That would remove a lot of the pain of rebooting, but it still locks the user into a single-tasked environment as long as he's playing the game, unable to Alt-Tab over to email, or AIM, or whatever else he might want to do without having to save and exit the game first.
What you're forgetting is that the mentality of using a PC has changed over the last 10-15 years. Back in the standalone DOS days, people typically would boot up a PC to perform a specific task - use a word processor OR work on a spreadsheet OR play a game, and turn it off when they were done.
These days, people tend to use a PC as an always-on, networked multifunction device that is booted once at the beginning of the day and left running as they switch back and forth between tasks - check email THEN use a word processor THEN look something up with Google THEN play a game THEN check email again THEN play the game some more THEN search the web for a walkthrough...
Forcing the customer to turn his PC into a single-function device to play a game makes him change his entire routine, and would likely be a dealbreaker for most people outside the hardcore gamer crowd.
And when you get the itch for a little adventure, you can go highway wardriving - cruise around with Netstumbler running until you find an AP named "Avis", and then pin yourself to the nearest car's bumper and start downloading.
Have a little heart the next time some pimply-faced kid starts tailgating your rental car - maybe he's just trying to get the rest of the Paris Hilton video before you get out of range.
it's not really about preventing shoplifting, since they have other LP (Loss Prevention) folks just for that, it's to verify that the cashiers haven't colluded with someone to lift merchandise
This may well be, but don't lose sight of the fact that the person who is suspected of colluding with the cashier is you, based solely on your presence in the store. The specific mechanism of inventory shrinkage that they are attempting to prevent is irrelevant - the objection many people have to the door nazis is that by employing them, the store is implicitly accusing every one of its customers of being a thief.
10 minute intervals? Pffft. Why not go whole hog and divide each time zone into 3600 longitudinal slices one second apart? Then we can equip the coming national ID cards with LCD clocks (updated according to GPS data) so you'll always know what time it is, wherever you may be.
That may be, but deliberate errors are commonly used to prove an infringement of copyright. For example, map makers are known to do this.
I actually bumped into this first-hand back in my college days - I was flipping through an ADC map and noticed a road way in the middle of nowhere named "Pink Floyd Road". So, of course, my buddy and I decided to drive out there to see whether *ahem* one of the street signs might have fallen off the post. Alas, after 45 minutes of driving in circles around corn fields we conceded defeat and went home.
Quietly as in Microsoft apparently hasn't done any of the things they normally do when they release an offcycle patch, especially for a critical vulnerability with multiple known exploits in the wild and ample media coverage thereof.
I haven't seen an email notification from Microsoft for this patch yet, and it still hasn't been listed in their Security Bulletin Index (and when I submitted the article, it said as much - for some bizarro reason kdawson decided to change it to the innacurate text stating that it *is* listed in the index before he posted the article).
For this type of patch, it should indeed be accompanied by enough fanfare to make people aware that it exists, especially since it comes well off the established monthly Microsoft patch cycle.
You're right, of course. What I submitted originally read "...The patch was publicly available yesterday, but Microsoft hasn't yet added it to the Security Bulletin Index." I added that bit specifically because it's puzzling that MS would release such a critical patch but not tell anybody. Don't ask me why kdawson saw fit to change it to the innacurate version that got posted.
Actually, they do discuss this, though indirectly. They apparently are counting the number of pictures uploaded:
Further, you will notice that the D-SLRs dominate the list. Perhaps this is due to the sheer volume that photo enthusiasts (amateur photographers and professionals) upload on their sites, which sometimes serve as their portfolios. They're likely the ones to have Pro accounts, too, which gives them unlimited upload capability. Casual users, on the other hand, might not be uploading so frequently, and would probably have free, limited accounts.
He also took down the entire description of the problem D-Link caused, which used to reside at that URL. Considering how pissed he was, they must have paid him well, indeed.
A third [solution] might be to define unlawful access as the circumvention of some kind of security measure.
I'm not so sure about this one. After, we're talking specifically about criminal liability for researchers who demonstrate that the security of a system is broken. Criminalizing the circumvention of security is exactly the problem many people have with laws such as the DMCA.
I'm guessing the next version will be the original theatrical release with Dolby 5.1 / DTS enhanced sound. Then, he'll release the full digitally remastered versions with the plot edits stripped out. That'll keep the pipeline full for the next 5 years or so.
It's already been around for a year and a half, according to the dates on this page. In case you're skeptical of the source, those dates do seem about right - I remember seeing their announcements on the major security lists (it generated a bit of derisive controversy on full disclosure, as I recall), and 2 summers ago sounds about right.
Why not? iDefense doesn't just release the vulnerabilities unannounced or sit on them exploiting them for profit, they submit them to Microsoft Security and publish only after a patch has been released. If anything, Microsoft should be happy that somebody is providing independent researchers a financial incentive not to release 0-day vulnerabilities to public lists.
True, but it's not like you have to get out the torque wrench or anything. Here's a pic of the engine cover. It's the square-ish piece at top center with "Renesis" and the Mazda logo on it. To remove it, you just lift up the front and pull it towards you. Takes all of 2 seconds, and another 5 to put it back. It serves no real purpose AFAIK, so you can always leave it in the garage if it bothers you.
