I would be beyond fucking annoyed -- I would call it what it fucking is: tresspassing. In U.S. Law - if someone ships you an item, on purpose or by accident, they can't demand it back (only unless a contract was signed beforehand hand and purchase doesnt fulfill it). It could be a thousand dollar ring, shipped to you by accident, doesn't matter. It's yours.
Coincidentally, Amazon has tried similar shenanigans in the past. A minor error on their website turned a DVD promotion of buy 1, get the next one 50% off to buy 1, get the next one free. They corrected the error on their website but still shipped orders up to three days later.
A month or so goes by and they threatened everyone that received shipment with an ultimatum - return it or pay what amazon thinks you should have paid. They even went so far as to actually charge some people's credit cards for the extra fee and people had to dispute the charge - a big hassle for a handful of people who had banks that were not willing to back them up in the dispute. Anyone who had paid for their year-long express shipping service "amazon prime" essentially had that service held hostage - if they did not comply with amazon's demands then amazon would no longer do any business with them and would not refund a pro-rated amount for their Amazon Prime fees.
Amazon's got a good rep, but it is undeserved. When the shit hits the fan, they seem to always take the anti-consumer choice. (Another general example of Amazon being anti-consumer, if your website gets amazon referrals, you are forbidden from allowing any discussion of amazon coupon codes on your website.)
If you game it or otherwise, everyone will end up submitting their max score, because, well... Why wouldn't they? Who cares if the other team knows you have 10.8%... Either they can beat it and will submit that score, or they cannot and won't.
OR maybe they can do better than 10.8% but because they thought they had it in the bag, they didn't put the extra effort in to really push those improvements through and now, with less than a day left, they don't have the time to get those improvements fully polished enough for submission
This isn't eBay, they can't just magic high scores.
Actually this is precisely like ebay. It appears that the prize got "sniped" out from under BellKor. The problem, just like ebay, is that the process has a fixed end-date. The way to avoid this problem (and produce the best results for the "seller" - in this case NetFlix - is to having a rolling end-date that is always a fixed period after the most recent highest result submission.
Don't get me wrong, I am a BIG fan of sniping, but then I'm always a buyer on ebay, not the seller, and sniping is the best bidding policy to keep bidding-wars at bay.
Except that in most cases it is pretty clear as to what part of the original claim is in doubt. Worst case there are only a couple of claims that might be in doubt and it is easy enough to either ask the doubter to be more specific or to just support all the claims.
You just haven't had your number end up on the shady list of telemarketers that don't give a damn. A good friend of mine gets telemarketing calls that are the equivalent of spam - trying to sell him all kinds of "prescription" drugs and other sorts of generic crap. They frequently have made-up caller-id's and really don't give a damn about the do-not-call list nor the cell phone ban.
He finally went to grandcentral/google-voice after I sent him an "invite" and almost never has to deal with those calls anymore - if the call is not fowarded through google, his phone plays a "silent" ring-tone and he never even notices.
If you'd read the person you responded to, you'd see that he specifically said that a cookie is a lesser evil than requiring you to make an account in order to preserve settings.
It need not be a full-blown account - "e-mail address and all" - just a username and password that your browser can automatically memorize and fill in each time you start a new "session."
After all, if you don't need "e-mail address and all" for a cookie, then you don't need it for any other identification mechanism either.
Furthermore, any site that requires cookies for full usability is doing its users' a disservice because it is one more site that encourages them to use cookies. Until web-browsers come with something like the CookieSafe plugin's functionality by default, the choice to use cookies is 100% yes/no for most users. Thus by requiring cookies, they also encourage their users to make themselves more vulnerable to all those privacy invaders like doubleclick (google's evil by another name).
Sounds very reasonable. Linus is correct. The point of open source is to do something you need done. Sharing it with others gives you satisfaction and reward. What's wrong with that!
I don't think Linus is correct, nor is the author of the article. They both talk about "scratching an itch" to help themselves. But MS's endgame of "helping themselves" is to destroy linux one way or another. In the short term it doesn't look like that, all it looks like is that MS wants to make linux and MS Hyper-V play together better.
