I have to agree with you, the thing with the 3DS that shocks me the most, is it's the exact opposite of nintendo's traditional path. Normally they tend to go the exact opposite of what everyone else is doing, pull something out that nobody thought of (analog stick N64, Stylus and dual screens for the DS, WiiMote etc...), basically ideas that make everyone ask, WTF are they thinking, which half the time shocks everyone by being amazingly good and the other half just completely fails, meanwhile Sony and Microsoft tend to follow the current trends focusing on the current popular technology and focus on improving graphics and copying the ideas from Nintendo that were successful. The 3DS is the first time I've seen Nintendo pretty much bow to the current popular trend, and do nothing amazing or innovative of their own.
I have to agree, this seems to show the exact opposite of women being driven out. What does being biased towards a personality type have to do with genders? Unless there tends to be less females with that personality type as males, the same with leaked tests unless there's some huge reason why only men would cheat, why is it less likely that the test also went to some sororities, unless of course there weren't enough women interested in it to arrange such a thing. Personality discrimination I am seeing, Gender discrimination I am not. I know darn well that if there were enough women with the motivation to cheat or match personality stereotypes, they would. There are about the same number of socially awkward women as men, and your average moral standard and ethics is no higher in either gender either.
It's a combination of both. The technology fails because good or bad movies still hurt many people's eyes, the content fails because 1. Too many movies are trying too hard to overdo 3D, Reminds me a bit of that comercial for the phone that can do video in 3-d, where the dad is forcing the kids to hit harder for the sake of making better use of the 3-D while they play ping pong, completely taking all the fun away from the kids. But even with both of those problems solved, the idea of 3-D is just flawed beyond belief. There are 2 possible theories of how it ends, 1. it is in the same phase that stereo was for music, IE every song is just messing around with it to the point that it is distracting and annoying, but soon it will be less used and fade to barely noticeable. Either way I consider anyone investing in it to be wasting their money. Assuming this technology comes out, and it works, we are looking at spending hundreds of dollars for 3D in a form that you can chose between, 3D that causes 1/4th the viewers headaches, or 3D that only one person can watch at a time. Great for social events of all kinds.
Well it's a matter of logic here. Most all illegal download sites have an even mix of legal and illegal content. would it be unheard of for a linux distribution to be hosted on isohunt etc... Do you think these filters are going to just block out the individual movies and shows, or more realistically just block out any site that has something illegal. This sort of law will continue to branch out and expand. Phase 1. CP, phase 2, piracy, coming soon, Phase 3. subjects deemed highly offensive (Nazi's etc), and continues to branch out.
Comparing steam's DRM with Ubisoft's is about as accurate as this comparison: "You complain about the backscatter rays and having yourself and your child to be groped randomly from TSA, but you were OK with the metal detectors, that's supposed to be irony right?"
In general steams DRM does little to actually harm you from playing the game, you can play it from multiple different PCs, on a laptop riding a bus etc... It even gives you some benefits over other methods (the ability to download the game on a PC you weren't expecting to be on).
while ubisofts drm not only adds nothing, and prevents you from playing anywhere you don't have a connection, it will also exit your game over a lag spike or server problems on Ubisoft's end etc....
It isn't just difficult to ensure they go to a good home, it makes it insanely improbable. There are legitimate adoption routes, one who doesn't go through them is most likely one who has reason to not go through them. Especially since if I recall at least one of them was a girl (In general in china if I recall daughters are not wanted, and if someone is spending money to have one it is likely an investment that they expect her to have worked and paid the cost of her purchase by the age of 13)
Seriously this is one of the most moronic statements i've read today. Google does alot of sketchy things, honestly my biggest complaints with them are programs like google toolbar that seem to install themselves on new PCs and slip in with software. But really, they've already explained what they were doing, it it makes perfect sense why others were hit by it. Google was gathering information on public access points to be able to map them, the access point data that was gathered was from routers that were set to appear as Public (unencrypted and non-hidden). People are making it sound like google was sitting outside of peoples houses for days at a time, when they were not gathering more information than one could gather driving by at 35-50MPH. That is more or less on par with a couple arguing loudly on a park bench, complaining about what a jogger heard.
