Google is one of the only internet companies big enough to call these criminals out on this kind of crap. "We're hogging bandwidth? Fine. We'll null route all your customers to save your precious bandwidth and see how long they remain your customers."
Buy it, then download and use a cracked version. The developer/publisher gets paid and you don't end up with a crippled version of the product. It's win-win.
Businesses that implement 802.11 use 802.1x authentication anyway, so a more feasible attack on WPA is more likely to be a threat to personal networks than corporate ones (most of which don't use wireless anyway).
Isn't duplicating functionality the basis for competition? The 45 different flashlight applications don't exactly support the claim that duplicate functionality is why these applications were rejected.
Seems to me like they're trying to reserve the right to develop their own alternative to any application on the store and pull the third party version. Don't you just love closed platforms?
Why let a town build a network with taxpayer money when you can build a network with that same money, then charge them again for using it? It's the classic telco business model.
I'm sure he can't wait to meet some of his satisfied customers in prison. Except now, he'll be the one notifying his doctor about erections lasting longer than 4 hours.
This isn't Sim City where you can just 'declare something an industrial zone' and call it good. Where you have industry, you also have to have (nearby) the people to operate the industry and the people who support them. Which means in turn, the whole infrastructure enchilada - roads, schools, hospitals, etc. etc.
Mandate that everybody who lives in a region with a high risk of natural disasters buy health, life, and property insurance. That'll drive most people out in a heartbeat.
The problem (for MICROS~1) is that web developers got wise to this, and have gotten pretty good at hacking around IE's awful errors while still maintaining standards compliance. So MICROS~1 has turned around and actively started changing the nature of the errors in each version, just to make life harder for developers. They haven't truly improved standards support since IE 5.5, they've just changed the rendering errors in an attempt to stop developers from creating standards complaint pages. If that's not anti-competitive, I don't know what is.
Considering IE's pattern of "improving" standards compliance over the last decade, a "more compliant" IE8 wouldn't necessarily be a good thing. MICROS~1 seems to think that fixing support for one thing and breaking support for 50 others is an improvement. It isn't. Even IE8's true "standards mode" is just as non-compliant as IE 7, 6, and 5.5. The only thing that has changed over all these revisions is the nature of the rendering errors. One version might treat a certain block element as inline, while the next fixes that issue only to draw inline borders incorrectly. All they do is change the errors, never fix them.
Anyone who thinks IE standards support has improved from IE7 to IE8 is sadly mistaken, and while we'd all rather have a truly compliant IE, it just isn't going to happen. I know I'll get a lot of hate for this, but I'd rather have one broken web browser to develop hacks for than 4.
I live 5 minutes away from MAE-East so you'd think internet access would cost less here, but I'm paying $60 per month for 15/2. I'd be willing to bet that the recent surge in advertised speeds has more to do with marketing than capacity.
At some point a few years ago ISPs realized that most web services don't have the bandwidth on their end to serve lots of users with 15 megabit connections, so they'd never actually have to provide all that bandwidth. They decided they were going to use speed purely as a marketing gimmick and started selling "15 megabit" connections with no capacity to back them up. That's why they hate BitTorrent so much -- it forces them to deliver the product they advertise (what an insane concept!). They oversell bandwidth by a factor of 100 and then turn around and label people who actually use the capacity they pay for as "bandwidth hogs". It's pitiful.
Why are there so many similarities to the way the buildings fell to a controlled demolition?
Because there are only so many ways a building basic physics allows a building collapse, controlled or not?
That is a load of crap. Some people choose to break laws and some choose not to, their choice of gaming platform has nothing to do with it. Are automakers to blame for selling cars to people who end up killing others while driving drunk? Are they encouraging drunk driving because it's easier to kill someone driving a car than riding in a taxi?
For the most part, these "pirates" are either students who can't afford the games, or people who are fundamentally opposed to the current state of intellectual property law. Neither group is going to pay for games regardless of what controls are in place to restrict piracy. If publishers really want to prevent piracy, their products shouldn't be targeted a demographic that disproportionately believes piracy is acceptable.
Microsoft spends billions of dollars researching things like that, but never brings any of them to market. Look at the "Image Deblurring with Blurred/Noisy Image Pairs" paper -- it's a marketable, easy to use technology that would be of huge benefit to typical consumers, yet chances are good it will never be commercialized. Contrary to popular opinion Microsoft does innovate, it's just that all the good stuff gets killed by some committee full of assistant senior project project team manager manager mangers.
Because clearly terrorists are going to use expensive, professional equipment instead of $10 cell phones. If I had $100,000 burning a hole in my pocket I'd walk around with a 1200mm lens just to see the responses I'd get. Judging by policies like this I'd probably be tasered, shot, and arrested.
The whole "don't be evil" thing was an internal witticism, not an actual corporate stance. Google is a publicly traded company -- it's not about being good or evil, it's about making money for the shareholders.
Perhaps "try not to break too many laws if possible" would make a better mantra for this lot.
Slashdot Mirror
Google is one of the only internet companies big enough to call these criminals out on this kind of crap. "We're hogging bandwidth? Fine. We'll null route all your customers to save your precious bandwidth and see how long they remain your customers."
Paying for the game and not putting up with the DRM aren't mutually exclusive. Buy it, then use a pirated copy.
