How about games like World of Goo, released DRM free and facing 90% piracy rates?
They say 90%, but really - how accurate is that? It just intuitively feels exaggerated.
Bootleggers (I dislike the piracy term, pirates kill people) copy things just because they don't want to pay for them and they know they can copy them without going to jail,
I don't disagree with your assertion that people do it for that reason, but I must call out your gross generalization, as people have reasons they feel legitimate that don't include merely doing it for the ability to do so. Of course, subjectivity is always present.
The public's say - I give a crap because the misinformed and apathetic are the ones continuing to allow this shit to perpetuate on logically faulty grounds - that is, allowing the massive expansion of the TSA's power to occur.
Clearly the pat downs [as they are] and the scanners have been ruled legal... where? The only thing the courts have, to my knowledge at least, ruled on was the legality of the checkpoints - and that's it.
What do you call the body scanners that were recently admitted to being able to penetrate bones, and the pat downs that came loaded with the horror stories of 2009-2010+?
And last I checked, the rights to travel freely in the country provided any exception clause regarding MODE of choice.
And WHY should we have to NOT FLY, or subject ourselves to this government run charade? Its easy to say "don't like it, don't fly," but to BACK UP the steaming pile of bullshit without trading over the legitimate rights related issue is hard.
Oh come on, "but I feel better that it's done rather than no security at all."? What crap, the choice is not between this or no security. What about logical profiling based on various factors about the traveler, what about bomb sniffing dogs on top of the metal detectors?
Please tell me you actually read the arguments being made. If you did, you'd see the issue is NOT WITH BEING SCREENED but the METHODS USED. It is there, plain black-and-white, and yet people supporting or being apathetic to, these methods keep on ignoring the blatantly obvious facts.
No, you idiot, they go to the airport not expecting to get groped. The whole issue is with the methods, not with being searched in of itself. How hard is that to understand?
....countering claims that another botnet was 'practically indestructible.' Richard Boscovich, a senior attorney with Microsoft's Digital Crime Unit said, 'If someone says that a botnet is indestructible, they are not being very creative legally or technically.
And how is it intellectually creative to reply to the phrase "practically indestructible" with that? They said PRACTICALLY, not "COMPLETELY INDESTRUCTIBLE" or anything like that. Way to miss the important quantifier in the statement they claim to be countering.
Just because YOU don't see a benefit to jailbreaking doesn't mean that other people don't find legitimate reasons.
The only reason your opinion is viewed as "not the most popular" is because of HOW you expressed it - like a pompous asshat.
As I've pointed out before, none off the DCMA exceptions laid down by the Library of Congress apply to what was done to the PS3.
Wait, if you are talking about the ruling on the iPhone hacking do we have any specific evidence that specifically says, or proves, it can not?
If Jailbreakme.com released a new firmware for the iPhone that allowed unlimited free access to the iTunes store and let you mess with other peoples iTunes accounts, then you bet Apple would sic the lawyers on them. Only then could you correctly draw any connection to the PS3 incident.
Except that'sNOTHING LIKE the PS3 jailbreaking with GeoHot, which was what is being refferred to. It is nothing like what he actually did [as opposed to what people, especially the blind Sony Fanboys, keep on spouting]
Whats inconsistent, or rather, outright dishonest is the constant attempt by anon. cowards to create FALSE CONTRADICTIONS that include assuming hive-mind status for all the users on/. and assuming arguments that haven't even been made per-se.
DeHavilland / Bombardier Dash-8
Avion de Transport Regional 42, 72
Saab 340, 2000
Beech 1900D
Shorts 330, 360 [I remember when American Eagle flew these]
Dornier 228
Fairchild Metro
BAe Jetstream 31s, 41s
DC-3 [A couple of tourist companies use them, I think 1 in Canada, use a couple of DC-3s still]
etc etc, hard to believe that people don't know that turboprops were, and are still [relatively] widely used.
Please, for the love of god, port Hammer Editor to OS X - it sucks that the only stable computer I have [as in, won't crash in the middle of rendering the map] doesn't have a port of this tool.
Slashdot Mirror
And this prevalent apathy, ladies and gentlemen, is why it never changes.
How about games like World of Goo, released DRM free and facing 90% piracy rates?
They say 90%, but really - how accurate is that? It just intuitively feels exaggerated.
Bootleggers (I dislike the piracy term, pirates kill people) copy things just because they don't want to pay for them and they know they can copy them without going to jail,
I don't disagree with your assertion that people do it for that reason, but I must call out your gross generalization, as people have reasons they feel legitimate that don't include merely doing it for the ability to do so. Of course, subjectivity is always present.
