FTA: Those low-tax countries are almost anywhere but the U.S. "When you add in state taxes, the U.S. has the highest tax burden among industrialized countries,"
The author obviously hasn't been to South Australia!
"Let's make it support bold, italic, underline, and execute." One of the above does not fit with the others.
Um... italic. That doesn't fit.
I have to laugh that Adobe touts PDF as a nice document exchange format that will exchange everywhere. I guess it's not too bad. PostScript was good too and there are many other open formats that could have been cross platform if someone had bothered to port the interpreter.
What good is including a "run this external program" in the spec when:
1. The user might not have said external program installed. b. The external program might not run because the pesky user isn't running Windows.
What fucking pisses me off is I do that and yet I have one _ex_ friend who is dumb enough to go posting all over Facebook wherever that stuff comes up with "corrections". Fucking idiot. No matter how often I told her there was a reason I'd put incorrect information in there she kept doing it. Deleted that moron from the friends list and also from the phonebook, and my life.
You may think you're doing a good job of being private, but I bet everybody on here has at least one friend who has loaded up their Google address book with all of the private details you were hoping to keep from Google. It's annoying enough that these people consistently email out with a hundred names and addresses in the To: field, so people who I'd successfully avoided giving my details to suddenly have them.
You can't win. People are dumb fuckers who care only about shiny things and making their own lives "better". Putting everything online with no regard for privacy or security somehow makes their lives "better", particularly if it's a nice shiny website.
No Steve Jobs designed "iHello World", which is actually one byte larger than the standard hello world app, but he's litigating against everyone who creates "Hello World" since 100% of it is quite obviously a subset of "iHello World".
"who would want to go to the trouble of accessing our data? we have nothing sensitive"
Every computer has something sensitive on it or passing through it. The user probably accesses his Internet banking accounts from it, or his webmail. What really pissed me off when trying to convince users to do things more securely was that even after telling them that the bad guy doesn't care who they are because in many cases the bad guy is just a computer program that goes looking for low hanging fruit, they still used that same argument.
There is no helping some people. Security warnings are a pain for these people. They don't even read SSL certificate errors on their banking sites. They just keep clicking let me in let me in and submit their login details.
I've argued until I was blue in the face with people (with a title) more senior than me who simply refused to take 20 minutes per server they deployed to do basic tasks like ensure nothing was exposed to the Internet that didn't need to be and installing basic intrusion detection and having the logs sent to a remote secure log server. These same "senior IT experts" used the same argument as the poor clueless user. I've actually watched one of these 'experts' expose database ports to the greater Internet with no protection and not even change the default admin password that the distro set. Then the moron spends days wondering why his database was constantly being emptied out. When I pointed to the logs which clearly showed all the delete commands coming from an IP address with no place accessing our database he had the gall to tell me I was a liar and that nobody would want to do that to us because we were too small to care about.
If the so-called senior experts are spouting this argument to the users then how will the user ever learn?
The problem in the industry: there's a lot of people with little or no clue who installed Windows once or twice and are now out there providing "IT support and services". It's the blind leading the blind. The user doesn't want to go to the effort of being secure because it takes time and requires thinking. When some dickhead comes in and tells them that they aren't an important target and needn't to worry the user takes the easy path out. User education would work better if the message was clear and consistent.
As you can tell I hate these fly by night morons who think they are experts. I've worked with my fair share in the past and nothing shits me more than having to go in and clean up their mess; because it's usually something that was easily prevented and I shouldn't have to be wasting my time on.
I've also completely ignored the social aspect of the user which is that they assume that most everyone else is good and there are very few people out to get them. That's a hard one to get around, but usually explaining that one bad person with a computer can easily attack hundreds of people soon sorts that out. A bit of good old fashioned paranoia is useful in computer security.
As someone who used to work in a filtering company...
