True, in fact it would be funny to try to find a line of legal reasoning that would somehow make the coffee shop owner accessory to the felony. IANAL, but either way I think it's possible that a good attorney could be successful in pursuing civil damages based on the trampoline model you cite. Any attorneys out there think I could be correct?
I'm guessing the 40 day suspension wasn't just for this. There was probably a history and/or other events may have been taken into consideration. If that is the case, then the little bastard got what he deserved and need to quit whining about it, particularly in court. If not, well, 40 days probably is a little extreme - but IMHO the term of suspension probably should be left to the discretion of the administration, not the courts.
If this site does in fact gather all its information from documents that are in the public domain (as it claims), then there's not much in the way of recourse.
True, which means it might be really hard to prohibit it. It seems to me that doing so would also require restrictions on ever printing the name of an informant in other publicly available documents. Probably some 1st amendment issues there...
Gotta agree with you on this one. Normally I do try to approach all the M$ bashing with a bit of skepticism, but this one was pretty obviously an asshole play, particularly after Linux developers have said they're more than happy to code around the "violations."
These sorts of studies are interesting in that they often prove that modern medicine could have saved these famous folks, but what they fail to take into consideration is the fact that such people existed only because of the times they lived in. It's impossible to imagine that Beethoven, for example, could have been "saved" by modern medicine when one considers that Beethoven could not exist as he was in the modern age.
Don't get me wrong, it's certainly an interesting study to attempt to diagnose an individual's condition when only historical data exists. I'm sure there also are ways in which such studies, when done correctly, could help advance modern medicine. My point is just that it's important to see them in context, and to be careful not to use them as proof that modern man is somehow inherently "better" than his ancestors.
I assume that's a rhetorical question? This sounds remarkably like thought crime. What needs to happen here: immediately laugh this law out of congress, start a massive movement to make certain that no politician who has even spoken well of this bill is ever elected to any public office again, and immediately begin investigations for bribery into those politicians who voted for it or promoted it. Even suggesting life imprisonment for copyright infringement is simply ludicrous.
Assume everyone is aware of this unfortunate story from a couple weeks ago. My suggestion is that these teachers and the principle do a little time of their own. In fact their sentence should probably be much harsher than the one given to the Chicago teenager. I think most parents would agree that we do halfway expect the teachers and administrators of that school to act more or less like responsible adults.
Bach's comments illustrate in hideous detail exactly what's wrong with the gaming industry. He's so obsessed with graphics power and cool new technology that he's forgotten that games are supposed to be - well, fun. And that's why the Wii has kicked everyone's ass. It doesn't need to have the newest graphics accelerator or 3GB of memory or 8 damn processors - it just needs to be engaging, nifty and fun as hell to play.
Hell, I still occasionally play Duck Hunt on an old Nintendo. Graphics power?? Ha!! Who needs it when you get to blow the crap out of feathery little ducks with a physical gun?
Until folks like Microsoft and Sony realize this, they're going to fall behind in the market. Loads of graphic power can be a great thing, but only if it's used to make fun, innovative, creatively "different" games.
That's true, and I should emphasize that I'm not saying that this legislation makes things worse than they are now. However, remember that a thief could accomplish everything you listed simply by breaking into my house and finding my paper records (or by accessing my credit report now, before it's "frozen" - not difficult, or possibly even by stealing my mail, for that matter). He could also potentially get all of that information online (granted, that would take some serious work but it could be done). Now, I'm not one to be writing my PIN down anywhere, but lots of people do. So the point I'm trying to make is that this doesn't make your report invincible. It's an ok idea but it doesn't go nearly far enough.
Also, it's not enough to simply believe that a thief will never target you because there are easier targets. That's just simply not true and it's dangerous to think so. Remember that you're an easier target than some.
I still think that this legislation should force all 3 credit bureaus to lock down these reports by default. That would take some work and cost them some serious money, sure, but IMHO (and as someone who has had my identity stolen and dragged through the mud - though I was able to fix all of the problems it cost me a fortune) it's the bureaus' responsibility if they're going to keep that kind of information on file without our consent.
