Consoles have DRM to shut out unlicensed developers. A lot of indie developers are too small to qualify for a license. So do you just choose to shun games from developers without a console license? Or if not, how do you play these games?
The 360 does not. You can get indie games all you like via the XNA Creator's Club. You can even peer-review, play-test, and help translate them.
There really is no equivalent, but a DOS is the closest - no physical "damage" but it does affect its ability to do business (no sit-in is damageless).
No, it's polar opposites. With a sit-in, the ability to do business is impaired, but if stopped completely the store could call the police. A DDoS does nothing short of total shutdown. The ability to do business if the target of one of these is obliterated. They should be, and are, illegal. They absolutely DO do damage (go work for a webhost and tell me that a DDoS is victimless).
There are laws for a reason. If companies are somehow changing laws, well that's a problem with your government. You're attacking the wrong pack of douches.
Except that this dickhead action doesn't inconvenience Sony, so much as it inconveniences millions of console owners who can't play their games online, all because some group of 12 year olds got a stick up their ass. Hell, taking down PSN probably saves Sony money, since suddenly their free service which consumes tons of resources is offline.
Still wrong. If a sit-in is obstructing to the point that customers cannot actually use the store, the protesters are told to disperse or face arrest. Nothing like a DDoS, where you can't find the douchebags to tell them to leave.
Stop trying to defend it - a DDoS is a vigilante action taken by lazy good for nothing douchebags. Much like Sony.
Can you access the service at all while it's being DDoSed? No? Then nothing like a picket line. You don't have to walk past a picket line, you can walk through it. If they try stop you, they can be arrested.
Except that if they do actually choke off service, the store calls the police and the protesters are told to disperse or face arrest. Again, nothing like a DDoS where that course of action is not possible.
Again, you can walk past a sit-in to use the store or service you intended if you feel inclined to. You cannot ignore a DDoS in order to access a store or service you intended to. Hence, they are exactly nothing alike whatsoever - and the only people who claim they are alike are just trying to justify what is essentially a destructive action. Sony may be assholes, but Anonymous are bigger ones.
While I do not agree with Anonymous' methods, their point still stands, and what they have done is an unfortunate but neccessary eye opener for large companies that think they are above the law when faced with similar circumstances.
So you're saying that the solution to companies who believe they are above the law is to act like you're above the law yourself?
Except that it's drastically different than a sit-in. A sit-in, you can walk up to someone talk to them, learn their story and know who they are and what they do. That is fundamentally what a sit-in's function is: to show the human side of the people affected.
And just as importantly, if you do not agree with the sit-in you are free to walk past it and use the service you're there for. A DDoS, you are not because that store/service has been nailed shut and cannot be reached.
It really is nothing like a picket line. You can walk through a picket line and still use the store which is picketed (or the cops will break up the protest). A DDoS is more akin to picketers walking up to a shop, nailing the doors shut and punching anyone in the face that tries to enter the store.
Of course, any cert would be usable to sign another cert so that example.com could use it's example.com cert (signed by a generally recognized CA) to sign their own cert for api2.example.com. Validation would be a matter of following the signatures until you get to a known and trusted cert. But we couldn''t allow that since it would conflict with "pay a CA for a cert" on the api2 site.
Uh, what? The reason that doesn't work is nothing to do with "pay a CA for a cert". The reason that doesn't work is that it would completely break the trust model. What you're suggesting would allow a criminal to obtain a certificate for dodgy-site.com (legitimately, since you believe CAs should not be allowed to verify identity and all that stuff because it's "just profiteering"), and use that to sign a cert for bankofamerica.com. Voila, instant MitM.
Essentially, your idea is foolish and ill conceived.
Personally, I find the best feature of CS5 to be that trial expiry no longer works. Every time it starts on my PC, it claims I've got 30 days left to evaluate, then when it finally actually starts it claims the trial has expired but I can run it *just one more time*.
IBM? I wasn't aware a consultant was an open source program, or a Netfinity 5000 server. HP? I'm pretty sure a DL385 G7 is not an open source program. HP/UX isn't either.
It's all well and good to say it's economically viable (it is - if done right. Redhat is done right, Canonical is done very wrong), but neither IBM nor HP are examples of this.
I'm inclined to disagree. A botnet really doesn't have to live in kernelspace - userspace is more than good enough to spew out thousands of spam messages an hour. Jest all you like about drive-by downloads and the like, but the majority of botnet software is executed by the user, deliberately because it claims to give them cool smilies in MSN, or a little monkey hiding by the clock (or Jessica Alba). Even Linux, BSD and OS X do nothing to stop that sort of behaviour (and they don't claim to try). If they were popular enough that you could guarantee enough penetration by developing botnets for them, we'd see far more BSD-targeted "cursor packs". The problem isn't the system, it's the user.
"Mac verses Emacs" makes about as much sense as "apples vs. sofas" (let alone oranges) -- not only are they not mutually exclusive, they're not even in the same category of things
Yes they are. Apple's computer lineup included the "eMac", or Education Mac.
You're just confused because there are two kinds of iOS haters.. The ones that think everything everything Steve Jobs touches is an overpriced piece of crap, and the ones that think that iOS is the computing equivalent of the phantom zone.
Slashdot Mirror
Consoles have DRM to shut out unlicensed developers. A lot of indie developers are too small to qualify for a license. So do you just choose to shun games from developers without a console license? Or if not, how do you play these games?
The 360 does not. You can get indie games all you like via the XNA Creator's Club. You can even peer-review, play-test, and help translate them.
Yes, that's what I meant.