The point of a filter to nanny kids is not to stop kids finding porn. It's to stop them wasting their time in school using sites like Facebook, MySpace, etc. This kind of nannying is also useful for keeping an eye on your employees and making sure they don't spend all day on Facebook. Quotas can be enforced, access patterns allowing certain sites during certain times can be configured.
The filter does a reasonable job of ensuring things like Google's safe search are always forced to on and stopping users accidentally stumbling on things they shouldn't. We had filter categories like 'porn', 'hate speech' and 'terrorism' which could be used to block a fair amount of stuff but that kind of automated decision making is not perfect and stuff slips through - even without a sufficiently determined attacker trying. It's just not possible to automatically block everything bad. The more accurate your automated blocking, the more intensive the CPU and memory requirements.
It is possible, and reasonably cheap to block access to a number of known bad URLs. This is only possible if the blocker also controls the gateway firewall and only allows HTTP traffic to pass through it. If any other traffic is allowed to pass through the gateway we have immediate back doors (SSL, VPNs, SSH tunnels, TOR, etc) available to us.
SSL-based traffic can be snooped with an intermediate key, but you also need to get a wildcard certificate to match. That's been proven fairly easy to do. If you control all machines behind your filter you can also have them trust your dodgy CA and issue your own certificate. What's interesting enough is that most users simply click away at SSL warnings until they get to the site anyway. No matter how annoying the browser is about it users just want their content.
I see the most serious point of contention here is that people's banking and other fairly personal details will be inside the filter/proxy UNENCRYPTED. This means that a 3rd party has access to that and if the system is exploited so does any number of evil parties. I lost interest when I stopped being in the industry to an extent, but Conroy had initially wanted to disect SSL traffic as well. Did he go ahead with that requirement?
Censorship on a whole country level is silly idea; there's too many back doors unless the country wants to restrict information flow to HTTP-only, which would have a devastating effect on the Internet. Even China isn't that strict and there exist dissidents who use technology to get around the Internet filters there.
You'd be surprised. There's a lot of people out there with no knowledge on a particular subject area, but who are quick to come up with a 'theory' and pass it off as fact and themselves as 'experts' in that area. Financial advisers, anyone?
What's wrong with that? It's not like they're getting in, right?
It's not like he'd know if they were getting in - a sufficiently good attacker will cover their tracks pretty well. Not knowing the basics of securing SSH (and being a self-confessed n00b) really makes one a n00b. I'd hazard a guess that a n00b isn't capable of the forensic analysis needed to actually work out if someone did get in.
1. Move the default ssh port to a higher order port (5000+)
This is _not_ a good idea. Aside from the fact that now any n00b client that needs SSH access to the server is going to have to also remember a new port number, a sufficiently determined logged in user can cause the SSH daemon to crash and then replace it with one of their own which can sniff keys and passwords, contains back doors, etc.
You can get around this by changing the privileged port numbers using a sysctl, but that has other drawbacks. You could do a little firewall trickery to redirect a higher order port to the lower one and blocking the low port from external access.
But I reiterate, unless it's just for your own private use changing the SSH port is not a sufficiently good solution.
Tarpitting seems like a really good solution to me. Configuring SSH better is also a good start.
Settings like LoginGraceTime, PermitRootLogin=no and MaxStartups, MaxAuthTries, MaxSessions are all good to reduce the number of failed login attempts. Most scripts (what you are seeing) use a single session and try to stuff as many auth tries down it as possible. The do this to avoid firewall-based IDS systems from rate limiting or blacklisting them. Reducing the grace time to 15 seconds is a good start (if your clients do not have reverse lookup PTRs on their addresses this will be bad). Reducing MaxAuthTries to 2 or 3 will help. MaxSessions can be reduced also. Of course these also have drawbacks. If you're only using shell access to the machine you don't really need many sessions on a single TCP connection.
Thats not a lot to keep that kind of lawn lush green in essentially the desert. I used about 300L/day and my lawn was barely alive. I gave up in the end. You lose so much to evaporation or the lower soil where most grass won't root.
Leaving aside the issue of relying on anonymous anecdotes - what has this got to do with the claim that it makes the violent?