You don't necessarally have to code specifically for it, if it is doing something similar with a different goal. The idea google was after was to map open hotspots, IE to have a map of what coffee shops, resteraunts hotels etc... To do that it would have to triangulate the location, which involves connectiong to the open access point, more or less ping it or send it a few signals, listen for those signals back, as it drives, and use the time variance to find the source, yes they picked up random bits of other information while in the listening phase, but I find it hard to come up with any marketing use for it considering there are no reports of them actually stopping the vehicle to gather more information. If you are actually trying to spy on someone, usually it would take more then the 15-20 seconds to get any information that is useable.
Now onto the new story, it sounds like the exact same thing, the software is listening for unencrypted wifi access points, have you ever checked the available networks in your average staples/bestbuy or any place that sells new laptops? New laptops are almost always set up as mini ad-hoc networks, which sounds to me like an automatic process that scans for open wifi, would take a second look at.
I am normally a huge google fan, and I actually just recently de-activated my facebook account in favor of G+, but I do believe the main difference is enforcement. Facebook basically says "Please don't make accounts to bogus names", but 1/4th of the accounts on it are dogs, children and psudonyms, and they have made zero effort to stop that. While G+ is actually actively suspending accounts and taking out other Google services in the process. Basically it's the difference between a sign that says "Keep off the grass", and beware of the dog (with trained attack dogs paroling the grass).
In the end market share means little for the company, and it hurts. Bing is bleeding money, from top to bottom they are pooring more and more into it, spending massive money on advertisements, bundling deals etc... development, and at the end of the day what they have using their service just isn't paying the bills. Just a hypothetical scenerio, lets say out of the blue microsoft instantly and magically came up with a technology or push that all of a sudden 75% of the US was using bing, but the cost to run bing are still greater then the money they make, bing now costs microsoft 3.5 billion a year, and makes back 3.1 billion a year. Meanwhile google being cut to 25% market share is now reduced to making 500 million a year,but is spending only 300 million a year to keep things moving. In the end google would be able to stay alive, and rapidly make money, while microsoft would have dominance in the search market, while accomplishing nothing more then harming themselves.
In Alaska and canada maybe, anyone who lives somewhere that actually has weather where you heat up in winter and cool off in summer this would appear to be a counterproductive system. Save $100 a month in november-january plus say get reimbursed an additional 100 a month for data services, pay an extra 200 a month on cooling march-october.
Just because the market share isn't there does not force explicit denial of linux the way netflix does. Hulu, amazon etc... work just fine in linux. Netflix is actually sitting on a linux compatible player (whatever roku box uses). While it isn't purely netflix's fault (it's the content providers that have huge fears that if the player runs on an open system, someone might reverse engineer it to download them). IMO it is a flat out silly fear, not that it isn't possible to do, but odds are it is just as easy to do on a windows box, just simply not worth the work (the pirate community has most likely already ripped both the blu ray and the DVD and posted it to every filesharing medium in the month lag before it can be streamed, what motivation would they have to rip the stream after that).
Agreed there, also for the few people who will argue, but Facebook only has access to your social network profile, Google has trackers on the e-mail and other webpages, I recommend for you to try out the plugin ghostery for Firefox or chrome, yes Google has a ton of trackers, but Facebook has just as many. I would say about 75% of pages that aren't owned by Google, have Facebook trackers on them. Basically you are deciding between a company that has been spying on you for years, and uses sells and claims ownership of your information (facebook), and a company that has been spying on you for years and just uses your information (google). Personally I would rather my information on google where at least I know who has it, rather than facebook where you know they have it, and lord knows who many people they have shared it with.
