I agree with what you said; if you make the attempt and are not able to do anything about it, then yes -- that's their loss and your gain. My issue -- and what I believe to be stealing -- comes from the people who don't make the attempt.
So why is it so crazy to think that users would be willing to participate in a search engine where you "pay" with your spare CPU cycles? If the search engine generates useful results, it seems like a fair trade-off for me. If there was not a search engine that already filled these needs, with the only "price" being the viewing of inobtrusive ads, how is giving up my spare CPU cycles to receive the same thing from another source a fair trade? This also assumes that wikia won't begin using ads of their own, which would mean I'm "paying" twice. (CPU + ads)
I would think that they should eat it as it was their mistake (they have insurance), but the other side of it is that I don't think I should go to jail for some guys programming error. Would you have reported it had it not been automatically caught and corrected? If not, then please explain how keeping the "extra" money differs in any significant way from stealing? That's like a cashier giving you back a $20 with your change instead of a $10: It's still not your money, no matter whose fault it is.
Well, like it or not, a humanities degree is cheap compared to engineering or science. All that lab equipment (and space) costs money, not to mention the people who set it up and keep it running. I'm not saying I agree with differential pricing, I'm just pointing out the costs. True, but as someone taking up an engineering degree after many years, I am finding that this is already accounted for. I pay "lab fees", "computer lab fees", and a host of other nickel-and-dime fees that raise the cost of my tuition beyond that base "$x per credit-hour".
Yes youth use text messaging... But there is another reason... A more realistic reason... COST...
Talking on the phone is expensive. Sending messages is cheap. Do you REALLY think that kids prefer sending messages to talking? "Why when I was young" kids were talking hours and hours on the phone. WHY? Because local calls were FREE... If kids had the option to talking or sending messages via a keyboard, they would have talked, not text messaged... I think you're off-base. You can get plans that cover large amounts of both for one flat rate; and many people do. Yet they'll still prefer to use text messaging in many situations. Seems to me that cost isn't as much a factor (especially when mommy/daddy pay), but convenience. You can have a text conversation in class or at the dinner table or practically anywhere. The same cant' be said of voice conversations.
Ugh, fine. . make me RTF:-p Yes I'd call it negligible, they say that their current design can do a few nanoamps at below 0.5v but hope to get a design that can pump out a microamp at 0.5v. Lets assume they perfected their "high-power" design and look at what it does. 0.000000001A is 1 microAmp, multiply that by 0.5v and you get 0.0000000005W or 0.5 microWatts. Having this thing run for 24 hours would give us 12 microwatt-hours which according to google is 0.0103250478 calories. So if it were 1% efficient (I'd be sure its quite a bit higher) it would draw about 1 calorie a day. ..or about 1/4 of a gram of sugar.
So what you're saying is that after all these years, technology has reached the point where I can finally stand tall and shout...
They see the way things are going. They see that wireless clouds are proliferating and that terrestrial radio may disappear as people carry around wireless internet radio devices. If they could stop you from recording off of HD radio, they would. Did you just accuse them of looking further than the ends of their collective noses? Are you sure you're posting to the right site?
Yeah, just like the American government only uses the Patriot Act for national security purposes and not to fight ordinary crime, like drug dealers and street gangs... *cough* References?
What's a much bigger deal (to me) is that I can't swap a battery in an emergency... I travel a great deal for work, and there have been occassions where unable to get to a power outlet to recharge. If it is this critical to you, why didn't you check it before you purchased the phone? First thing I do when I buy a new phone is open it up and make sure I can service the battery, especially as I get into using more complex 'smart phones' that have higher consumption rates. If I can't replace it, it doesn't meet my needs, so I don't purchase it.
the software has to be installed by the owner of the Blackberry, but it would not be surprising to find out that someone has found a way to silently auto-install that software on RIM devices I would be very surprised, unlike the submitter. You cannot silently auto-install ANY software on a RIM device. And further, any such installed software MUST get permission from the user before it uses network resources.
1 American I actually like
300 million to go Like most of my fellow Americans, I make more money than I know what to do with. Keep talking shit, and I would love to use some of it in flying over there on my personal Leer, simply so that I can swat you like a fly.
(Note to mods: Tongue-in-cheek humor involved here. If you don't get it, don't take that out on my poor, innocent karma.)
The immobilisers don't lose programming, they're eeprom'd. And $300 (US$) is a LOT. Locksmiths can duplicate most immobiliser keys, although high-end ones they can't do (including my HSV unfortunately). Of course not, such a thing could never happen to the keys...
