And make them "normal". Not a car that only seats one and has everyone gawking at your as you drive down the street (and not in a good way like with a Tesla).
So are they going to start paying brits for all the extra food that they need to eat in order to power these things?
No, quite the opposite! It is a shopping center, after all.
Not only will people be providing electricity to help power the area, they'll be forking over more money into the center's restaurants and food stands from working up an appetite.
No, you wouldn't. Because it would be a big waste of storage space to put a DVD's IFO files (which contain MPEG2 video) on your phone when you can encode to a XviD or h264 codec video that gives you as good quality in 1/4 the memory space or less.
A customer is someone who gives you money. Firefox users aren't Firefox customers.
Where do you think the Mozilla Corporation gets its revenues from? They earn it from Google quite a bit on search referrers -- from people using the Google search box on Firefox. Their bottom line depends on people choosing and using their product just like any other business.
When you use open source, you take what the devs give you, and say thank you. You don't like it? Fork the project and make your own, that's how it works.
Because everybody knows how to code./rolleyes
You know what's real hilarious? when the OSS devs themselves trot this line out in response to criticism from users. *cough*pidgin*cough* Then they say one of their goals for the future of their software is to increase their userbase, as though the two situations are not related at all.
Now I have to play the "contest the charge on the credit card game" even though I cancelled on the 9th the charge still showed up on the 11th.
You are aware it can take up to three days for a credit card charge to be finalized and show up on your account, right? I have no explanation as to the first part about them saying you'd have to cancel your account to reverse a charge, but if you saw a charge show up two days after you canceled chances are it had already gone out when you called them.
Saying you're that stupid you didn't recognize a law would be a violation of the Constitution should then be construed as the rep is incompetent for their job -- and should still resign.
Look, this is great and all (at least, I think it is - I've never used Home and have no interest in starting), but I'd much rather Sony focussed on a few other issues around the PS3's online service. Let's try these for starters:
- Making very, very, very sure that they have decent security around any and all personal data they hold.
-
Maybe that's part of the plan!
By converting PlayStation Home into a social networking portal they can claim sharing personal information is a feature./snarky
It must be pretty tough if your teacher is your dad, uncle, or even older sibling.
I'm pretty sure most schools have rules prohibiting students from being taught by their own relatives for most core classes to avoid favortism. When I was in school, kids of teachers were always in someone else's class for the grade their parent taught.
Sure, it's somewhat reasonable to require encryption, but even then the user should not be automatically responsible for the content of the network; they should have the opportunity to find proof that someone else was.
And what then? Whoever it is the person is in a house somewhere around him, he doesn't know where. Or might a wardriver that camps out on his street often and they're miles away. Movies were pirated, child prons were shared, terrorist plots were discussed etc, -- someone has to be held responsible. Which is why he, as the owner of the connection, is.
Without a clause like that in the terms of service you end up with people creating themselves an out.
1) Leave wireless network open. 2) Do what you want. 3) Play dumb and say it must be someone else you didn't authorize. 4) Avoid legal repercussions.
Yes, and it's "reasonable" to assume that child porn on your work PC or drugs in your desk were put there by you. Simply because it's your area at work or your home doesn't entirely eliminate the possibility of frame-up jobs.
A workplace computer/desk is accessible by any number of people besides the employee -- maintenance people, supervisors, other co-workers depending on the location, not to mention the PC is on a company LAN administered by another department that has the power to change or add files on the workstation machine remotely.
The customer's cable modem/DSL router is a device within the user's legal domain. He is the owner and maintainer of the equipment. He alone decides who can plug into it. Physical access is a requirement for tempering outside of the ISPs own staff.
This is a very poor comparison you're choosing.
None of this really matters in the long run, anyway. The customer agreed to be responsible for all activity that occurred on the service, whether by him or otherwise. He was already in violation of the agreement for running an unsecured wireless network. It was his decision to run this network this way. There's a boatful or reason not to do this that have nothing to do with the TOS with his ISP. He could have appealed to a friend/family member for help, or called the vendor tech support he undoubtedly had during the router's warranty period for assistance. There is even another option; Cox offers professional installation of home networking in many areas. You can purchase your router from Cox, have it covered by a one-year warranty through Cox, and for an additional fee have a technician come out and set up the router and your wireless computers, including a secured wireless network.
