1: electricity is not free 2: a battery based car will not last 150 thousand miles on those batteries, absolutely guaranteed. If you're lucky, you might have to replace the entire set of batteries every 25-50k. Hint: the cost for this is probably 10 grand. Why do you have to replace them? Well, if you'd like to be able to go more than 40 miles before the batteries die as they reduce in capacity over time, this will be kinda needed.
So while battery based cars are good for the environment in some senses, don't think it's some magic fucking savings.
They bad ass roadster, but it was also expensive as fuck. Had it been 30 grand, even though that's well above what I'd have wanted to spend on a car, I'd probably have bought 2 by now. 109 grand is kinda ridiculous, even if it might be reasonable as far as cost.
However, the underlying shit behind the internet really has never been designed for anonymity, period. IPv6 isn't about anonymity, and IPv4 simply never really made it easy to identify stuff. Not to say that you're identifying a person - at best, you're identifying a router or a computer.
Google said it best themselves: if you want something private, keep it off the internet. Just like anything else public: if you want it to be private, don't do it in public.
Google had plenty of technology, and has admitted that they only get patents to defend themselves. In fact, it's very telling that MS is flipping out over google's patent acquisition.
The "Grey market" is not grey. it's perfectly legal. The only reason it iexists is because of country code restrictions in the first place. They are quite literally adding value to the product that had artificial scarcity added in the first place.
this is hilariously idiotic, if a file has DRM you won't be able to upload it in the first place - the services will not accept it. Why is this even a question on slashdot?
"Working" and "set up properly" are entirely different.
They aren't breaking into complex shit, they're breaking into the equivalent of the old adage: "leaving the barn door wide open." If you are vulnerable to a SQL injection, whose fault is it that you set up your website that way? You're acting like it was working perfectly fine. It wasn't. It was left with a clearly bad process, almost guaranteed to have been done either a: as a cost cutting measure or b: by incompetent/underqualified people. Et cetera.
They have also very explicitly said whenever they release things that people should be more secure. Clearly you have a reading comprehension issue.
Like the electronic smash and grab at Sony, I think the endgame here is better security at the places we trust with our data. It’s been an education for me, to be sure: custom passwords everywhere, now, 2-step where available, and when I need a new password I let my daughter go fucking crazy nuts on the keyboard. And then I say who’s my little hash function? Who is it? She knows who.
Focusing on harming lulzsec is really ignoring that people are really fucking stupid with passwords. Why is government so pissed off? Because they are the worst offenders outside of specific very technical groups.
Anonymity is alive in certain scenarios. I hope you realize the internet is not designed for anonymity and basically not part of that, right?
It's designed for public sharing. You can secure things, but to think anything is anonymous online is just sheer idiocy. Whether someone cares to look at your stuff, depends on a: if you want them to and b: if it's interesting.
your wiki link confirms the broken windows theory thing is incorrect.
Meanwhile, there's no way to sue anyone for having files in the cloud - they would have to sue apple - you don't contain the file once its in the cloud.
hell yes they gouge. How much is a wired internet connection in comparison? $30-50 a month for 250GB, and we're talking $100/month for 12GB. While it's wireless and requires different (more) equipment, it's not drastically more expensive than cable as far as installations go.
Or have people forgotten the "ATT hasn't spent shit on their infrastructure" of last year?
No, you don't. That is the point. Some drugs fail, but testing has become more efficient and so failures are less likely. So include all the old bullshit claims and you're not any closer to reality than the people who believe it costs billions for medical research.
If it costs billions, it's not being done right. Look at all the health benefits from vegetable based diets and shit which costs nothing to even research vs the millions we spend on diabetes medicine. etc etc.
The only reason drugs are so costly is because of how the FDA is set up. Go to another country where medical tourism is rampant and you see both a: better drugs/medicine/research/healthcare/more qualified doctors and b: substantially lower costs
Just in case you missed it (or simply don't want to spend your time searching for it, there are at least three important takeaways conveyed in the Google brief and related documents:
* Cockburn ignored prior negotiations between Sun and Google in which Google was offered the opportunity to license these and other patents for a fraction of Cockburn's present estimate;
* Cockburn ignored other licensing transactions in which Sun licensed these patents for a fraction of Cockburn's present estimate (and these other licensing transactions will almost certainly become a limiting factor on any royalties Oracle may be awarded); and
* Cockburn bases his estimate on worldwide sales of Android devices and Google revenue, despite the fact that the devices are made and used (and thus the infringement occurs) outside the U.S. and is not subject to a U.S. patent claim.
All of this serves to indicate that the Cockburn report, while sensational, has little or no bearing on a likely outcome of this case
A billion was spent researching a drug 20 years ago. Todays drugs are FAR closer to the 7 million mark.. It's been a rumor for a long time that drug research is amazingly expensive. It isn't.
Why can't oracle pay damages for inflicting itself upon the world?
Meanwhile, they haven't even gotten to the point of reduced claims in court, so this could be cut by 80, 90, 100% by the time the claims reach the court. Hell, this hasn't even gone to trial, and google has signaled clear intentions to defend themselves in this case.
Slashdot Mirror
Not even remotely.
If they were at risk, why would they post on the web and announce they're stopping or how would they even have the chance, for that matter?
That's not all.
http://www.frontmotion.com/FMFirefoxCE/
was found almost immediately. Note: AD friendly.