But lets look at one possible long-term scenario. As it is now, if a customer wants both good linux and good MS-windows performance on a virtualized system, they can not use MS Hyper-V as the virtualization software, they have to go with VM-Ware or Xen or Virtual-Box or one of the lesser known products. But, once these drivers are standard in the linux kernel, linux will run just as fast under Hyper-V as it does other hypervisors. So now the customer can be convinced to move to Hyper-V as their hypervisor and still keep the same linux functionality that they would have otherwise.
Skip forward a couple of years and a couple of Hyper-V releases - microsoft now has a dominate share of the hypervisor market. VM-Ware got clobbered and the Xen-based hypervisors are limping along in mostly academic installations. MS has also got Hyper-V well integrated into Win7/XP/Whatever so that Hyper-V is the easiest way to manage MS-Window virtual hosts. They decide to take advantage of that position and so the most recent release of Hyper-V starts to degrade performance of any linux virtual machine - probably in the name of they just didn't have the time to incorporate all the latest Hyper-V functionality in their linux hosting VMs, only their MS-Windows hosting VMs.
Now the customer is faced with a choice - migrate to a new hypervisor, but none of those left standing can compete with MS Hyper-V. Or suffer with linux-hosted applications having numerous performance and stability problems. Or port those applications to MS-Windows which is rock-solid, officially supported and high performance. So what do most customers do? They port to Windows because their business continuity needs don't leave them a choice. And MS's real "itch" is finally scratched.
If you read the posts above about strict liability, it doesn't mean shit if you can prove that they gave you a fake id. The bar owner is still fucked. And good luck taking the kid to court, I'm sure you'll be able to squeeze lots of money out of them for 'defrauding' you.
The OP's point stands - the government has placed unreasonable requirements on bar owners making them essentially an extension of law enforcement. Those requirements are not compatible with a free society.
It's mostly to do with Asian and East Indian gangs,
So, what's your point precisely? That only caucasians should have the right of privacy? I really can't figure out what your post has to do with markdavis's post about "papers please" that you responded to.
- posting anon to avoid the beating I'll get from PC people
Lol, so you do think that asians don't deserve the right of privacy. Thanks for clearing it up.
What a load of crap, back in 2006 NBC dateline had a bunch of muslims go to a Nascar race and see if they were harassed, guess what they were NOT bothered at all.
Funny, I can't find any record of Dateline actually running that segment. What I do find is a billion news articles about how NASCAR and others like Michelle Malkin got their panties in a twist about it with the typical faux indignation of the bigotted right. I would have expected NASCAR's PR people to be smarter than that, but apparently not.
This sort of idiotic bollocks is what perpetuates the myth that the US is full of racists.
You've picked a strawman. Just because such attacks do happen does not mean that "the US is full of racists" what it does mean is that there are some racists here. Don't pretend that just because your silly strawman is false that no such racist attacks happen at all.
I thought Newell's idea was that it would ease development costs. With this solution who pays the employees to make the game over say, a 4 year period?
If the money is in escrow it will be pretty easy to get a line of credit. Maybe you get the credit from the bank, maybe private investors, maybe it is just operating capital that has been created from the profits of previous games.
Why do you assume the game has to be public domain at the end?
Because that's the only way to get true ownership. If its owned by a joint corporation or something like that you still don't have full rights to do with it as you would your own property. You can't give away copies to your friends and family if it is still owned by a corp.
Furthermore that money will distort the creative process, when you have individual players paying for the creation then it is about making the best game possible for the people funding it. When you have a requirement for a dollar-based return on investment its no longer about making the best game possible, its about making the most saleable product. It is no different from any other kind of investment scheme at that point.
I like how you couch all that. People who pay for things of value are "suckers". And the story "kinda sucked", so clearly it wasn't worth paying for (but was worth getting, oddly enough).
Poor little AC thinks business works on the honor system and gets all emotional when it doesn't. You try giving away cars and then asking people to pay up a week later on the honor system and see just how far you get with that business model.
The only downside to your idea is that it's been tried (by Stephen King, no less) and found to be lacking.
King did it backwards, he asked people to pay after they already have the product in hand. Only the most generous of suckers is going to do that. Word was the story kinda sucked too.
The key is in holding the next episode/book/song/installment ransom. Sure plenty of people still won't pay, but when you've got a billion people on the net worldwide, you only need a miniscule fraction in order to be profitable.