At what point do we really make people responsible for their own (in)actions?
What constitutes a reasonable level of security? Assuming that the connection from the modem to the ISP is always coming from the customer isn't necessarily a good policy...
Why not? The modem is owned by the customer. As the service is provided by Cox, the only way to access it is to have a physical connection to the Ethernet or USB ports on the modem. If the customer cannot secure the physical device in their own home, I'd say they have bigger problems than someone masquerading as them to their ISP.
If someone is not willing to take the responsibility to learn to administer the wired or wireless network they set up on their side, perhaps this person shouldn't be running one to start with.
After a little looking around for him, I saw someone had been squatting on his connection and then locked it up for him. Despite he explained someone apparently used his network without his permission and broke the law, Cox didn't give a rat's ass about it. It's much easier and cheaper for them to shoot now and ask questions later.
First, from the intro: "Violation of any term of this AUP may result in the immediate suspension or termination of either your access to the Service and/or your Cox account."
See section 6 (Misuse of service), "You may be held responsible for any misuse of the Service that occurs through your account or IP address, even if the misuse was inadvertent. You must therefore take precautions to ensure that others do not gain unauthorized access to the Service or misuse the Service, including conduct in violation of this AUP."
and section 8 (Security) "Any wireless network installed by the customer or a Cox representative that is unsecured or 'open' and connected to the Cox network is prohibited."
Henry Morgan, Harold Stanley, Marcus Goldman, and Samuel Sachs are all dead. They are not the owners anymore. The people running those companies now are just as much using a pseudonym, and the majority owners are institutions like banks and pension funds, not descendants of the founders carrying on the family name.
One simple antidote to this seems to rest in the very old-fashioned idea of standing by your good name. Adopt a pseudonym and you are not putting much of yourself on the line. Put your name to something and your words are freighted with responsibility.
Perhaps this explains why corporations, with their meaningless three letter names, seem to be much more amoral than old-fashion companies that were named after their owners.
This is seriously old news, and it's been done for cheaper.
At my workplace they have stupid human-interest type news blurbs produced by the same company that supplies all the (not)Inpirational-goTeam corporate decor, and one blurb was about a company that did something like this from photos. And they were cheaper, too! Like less than $500 for the initial creation and first figure, and $50 for each additional one. I just can't remember the name of the company or find it easily on Google right now. I first saw that blurb like over a year ago, and it's still hanging in some corner of the building right now.
the company's customers took to blogs and social networks in revolt, making empty threats to cancel their subscriptions.
FTFY.
I love how media consumers like to bitch about every little price increase (not that this is a small increase with NetFlix) and then threaten to leave. Make your idle threats all you want. It's become a case of the Boy Who Cried Wolf to those of us who work in such industries. You have to start actually canceling and citing the price increase as the reason why if you want any of the suits to pay attention. Otherwise, you're just "normal subscriber churn" to them.
Sports games pretty much already do work that way. For the people who play these, paying $30/year for it to play as long as they keep paying is actually a far better deal then buying the new version every year.
Yes, but what's $30/12? $2.50 a month.
Do you really see EA offering their new sports title subscription for $2.50 a month? I don't. In the end, the consumer will probably find themselves paying more per year than they were when they were just buying the titles outright. Plus, they wont be able to resell last year's title since they only paid for a license to play it on lease.
More money and the death of the used games market is (once again) what this is about.
For LESS money? Most people want to work an 8-5/M-F shift, so finding people willing to do nights/weekends is more of a challenge for companies. So often those shifts get a differential, so they're making MORE money than the daywalkers for the same job.
Slashdot Mirror
And make them "normal". Not a car that only seats one and has everyone gawking at your as you drive down the street (and not in a good way like with a Tesla).
So are they going to start paying brits for all the extra food that they need to eat in order to power these things?
No, quite the opposite! It is a shopping center, after all.
Not only will people be providing electricity to help power the area, they'll be forking over more money into the center's restaurants and food stands from working up an appetite.
