Because bringing his actions to the forefront is what causes things like Penny Arcade totally humiliating him. Keeping an eye on this guy makes sure he can't get away with these shenanigans over and over without someone calling him on the carpet for it.
This is the same thing as suing Coors or Budwiser for DUI deaths, or liver disease... addiction comes in all sorts of forms. You can't sue the maker of a legitimate product just because the person using said product has an addictive personality.
I know this comment will get me modded bad, but some idiot kid jumping to his death to reenact some scene from WoW or whatever is just a perfect example of what we call "Natural Selection." Survival of the fittest, and if some kid isn't fit enough to know that jumping from on high will kill you dead, well, oh well. The article says nothing of severe depression, or drug abuse - so he just jumped to jump? That sure isn't Blizzard's fault.
Wow. Software has flaw allowing remote hackery. This seems to be pretty typical of just about any piece of software written these days (or any days.)
I guess the question is, do we measure a company and its software by its base security, or by how quickly it responds to a discovered threat? I'm personally inclined to lean towards the second.
People are greedy, they like getting things for free, even if it's crap. They don't realize that watching an ad is paying with your soul. Those people only value money.
I couldn't disagree more. For anything like Windows do you pay - one way or the other. It's an exchange of goods for either an agreed price or a service. Most people pay for Windows via an agreed upon price - whether it's via a box edition or through a system VAR.
However, the exchange of goods for services is hardly new, and for the good (har har, yeah, Windows isn't good etc.) that is Windows, you provide the service that is your watching and/or dealing with ads on your screen.
Granted, this is a revenue stream that has tanked many a "free for ads" company, but how one pays for Windows is up to them. For some, watching ads is mindless and is therefore easier to accept than paying money.
Not sure about the English language, but in my own we have a saying for this: "Do what I say, not what I do"
Yup, that's right. The thing that kills me is that certain members of our government are busy drafting legislation that would make criminal penalties against copyright infringement harsher, including jail time. No doubt Sony is a sponsor of this bill - or at least the RIAA/MPAA, of which Sony is a member. Yet do you think that Sony would ever be concerned about holding themselves to the same standard? Would they, as a sponsor of this proposed legislation, support the CEO, CIO, chief architect, programmer, or otherwise spending some time in jail for an LGPL or GPL copyright violation?
The double standard kills me, and in cases like this where Sony's actions are quite simply audacious, I almost start to feel physical anger. I'm tired of being treated like a criminal, and it's really about time that a company like Sony be held responsible for the huge amount of personal and other violations that they have trampled on with this one single action of releasing this software.
What is with this argument? Exactly why is it bad to focus on greener technology while still providing people with transportation, energy, food, etc? It seems like some economists shun green like it's guarenteed to single handedly collapse the current market, while some environmentalists see the market economy as the single driver of the destruction of the planet.
As is with just about EVERYTHING in life, moderation is always better than extremism. Large companies that drive market forces should still strive to pollute as little as possible, and anyone that things that the world is fine and not in need of a little love from newer technology is crazy. Anyone that thinks we shouldn't strive to develop newer and better technologies that do in turn pollute less is truely delusional.
You know how just about every department store puts a don't-steal-me tag on the clothes that has to be removed before you can wear it? They're treating you like a potential criminal, too. Just something to think about before you boycott an industry that takes irritating measures to keep their stuff from getting stolen.
Yeah, but once I buy the clothes, the tag is taken off, and that article of clothing is mine to do with as I please - including changing it, cutting it up and mixing it with other cut up clothing, or even buying material and duplicating it. Heck, entire clothing industries exist around copying expensive clothing.
So you see, they try to prevent me from stealing it while in the store, but I don't have to agree to some license when I get home to wear the clothing, nor does the clothing give me some virus that makes my whole body itch if I wear the clothing in some fashion that is not approved of by the clothing manufacturer.
Or maybe, it was the man that perpetuated the myth of the protective tin foil hat in the first place!
Re:They needed space to test a vacuum?
on
Space Lichens
·
· Score: 1
panspermia theory, but it also could stand to change our take on the 'qualifications' for a habitable environment completely, raising questions such as, "Could it be possible for more complex organisms to actually thrive in space?"
Thank you! This is the question people seem to be skirting. Life as "we know it" is really just "as we know it." Certain people assume that water is essential for life. That life is carbon based. These are only linchpins of life on EARTH.
