"Kickstarter itself cannot reasonably be used as source for projects to be funded."
except it has been, continually, and successfully. We're talking multi-million dollar projects now.
So in short, you are wrong - but the entire discussion isn't even factual or relevant. the question of "has kickstarter peaked" is an asinine question in the first place.
everything should be opt-in as far as your data is concerned. The big question is: why isn't it?
forget MS, google. Forget every analytics company. This should be across the board, and they should not be able to refuse you access if you don't opt in.
the reason is the same as it's always been. Video Games are basically an innocent cause here but now that the NRA has thrown them under a bus to attempt to save their own skin, politicians are just following along. It's just politics at the expense of everything else everywhere. It's intellectually dishonest and lazy, but that's exactly why they do it.
what do I personally have to do with the situation? What type of strawman comment is that? Last I checked, I have zero association. It's not my issue, but I also don't write the laws or enforce them.
FOIA's have no teeth or enforcement to ensure gov't complies. There are more outs from having to release information than there are requirements to provide it.
google has certainly started to slip, but they were one of the few companies that at least at first, did do things to benefit the users and not to benefit themselves. It was mutual. I don't think that's about some kind of capitalist nature/failing as a business. Those are not alternatives for any company, nor are they automatically how things occur.
what you're saying has no basis whatsoever. He is not obligated to accept a threat from the prosecution, especially in light of the Aaron Swartz situation and prosecutorial misconduct. What you're describing is explicitly incorrect.
don't add a 3 when it doesn't exist. The only number to exist at the moment is zero. Wait until this gets to court and we see actual evidence before you start believing even a shred of anything being claimed, in about 3 years.
Do you even know about the networking terms you throw out there? Not all networks even have mDNS and NMB. All of this can be captured mostly by accident (as it was indicated), by merely capturing OPEN TRAFFIC ON AN UNSECURED NETWORK for seconds. MAC addresses are not significant. You can get any router's mac address without any form of spoofing. Oh no! a mac address! what shall we do! People do this shit all the time. Please show proof of something substantial being gained, because all of that is no more significant than having a house address, or wardriving. oh evil, evil wardriving, right? *facepalm*. It doesn't even remotely match the equivalent of access to any devices on the network, which was left open by the individual.
Again, where's your link of this supposed deadly information they dared to get? Or of them somehow getting more than 5 seconds of traffic as the thing captured data on an open wifi point? Please, go ahead and link it. You are full of shit man, 100% here. What google did was accidental and they turned it off, and the fact that they acknowledged it and weren't even given a slap on the wristis why this is a much, much smaller deal than you or mcgrew make it out to be.
actually, no. This is the definition of capitalism failing. Not due to capitalism or overregulation or underregulation, but a lack of clear regulation.
actually the power cost is a savings, but you are correct that physical space is also it's own cost. They showed (in contrast to the trollmitter) that the servers were relatively close in performance in real world scenarios, but there are absolutely things that are more built for x86 at the moment.
helps to read carefully. wikileaks isn't media friendly, they *ARE* the real journalists/media. NYT has failed to act as actual journalists/media/press. Back during the Pentagon papers? sure, they did.
Today's society? Not a fucking chance. I'm as much a legitimate journalist/media source as the NYT is, and I'm fairly sure I'm not one.
I'd settle for that. sites like techreport that will ban people for daring to mention adblock need to go fuck themselves. They say they can't live without ads. That's how lazy they are. Are they unique? No, escapist did the same thing.
Even if it's been debunked before, people still trot out the "how do we live without ads"? phrase as if it's a question.
exactly. This would never see the light of day with the NY times, because the NY times is not a press/journalism organization. It's a media-spin government friendly organization which refuses to cover actual issues.
meanwhile the line of unedited cables line is full of shit. minstrelmike is clearly trolling. Whereas NYT can't even get basic information right, wikileaks actually edited the information before releasing it.
hate to say it, but true. This isn't an answer to anyone's questions in the slashdot format.
If you ask commenters to stick generally to the slashdot interview format, why not at least ask the person being interviewed to kinda stick to the response format?
Slashdot Mirror
"Kickstarter itself cannot reasonably be used as source for projects to be funded."
except it has been, continually, and successfully. We're talking multi-million dollar projects now.
So in short, you are wrong - but the entire discussion isn't even factual or relevant. the question of "has kickstarter peaked" is an asinine question in the first place.
everything should be opt-in as far as your data is concerned.
The big question is: why isn't it?
forget MS, google. Forget every analytics company. This should be across the board, and they should not be able to refuse you access if you don't opt in.
the reason is the same as it's always been. Video Games are basically an innocent cause here but now that the NRA has thrown them under a bus to attempt to save their own skin, politicians are just following along. It's just politics at the expense of everything else everywhere. It's intellectually dishonest and lazy, but that's exactly why they do it.