1: electricity is not free
2: a battery based car will not last 150 thousand miles on those batteries, absolutely guaranteed. If you're lucky, you might have to replace the entire set of batteries every 25-50k. Hint: the cost for this is probably 10 grand. Why do you have to replace them? Well, if you'd like to be able to go more than 40 miles before the batteries die as they reduce in capacity over time, this will be kinda needed.
So while battery based cars are good for the environment in some senses, don't think it's some magic fucking savings.
or accurate.
the issue is not conservative or liberal, it is indeed a concern that this pro-corporate viewpoint has gotten out of hand.
They bad ass roadster, but it was also expensive as fuck. Had it been 30 grand, even though that's well above what I'd have wanted to spend on a car, I'd probably have bought 2 by now. 109 grand is kinda ridiculous, even if it might be reasonable as far as cost.
Well yes, too many eyes is accurate.
However, the underlying shit behind the internet really has never been designed for anonymity, period. IPv6 isn't about anonymity, and IPv4 simply never really made it easy to identify stuff. Not to say that you're identifying a person - at best, you're identifying a router or a computer.
Google said it best themselves: if you want something private, keep it off the internet. Just like anything else public: if you want it to be private, don't do it in public.
Apple whores out your information too. What do you think itunes + cloud + ios is? hahaha. What a joke.
At least google's honest about it, and has a page that they tell you what they are tracking and what you are enabling it via . Think apple would EVER do that? hint: no.
Google had plenty of technology, and has admitted that they only get patents to defend themselves. In fact, it's very telling that MS is flipping out over google's patent acquisition.
Wha?
The "Grey market" is not grey. it's perfectly legal. The only reason it iexists is because of country code restrictions in the first place. They are quite literally adding value to the product that had artificial scarcity added in the first place.
That's not platform defense, it's unethical.
protect themselves? What do you think they are, google?
hint: apple sues over patents, not "defends themselves". There's a big difference there. Not only that jobs and ellison are longtime friends too.
Maybe you missed my inference here. Microsoft, EA, and intel have done the exact same things as sony. They're just not japanese.
this is hilariously idiotic, if a file has DRM you won't be able to upload it in the first place - the services will not accept it. Why is this even a question on slashdot?
"Working" and "set up properly" are entirely different.
They aren't breaking into complex shit, they're breaking into the equivalent of the old adage: "leaving the barn door wide open." If you are vulnerable to a SQL injection, whose fault is it that you set up your website that way? You're acting like it was working perfectly fine. It wasn't. It was left with a clearly bad process, almost guaranteed to have been done either a: as a cost cutting measure or b: by incompetent/underqualified people. Et cetera.
They have also very explicitly said whenever they release things that people should be more secure. Clearly you have a reading comprehension issue.
Absolutely. Even Penny arcade agrees
from the article on PA:
Focusing on harming lulzsec is really ignoring that people are really fucking stupid with passwords. Why is government so pissed off? Because they are the worst offenders outside of specific very technical groups.
sony? Other than the japanese part, don't you mean microsoft/EA/Intel?
this is just another "war on something". They are about as close to lulzsec as imagination is to reality.
the word is theory, so don't be relying on it as fact.
Anonymity is alive in certain scenarios. I hope you realize the internet is not designed for anonymity and basically not part of that, right?
It's designed for public sharing. You can secure things, but to think anything is anonymous online is just sheer idiocy. Whether someone cares to look at your stuff, depends on a: if you want them to and b: if it's interesting.
your wiki link confirms the broken windows theory thing is incorrect.
Meanwhile, there's no way to sue anyone for having files in the cloud - they would have to sue apple - you don't contain the file once its in the cloud.
hell yes they gouge. How much is a wired internet connection in comparison? $30-50 a month for 250GB, and we're talking $100/month for 12GB. While it's wireless and requires different (more) equipment, it's not drastically more expensive than cable as far as installations go.
Or have people forgotten the "ATT hasn't spent shit on their infrastructure" of last year?
Don't forget the best part:
If you under use your plan, it doesn't carry over. Have a 12GB plan, use 3GB one month and 13GB the next? You just paid an extra $10.
No, you don't. That is the point. Some drugs fail, but testing has become more efficient and so failures are less likely. So include all the old bullshit claims and you're not any closer to reality than the people who believe it costs billions for medical research.
If it costs billions, it's not being done right. Look at all the health benefits from vegetable based diets and shit which costs nothing to even research vs the millions we spend on diabetes medicine. etc etc.
The only reason drugs are so costly is because of how the FDA is set up. Go to another country where medical tourism is rampant and you see both a: better drugs/medicine/research/healthcare/more qualified doctors and b: substantially lower costs
What's your point? that's not in the billions like the original comment.
.
It's not to say that it's zero, but that it's a whole lot lower than claimed.
Note the updates from Groklaw. (link to article)
A billion was spent researching a drug 20 years ago. Todays drugs are FAR closer to the 7 million mark.. It's been a rumor for a long time that drug research is amazingly expensive. It isn't.
Why can't oracle pay damages for inflicting itself upon the world?
Meanwhile, they haven't even gotten to the point of reduced claims in court, so this could be cut by 80, 90, 100% by the time the claims reach the court. Hell, this hasn't even gone to trial, and google has signaled clear intentions to defend themselves in this case.