It has nothing to do with. It's a point I'm making. You can prove anything by studying the right subset of people and excluding those who don't conform from your research. My sample set is small because I haven't bothered to investigate. Frankly I don't care enough.
There are enough studies out there on this matter. If anyone actually cares they can go and try to correlate all the biassed results and come up with a reasonable answer. Nobody cares. They'd all rather sit in their corner and 'bash' anyone who disagrees with them.
If you think that anecdotes count as a study at all, you should probably save your money...
Are you really that mind numbingly stupid? I am well aware that my personal experiences do not constitute a study; hence the suggestion that it would be something I could better research, given time, money and sufficient interest. But of course you're just attempting to belittle my comment on the basis that it disagrees with your position somehow. I should have expected that on Trashdot.
I'm worried about the way people are so dismissive about this. They may or may not have an agenda. You don't really know what it is. You can imply from their results that they were sponsored by the anti-gaming league, but that may not be accurate.
I have a personal theory (just from studying friends and family members who play violent games vs those who don't). My sample set is small, but those who I know personally and play violent games have less empathy for others, are more likely to be self-oriented and generally perform worse in academic pursuits. If I could justify the time and the money I'd love to do a much larger study but that's not my field so I won't.
Perhaps, instead of poo-pooing the results of all these studies you should read them all - in detail. The real facts are there to see if you'd only bother to read them instead of dismissing everybody who doesn't agree with you.
Well, I'm never going to DC to see it, and since taking photos of it is a violation of his copyright I suppose I'll never see it. Gaylord (what an unfortunate name, BTW) is an idiot. Now, instead of millions seeing his creation only the handful of people who actually venture to DC then venture to the area where it is will get to see and enjoy it.
If this tool wants to restrict the viewing of his creation then so be it. It's his loss that so many people will miss out on it. Artists just don't seem to have the cognitive capacity to understand that. To be an artist is to desire others to see your work (usually), and in this case since he's put it on public display I'd say he wants that. To prevent people from seeing it one way or another is counter intuitive to that desire. Not only that, but he's moved the protection of intellectual property slightly further in favour of the greedy. This is counter to the very principles of copyright and art in general.
This is one more case of yet another greedy fool deciding that there's a quick buck to be made.
*grumbles* I agree with the sentiment of other posters though; this Gaylord was commissioned by the US to create an art for a US-owned memorial. He expects the US to maintain and display his creation for him. I presume that the government covered the material costs of construction. I'd demand that since it is a memorial to those fallen at wartime, commissioned by the government it should fall squarely into the public domain.
All that said, he didn't get paid (from what I understand) so I'd say it would have been fair for him to ask for a token sum of money from the sale of the stamps. But taking them to court with outrageous demands? That's just going too far.
The only real reason to not have such a feature is because of trail-braking or hell-toe shifting. Both are racing/performance driving techniques you won't be doing in your Camry. Plus, it is a pure software feature in that if it detects you braking, it will cut throttle. So there's no big issue there.
"hell-toe shifting" hey. That may explain the sudden acceleration. That devil toe!
Now, heel-toe shifting was something I'd do quite often in my old car. I have no need to shift gears in the new one because it's auto, but I still use heel-toe to pull off on steeper inclines. The thing with heel-toeing is that people do do it, and they're not racing - they're just driving fairly normally under only moderately exceptional circumstances (ie, down-shifting with a trailer attached on a steep downgrade). Sure, you're not doing that in a Prius, probably, but in a Camry it's conceivable you may be hauling a load. What would work for me is a maximum throttle opening that was above zero when the brake was applied; just enough to give a blip on the juice and downshift or pull away on a hill, but not enough to pull the car up to unsafe speeds.
And what's to say the fix doesn't add new, unexpected bugs. We know about the sudden acceleration problem and we know the answer; shift into neutral and jump on the brake pedal. That'll stop you. Assuming the computer hasn't gone balls up enough to disable the rev limiter you'll thrash the motor for a little while, pull up and turn the car off. If the computer is so balls-up that the rev limiter doesn't work you're fucked anyway so why worry about destroying the motor?
