Collection practice is always going to be "on" by default so the person who doesn't know anything or is click happy is going to feed into it. I don't blame any corp for going that route, so long as they give me the option up front to opt out.
The only part I have an issue with is "auto-login enabled or not" because of security implications. That should always default to off.
There is no gamble. All machines that give tickets give them regardless of how you play.
Exactly. And all loot boxes give you loot.
Most give mediocre stuff, but occasionally you get something cool. You are not required to purchase loot boxes. Some games give them randomly as prizes just for playing with the option to purchase more.
I don't see the big deal, but I'm not inclined to buy them either.
It says "went into operation November 2016", so it's been in place for a year.
Has it supposedly served any purpose, done any good, etc?
I don't personally have any problem with cameras in public places where privacy isn't to be expected anyhow. I might have a problem if footage of you being near some crime was used alone to convict you of it, but that's another story.
I did not read the article, but they always seem to miss one observation.
What if the violent video game is an outlet for the players? Take away the video game and they're more likely to "outlet" on others, rather than less likely to do so.
I've been a gamer for quite a while. I like jumping on TeamSpeak and running around shooting my friends in the face. That doesn't make me a violent person. That certainly doesn't make me want to go buy a gun and shoot someone in the face. It's much like the difference between cartoons and reality. There isn't any confusion or spill-over.
It's not about being capable of transmitting at a speed. It's when your network limits traffic from a specific network for no reason other than to penalize them.
So when a stream transmits from a Verizon subsidiary at full unthrottled speed and from Netflix at an arbitratry 4Mbps when letting it go unthrottled would happily flow at 24Mbps. The violation is your network saying limit traffic from origin X to speed Y for no F'ing reason whatsoever. Just because I think they look funny. (and maybe I regret not buying shares 4 years ago)
The difference is getting the data 3x faster than you can watch it. It's getting the 480p video instead of the 1080p video because network X is gimping my connection.
If Network X says streaming video only gets a pipe so wide and that's even across their network then that's fine, but make it transparent and don't complain if someone else does. But when Verizon says Netflix gets a pipe of 4Mbps and Verizon streaming video gets a pipe of 12Mbps then Net Neutrality is being violated. (same traffic, different source)
As for the other comment, yes speed depends on more than just network speed, but if the guy next to me on Verizon streams Netflix at 4 Mbps and I stream on Sprint at 20 Mbps then we can safely theorize that Verizon is throttling him. We don't know for sure, but we can build a case.
The test can go at the click of a button, but the "Live" message should have an "Are you sure you want to send a LIVE message? This is NOT a test!" prompt before shooting out.
If nothing else, the chaos caused should be used as a talking point so people are a little more prepared for a live event. Though I doubt that will happen.
Why the hell do they have the authority to send a live message, but not the authority to send a false alert message? That was a dumb decision.
Yea the guy made a mistake. It sucked, but he learned from it. So move on. If you fire him and bring in a new inexperienced guy who could make the same mistake down the road you're not doing yourself any favors. The original guy will make a point of not doing that again.
I never intended for anyone to get shot and killed.
Just to waste tax dollars (sending the police nowhere). And to waste police time, potentially diverting them from an actual emergency where some unintended victim might die.
Yes, we can. But I have a fundamental issue with NN: it infringes on the property rights of the network owner. If I build a network, small or large, and I pay for the routers, switches, transmission and operations, I should be able to do whatever I want with it. My network, my rules. And my customers can vote with their feet.
No, you don't. Your local monopoly awarded by some politician does not give you the right to say that I can no longer stream video unless I pay another $10 per month just because you own the router. I pay for an internet connection, and that's what I expect. Especially if there is little to no alternative beside you.
If by voting with my feet you mean to sell my house and move to another neighborhood just so you can acquire the ISP there and impose your will on me again, well that doesn't fly for me. Your free market is an illusion.
Exactly. And game companies like Blizzard use customized bit torrent clients to distribute patches/updates. It's a lot easier to push out an update to a few million users when those users pitch in to help out.
We'd like to keep charging customers, but reduce the services they can use to reduce their data usage. That way we don't have to invest in infrastructure and we can suck them like vampires.
Slashdot Mirror
Collection practice is always going to be "on" by default so the person who doesn't know anything or is click happy is going to feed into it. I don't blame any corp for going that route, so long as they give me the option up front to opt out.
The only part I have an issue with is "auto-login enabled or not" because of security implications. That should always default to off.
There is no gamble. All machines that give tickets give them regardless of how you play.
Exactly. And all loot boxes give you loot.
Most give mediocre stuff, but occasionally you get something cool. You are not required to purchase loot boxes. Some games give them randomly as prizes just for playing with the option to purchase more.
I don't see the big deal, but I'm not inclined to buy them either.
Yea. I scraped the back bumper and broke the tail light cover.
The tail light "assembly" would be $300.
The bumper would be $300.
The molded plastic "spoiler" attached at the bottom of the bumper would be $400.
I said "excuse me?"
So I bought the tail light assembly online for $150 and replaced it myself. The bumper remains scraped as a reminder of how ridiculous car parts are.
Not likely.
All it is is "legalizing morality". America has a deep-seated history of doing that stupidity.
Although we've made some steps in the right direction there are a lot of people trying to fight it.
It says "went into operation November 2016", so it's been in place for a year.
