You know, there's a huge difference when the word is a name. You aren't supposed to unnecessarily translate those into English, it just makes it look like you have a giant inferiority complex.
It doesn't need to, because it's a reverse VNC connection. I.e. the server initiates it, not the client. NAT and dynamic addressing are irrelevant. And, even better, it's more reliable than Easy Connect (which I just got told by Windows 7 is not available when I tested it because it cannot connect to the global peer-to-peer network, whatever that's supposed to mean).
I work for a company where the rule is that in the event where a schedule conflict exists, the vendor is the one that has to bite the bullet. We refuse to go out of our way to have a conference call with a vendor at midnight - to us it's office hours only. But if our customers call us out of hours, we are there to sort it out - because that's what the customer is paying us for.
Well, if that company is anything like the one I work for, it's because the company demands at least two non-work contact numbers from every IT employee.
I don't recall supposing that at all. It's clear you are confusing copyright and licensing. If Oracle revoked the InnoDB license, then MySQL would have had to fork the last available version of it, and based on the awfulness that is MyISAM, I can't imagine them doing a very good job of it at all.
No, fuck you. The majority of the stuff in Linux distributions is not GNU. There are various GNU toolchain items, yes. There's also some BSD toolchain items, a metric fuckton of non-GNU items (the entire GUI subsystem for a start).
And perhaps as important, or even more so, is that the GNU toolchain is useless without a kernel such as Linux, but Linux still retains its usefulness without GNU. So how you can claim that not only is it vitally important that we recognise the GNU components as part of the OS name, but also that we recognise it as the most important part of the OS by including the name GNU first frankly boggles the mind. GNU is not an operating system, and nor is GNU/Linux. If we're required to include the GNU in the name then the system really has to include the name of every major component. So BSD/GNU/X11/.../Linux.
File Access has been a shattered illusion since I came to understand that any user account to which assigned administrative privileges was still kept from accessing certain files for lack of sufficient 'privilege' regardless of what I attempted to do to circumvent Microsoft's control or that of their partners.
This is pure bullshit. Even files for which you have no access (on a bog-standard Windows install this is the SAM and the System Volume Information folder, the first of which is the Security Accounts database and is only unreadable because Windows holds it open for exclusive read - for good reason, and the second is the container for system information for which you'd have no interest, such as restore point data), you can take ownership of the files and then just go right ahead and do whatever you want. If an application removes your ability to access a file, then that's a problem with the application not Windows.
No, no he does not. If that were the case then Macs would ship with an OS called BSD/Mach, and Windows computers would ship with an operating system called NTOS/Windows. Ubuntu is the OS, just as Windows and Mac OS X are operating systems. GNU/Linux is just Stallman's attempt to take the lion's share of credit for work that he contributed nothing more than a small toolchain and a license text to.
No, because they're talking to infrastructure owned by a company, and that company has in place an agreement with their employees that all traffic across their environment will be monitored whether for compliance or legal reasons, so therefore no wiretapping is occurring.
That is true to an extent, Some people do pirate because there is no demo for a game, and honestly I can see why you'd do that (I've been burned by buying a game with no demo before - it didn't work on my PC at all, and Valve's response was "no refunds" until I kept at them and they refunded it "as a one time good faith gesture").
However the person I was replying to said that it's OK to pirate if you weren't going to buy the game anyway. It's not, because that means that if you do pirate it then you have decided the game has value to you but you just don't want to pay. What you're talking about is when you aren't sure if you're going to buy it and you're downloading it to decide if you will.
It sounds like what you're actually arguing is that games should have decent demos, and that they're overpriced. You'll get no argument from me there (in fact I'd support that wholeheartedly). That's still not an excuse to pirate though.
(On indie games: it's ironic that an indie developer can get people to pay hundreds to thousands of dollars for a game simply by putting it on Kickstarter or Humble Bundle. Doesn't that kind of obliterate the "it costs too much" argument? I don't know. You decide).
This I agree with. Deciding that you won't buy it at $X, but will buy it at $Y, and waiting until it becomes $Y is not only perfectly reasonable, it's a damn good idea. Since taking up watching Steam sales, my Steam collection is actually almost larger than my boxed collection, and rapidly coming close to overtaking it.
I simply cannot agree, however, that disagreeing with the price or distribution mechanism of a product entitles you to not pay for it.
My belief is not unreasonable. And my argument is not spurious. He cites companies supporting SOPA as a reason for him pirating their products, but no game developer/publisher currently supports SOPA. EA withdrew their support. Ubisoft never supported it in the first place. Epic Games, Microsoft, and Runic actively opposed it. I can almost guarantee that the GGP has pirated a product from one or more of the last four listed companies.