1) While it does not have to do with password, it/can/. If you choose the option to auto-login, it doesn't matter if you have a valid session or not. This would work as OP described because the router's site would have stored your login info in a cookie, which it would then read when the exploit was used.
2) Reasonable, if you (the end user) don't mind authenticating before every single action you take on a web site. Personally, I/would/ mind that.
By the way to not allow images execept from the original website, in FireFox2, open about:config, modify the value of the preference permissions.default.image
from 1 to 0.
The problem with this is that a lot of sites use different servers to legitimately host their images. ie, media.example.com hosting images for www.example.com.
Nothing, but it needed to be posted early to try to get the discussion away from anti-trust issues.
Sometimes Slashdot discussions rocket down a path that is far from central to the Slashdot story. That's kind of the nature of the beast isn't it? Discussion tends to wander in its own directions -- if you follow most threads replying to a slashdot story, few of them end in a way that is directly related to the topic at hand, though the progression can seldom be called offtopic. It doesn't make the discussion of any less value or interest though.
But that being said, Apple hasn't been bitchslapped or even investigated for the charges I read about from time to time, about early on how Jobs manufactured an iPod shortage to enrich Apple's margin
This is also known as "supply and demand" -- why would they be punished for playing the market as if they wanted to make a profit?
I suspect that if that and the mandatory minimum pricing on the iPods isn't considered to be fodder for antitrust suits
Why would this be antitrust fodder? Competitors are free to charge what they want; indeed, it gives the competitors an advantage to those people who can't justify paying a premium price for an ipod.
Antitrust isn't simply a matter of selling your own product aggressively. It must be done to the detriment or even exclusion of others -- for example, requiring that for any store to sell an ipod, they can sell no other music players, AND if sufficient numbers of business stopped selling alternatives so that they could sell ipods, then there would be a potential antitrust violation. But having high prices, or even imposing such requirements, is not itself any kind of violation.
"you missed the understood portion that says, "the rest are too cheap to let their xenophobia overrule their wallets so they go ahead hire the "dirty Mexicans" anyway.""
I see no indication that that's what the post was implying. You are putting words into his mouth. Please respond to what posts actually say. You are wasting your breath. This kind of poster takes quotes out of context, and if he sees something he does not have an answer for, he simply ignores it in his reply. You can usually pick them out in their first reply, and the best thing to do from that point is to ignore them.
Actually it was illegal for the twins to give that mix tape to someone else. The law only allows you to copy music FOR YOURSELF. So there is a case and it should be prosecuted by the RIAA with the same vim and vigor it does when going after nobodies. Otherwise they are hypocrital assholes like you dumb-fuck right-wingers who believe everything Rush tells them.
You do raise a valid point, though I don't understand why you needed to be an asshat about it. Unless you were the poster of aforementioned nonsense and didn't appreciate being called an 'idiot'? The funny thing is I mentioned nothing at all about politics in my original post, yet you sure did bring it up quickly -- and made some interesting assumptions about me, I noticed.
At any rate, my own point also remains valid -- legal or not, this is not the kind of case that RIAA has been pursuing. Therefore, the lawyer is doing nothing but grandstanding. Therefore, you (or whoever the poster was) remain an idiot for jumping to a false conclusion and using the opportunity to spout left-wing silliness.
Of course it's OK. RIAA doesn't pursue cases like these because there is no case. The lawyer here is just engaging in some old-fashioned grandstanding, but thus far has succeeded only in making a jackass of himself. Except...
Except for the idiot a couple threads above this who took it at face value, and posted a semi-sarcastic rant about how it's OK for the Bush family to do this since they're rich. And that jacka-- erm, poster probably represents 99% of the people who will hear about this.
I'm about 19x as intelligent as my older brother. I could go on and on with different proof, but ill let my ACT score suffice:
Him: 17
Me : 30 And in a few more years, you'll learn just how much these scores mean when it comes to measuring intelligence in the real world;)
We are pleased that as a result of Google's request that the consent decree be enforced, the Department of Justice and state attorneys general have required Microsoft to make changes to Vista Just a bit?
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with what you said; if you make the attempt and are not able to do anything about it, then yes -- that's their loss and your gain. My issue -- and what I believe to be stealing -- comes from the people who don't make the attempt.