This law, quite frankly, is a load of bullshit. It just doesn't accomplish anything. Sure, I can freeze my report but any thief worth his salt will steal the passcode if/when he steals my identity. I'm also awfully skeptical of the fact that you actually have to pay something to freeze the report. That sounds a little like blackmail - my report can be accessed and I'm subject to identity theft unless I pay this company a fee to protect my information? (Sort of like, you know, keeping potentially detrimental information about me in a secret report and charging me money to be able to even see it, but allowing anyone claiming to be a financial institution to see it for free).
Call me paranoid, naysayer, whatever - but I agree with other posters who say that everyone's report should be frozen by default, and no information should ever be allowed to be accessed (or, arguably, even exist) without your express written consent.
It's hard to really recommend anything without knowing what kind of person you are, what your financial situation is, etc, but without having any of that info, I can just tell you what I'd do: something way the hell off the beaten path. You have any money saved? Enough to maybe start a small business in your hobby of choice? If you really want a serious change of pace, move somewhere way out of the way. Work odd jobs - anything you can do. Maybe helping with the weak though growing IT market in Africa/Central/South America. If you have anything at all saved, it can go a long way there.
I guess my point is, there's no reason to trade one run-of-the-mill 9-5 for another one. If you're really serious about a change of scenery, go sit on a hilltop for a day or two and decide what you'd do if the sky was the limit. And then spend the rest of your life getting there. Idealistic? Sure. But the journey's half the fun.
True but by then I fully expect fiber to be more readily available. Unless things change drastically in the cable industry with regards to reliability and stabilization of bandwidth to the individual user, I think most businesses will continue to utilize the phone company's internet before they go with cable. I've been wrong before, but at this point I just don't see that changing.
Comcast's reliability does leave a lot to be desired, however, a small office that can purchase 8 Mbps symmetric service for circa $160 per month doesn't need to spend $400+ to get a T1 for a fraction of the bandwidth, especially if their email/web are hosted externally. Backup access could be provided by DSL, WISP, or even cellular data for the few times when it would be necessary for continuity reasons. The small office could achieve very high reliability via two providers for under $275/mo.
Not a bad plan but a small office could probably also utilize DSL as their main connection (which in my area is now offered at 8Mbps) and by using a basic RJ11-based phone system (Samsung has some good ones) roll that cost into the same plan. Granted the need for a bigger/more intricate phone system might change this, but even so I don't really see the need to use cable at all - unless as a backup, even though I don't usually recommend bothering with it since the DSL circuits (in this area at least) are exceptionally solid. And 8MBps for a small office is going to (in most cases at least) be plenty of bandwidth.
And while I don't mind talking down Comcast's technical competency when it comes to telecom, they are making drastic improvements as they deploy their voice service as they realize that people may tolerate their computer not working for a few hours here and there but the phone must always work as it has for countless years on much less sophisticated equipment.
Actually I've wondered if that would be the case and will be interested to see if it's true. If they don't make some serious improvements to reliability and bandwidth stabilization their phone service will fail, and it's possible that with it the entire cable-based VOIP market will fade with it. I don't see that happening yet but it is possible.
I'm inclined to believe this is smoke in the wind, especially coming from Comcast. Beyond the fact that most companies (or anyone with security in mind) would never go for a cable connection, cable companies still just can't compete with the telecommunications companies' technological expertise and infrastructure. Cable is a consumer-grade product and always will be. That's not necessarily a bad thing, it just is what it is.
With that in mind, I wonder why they feel the need to offer a 150Mbps download stream, since even assuming their infrastructure will ever be able to support such a thing (doubtful?), most households will never begin to approach that kind of need. Again, it looks like they're throwing out impressive numbers to me without much meat to back it up.
Interesting suggestion - in fact, that creates the possibility of a middle-of-the-road approach to this - so that you're not just randomizing maps to get rid of campers. In other words, you do get rid of the camper problem and create some diversity to the map so that it doesn't get boring, but it's still possible to develop a good, powerful strategy for how to play it.