On a slightly related note, I agree with you that game companies need to offer demos more. I don't know why you can't just go down to a local game shop and get a DVD with 5 or 6 demos on it for free or $1. You know, like the shareware floppies of old.
They could have killed MySQL long ago by revoking the InnoDB license (we all know MyISAM is shit).
And let's not forget that Oracle didn't buy MySQL, they bought Sun. I work or a company that uses Oracle DBs and I can assure you - they were after the hardware assets. ExaData is INSANELY expensive (like > $500,000 expensive).
They probably keep MySQL alive so that they can still gouge customers who can't afford Oracle-grade gouging. (Oracle is $17,500, MySQL is only $5,000)
You can drag and drop a file or directory onto a Command Prompt, and it will be inserted into the prompt, just like in Terminal. Command Prompt requires quotation marks to distinguish between a path with spaces and the parameter list to a command - just like Terminal requires you to prefix each space with a backslash to escape it. And you can either mount a UNC path to access it as a drive, or you can perform manipulation commands on it (such as dir, del, move, etc) without mapping it - you just can't change to it. Hell, Terminal doesn't ever support UNC paths. Not for changing to, listing, manipulating files.
It doesn't work like that. You can only get an entitlement on the entire folder by having the user select the folder from an Open Folder dialog, and then you'd still have to tell them to find the video to play. In other words, GP has it right and you are very wrong.
Perhaps instead of devoting those specialists to DLC, they could devote them to fixing the broken game instead (seriously it took 5 fucking patches to get Skyrim even playable) so that the Day 1 patch makes the game playable?
If you pirate because you were not going to buy it anyway, then that's fine.
No, it's not. Clearly you've decided you actually want the game and will derive some enjoyment from it. Therefore it has a value to you, and you're just pirating because you're cheap. This "I wasn't going to buy it anyway" line is the biggest load of bullshit ever spouted, because 90% of the people saying it are just spouting the party line to justify that they're cheapskates who don't feel they should have to pay for someone else's work.
Slashdot Mirror
You know, there's a huge difference when the word is a name. You aren't supposed to unnecessarily translate those into English, it just makes it look like you have a giant inferiority complex.
It doesn't need to, because it's a reverse VNC connection. I.e. the server initiates it, not the client. NAT and dynamic addressing are irrelevant. And, even better, it's more reliable than Easy Connect (which I just got told by Windows 7 is not available when I tested it because it cannot connect to the global peer-to-peer network, whatever that's supposed to mean).
I work for a company where the rule is that in the event where a schedule conflict exists, the vendor is the one that has to bite the bullet. We refuse to go out of our way to have a conference call with a vendor at midnight - to us it's office hours only. But if our customers call us out of hours, we are there to sort it out - because that's what the customer is paying us for.
Well, if that company is anything like the one I work for, it's because the company demands at least two non-work contact numbers from every IT employee.
I don't recall supposing that at all. It's clear you are confusing copyright and licensing. If Oracle revoked the InnoDB license, then MySQL would have had to fork the last available version of it, and based on the awfulness that is MyISAM, I can't imagine them doing a very good job of it at all.
No, I don't know, because telemarketing companies don't do that.
No, fuck you. The majority of the stuff in Linux distributions is not GNU. There are various GNU toolchain items, yes. There's also some BSD toolchain items, a metric fuckton of non-GNU items (the entire GUI subsystem for a start).
And perhaps as important, or even more so, is that the GNU toolchain is useless without a kernel such as Linux, but Linux still retains its usefulness without GNU. So how you can claim that not only is it vitally important that we recognise the GNU components as part of the OS name, but also that we recognise it as the most important part of the OS by including the name GNU first frankly boggles the mind. GNU is not an operating system, and nor is GNU/Linux. If we're required to include the GNU in the name then the system really has to include the name of every major component. So BSD/GNU/X11/.../Linux.
Moronic fuckwit.
File Access has been a shattered illusion since I came to understand that any user account to which assigned administrative privileges was still kept from accessing certain files for lack of sufficient 'privilege' regardless of what I attempted to do to circumvent Microsoft's control or that of their partners.
This is pure bullshit. Even files for which you have no access (on a bog-standard Windows install this is the SAM and the System Volume Information folder, the first of which is the Security Accounts database and is only unreadable because Windows holds it open for exclusive read - for good reason, and the second is the container for system information for which you'd have no interest, such as restore point data), you can take ownership of the files and then just go right ahead and do whatever you want. If an application removes your ability to access a file, then that's a problem with the application not Windows.