So the "panspermia" theory is nice but why doesn't it exist alongside another theory of space as a habitable ecosystem? The audacity to assume that an organism can't survive in any environment is quite base. For years scientists didn't think organisms could survive temperatures outside of the Earth's most common conditions, and then BAM! Life which thrives in thousands of degrees of temperature in those lava/heat funnels on the ocean floor. (Sorry, don't know what they're called.)
Point is, if earth-bound life can survive for ANY time period in space, what's to say that some creature elsewhere hasn't evolved to survive a full lifetime in space? Because there is no water? Please...
Yup - but it's funny, since blogging is much more a mob mentality than forums are. Blogs are quick to pick up a negative opinion and trackback the sh*t out of it, but then as quickly as it hits, it is forgotten. This software will not only have to consider huge swings in chatter about a brand, but huge swings in opinion as well.
Although this raises the question of having to refuel your phone - I much prefer to drop it onto its base station than having to refill my phone's battery like a Zippo lighter. Or am I missing something?
Do your really believe that the answer is to trade stability for convenience? As the parent said, we would be right back to where Windows is. As more and more of these type of issues come up I think the Linux kernel developers need to stand resolutely on their principals and provide a quality product even at the sacrifice of some usability.
Just to play the devil's advocate - yes. That is, if you want the average Joe Blow to start even thinking about Linux instead of Windows.
Windows is ubiquitous. OSX has mind share at least in part because almost every peripheral you purchase and plug in just sorta works. Linux has hundreds of thousands of forum posts dedicated to getting standard pieces of hardware - like mainstream video cards - working in the OS.
So in theory, yeah - I'm for allowing closed source drivers to be developed for linux, because without hardware support, you'll have very little non-tech usership of linux.
It's not that I want to repeat anything, but there are a whole mess of hardware vendors out there that just won't release open source versions of their drivers. Are we so zealous that we want to keep these pieces of hardware from working with Linux?
How exactly does that help the adoptation of Linux on the desktop? Yeah, I can see concerns about stability, but at least there would BE drivers for half the hardware out there. Do you want a drawing tablet manufacturer in the kernel source just to get a tablet to work with Linux?
Having a kernel API for drivers allows developers to stay away from the mainstream kernel. This will enhance the stability of the kernel in general and also allow hardware vendors to support Linux with less effort.
I am not a linux contributor, but I would think you'd kinda want to guard access to the kernel kinda closely. I mean, sure, anyone can fork it or grab a copy to putz around with, but contributing back into the kernel - that's gotta be just about as stable as a piece of code can be.
Despite some loss in efficiency, I've always been an advocate of abstracted access. To many of the pieces of software we write at my job do we add a logical API, so that we don't always have to open the main code branch every time we want to add a feature.
Driver developers hardly equal kernel developers. Keeping the two logically seperated makes sense - not to mention that driver developers are hardly the only ones that would benefit from this API.
While I ponder what you mean by the word, let me interject my views here. Yes, Apple has turned down a path of trying to sell innovation... but only sort of. Apple is more in the buisness of selling "little and cute."
I certainly don't think it's "little and cute" - I think it's more like superior design. Apple plays towards the people that appreciate superior design, in both software and hardware. Near-obsessive, industrial design blankets every one of their hardware products - love 'em or hate 'em.
The thing that Apple has done well is to convince the world that their products are in fact high-end. Cutting costs is not something Storehouse or Design Within Reach does, it's something Walmart and Target do. Apple has positioned itself in the high-end consumer market, and they've reaped the benefits of not having to play the price-slice game Dell battles with constantly.
My biggest concern is pandering to any group - the constitution should not seperate anyone out based on anything. Now granted, one of the replies to my initial post did make exception to those owned by others, but luckily it didn't say anything about a particular race or creed or sexual orientation or sex or religion...
I guess if the ERA must move forward, lets just make it vauge enough to read "no person" - not "women" or "african americans" or "homosexuals" or whatever. Because in 20 years, we'll be divided along yet another barier I'm sure.
Much love to parent and GP for taking the wind out of the sails of this rediculous sumbission. I am so tired of good bills having riders attached that basically ruin what was to be a good law.
I also fail to see why it is that we NEED a law like this. If anyone read the constitution, it's covered there, and that should (read: should) be enough.