None of my favorite games (Fallout, STALKER, Civ) have anything approaching fantastic cinematics, yet they're still brilliant
Yeah, but don't you think it depends on the kind of game we're talking about? I mean, Civ, for example, doesn't need great cutscenes to be brilliant. However, in "story" based games it's possible (and perhaps even necessary) to use the cinematics to really enhance the storyline, which in my opinion is perhaps the #1 shortfall of 99% percent of games made in the past few years (there are notable exceptions, Halo being one of them IMHO). I've often wondered why (unless it's just that the financial demands are higher) studios don't simply film the cutscenes and not worry about rendering them. Of course it is possible to produce some fantastic cutscenes using only the game engine, and one doesn't have to worry about the slightly different look between the film footage and the rendered character/set. Still, my point is that when the "story" is the basis of the game (as I've always thought it should be in Halo, multi-player not withstanding), extra special care should be given by the studio to insure that the story is as gripping, well written, and intricate as it can be. Add that to well thought-out interface and brilliant cinematics, and you're looking at a brilliant game. So I think these guys may just be looking at a winner here, assuming the story is brilliant...
I like the national ID because it arguable can fold services 1, 2, 4, and 7 into one stupid card and cut the bureaucracy.
Sadly, the 'state's rights' conservative crowd will cheer these bureaucracies on pretending they are protecting us from the next hitler or somesuch.
Not sure what you're implying there, chief. Are you really trying to say that you'd rather answer to a nationalist system instead of a (relatively) localized government? Are you in fact so ignorant of history as to think that such a thing would preserve your freedom? Or are you so naive as to think that technological progress alone is the way to freedom?
Sometimes bureaucratic ineptitude, despicable as it is, can in fact be a last defense against tyranny. Remember that sometimes those who would remove your freedoms have to deal with it as much as you do, and that actually keeps them from cutting to the chase and locking everyone away in a prison camp. Don't get me wrong - I hate bureaucratic incompetence as much as the next guy, and it's certainly not the best defense against tyranny, but it's one of the only ones we have left, and I will not lightly destroy it without a reasonable alternative.
If XP doesn't work anymore, I will move on to another OS. Wine is hopefully ready to run at XP level by the time I have to go, so I know where my next home will be built.
Ditto. I've been lazily avoiding Linux for a long time but when my XP installation no longer works, I will switch and use Mac's for anything that Linux won't do (or anything that I'm too lazy to make work in Linux). Hilariously, Vista could do more to destroy the MS machine than any court or open-license concept could do on its own.
(Arguably, they make more money off you, because you don't chewing up server processing and bandwidth all the time).
Yeah, that's a good point. A casual player pays the same amount while using less bandwidth/server resources, and certainly doesn't cost Blizzard as much from a support standpoint.
The funny thing is that I still think WOW is one of the most enjoyable games (and certainly one of the best MMO's ever created) around, even without having spent (comparably) a whole lot of time playing it. So I suppose that proves that Blizzard has succeeded in making the game accessible and fun for both styles of play.
I don't think you can be truthfully labeled a casual player - no offense, but I've been playing WOW for about 2 years and my character just reached 60. That's with about an hour or so per weekend of casual play, with a "hardcore" 4 or 5 hour session thrown in every once in a while. I agree that BC is 90% for hardcore players - but of course, it should be. Hardcore players are Blizzard's bread-and-butter, and always will be - so why shouldn't they market to them?
Rubbish. Vista doesn't change anything having to do with the Internet Protocol. You move bits around. You move them around freely.
That's absolutely correct, but it doesn't mean that software like Vista isn't destroying "electronic freedom." Because as true as everything you said above may be, it only applies to a small percentage of the users of Microsoft software. People like you who can either a) hack the software, or b) find a hacked copy of the software are not inhibited at all. But the rest of the users who don't have those skills are severely limited, and in the end, it's those people that really concern me. Folks like you can take care of yourself. They can't, and they're the ones (like it or not) who decide what is or is not acceptable practice for a corporation like Microsoft, by their acceptance or resistance.
Slashdot Mirror
True, in fact it would be funny to try to find a line of legal reasoning that would somehow make the coffee shop owner accessory to the felony. IANAL, but either way I think it's possible that a good attorney could be successful in pursuing civil damages based on the trampoline model you cite. Any attorneys out there think I could be correct?