The lobying is still irrelevant in this case however, anyone from 13 year old timmy running a webserver in his basement, to google, most likely won't get destroyed if they act on DMCA takedown notices within a prompt manner. Now the whole extraditing nonsense etc... is garbage, but googles immunity isn't just from throwing money around, or at least the money thrown around from google isn't just covering their own asses, what google secures is a law that anyone can follow to protect themselves.
Actually that reminds me very much of what happened, the leader of packistan wanted to have mark zuckerberg extradited for hosting "draw mohamad day" for which in pakastan would carry a death penalty. This pretty much sounds like the exact same level of insanity.
In neither case is anything "taken", things are being duplicated with no loss of physical or digital property. This case is spying, wiretapping or something along those lines. It is taking potentially intimate details of the users life that never were intended to be seen or heard by anyone, and selling them to the highest bidder for personal profit. This is closer to the category of filming someone in a shower, then stealing their wallets.
I have to agree that theft is a stupid label here, this would fall into spying or illegal wiretapping, it is an intensive surveying of what you are doing in your own home or on sites that the company gathering the information has no right to monitor. Applying theft to terms it doesn't have anything to do with is silly and stupid in all cases. This IMO is a much greater crime then piracy, but neither should fall into the category of "theft".
withering scratching etc... Back when we thought CD's were invincible buggers that as long as you didn't scratch them they would last 100 years sure, then 5 years later we realized, oh wow ok these things can fall apart after 5 years. Hard drive vulnerability, sure to an extent, at least they are more vulnerable to shaking etc, though it appears they are also more recoverable after destruction. platters break etc... you can generally get that fixed, now the cost may be very high to repair it if something goes wrong, but it is at least possible. A worn out CD may become impossible to recover at much less damage.
Actually it's a worse factor then that, Children break limbs every now and then, that is a natural part of growing up usually. The bigger issue is the movement of responsibility, 50 years ago it was, child breaks his arm, parent or parent's insurance pays for it, kid goes a few weeks/months in a cast cries grows up a bit and get's their friends to sign their new cast. Now there are too many people who see every injury that happens off their property as a goldmine, adults/kids it doesn't matter. Broke his arm on a playground you say, well the city owns this playground so that means the city owes us for all of his treatments, oh and $10,000 for pain and suffering that poor kid, oh dont' forget emotional distress, someone might be making fun of his cast, possible stunted development, yes mam we should be able to pay for his college education by the time we get through with this.
In general at least groups like anon and luzlsec have been fairly weak attacks targeted at poorly secured pages with vulnerabilities that are years old. Mainly I think they are pointing out that the security of these places is pathetic, rather then nothing is secure. Google has an incredible track-record for deflecting large scale attacks. I'm not saying they are invincible, but they do actually seem to know what they are doing.
EE dosn't show different information to the bot then the users, the bot just views things differently. Both the user and the bot have to scroll down past the huge block of nothingness to get to the answers, the difference is the bot tends to only focus on and highlight the relevant information, while the user tends to skim over the "please pay now" buttons and stop. Yes if you aren't getting to the page from a google link, the solutions aren't hidden at the bottom, but that isn't googles concern, anything other then the result they give you in their search page, is no longer google's responsibility. Yes EE cheated and basically found a way to follow the letter of the law while pissing on the spirit of it, but nothing can be done about that.
Well playing devil's advocate here, you could be infected by a lesser payload. Say a virus is in 2 parts, 1. weak part that installs at user level, with user access rights, installs itself simply by loading an infected page etc... but lacks the ability to take admin rights on a system, Part 2. Master rootkit, requires user to grant admin rights for it to get in and dig deep. even with no admin rights, part 1 still has the power to run your browser through a proxy, and inject itself onto webpages as well as block filter and control what pages you go to. In other words part 1 could inject an advertisement onto the version of google you see, give you a link to a "trusted" provider, even make that "trusted" provider show up as norton, microsoft, google or whatever they feel like in the address bar for you, and 95% of users would give whatever program they are getting admin rights to install.