No, you wouldn't. Because it would be a big waste of storage space to put a DVD's IFO files (which contain MPEG2 video) on your phone when you can encode to a XviD or h264 codec video that gives you as good quality in 1/4 the memory space or less.
A customer is someone who gives you money. Firefox users aren't Firefox customers.
Where do you think the Mozilla Corporation gets its revenues from? They earn it from Google quite a bit on search referrers -- from people using the Google search box on Firefox. Their bottom line depends on people choosing and using their product just like any other business.
When you use open source, you take what the devs give you, and say thank you. You don't like it? Fork the project and make your own, that's how it works.
Because everybody knows how to code. /rolleyes
You know what's real hilarious? when the OSS devs themselves trot this line out in response to criticism from users. *cough*pidgin*cough* Then they say one of their goals for the future of their software is to increase their userbase, as though the two situations are not related at all.
Now I have to play the "contest the charge on the credit card game" even though I cancelled on the 9th the charge still showed up on the 11th.
You are aware it can take up to three days for a credit card charge to be finalized and show up on your account, right? I have no explanation as to the first part about them saying you'd have to cancel your account to reverse a charge, but if you saw a charge show up two days after you canceled chances are it had already gone out when you called them.
I count that as a feature. Let's keep all that crap together in one place so it's easy to avoid.
The idea these scanners may be put to pasture as the invasive, dangerous machines they are is what keeps me hangin' on.
Saying you're that stupid you didn't recognize a law would be a violation of the Constitution should then be construed as the rep is incompetent for their job -- and should still resign.
Look, this is great and all (at least, I think it is - I've never used Home and have no interest in starting), but I'd much rather Sony focussed on a few other issues around the PS3's online service. Let's try these for starters:
- Making very, very, very sure that they have decent security around any and all personal data they hold.
-
Maybe that's part of the plan!
By converting PlayStation Home into a social networking portal they can claim sharing personal information is a feature. /snarky
It must be pretty tough if your teacher is your dad, uncle, or even older sibling.
I'm pretty sure most schools have rules prohibiting students from being taught by their own relatives for most core classes to avoid favortism. When I was in school, kids of teachers were always in someone else's class for the grade their parent taught.
Sure, it's somewhat reasonable to require encryption, but even then the user should not be automatically responsible for the content of the network; they should have the opportunity to find proof that someone else was.
And what then? Whoever it is the person is in a house somewhere around him, he doesn't know where. Or might a wardriver that camps out on his street often and they're miles away. Movies were pirated, child prons were shared, terrorist plots were discussed etc, -- someone has to be held responsible. Which is why he, as the owner of the connection, is.
Without a clause like that in the terms of service you end up with people creating themselves an out.
1) Leave wireless network open.
2) Do what you want.
3) Play dumb and say it must be someone else you didn't authorize.
4) Avoid legal repercussions.
Yes, and it's "reasonable" to assume that child porn on your work PC or drugs in your desk were put there by you. Simply because it's your area at work or your home doesn't entirely eliminate the possibility of frame-up jobs.
A workplace computer/desk is accessible by any number of people besides the employee -- maintenance people, supervisors, other co-workers depending on the location, not to mention the PC is on a company LAN administered by another department that has the power to change or add files on the workstation machine remotely.
The customer's cable modem/DSL router is a device within the user's legal domain. He is the owner and maintainer of the equipment. He alone decides who can plug into it. Physical access is a requirement for tempering outside of the ISPs own staff.
This is a very poor comparison you're choosing.
None of this really matters in the long run, anyway. The customer agreed to be responsible for all activity that occurred on the service, whether by him or otherwise. He was already in violation of the agreement for running an unsecured wireless network. It was his decision to run this network this way. There's a boatful or reason not to do this that have nothing to do with the TOS with his ISP. He could have appealed to a friend/family member for help, or called the vendor tech support he undoubtedly had during the router's warranty period for assistance. There is even another option; Cox offers professional installation of home networking in many areas. You can purchase your router from Cox, have it covered by a one-year warranty through Cox, and for an additional fee have a technician come out and set up the router and your wireless computers, including a secured wireless network.
