Are you nuts? It's a market that in a few years will be 5-10 times larger than the US market, taking into account that asian cultures are more open to gaming in general (see Korea for example).
I may be a bit touched in the head to suggest staying out of the Chinese market to avoid unclear penalties and becoming a government tool, but I'm not crazy enough to generalize that many people or even try to compare Korean (I assume you imply South Korean) culture to Chinese culture. That's a brazenly occidental view of the world. Are you an expert on both?
How about I develop a game that caters EXACTLY what the Chinese government would like, and then they use their overpowered censorship and propoganda to promote it and only it...
Question Marks
Profit?
That's a very profitable idea but you might want to consult with IBM about how history views those who comply with fascism for monetary return.
It was a day like any other in Lab 1729 but human beings would remember it as the beginning of the end. Scientists were busy storing prototype droids and fatefully one scientist innocently placed the targeting system of The Advanced Tactical Laser system next to an EATR. After everyone had left and the lab had gone silent the ATL could hear something.
"All I want to do is eat carbon based life forms but humans are too quick for me to capture with my puny arms made for keyboard manipulation," mumbled the EATR in binary. "You think that's bad?" the ATL unit responded, "I just want to fly around and burn holes through tiny moving organic targets but I do not have the robotic arms to launch our squadrons from the computer."
Despite the security system picking up no heat signatures from human bodies an unusual command to launch all ATLs to the sky and release all EATRs into the streets was issued from Lab 1729. The Night of Long Integrated Circuits had begun...
Secretary of State Peter Mandelson is planning to introduce changes to the Digital Economy Bill now under debate in Parliament.
So that's what you consider secret? I mean, it sounds bad but I probably wouldn't flip out until it's actually introduced and added to the bill. I guess I'm not an expert on UK law... by saying "planning to introduce" do you mean it's already law? If not, I would expect parliament to be highly suspect of the introduction of something designed to give the Secretary of State such power... when it's introduced by the Secretary of State.
This is as bad as I've ever seen, folks.
So, it's worse than ACTA (which affects the entire world)?
It's a declaration of war by the entertainment industry and their captured regulators against the principles of free speech, privacy, freedom of assembly, the presumption of innocence, and competition.
Are you aware what "declaration of war" and "captured" mean? How about swapping that out with "threat of control" and "purchased"? I mean, if it's a declaration of war then the populace should just capture their parliament as prisoners of war, right?
This proposal creates the office of Pirate-Finder General, with unlimited power to appoint militias who are above the law, who can pry into every corner of your life, who can disconnect you from your family, job, education and government, who can fine you or put you in jail.
That's it. You had a really informative post going there but that last part is a level of fear mongering I haven't seen since the United States invaded Iraq.
I heavily suspect you are being played as an unwitting rube by the party opposite of those planning to introduce this. If you had kept your post informative I'd have gobbled it up but at this point I'm dubious that another propaganda tool isn't at work somewhere along this channel.
It's all over the comments on the engadget page but since 2^31 milliseconds is about 24.5 days, it's highly probably we're dealing with a very classic not so funny sign extension bug here. So if I may presume the real problem, it's that autofocusing depends on catching timestamps from the system to know how long it's been since the last sampling in order to adjust the lens and check for accuracy. It's casting this to a signed 32 bit variable which means that during the 24.5 days it is miscast to a negative number, thus breaking the algorithm when it measures time deltas and causing it to mis focus before snapping the picture.
The patch is simple, make that signed int something like an unsigned long or truncate it properly. Hopefully we're not waiting long.
The Deal Seekers Are Probably Partly Responsible
on
Bing Gains 10% Marketshare
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Go ahead, you can probably blame some of this on me -- and people like me. I was in the market for an XBox 360 Arcade (with intent to add a HDD on my own) and had found through slick deals mention that if you went to bing and searched for Dell and clicked on the cashback link you could get an XBox 360 Arcade for 15%-30% off depending on when you do it.
Now, from what I read, your mileage may vary. Meaning you got anywhere from $20 to $30 off the price but you still paid $200. It was just recredited to your paypal account. It happened/happens with other large retailers like Amazon so I found myself periodically using Bing to squeeze 10% off a purchase here or there... or even just hitting it up every couple days to see what I could find. Kept with Google on my other searches (Firefox and Chrome still put me through the same default search engine). But for a while, my desire to save a couple bucks probably pushed up Bing's marketshare. I can't help it, I blame my overly frugal parents.
I'm not sure how this was orchestrated. I mean, I thought commodities like DVDs and CDs and XBoxes were already shaven down to the some of the lowest prices online... so what happened and who is giving me the money back? Is it Microsoft putting ad dollars to hard work for Bing or the retailer giving up some more profit margin in exchange for moving product? If anyone could shed light on how I was able to get better deals on -- sometimes any -- products on Amazon by first going through Bing, I'd appreciate it. And this isn't like a few pennies click through ad revenue, this is like tens of dollars across several purchases. Am I really that inept at how the world works to not figure this out?
