Do you really buy into the whole "good company/evil company" idea? - or was that just a throw away comment?
Kinda nonsense isn't it?
They've been pulled up more than others for some of the shit they do, but I don't see why that makes them better or worse than any other company, maybe slightly more "cutthroat" than some, but they certainly sponsor their fair share of noble goals, and most of what they are doing wrong are simply bad business decisions - that has nothing to do with being "evil" - just a bit stupid and out of touch.
PS3 was a great product, the Walkman was a great product.
the iPhone - in its day - was a great product.
Even Marconi had their fair share of "great" products back in the day.
If a product line does crap things - that doesn't make the company that made it "evil" - it just means the product is crap.
So to summarize - I don't really believe any of these companies are "evil" (some of the people in them are proper pyschos tho), just some have better staff and decision makers than others.
And that changes with the decision makers.
Why is it important?
I hope Satya Nadella can rescue the electronics and games market, it's in a right state.
I suspect he bought it off the back of the success of the ps3.
I would have had a ps4. but I was lucky enough to be too busy to buy one when they came out. then after reading all the shit about them didn't.
ps3 is still probably the best hardware I've ever bought. only such hardware I've ever bought multiple times. think there's about 5 or 6 of them knocking around now in different rooms and houses.
on ubisoft. aren't they part of the whole Activision / EA games shit brigade? what did you expect? nothing new here.
yeah there was. On depression quest, kontaku wrote:
DEPRESSION QUEST 4/19/13The web has been abuzz about games with a focus on depression this year, Depression Quest in particular catching everyone's eye. But this very small subcategory of free games goes beyond just that title, and we can take in a true variety of experiences when exploring this space.
There was no doxxing, no swatting just the author of a really shit game paying for positive reviews with her body. then game media BANNING people with actual depression who played the game and said it was shit from saying so.
Pretty much agree that making the "best" is not obvious. It's a combination of many factors, and market edges are becoming more and more blurred (is my phone a phone or a workstation?) (buyers of "best in class money is no object" kit don't buy workstations, they buy the servers the workstations connect to).
there's also more than one "best" - by market. Which is why blackberry kept up for so long. they were best for the "best in class money is no object" corporate types.
I'm going to talk a little bit of personal experience and opinion.
What matters in tech is the "ultra high end". That is - what is "simply" the BEST device you can get. Right now it's the Samsung S5 few years before that it was the HTC one few years before that it was the iPhone.
Then there is everybody else who follows. Android was a success because the "best" devices (tablet and phone) ran it. we then set the stage for the rest of the market to follow. Similar story with games consoles and next gen video. PS3 was the best device -> Blueray became the market standard. And openGL vs DirectX
personally, while I see it as there is just "no other choice" than android. I, and the rest of the "best in class screw the price" buyers don't like android enough to choose an android device over a better one that does what I need. Not by a long stretch.
Gives us a simple formular You can't set the market standard using substandard devices.
bring me a 16 core, 4Ghz phone, with a ton of ram and 3 days battery life and whatever OS you put on it will be the new standard. As long as Android is the OS on the leading edge devices it will remain the standard, as soon as it isn't it will loose share fast.
Yeah, tfa says the people investing âUlbricht also have a "wealth of evidence" that Dread Pirate Roberts was Karpeles.
Mix that in with Ulbricht only needing one air tight alibi that he couldn't of done something DPR did (highly likely if multple users shared the DPR account)
sounds like you misunderstand the point. or didn't rtfa. Regulators are breaking the ToCs and having their accounts cancelled. no suing or prosecuting necessary. just a click of the mouse to disable the account which prevents the regulators from using it for entrapment. and adds the phone, credit card, email etc to a blacklist which are not allowed to be used for a new account.
The ToCs matter, because if it wasn't a breach of the ToCs, the regulators would have recourse through the courts to have their accounts reactivated.
Police - maybe. depends on the circumstances they have to give access (court order would be a minimum I'd guess). But since we aren't talking about police I'm not sure why you think that matters Regulators, not a chance. Regulators have no more powers in law than you or I.
->That section doesn't protect you if you're breaking the law in the first place.
what do you mean by protect?
The regulators have no protection from breaching the terms of service by being involved in a breach of the law and having their user accounts revoked.
I don't see how it's any more complicated than that. I don't see any reason regulators should get any special privileges to break the terms of service and then get to keep their accounts.
Or do you want the aus government to force them to change their terms of service so they condone breaking the law?
