There have been 10 million cards used on PSN. They've continued to claim that this information was not only encrypted, but stored separately from the information that was compromised. They do not believe that even the encrypted data was accessed, but if they are wrong they will cover any costs people incur in correcting the problem.
This is what they said here, not necessarily what is true. Still, it seems to me that this particular story is misrepresenting Sony's claims, at least.
Bad special effects are like bad editing. It's distracting. Think of trying to read while somebody else is trying to talk to you. It prevents you from having a seamless experience, which prevents your imagination from getting very far. Of course, it's worth remembering that the definition of "bad special effects" changes both over time and with the age of the viewer.
I can think of lots of things that I would hate if I first saw them now, but because I liked them when I actually saw them, I'll like them forever.
Maybe I liked them because they were good in the context of the time, like a lot of stuff with special effects, animation, etc. that's bad enough by modern standards to be distracting. Maybe I only liked some things because I saw them as a kid. But as bad or simplistic or whatever these things might be by todays standards, and my own current standards, these things get an exception because I liked them once
I'm not saying classic Doctor Who necessarily fits into this kind of category for everybody, I'm just throwing it out there.
You're wrong. I know you're wrong because a nice and balanced person would not do what he does on his show, whether he's a character or not. Actually, if the show was all genuine, it would be better -- then he's just crazy. Crazy is forgivable. On the other hand, if it's an act, then he is willfully inciting hatred and paranoia. That's not so forgivable.
You might as well tell me that a serial killer is a nice and balanced person -- you just have to look past the whole "killing people" thing.
Money redistribution won't help a problem that we've shown that you can solve with money. You had it right at the beginning when you pointed out that our cultural priorities are wrong. Kids aren't interested in sports because that's where the money is, it's the other way around.
I think the reason we're falling behind is because parents in other countries and cultures still pay attention to their kids' education. Somewhere along the line, that stopped being important in the United States. It might be that they don't care, or it might be that their other obligations consume much more of their time than it used to, I don't really know, but I do know that it isn't a problem that can be solved with changes to education policy.
Nobody's claiming Bing is copying Google directly. The problem is that, generally, any form of copying is considered unethical, regardless of the mechanism.
Achievements are important to a lot of people. I don't know if it's so much about impressing people as much as it's about another layer of competition. In essence, it's not too much different from game-specific online leaderboards, or even speed records in running events.
Of course, if people could just claim they completed the 100-meter dash in whatever time they like, the records would become meaningless. If Microsoft failed to police the achievement system, the achievement points would become meaningless.
You could argue that the whole idea is stupid, meaningless and arbitrary, yes, but so are nearly all of the events in the Olympics. The point is the competition, which requires that everybody plays by the same rules.
I'm not saying everybody sees their Gamerscore that way (I don't, for example) but it's definitely a perspective that I can understand.
Trying to play this kind of game with a touchpad would be incredibly frustrating for me. Not simply because it's difficult, but because I would be so keenly aware that the touchpad would actually be the perfect input mechanism if only the software didn't convert the input data into mouse movement rather than providing the absolute finger positions.
Sometimes. If a chiropractor tells you they are going to cure your indigestion and improve your vision and align your chakras, then yeah. That person is either crazy or lying. If a chiropractor tells you that they might be able to relieve some spinal issues, that's a different story.
Everything you said is true (except for the last part about a simple in-game picture being a potential source of education and meaningful exposure--I don't learn all about the history of Christianity by seeing an image of a cross)
None of it changes the fact that the people in question are probably unaware of these facts, and almost certainly using the symbol in a hateful way.
It's not the only place, but it's almost certainly the best place. A completely stand-alone version of the game with no external software or DRM, exclusive pre-order bonuses, and the pre-order is really just a declaration of your intent to possibly purchase the game when it comes out and involves no commitment and no payment until the game is actually available.
Your claim is that any system built on artificial scarcity is inherently broken (although this only because you are following your own moral code, which nobody else seems to agree with).