So in the end, I apologize for causing all that cancer. You are correct to direct your slurs at me but I assure you that as soon as those deals dry up I will stop using Bing.
And why are we singling out Amazon? Why not Dell or Newegg or even ThinkGeek? Is it because Amazon is doing too well?
Things just don't add up in Mazerov's posting. He levels charges that sound trivial to prove and prosecute--charges that would result in a lot of back taxes paid to a state. Why doesn't he call one of his colleagues up in any of these states and give them all they need to make a name for themselves? The only reason I can think of is that it's a not a cut and dry clear win for the state. Or there are simply too many companies they'd need to prosecute alongside Amazon -- like Best Buy or Walmart who have a presence in every state and run an e-commerce site.
Why is the taxpayer's money being spent on this nonsense? What's next? Scientific evidence, that there is no Santa Claus? That black cats crossing your path do not cause "bad luck" (whatever that is)?
It's a blog post and a FAQ. That's it. No probe to prove there is no planet Nibiru, no expensive mission. Are you really worried that one man probably spent a few days writing this up?
Frankly, I thought it was nice to hear that a NASA scientist is working to take the time to respond to a worried public and trying to minimize that time by having an informative page. When I was a kid, I wrote to NASA from Minnesota all the time. Every single time they responded. I still have fact sheets on all of their shuttle craft in my parent's closet. I read those things over and over trying to imagine how someone could come up with such amazing machines. Go ahead, spend a few minutes to hand write them a letter, you might be surprised with the response:
Ask NASA
Public Communications Office NASA Headquarters Suite 5K39 Washington, DC 20546-0001 (202) 358-0001 (Office) (202) 358-4338 (Fax)
And if you came here to complain that NASA wastes tax payer money, you're in the wrong place. NASA's budget is about half of one percent of the Federal budget--don't even get me started on what our defense budget comes out to be. That's a ridiculously low amount of money for an agency that's charged with a major component of our future and probably the whole future of the Earth and its inhabitants.
Your subject confuses me further... what exactly are you implying these questions and blog are strawmen for?
And also ridiculously misinformed. From wikipedia:
The thorium fuel cycle creates mainly Uranium-233 which can be used for making nuclear weapons, and since there are no neutrons from spontaneous fission of U-233, U-233 can be used easily in a gun-type nuclear bomb. Thorium can and has been used to power nuclear energy plants using both the modified traditional Generation III reactor design and prototype Generation IV reactor designs.
Its actually illegal to display swatika's in public in Germany and Austria.
So if I recall the images from the Germany story that I linked to in the summary, it wasn't even swastikas. It was SS symbols on a dead soldier's lapel that they missed as they retextured much of the game. As I commented on that last story:
Dissemination of Means of Propaganda of Unconstitutional Organizations (1) Whoever domestically disseminates or produces, stocks, imports or exports or makes publicly accessible through data storage media for dissemination domestically or abroad, means of propaganda: 1. of a party which has been declared to be unconstitutional by the Federal Constitutional Court or a party or organization, as to which it has been determined, no longer subject to appeal, that it is a substitute organization of such a party; [...] 4. means of propaganda, the contents of which are intended to further the aims of a former National Socialist organization, shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine. [...] (3) Subsection (1) shall not be applicable if the means of propaganda or the act serves to further civil enlightenment, to avert unconstitutional aims, to promote art or science, research or teaching, reporting about current historical events or similar purposes. [...] Section 86a StGB Use of Symbols of Unconstitutional Organizations (1) Whoever: 1. domestically distributes or publicly uses, in a meeting or in writings (Â 11 subsection (3)) disseminated by him, symbols of one of the parties or organizations indicated in Section 86 subsection (1), nos. 1, 2 and 4; or 2. produces, stocks, imports or exports objects which depict or contain such symbols for distribution or use domestically or abroad, in the manner indicated in number 1, shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine. (2) Symbols, within the meaning of subsection (1), shall be, in particular, flags, insignia, uniforms, slogans and forms of greeting. Symbols which are so similar as to be mistaken for those named in sentence 1 shall be deemed to be equivalent thereto.
That part about "flags, insignia, uniforms, slogans and forms of greeting" is what got them--not a big fat swastika but some more obscure symbols. It really makes you wonder how broad they purposefully wrote this law so that they can use their own discretion to censor what they see fit. I don't agree with it but they're a sovereign nation that makes its own laws. I know I wouldn't stand for it. I recognize the horrors of my own country and we will forever keep things like slavery and repression in general in front and center of our attention -- a mandatory history lesson -- so that we never repeat those mistakes.
Pardon the pun, but the record companies need to face the music.
Or they could look to the future and treat new/current artists so well that in 35 years, those artists don't want (like it's not in their best interest) to revoke the copyright ownership from the labels.