I'm guessing the 40 day suspension wasn't just for this. There was probably a history and/or other events may have been taken into consideration. If that is the case, then the little bastard got what he deserved and need to quit whining about it, particularly in court. If not, well, 40 days probably is a little extreme - but IMHO the term of suspension probably should be left to the discretion of the administration, not the courts.
True, which means it might be really hard to prohibit it. It seems to me that doing so would also require restrictions on ever printing the name of an informant in other publicly available documents. Probably some 1st amendment issues there...
Gotta agree with you on this one. Normally I do try to approach all the M$ bashing with a bit of skepticism, but this one was pretty obviously an asshole play, particularly after Linux developers have said they're more than happy to code around the "violations."
Don't get me wrong, it's certainly an interesting study to attempt to diagnose an individual's condition when only historical data exists. I'm sure there also are ways in which such studies, when done correctly, could help advance modern medicine. My point is just that it's important to see them in context, and to be careful not to use them as proof that modern man is somehow inherently "better" than his ancestors.
Well, score one for the good guys. I didn't see the follow-up. Thanks for the tip.
I assume that's a rhetorical question? This sounds remarkably like thought crime. What needs to happen here: immediately laugh this law out of congress, start a massive movement to make certain that no politician who has even spoken well of this bill is ever elected to any public office again, and immediately begin investigations for bribery into those politicians who voted for it or promoted it. Even suggesting life imprisonment for copyright infringement is simply ludicrous.
Ah, my mistake - see Bugmenot.com for a usable password.
Assume everyone is aware of this unfortunate story from a couple weeks ago. My suggestion is that these teachers and the principle do a little time of their own. In fact their sentence should probably be much harsher than the one given to the Chicago teenager. I think most parents would agree that we do halfway expect the teachers and administrators of that school to act more or less like responsible adults.
Hell, I still occasionally play Duck Hunt on an old Nintendo. Graphics power?? Ha!! Who needs it when you get to blow the crap out of feathery little ducks with a physical gun?
Until folks like Microsoft and Sony realize this, they're going to fall behind in the market. Loads of graphic power can be a great thing, but only if it's used to make fun, innovative, creatively "different" games.
Also, it's not enough to simply believe that a thief will never target you because there are easier targets. That's just simply not true and it's dangerous to think so. Remember that you're an easier target than some.
I still think that this legislation should force all 3 credit bureaus to lock down these reports by default. That would take some work and cost them some serious money, sure, but IMHO (and as someone who has had my identity stolen and dragged through the mud - though I was able to fix all of the problems it cost me a fortune) it's the bureaus' responsibility if they're going to keep that kind of information on file without our consent.
Call me paranoid, naysayer, whatever - but I agree with other posters who say that everyone's report should be frozen by default, and no information should ever be allowed to be accessed (or, arguably, even exist) without your express written consent.
I guess my point is, there's no reason to trade one run-of-the-mill 9-5 for another one. If you're really serious about a change of scenery, go sit on a hilltop for a day or two and decide what you'd do if the sky was the limit. And then spend the rest of your life getting there. Idealistic? Sure. But the journey's half the fun.
True but by then I fully expect fiber to be more readily available. Unless things change drastically in the cable industry with regards to reliability and stabilization of bandwidth to the individual user, I think most businesses will continue to utilize the phone company's internet before they go with cable. I've been wrong before, but at this point I just don't see that changing.
Not a bad plan but a small office could probably also utilize DSL as their main connection (which in my area is now offered at 8Mbps) and by using a basic RJ11-based phone system (Samsung has some good ones) roll that cost into the same plan. Granted the need for a bigger/more intricate phone system might change this, but even so I don't really see the need to use cable at all - unless as a backup, even though I don't usually recommend bothering with it since the DSL circuits (in this area at least) are exceptionally solid. And 8MBps for a small office is going to (in most cases at least) be plenty of bandwidth.
And while I don't mind talking down Comcast's technical competency when it comes to telecom, they are making drastic improvements as they deploy their voice service as they realize that people may tolerate their computer not working for a few hours here and there but the phone must always work as it has for countless years on much less sophisticated equipment.
Actually I've wondered if that would be the case and will be interested to see if it's true. If they don't make some serious improvements to reliability and bandwidth stabilization their phone service will fail, and it's possible that with it the entire cable-based VOIP market will fade with it. I don't see that happening yet but it is possible.