Here's the relevent term: 36.3 A customer must not use our services, attempt to use a service, or allow a service to be used in any way that: (a) Breach of law: (i)results in the customer or us breaching, or being involved in a breach of law, order, code, instrument or regulation;
So by using the service to enact a breach of the law, they regulator breached the terms of service, which meant they used the service illegally.
This is JUST about WHO can use their network. If you gain unauthorised access to a computer network you are breaking the law If you do not abide by the terms and conditions of accessing a computer network you are breaking the law
WHATEVER those terms and conditions are.
Even if those terms stipulate committing an illegal act to gain authorised access. If you don't abide by the terms - once more for good luck it's unauthorised access Which is illegal.
This is no different than not allowing movie or music streaming for public performance - the terms and conditions prohibit it, and you break the law if you break the terms and conditions.
If your terms and conditions say "such and such a user must not use this computer system" - regardless of who such and such a user is. (and plenty of terms stipulate such groups of users are not allowed entry to their computer systems)
Then if such a user gains entry, they are subject to the same laws which apply to anyone gaining unauthorised access to said computer systems, which, afaik, are pretty much international.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you really buy into the whole "good company/evil company" idea? - or was that just a throw away comment?
Kinda nonsense isn't it?
They've been pulled up more than others for some of the shit they do, but I don't see why that makes them better or worse than any other company, maybe slightly more "cutthroat" than some, but they certainly sponsor their fair share of noble goals, and most of what they are doing wrong are simply bad business decisions - that has nothing to do with being "evil" - just a bit stupid and out of touch.
PS3 was a great product, the Walkman was a great product.
the iPhone - in its day - was a great product.
Even Marconi had their fair share of "great" products back in the day.
If a product line does crap things - that doesn't make the company that made it "evil" - it just means the product is crap.
So to summarize - I don't really believe any of these companies are "evil" (some of the people in them are proper pyschos tho), just some have better staff and decision makers than others.
And that changes with the decision makers.
Why is it important?
I hope Satya Nadella can rescue the electronics and games market, it's in a right state.
I suspect he bought it off the back of the success of the ps3.
I would have had a ps4. but I was lucky enough to be too busy to buy one when they came out. then after reading all the shit about them didn't.
ps3 is still probably the best hardware I've ever bought. only such hardware I've ever bought multiple times. think there's about 5 or 6 of them knocking around now in different rooms and houses.
on ubisoft.
aren't they part of the whole Activision / EA games shit brigade?
what did you expect? nothing new here.
yeah there was.
On depression quest, kontaku wrote:
DEPRESSION QUEST
4/19/13The web has been abuzz about games with a focus on depression this year, Depression Quest in particular catching everyone's eye. But this very small subcategory of free games goes beyond just that title, and we can take in a true variety of experiences when exploring this space.
There was no doxxing, no swatting just the author of a really shit game paying for positive reviews with her body. then game media BANNING people with actual depression who played the game and said it was shit from saying so.
https://encyclopediadramatica....
Pretty much agree that making the "best" is not obvious.
It's a combination of many factors, and market edges are becoming more and more blurred (is my phone a phone or a workstation?) (buyers of "best in class money is no object" kit don't buy workstations, they buy the servers the workstations connect to).
there's also more than one "best" - by market.
Which is why blackberry kept up for so long. they were best for the "best in class money is no object" corporate types.
http://rkukmedia.co.uk/2013/06...
You mean the Nokia 6280?
5 hours talk time, 2.2 inch display and no touch?
Not even the same ballpark.
I'm going to talk a little bit of personal experience and opinion.
What matters in tech is the "ultra high end".
That is - what is "simply" the BEST device you can get.
Right now it's the Samsung S5
few years before that it was the HTC one
few years before that it was the iPhone.
Then there is everybody else who follows.
Android was a success because the "best" devices (tablet and phone) ran it. we then set the stage for the rest of the market to follow.
Similar story with games consoles and next gen video.
PS3 was the best device -> Blueray became the market standard.
And openGL vs DirectX
personally, while I see it as there is just "no other choice" than android. I, and the rest of the "best in class screw the price" buyers don't like android enough to choose an android device over a better one that does what I need. Not by a long stretch.
Gives us a simple formular
You can't set the market standard using substandard devices.
bring me a 16 core, 4Ghz phone, with a ton of ram and 3 days battery life and whatever OS you put on it will be the new standard.