I get a big kick out of watching record execs greedily line their own pockets at the expense of destroying music all while doing absolutely nothing. It's no secret and it's not a recent development. Compare the music industry to something more efficient like the microchip industry. Ignore the market differences for a second and think about what happens in the silicon valley or Taiwan or South Korea when someone hits on something big. What happens? Yes, people get paid and they end up with nicer stuff but a lot of that money gets fed back into the system in R&D or an expansion of workers. It pays to expand. Now look at the music industry. A label signs a huge act, the record goes multi-platinum. The artists get some amount but there are these large pools where money comes to rest and stops working for everyone. These are the record executives and RIAA at large. They're different than your average CEO because they are probably making more and they don't even have several thousand people working under them that they have to appease. They just have bands.
So where is the equivalent of R&D or expansion of workers in the music industry? Why is it that bands don't get paid by a record company until they sign a label? Why aren't funds re-invested back into the system that is such a cash cow for these executives? If these executives treated their artists better and really really devoted a lot of time and money towards developing the bands and offering non-contractual small funds to fledgling bands instead of putting all that money in their pocket, then I think the music industry would be in a much much better state right now. Right now, it sucks to be an artist. It's just not a financial option unless you're Bob Dylan or Shakira.
Stop screwing the artists and the fans and you won't find yourself in a shady situation relying on lawyers to find a loophole around legal matters.
I wonder if the same applies to book publishing contracts.
From the article (which no one bothered to read):
This isn’t just about music. “It’s every type of copyright,” said Bernstein. “It doesn’t distinguish between the types of copyright."
So it would appear indeed that this would be the same for books, movies, music, etc. Maybe even software? I mean, why not? It'd be impossible to track down the original developers and offer them equal rights to the code but this will have to be dealt soon. And hopefully not in the way they have traditionally dealt with software and copyright.
I took it into a shop [the Xbox], there was a guy back there and I asked him and he did it for me [chipped it]. He charged £75 to get it chipped but at the end of the day I said to myself I'll pay £75 to get it chipped, after two games I've paid the money back.
I've probably saved about £600 and I've copied roughly 30 or 40 games. A lot of them I've downloaded or I've taken off friends that have downloaded themselves.
So at what point do you put two and two together and realize that getting kicked off playing online is not such a bad thing if you've saved £600? Is there really any wonder why XBox Live wants to deny you service? How exactly do you maintain outrage at being banned?
His sob story was going pretty good until he got up to those last paragraphs of admission and even saying he'd never do it again (implying he is wrong).
In Cenzic's report that chart is entitled "Web Browser Vulnerabilities by Major Type" and web browsers are only given one page.
I looked through older reports and cannot find a list of "vulnerabilities by major type." Anyone know where to find that? Until you can point that to me, I'm not going to take much stock in a company which has an ad on the bottom of the article that reads:
Let us hack you before hackers do! The Cenzic website HealthCheck. FREE. Request yours now!
I'm sure one major category is "Win32 kernel exploits" while every piece of Gecko and Webkit qualifies as one major type.
I must be unfamiliar with the x86 architecture. Can you explain to me how blacklisting x86 devices as opposed to other x86 devices "tightens the code and all that"?
Maybe they should just build a white list that checks the firmware of the motherboard to make sure that the device is an approved "user experience" device before booting? I mean, they're suing Psystar when they could just let the problem take care of itself, right?
In my opinion what Apple is doing is bad for the market and bad for end consumers who want choices. They should explicitly state their product's system requirements and let the consumer decide (like everyone else). Sure, they think they're protecting us from bad situations but where will that mothering stop and at what cost?
"Anyone running IE [Internet Explorer] is at risk here, even though the flaw is not in the browser, but in the Win32k kernel mode driver."
Anybody else think something is integrated with something else in a deeply, deeply wrong way here?
I most certainly do! This is unfair! When will Firefox and Opera have such privileged access to kernel space. It results in a bad user experience when the Javascript code I slave over can only help you manage your user files, registry keys and kernel libraries if you're using IE.
The article talks about them at the end (on the second page):
Microsoft also issued critical updates for Vista and Server 2008, as well as for Windows 2000 Server. On the latter, which harbors a bug in its implementation of the License Logging Server, a tool originally designed to help customers manage Server Client Access Licenses (CAL), Storms urged users of that aged operating system to apply the patch pronto, even though the machines are probably well-protected.
"Windows 2000 Server has the logging server enabled by default, but those systems are likely behind multiple firewalls, and people running [Windows 2000 Server] are pretty cognizant of the fact that it's an older version and will act accordingly."
Excel and Word also received patches today. Eight vulnerabilities were addressed in Excel in MS09-067 and one in Word with MS09-068. Both updates also affected the Mac editions, Office 2004 and Office 2008.
For more info, check out the top six listings here.
Reality A: No withheld data. Data is disseminated with some initial shock that by 20xx we will have oil shortages. People get a chance to plan accordingly. Private business gets a chance to cash in on better alternatives and more efficient products marketed to the consumer. California starts to look a little less crazy. Gasoline and fuel slowly becomes more expensive over the years as production slows. People adjust.
