You obviously are -not- in touch with the Viva Pinata community, then. It wouldn't matter if God said it was a girl game, he'd get nothing but flames back.
This is a cutesy, kiddie-looking game that has a very loyal following among non-kids, myself included. It's an amazing game. Every time someone calls it a 'kiddie game' or a 'girl game', it is a chance for everyone who hasn't played it to write is off as 'childish'. Fans of anything are alike in 1 way: They want everyone else to try the thing they love so much.
So it's not that it's a personal insult, but rather that it's damaging to the thing we love.
Nothing can take away the game as it is, of course, so damage to the game's image doesn't mean much yet. But when it comes time to create VP2 or another game along the same lines, any damage to the original game matters a lot.
This is a really neat device. It's too bad the company is so stupid.
It's completely locked down by DRM. The ONLY books it'll read have to be bought from them.
It's only marketed in Italy. Holy cow... That's awful short-sighted.
The webpage there is also riddled with stupid comments like 'display larger than the handset itself'... Paradox? No, just stupidity. They mean larger than the handheld when in storage form.
I was going to reply the same, but then I noticed he said 'basic packages'. I'm betting he means the $15/mo AT&T DSL and such, I'm sure. Any reasonable unlimited cable/dsl plan is going to cost $30-$50.
Those people are NOT into the internet enough to download movies anyhow. I really don't think WalMart needs to worry about them.
Do you realize that your statement applies to everything WalMart sells? If someone is willing to break the law, there's nothing in their store they can't have. This will be no different.
But lets take some things with the same possible distribution methods:
Music - Still sells. (CD, MP3, iTunes) Video - Still sells. (DVD, iTunes) Games - Still sells. (Many formats)
You can download all of these things from "competitors" for "free", and yet, people still pay money for them. Why? Maybe because there's still plenty of people that don't believe it's okay to break the law just because they can't tell who's getting hurt when they do.
I loved the movie. I laughed the whole way through. It's SUPPOSED to be stupid. It's supposed to be crude. It's supposed to be a PARODY.
People that didn't like Scary Movie 1,2,3, Teen Movie, and Date Movie should not have bothered seeing Epic Movie. It's going to be the same kind of thing! (I didn't actually watch Date Movie, as I have no interest in those movies and wouldn't have known most of the references.)
Epic Movie did an excellent job of parodying all those 'epic' movies. It picked fun at all the stupid scenes that were thrown in for 'epicness'. Like the Superman scene with the bullet in the eye. When I saw in Superman, I thought 'That's really dumb'. They picked that up and made proper fun of it.
The only thing I didn't like about EM was that there was way too much Gnarnia. But then, there's something about just about every movie I feel that way about.
I am not one to follow what others think blindly, so Rotten Tomatoes' 3% score doesn't affect me at all. I actually make up my own mind about things. I am pretty good at watching a preview and deciding if I'll like the movie enough to watch it or not. It's not often I think 'wow, wasted my money there' or a movie makes it to DVD before I realize it's something I'll like.
If you are writing commercial/proprietary software, or if you plan to commercialize the software you are writing with Qt, you must use a commercial version of Qt.
'commercialize' Means "To apply methods of business to for profit." This means that if you intend to make money from the project, and you use Qt, you MUST license the commercial 'version' of Qt, even if you open source and GPL your code.
With the exception of SW ep 2 (which I already noted) I liked all those movies. There were plenty more that I liked as well, but they didnt fall under the must see category.
How does it relate? The previous poster was claiming that movies werent good lately, and that there were very very few must see movies. I happen to completely disagree. And if they truly were crappy movies, why would you pirate/steal/whatever them and watch them anyhow? Watching them admits they are worth your time.
"What is the last movies that you just had to see?"
Unfortunately, there HAVE been a few movies in the past few years that I just -had- to see. As many as when I was a kid, and I -know- I was less picky when I was a kid. A few that I remember off the top of my head:
Star Wars Ep 1 (2 was a must-see, but disappointed.) Epic Movie (Yeah, that was just last week) Aeon Flux War of the Worlds Signs Lady in the Water
And I'm sure there were quite a few others, as I avidly looked forward to going to the movie theatre about every 3rd or 4th week. (The other weeks, we went anyhow but not because we -had- to see that particular movie.)