It's like the Equal Rights Amendment which I am strongly strongly against. To say that we need an amendment to our constitution which states that all people are equal, is to say that the Consitution doesn't say that very thing to begin with - which I believe it does. Slavery and a lack of rights for women and minorities was against the Consitution.
Free speech should be exactly what the Constitution says it is, and that we need additional regulations to protect it means that the Consitution is being shit on, and that makes me sad.
Slashdot Mirror
Slashdot should go public on this news...
Because bringing his actions to the forefront is what causes things like Penny Arcade totally humiliating him. Keeping an eye on this guy makes sure he can't get away with these shenanigans over and over without someone calling him on the carpet for it.
This is the same thing as suing Coors or Budwiser for DUI deaths, or liver disease... addiction comes in all sorts of forms. You can't sue the maker of a legitimate product just because the person using said product has an addictive personality.
I know this comment will get me modded bad, but some idiot kid jumping to his death to reenact some scene from WoW or whatever is just a perfect example of what we call "Natural Selection." Survival of the fittest, and if some kid isn't fit enough to know that jumping from on high will kill you dead, well, oh well. The article says nothing of severe depression, or drug abuse - so he just jumped to jump? That sure isn't Blizzard's fault.
Wow. Software has flaw allowing remote hackery. This seems to be pretty typical of just about any piece of software written these days (or any days.)
I guess the question is, do we measure a company and its software by its base security, or by how quickly it responds to a discovered threat? I'm personally inclined to lean towards the second.
I couldn't disagree more. For anything like Windows do you pay - one way or the other. It's an exchange of goods for either an agreed price or a service. Most people pay for Windows via an agreed upon price - whether it's via a box edition or through a system VAR.
However, the exchange of goods for services is hardly new, and for the good (har har, yeah, Windows isn't good etc.) that is Windows, you provide the service that is your watching and/or dealing with ads on your screen.
Granted, this is a revenue stream that has tanked many a "free for ads" company, but how one pays for Windows is up to them. For some, watching ads is mindless and is therefore easier to accept than paying money.
Where the hell are people with mod points? Perfect answer to GP's question.
Ok, so I read the review - do I still have to buy the book?
Yup, that's right. The thing that kills me is that certain members of our government are busy drafting legislation that would make criminal penalties against copyright infringement harsher, including jail time. No doubt Sony is a sponsor of this bill - or at least the RIAA/MPAA, of which Sony is a member. Yet do you think that Sony would ever be concerned about holding themselves to the same standard? Would they, as a sponsor of this proposed legislation, support the CEO, CIO, chief architect, programmer, or otherwise spending some time in jail for an LGPL or GPL copyright violation?
The double standard kills me, and in cases like this where Sony's actions are quite simply audacious, I almost start to feel physical anger. I'm tired of being treated like a criminal, and it's really about time that a company like Sony be held responsible for the huge amount of personal and other violations that they have trampled on with this one single action of releasing this software.
What is with this argument? Exactly why is it bad to focus on greener technology while still providing people with transportation, energy, food, etc? It seems like some economists shun green like it's guarenteed to single handedly collapse the current market, while some environmentalists see the market economy as the single driver of the destruction of the planet.
As is with just about EVERYTHING in life, moderation is always better than extremism. Large companies that drive market forces should still strive to pollute as little as possible, and anyone that things that the world is fine and not in need of a little love from newer technology is crazy. Anyone that thinks we shouldn't strive to develop newer and better technologies that do in turn pollute less is truely delusional.
Please excuse the bad spelling in this post.
Yeah, but once I buy the clothes, the tag is taken off, and that article of clothing is mine to do with as I please - including changing it, cutting it up and mixing it with other cut up clothing, or even buying material and duplicating it. Heck, entire clothing industries exist around copying expensive clothing.
So you see, they try to prevent me from stealing it while in the store, but I don't have to agree to some license when I get home to wear the clothing, nor does the clothing give me some virus that makes my whole body itch if I wear the clothing in some fashion that is not approved of by the clothing manufacturer.
So there is a difference there...
Or maybe, it was the man that perpetuated the myth of the protective tin foil hat in the first place!
Thank you! This is the question people seem to be skirting. Life as "we know it" is really just "as we know it." Certain people assume that water is essential for life. That life is carbon based. These are only linchpins of life on EARTH.