As long as Android is the OS on the leading edge devices it will remain the standard, as soon as it isn't it will loose share fast.
sounds like a great idea.
someone should wrote a book where all the g 20 leaders get assassinated and how much better the world is afterwards.
just make sure the puppet masters are in the room with them.
nothing the us government could say.
very true.
that's what happens when everyone realises you are a compulsive liar.
it's perhaps the key reason governments are being made obsolete. they just don't know the difference between the truth and lies.
Yeah, tfa says the people investing âUlbricht also have a "wealth of evidence" that Dread Pirate Roberts was Karpeles.
Mix that in with Ulbricht only needing one air tight alibi that he couldn't of done something DPR did (highly likely if multple users shared the DPR account)
And he'll be walking out a free man.
sounds like you misunderstand the point. or didn't rtfa.
Regulators are breaking the ToCs and having their accounts cancelled.
no suing or prosecuting necessary.
just a click of the mouse to disable the account which prevents the regulators from using it for entrapment. and adds the phone, credit card, email etc to a blacklist which are not allowed to be used for a new account.
The ToCs matter, because if it wasn't a breach of the ToCs, the regulators would have recourse through the courts to have their accounts reactivated.
Police - maybe. depends on the circumstances they have to give access (court order would be a minimum I'd guess). But since we aren't talking about police I'm not sure why you think that matters
Regulators, not a chance. Regulators have no more powers in law than you or I.
->but the law says that same group of people are allowed access
Nowhere, anywhere, does the law say these regulators must be granted an Uber user account.
->That section doesn't protect you if you're breaking the law in the first place.
what do you mean by protect?
The regulators have no protection from breaching the terms of service by being involved in a breach of the law and having their user accounts revoked.
I don't see how it's any more complicated than that. I don't see any reason regulators should get any special privileges to break the terms of service and then get to keep their accounts.
Or do you want the aus government to force them to change their terms of service so they condone breaking the law?
As for manning vs Swartz.
It was a more general reference to "doing illegal things on computer systems".
and the final punishment.
Personally I don't think the regulators need murdering in custody like they did with Swartz, but then again....
Here's the relevent term:
36.3 A customer must not use our services, attempt to use a service, or allow a service to be used in any way that:
(a) Breach of law:
(i)results in the customer or us breaching, or being involved in a breach of law, order, code, instrument or regulation;
So by using the service to enact a breach of the law, they regulator breached the terms of service, which meant they used the service illegally.
There is nothing illegal about not giving certain users access to a computer system.
There is no law which says you have to provide access.
By default NOONE is allowed access to ANY computer system.
The terms and conditions define WHO is allowed access.
If someone breaks those terms and conditions a company is well within their rights to take steps to ensure their access is revoked.
revoking a user account and preventing the credentials from being used to create a new user account is in no way shape or form an illegal act.
who said anything about the sueing?
This is JUST about WHO can use their network.
If you gain unauthorised access to a computer network you are breaking the law
If you do not abide by the terms and conditions of accessing a computer network you are breaking the law
WHATEVER those terms and conditions are.
Even if those terms stipulate committing an illegal act to gain authorised access.
If you don't abide by the terms - once more for good luck
it's unauthorised access
Which is illegal.
"not allowing regulators in"
is very different to
"not allowing regulators to use the service"
This is no different than not allowing movie or music streaming for public performance - the terms and conditions prohibit it, and you break the law if you break the terms and conditions.
Absolutely you can.
If your terms and conditions say "such and such a user must not use this computer system" - regardless of who such and such a user is. (and plenty of terms stipulate such groups of users are not allowed entry to their computer systems)
Then if such a user gains entry, they are subject to the same laws which apply to anyone gaining unauthorised access to said computer systems, which, afaik, are pretty much international.
depends if using an uber account for government operations is against their terms and conditions.
Cos if it is, the people opening the accounts should face the same sort of jail time as Chelsea Manning et al.
nah. that's what I meant when I said "wouldn't put this app in that category".
that category is for things like showbox.
no. they just explained why they dislike the apple Dev agreement.
something the development agreement would prohibit then from doing if they agrees to it.
personally I find it funny now all the apple users are finding the "coolest" apps aren't available for their device.
although I wouldn't put this eff app in that category.
It seems to all be automated,
I guess the system picks one or two stories from news.ycombinator.com that seem to be trending more than the others.
I agree.
What's with these stupid pirates wanting to pay for stuff anyway. That evil crime must be stopped.