So actually, there's been plenty worth watching to at least some of us. If you found nothing good, perhaps you should find another source of entertainment, instead. Don't use it as an excuse to download movies without paying for them. (Not accusing you, I mean that in general.)
You -think- you are navigating to bank.com, but end up at fakebank.com and don't notice. fakebank.com uses curl (or whatever) to pull the login page from bank.com, then outputs that result to your browser. fakebank.com's server can now see the exact layout of the buttons, and when you hit submit, it gets to see what buttons you hit.
Say bank.com gets really sneaky and the buttons are images that are generated each time the page is accessed under random names. fakebank.com has a little more work as it needs to store the images that it retrieved from bank.com (and forwarded to your browser) so that the human operator can visually see your password.
Now say it gets trickier (and I think this was your idea) and it sends multiple letters per key, but the letters differ each time the images are generated. 1 time through fakebank.com will probably not be enough to show the hacker your password, but after logging in like 3 or 4 times, they can algorithmically determine which of the letters you were aiming at and they'll have your password. This assumes you visit fakebank.com accidentally a few times, but the people that manage to get there once and not notice could go there several times, I'm sure.
I won't even get into how much less secure your password is when there's only 10 values to guess from instead of 36. (Being as there's 10 buttons.)
I admit, this approach has its merits, but still doesn't quite do the job and is a MAJOR hassle to the customer in the mean time.
I can see both sides of this. Providing the pics enables customers to guarantee their security. But the very kind of attach this is meant to prevent can very easily get around it by simply not displaying the 'if you don't see the picture' text and picture at all.
So the challenge is to come up with a solution that requires the user to react properly and cannot be faked by a man-in-the-middle attack.
This solution obviously doesn't work. A captcha obviously doesn't work, as criminals can simply decode those by eye/hand. Slower, but possible.
So what WOULD work? I can't think of anything except forcing the customer to call a phone number and tell them the IP they will be coming from. Maybe there's a crypto way to send information and have the IP as a vital part of the that information, so man-in-the-middle doesn't work?
Sounds to me like SSL is just about as good, as it already warns the user that the other side is or isn't who they claim to be.
Sometimes those battles are picked for reasons other than the ones stated, too. My first thought when I read this was, 'He just doesn't want a phone, and this is a good excuse.'
No, that failed. See my comment about 'their own good'. I mean forcing, as that's what the GPL does.
Oh, they'll still be able to create proprietary apps just like the linux kernel allows you to. But they won't be able to take community code and modify it without returning it to the community.
They'll probably find some other way to subvert the system, of course. I've already thought of an obvious one as it is. *cough*tivo*cough*
I think you totally missed the point here. While the ability to use the virtual phone while it's hooked a real phone is neat, but real benefit comes from being able to create and test phone applications with real connectivity, and without taking a chance on destroying a real phone.
I must say, though, the idea of hooking asterisk to a real cellphone for calls like this is intriguing already.
Also, for those looking for a mirror, These finally loaded:
Good point, but I believe the QPE is dual licensed and cannot be used commercially under the GPL, as it uses the QT. This is a fairly major handicap.
A GPL-only framework would be much more palatable to phone makers as it would allow them to use it in their commercial products without fees. If they have to pay to use it, they'll probably just continue developing their own solutions as they have in the past. I know I would.
I'm generally against GPL, but in this instance, I think it's a good idea. Phone companies have already shown how selfish they are, even when it's to their own detriment. Forcing them to share their source will be a good thing for them and us both.
Ive been messing with it, but it keeps messing it because I keep trying odd things like using a second stick for persistance, and trying to make a second partition on the same stick, but in fat32 instead of ext2. (Not a good idea, apparently.) I also havent had much time to mess with it.
I would definitely like to see a Kubuntu install-to-usb-drive version.
Times change. Making a machine do something thats definitely NOT the norm was exciting back then. Its exciting now, too, but making an analog clock on a computer is definitely not abnormal.
And not everyone likes the same things. My father is a very good industrial engineer. I have absolutely no interest in that. Instead, Im a computer programmer, and I like to think Im pretty good at it. Every time I explain something thats amazingly cool in computers, he gets the same glazed-eye look that I get when he explains filtration processes. It obviously excites him, but I just dont care. (And vice versa.)
I know better than to tell you how to raise your son, but maybe cool programs from 30 years ago wont be cool today and another approach is required.