It would also help to arrange the financing creatively, one way being a subscription. Sign up for the subscription and the money is auto-billed each month, works the same as music clubs, gyms, etc, and to a lesser extent cable tv does. You can also sell physical items like memorabilia that include a dedicated mark-up just for creative production costs, kind of the way PBS and NPR went to donation levels with guaranteed "gifts" in return - that move increased their revenues a couple of hundred percent. People like getting "stuff" for their money even if it is just incidental.
Most venture capitalists would be asking for at least a share of the project's rights (including related trademarks, merchandising, etc), AND its profits.
Bingo. If the users are going to finance the development of the game, then they need to be the owners of the game. I say the production house needs to set a price and collect payments into escrow, once the escrow account reaches the asking price, they get to work. Once finished they collect their payment out of escrow and in turn release the game to the public domain.
That won't work for Valve though, it negates the whole point of the DRM that is Steam.
Ease of enforcement is one of the worst problems with traffic law. It is much easier for a cop to set the threshold on his radar gun to 75mph, point it at a 65mph stretch of highway and then take a nap until the alarm goes off, completely ignoring anyone who is actually driving recklessly. Similarly, these laws makes it easier for cops to just pull over people with phones on their ears rather than anyone actually driving recklessly.
So while your premise may easily be true, it is no justification.
Of course that probably won't satisfy you since you've linked "bias-free" with your training scheme, thus any non-training based study must, by definition, be biased. But no matter, you aren't the only audience for this response.
ATC often can't tell what your immediate situation is until you report it.
ATC knows you are piloting and they know not to chit-chat and not to nag you with "can you hear me? can you hear me now?" if you suddenly break communications. It's a spectrum.
What I don't understand is why this isn't drilled into people's heads, much the same as my flight instructor did for me.
Well, for one thing, driver licensing is a joke in the USA. Its more about paying the fees and submitting yourself to their database than it is about road safety. If driver licensing were as strict as aviation licensing requirements, there would be all kinds of improvements. There would also be a lot more people driving without licenses, kinda negating much of the benefit.
How is talking on the phone wearing earpiece any more distracting then talking to someone who is sitting in the passenger seat? Should that be forbidden as well?
Again, as stated in my original post, the passenger knows when to shut up because they can see everything the driver sees.
For starters we could enforce the existing laws. Caught talking on your cellphone twice, hand over your license.
All the existing laws are "feel good" laws for sanctimonious pricks. All the studies that have been published show that it isn't the act of holding a phone up to your ear that causes a driver to be distracted, it is simply talking on the phone that matters. But all of the laws give free passes to anyone with a handsfree phone. That's arguably worse than holding the phone to your ear - if you do that, at least the other drivers have a chance of noticing that you are on the phone and giving you a wide berth, handsfree makes you look like all the other drivers even though you are not as engaged with the road as they are.
If a pilot be required to be communicating on a radio while they land and take off - in a fast moving vehicle that falls out of the sky if not kept within parameters, at the edge of those parameters - I think drivers can be taught to drive safely on a cell phone.
One difference is that he is talking on the radio ABOUT what he is doing. His brain isn't focused on flirting with the ATC. Another difference is that the ATC knows when to shut the hell up and let the pilot do his job if something goes wrong, just like someone in the passenger seat would. But someone on the other end of the phone may not even know he is talking to a driver.
Apparently they care more about freedom than having the highest quality images available. What more is there to say?
We ought to have a derogatory comment or two about RMS here. Like something about how he and his ideals are just too far out of the mainstream and that what wikipedia really needs is to forget about this "free as in speech" ideology that just keeps good writing and good images from ever being incorporated into wikipedia. That foot-lickin hippie is just out of touch with the rest of the world.
Slashdot Mirror
Is that a new metric unit of measure? 1 isolated = 1000Km.
Don't believe me? Read is straight from the horse's mouth
Wish I could, but it appears to be highly trademarked.
I would be beyond fucking annoyed -- I would call it what it fucking is: tresspassing. In U.S. Law - if someone ships you an item, on purpose or by accident, they can't demand it back (only unless a contract was signed beforehand hand and purchase doesnt fulfill it). It could be a thousand dollar ring, shipped to you by accident, doesn't matter. It's yours.
Coincidentally, Amazon has tried similar shenanigans in the past. A minor error on their website turned a DVD promotion of buy 1, get the next one 50% off to buy 1, get the next one free. They corrected the error on their website but still shipped orders up to three days later.