That works on 80% of non-rootkit assisted virus, you still have to factor in the 20% that can, A. Launch in safe mode, B. attach itself to other programs you are inevitably going to open, rather then entirely relying on startup, and that isn't even factoring in the very much increased rate of rootkit based infections as of late.
Slashdot Mirror
I have to agree with you, the thing with the 3DS that shocks me the most, is it's the exact opposite of nintendo's traditional path. Normally they tend to go the exact opposite of what everyone else is doing, pull something out that nobody thought of (analog stick N64, Stylus and dual screens for the DS, WiiMote etc...), basically ideas that make everyone ask, WTF are they thinking, which half the time shocks everyone by being amazingly good and the other half just completely fails, meanwhile Sony and Microsoft tend to follow the current trends focusing on the current popular technology and focus on improving graphics and copying the ideas from Nintendo that were successful. The 3DS is the first time I've seen Nintendo pretty much bow to the current popular trend, and do nothing amazing or innovative of their own.
I have to agree, this seems to show the exact opposite of women being driven out. What does being biased towards a personality type have to do with genders? Unless there tends to be less females with that personality type as males, the same with leaked tests unless there's some huge reason why only men would cheat, why is it less likely that the test also went to some sororities, unless of course there weren't enough women interested in it to arrange such a thing. Personality discrimination I am seeing, Gender discrimination I am not. I know darn well that if there were enough women with the motivation to cheat or match personality stereotypes, they would. There are about the same number of socially awkward women as men, and your average moral standard and ethics is no higher in either gender either.
It's a combination of both. The technology fails because good or bad movies still hurt many people's eyes, the content fails because 1. Too many movies are trying too hard to overdo 3D, Reminds me a bit of that comercial for the phone that can do video in 3-d, where the dad is forcing the kids to hit harder for the sake of making better use of the 3-D while they play ping pong, completely taking all the fun away from the kids. But even with both of those problems solved, the idea of 3-D is just flawed beyond belief. There are 2 possible theories of how it ends, 1. it is in the same phase that stereo was for music, IE every song is just messing around with it to the point that it is distracting and annoying, but soon it will be less used and fade to barely noticeable. Either way I consider anyone investing in it to be wasting their money. Assuming this technology comes out, and it works, we are looking at spending hundreds of dollars for 3D in a form that you can chose between, 3D that causes 1/4th the viewers headaches, or 3D that only one person can watch at a time. Great for social events of all kinds.
Well it's a matter of logic here. Most all illegal download sites have an even mix of legal and illegal content. would it be unheard of for a linux distribution to be hosted on isohunt etc... Do you think these filters are going to just block out the individual movies and shows, or more realistically just block out any site that has something illegal. This sort of law will continue to branch out and expand. Phase 1. CP, phase 2, piracy, coming soon, Phase 3. subjects deemed highly offensive (Nazi's etc), and continues to branch out.
In general steams DRM does little to actually harm you from playing the game, you can play it from multiple different PCs, on a laptop riding a bus etc... It even gives you some benefits over other methods (the ability to download the game on a PC you weren't expecting to be on).
while ubisofts drm not only adds nothing, and prevents you from playing anywhere you don't have a connection, it will also exit your game over a lag spike or server problems on Ubisoft's end etc....
It isn't just difficult to ensure they go to a good home, it makes it insanely improbable. There are legitimate adoption routes, one who doesn't go through them is most likely one who has reason to not go through them. Especially since if I recall at least one of them was a girl (In general in china if I recall daughters are not wanted, and if someone is spending money to have one it is likely an investment that they expect her to have worked and paid the cost of her purchase by the age of 13)
Seriously this is one of the most moronic statements i've read today. Google does alot of sketchy things, honestly my biggest complaints with them are programs like google toolbar that seem to install themselves on new PCs and slip in with software. But really, they've already explained what they were doing, it it makes perfect sense why others were hit by it. Google was gathering information on public access points to be able to map them, the access point data that was gathered was from routers that were set to appear as Public (unencrypted and non-hidden). People are making it sound like google was sitting outside of peoples houses for days at a time, when they were not gathering more information than one could gather driving by at 35-50MPH. That is more or less on par with a couple arguing loudly on a park bench, complaining about what a jogger heard.