No, no he does not. If that were the case then Macs would ship with an OS called BSD/Mach, and Windows computers would ship with an operating system called NTOS/Windows. Ubuntu is the OS, just as Windows and Mac OS X are operating systems. GNU/Linux is just Stallman's attempt to take the lion's share of credit for work that he contributed nothing more than a small toolchain and a license text to.
No, because they're talking to infrastructure owned by a company, and that company has in place an agreement with their employees that all traffic across their environment will be monitored whether for compliance or legal reasons, so therefore no wiretapping is occurring.
That is true to an extent, Some people do pirate because there is no demo for a game, and honestly I can see why you'd do that (I've been burned by buying a game with no demo before - it didn't work on my PC at all, and Valve's response was "no refunds" until I kept at them and they refunded it "as a one time good faith gesture").
However the person I was replying to said that it's OK to pirate if you weren't going to buy the game anyway. It's not, because that means that if you do pirate it then you have decided the game has value to you but you just don't want to pay. What you're talking about is when you aren't sure if you're going to buy it and you're downloading it to decide if you will.
It sounds like what you're actually arguing is that games should have decent demos, and that they're overpriced. You'll get no argument from me there (in fact I'd support that wholeheartedly). That's still not an excuse to pirate though.
(On indie games: it's ironic that an indie developer can get people to pay hundreds to thousands of dollars for a game simply by putting it on Kickstarter or Humble Bundle. Doesn't that kind of obliterate the "it costs too much" argument? I don't know. You decide).
€
Stop typing the Euro sign manually. Use the HTML entity € instead.
This I agree with. Deciding that you won't buy it at $X, but will buy it at $Y, and waiting until it becomes $Y is not only perfectly reasonable, it's a damn good idea. Since taking up watching Steam sales, my Steam collection is actually almost larger than my boxed collection, and rapidly coming close to overtaking it.
I simply cannot agree, however, that disagreeing with the price or distribution mechanism of a product entitles you to not pay for it.
My belief is not unreasonable. And my argument is not spurious. He cites companies supporting SOPA as a reason for him pirating their products, but no game developer/publisher currently supports SOPA. EA withdrew their support. Ubisoft never supported it in the first place. Epic Games, Microsoft, and Runic actively opposed it. I can almost guarantee that the GGP has pirated a product from one or more of the last four listed companies.
On a slightly related note, I agree with you that game companies need to offer demos more. I don't know why you can't just go down to a local game shop and get a DVD with 5 or 6 demos on it for free or $1. You know, like the shareware floppies of old.
They could have killed MySQL long ago by revoking the InnoDB license (we all know MyISAM is shit).
And let's not forget that Oracle didn't buy MySQL, they bought Sun. I work or a company that uses Oracle DBs and I can assure you - they were after the hardware assets. ExaData is INSANELY expensive (like > $500,000 expensive).
They probably keep MySQL alive so that they can still gouge customers who can't afford Oracle-grade gouging. (Oracle is $17,500, MySQL is only $5,000)
You must be an idiot.
You can drag and drop a file or directory onto a Command Prompt, and it will be inserted into the prompt, just like in Terminal. Command Prompt requires quotation marks to distinguish between a path with spaces and the parameter list to a command - just like Terminal requires you to prefix each space with a backslash to escape it. And you can either mount a UNC path to access it as a drive, or you can perform manipulation commands on it (such as dir, del, move, etc) without mapping it - you just can't change to it. Hell, Terminal doesn't ever support UNC paths. Not for changing to, listing, manipulating files.
Actually, it's clear you're a troll.
It doesn't work like that. You can only get an entitlement on the entire folder by having the user select the folder from an Open Folder dialog, and then you'd still have to tell them to find the video to play. In other words, GP has it right and you are very wrong.
This is correct. The only way to open a file is if the user selected said file in an open dialog. It's bollocks in the extreme.
Yes, they forbid that.
No, it makes perfect sense to rational people, and I have no intention of wasting my time trying to argue with your flawed justifications.
Perhaps instead of devoting those specialists to DLC, they could devote them to fixing the broken game instead (seriously it took 5 fucking patches to get Skyrim even playable) so that the Day 1 patch makes the game playable?
If you pirate because you were not going to buy it anyway, then that's fine.
No, it's not. Clearly you've decided you actually want the game and will derive some enjoyment from it. Therefore it has a value to you, and you're just pirating because you're cheap. This "I wasn't going to buy it anyway" line is the biggest load of bullshit ever spouted, because 90% of the people saying it are just spouting the party line to justify that they're cheapskates who don't feel they should have to pay for someone else's work.
And the company that pays them teleports the money in from the Aether. Of course.
Your logic is flawed.
They don't have to declare it to Google, because it's not wiretapping.