Thats the value of opinion, see? I found Far Cry to be just another FPS, where FEAR was an FPS that added a little mystery and quite a bit of atmosphere.
I actually enjoy programming more. I think its because what Im doing has purpose instead of just doing little things here and there.
Its funny, because at one point I resisted taking a job in programming because I thought it would be less fun that way, and I wouldnt want to do it at work and at home, too. I dont do nearly as many personal projects now, but I definitely have more fun.
Jeez, RTFS. Hes going to talk to a lawyer. He is asking for pointers as to what he should be looking for and thinking about before he goes and pays a jillion dollars per hour. Having a lawyer explain copyright law to you in detail is expensive.
Really, if you dont want to answer his question, dont bother posting.
I also happen to want to know the answer to this. While I am not in this position now, I can foresee it happening in the future.
Speaking of Tucows, I use DomainMonger, who is a reseller for Tucows. (Found that out afterwards.)
They are a bit expensive ($13/mo minimum) and their DNS stuff is lame (only certain records, can't write the bind stuff yourself) but they've been pretty stable for me. I keep thinking about moving to another one, but then I hear the horror stories like in these posts and I decide that $13/yr isn't that bad after all. That's like 2 months hosting costs.
The mods are on crack. Offtopic? If I stretch my mind, I can make this be offtopic because we're talking about not-GoDaddy. But just because someone sticks up for them does not make it offtopic.
Not that I agree, I just think censorship is not only bad, but pointless and potentially dangerous.
Also, don't mistake apathy for customer service. Just because they never did anything about one of your potential domain-squats doesn't mean that they even answer emails from people about them, or that they even received an email about it at all.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.gamefly.com/member/
GameFly thinks it's legal. I'm guessing their legal department made sure of it, first.
Your 4 year old's company didn't publish the game on its flagship console. We all forgive your son for not knowing the difference.
Gates is a completely different matter.
You obviously are -not- in touch with the Viva Pinata community, then. It wouldn't matter if God said it was a girl game, he'd get nothing but flames back.
This is a cutesy, kiddie-looking game that has a very loyal following among non-kids, myself included. It's an amazing game. Every time someone calls it a 'kiddie game' or a 'girl game', it is a chance for everyone who hasn't played it to write is off as 'childish'. Fans of anything are alike in 1 way: They want everyone else to try the thing they love so much.
So it's not that it's a personal insult, but rather that it's damaging to the thing we love.
Nothing can take away the game as it is, of course, so damage to the game's image doesn't mean much yet. But when it comes time to create VP2 or another game along the same lines, any damage to the original game matters a lot.
This is a really neat device. It's too bad the company is so stupid.
... Paradox? No, just stupidity. They mean larger than the handheld when in storage form.
It's completely locked down by DRM. The ONLY books it'll read have to be bought from them.
It's only marketed in Italy. Holy cow... That's awful short-sighted.
The webpage there is also riddled with stupid comments like 'display larger than the handset itself'
I was going to reply the same, but then I noticed he said 'basic packages'. I'm betting he means the $15/mo AT&T DSL and such, I'm sure. Any reasonable unlimited cable/dsl plan is going to cost $30-$50.
Those people are NOT into the internet enough to download movies anyhow. I really don't think WalMart needs to worry about them.
Do you realize that your statement applies to everything WalMart sells? If someone is willing to break the law, there's nothing in their store they can't have. This will be no different.
But lets take some things with the same possible distribution methods:
Music - Still sells. (CD, MP3, iTunes)
Video - Still sells. (DVD, iTunes)
Games - Still sells. (Many formats)
You can download all of these things from "competitors" for "free", and yet, people still pay money for them. Why? Maybe because there's still plenty of people that don't believe it's okay to break the law just because they can't tell who's getting hurt when they do.
Oh man, the original is a classic, too. I still laugh at it. I just hope this doesn't turn into a slashdot meme.
Wow, check that out, people have OPINIONS.
I loved the movie. I laughed the whole way through. It's SUPPOSED to be stupid. It's supposed to be crude. It's supposed to be a PARODY.
People that didn't like Scary Movie 1,2,3, Teen Movie, and Date Movie should not have bothered seeing Epic Movie. It's going to be the same kind of thing! (I didn't actually watch Date Movie, as I have no interest in those movies and wouldn't have known most of the references.)