They don't leak oil, as such, they consume it. The design of the engine requires that oil be injected into the combustion chamber to lubricate the apex seals. Of course, the net effect to the owner is the same - you have to keep an eye on your oil level, but the consumption is really pretty slight in the RX-8 engine - I check my oil every 1,000-1,500 miles and need to top off about half of those times. After 26,000 miles, I've added a total of less than 2 quarts between scheduled oil changes.
Well, that's the point - they're not supposed to benefit you; they're supposed to benefit the retailer (or manufacturer, as the case may be). Most people will see an ad for gadgetX priced at $100 with a $50 mail-in rebate and calculate the cost of that product to be $50. Retailers like Best Buy have reinforced this belief with their advertising: GadgetX - $50!* (tiny print underneath: "* $100 - $50 mail in rebate").
However, because of all the things you mentioned (failure to submit the rebate before the deadline, improper submissions, interest-free loan to retailer from those who do submit everything properly), the true cost to the retailer of offering that $50 rebate is well below $50. This allows them to shift the demand curve for that product by creating an imbalance between the cost to the retailer of selling the product and the perceived cost to the consumer of purchasing it.
The question is whether the increased demand created by mail-in rebate pricing games creates more profit for the retailer than is lost by alienating consumers who dislike them. Apparently Best Buy has decided that they're pissing off too many people to justify this particular pricing game.
What pisses me off about this whole thing is this quote from Best Buy's press release: "Best Buy is taking a leadership position within the retail industry with our plans to eliminate mail-in rebates". Apparently they're hoping that we'd all forgotten about the leadership role Best Buy took in making the mail-in rebate pricing game such a ubiquitous part of modern consumer electronics retailing in the first place, and now they want us to get on our knees and suck their dicks for phasing out the very thing they inflicted upon us.
That's the beauty of it - BellSouth effectively raises rates to the consumer while shifting the blame to the content providers, because that's who we'll see charging us (whether directly or in the form of more advertising). The flip side is that if any content providers fail to pay and get bandwidth-capped as a result, they will get blamed for that as well, because the all consumer will see is that MSN is super-fast while iTunes is really slow all of a sudden. And for the consumers who figure out what really happened, BellSouth will claim that the content providers are freeloading ("why should Apple be able to use our our expensive network to deliver their songs for free?") This will be a major coup for BellSouth (and by extension, all DSL and cable providers) if they can pull it off.
Slashdot Mirror
That would remove a lot of the pain of rebooting, but it still locks the user into a single-tasked environment as long as he's playing the game, unable to Alt-Tab over to email, or AIM, or whatever else he might want to do without having to save and exit the game first.
What you're forgetting is that the mentality of using a PC has changed over the last 10-15 years. Back in the standalone DOS days, people typically would boot up a PC to perform a specific task - use a word processor OR work on a spreadsheet OR play a game, and turn it off when they were done.
These days, people tend to use a PC as an always-on, networked multifunction device that is booted once at the beginning of the day and left running as they switch back and forth between tasks - check email THEN use a word processor THEN look something up with Google THEN play a game THEN check email again THEN play the game some more THEN search the web for a walkthrough...
Forcing the customer to turn his PC into a single-function device to play a game makes him change his entire routine, and would likely be a dealbreaker for most people outside the hardcore gamer crowd.
jump full speed right into my groins
All three of them? Ouch!
And when you get the itch for a little adventure, you can go highway wardriving - cruise around with Netstumbler running until you find an AP named "Avis", and then pin yourself to the nearest car's bumper and start downloading.
Have a little heart the next time some pimply-faced kid starts tailgating your rental car - maybe he's just trying to get the rest of the Paris Hilton video before you get out of range.
I think this may be a /. first - not even the submitter could be bothered to RTFA before commenting.
On top of a pile of money, with many beautiful ladies.
it's not really about preventing shoplifting, since they have other LP (Loss Prevention) folks just for that, it's to verify that the cashiers haven't colluded with someone to lift merchandise
This may well be, but don't lose sight of the fact that the person who is suspected of colluding with the cashier is you, based solely on your presence in the store. The specific mechanism of inventory shrinkage that they are attempting to prevent is irrelevant - the objection many people have to the door nazis is that by employing them, the store is implicitly accusing every one of its customers of being a thief.
But how would you know it was running?
10 minute intervals? Pffft. Why not go whole hog and divide each time zone into 3600 longitudinal slices one second apart? Then we can equip the coming national ID cards with LCD clocks (updated according to GPS data) so you'll always know what time it is, wherever you may be.
That may be, but deliberate errors are commonly used to prove an infringement of copyright. For example, map makers are known to do this.
I actually bumped into this first-hand back in my college days - I was flipping through an ADC map and noticed a road way in the middle of nowhere named "Pink Floyd Road". So, of course, my buddy and I decided to drive out there to see whether *ahem* one of the street signs might have fallen off the post. Alas, after 45 minutes of driving in circles around corn fields we conceded defeat and went home.