There IS no alternative, logically, unless you consider something along the lines of selling merchandise. Your argument considers any system that sells an unlimited-supply item to be broken, all data is unlimited, so any system that sells data is broken. This includes video games, all written language, music, movies, and to an extent all visual art.
So, even though there is no alternative possible, you somehow cling to a sense of moral superiority while you claim, in essence, that a creator is not entitled to be rewarded for their work if it has no physical form. Certainly, you don't use those words, but that is the logical conclusion to your reasoning.
Does this mean that you would be okay with somebody spreading lies about you that prevent you from ever getting hired again? After all, they would only be depriving you of "potential profit," which, according to your argument, does not hurt you.
The myth is not just about setting wood on fire with the sun. As you say, nobody would consider that to be a potential myth. It's about setting a boat on fire while it's floating in the water, at long range, using technology equivalent to what could be found in ancient Greece. I would love to see you try to ignite damp wood at 50 yards with a hand-shaped 10-centimeter polished bronze reflector.
Of course, you might not be ABLE to switch carriers. If Time Warner were to put me behind NAT, I'd be pretty much screwed. I might be able to switch to some form of wireless connection, but that might not even be any better.
In a lot of cases, carriers can do whatever they feel like.
I had never thought about it that way. I think you're absolutely right, but that's incredibly depressing. The fact that we've lost that which made the moon landings possible should serve as motivation to get it back, not as motivation for people to stick their fingers in their ears.
Slashdot Mirror
If you actually look at what was ACTUALLY said:
There have been 10 million cards used on PSN. They've continued to claim that this information was not only encrypted, but stored separately from the information that was compromised. They do not believe that even the encrypted data was accessed, but if they are wrong they will cover any costs people incur in correcting the problem.
This is what they said here, not necessarily what is true. Still, it seems to me that this particular story is misrepresenting Sony's claims, at least.
Bad special effects are like bad editing. It's distracting. Think of trying to read while somebody else is trying to talk to you. It prevents you from having a seamless experience, which prevents your imagination from getting very far. Of course, it's worth remembering that the definition of "bad special effects" changes both over time and with the age of the viewer.
I can think of lots of things that I would hate if I first saw them now, but because I liked them when I actually saw them, I'll like them forever.
Maybe I liked them because they were good in the context of the time, like a lot of stuff with special effects, animation, etc. that's bad enough by modern standards to be distracting. Maybe I only liked some things because I saw them as a kid. But as bad or simplistic or whatever these things might be by todays standards, and my own current standards, these things get an exception because I liked them once
I'm not saying classic Doctor Who necessarily fits into this kind of category for everybody, I'm just throwing it out there.
You're wrong. I know you're wrong because a nice and balanced person would not do what he does on his show, whether he's a character or not. Actually, if the show was all genuine, it would be better -- then he's just crazy. Crazy is forgivable. On the other hand, if it's an act, then he is willfully inciting hatred and paranoia. That's not so forgivable.
You might as well tell me that a serial killer is a nice and balanced person -- you just have to look past the whole "killing people" thing.
I'm pretty sure that's why the above poster specifically said "windows computers."
Money redistribution won't help a problem that we've shown that you can solve with money. You had it right at the beginning when you pointed out that our cultural priorities are wrong. Kids aren't interested in sports because that's where the money is, it's the other way around.
I think the reason we're falling behind is because parents in other countries and cultures still pay attention to their kids' education. Somewhere along the line, that stopped being important in the United States. It might be that they don't care, or it might be that their other obligations consume much more of their time than it used to, I don't really know, but I do know that it isn't a problem that can be solved with changes to education policy.
You're right that it won't affect pirates, but that's actually because (so far) PSN games aren't being pirated.
For a PSN game? No, I don't think so. These games aren't being pirated even without this additional DRM.
Nobody's claiming Bing is copying Google directly. The problem is that, generally, any form of copying is considered unethical, regardless of the mechanism.