Has it supposedly served any purpose, done any good, etc?
I don't personally have any problem with cameras in public places where privacy isn't to be expected anyhow. I might have a problem if footage of you being near some crime was used alone to convict you of it, but that's another story.
I did not read the article, but they always seem to miss one observation.
What if the violent video game is an outlet for the players? Take away the video game and they're more likely to "outlet" on others, rather than less likely to do so.
I've been a gamer for quite a while. I like jumping on TeamSpeak and running around shooting my friends in the face. That doesn't make me a violent person. That certainly doesn't make me want to go buy a gun and shoot someone in the face. It's much like the difference between cartoons and reality. There isn't any confusion or spill-over.
It's not about being capable of transmitting at a speed. It's when your network limits traffic from a specific network for no reason other than to penalize them.
So when a stream transmits from a Verizon subsidiary at full unthrottled speed and from Netflix at an arbitratry 4Mbps when letting it go unthrottled would happily flow at 24Mbps. The violation is your network saying limit traffic from origin X to speed Y for no F'ing reason whatsoever. Just because I think they look funny. (and maybe I regret not buying shares 4 years ago)
The difference is getting the data 3x faster than you can watch it. It's getting the 480p video instead of the 1080p video because network X is gimping my connection.
If Network X says streaming video only gets a pipe so wide and that's even across their network then that's fine, but make it transparent and don't complain if someone else does. But when Verizon says Netflix gets a pipe of 4Mbps and Verizon streaming video gets a pipe of 12Mbps then Net Neutrality is being violated. (same traffic, different source)
In bad form I'm going to reply to my own comment.
If I get 4Mbps through Verizon, then connect to wifi and get 20Mbps, disconnect from wifi and go back to 4Mbps I can also assume some funny business.
"has no direct benefits to the user."
Except knowledge, and we wouldn't want that.
As for the other comment, yes speed depends on more than just network speed, but if the guy next to me on Verizon streams Netflix at 4 Mbps and I stream on Sprint at 20 Mbps then we can safely theorize that Verizon is throttling him. We don't know for sure, but we can build a case.
Without that knowledge we have nothing to go on.
Most people aren't that stupid.
Citation please?
I was with you until that last statement.
The test can go at the click of a button, but the "Live" message should have an "Are you sure you want to send a LIVE message? This is NOT a test!" prompt before shooting out.
If nothing else, the chaos caused should be used as a talking point so people are a little more prepared for a live event. Though I doubt that will happen.
Why the hell do they have the authority to send a live message, but not the authority to send a false alert message? That was a dumb decision.
Yea the guy made a mistake. It sucked, but he learned from it. So move on. If you fire him and bring in a new inexperienced guy who could make the same mistake down the road you're not doing yourself any favors. The original guy will make a point of not doing that again.
I never intended for anyone to get shot and killed.
Just to waste tax dollars (sending the police nowhere).
And to waste police time, potentially diverting them from an actual emergency where some unintended victim might die.
I also have a problem with it breaking into my song on the radio to serve an ad. Or flashy blinky ads while I'm trying to pay attention.
When I start the car, before the radio engages, then fine.
When I turn the car off, fine (because I'm usually out of the car within seconds and won't see/hear your ad anyhow.
Certainly don't have ads that disrespect the volume control though. I already deal with a reverse beep that I have no control over, and it annoys me.
Yes, we can. But I have a fundamental issue with NN: it infringes on the property rights of the network owner. If I build a network, small or large, and I pay for the routers, switches, transmission and operations, I should be able to do whatever I want with it. My network, my rules. And my customers can vote with their feet.
No, you don't.
Your local monopoly awarded by some politician does not give you the right to say that I can no longer stream video unless I pay another $10 per month just because you own the router.
I pay for an internet connection, and that's what I expect. Especially if there is little to no alternative beside you.
If by voting with my feet you mean to sell my house and move to another neighborhood just so you can acquire the ISP there and impose your will on me again, well that doesn't fly for me. Your free market is an illusion.
Didn't they used to say that the perfect breast filled a wine glass?
Could somebody trend average breast size and wine glass size on a line chart and see if they line up?
Yes, I don't remember if it was Max Headroom, but that was in something.
I guess in Google's case, however, someone could find a way to get the actor saying something embarrassing and record that.
I still use TeamSpeak 3. It does a good job. I've used Ventrillo in the past - a similar concept, but only for Windows.
TS 3 works on Linux, android, etc. It picks up my wife and daughter half way across the house. They're both louder, in general, than I am.
Get motion capture of their faces making a battery of sounds, along with their voice making a battery of sounds.
Couple that with enhanced text to speech logic to map the text to those sounds and you could have them answer any question.
I think it's Apple that has some ad with emoji faces mimicking you in a fancy text message.
Same concept, just with real people faces and their voices.
IOW: You know nothing Jon Snow.
Exactly. And game companies like Blizzard use customized bit torrent clients to distribute patches/updates. It's a lot easier to push out an update to a few million users when those users pitch in to help out.
They abort, retry, or fail.
for the old DOS folks.
Likewise, can I tell my client not to connect to unpatched APs?
How do I tell if the hotel wifi is a trap or if it's OK?
We'd like to keep charging customers, but reduce the services they can use to reduce their data usage. That way we don't have to invest in infrastructure and we can suck them like vampires.
And they say scientists don't have a sense of humor.