As far as I know the only major event like that was a woman driving into the swamp. I'd actually be more nervous of things like that when auto driving cars move into the real world.
Not to mention the detail that the argument still stands, HDMI is a "you see it as clear as possible", or you get nothing/no-signal. The fact is that if you have a $2 or $5 cable that works, then the quality will be the same as a $200 cable that works. Just because you bought broken/non-working equipment still doesn't support the argument that different tiers of cable make it better or worse.
On the other hand maybe they want to make sure there aren't any kinks or drastic oversights that will cause mass poor publicity, like what happened with buzz.
Actually there is where google and facebook vary, Google dosn't sell information to the highest bidder, unless you consider themselves the highest bidder always. Google isn't going to tell joe schmo marketer that you go through 10 rolls of toilet paper a day, google will tell toilet paper vendors "we know who use alot of toilet paper, pay us and we'll make sure they see your advertisements", they don't want to directly sell off your information that would be like selling the goose that lays the golden egg. That being said I'm hard pressed to come up with any intentional use for the packet sniffing allegations. The cars don't stick around in one spot long enough to gather anything useful, so I find it fairly easy to believe that it honestly was a goal to map public wifi hotspots, via sending and receiving data to try to triangulate their location, and that picking up extra data was an unintended side effect.
True, though in some cases some do, particularly those with distributions like ubuntu that tend to encourage their users to do a full install to upgrade from version to version every 6 months or so. (admitted I think the current updater will move you up a version, but I recall a time when they didn't).
Of course in linux a re-install is extremely painless considering your configurations of just about everything is stored on your home directory, which you shouldn't be formatting, rather then in a complicated registry in which half of your settings will carry over, half will be lost.
Microsoft themselves get away with quite a bit more then they used to be able to. Mainly because they aren't succeeding anymore, just look at bing. Monopolistic practices are using your influence in one market to gain share in another. If you buy a new computer, it comes with IE, IE automatically has it's default search engine set to bing, you install MSN messenger, the installer will ask to change your default search engine to bing if it isn't currently and install the bing toolbar, in addition to having it's own search tool in messenger that will search bing. Despite all of this they are barely making a dent in Google's dominance of the search market, and as a result are attempting to call Google the antitrust violator. I'm not saying Google is perfectly innocent of the accusations, but Microsoft hasn't slowed down on their tactics even slightly, and for the most part they are allowed to get away with it because it isn't succeeding. Personally I wish that effectiveness wasn't such a large part of whether something is deemed antitrust. If I rob a grocery store, whether I leave with $20 or $5,000 I'm pretty sure the charges against me would be the same.
Even the typo ridden summary compared it side by side to the guarantee that came before it (google apps). From the above linked article "In 2010, Gmail specifically achieved a 99.984 percent uptime rate both for consumers and professionals who use it as part of Apps, Google said."
Still kind of sad show of confidence. Competitor offers 99.9% up-time full guarantee counting maintenance etc... Microsoft counters with a 96% partial refund guarantee. If Microsoft made the first move it would be fairly respectable, but to bring out a counter move that is less then it's target is a tad silly. Something tells me microsoft's marketing department is not getting the idea of how to one up the competition. If you come in first whatever offer you make is considered good, coming in second and offering almost as much for a slightly higher price, is not a good decision.
Well I haven't played WoW since the vanilla days and I know they've simplified and sped things up alot since then, 85 in a day still sounds extremely far fetched in the old days (IE when the cap was 60) I would say a week and a half to 2 weeks is more par for the course for someone who already knows all the tricks, best leveling areas etc... 1-2 months realistically for someone new to WoW. I would more realistically say, assuming a fairly typical 3-4 hour a night playtime, you would reach level 18ish on day 1, hit the cap by day 2 (note that is assuming a player who picks up things at a decent speed but does not know the best leveling routes in WoW yet). Your point is still valid just exaggerated.
No they caught them by installing the bing toolbar, bing was obtaining the results by the rights the users signed away in the EULA. Users do not have the rights to sign away the results to googles search, the users queries are fair game, but the results google gives aren't. If I signed my rights away to Microsoft to allow someone to plant cameras and microphones in my house and use the results in advertising, and I listen to my Metallica CD, does that give Microsoft the rights to use Metallica songs in their next commercial?
yup for better or worse they are letting you know that deleting your account is only forfeiting whatever sliver of rights you actually had to your data.
I think the complaint there isn't about the actual hack he succeeded at but more likely the part where he got everyone riled up and donating money to fight sony in court, but then backed out at the last second and agreed to settle. Unless the poster is one of the idiots that thinks geohot had anything to do with the attacks on PSN, in which case he's an idiot.