At what point do we really make people responsible for their own (in)actions?
What constitutes a reasonable level of security? Assuming that the connection from the modem to the ISP is always coming from the customer isn't necessarily a good policy...
Why not? The modem is owned by the customer. As the service is provided by Cox, the only way to access it is to have a physical connection to the Ethernet or USB ports on the modem. If the customer cannot secure the physical device in their own home, I'd say they have bigger problems than someone masquerading as them to their ISP.
If someone is not willing to take the responsibility to learn to administer the wired or wireless network they set up on their side, perhaps this person shouldn't be running one to start with.
After a little looking around for him, I saw someone had been squatting on his connection and then locked it up for him. Despite he explained someone apparently used his network without his permission and broke the law, Cox didn't give a rat's ass about it. It's much easier and cheaper for them to shoot now and ask questions later.
He was in violation of Cox's Acceptable Use Policy:
http://ww2.cox.com/aboutus/lasvegas/policies.cox
(these policies are the same for all Cox service areas generally)
First, from the intro:
"Violation of any term of this AUP may result in the immediate suspension or termination of either your access to the Service and/or your Cox account."
See section 6 (Misuse of service),
"You may be held responsible for any misuse of the Service that occurs through your account or IP address, even if the misuse was inadvertent. You must therefore take precautions to ensure that others do not gain unauthorized access to the Service or misuse the Service, including conduct in violation of this AUP."
and section 8 (Security)
"Any wireless network installed by the customer or a Cox representative that is unsecured or 'open' and connected to the Cox network is prohibited."
Must have been the Ethanol blend of the fuel.
Lose a prototype iPhone?
Men come busting in to search the apartment of the guy who buys it.
Lose a USB drive with 800 banking records?
A stern talking-to, but no fine.
Black polygons are needed to surround all the in-game photons.
Pretty soon they'll want computers in the military ... and we all know how that movie ends.
With World Peace! War ended when all the machines BSOD.
Henry Morgan, Harold Stanley, Marcus Goldman, and Samuel Sachs are all dead. They are not the owners anymore. The people running those companies now are just as much using a pseudonym, and the majority owners are institutions like banks and pension funds, not descendants of the founders carrying on the family name.
Fail rebuttal is fail.
Perhaps this explains why corporations, with their meaningless three letter names, seem to be much more amoral than old-fashion companies that were named after their owners.
This is seriously old news, and it's been done for cheaper.
At my workplace they have stupid human-interest type news blurbs produced by the same company that supplies all the (not)Inpirational-goTeam corporate decor, and one blurb was about a company that did something like this from photos. And they were cheaper, too! Like less than $500 for the initial creation and first figure, and $50 for each additional one. I just can't remember the name of the company or find it easily on Google right now. I first saw that blurb like over a year ago, and it's still hanging in some corner of the building right now.
the company's customers took to blogs and social networks in revolt, making empty threats to cancel their subscriptions.
FTFY.
I love how media consumers like to bitch about every little price increase (not that this is a small increase with NetFlix) and then threaten to leave. Make your idle threats all you want. It's become a case of the Boy Who Cried Wolf to those of us who work in such industries. You have to start actually canceling and citing the price increase as the reason why if you want any of the suits to pay attention. Otherwise, you're just "normal subscriber churn" to them.
Sports games pretty much already do work that way. For the people who play these, paying $30/year for it to play as long as they keep paying is actually a far better deal then buying the new version every year.
Yes, but what's $30/12? $2.50 a month.
Do you really see EA offering their new sports title subscription for $2.50 a month? I don't. In the end, the consumer will probably find themselves paying more per year than they were when they were just buying the titles outright. Plus, they wont be able to resell last year's title since they only paid for a license to play it on lease.
More money and the death of the used games market is (once again) what this is about.
After all, if Google wasn't spying for the NSA, they'd have nothing to hide... :-3
For LESS money? Most people want to work an 8-5/M-F shift, so finding people willing to do nights/weekends is more of a challenge for companies. So often those shifts get a differential, so they're making MORE money than the daywalkers for the same job.