Buy it, then download and use a cracked version. The developer/publisher gets paid and you don't end up with a crippled version of the product. It's win-win.
Businesses that implement 802.11 use 802.1x authentication anyway, so a more feasible attack on WPA is more likely to be a threat to personal networks than corporate ones (most of which don't use wireless anyway).
Anything that's gone through run-length encoding is going to have very high entropy, so JPG and PNG images are safe.
The article points out that this attack only works with uncompressed bitmaps with extremely low entropy. This is hardly a cause for alarm.
Isn't duplicating functionality the basis for competition? The 45 different flashlight applications don't exactly support the claim that duplicate functionality is why these applications were rejected.
Seems to me like they're trying to reserve the right to develop their own alternative to any application on the store and pull the third party version. Don't you just love closed platforms?
Why let a town build a network with taxpayer money when you can build a network with that same money, then charge them again for using it? It's the classic telco business model.
I'm sure he can't wait to meet some of his satisfied customers in prison. Except now, he'll be the one notifying his doctor about erections lasting longer than 4 hours.
And wouldn't you know it, all his friends and family accidentally car bombed themselves.
So in other words, this is SimCity.
Mandate that everybody who lives in a region with a high risk of natural disasters buy health, life, and property insurance. That'll drive most people out in a heartbeat.
I guess you don't know about all that "science" stuff that allows us to figure out where a hurricane is going to go and how strong it will be.
The problem (for MICROS~1) is that web developers got wise to this, and have gotten pretty good at hacking around IE's awful errors while still maintaining standards compliance. So MICROS~1 has turned around and actively started changing the nature of the errors in each version, just to make life harder for developers. They haven't truly improved standards support since IE 5.5, they've just changed the rendering errors in an attempt to stop developers from creating standards complaint pages. If that's not anti-competitive, I don't know what is.
Considering IE's pattern of "improving" standards compliance over the last decade, a "more compliant" IE8 wouldn't necessarily be a good thing. MICROS~1 seems to think that fixing support for one thing and breaking support for 50 others is an improvement. It isn't. Even IE8's true "standards mode" is just as non-compliant as IE 7, 6, and 5.5. The only thing that has changed over all these revisions is the nature of the rendering errors. One version might treat a certain block element as inline, while the next fixes that issue only to draw inline borders incorrectly. All they do is change the errors, never fix them.
Anyone who thinks IE standards support has improved from IE7 to IE8 is sadly mistaken, and while we'd all rather have a truly compliant IE, it just isn't going to happen. I know I'll get a lot of hate for this, but I'd rather have one broken web browser to develop hacks for than 4.
I live 5 minutes away from MAE-East so you'd think internet access would cost less here, but I'm paying $60 per month for 15/2. I'd be willing to bet that the recent surge in advertised speeds has more to do with marketing than capacity.
At some point a few years ago ISPs realized that most web services don't have the bandwidth on their end to serve lots of users with 15 megabit connections, so they'd never actually have to provide all that bandwidth. They decided they were going to use speed purely as a marketing gimmick and started selling "15 megabit" connections with no capacity to back them up. That's why they hate BitTorrent so much -- it forces them to deliver the product they advertise (what an insane concept!). They oversell bandwidth by a factor of 100 and then turn around and label people who actually use the capacity they pay for as "bandwidth hogs". It's pitiful.
Why are there so many similarities to the way the buildings fell to a controlled demolition? Because there are only so many ways a building basic physics allows a building collapse, controlled or not?
Do they mean to say that a fire can cause a building to collapse? Next they'll be telling us damage to structures following earthquakes isn't manmade.
That is a load of crap. Some people choose to break laws and some choose not to, their choice of gaming platform has nothing to do with it. Are automakers to blame for selling cars to people who end up killing others while driving drunk? Are they encouraging drunk driving because it's easier to kill someone driving a car than riding in a taxi?
For the most part, these "pirates" are either students who can't afford the games, or people who are fundamentally opposed to the current state of intellectual property law. Neither group is going to pay for games regardless of what controls are in place to restrict piracy. If publishers really want to prevent piracy, their products shouldn't be targeted a demographic that disproportionately believes piracy is acceptable.
Install Skype at both ends and start a video call between them. Enable full screen mode and presto, you have a 24/7 live video link.
Microsoft spends billions of dollars researching things like that, but never brings any of them to market. Look at the "Image Deblurring with Blurred/Noisy Image Pairs" paper -- it's a marketable, easy to use technology that would be of huge benefit to typical consumers, yet chances are good it will never be commercialized. Contrary to popular opinion Microsoft does innovate, it's just that all the good stuff gets killed by some committee full of assistant senior project project team manager manager mangers.
Just add symmetry and make thinner.
It was probably all coming from one botnet. Maybe the spammers renting it didn't pay their bill.
Because clearly terrorists are going to use expensive, professional equipment instead of $10 cell phones. If I had $100,000 burning a hole in my pocket I'd walk around with a 1200mm lens just to see the responses I'd get. Judging by policies like this I'd probably be tasered, shot, and arrested.
The whole "don't be evil" thing was an internal witticism, not an actual corporate stance. Google is a publicly traded company -- it's not about being good or evil, it's about making money for the shareholders.
Perhaps "try not to break too many laws if possible" would make a better mantra for this lot.