In general from what I have seen, quite a few quit games because of models that make what they do in game seem insignificant. In general all forms of MMORPGs are more or less the feeling that what you do is making your character stronger, and you get the constant feel of power rising. In general when you do all that work, play the game and work your character up for several months, then you find out that new players just tossed in $200 and instantly rose above your level, you lose that thrill, on top of that the new players, once the characters that they have surpassed quit, they lose the thrill themselves, there's no point working in game when they already bought everything they need, and thus have nothing to work towards. Basically some models like that turn a multi-year game into 1 month blast through type game. The effect goes double for PVP games, generally in games with PVP, the new wealthy players buy the expensive CS items to stomp all over the players who don't have them, but then get bored once the non cash players get fed up and quit.
Every MMO has overly broad TOS that entitles the GMs to do what they want, it dosn't exempt it from falling into gaming news when they chose to abuse it. For instance pretty much every subscription based MMO usually say something along the lines of "these are the rules, if you break them you will be banned and if you are banned we will not refund any subscription fees you have paid up till now (IE if you paid 6 months ahead, tough luck). Also we reserve the right to ban you for reasons not listed in the TOS, in the case of WoW their clause is listed as "(iii) Anything that Blizzard considers contrary to the "essence" of the Game.". So more or less just about every MMO has a TOS clause that allows them to say, oh you paid 6 months in advance, thanks for the money, umm I don't like your shirt, you can't play. The fact that they have these rules isn't news, but were they to actually use the rights they gave themselves in the EULA, it would be newsworthy.
On call and on duty are still distinctly different. Odds are they aren't wearing their badge, gun and hat while sitting around the house, and the laws of expectancy of privacy are all in place while they are in their house and indoors. ANYONE regardless of position, should be fair game to record on a public street. Right now the problem is pretty clear to me. In most courts (note I am aware some places have police known so much for corruption that a judge may not trust them), the word of a cop is higher value then the word of a suspect. If a cop and his partner say person X threw a punch at an officer and the officer hit back, and the guy and his friend say the cop punched him without any provocation, there is little to no chance of the cop being ruled at fault.
Since when is it illegal for your boss to record you at work?, if it is just about every convenience store, wal-mart and half the restaurants in the world are breaking the law. If I remember right from when I worked at subway, there was a security camera filming the back room, the register (at an angle to monitor for both robbers and to catch cashiers from taking from their own registers, and it was more then common for someone to get fired for sitting around on the job, stealing from the register etc... based on evidence from those cameras.
Recorded at their desk, sure why not? Is it unheard of for someones desk to be far from a security camera? Heck in retail, food service etc... it's fairly SOP to have a camera that covers the cashiers at the register and many parts of the store. I am absolutely OK with the possibility of being filmed at my desk and anywhere in my job other then the restrooms. Just getting on a computer at work involves clicking a "I understand that everything I do on this computer is subject to monitoring by the company". IMO if you are on public territory where there is no expectation of privacy, there is no sane reason you can oppose being filmed by someone who you are in front of.
Nobody hates firefox 5 for changing anything other then the version number. The problem with it is, it was minor tweaks under the hood that are identified by ad-ons as such a huge change that they won't try to adapt, and the simple concept of the numbering systems going up at this rate is silly, and downright crazy in the world of open source, in the open source a change to about 10% of the features, is normally considered a.01 increase, not a full version number. In the past version numbers were intended just to let people know a few little details are added, now it's an amp that goes up to 11.
Hence why the person used the phrase "Trying", shooting himself may have been the fallback plan, since getting caught by the police will certainly make actually committing suicide significantly harder, less quick etc... and actually having an unloaded weapon I would imagine would between taking away a backup plan, and being less effective (cops are more likely to fire at you if you fire the first shot). But yes obviously whether attempted or not, he failed, but did not get the worse possible outcome (worse outcome being hurt in take-down and put on suicide watch in a cell)
Unfortunately few companies will see it that way, the more targets lulz succeeds at attacking, the more likely companies will view them as an unforeseeable and unstoppable act of god rather then a sign their security is garbage. History has shown that the response to a hacker is almost never, oh gosh our security is bad, and more often OMG this criminal must be stopped, push better laws to monitor who's online, catch these criminals and make sure they all get life sentences, and hey while we're at it, the freedoms we've taken away to deal with this problem, will also come in handy to catch those pesky pirates.
It is the very definition of terrorism. Per the Webster dictionary "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion". Now admitted this definition can also refer to everything from 9/11, to the school bully saying "give me your lunch money or I punch your face in".
Does html5 have any capabilities that would allow obnoxious DRM to be placed on videos sent through it is what I wonder. Netflix rejected flash mainly for that reason, as much as I hate the technology, I do acknowledge that netflix has to deal with the devil to get anything done, and the devil won't let them do anything without DRM.
Slashdot Mirror
As far as I know the only major event like that was a woman driving into the swamp. I'd actually be more nervous of things like that when auto driving cars move into the real world.