Now onto the new story, it sounds like the exact same thing, the software is listening for unencrypted wifi access points, have you ever checked the available networks in your average staples/bestbuy or any place that sells new laptops? New laptops are almost always set up as mini ad-hoc networks, which sounds to me like an automatic process that scans for open wifi, would take a second look at.
I am normally a huge google fan, and I actually just recently de-activated my facebook account in favor of G+, but I do believe the main difference is enforcement. Facebook basically says "Please don't make accounts to bogus names", but 1/4th of the accounts on it are dogs, children and psudonyms, and they have made zero effort to stop that. While G+ is actually actively suspending accounts and taking out other Google services in the process. Basically it's the difference between a sign that says "Keep off the grass", and beware of the dog (with trained attack dogs paroling the grass).
In the end market share means little for the company, and it hurts. Bing is bleeding money, from top to bottom they are pooring more and more into it, spending massive money on advertisements, bundling deals etc... development, and at the end of the day what they have using their service just isn't paying the bills. Just a hypothetical scenerio, lets say out of the blue microsoft instantly and magically came up with a technology or push that all of a sudden 75% of the US was using bing, but the cost to run bing are still greater then the money they make, bing now costs microsoft 3.5 billion a year, and makes back 3.1 billion a year. Meanwhile google being cut to 25% market share is now reduced to making 500 million a year,but is spending only 300 million a year to keep things moving. In the end google would be able to stay alive, and rapidly make money, while microsoft would have dominance in the search market, while accomplishing nothing more then harming themselves.
In Alaska and canada maybe, anyone who lives somewhere that actually has weather where you heat up in winter and cool off in summer this would appear to be a counterproductive system. Save $100 a month in november-january plus say get reimbursed an additional 100 a month for data services, pay an extra 200 a month on cooling march-october.
Just because the market share isn't there does not force explicit denial of linux the way netflix does. Hulu, amazon etc... work just fine in linux. Netflix is actually sitting on a linux compatible player (whatever roku box uses). While it isn't purely netflix's fault (it's the content providers that have huge fears that if the player runs on an open system, someone might reverse engineer it to download them). IMO it is a flat out silly fear, not that it isn't possible to do, but odds are it is just as easy to do on a windows box, just simply not worth the work (the pirate community has most likely already ripped both the blu ray and the DVD and posted it to every filesharing medium in the month lag before it can be streamed, what motivation would they have to rip the stream after that).
Agreed there, also for the few people who will argue, but Facebook only has access to your social network profile, Google has trackers on the e-mail and other webpages, I recommend for you to try out the plugin ghostery for Firefox or chrome, yes Google has a ton of trackers, but Facebook has just as many. I would say about 75% of pages that aren't owned by Google, have Facebook trackers on them. Basically you are deciding between a company that has been spying on you for years, and uses sells and claims ownership of your information (facebook), and a company that has been spying on you for years and just uses your information (google). Personally I would rather my information on google where at least I know who has it, rather than facebook where you know they have it, and lord knows who many people they have shared it with.
The lobying is still irrelevant in this case however, anyone from 13 year old timmy running a webserver in his basement, to google, most likely won't get destroyed if they act on DMCA takedown notices within a prompt manner. Now the whole extraditing nonsense etc... is garbage, but googles immunity isn't just from throwing money around, or at least the money thrown around from google isn't just covering their own asses, what google secures is a law that anyone can follow to protect themselves.
Actually that reminds me very much of what happened, the leader of packistan wanted to have mark zuckerberg extradited for hosting "draw mohamad day" for which in pakastan would carry a death penalty. This pretty much sounds like the exact same level of insanity.