This will just annoy the people who did buy the game. The real issue is that most users aren't technical and will just buy it, put up with the shit and accept that's the state of affairs. One day somebody will offer them a crack and suddenly they'll realise the shafting they got.
What's worse is that I predict that there will be an enormous amount of cracks and hacks for this game. It'll be so bad that all software companies will use it as an example of why we need even more and better DRM and how evil consumers really are.
If you're going to pirate shit knowing full well that it's illegal and not give a damn because "everybody's doing it and *they* don't get arrested
If you're going to rant, learn the facts. Copyright violation ("piracy") is a civil matter. Therefore, downloading or sharing a song is, in fact, not illegal. You cannot be arrested for it. If you are arrested for downloading or sharing a song (or 25,000 songs) you have a very good case for false arrest and imprisonment if you can find a half decent lawyer who gets copyright law.
The only way copyright violation can become a criminal matter involving arrest is by running it as a for-profit enterprise.
Irrespective of the MPAA lies shipped on the front of every DVD and the buying of lawmakers, the fact remains that copyright law has a certain intent. That intent is _not_ to ensure that the copyright holder can get rich. Copyright does not even really require that a copyright holder be compensated for their work. Copyrights allow an author to potentially and exclusively profit from their work for a short period, before the work becomes the property of society. They do not guarantee that the author should profit from their work, and it does not guarantee and form of statutory damages. Those are all things tacked on by greedy RIAA/MPAA assholes to cement their profits in a society where the value, quality and desirability of their "work" is ever decreasing.
I had to laugh at that because I had the same problem.
The real problem was my 'mast' was a broomstick painted silver.
I didn't wind up being reported, but I got a few knocks on the door from neighbours who could see my 'evil antenna' complaining about all those things.
It's really kind of amusing getting them all together and pulling it down and pretty much spitting in their face about their own stupidity. They all learned a lesson and have never complained again (not that they have reason to; I don't cause them any EMI issues).
when i was growing up, no one had this problem, but now it seems that it is almost commonplace. is this a symptom of something we've done lately (to our food source perhaps), or a symptom of me just not getting exposed to news sources as a kid?
It's a symptom of hypochondria which has spiralled out of control. It's also self-perpetuating, because it's been proven that many allergies are caused by over or under exposure to a certain thing during the early years. Peanut allergy particularly is caused by this because parents just don't give the kid nuts just in case they are allergic.
Experience shows that if you trust the manufacturer will release updated drivers when they become needed, you're going to get screwed sooner or later
Or if you want to run on unsupported platforms (like FreeBSD 8.0-AMD64) you're S.O.L. NVidia seem to have zero interest in fixing the deficiency of their closed source driver there, and the FreeBSD people seem to have little interest in implementing a couple of Linux-specific features just so the driver will boot.
A good free version can be ported to wherever it's needed and might mean I can finally use FreeBSD-64 on my desktop like I'd like to.
This should be a civil matter, no one should have to spend any nights in jail for even the worst cases of copyright infringement.
I agree entirely. It seems fair to argue that since they were singing and not set up to record a decent quality copy of the movie there is clearly no intent make an infringing copy of the movie, let-alone make financial gain.
The only place this should see the light of day is the copyright holders litigating. For the 2-3 minutes of the movie recorded, and considering the (assumed) low quality of that recording they'd likely see less in compensation than the cost of 3/90 of a ticket, yet would still have incurred massive costs. This is why these assholes decided to force criminal laws on us for these things; so it doesn't cost them a dollar to enforce.
Slashdot Mirror
FTA: Those low-tax countries are almost anywhere but the U.S. "When you add in state taxes, the U.S. has the highest tax burden among industrialized countries,"
The author obviously hasn't been to South Australia!
IT was slashdotted, but here's a copy of the text:
YOU HAVE NONE!