A month or so goes by and they threatened everyone that received shipment with an ultimatum - return it or pay what amazon thinks you should have paid. They even went so far as to actually charge some people's credit cards for the extra fee and people had to dispute the charge - a big hassle for a handful of people who had banks that were not willing to back them up in the dispute. Anyone who had paid for their year-long express shipping service "amazon prime" essentially had that service held hostage - if they did not comply with amazon's demands then amazon would no longer do any business with them and would not refund a pro-rated amount for their Amazon Prime fees.
Amazon's got a good rep, but it is undeserved. When the shit hits the fan, they seem to always take the anti-consumer choice. (Another general example of Amazon being anti-consumer, if your website gets amazon referrals, you are forbidden from allowing any discussion of amazon coupon codes on your website.)
If you game it or otherwise, everyone will end up submitting their max score, because, well... Why wouldn't they? Who cares if the other team knows you have 10.8%... Either they can beat it and will submit that score, or they cannot and won't.
OR maybe they can do better than 10.8% but because they thought they had it in the bag, they didn't put the extra effort in to really push those improvements through and now, with less than a day left, they don't have the time to get those improvements fully polished enough for submission
This isn't eBay, they can't just magic high scores.
Actually this is precisely like ebay. It appears that the prize got "sniped" out from under BellKor. The problem, just like ebay, is that the process has a fixed end-date. The way to avoid this problem (and produce the best results for the "seller" - in this case NetFlix - is to having a rolling end-date that is always a fixed period after the most recent highest result submission.
Don't get me wrong, I am a BIG fan of sniping, but then I'm always a buyer on ebay, not the seller, and sniping is the best bidding policy to keep bidding-wars at bay.
So basically, you're blaming the web sites for the fact that the browsers do not implement the exact functionality you want. Did I get all that?
Nope. I am blaming websites for encouraging users to avoid good security practices.
Except that in most cases it is pretty clear as to what part of the original claim is in doubt. Worst case there are only a couple of claims that might be in doubt and it is easy enough to either ask the doubter to be more specific or to just support all the claims.
You just haven't had your number end up on the shady list of telemarketers that don't give a damn.
A good friend of mine gets telemarketing calls that are the equivalent of spam - trying to sell him all kinds of "prescription" drugs and other sorts of generic crap. They frequently have made-up caller-id's and really don't give a damn about the do-not-call list nor the cell phone ban.
He finally went to grandcentral/google-voice after I sent him an "invite" and almost never has to deal with those calls anymore - if the call is not fowarded through google, his phone plays a "silent" ring-tone and he never even notices.
If you'd read the person you responded to, you'd see that he specifically said that a cookie is a lesser evil than requiring you to make an account in order to preserve settings.
It need not be a full-blown account - "e-mail address and all" - just a username and password that your browser can automatically memorize and fill in each time you start a new "session."
After all, if you don't need "e-mail address and all" for a cookie, then you don't need it for any other identification mechanism either.
Furthermore, any site that requires cookies for full usability is doing its users' a disservice because it is one more site that encourages them to use cookies. Until web-browsers come with something like the CookieSafe plugin's functionality by default, the choice to use cookies is 100% yes/no for most users. Thus by requiring cookies, they also encourage their users to make themselves more vulnerable to all those privacy invaders like doubleclick (google's evil by another name).
Sounds very reasonable. Linus is correct. The point of open source is to do something you need done. Sharing it with others gives you satisfaction and reward. What's wrong with that!
I don't think Linus is correct, nor is the author of the article. They both talk about "scratching an itch" to help themselves. But MS's endgame of "helping themselves" is to destroy linux one way or another. In the short term it doesn't look like that, all it looks like is that MS wants to make linux and MS Hyper-V play together better.
But lets look at one possible long-term scenario. As it is now, if a customer wants both good linux and good MS-windows performance on a virtualized system, they can not use MS Hyper-V as the virtualization software, they have to go with VM-Ware or Xen or Virtual-Box or one of the lesser known products. But, once these drivers are standard in the linux kernel, linux will run just as fast under Hyper-V as it does other hypervisors. So now the customer can be convinced to move to Hyper-V as their hypervisor and still keep the same linux functionality that they would have otherwise.