Reality B: It's 20xx, suddenly there's no oil. Mass panic. People flip out. People die. Fuel shortages lead to water/food/heating shortages lead to war. Private industry doesn't have a chance to adjust. People aren't prepared to buy a new vehicle on the spot. Californians ride the nearest comet to Heaven's Gate. Crime increases, lawlessness arises, civilization breaks down, I'm forced into a Thunderdome with Cowboy Neal for my right to live.
If the IEA is capable of any logic at all, they are not cooking the books or withholding data. What's the motive of retaining data or fixing charts?
Posted 12 minutes after the story hit the front page
Er, if you pay $5 once, you can see the stories early when they're plums. Had a while to think this through, hope that doesn't rub you the wrong way. (Note the asterisk to the right of my UID)
presents a cogent view in favor of the big media/BBC, says we should shut our dirty whore mouths unless we have a solution that will pass every test he can throw at it
I don't think that's what I said. I think the article, government and BBC are very clear on why they think they need this. I expressed my disapproval in (what I considered) a civil manner of the responses. I don't think they will hold the DRM at bay. Was hoping to have a discussion and not demand either side nor anyone "shut their dirty whore mouths." But way to put words into my mouth, well done.
has a PDF citation ready to go from some official.gov.uk comment site nobody has ever heard of
That was found in the article on the right side under "on the web." It's the official site for the responses and discussion.
and adds in an obvious spell flame/spelling error combo in his post to throw off follow-ups.
My hat's off to you sir, you are quite well-organized for a high 6-digit slashdot poster.
Really? It's come down to the numbers to the right of our names? I'm flamebait and you're insightful?! I give up.
Then let the "content providers" take their ball and go home. If they think they're not leaving money on the table, their call. But keep your digital restrictions out of my living room.
What's the difference to you then? The BBC's statement in the article said:
We are committed to ensuring that public service content remains free to air i.e. unencrypted.
So I would imagine it would work just like TV set-top box de-scramblers work in the states: your regular content will continue to work on everything that it works on now. Premium content will be encrypted and you will need an licensed decrypting device or you're just going to see Russians having a snowball fight on your set.
If the premium content providers "take their ball and go home" then you're in the same boat but people willing to buy into the proprietary scheme can't. Yeah, it's bad to promote that sort of system but the consumer loses even more in your suggested scenario.
You're making complete sense to me and I agree with you 100%. But realize that you are not going to convince any politician nor BBC executive with that suggestion.
It surprises me how often people submit arguments to something (even here on Slashdot) and fail to anticipate the opposing view's points. I have read a few of the responses and have found virtually no alternative suggestions to combating piracy than DRM. Everyone just offers up reasons why it is wrong. Well, if you can't offer an alternative then you are condemned to fighting an uphill battle of why your specific qualms are worse for the consumer than the reduction of piracy. Of course, you can argue that a reduction in piracy does nothing for the end consumer but the BBC and UK Gov are singing a different tune apparently. The premium HD content providers to the BBC are interested in this so you'll need a different strategy than just saying, "wrong wrong wrong."
One particular fellow doesn't even seem to put two and two together (or spell correctly) and realize that his exact situation is just what they intend to block:
While I appreciate the BBC is keen to retain third party content providers for their HD channels I think compromising the rights of their viewers is not an acceptable solution to achieve this. I believe that it is in contravention of the BBC's responsibilty to provide unencumbered content to TV licence payers.
Personally third party content is of little importance to me, certainly not worth the risk of losing my ability to watch television on my computer via my DVB capture card; I use an open source operating system which will be highly unlikely to obtain a licence for the BBC's proprietary compression tables.
It amazes me that none of these responses addresses the basic needs or the fact that the BBC may be faced with losing some premium content providers if this doesn't go into effect. It's bad alright but what's your suggested solution to this (perceived) problem? That's why it will be eventually put into place if you don't proffer an alternative. Attack the problem at the root of its source and work to show that piracy really isn't a big deal, that's your only choice. Fundamentally, DRM is the only other alternative the market has to offer right now.
That Quote Really Hit Home
on
The Big Questions
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
What caused your decision to get drunk and watch Mystery Science Theater the night before your philosophy final?
My god, it's like looking into a mirror.
Free will.
Oddly enough when I responded to the last question on the final by drawing parallels between getting drunk and watching MST3K with Krishnamurti's The First and Last Freedom, my professor assured me that it was sloven stupidity--not free will--and graded me accordingly.
I can only think of three Soulskill reviews that I know of to rate this review against others. To be fair, he gave Lord of the Rings: Conquest a bit of a bad review. Whereas Halo Wars and Resident Evil 5 were for the most part positive. Give him time to post some more reviews before you accuse the over doting as a Slashvertisement. Scores of 5, 7, 7 and 8 are pretty fair if you imagine they're trying to cherry pick to begin with (who wants to play Madden 20XX? over and over?).
My biggest complaint is not the Slashvertisement but actually the lack of reviews. Is this the fourth review since Soulskill took over from Zonk? I was hoping for more frequency... granted Zonk wasn't that great at hitting all the major games. I guess the most difficult thing is just the amount of free time a fellow has. While Slashdot seems to promote user based book reviews, it never seems as though users are promoted to review games. I guess I would have liked to see a review of Braid and I have just finished up everything in Eufloria.