Not to mention the detail that the argument still stands, HDMI is a "you see it as clear as possible", or you get nothing/no-signal. The fact is that if you have a $2 or $5 cable that works, then the quality will be the same as a $200 cable that works. Just because you bought broken/non-working equipment still doesn't support the argument that different tiers of cable make it better or worse.
On the other hand maybe they want to make sure there aren't any kinks or drastic oversights that will cause mass poor publicity, like what happened with buzz.
Actually there is where google and facebook vary, Google dosn't sell information to the highest bidder, unless you consider themselves the highest bidder always. Google isn't going to tell joe schmo marketer that you go through 10 rolls of toilet paper a day, google will tell toilet paper vendors "we know who use alot of toilet paper, pay us and we'll make sure they see your advertisements", they don't want to directly sell off your information that would be like selling the goose that lays the golden egg. That being said I'm hard pressed to come up with any intentional use for the packet sniffing allegations. The cars don't stick around in one spot long enough to gather anything useful, so I find it fairly easy to believe that it honestly was a goal to map public wifi hotspots, via sending and receiving data to try to triangulate their location, and that picking up extra data was an unintended side effect.
I believe most installs involve creating the MBR to inform it where the current OS and/or boot loader is.
True, though in some cases some do, particularly those with distributions like ubuntu that tend to encourage their users to do a full install to upgrade from version to version every 6 months or so. (admitted I think the current updater will move you up a version, but I recall a time when they didn't). Of course in linux a re-install is extremely painless considering your configurations of just about everything is stored on your home directory, which you shouldn't be formatting, rather then in a complicated registry in which half of your settings will carry over, half will be lost.
Microsoft themselves get away with quite a bit more then they used to be able to. Mainly because they aren't succeeding anymore, just look at bing. Monopolistic practices are using your influence in one market to gain share in another. If you buy a new computer, it comes with IE, IE automatically has it's default search engine set to bing, you install MSN messenger, the installer will ask to change your default search engine to bing if it isn't currently and install the bing toolbar, in addition to having it's own search tool in messenger that will search bing. Despite all of this they are barely making a dent in Google's dominance of the search market, and as a result are attempting to call Google the antitrust violator. I'm not saying Google is perfectly innocent of the accusations, but Microsoft hasn't slowed down on their tactics even slightly, and for the most part they are allowed to get away with it because it isn't succeeding. Personally I wish that effectiveness wasn't such a large part of whether something is deemed antitrust. If I rob a grocery store, whether I leave with $20 or $5,000 I'm pretty sure the charges against me would be the same.
Even the typo ridden summary compared it side by side to the guarantee that came before it (google apps). From the above linked article "In 2010, Gmail specifically achieved a 99.984 percent uptime rate both for consumers and professionals who use it as part of Apps, Google said."
Still kind of sad show of confidence. Competitor offers 99.9% up-time full guarantee counting maintenance etc... Microsoft counters with a 96% partial refund guarantee. If Microsoft made the first move it would be fairly respectable, but to bring out a counter move that is less then it's target is a tad silly. Something tells me microsoft's marketing department is not getting the idea of how to one up the competition. If you come in first whatever offer you make is considered good, coming in second and offering almost as much for a slightly higher price, is not a good decision.
Well I haven't played WoW since the vanilla days and I know they've simplified and sped things up alot since then, 85 in a day still sounds extremely far fetched in the old days (IE when the cap was 60) I would say a week and a half to 2 weeks is more par for the course for someone who already knows all the tricks, best leveling areas etc... 1-2 months realistically for someone new to WoW. I would more realistically say, assuming a fairly typical 3-4 hour a night playtime, you would reach level 18ish on day 1, hit the cap by day 2 (note that is assuming a player who picks up things at a decent speed but does not know the best leveling routes in WoW yet). Your point is still valid just exaggerated.
No they caught them by installing the bing toolbar, bing was obtaining the results by the rights the users signed away in the EULA. Users do not have the rights to sign away the results to googles search, the users queries are fair game, but the results google gives aren't. If I signed my rights away to Microsoft to allow someone to plant cameras and microphones in my house and use the results in advertising, and I listen to my Metallica CD, does that give Microsoft the rights to use Metallica songs in their next commercial?
yup for better or worse they are letting you know that deleting your account is only forfeiting whatever sliver of rights you actually had to your data.
Tis true, more often then not, a quick thank you for fixing my computer, leads to a 2am "omg I got another virus can you come down here and fix it".
We apologize to those who have had their hands hacked by our latest security breach.
I think the complaint there isn't about the actual hack he succeeded at but more likely the part where he got everyone riled up and donating money to fight sony in court, but then backed out at the last second and agreed to settle. Unless the poster is one of the idiots that thinks geohot had anything to do with the attacks on PSN, in which case he's an idiot.