"Let's make it support bold, italic, underline, and execute."
One of the above does not fit with the others.
Um... italic. That doesn't fit.
I have to laugh that Adobe touts PDF as a nice document exchange format that will exchange everywhere. I guess it's not too bad. PostScript was good too and there are many other open formats that could have been cross platform if someone had bothered to port the interpreter.
What good is including a "run this external program" in the spec when:
1. The user might not have said external program installed.
b. The external program might not run because the pesky user isn't running Windows.
How useful is that!
What fucking pisses me off is I do that and yet I have one _ex_ friend who is dumb enough to go posting all over Facebook wherever that stuff comes up with "corrections". Fucking idiot. No matter how often I told her there was a reason I'd put incorrect information in there she kept doing it. Deleted that moron from the friends list and also from the phonebook, and my life.
You may think you're doing a good job of being private, but I bet everybody on here has at least one friend who has loaded up their Google address book with all of the private details you were hoping to keep from Google. It's annoying enough that these people consistently email out with a hundred names and addresses in the To: field, so people who I'd successfully avoided giving my details to suddenly have them.
You can't win. People are dumb fuckers who care only about shiny things and making their own lives "better". Putting everything online with no regard for privacy or security somehow makes their lives "better", particularly if it's a nice shiny website.
No Steve Jobs designed "iHello World", which is actually one byte larger than the standard hello world app, but he's litigating against everyone who creates "Hello World" since 100% of it is quite obviously a subset of "iHello World".
"who would want to go to the trouble of accessing our data? we have nothing sensitive"
Every computer has something sensitive on it or passing through it. The user probably accesses his Internet banking accounts from it, or his webmail. What really pissed me off when trying to convince users to do things more securely was that even after telling them that the bad guy doesn't care who they are because in many cases the bad guy is just a computer program that goes looking for low hanging fruit, they still used that same argument.
There is no helping some people. Security warnings are a pain for these people. They don't even read SSL certificate errors on their banking sites. They just keep clicking let me in let me in and submit their login details.
I've argued until I was blue in the face with people (with a title) more senior than me who simply refused to take 20 minutes per server they deployed to do basic tasks like ensure nothing was exposed to the Internet that didn't need to be and installing basic intrusion detection and having the logs sent to a remote secure log server. These same "senior IT experts" used the same argument as the poor clueless user. I've actually watched one of these 'experts' expose database ports to the greater Internet with no protection and not even change the default admin password that the distro set. Then the moron spends days wondering why his database was constantly being emptied out. When I pointed to the logs which clearly showed all the delete commands coming from an IP address with no place accessing our database he had the gall to tell me I was a liar and that nobody would want to do that to us because we were too small to care about.
If the so-called senior experts are spouting this argument to the users then how will the user ever learn?
The problem in the industry: there's a lot of people with little or no clue who installed Windows once or twice and are now out there providing "IT support and services". It's the blind leading the blind. The user doesn't want to go to the effort of being secure because it takes time and requires thinking. When some dickhead comes in and tells them that they aren't an important target and needn't to worry the user takes the easy path out. User education would work better if the message was clear and consistent.
As you can tell I hate these fly by night morons who think they are experts. I've worked with my fair share in the past and nothing shits me more than having to go in and clean up their mess; because it's usually something that was easily prevented and I shouldn't have to be wasting my time on.
I've also completely ignored the social aspect of the user which is that they assume that most everyone else is good and there are very few people out to get them. That's a hard one to get around, but usually explaining that one bad person with a computer can easily attack hundreds of people soon sorts that out. A bit of good old fashioned paranoia is useful in computer security.
As someone who used to work in a filtering company...
The point of a filter to nanny kids is not to stop kids finding porn. It's to stop them wasting their time in school using sites like Facebook, MySpace, etc. This kind of nannying is also useful for keeping an eye on your employees and making sure they don't spend all day on Facebook. Quotas can be enforced, access patterns allowing certain sites during certain times can be configured.
