that sounds nice and all, but there are currently very real legal risks involved even if you are a white hat and employed by a company to look for this stuff.
I agree that white hats should do it anyway - one way or the other the legal system will get around to protecting it, probably as whistleblowing/free speech, but in the meantime I think plenty are afraid to be taken to court for disclosing vulnerabilities and/or not being employed for future whitehat jobs.
nope. really, that's all it is. nicotine, fake smoke (For smokers), and that's it. No other millions of chemicals.
The reason this is a big deal is that the rate of permanent cigarette quitters for ecigs is substantially higher than the rate of quitters on patches/etc. It's like 7% on patches versus somewheres in the 50% rate on ecigs.
free game has nothing to do with it. Why do people focus on shit like that? It shows a lack of understanding of what they do.
Even a game which is for free, still has things which can be paid for. Also, all of that requires a userbase and/or customers. Screw those customers, and well, there goes your money too.
it was the content industries of the US that deliberately and forcefully changed the meaning of pirate from "pirate of the high seas" to "software pirate" to "copyright infringement pirate". This was done via putting it in the news constantly. Pirate this, pirate that. So it's very appropriate to have a name that is a direct reminder of what they are up against.
The smart folks understand this has nothing to do with Somalia, although if it does bring attention to that, it would be a good thing. People need to know that other governments are abusing the fact that Somalia doesn't have a gov't right now.
MPEG will not go after google for the VP8 patent. MPEG would have a ton of their own patents turned on them, and google would have the FSF defending them. FSF wins? FSF has a pretty strong track record.
Google isn't taking that big of a chance here. It's clear they understand the value of VP8. This was a very smart move.
so what? They're doing something really good here. Simple as that. That's a whole lot more than we can say for a lot of companies right now. Many don't even care about "doing good". Why argue semantics?
not really. if they open source VP8, it'll be the default for everyone basically. That'd be cross platform, which is important.
There was no way in hell that h264 was ever going to go into firefox. They said flat out it wasn't going to happen. I don't know where you even come up with such an idea?
when things get bad enough, people will take action. in the meantime, it's a slow slow road to fixing corruption here while there's regulatory capture there, etc.
with what magic resources? With what proven damages? Who? It'd be thrown out in court under state secrets or lack of provable damages immediately. Not to mention you'd be a big target of death threats and the likes from ignorant republicans and from proxies to the politicians instantly. Also not everyone can afford to have their entire life scrutinized by the public.
You'd be amazed how fast they will break the law for their own purposes when the politicians are the ones that control them.
okay, what do you think a laptop is? It's portable. So let's look at what happens when you give a kid laptops. a: they will take it with them and get access elsewhere as necessary b: they will get into the "locked" room as necessary. Remember "locked" and "children" are oxymorons. This should be a given.
I'm not saying it has to be a complicated access filter, people have provided good software solutions that do 97% of the work for you. However, the general concept of "I have the computers in a room and you can't get in when I say so" only works until a kid is about 3 years old. These kids are 12-15 years old. A locked room means absolutely nothing.
mono.ch/wall and untangle are absolutely a better solution (and not that complicated) in comparison to what you get with a simple locked room which won't work. Also, openDNS on the router is a significantly more simple and easy to control method. Checkbox for "hours of usage" etc.
To think that trying to keep the physical devices away from kids will *never* work at the age of the poster's kids.
He just said "buy them all some cheap computers and lock them in a room". But there are issues other than that. LOTS of issues that such an idea wont' take care of.
At some level, the guy's going to need to do a bit better than that if he plans to control usage. All locking them in a room encourages is for the kids to find the key to the room. Take it from a devious and enterprising kid who knows what happens when you do a power play on your children: your kids have more power than you by the time you consider such an idea. All it does is fuck up the relationship you have with your kids.
implying that people are modding you down because they disagree is a crock of crap.
Since you can't see what people's logic is for the moderation and only the end result of the requisite reason via the options given in slashdot for moderation,it's a stretch of logic to imply that you know why people moderated something down.
Meanwhile, his post did not answer the OP or the article poster's question. Thus, it was a bad post and asking people not to mod you down for that is like saying "hey, I made a bad post, but don't mod me down because you disagree with it".
Moderation is to moderate, simple.
Also, I agree with twidarkling, which does happen to apply to commodore's post.
Slashdot Mirror
very few. it can be done, but to say it is willpower is a lie to what the withdrawal is.
that sounds nice and all, but there are currently very real legal risks involved even if you are a white hat and employed by a company to look for this stuff.
I agree that white hats should do it anyway - one way or the other the legal system will get around to protecting it, probably as whistleblowing/free speech, but in the meantime I think plenty are afraid to be taken to court for disclosing vulnerabilities and/or not being employed for future whitehat jobs.
I love how he didn't reply to this. Somehow people think this is somehow more "ok" with a free game, even though it's blatantly unethical in any form.
uh, what? he wrote pirate books. what's that got to do with what you blockquoted?
cold turkey doesn't work. do you understand that people get withdrawals?
meanwhile, ecigs work substantially more successfully at helping people quit. the feeding the addiction, is what the patch does.
nope. really, that's all it is. nicotine, fake smoke (For smokers), and that's it. No other millions of chemicals.