Epic Movie did an excellent job of parodying all those 'epic' movies. It picked fun at all the stupid scenes that were thrown in for 'epicness'. Like the Superman scene with the bullet in the eye. When I saw in Superman, I thought 'That's really dumb'. They picked that up and made proper fun of it.
The only thing I didn't like about EM was that there was way too much Gnarnia. But then, there's something about just about every movie I feel that way about.
I am not one to follow what others think blindly, so Rotten Tomatoes' 3% score doesn't affect me at all. I actually make up my own mind about things. I am pretty good at watching a preview and deciding if I'll like the movie enough to watch it or not. It's not often I think 'wow, wasted my money there' or a movie makes it to DVD before I realize it's something I'll like.
Nope, sorry. Read that again...
i ndows
http://www.trolltech.com/developer/downloads/qt/w
'commercialize' Means "To apply methods of business to for profit." This means that if you intend to make money from the project, and you use Qt, you MUST license the commercial 'version' of Qt, even if you open source and GPL your code.
With the exception of SW ep 2 (which I already noted) I liked all those movies. There were plenty more that I liked as well, but they didnt fall under the must see category.
How does it relate? The previous poster was claiming that movies werent good lately, and that there were very very few must see movies. I happen to completely disagree. And if they truly were crappy movies, why would you pirate/steal/whatever them and watch them anyhow? Watching them admits they are worth your time.
"What is the last movies that you just had to see?"
Unfortunately, there HAVE been a few movies in the past few years that I just -had- to see. As many as when I was a kid, and I -know- I was less picky when I was a kid. A few that I remember off the top of my head:
Star Wars Ep 1 (2 was a must-see, but disappointed.)
Epic Movie (Yeah, that was just last week)
Aeon Flux
War of the Worlds
Signs
Lady in the Water
And I'm sure there were quite a few others, as I avidly looked forward to going to the movie theatre about every 3rd or 4th week. (The other weeks, we went anyhow but not because we -had- to see that particular movie.)
So actually, there's been plenty worth watching to at least some of us. If you found nothing good, perhaps you should find another source of entertainment, instead. Don't use it as an excuse to download movies without paying for them. (Not accusing you, I mean that in general.)
It's called a man-in-the-middle attack.
You -think- you are navigating to bank.com, but end up at fakebank.com and don't notice. fakebank.com uses curl (or whatever) to pull the login page from bank.com, then outputs that result to your browser. fakebank.com's server can now see the exact layout of the buttons, and when you hit submit, it gets to see what buttons you hit.
Say bank.com gets really sneaky and the buttons are images that are generated each time the page is accessed under random names. fakebank.com has a little more work as it needs to store the images that it retrieved from bank.com (and forwarded to your browser) so that the human operator can visually see your password.
Now say it gets trickier (and I think this was your idea) and it sends multiple letters per key, but the letters differ each time the images are generated. 1 time through fakebank.com will probably not be enough to show the hacker your password, but after logging in like 3 or 4 times, they can algorithmically determine which of the letters you were aiming at and they'll have your password. This assumes you visit fakebank.com accidentally a few times, but the people that manage to get there once and not notice could go there several times, I'm sure.
I won't even get into how much less secure your password is when there's only 10 values to guess from instead of 36. (Being as there's 10 buttons.)
I admit, this approach has its merits, but still doesn't quite do the job and is a MAJOR hassle to the customer in the mean time.
I can see both sides of this. Providing the pics enables customers to guarantee their security. But the very kind of attach this is meant to prevent can very easily get around it by simply not displaying the 'if you don't see the picture' text and picture at all.
So the challenge is to come up with a solution that requires the user to react properly and cannot be faked by a man-in-the-middle attack.
This solution obviously doesn't work. A captcha obviously doesn't work, as criminals can simply decode those by eye/hand. Slower, but possible.
So what WOULD work? I can't think of anything except forcing the customer to call a phone number and tell them the IP they will be coming from. Maybe there's a crypto way to send information and have the IP as a vital part of the that information, so man-in-the-middle doesn't work?
Sounds to me like SSL is just about as good, as it already warns the user that the other side is or isn't who they claim to be.
Sometimes you have to pick your battles.
Sometimes those battles are picked for reasons other than the ones stated, too. My first thought when I read this was, 'He just doesn't want a phone, and this is a good excuse.'
No, that failed. See my comment about 'their own good'. I mean forcing, as that's what the GPL does.