Actually the self contrived problem exists solely between the politician and the mouth.
what do I personally have to do with the situation? What type of strawman comment is that? Last I checked, I have zero association. It's not my issue, but I also don't write the laws or enforce them.
which sounds nice until you realize that US laws expressly prohibit it, whether it's the way things work over there or not.
FOIA's have no teeth or enforcement to ensure gov't complies. There are more outs from having to release information than there are requirements to provide it.
google has certainly started to slip, but they were one of the few companies that at least at first, did do things to benefit the users and not to benefit themselves. It was mutual. I don't think that's about some kind of capitalist nature/failing as a business. Those are not alternatives for any company, nor are they automatically how things occur.
paid service shutdown?
how about picasa.
google is not trying to hook people, but I still fail to understand why they shut down reader. It added a lot of value.
what you're saying has no basis whatsoever. He is not obligated to accept a threat from the prosecution, especially in light of the Aaron Swartz situation and prosecutorial misconduct. What you're describing is explicitly incorrect.
don't add a 3 when it doesn't exist. The only number to exist at the moment is zero. Wait until this gets to court and we see actual evidence before you start believing even a shred of anything being claimed, in about 3 years.
Right now, this amounts to nothing whatsoever.
the articles were from different dates, and it's not always the easiest to search the site if you don't remember the article title.
Do you even know about the networking terms you throw out there? Not all networks even have mDNS and NMB. All of this can be captured mostly by accident (as it was indicated), by merely capturing OPEN TRAFFIC ON AN UNSECURED NETWORK for seconds. MAC addresses are not significant. You can get any router's mac address without any form of spoofing. Oh no! a mac address! what shall we do! People do this shit all the time. Please show proof of something substantial being gained, because all of that is no more significant than having a house address, or wardriving. oh evil, evil wardriving, right? *facepalm*. It doesn't even remotely match the equivalent of access to any devices on the network, which was left open by the individual.
And guess what? that individual with the unsecured network? they should be absolutely free to continue to put their network out without encryption, because open networks are a gigantic benefit to society, and the ones people put out tend to be better than starbucks or any other crappy cafe's wifi puts out.
Again, where's your link of this supposed deadly information they dared to get? Or of them somehow getting more than 5 seconds of traffic as the thing captured data on an open wifi point? Please, go ahead and link it. You are full of shit man, 100% here. What google did was accidental and they turned it off, and the fact that they acknowledged it and weren't even given a slap on the wristis why this is a much, much smaller deal than you or mcgrew make it out to be.
What? when was there password cracking? Link please?
all they did was made a database of open SSIDs, basically. When does that ever turn into password cracking?
guess which one of those guesses of yours matters? The answer is the same as it always has been, by the way.
actually, no. This is the definition of capitalism failing. Not due to capitalism or overregulation or underregulation, but a lack of clear regulation.
actually the power cost is a savings, but you are correct that physical space is also it's own cost. They showed (in contrast to the trollmitter) that the servers were relatively close in performance in real world scenarios, but there are absolutely things that are more built for x86 at the moment.
NYT has changed. They are basically working for the gov't/at their behest against Manning. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130312/17262822304/nyt-former-exec-editor-misrepresents-bradley-manning.shtml
you are wrong and/or the opposite of correct. Techdirt has proved they don't need advertisers, and it's not part of their business model. Just because you claim it absolutely does not make it true.l That's why they created their own techdirt shop, to test if they could make money without relying on ads. It's also worked.
It also helps to read that I said techreport being the worse problem, not techdirt.
helps to read carefully. wikileaks isn't media friendly, they *ARE* the real journalists/media. NYT has failed to act as actual journalists/media/press. Back during the Pentagon papers? sure, they did.
Today's society? Not a fucking chance. I'm as much a legitimate journalist/media source as the NYT is, and I'm fairly sure I'm not one.
he has no evidence. so everything he proposes is explicitly and entirely speculative. he does not deserve any credit for anything as a result of that.
how about non-shitty websites?
I'd settle for that. sites like techreport that will ban people for daring to mention adblock need to go fuck themselves. They say they can't live without ads. That's how lazy they are. Are they unique? No, escapist did the same thing.
Even if it's been debunked before, people still trot out the "how do we live without ads"? phrase as if it's a question.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100306/1649198451.shtml = answer.
he is no more likely to be right than he ever was before. Which, without evidence, the chance remains at a firm 0%.
exactly. This would never see the light of day with the NY times, because the NY times is not a press/journalism organization. It's a media-spin government friendly organization which refuses to cover actual issues.
Where was the NYT with the revolutions in the middle east? Not covering them, that's where. NYT is instead always too busy not fact checking anything .
meanwhile the line of unedited cables line is full of shit. minstrelmike is clearly trolling. Whereas NYT can't even get basic information right, wikileaks actually edited the information before releasing it.
hate to say it, but true. This isn't an answer to anyone's questions in the slashdot format.
If you ask commenters to stick generally to the slashdot interview format, why not at least ask the person being interviewed to kinda stick to the response format?