The reason this is a big deal is that the rate of permanent cigarette quitters for ecigs is substantially higher than the rate of quitters on patches/etc. It's like 7% on patches versus somewheres in the 50% rate on ecigs.
free game has nothing to do with it. Why do people focus on shit like that? It shows a lack of understanding of what they do.
Even a game which is for free, still has things which can be paid for. Also, all of that requires a userbase and/or customers. Screw those customers, and well, there goes your money too.
it sounds like it's entirely possible that management didnt' think there would be a huge outcry. good to know they've realized otherwise.
it was the content industries of the US that deliberately and forcefully changed the meaning of pirate from "pirate of the high seas" to "software pirate" to "copyright infringement pirate". This was done via putting it in the news constantly. Pirate this, pirate that. So it's very appropriate to have a name that is a direct reminder of what they are up against.
The smart folks understand this has nothing to do with Somalia, although if it does bring attention to that, it would be a good thing. People need to know that other governments are abusing the fact that Somalia doesn't have a gov't right now.
lol what? you';re abused less by apple than MS? this is like telling X person that you like them better than Y person because they're newer.
flavors of the same.
at the moment, the only thing that might not support TRIM is OSX, which I suspect does. Linux and windows do.
MPEG will not go after google for the VP8 patent. MPEG would have a ton of their own patents turned on them, and google would have the FSF defending them. FSF wins? FSF has a pretty strong track record.
Google isn't taking that big of a chance here. It's clear they understand the value of VP8. This was a very smart move.
so what? They're doing something really good here. Simple as that. That's a whole lot more than we can say for a lot of companies right now. Many don't even care about "doing good". Why argue semantics?
not really. if they open source VP8, it'll be the default for everyone basically. That'd be cross platform, which is important.
There was no way in hell that h264 was ever going to go into firefox. They said flat out it wasn't going to happen. I don't know where you even come up with such an idea?
Bingo. 100% dead on.
I humorously wonder if H264 will suddenly announce being 100% royalty free for lifetime now, or will fade into obscurity.
Given that MPEG-LA is involved, I'd bet on the latter.
when things get bad enough, people will take action. in the meantime, it's a slow slow road to fixing corruption here while there's regulatory capture there, etc.
with what magic resources? With what proven damages? Who?
It'd be thrown out in court under state secrets or lack of provable damages immediately. Not to mention you'd be a big target of death threats and the likes from ignorant republicans and from proxies to the politicians instantly. Also not everyone can afford to have their entire life scrutinized by the public.
You'd be amazed how fast they will break the law for their own purposes when the politicians are the ones that control them.
Nah, not really.
it's something used by tons of people, and switching to HTML 5 here is a good deal *and* significant for cross platform use.
no. Us americans would like ACTA to never have existed. However, our politics are so fucked that sadly, ACTA is just one of the million concerns.
Remember, these people are appointed so it's not like we can vote them out or anything.
please no. lotus is bad enough as it is. I'd use thunderbird instantly if our work approved it.
check demonoid if not TPB. Demonoid now lists torrents even if you are not registered.
okay, what do you think a laptop is? It's portable. So let's look at what happens when you give a kid laptops. a: they will take it with them and get access elsewhere as necessary
b: they will get into the "locked" room as necessary. Remember "locked" and "children" are oxymorons. This should be a given.
I'm not saying it has to be a complicated access filter, people have provided good software solutions that do 97% of the work for you. However, the general concept of "I have the computers in a room and you can't get in when I say so" only works until a kid is about 3 years old. These kids are 12-15 years old. A locked room means absolutely nothing.
mono.ch/wall and untangle are absolutely a better solution (and not that complicated) in comparison to what you get with a simple locked room which won't work. Also, openDNS on the router is a significantly more simple and easy to control method. Checkbox for "hours of usage" etc.
To think that trying to keep the physical devices away from kids will *never* work at the age of the poster's kids.
Again, there are other ways to deal with it.
He just said "buy them all some cheap computers and lock them in a room". But there are issues other than that. LOTS of issues that such an idea wont' take care of.
At some level, the guy's going to need to do a bit better than that if he plans to control usage. All locking them in a room encourages is for the kids to find the key to the room. Take it from a devious and enterprising kid who knows what happens when you do a power play on your children: your kids have more power than you by the time you consider such an idea. All it does is fuck up the relationship you have with your kids.
wow, talk about a pot meet kettle of him giving scrutiny to the google apointee.
implying that people are modding you down because they disagree is a crock of crap.
Since you can't see what people's logic is for the moderation and only the end result of the requisite reason via the options given in slashdot for moderation ,it's a stretch of logic to imply that you know why people moderated something down.
Meanwhile, his post did not answer the OP or the article poster's question. Thus, it was a bad post and asking people not to mod you down for that is like saying "hey, I made a bad post, but don't mod me down because you disagree with it".
Moderation is to moderate, simple.
Also, I agree with twidarkling, which does happen to apply to commodore's post.