New Zealand reminds you that it was there too in that ill-fated assault.
There really is no equivalent, but a DOS is the closest - no physical "damage" but it does affect its ability to do business (no sit-in is damageless).
No, it's polar opposites. With a sit-in, the ability to do business is impaired, but if stopped completely the store could call the police. A DDoS does nothing short of total shutdown. The ability to do business if the target of one of these is obliterated. They should be, and are, illegal. They absolutely DO do damage (go work for a webhost and tell me that a DDoS is victimless).
There are laws for a reason. If companies are somehow changing laws, well that's a problem with your government. You're attacking the wrong pack of douches.
Except that this dickhead action doesn't inconvenience Sony, so much as it inconveniences millions of console owners who can't play their games online, all because some group of 12 year olds got a stick up their ass. Hell, taking down PSN probably saves Sony money, since suddenly their free service which consumes tons of resources is offline.
Still wrong. If a sit-in is obstructing to the point that customers cannot actually use the store, the protesters are told to disperse or face arrest. Nothing like a DDoS, where you can't find the douchebags to tell them to leave.
Stop trying to defend it - a DDoS is a vigilante action taken by lazy good for nothing douchebags. Much like Sony.
Can you access the service at all while it's being DDoSed? No? Then nothing like a picket line. You don't have to walk past a picket line, you can walk through it. If they try stop you, they can be arrested.
Except that if they do actually choke off service, the store calls the police and the protesters are told to disperse or face arrest. Again, nothing like a DDoS where that course of action is not possible.
Yes, but Steam wraps DOSBOX in DRM too.
Again, you can walk past a sit-in to use the store or service you intended if you feel inclined to. You cannot ignore a DDoS in order to access a store or service you intended to. Hence, they are exactly nothing alike whatsoever - and the only people who claim they are alike are just trying to justify what is essentially a destructive action. Sony may be assholes, but Anonymous are bigger ones.
While I do not agree with Anonymous' methods, their point still stands, and what they have done is an unfortunate but neccessary eye opener for large companies that think they are above the law when faced with similar circumstances.
So you're saying that the solution to companies who believe they are above the law is to act like you're above the law yourself?
Yeah. That'll fly.
Except that it's drastically different than a sit-in. A sit-in, you can walk up to someone talk to them, learn their story and know who they are and what they do. That is fundamentally what a sit-in's function is: to show the human side of the people affected.
And just as importantly, if you do not agree with the sit-in you are free to walk past it and use the service you're there for. A DDoS, you are not because that store/service has been nailed shut and cannot be reached.
It really is nothing like a picket line. You can walk through a picket line and still use the store which is picketed (or the cops will break up the protest). A DDoS is more akin to picketers walking up to a shop, nailing the doors shut and punching anyone in the face that tries to enter the store.
Of course, any cert would be usable to sign another cert so that example.com could use it's example.com cert (signed by a generally recognized CA) to sign their own cert for api2.example.com. Validation would be a matter of following the signatures until you get to a known and trusted cert. But we couldn''t allow that since it would conflict with "pay a CA for a cert" on the api2 site.
Uh, what? The reason that doesn't work is nothing to do with "pay a CA for a cert". The reason that doesn't work is that it would completely break the trust model. What you're suggesting would allow a criminal to obtain a certificate for dodgy-site.com (legitimately, since you believe CAs should not be allowed to verify identity and all that stuff because it's "just profiteering"), and use that to sign a cert for bankofamerica.com. Voila, instant MitM.
Essentially, your idea is foolish and ill conceived.
You're wrong. All of those games are wrapped in Steam. Steam is DRM.
Personally, I find the best feature of CS5 to be that trial expiry no longer works. Every time it starts on my PC, it claims I've got 30 days left to evaluate, then when it finally actually starts it claims the trial has expired but I can run it *just one more time*.
Rinse and repeat.
No, Eyewonder is one of their advertising providers. And we all know how shitty advertising providers are.
Where the bloody hell can I find this free beer? All the places around here charge $6 a pint!
IBM? I wasn't aware a consultant was an open source program, or a Netfinity 5000 server. HP? I'm pretty sure a DL385 G7 is not an open source program. HP/UX isn't either.
It's all well and good to say it's economically viable (it is - if done right. Redhat is done right, Canonical is done very wrong), but neither IBM nor HP are examples of this.
Verisign? You mean Symantec right?
Just to correct that, Verisign sold off their CA operations to Symantec. They don't issue certs any more.
They just control the gTLDs.
I'm inclined to disagree. A botnet really doesn't have to live in kernelspace - userspace is more than good enough to spew out thousands of spam messages an hour. Jest all you like about drive-by downloads and the like, but the majority of botnet software is executed by the user, deliberately because it claims to give them cool smilies in MSN, or a little monkey hiding by the clock (or Jessica Alba). Even Linux, BSD and OS X do nothing to stop that sort of behaviour (and they don't claim to try). If they were popular enough that you could guarantee enough penetration by developing botnets for them, we'd see far more BSD-targeted "cursor packs". The problem isn't the system, it's the user.
"Mac verses Emacs" makes about as much sense as "apples vs. sofas" (let alone oranges) -- not only are they not mutually exclusive, they're not even in the same category of things
Yes they are. Apple's computer lineup included the "eMac", or Education Mac.
You're just confused because there are two kinds of iOS haters.. The ones that think everything everything Steve Jobs touches is an overpriced piece of crap, and the ones that think that iOS is the computing equivalent of the phantom zone.
What's the phantom zone? It sounds trendy!
Does it have a developer program?