Quietly as in Microsoft apparently hasn't done any of the things they normally do when they release an offcycle patch, especially for a critical vulnerability with multiple known exploits in the wild and ample media coverage thereof.
I haven't seen an email notification from Microsoft for this patch yet, and it still hasn't been listed in their Security Bulletin Index (and when I submitted the article, it said as much - for some bizarro reason kdawson decided to change it to the innacurate text stating that it *is* listed in the index before he posted the article).
For this type of patch, it should indeed be accompanied by enough fanfare to make people aware that it exists, especially since it comes well off the established monthly Microsoft patch cycle.
You're right, of course. What I submitted originally read "...The patch was publicly available yesterday, but Microsoft hasn't yet added it to the Security Bulletin Index." I added that bit specifically because it's puzzling that MS would release such a critical patch but not tell anybody. Don't ask me why kdawson saw fit to change it to the innacurate version that got posted.
rebooting had to occur after every 10 minutes of computer use
Even Win9x wasn't that bad.
He also took down the entire description of the problem D-Link caused, which used to reside at that URL. Considering how pissed he was, they must have paid him well, indeed.
FTA:
A third [solution] might be to define unlawful access as the circumvention of some kind of security measure.
I'm not so sure about this one. After, we're talking specifically about criminal liability for researchers who demonstrate that the security of a system is broken. Criminalizing the circumvention of security is exactly the problem many people have with laws such as the DMCA.
I'm guessing the next version will be the original theatrical release with Dolby 5.1 / DTS enhanced sound. Then, he'll release the full digitally remastered versions with the plot edits stripped out. That'll keep the pipeline full for the next 5 years or so.
Wow - has it really been that long? Oy. Thanks for making me feel just a little bit older ;)
Some how I don't think this will last long.
It's already been around for a year and a half, according to the dates on this page. In case you're skeptical of the source, those dates do seem about right - I remember seeing their announcements on the major security lists (it generated a bit of derisive controversy on full disclosure, as I recall), and 2 summers ago sounds about right.
Why not? iDefense doesn't just release the vulnerabilities unannounced or sit on them exploiting them for profit, they submit them to Microsoft Security and publish only after a patch has been released. If anything, Microsoft should be happy that somebody is providing independent researchers a financial incentive not to release 0-day vulnerabilities to public lists.
Yes.
True, but it's not like you have to get out the torque wrench or anything. Here's a pic of the engine cover. It's the square-ish piece at top center with "Renesis" and the Mazda logo on it. To remove it, you just lift up the front and pull it towards you. Takes all of 2 seconds, and another 5 to put it back. It serves no real purpose AFAIK, so you can always leave it in the garage if it bothers you.
They don't leak oil, as such, they consume it. The design of the engine requires that oil be injected into the combustion chamber to lubricate the apex seals. Of course, the net effect to the owner is the same - you have to keep an eye on your oil level, but the consumption is really pretty slight in the RX-8 engine - I check my oil every 1,000-1,500 miles and need to top off about half of those times. After 26,000 miles, I've added a total of less than 2 quarts between scheduled oil changes.
Well, that's the point - they're not supposed to benefit you; they're supposed to benefit the retailer (or manufacturer, as the case may be). Most people will see an ad for gadgetX priced at $100 with a $50 mail-in rebate and calculate the cost of that product to be $50. Retailers like Best Buy have reinforced this belief with their advertising: GadgetX - $50!* (tiny print underneath: "* $100 - $50 mail in rebate").
However, because of all the things you mentioned (failure to submit the rebate before the deadline, improper submissions, interest-free loan to retailer from those who do submit everything properly), the true cost to the retailer of offering that $50 rebate is well below $50. This allows them to shift the demand curve for that product by creating an imbalance between the cost to the retailer of selling the product and the perceived cost to the consumer of purchasing it.
The question is whether the increased demand created by mail-in rebate pricing games creates more profit for the retailer than is lost by alienating consumers who dislike them. Apparently Best Buy has decided that they're pissing off too many people to justify this particular pricing game.
What pisses me off about this whole thing is this quote from Best Buy's press release: "Best Buy is taking a leadership position within the retail industry with our plans to eliminate mail-in rebates". Apparently they're hoping that we'd all forgotten about the leadership role Best Buy took in making the mail-in rebate pricing game such a ubiquitous part of modern consumer electronics retailing in the first place, and now they want us to get on our knees and suck their dicks for phasing out the very thing they inflicted upon us.
That's the beauty of it - BellSouth effectively raises rates to the consumer while shifting the blame to the content providers, because that's who we'll see charging us (whether directly or in the form of more advertising). The flip side is that if any content providers fail to pay and get bandwidth-capped as a result, they will get blamed for that as well, because the all consumer will see is that MSN is super-fast while iTunes is really slow all of a sudden. And for the consumers who figure out what really happened, BellSouth will claim that the content providers are freeloading ("why should Apple be able to use our our expensive network to deliver their songs for free?") This will be a major coup for BellSouth (and by extension, all DSL and cable providers) if they can pull it off.