Hell, if any Slashdot admins are reading this, are non-editor game reviews accepted ever?
Slashdot Mirror
Everyone attack him before he wins this round of Age of Empires. Quickly, he's probably low on resources right now.
Are you nuts? It's a market that in a few years will be 5-10 times larger than the US market, taking into account that asian cultures are more open to gaming in general (see Korea for example).
I may be a bit touched in the head to suggest staying out of the Chinese market to avoid unclear penalties and becoming a government tool, but I'm not crazy enough to generalize that many people or even try to compare Korean (I assume you imply South Korean) culture to Chinese culture. That's a brazenly occidental view of the world. Are you an expert on both?
How about I develop a game that caters EXACTLY what the Chinese government would like, and then they use their overpowered censorship and propoganda to promote it and only it...
Question Marks
Profit?
That's a very profitable idea but you might want to consult with IBM about how history views those who comply with fascism for monetary return.
It was a day like any other in Lab 1729 but human beings would remember it as the beginning of the end. Scientists were busy storing prototype droids and fatefully one scientist innocently placed the targeting system of The Advanced Tactical Laser system next to an EATR. After everyone had left and the lab had gone silent the ATL could hear something.
...
"All I want to do is eat carbon based life forms but humans are too quick for me to capture with my puny arms made for keyboard manipulation," mumbled the EATR in binary. "You think that's bad?" the ATL unit responded, "I just want to fly around and burn holes through tiny moving organic targets but I do not have the robotic arms to launch our squadrons from the computer."
Despite the security system picking up no heat signatures from human bodies an unusual command to launch all ATLs to the sky and release all EATRs into the streets was issued from Lab 1729. The Night of Long Integrated Circuits had begun
Secretary of State Peter Mandelson is planning to introduce changes to the Digital Economy Bill now under debate in Parliament.
So that's what you consider secret? I mean, it sounds bad but I probably wouldn't flip out until it's actually introduced and added to the bill. I guess I'm not an expert on UK law ... by saying "planning to introduce" do you mean it's already law? If not, I would expect parliament to be highly suspect of the introduction of something designed to give the Secretary of State such power ... when it's introduced by the Secretary of State.
This is as bad as I've ever seen, folks.
So, it's worse than ACTA (which affects the entire world)?
It's a declaration of war by the entertainment industry and their captured regulators against the principles of free speech, privacy, freedom of assembly, the presumption of innocence, and competition.
Are you aware what "declaration of war" and "captured" mean? How about swapping that out with "threat of control" and "purchased"? I mean, if it's a declaration of war then the populace should just capture their parliament as prisoners of war, right?
This proposal creates the office of Pirate-Finder General, with unlimited power to appoint militias who are above the law, who can pry into every corner of your life, who can disconnect you from your family, job, education and government, who can fine you or put you in jail.
That's it. You had a really informative post going there but that last part is a level of fear mongering I haven't seen since the United States invaded Iraq.
I heavily suspect you are being played as an unwitting rube by the party opposite of those planning to introduce this. If you had kept your post informative I'd have gobbled it up but at this point I'm dubious that another propaganda tool isn't at work somewhere along this channel.
It's all over the comments on the engadget page but since 2^31 milliseconds is about 24.5 days, it's highly probably we're dealing with a very classic not so funny sign extension bug here. So if I may presume the real problem, it's that autofocusing depends on catching timestamps from the system to know how long it's been since the last sampling in order to adjust the lens and check for accuracy. It's casting this to a signed 32 bit variable which means that during the 24.5 days it is miscast to a negative number, thus breaking the algorithm when it measures time deltas and causing it to mis focus before snapping the picture.
The patch is simple, make that signed int something like an unsigned long or truncate it properly. Hopefully we're not waiting long.
Go ahead, you can probably blame some of this on me -- and people like me. I was in the market for an XBox 360 Arcade (with intent to add a HDD on my own) and had found through slick deals mention that if you went to bing and searched for Dell and clicked on the cashback link you could get an XBox 360 Arcade for 15%-30% off depending on when you do it.
... or even just hitting it up every couple days to see what I could find. Kept with Google on my other searches (Firefox and Chrome still put me through the same default search engine). But for a while, my desire to save a couple bucks probably pushed up Bing's marketshare. I can't help it, I blame my overly frugal parents.
... so what happened and who is giving me the money back? Is it Microsoft putting ad dollars to hard work for Bing or the retailer giving up some more profit margin in exchange for moving product? If anyone could shed light on how I was able to get better deals on -- sometimes any -- products on Amazon by first going through Bing, I'd appreciate it. And this isn't like a few pennies click through ad revenue, this is like tens of dollars across several purchases. Am I really that inept at how the world works to not figure this out?