Skip forward a couple of years and a couple of Hyper-V releases - microsoft now has a dominate share of the hypervisor market. VM-Ware got clobbered and the Xen-based hypervisors are limping along in mostly academic installations. MS has also got Hyper-V well integrated into Win7/XP/Whatever so that Hyper-V is the easiest way to manage MS-Window virtual hosts. They decide to take advantage of that position and so the most recent release of Hyper-V starts to degrade performance of any linux virtual machine - probably in the name of they just didn't have the time to incorporate all the latest Hyper-V functionality in their linux hosting VMs, only their MS-Windows hosting VMs.
Now the customer is faced with a choice - migrate to a new hypervisor, but none of those left standing can compete with MS Hyper-V. Or suffer with linux-hosted applications having numerous performance and stability problems. Or port those applications to MS-Windows which is rock-solid, officially supported and high performance. So what do most customers do? They port to Windows because their business continuity needs don't leave them a choice. And MS's real "itch" is finally scratched.
If you read the posts above about strict liability, it doesn't mean shit if you can prove that they gave you a fake id. The bar owner is still fucked. And good luck taking the kid to court, I'm sure you'll be able to squeeze lots of money out of them for 'defrauding' you.
The OP's point stands - the government has placed unreasonable requirements on bar owners making them essentially an extension of law enforcement. Those requirements are not compatible with a free society.
It's mostly to do with Asian and East Indian gangs,
So, what's your point precisely? That only caucasians should have the right of privacy? I really can't figure out what your post has to do with markdavis's post about "papers please" that you responded to.
- posting anon to avoid the beating I'll get from PC people
Lol, so you do think that asians don't deserve the right of privacy. Thanks for clearing it up.
I'm pretty sure we're talking about MS (www.getthefacts.com) and not about sex education (www.getthefacts.org).
It depends, are we talking about MS Exchange or MSexChange?
What a load of crap, back in 2006 NBC dateline had a bunch of muslims go to a Nascar race and see if they were harassed, guess what they were NOT bothered at all.
Funny, I can't find any record of Dateline actually running that segment. What I do find is a billion news articles about how NASCAR and others like Michelle Malkin got their panties in a twist about it with the typical faux indignation of the bigotted right. I would have expected NASCAR's PR people to be smarter than that, but apparently not.
This sort of idiotic bollocks is what perpetuates the myth that the US is full of racists.
You've picked a strawman. Just because such attacks do happen does not mean that "the US is full of racists" what it does mean is that there are some racists here. Don't pretend that just because your silly strawman is false that no such racist attacks happen at all.
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/sikh-attacked-in-another-hate-crime-in-new-york/57501-3.html
http://www.nypost.com/seven/09162007/news/regionalnews/muslim_biz_gal_beaten.htm
I thought Newell's idea was that it would ease development costs. With this solution who pays the employees to make the game over say, a 4 year period?
If the money is in escrow it will be pretty easy to get a line of credit. Maybe you get the credit from the bank, maybe private investors, maybe it is just operating capital that has been created from the profits of previous games.
Why do you assume the game has to be public domain at the end?
Because that's the only way to get true ownership. If its owned by a joint corporation or something like that you still don't have full rights to do with it as you would your own property. You can't give away copies to your friends and family if it is still owned by a corp.
Furthermore that money will distort the creative process, when you have individual players paying for the creation then it is about making the best game possible for the people funding it. When you have a requirement for a dollar-based return on investment its no longer about making the best game possible, its about making the most saleable product. It is no different from any other kind of investment scheme at that point.
I like how you couch all that. People who pay for things of value are "suckers". And the story "kinda sucked", so clearly it wasn't worth paying for (but was worth getting, oddly enough).
Poor little AC thinks business works on the honor system and gets all emotional when it doesn't. You try giving away cars and then asking people to pay up a week later on the honor system and see just how far you get with that business model.
The only downside to your idea is that it's been tried (by Stephen King, no less) and found to be lacking.
King did it backwards, he asked people to pay after they already have the product in hand. Only the most generous of suckers is going to do that. Word was the story kinda sucked too.
The key is in holding the next episode/book/song/installment ransom. Sure plenty of people still won't pay, but when you've got a billion people on the net worldwide, you only need a miniscule fraction in order to be profitable.
