. That's a good way to make Stanford spend their $100 fines.
Thanks for the correction. I remembered both the PDP-1 and PDP-5 being mentioned in the book but couldn't remember which it was. I took a quick gander at Wikipedia which said the PDP-1 only had printed output so I assumed the latter.
I was just about say the same thing. Spacewar was created by students at MIT on a DEC PDP-5 mainframe. They even created a special input device with dials and switches just to control this game. Incidentally, Spacewar was one of my first and favourite games I played on my first computer, the Compaq Deskpro 8086 with 4.33MHz CPU and a 10MB hard drive. For more information on this and other big innovators at the birth of the computer age I cannot sufficiently recommend the fantastic book "Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution" by Steven Levy.
Your point is perfectly valid, but not in Germany. They've got some of the strictest video game "morality" laws in the world. German iterations of games are well known to feature robots in place of humans, green blood instead of red, and nice words instead of naughty.
What's really interesting is that gaming is such a huge market there that many developers bend over backwards (or is it bending over forwards?) to modify their games exclusively for Germany. This is a huge undertaking as it requires creation of new assets like art and sound, and even redesigning of gameplay mechanics and rewriting of dialogue and objectives.
Under-age sex is permitted if you are over-age?
Japan may "enjoy" a low rate of sex crime convictions, but public gropings are a huge issue there. Commuter trains often have whole cars exclusively for women who wish to be segregated from men while travelling.
It can't be said whether this has any correlation to relief, or lack of, afforded by video games. It may be that grabby types don't play those games, or it may be that it encourages them. Germany, however, has traditionally employed censorship before (if ever) conducting research to substantiate it.
I've noticed a few Starbucks in Toronto charging $8/month for wifi that can be used in any Starbucks restaurant. Wifi is pretty widespread in Toronto so you can usually access Starbucks' neighbour's signal from inside the cafe. $8 is a good fee for municipal wifi, though in Toronto that pretty much sums up the Starbucks penetration.
This pretty much nullifies the motivation for stealing and resending the encrypted message.
Indeed, and I think this is a great idea, but it still doesn't nullify the motivation for "proof-of-concept" mischief such as this Steam case.
Thanks for the advice. I'm keeping a close watch on my online invoice but I'll take further action if required.
Thanks. I actually found this information shortly after commenting on /. on Steam's forums, but it was a reply by a regional Steam administrator to a poorly titled post by an ordinary user. Hardly a professional or exhaustive means of easing the minds of over a million subscribers.
That's what public statements are for. Regardless, the least they could have done was reply saying "We are currently investigating and will get back to you."