Is it his to "take"? No Dis he "take" it in the LEGAL sense - you know, REQUIRED FOR THEFT to occur? No.
The public's say - I give a crap because the misinformed and apathetic are the ones continuing to allow this shit to perpetuate on logically faulty grounds - that is, allowing the massive expansion of the TSA's power to occur.
... and the fickle contradiction is... where?
Clearly the pat downs [as they are] and the scanners have been ruled legal... where? The only thing the courts have, to my knowledge at least, ruled on was the legality of the checkpoints - and that's it.
You reason like a moron - which explains posting as an anon. coward since you're gonna get flamed like crazy.
What do you call the body scanners that were recently admitted to being able to penetrate bones, and the pat downs that came loaded with the horror stories of 2009-2010+?
!search == !fly, !search != arrest, but !grope != !search
And last I checked, the rights to travel freely in the country provided any exception clause regarding MODE of choice.
And WHY should we have to NOT FLY, or subject ourselves to this government run charade? Its easy to say "don't like it, don't fly," but to BACK UP the steaming pile of bullshit without trading over the legitimate rights related issue is hard.
.... what bullshit.
Oh come on, "but I feel better that it's done rather than no security at all."? What crap, the choice is not between this or no security. What about logical profiling based on various factors about the traveler, what about bomb sniffing dogs on top of the metal detectors?
Please tell me you actually read the arguments being made. If you did, you'd see the issue is NOT WITH BEING SCREENED but the METHODS USED. It is there, plain black-and-white, and yet people supporting or being apathetic to, these methods keep on ignoring the blatantly obvious facts.
*sigh*
The issue is NOT WITH BEING SCREENED. It's with the METHODS USED.
And, IMO of course, the choice or lack thereof has jack shit to do with limits imposed on what the TSA can do, and what those limits are/should be.
No, you idiot, they go to the airport not expecting to get groped. The whole issue is with the methods, not with being searched in of itself. How hard is that to understand?
....countering claims that another botnet was 'practically indestructible.' Richard Boscovich, a senior attorney with Microsoft's Digital Crime Unit said, 'If someone says that a botnet is indestructible, they are not being very creative legally or technically.
And how is it intellectually creative to reply to the phrase "practically indestructible" with that? They said PRACTICALLY, not "COMPLETELY INDESTRUCTIBLE" or anything like that. Way to miss the important quantifier in the statement they claim to be countering.
Reading comprehension FTW!
Just because YOU don't see a benefit to jailbreaking doesn't mean that other people don't find legitimate reasons. The only reason your opinion is viewed as "not the most popular" is because of HOW you expressed it - like a pompous asshat.
As I've pointed out before, none off the DCMA exceptions laid down by the Library of Congress apply to what was done to the PS3.
Wait, if you are talking about the ruling on the iPhone hacking do we have any specific evidence that specifically says, or proves, it can not?
If Jailbreakme.com released a new firmware for the iPhone that allowed unlimited free access to the iTunes store and let you mess with other peoples iTunes accounts, then you bet Apple would sic the lawyers on them. Only then could you correctly draw any connection to the PS3 incident.
Except that'sNOTHING LIKE the PS3 jailbreaking with GeoHot, which was what is being refferred to. It is nothing like what he actually did [as opposed to what people, especially the blind Sony Fanboys, keep on spouting]
Whats inconsistent, or rather, outright dishonest is the constant attempt by anon. cowards to create FALSE CONTRADICTIONS that include assuming hive-mind status for all the users on /. and assuming arguments that haven't even been made per-se.
DeHavilland / Bombardier Dash-8
Avion de Transport Regional 42, 72
Saab 340, 2000
Beech 1900D
Shorts 330, 360 [I remember when American Eagle flew these]
Dornier 228
Fairchild Metro
BAe Jetstream 31s, 41s
DC-3 [A couple of tourist companies use them, I think 1 in Canada, use a couple of DC-3s still]
etc etc, hard to believe that people don't know that turboprops were, and are still [relatively] widely used.
.. but when was the last time you saw a commercial plane with them?
Actually, just before the sun set - a DeHavilland/Bombardier Dash-8 of US Airways Express.
Please, for the love of god, port Hammer Editor to OS X - it sucks that the only stable computer I have [as in, won't crash in the middle of rendering the map] doesn't have a port of this tool.
Fact: bolding an unsubstantiated opinion doesn't make it become a fact.
Look at disney's lashing out at parodies of their works - like with, for one example, family guy.
Modus Tollens at work. ^_^