Talking on the phone is expensive. Sending messages is cheap. Do you REALLY think that kids prefer sending messages to talking? "Why when I was young" kids were talking hours and hours on the phone. WHY? Because local calls were FREE... If kids had the option to talking or sending messages via a keyboard, they would have talked, not text messaged... I think you're off-base. You can get plans that cover large amounts of both for one flat rate; and many people do. Yet they'll still prefer to use text messaging in many situations. Seems to me that cost isn't as much a factor (especially when mommy/daddy pay), but convenience. You can have a text conversation in class or at the dinner table or practically anywhere. The same cant' be said of voice conversations.
So what you're saying is that after all these years, technology has reached the point where I can finally stand tall and shout...
...
I HAVE THE POWER!
(Mods:
Maybe try with autocommit turned off in postgres? (I am assuming you used MyISAM table type in mysql).
If it is this critical to you, why didn't you check it before you purchased the phone? First thing I do when I buy a new phone is open it up and make sure I can service the battery, especially as I get into using more complex 'smart phones' that have higher consumption rates. If I can't replace it, it doesn't meet my needs, so I don't purchase it.
Open your door and say hi, you silly twit.
300 million to go
Like most of my fellow Americans, I make more money than I know what to do with. Keep talking shit, and I would love to use some of it in flying over there on my personal Leer, simply so that I can swat you like a fly. (Note to mods: Tongue-in-cheek humor involved here. If you don't get it, don't take that out on my poor, innocent karma.)
I wish I had a long rebuttal prepared... but I actually agree.
1) While it does not have to do with password, it /can/. If you choose the option to auto-login, it doesn't matter if you have a valid session or not. This would work as OP described because the router's site would have stored your login info in a cookie, which it would then read when the exploit was used.
2) Reasonable, if you (the end user) don't mind authenticating before every single action you take on a web site. Personally, I /would/ mind that.
from 1 to 0 .
The problem with this is that a lot of sites use different servers to legitimately host their images. ie, media.example.com hosting images for www.example.com.Sometimes Slashdot discussions rocket down a path that is far from central to the Slashdot story. That's kind of the nature of the beast isn't it? Discussion tends to wander in its own directions -- if you follow most threads replying to a slashdot story, few of them end in a way that is directly related to the topic at hand, though the progression can seldom be called offtopic. It doesn't make the discussion of any less value or interest though.
I'm happy for you that you got modded insightful and all, but what on /earth/ does this have to do with the previous two posts?
This is also known as "supply and demand" -- why would they be punished for playing the market as if they wanted to make a profit?
I suspect that if that and the mandatory minimum pricing on the iPods isn't considered to be fodder for antitrust suitsWhy would this be antitrust fodder? Competitors are free to charge what they want; indeed, it gives the competitors an advantage to those people who can't justify paying a premium price for an ipod.
Antitrust isn't simply a matter of selling your own product aggressively. It must be done to the detriment or even exclusion of others -- for example, requiring that for any store to sell an ipod, they can sell no other music players, AND if sufficient numbers of business stopped selling alternatives so that they could sell ipods, then there would be a potential antitrust violation. But having high prices, or even imposing such requirements, is not itself any kind of violation.
I see no indication that that's what the post was implying. You are putting words into his mouth. Please respond to what posts actually say. You are wasting your breath. This kind of poster takes quotes out of context, and if he sees something he does not have an answer for, he simply ignores it in his reply. You can usually pick them out in their first reply, and the best thing to do from that point is to ignore them.
You do raise a valid point, though I don't understand why you needed to be an asshat about it. Unless you were the poster of aforementioned nonsense and didn't appreciate being called an 'idiot'? The funny thing is I mentioned nothing at all about politics in my original post, yet you sure did bring it up quickly -- and made some interesting assumptions about me, I noticed.
At any rate, my own point also remains valid -- legal or not, this is not the kind of case that RIAA has been pursuing. Therefore, the lawyer is doing nothing but grandstanding. Therefore, you (or whoever the poster was) remain an idiot for jumping to a false conclusion and using the opportunity to spout left-wing silliness.
Of course it's OK. RIAA doesn't pursue cases like these because there is no case. The lawyer here is just engaging in some old-fashioned grandstanding, but thus far has succeeded only in making a jackass of himself. Except...
Except for the idiot a couple threads above this who took it at face value, and posted a semi-sarcastic rant about how it's OK for the Bush family to do this since they're rich. And that jacka-- erm, poster probably represents 99% of the people who will hear about this.
Him: 17
Me : 30 And in a few more years, you'll learn just how much these scores mean when it comes to measuring intelligence in the real world