With that in mind, I wonder why they feel the need to offer a 150Mbps download stream, since even assuming their infrastructure will ever be able to support such a thing (doubtful?), most households will never begin to approach that kind of need. Again, it looks like they're throwing out impressive numbers to me without much meat to back it up.
Interesting suggestion - in fact, that creates the possibility of a middle-of-the-road approach to this - so that you're not just randomizing maps to get rid of campers. In other words, you do get rid of the camper problem and create some diversity to the map so that it doesn't get boring, but it's still possible to develop a good, powerful strategy for how to play it.
That's been a long time in coming. Halo 3 multi-player developers take note...
Nah, happens on mine and a couple others I've seen. It's the game.
Yeah, but don't you think it depends on the kind of game we're talking about? I mean, Civ, for example, doesn't need great cutscenes to be brilliant. However, in "story" based games it's possible (and perhaps even necessary) to use the cinematics to really enhance the storyline, which in my opinion is perhaps the #1 shortfall of 99% percent of games made in the past few years (there are notable exceptions, Halo being one of them IMHO). I've often wondered why (unless it's just that the financial demands are higher) studios don't simply film the cutscenes and not worry about rendering them. Of course it is possible to produce some fantastic cutscenes using only the game engine, and one doesn't have to worry about the slightly different look between the film footage and the rendered character/set. Still, my point is that when the "story" is the basis of the game (as I've always thought it should be in Halo, multi-player not withstanding), extra special care should be given by the studio to insure that the story is as gripping, well written, and intricate as it can be. Add that to well thought-out interface and brilliant cinematics, and you're looking at a brilliant game. So I think these guys may just be looking at a winner here, assuming the story is brilliant...
Sadly, the 'state's rights' conservative crowd will cheer these bureaucracies on pretending they are protecting us from the next hitler or somesuch.
Not sure what you're implying there, chief. Are you really trying to say that you'd rather answer to a nationalist system instead of a (relatively) localized government? Are you in fact so ignorant of history as to think that such a thing would preserve your freedom? Or are you so naive as to think that technological progress alone is the way to freedom?
Sometimes bureaucratic ineptitude, despicable as it is, can in fact be a last defense against tyranny. Remember that sometimes those who would remove your freedoms have to deal with it as much as you do, and that actually keeps them from cutting to the chase and locking everyone away in a prison camp. Don't get me wrong - I hate bureaucratic incompetence as much as the next guy, and it's certainly not the best defense against tyranny, but it's one of the only ones we have left, and I will not lightly destroy it without a reasonable alternative.
Ditto. I've been lazily avoiding Linux for a long time but when my XP installation no longer works, I will switch and use Mac's for anything that Linux won't do (or anything that I'm too lazy to make work in Linux). Hilariously, Vista could do more to destroy the MS machine than any court or open-license concept could do on its own.
Yeah, that's a good point. A casual player pays the same amount while using less bandwidth/server resources, and certainly doesn't cost Blizzard as much from a support standpoint.
The funny thing is that I still think WOW is one of the most enjoyable games (and certainly one of the best MMO's ever created) around, even without having spent (comparably) a whole lot of time playing it. So I suppose that proves that Blizzard has succeeded in making the game accessible and fun for both styles of play.
I don't think you can be truthfully labeled a casual player - no offense, but I've been playing WOW for about 2 years and my character just reached 60. That's with about an hour or so per weekend of casual play, with a "hardcore" 4 or 5 hour session thrown in every once in a while. I agree that BC is 90% for hardcore players - but of course, it should be. Hardcore players are Blizzard's bread-and-butter, and always will be - so why shouldn't they market to them?
That's absolutely correct, but it doesn't mean that software like Vista isn't destroying "electronic freedom." Because as true as everything you said above may be, it only applies to a small percentage of the users of Microsoft software. People like you who can either a) hack the software, or b) find a hacked copy of the software are not inhibited at all. But the rest of the users who don't have those skills are severely limited, and in the end, it's those people that really concern me. Folks like you can take care of yourself. They can't, and they're the ones (like it or not) who decide what is or is not acceptable practice for a corporation like Microsoft, by their acceptance or resistance.