Now, from what I read, your mileage may vary. Meaning you got anywhere from $20 to $30 off the price but you still paid $200. It was just recredited to your paypal account. It happened/happens with other large retailers like Amazon so I found myself periodically using Bing to squeeze 10% off a purchase here or there
I'm not sure how this was orchestrated. I mean, I thought commodities like DVDs and CDs and XBoxes were already shaven down to the some of the lowest prices online
So in the end, I apologize for causing all that cancer. You are correct to direct your slurs at me but I assure you that as soon as those deals dry up I will stop using Bing.
Calling B.S. On Amazon's Taxation Arguments
Who the hell cares what Amazon claims? If you think it should be taxed, write your representatives and demand they do something about the bill that's been renewed through 2014.
And why are we singling out Amazon? Why not Dell or Newegg or even ThinkGeek? Is it because Amazon is doing too well?
Things just don't add up in Mazerov's posting. He levels charges that sound trivial to prove and prosecute--charges that would result in a lot of back taxes paid to a state. Why doesn't he call one of his colleagues up in any of these states and give them all they need to make a name for themselves? The only reason I can think of is that it's a not a cut and dry clear win for the state. Or there are simply too many companies they'd need to prosecute alongside Amazon -- like Best Buy or Walmart who have a presence in every state and run an e-commerce site.
Why is the taxpayer's money being spent on this nonsense? What's next? Scientific evidence, that there is no Santa Claus? That black cats crossing your path do not cause "bad luck" (whatever that is)?
It's a blog post and a FAQ. That's it. No probe to prove there is no planet Nibiru, no expensive mission. Are you really worried that one man probably spent a few days writing this up?
Frankly, I thought it was nice to hear that a NASA scientist is working to take the time to respond to a worried public and trying to minimize that time by having an informative page. When I was a kid, I wrote to NASA from Minnesota all the time. Every single time they responded. I still have fact sheets on all of their shuttle craft in my parent's closet. I read those things over and over trying to imagine how someone could come up with such amazing machines. Go ahead, spend a few minutes to hand write them a letter, you might be surprised with the response:
And if you came here to complain that NASA wastes tax payer money, you're in the wrong place. NASA's budget is about half of one percent of the Federal budget--don't even get me started on what our defense budget comes out to be. That's a ridiculously low amount of money for an agency that's charged with a major component of our future and probably the whole future of the Earth and its inhabitants.
... what exactly are you implying these questions and blog are strawmen for?
Your subject confuses me further
And you can't use them to make nuclear weapons.
That last part is why. :'|
And also ridiculously misinformed. From wikipedia:
The thorium fuel cycle creates mainly Uranium-233 which can be used for making nuclear weapons, and since there are no neutrons from spontaneous fission of U-233, U-233 can be used easily in a gun-type nuclear bomb. Thorium can and has been used to power nuclear energy plants using both the modified traditional Generation III reactor design and prototype Generation IV reactor designs.
Citation here.
Its actually illegal to display swatika's in public in Germany and Austria.
So if I recall the images from the Germany story that I linked to in the summary, it wasn't even swastikas. It was SS symbols on a dead soldier's lapel that they missed as they retextured much of the game. As I commented on that last story:
German law Strafgesetzbuch Section 86:
Dissemination of Means of Propaganda of Unconstitutional Organizations (1) Whoever domestically disseminates or produces, stocks, imports or exports or makes publicly accessible through data storage media for dissemination domestically or abroad, means of propaganda: 1. of a party which has been declared to be unconstitutional by the Federal Constitutional Court or a party or organization, as to which it has been determined, no longer subject to appeal, that it is a substitute organization of such a party; [...] 4. means of propaganda, the contents of which are intended to further the aims of a former National Socialist organization, shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine. [...] (3) Subsection (1) shall not be applicable if the means of propaganda or the act serves to further civil enlightenment, to avert unconstitutional aims, to promote art or science, research or teaching, reporting about current historical events or similar purposes. [...] Section 86a StGB Use of Symbols of Unconstitutional Organizations (1) Whoever: 1. domestically distributes or publicly uses, in a meeting or in writings (Â 11 subsection (3)) disseminated by him, symbols of one of the parties or organizations indicated in Section 86 subsection (1), nos. 1, 2 and 4; or 2. produces, stocks, imports or exports objects which depict or contain such symbols for distribution or use domestically or abroad, in the manner indicated in number 1, shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine. (2) Symbols, within the meaning of subsection (1), shall be, in particular, flags, insignia, uniforms, slogans and forms of greeting. Symbols which are so similar as to be mistaken for those named in sentence 1 shall be deemed to be equivalent thereto.
That part about "flags, insignia, uniforms, slogans and forms of greeting" is what got them--not a big fat swastika but some more obscure symbols. It really makes you wonder how broad they purposefully wrote this law so that they can use their own discretion to censor what they see fit. I don't agree with it but they're a sovereign nation that makes its own laws. I know I wouldn't stand for it. I recognize the horrors of my own country and we will forever keep things like slavery and repression in general in front and center of our attention -- a mandatory history lesson -- so that we never repeat those mistakes.