In neither case is anything "taken", things are being duplicated with no loss of physical or digital property. This case is spying, wiretapping or something along those lines. It is taking potentially intimate details of the users life that never were intended to be seen or heard by anyone, and selling them to the highest bidder for personal profit. This is closer to the category of filming someone in a shower, then stealing their wallets.
I have to agree that theft is a stupid label here, this would fall into spying or illegal wiretapping, it is an intensive surveying of what you are doing in your own home or on sites that the company gathering the information has no right to monitor. Applying theft to terms it doesn't have anything to do with is silly and stupid in all cases. This IMO is a much greater crime then piracy, but neither should fall into the category of "theft".
Has returned if you chose to use btrfs with COW. As far as I know no distrobution is even considering btrfs as a default.
I somewhat doubt it, more like a very quick route to match facebooks I hate it but must use it, status.
withering scratching etc... Back when we thought CD's were invincible buggers that as long as you didn't scratch them they would last 100 years sure, then 5 years later we realized, oh wow ok these things can fall apart after 5 years. Hard drive vulnerability, sure to an extent, at least they are more vulnerable to shaking etc, though it appears they are also more recoverable after destruction. platters break etc... you can generally get that fixed, now the cost may be very high to repair it if something goes wrong, but it is at least possible. A worn out CD may become impossible to recover at much less damage.
Actually it's a worse factor then that, Children break limbs every now and then, that is a natural part of growing up usually. The bigger issue is the movement of responsibility, 50 years ago it was, child breaks his arm, parent or parent's insurance pays for it, kid goes a few weeks/months in a cast cries grows up a bit and get's their friends to sign their new cast. Now there are too many people who see every injury that happens off their property as a goldmine, adults/kids it doesn't matter. Broke his arm on a playground you say, well the city owns this playground so that means the city owes us for all of his treatments, oh and $10,000 for pain and suffering that poor kid, oh dont' forget emotional distress, someone might be making fun of his cast, possible stunted development, yes mam we should be able to pay for his college education by the time we get through with this.
In general at least groups like anon and luzlsec have been fairly weak attacks targeted at poorly secured pages with vulnerabilities that are years old. Mainly I think they are pointing out that the security of these places is pathetic, rather then nothing is secure. Google has an incredible track-record for deflecting large scale attacks. I'm not saying they are invincible, but they do actually seem to know what they are doing.
EE dosn't show different information to the bot then the users, the bot just views things differently. Both the user and the bot have to scroll down past the huge block of nothingness to get to the answers, the difference is the bot tends to only focus on and highlight the relevant information, while the user tends to skim over the "please pay now" buttons and stop. Yes if you aren't getting to the page from a google link, the solutions aren't hidden at the bottom, but that isn't googles concern, anything other then the result they give you in their search page, is no longer google's responsibility. Yes EE cheated and basically found a way to follow the letter of the law while pissing on the spirit of it, but nothing can be done about that.
Well playing devil's advocate here, you could be infected by a lesser payload. Say a virus is in 2 parts, 1. weak part that installs at user level, with user access rights, installs itself simply by loading an infected page etc... but lacks the ability to take admin rights on a system, Part 2. Master rootkit, requires user to grant admin rights for it to get in and dig deep. even with no admin rights, part 1 still has the power to run your browser through a proxy, and inject itself onto webpages as well as block filter and control what pages you go to. In other words part 1 could inject an advertisement onto the version of google you see, give you a link to a "trusted" provider, even make that "trusted" provider show up as norton, microsoft, google or whatever they feel like in the address bar for you, and 95% of users would give whatever program they are getting admin rights to install.
That works on 80% of non-rootkit assisted virus, you still have to factor in the 20% that can, A. Launch in safe mode, B. attach itself to other programs you are inevitably going to open, rather then entirely relying on startup, and that isn't even factoring in the very much increased rate of rootkit based infections as of late.