The filter does a reasonable job of ensuring things like Google's safe search are always forced to on and stopping users accidentally stumbling on things they shouldn't. We had filter categories like 'porn', 'hate speech' and 'terrorism' which could be used to block a fair amount of stuff but that kind of automated decision making is not perfect and stuff slips through - even without a sufficiently determined attacker trying. It's just not possible to automatically block everything bad. The more accurate your automated blocking, the more intensive the CPU and memory requirements.
It is possible, and reasonably cheap to block access to a number of known bad URLs. This is only possible if the blocker also controls the gateway firewall and only allows HTTP traffic to pass through it. If any other traffic is allowed to pass through the gateway we have immediate back doors (SSL, VPNs, SSH tunnels, TOR, etc) available to us.
SSL-based traffic can be snooped with an intermediate key, but you also need to get a wildcard certificate to match. That's been proven fairly easy to do. If you control all machines behind your filter you can also have them trust your dodgy CA and issue your own certificate. What's interesting enough is that most users simply click away at SSL warnings until they get to the site anyway. No matter how annoying the browser is about it users just want their content.
I see the most serious point of contention here is that people's banking and other fairly personal details will be inside the filter/proxy UNENCRYPTED. This means that a 3rd party has access to that and if the system is exploited so does any number of evil parties. I lost interest when I stopped being in the industry to an extent, but Conroy had initially wanted to disect SSL traffic as well. Did he go ahead with that requirement?
Censorship on a whole country level is silly idea; there's too many back doors unless the country wants to restrict information flow to HTTP-only, which would have a devastating effect on the Internet. Even China isn't that strict and there exist dissidents who use technology to get around the Internet filters there.
You'd be surprised. There's a lot of people out there with no knowledge on a particular subject area, but who are quick to come up with a 'theory' and pass it off as fact and themselves as 'experts' in that area. Financial advisers, anyone?
What's wrong with that? It's not like they're getting in, right?
It's not like he'd know if they were getting in - a sufficiently good attacker will cover their tracks pretty well. Not knowing the basics of securing SSH (and being a self-confessed n00b) really makes one a n00b. I'd hazard a guess that a n00b isn't capable of the forensic analysis needed to actually work out if someone did get in.
1. Move the default ssh port to a higher order port (5000+)
This is _not_ a good idea. Aside from the fact that now any n00b client that needs SSH access to the server is going to have to also remember a new port number, a sufficiently determined logged in user can cause the SSH daemon to crash and then replace it with one of their own which can sniff keys and passwords, contains back doors, etc.
You can get around this by changing the privileged port numbers using a sysctl, but that has other drawbacks. You could do a little firewall trickery to redirect a higher order port to the lower one and blocking the low port from external access.
But I reiterate, unless it's just for your own private use changing the SSH port is not a sufficiently good solution.
Tarpitting seems like a really good solution to me. Configuring SSH better is also a good start.
Settings like LoginGraceTime, PermitRootLogin=no and MaxStartups, MaxAuthTries, MaxSessions are all good to reduce the number of failed login attempts. Most scripts (what you are seeing) use a single session and try to stuff as many auth tries down it as possible. The do this to avoid firewall-based IDS systems from rate limiting or blacklisting them. Reducing the grace time to 15 seconds is a good start (if your clients do not have reverse lookup PTRs on their addresses this will be bad). Reducing MaxAuthTries to 2 or 3 will help. MaxSessions can be reduced also. Of course these also have drawbacks. If you're only using shell access to the machine you don't really need many sessions on a single TCP connection.
Thats not a lot to keep that kind of lawn lush green in essentially the desert. I used about 300L/day and my lawn was barely alive. I gave up in the end. You lose so much to evaporation or the lower soil where most grass won't root.
Leaving aside the issue of relying on anonymous anecdotes - what has this got to do with the claim that it makes the violent?
It has nothing to do with. It's a point I'm making. You can prove anything by studying the right subset of people and excluding those who don't conform from your research. My sample set is small because I haven't bothered to investigate. Frankly I don't care enough.