It would also help to arrange the financing creatively, one way being a subscription. Sign up for the subscription and the money is auto-billed each month, works the same as music clubs, gyms, etc, and to a lesser extent cable tv does. You can also sell physical items like memorabilia that include a dedicated mark-up just for creative production costs, kind of the way PBS and NPR went to donation levels with guaranteed "gifts" in return - that move increased their revenues a couple of hundred percent. People like getting "stuff" for their money even if it is just incidental.
Most venture capitalists would be asking for at least a share of the project's rights (including related trademarks, merchandising, etc), AND its profits.
Bingo. If the users are going to finance the development of the game, then they need to be the owners of the game. I say the production house needs to set a price and collect payments into escrow, once the escrow account reaches the asking price, they get to work. Once finished they collect their payment out of escrow and in turn release the game to the public domain.
That won't work for Valve though, it negates the whole point of the DRM that is Steam.
Ease of enforcement is one of the worst problems with traffic law. It is much easier for a cop to set the threshold on his radar gun to 75mph, point it at a 65mph stretch of highway and then take a nap until the alarm goes off, completely ignoring anyone who is actually driving recklessly. Similarly, these laws makes it easier for cops to just pull over people with phones on their ears rather than anyone actually driving recklessly.
So while your premise may easily be true, it is no justification.
All the existing studies are biased with the aim of creating or tightening laws and increasing associated fines.
Sweden did a study with the same results and they did not have a handsfree requirement.
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2003/06/59371
Of course that probably won't satisfy you since you've linked "bias-free" with your training scheme, thus any non-training based study must, by definition, be biased. But no matter, you aren't the only audience for this response.
ATC often can't tell what your immediate situation is until you report it.
ATC knows you are piloting and they know not to chit-chat and not to nag you with "can you hear me? can you hear me now?" if you suddenly break communications. It's a spectrum.
What I don't understand is why this isn't drilled into people's heads, much the same as my flight instructor did for me.
Well, for one thing, driver licensing is a joke in the USA. Its more about paying the fees and submitting yourself to their database than it is about road safety. If driver licensing were as strict as aviation licensing requirements, there would be all kinds of improvements. There would also be a lot more people driving without licenses, kinda negating much of the benefit.
Then I got a hands free device. Holding the phone is WAY more distracting.
You realize that when you are distracted you are fundamentally incapable of evaluating how distracted you are, kinda by definition.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-he-cells30-2008jun30,0,2119996.story
How is talking on the phone wearing earpiece any more distracting then talking to someone who is sitting in the passenger seat? Should that be forbidden as well?
Again, as stated in my original post, the passenger knows when to shut up because they can see everything the driver sees.
For starters we could enforce the existing laws. Caught talking on your cellphone twice, hand over your license.
All the existing laws are "feel good" laws for sanctimonious pricks. All the studies that have been published show that it isn't the act of holding a phone up to your ear that causes a driver to be distracted, it is simply talking on the phone that matters. But all of the laws give free passes to anyone with a handsfree phone. That's arguably worse than holding the phone to your ear - if you do that, at least the other drivers have a chance of noticing that you are on the phone and giving you a wide berth, handsfree makes you look like all the other drivers even though you are not as engaged with the road as they are.
If a pilot be required to be communicating on a radio while they land and take off - in a fast moving vehicle that falls out of the sky if not kept within parameters, at the edge of those parameters - I think drivers can be taught to drive safely on a cell phone.
One difference is that he is talking on the radio ABOUT what he is doing. His brain isn't focused on flirting with the ATC.
Another difference is that the ATC knows when to shut the hell up and let the pilot do his job if something goes wrong, just like someone in the passenger seat would. But someone on the other end of the phone may not even know he is talking to a driver.
Apparently they care more about freedom than having the highest quality images available. What more is there to say?
We ought to have a derogatory comment or two about RMS here. Like something about how he and his ideals are just too far out of the mainstream and that what wikipedia really needs is to forget about this "free as in speech" ideology that just keeps good writing and good images from ever being incorporated into wikipedia. That foot-lickin hippie is just out of touch with the rest of the world.
I'm not interested in continually moving the goalposts in order to back up the flawed "JS is automatically bad" meme.
Huh? That's exactly what you've been doing all along, it is your meme after all and you keep stretching and stretching to make it apply.