Achievements are important to a lot of people. I don't know if it's so much about impressing people as much as it's about another layer of competition. In essence, it's not too much different from game-specific online leaderboards, or even speed records in running events.
Of course, if people could just claim they completed the 100-meter dash in whatever time they like, the records would become meaningless. If Microsoft failed to police the achievement system, the achievement points would become meaningless.
You could argue that the whole idea is stupid, meaningless and arbitrary, yes, but so are nearly all of the events in the Olympics. The point is the competition, which requires that everybody plays by the same rules.
I'm not saying everybody sees their Gamerscore that way (I don't, for example) but it's definitely a perspective that I can understand.
Yeah, the PR department would totally prefer to put out a press release detailing the nefarious activities of an autistic 11-year-old.
Trying to play this kind of game with a touchpad would be incredibly frustrating for me. Not simply because it's difficult, but because I would be so keenly aware that the touchpad would actually be the perfect input mechanism if only the software didn't convert the input data into mouse movement rather than providing the absolute finger positions.
They didn't port Arx to any of those platforms. It was a Windows-only game, and DirectX is the best option for a Windows-only game.
Now they can just say, "Ohhh, THAT'S why we've always been wrong."
Sometimes. If a chiropractor tells you they are going to cure your indigestion and improve your vision and align your chakras, then yeah. That person is either crazy or lying. If a chiropractor tells you that they might be able to relieve some spinal issues, that's a different story.
Well, if you're not in EST, the timing isn't even right, so I would imagine that it would have to be more than a little region-specific.
Still, I can't bring myself to care. It's nice to be at a party with people who do care, though, because it really boosts the energy level.
This isn't about the Wii. This is about the upcoming 3DS, which gets its name from its (fairly unique) stereoscopic abilities.
Having deaths, events, emotions and other things attributed to them is actually exactly what symbols are for. It's kind of the definition.
Everything you said is true (except for the last part about a simple in-game picture being a potential source of education and meaningful exposure--I don't learn all about the history of Christianity by seeing an image of a cross)
None of it changes the fact that the people in question are probably unaware of these facts, and almost certainly using the symbol in a hateful way.
It's not the only place, but it's almost certainly the best place. A completely stand-alone version of the game with no external software or DRM, exclusive pre-order bonuses, and the pre-order is really just a declaration of your intent to possibly purchase the game when it comes out and involves no commitment and no payment until the game is actually available.
Your claim is that any system built on artificial scarcity is inherently broken (although this only because you are following your own moral code, which nobody else seems to agree with).
There IS no alternative, logically, unless you consider something along the lines of selling merchandise. Your argument considers any system that sells an unlimited-supply item to be broken, all data is unlimited, so any system that sells data is broken. This includes video games, all written language, music, movies, and to an extent all visual art.
So, even though there is no alternative possible, you somehow cling to a sense of moral superiority while you claim, in essence, that a creator is not entitled to be rewarded for their work if it has no physical form. Certainly, you don't use those words, but that is the logical conclusion to your reasoning.
Does this mean that you would be okay with somebody spreading lies about you that prevent you from ever getting hired again? After all, they would only be depriving you of "potential profit," which, according to your argument, does not hurt you.
The myth is not just about setting wood on fire with the sun. As you say, nobody would consider that to be a potential myth. It's about setting a boat on fire while it's floating in the water, at long range, using technology equivalent to what could be found in ancient Greece. I would love to see you try to ignite damp wood at 50 yards with a hand-shaped 10-centimeter polished bronze reflector.
Of course, you might not be ABLE to switch carriers. If Time Warner were to put me behind NAT, I'd be pretty much screwed. I might be able to switch to some form of wireless connection, but that might not even be any better.
In a lot of cases, carriers can do whatever they feel like.
I had never thought about it that way. I think you're absolutely right, but that's incredibly depressing. The fact that we've lost that which made the moon landings possible should serve as motivation to get it back, not as motivation for people to stick their fingers in their ears.