There are enough studies out there on this matter. If anyone actually cares they can go and try to correlate all the biassed results and come up with a reasonable answer. Nobody cares. They'd all rather sit in their corner and 'bash' anyone who disagrees with them.
If you think that anecdotes count as a study at all, you should probably save your money...
Are you really that mind numbingly stupid? I am well aware that my personal experiences do not constitute a study; hence the suggestion that it would be something I could better research, given time, money and sufficient interest. But of course you're just attempting to belittle my comment on the basis that it disagrees with your position somehow. I should have expected that on Trashdot.
It's just another study by people with an agenda.
I'm worried about the way people are so dismissive about this. They may or may not have an agenda. You don't really know what it is. You can imply from their results that they were sponsored by the anti-gaming league, but that may not be accurate.
I have a personal theory (just from studying friends and family members who play violent games vs those who don't). My sample set is small, but those who I know personally and play violent games have less empathy for others, are more likely to be self-oriented and generally perform worse in academic pursuits. If I could justify the time and the money I'd love to do a much larger study but that's not my field so I won't.
Perhaps, instead of poo-pooing the results of all these studies you should read them all - in detail. The real facts are there to see if you'd only bother to read them instead of dismissing everybody who doesn't agree with you.
The US Govt should decide that he can have it back; and mail it to him.
Reply paid, with postage costing whatever this tool is asking the courts for.
Well, I'm never going to DC to see it, and since taking photos of it is a violation of his copyright I suppose I'll never see it. Gaylord (what an unfortunate name, BTW) is an idiot. Now, instead of millions seeing his creation only the handful of people who actually venture to DC then venture to the area where it is will get to see and enjoy it.
If this tool wants to restrict the viewing of his creation then so be it. It's his loss that so many people will miss out on it. Artists just don't seem to have the cognitive capacity to understand that. To be an artist is to desire others to see your work (usually), and in this case since he's put it on public display I'd say he wants that. To prevent people from seeing it one way or another is counter intuitive to that desire. Not only that, but he's moved the protection of intellectual property slightly further in favour of the greedy. This is counter to the very principles of copyright and art in general.
This is one more case of yet another greedy fool deciding that there's a quick buck to be made.
*grumbles* I agree with the sentiment of other posters though; this Gaylord was commissioned by the US to create an art for a US-owned memorial. He expects the US to maintain and display his creation for him. I presume that the government covered the material costs of construction. I'd demand that since it is a memorial to those fallen at wartime, commissioned by the government it should fall squarely into the public domain.
All that said, he didn't get paid (from what I understand) so I'd say it would have been fair for him to ask for a token sum of money from the sale of the stamps. But taking them to court with outrageous demands? That's just going too far.
The only real reason to not have such a feature is because of trail-braking or hell-toe shifting. Both are racing/performance driving techniques you won't be doing in your Camry. Plus, it is a pure software feature in that if it detects you braking, it will cut throttle. So there's no big issue there.
"hell-toe shifting" hey. That may explain the sudden acceleration. That devil toe!
Now, heel-toe shifting was something I'd do quite often in my old car. I have no need to shift gears in the new one because it's auto, but I still use heel-toe to pull off on steeper inclines. The thing with heel-toeing is that people do do it, and they're not racing - they're just driving fairly normally under only moderately exceptional circumstances (ie, down-shifting with a trailer attached on a steep downgrade). Sure, you're not doing that in a Prius, probably, but in a Camry it's conceivable you may be hauling a load. What would work for me is a maximum throttle opening that was above zero when the brake was applied; just enough to give a blip on the juice and downshift or pull away on a hill, but not enough to pull the car up to unsafe speeds.
And what's to say the fix doesn't add new, unexpected bugs. We know about the sudden acceleration problem and we know the answer; shift into neutral and jump on the brake pedal. That'll stop you. Assuming the computer hasn't gone balls up enough to disable the rev limiter you'll thrash the motor for a little while, pull up and turn the car off. If the computer is so balls-up that the rev limiter doesn't work you're fucked anyway so why worry about destroying the motor?