In general from what I have seen, quite a few quit games because of models that make what they do in game seem insignificant. In general all forms of MMORPGs are more or less the feeling that what you do is making your character stronger, and you get the constant feel of power rising. In general when you do all that work, play the game and work your character up for several months, then you find out that new players just tossed in $200 and instantly rose above your level, you lose that thrill, on top of that the new players, once the characters that they have surpassed quit, they lose the thrill themselves, there's no point working in game when they already bought everything they need, and thus have nothing to work towards. Basically some models like that turn a multi-year game into 1 month blast through type game. The effect goes double for PVP games, generally in games with PVP, the new wealthy players buy the expensive CS items to stomp all over the players who don't have them, but then get bored once the non cash players get fed up and quit.
Every MMO has overly broad TOS that entitles the GMs to do what they want, it dosn't exempt it from falling into gaming news when they chose to abuse it. For instance pretty much every subscription based MMO usually say something along the lines of "these are the rules, if you break them you will be banned and if you are banned we will not refund any subscription fees you have paid up till now (IE if you paid 6 months ahead, tough luck). Also we reserve the right to ban you for reasons not listed in the TOS, in the case of WoW their clause is listed as "(iii) Anything that Blizzard considers contrary to the "essence" of the Game.". So more or less just about every MMO has a TOS clause that allows them to say, oh you paid 6 months in advance, thanks for the money, umm I don't like your shirt, you can't play. The fact that they have these rules isn't news, but were they to actually use the rights they gave themselves in the EULA, it would be newsworthy.
On call and on duty are still distinctly different. Odds are they aren't wearing their badge, gun and hat while sitting around the house, and the laws of expectancy of privacy are all in place while they are in their house and indoors. ANYONE regardless of position, should be fair game to record on a public street. Right now the problem is pretty clear to me. In most courts (note I am aware some places have police known so much for corruption that a judge may not trust them), the word of a cop is higher value then the word of a suspect. If a cop and his partner say person X threw a punch at an officer and the officer hit back, and the guy and his friend say the cop punched him without any provocation, there is little to no chance of the cop being ruled at fault.
Since when is it illegal for your boss to record you at work?, if it is just about every convenience store, wal-mart and half the restaurants in the world are breaking the law. If I remember right from when I worked at subway, there was a security camera filming the back room, the register (at an angle to monitor for both robbers and to catch cashiers from taking from their own registers, and it was more then common for someone to get fired for sitting around on the job, stealing from the register etc... based on evidence from those cameras.
Recorded at their desk, sure why not? Is it unheard of for someones desk to be far from a security camera? Heck in retail, food service etc... it's fairly SOP to have a camera that covers the cashiers at the register and many parts of the store. I am absolutely OK with the possibility of being filmed at my desk and anywhere in my job other then the restrooms. Just getting on a computer at work involves clicking a "I understand that everything I do on this computer is subject to monitoring by the company". IMO if you are on public territory where there is no expectation of privacy, there is no sane reason you can oppose being filmed by someone who you are in front of.
Nobody hates firefox 5 for changing anything other then the version number. The problem with it is, it was minor tweaks under the hood that are identified by ad-ons as such a huge change that they won't try to adapt, and the simple concept of the numbering systems going up at this rate is silly, and downright crazy in the world of open source, in the open source a change to about 10% of the features, is normally considered a .01 increase, not a full version number. In the past version numbers were intended just to let people know a few little details are added, now it's an amp that goes up to 11.
Hence why the person used the phrase "Trying", shooting himself may have been the fallback plan, since getting caught by the police will certainly make actually committing suicide significantly harder, less quick etc... and actually having an unloaded weapon I would imagine would between taking away a backup plan, and being less effective (cops are more likely to fire at you if you fire the first shot). But yes obviously whether attempted or not, he failed, but did not get the worse possible outcome (worse outcome being hurt in take-down and put on suicide watch in a cell)
Unfortunately few companies will see it that way, the more targets lulz succeeds at attacking, the more likely companies will view them as an unforeseeable and unstoppable act of god rather then a sign their security is garbage. History has shown that the response to a hacker is almost never, oh gosh our security is bad, and more often OMG this criminal must be stopped, push better laws to monitor who's online, catch these criminals and make sure they all get life sentences, and hey while we're at it, the freedoms we've taken away to deal with this problem, will also come in handy to catch those pesky pirates.
It is the very definition of terrorism. Per the Webster dictionary "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion". Now admitted this definition can also refer to everything from 9/11, to the school bully saying "give me your lunch money or I punch your face in".
Does html5 have any capabilities that would allow obnoxious DRM to be placed on videos sent through it is what I wonder. Netflix rejected flash mainly for that reason, as much as I hate the technology, I do acknowledge that netflix has to deal with the devil to get anything done, and the devil won't let them do anything without DRM.