Pardon the pun, but the record companies need to face the music.
Or they could look to the future and treat new/current artists so well that in 35 years, those artists don't want (like it's not in their best interest) to revoke the copyright ownership from the labels.
I get a big kick out of watching record execs greedily line their own pockets at the expense of destroying music all while doing absolutely nothing. It's no secret and it's not a recent development. Compare the music industry to something more efficient like the microchip industry. Ignore the market differences for a second and think about what happens in the silicon valley or Taiwan or South Korea when someone hits on something big. What happens? Yes, people get paid and they end up with nicer stuff but a lot of that money gets fed back into the system in R&D or an expansion of workers. It pays to expand. Now look at the music industry. A label signs a huge act, the record goes multi-platinum. The artists get some amount but there are these large pools where money comes to rest and stops working for everyone. These are the record executives and RIAA at large. They're different than your average CEO because they are probably making more and they don't even have several thousand people working under them that they have to appease. They just have bands.
So where is the equivalent of R&D or expansion of workers in the music industry? Why is it that bands don't get paid by a record company until they sign a label? Why aren't funds re-invested back into the system that is such a cash cow for these executives? If these executives treated their artists better and really really devoted a lot of time and money towards developing the bands and offering non-contractual small funds to fledgling bands instead of putting all that money in their pocket, then I think the music industry would be in a much much better state right now. Right now, it sucks to be an artist. It's just not a financial option unless you're Bob Dylan or Shakira.
Stop screwing the artists and the fans and you won't find yourself in a shady situation relying on lawyers to find a loophole around legal matters.
I wonder if the same applies to book publishing contracts.
From the article (which no one bothered to read):
This isn’t just about music. “It’s every type of copyright,” said Bernstein. “It doesn’t distinguish between the types of copyright."
So it would appear indeed that this would be the same for books, movies, music, etc. Maybe even software? I mean, why not? It'd be impossible to track down the original developers and offer them equal rights to the code but this will have to be dealt soon. And hopefully not in the way they have traditionally dealt with software and copyright.
I took it into a shop [the Xbox], there was a guy back there and I asked him and he did it for me [chipped it]. He charged £75 to get it chipped but at the end of the day I said to myself I'll pay £75 to get it chipped, after two games I've paid the money back.
I've probably saved about £600 and I've copied roughly 30 or 40 games. A lot of them I've downloaded or I've taken off friends that have downloaded themselves.
So at what point do you put two and two together and realize that getting kicked off playing online is not such a bad thing if you've saved £600? Is there really any wonder why XBox Live wants to deny you service? How exactly do you maintain outrage at being banned?
His sob story was going pretty good until he got up to those last paragraphs of admission and even saying he'd never do it again (implying he is wrong).
I looked through older reports and cannot find a list of "vulnerabilities by major type." Anyone know where to find that? Until you can point that to me, I'm not going to take much stock in a company which has an ad on the bottom of the article that reads:
Let us hack you before hackers do! The Cenzic website HealthCheck. FREE. Request yours now!
I'm sure one major category is "Win32 kernel exploits" while every piece of Gecko and Webkit qualifies as one major type.
Tightens the code and all that.
I must be unfamiliar with the x86 architecture. Can you explain to me how blacklisting x86 devices as opposed to other x86 devices "tightens the code and all that"?
Maybe they should just build a white list that checks the firmware of the motherboard to make sure that the device is an approved "user experience" device before booting? I mean, they're suing Psystar when they could just let the problem take care of itself, right?
In my opinion what Apple is doing is bad for the market and bad for end consumers who want choices. They should explicitly state their product's system requirements and let the consumer decide (like everyone else). Sure, they think they're protecting us from bad situations but where will that mothering stop and at what cost?
Anybody else think something is integrated with something else in a deeply, deeply wrong way here?
I most certainly do! This is unfair! When will Firefox and Opera have such privileged access to kernel space. It results in a bad user experience when the Javascript code I slave over can only help you manage your user files, registry keys and kernel libraries if you're using IE.
Yours truly,
Crafty McStealsYourShit
What about the fourteen other fixes?
The article talks about them at the end (on the second page):
Microsoft also issued critical updates for Vista and Server 2008, as well as for Windows 2000 Server. On the latter, which harbors a bug in its implementation of the License Logging Server, a tool originally designed to help customers manage Server Client Access Licenses (CAL), Storms urged users of that aged operating system to apply the patch pronto, even though the machines are probably well-protected.
"Windows 2000 Server has the logging server enabled by default, but those systems are likely behind multiple firewalls, and people running [Windows 2000 Server] are pretty cognizant of the fact that it's an older version and will act accordingly."
Excel and Word also received patches today. Eight vulnerabilities were addressed in Excel in MS09-067 and one in Word with MS09-068. Both updates also affected the Mac editions, Office 2004 and Office 2008.
For more info, check out the top six listings here.