So the "panspermia" theory is nice but why doesn't it exist alongside another theory of space as a habitable ecosystem? The audacity to assume that an organism can't survive in any environment is quite base. For years scientists didn't think organisms could survive temperatures outside of the Earth's most common conditions, and then BAM! Life which thrives in thousands of degrees of temperature in those lava/heat funnels on the ocean floor. (Sorry, don't know what they're called.)
Point is, if earth-bound life can survive for ANY time period in space, what's to say that some creature elsewhere hasn't evolved to survive a full lifetime in space? Because there is no water? Please...
touche!
Yup - but it's funny, since blogging is much more a mob mentality than forums are. Blogs are quick to pick up a negative opinion and trackback the sh*t out of it, but then as quickly as it hits, it is forgotten. This software will not only have to consider huge swings in chatter about a brand, but huge swings in opinion as well.
Although this raises the question of having to refuel your phone - I much prefer to drop it onto its base station than having to refill my phone's battery like a Zippo lighter. Or am I missing something?
Just to play the devil's advocate - yes. That is, if you want the average Joe Blow to start even thinking about Linux instead of Windows.
Windows is ubiquitous. OSX has mind share at least in part because almost every peripheral you purchase and plug in just sorta works. Linux has hundreds of thousands of forum posts dedicated to getting standard pieces of hardware - like mainstream video cards - working in the OS.
So in theory, yeah - I'm for allowing closed source drivers to be developed for linux, because without hardware support, you'll have very little non-tech usership of linux.
Just my opinion, of course...
Darl is on the take, right?
It's not that I want to repeat anything, but there are a whole mess of hardware vendors out there that just won't release open source versions of their drivers. Are we so zealous that we want to keep these pieces of hardware from working with Linux?
How exactly does that help the adoptation of Linux on the desktop? Yeah, I can see concerns about stability, but at least there would BE drivers for half the hardware out there. Do you want a drawing tablet manufacturer in the kernel source just to get a tablet to work with Linux?
I am not a linux contributor, but I would think you'd kinda want to guard access to the kernel kinda closely. I mean, sure, anyone can fork it or grab a copy to putz around with, but contributing back into the kernel - that's gotta be just about as stable as a piece of code can be.
Despite some loss in efficiency, I've always been an advocate of abstracted access. To many of the pieces of software we write at my job do we add a logical API, so that we don't always have to open the main code branch every time we want to add a feature.
Driver developers hardly equal kernel developers. Keeping the two logically seperated makes sense - not to mention that driver developers are hardly the only ones that would benefit from this API.
I certainly don't think it's "little and cute" - I think it's more like superior design. Apple plays towards the people that appreciate superior design, in both software and hardware. Near-obsessive, industrial design blankets every one of their hardware products - love 'em or hate 'em.
The thing that Apple has done well is to convince the world that their products are in fact high-end. Cutting costs is not something Storehouse or Design Within Reach does, it's something Walmart and Target do. Apple has positioned itself in the high-end consumer market, and they've reaped the benefits of not having to play the price-slice game Dell battles with constantly.
My biggest concern is pandering to any group - the constitution should not seperate anyone out based on anything. Now granted, one of the replies to my initial post did make exception to those owned by others, but luckily it didn't say anything about a particular race or creed or sexual orientation or sex or religion...
I guess if the ERA must move forward, lets just make it vauge enough to read "no person" - not "women" or "african americans" or "homosexuals" or whatever. Because in 20 years, we'll be divided along yet another barier I'm sure.
It's a posting in a blog, which is a far cry from an "article".
Is there a difference between a blog and legitimate journalism??
BAM!
$sys$ass_banger_asian_big_tits.asf
hmm...
"...and let the animals wipe themselves out?"
"God willing..."
Much love to parent and GP for taking the wind out of the sails of this rediculous sumbission. I am so tired of good bills having riders attached that basically ruin what was to be a good law.
I also fail to see why it is that we NEED a law like this. If anyone read the constitution, it's covered there, and that should (read: should) be enough.
It's like the Equal Rights Amendment which I am strongly strongly against. To say that we need an amendment to our constitution which states that all people are equal, is to say that the Consitution doesn't say that very thing to begin with - which I believe it does. Slavery and a lack of rights for women and minorities was against the Consitution.
Free speech should be exactly what the Constitution says it is, and that we need additional regulations to protect it means that the Consitution is being shit on, and that makes me sad.