This will just annoy the people who did buy the game. The real issue is that most users aren't technical and will just buy it, put up with the shit and accept that's the state of affairs. One day somebody will offer them a crack and suddenly they'll realise the shafting they got.
What's worse is that I predict that there will be an enormous amount of cracks and hacks for this game. It'll be so bad that all software companies will use it as an example of why we need even more and better DRM and how evil consumers really are.
Processor: brain
My head doesn't contain a brain! It contains a highly parallel learning neural super computer.
I never implied that it was OK at all. But you can take me out of context. That's OK, really it is.
If you're going to pirate shit knowing full well that it's illegal and not give a damn because "everybody's doing it and *they* don't get arrested
If you're going to rant, learn the facts. Copyright violation ("piracy") is a civil matter. Therefore, downloading or sharing a song is, in fact, not illegal. You cannot be arrested for it. If you are arrested for downloading or sharing a song (or 25,000 songs) you have a very good case for false arrest and imprisonment if you can find a half decent lawyer who gets copyright law.
The only way copyright violation can become a criminal matter involving arrest is by running it as a for-profit enterprise.
Irrespective of the MPAA lies shipped on the front of every DVD and the buying of lawmakers, the fact remains that copyright law has a certain intent. That intent is _not_ to ensure that the copyright holder can get rich. Copyright does not even really require that a copyright holder be compensated for their work. Copyrights allow an author to potentially and exclusively profit from their work for a short period, before the work becomes the property of society. They do not guarantee that the author should profit from their work, and it does not guarantee and form of statutory damages. Those are all things tacked on by greedy RIAA/MPAA assholes to cement their profits in a society where the value, quality and desirability of their "work" is ever decreasing.
I had to laugh at that because I had the same problem.
The real problem was my 'mast' was a broomstick painted silver.
I didn't wind up being reported, but I got a few knocks on the door from neighbours who could see my 'evil antenna' complaining about all those things.
It's really kind of amusing getting them all together and pulling it down and pretty much spitting in their face about their own stupidity. They all learned a lesson and have never complained again (not that they have reason to; I don't cause them any EMI issues).
// This will never happen
if (Zed.killed(this) == true)
{
Universe.instance() / 0;
}
when i was growing up, no one had this problem, but now it seems that it is almost commonplace. is this a symptom of something we've done lately (to our food source perhaps), or a symptom of me just not getting exposed to news sources as a kid?
It's a symptom of hypochondria which has spiralled out of control. It's also self-perpetuating, because it's been proven that many allergies are caused by over or under exposure to a certain thing during the early years. Peanut allergy particularly is caused by this because parents just don't give the kid nuts just in case they are allergic.
Experience shows that if you trust the manufacturer will release updated drivers when they become needed, you're going to get screwed sooner or later
Or if you want to run on unsupported platforms (like FreeBSD 8.0-AMD64) you're S.O.L. NVidia seem to have zero interest in fixing the deficiency of their closed source driver there, and the FreeBSD people seem to have little interest in implementing a couple of Linux-specific features just so the driver will boot.
A good free version can be ported to wherever it's needed and might mean I can finally use FreeBSD-64 on my desktop like I'd like to.
This should be a civil matter, no one should have to spend any nights in jail for even the worst cases of copyright infringement.
I agree entirely. It seems fair to argue that since they were singing and not set up to record a decent quality copy of the movie there is clearly no intent make an infringing copy of the movie, let-alone make financial gain.
The only place this should see the light of day is the copyright holders litigating. For the 2-3 minutes of the movie recorded, and considering the (assumed) low quality of that recording they'd likely see less in compensation than the cost of 3/90 of a ticket, yet would still have incurred massive costs. This is why these assholes decided to force criminal laws on us for these things; so it doesn't cost them a dollar to enforce.