Reality A: No withheld data. Data is disseminated with some initial shock that by 20xx we will have oil shortages. People get a chance to plan accordingly. Private business gets a chance to cash in on better alternatives and more efficient products marketed to the consumer. California starts to look a little less crazy. Gasoline and fuel slowly becomes more expensive over the years as production slows. People adjust.
Reality B: It's 20xx, suddenly there's no oil. Mass panic. People flip out. People die. Fuel shortages lead to water/food/heating shortages lead to war. Private industry doesn't have a chance to adjust. People aren't prepared to buy a new vehicle on the spot. Californians ride the nearest comet to Heaven's Gate. Crime increases, lawlessness arises, civilization breaks down, I'm forced into a Thunderdome with Cowboy Neal for my right to live.
If the IEA is capable of any logic at all, they are not cooking the books or withholding data. What's the motive of retaining data or fixing charts?
Posted 12 minutes after the story hit the front page
Er, if you pay $5 once, you can see the stories early when they're plums. Had a while to think this through, hope that doesn't rub you the wrong way. (Note the asterisk to the right of my UID)
presents a cogent view in favor of the big media/BBC, says we should shut our dirty whore mouths unless we have a solution that will pass every test he can throw at it
I don't think that's what I said. I think the article, government and BBC are very clear on why they think they need this. I expressed my disapproval in (what I considered) a civil manner of the responses. I don't think they will hold the DRM at bay. Was hoping to have a discussion and not demand either side nor anyone "shut their dirty whore mouths." But way to put words into my mouth, well done.
has a PDF citation ready to go from some official .gov.uk comment site nobody has ever heard of
That was found in the article on the right side under "on the web." It's the official site for the responses and discussion.
and adds in an obvious spell flame/spelling error combo in his post to throw off follow-ups.
My hat's off to you sir, you are quite well-organized for a high 6-digit slashdot poster.
Really? It's come down to the numbers to the right of our names? I'm flamebait and you're insightful?! I give up.
Then let the "content providers" take their ball and go home. If they think they're not leaving money on the table, their call. But keep your digital restrictions out of my living room.
What's the difference to you then? The BBC's statement in the article said:
We are committed to ensuring that public service content remains free to air i.e. unencrypted.
So I would imagine it would work just like TV set-top box de-scramblers work in the states: your regular content will continue to work on everything that it works on now. Premium content will be encrypted and you will need an licensed decrypting device or you're just going to see Russians having a snowball fight on your set.
If the premium content providers "take their ball and go home" then you're in the same boat but people willing to buy into the proprietary scheme can't. Yeah, it's bad to promote that sort of system but the consumer loses even more in your suggested scenario.
You're making complete sense to me and I agree with you 100%. But realize that you are not going to convince any politician nor BBC executive with that suggestion.
One particular fellow doesn't even seem to put two and two together (or spell correctly) and realize that his exact situation is just what they intend to block:
While I appreciate the BBC is keen to retain third party content providers for their HD channels I think compromising the rights of their viewers is not an acceptable solution to achieve this. I believe that it is in contravention of the BBC's responsibilty to provide unencumbered content to TV licence payers.
Personally third party content is of little importance to me, certainly not worth the risk of losing my ability to watch television on my computer via my DVB capture card; I use an open source operating system which will be highly unlikely to obtain a licence for the BBC's proprietary compression tables.
It amazes me that none of these responses addresses the basic needs or the fact that the BBC may be faced with losing some premium content providers if this doesn't go into effect. It's bad alright but what's your suggested solution to this (perceived) problem? That's why it will be eventually put into place if you don't proffer an alternative. Attack the problem at the root of its source and work to show that piracy really isn't a big deal, that's your only choice. Fundamentally, DRM is the only other alternative the market has to offer right now.
What caused your decision to get drunk and watch Mystery Science Theater the night before your philosophy final?
My god, it's like looking into a mirror.
Free will.
Oddly enough when I responded to the last question on the final by drawing parallels between getting drunk and watching MST3K with Krishnamurti's The First and Last Freedom , my professor assured me that it was sloven stupidity--not free will--and graded me accordingly.
Way to be a sellout Slashdot.
For shame.
I can only think of three Soulskill reviews that I know of to rate this review against others. To be fair, he gave Lord of the Rings: Conquest a bit of a bad review. Whereas Halo Wars and Resident Evil 5 were for the most part positive. Give him time to post some more reviews before you accuse the over doting as a Slashvertisement. Scores of 5, 7, 7 and 8 are pretty fair if you imagine they're trying to cherry pick to begin with (who wants to play Madden 20XX? over and over?).
... granted Zonk wasn't that great at hitting all the major games. I guess the most difficult thing is just the amount of free time a fellow has. While Slashdot seems to promote user based book reviews, it never seems as though users are promoted to review games. I guess I would have liked to see a review of Braid and I have just finished up everything in Eufloria.
My biggest complaint is not the Slashvertisement but actually the lack of reviews. Is this the fourth review since Soulskill took over from Zonk? I was hoping for more frequency
Hell, if any Slashdot admins are reading this, are non-editor game reviews accepted ever?
Japan's just preparing for the near future.