Oh, they'll still be able to create proprietary apps just like the linux kernel allows you to. But they won't be able to take community code and modify it without returning it to the community.
They'll probably find some other way to subvert the system, of course. I've already thought of an obvious one as it is. *cough*tivo*cough*
I think you totally missed the point here. While the ability to use the virtual phone while it's hooked a real phone is neat, but real benefit comes from being able to create and test phone applications with real connectivity, and without taking a chance on destroying a real phone.
I must say, though, the idea of hooking asterisk to a real cellphone for calls like this is intriguing already.
Also, for those looking for a mirror, These finally loaded:
http://gpe.linuxtogo.org.nyud.net:8080/
http://gpephone.linuxtogo.org.nyud.net:8080/
Good point, but I believe the QPE is dual licensed and cannot be used commercially under the GPL, as it uses the QT. This is a fairly major handicap.
A GPL-only framework would be much more palatable to phone makers as it would allow them to use it in their commercial products without fees. If they have to pay to use it, they'll probably just continue developing their own solutions as they have in the past. I know I would.
I'm generally against GPL, but in this instance, I think it's a good idea. Phone companies have already shown how selfish they are, even when it's to their own detriment. Forcing them to share their source will be a good thing for them and us both.
Gah, it added spaces. Lemme try that again.
9 &postcount=100t ick-grub-and-ubuntu/
http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=106279
http://nsaunders.wordpress.com/2006/11/06/a-usb-s
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LiveUsbPendrivePersistent
Not really, but theres tutorials on making k/x/ubuntus livecd run from a flash drive, with persistence. Like
http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=10627 99&postcount=100
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LiveUsbPendrivePersisten t
http://nsaunders.wordpress.com/2006/11/06/a-usb- stick-grub-and-ubuntu/
Ive been messing with it, but it keeps messing it because I keep trying odd things like using a second stick for persistance, and trying to make a second partition on the same stick, but in fat32 instead of ext2. (Not a good idea, apparently.) I also havent had much time to mess with it.
I would definitely like to see a Kubuntu install-to-usb-drive version.
2 things:
- Times change. Making a machine do something thats definitely NOT the norm was exciting back then. Its exciting now, too, but making an analog clock on a computer is definitely not abnormal.
- And not everyone likes the same things. My father is a very good industrial engineer. I have absolutely no interest in that. Instead, Im a computer programmer, and I like to think Im pretty good at it. Every time I explain something thats amazingly cool in computers, he gets the same glazed-eye look that I get when he explains filtration processes. It obviously excites him, but I just dont care. (And vice versa.)
I know better than to tell you how to raise your son, but maybe cool programs from 30 years ago wont be cool today and another approach is required.Thats the value of opinion, see? I found Far Cry to be just another FPS, where FEAR was an FPS that added a little mystery and quite a bit of atmosphere.
I actually enjoy programming more. I think its because what Im doing has purpose instead of just doing little things here and there.
Its funny, because at one point I resisted taking a job in programming because I thought it would be less fun that way, and I wouldnt want to do it at work and at home, too. I dont do nearly as many personal projects now, but I definitely have more fun.
Jeez, RTFS. Hes going to talk to a lawyer. He is asking for pointers as to what he should be looking for and thinking about before he goes and pays a jillion dollars per hour. Having a lawyer explain copyright law to you in detail is expensive.
Really, if you dont want to answer his question, dont bother posting.
I also happen to want to know the answer to this. While I am not in this position now, I can foresee it happening in the future.
Speaking of Tucows, I use DomainMonger, who is a reseller for Tucows. (Found that out afterwards.)
They are a bit expensive ($13/mo minimum) and their DNS stuff is lame (only certain records, can't write the bind stuff yourself) but they've been pretty stable for me. I keep thinking about moving to another one, but then I hear the horror stories like in these posts and I decide that $13/yr isn't that bad after all. That's like 2 months hosting costs.
The mods are on crack. Offtopic? If I stretch my mind, I can make this be offtopic because we're talking about not-GoDaddy. But just because someone sticks up for them does not make it offtopic.
Not that I agree, I just think censorship is not only bad, but pointless and potentially dangerous.
Also, don't mistake apathy for customer service. Just because they never did anything about one of your potential domain-squats doesn't mean that they even answer emails from people about them, or that they even received an email about it at all.