Unless I've missed something, the steps to cause this are long and specific, requiring a pretty much already compromised machine to cause. Not really seeing the ease, here. Or for that matter the criticality.
The $100 fee is misleading. He would also need to take out a $2 million insurance bond which would have cost him several hundred dollars more on top of it. They may not have physically denied him access by telling him to get the permit, but the price tag for entry was prohibitively high when all is said and done and that's the problem. They seemed to apply the permit tied to bigger things to this guy in a costume with a consumer grade camera.
The way I've read into this seems to imply they just didn't like what he was doing the first time and hid behind the permit business this time as a way to make him go away. I don't think I'd spend $700/800+ just to film some Bigfoot footage for YouTube.
This isn't why they're doing it. It's an issue of security, not protecting revenue by blocking sites from injecting their own ads into a framed google...
...what? How the hell do you even come to that conclusion?
iframing a website doesn't automatically make you a clickjacker, but google owes it to its users to prevent that possibility from others who would abuse it.
You're on a tech website, guy. I'm sorry but people dying in a natural disaster doesn't generally fit the theme here, so the relevant part of the situation was discussed.
Also, I don't mean to sound callous but do you know just how many people die every day unjustly or by means of something like natural disasters? Do you mourn them all every day with posts like these, or do you just feel like making a point about these few? Why are you putting them on a pedestal? I doubt you really care, and this is just karma whoring.
Wow. Are you really that stupid? For someone trying to be so smug, you really know nothing.
Have you ever heard of a game called Warcraft 3: Reign of Chaos, or did you really think World of Warcraft was the only game Blizzard ever made?
Pandarens were created in Warcraft 3, with playable content and all, which was released in 2002. So no, the Pandaren pet that was released in 2009 was not based on Kung Fu Panda, nor is anything you've seen in this next expansion.
Before you go spouting nonsense, it's usually wise to actually know what you're talking about.
Hammer itself isn't hard to use. The problem is a lot of stuff in Hammer didn't mesh well with Portal (and by proxy Portal 2). It's just overly complicated than it needs to be, which is why I assume they're coming out with a more targeted editor.
ROFL yeah man. It's so blatantly obvious. I mean back in 2002 when Pandarens were originally created, Sam Didier hopped in his time traveling DeLorean, got up to 88 miles per hour, went to 2008 and totally jacked the Kung Fu Panda idea.
The short duration between expansions isn't anything new. When they made and released Cataclysm they said they were moving towards a shorter expansion duration so they could put out more large content quicker. That's why the cap only increases by 5 now.
It's not that I don't agree with what you've said, but the problem is that this behavior encompasses far more than just people committing copyright infringement.
It was a part that was created for the purpose of being destroyed. So he took it without asking his boss which seems to be the norm then. Is this a case of "If I can't have it no one can"? It's an old outdated relic that serves no useful purpose aside from being some sort of space flight museum piece.
Let the guy keep/sell it. Jesus. Do we really need to waste money on a trial for this? NASA should be spending its money to further space projects, not going after people over an item destined for destruction they saved 40 years ago as a memento.
This doesn't hurt the economy at all. No gold is materialized, so it's no more detrimental to the economy than someone buying and selling a rare item they found on a mob in the auction house. When I first read the headline I assumed you could actually buy gold or something. I don't think this is as bad as people seem to be blowing it up to be.
There isn't going to be a huge market for this item in the way something like PLEX is in EVE. It's a pet. The pet collectors out there will get it one way or another and then it will be very slow going.
Windows doesn't show file sizes under 1KB in Explorer/Open/Save dialogs. The file could be 2 bytes big and Explorer will still report that it's 1KB in the size column. You'd have to view the file properties to get the true size.
Windows never displays file sizes under 1KB in the size column in Explorer, so it's impossible to know for sure just how big the files are. They could be a mere 2 bytes big and still appear as 1KB in Explorer.
You mean they cherry picked pictures that lent themselves well to the demo? Say it ain't so!
Adobe always uses ideal images when they demonstrate complex functionality like this. Anyone remember content-aware healing? The pictures they used required little more than using the tool to completely eradicate entire structures. In reality you will almost always need to do a considerable number of extra work but it's a good starting point.
Even if they picked easy targets for this demonstration that does not mean this is not incredible or useful. In fact, I really hope this makes it into a final product some dya.
Most likely a sheep swayed by listening to someone else complain about something and they took it to heart. It's usually just a good idea to ignore those type of people who can't offer anything to substantiate their opinions.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless I've missed something, the steps to cause this are long and specific, requiring a pretty much already compromised machine to cause. Not really seeing the ease, here. Or for that matter the criticality.
I agree with Google on this one.
Who said anything about being an Apple hater? The world really is just black and white with you guys isn't it?
Does Google even provide such maps? I don't think there's anything in Google maps to differentiate such roads.
The $100 fee is misleading. He would also need to take out a $2 million insurance bond which would have cost him several hundred dollars more on top of it. They may not have physically denied him access by telling him to get the permit, but the price tag for entry was prohibitively high when all is said and done and that's the problem. They seemed to apply the permit tied to bigger things to this guy in a costume with a consumer grade camera.
The way I've read into this seems to imply they just didn't like what he was doing the first time and hid behind the permit business this time as a way to make him go away. I don't think I'd spend $700/800+ just to film some Bigfoot footage for YouTube.
I wonder when all these Apple stories "remembering the good ol' days" will finally stop getting flooded into every major news site.
and more efficiency than any other OS.
[citation needed]
...what google services are ones you would expect a government to run? I can't think of a single one.
This isn't why they're doing it. It's an issue of security, not protecting revenue by blocking sites from injecting their own ads into a framed google...
...what? How the hell do you even come to that conclusion?
iframing a website doesn't automatically make you a clickjacker, but google owes it to its users to prevent that possibility from others who would abuse it.
You're on a tech website, guy. I'm sorry but people dying in a natural disaster doesn't generally fit the theme here, so the relevant part of the situation was discussed.
Also, I don't mean to sound callous but do you know just how many people die every day unjustly or by means of something like natural disasters? Do you mourn them all every day with posts like these, or do you just feel like making a point about these few? Why are you putting them on a pedestal? I doubt you really care, and this is just karma whoring.
Wow. Are you really that stupid? For someone trying to be so smug, you really know nothing.
Have you ever heard of a game called Warcraft 3: Reign of Chaos, or did you really think World of Warcraft was the only game Blizzard ever made?
Pandarens were created in Warcraft 3, with playable content and all, which was released in 2002. So no, the Pandaren pet that was released in 2009 was not based on Kung Fu Panda, nor is anything you've seen in this next expansion.
Before you go spouting nonsense, it's usually wise to actually know what you're talking about.
Hammer itself isn't hard to use. The problem is a lot of stuff in Hammer didn't mesh well with Portal (and by proxy Portal 2). It's just overly complicated than it needs to be, which is why I assume they're coming out with a more targeted editor.
ROFL yeah man. It's so blatantly obvious. I mean back in 2002 when Pandarens were originally created, Sam Didier hopped in his time traveling DeLorean, got up to 88 miles per hour, went to 2008 and totally jacked the Kung Fu Panda idea.
Yeah, with Blizzard as the plaintiff. Unless you really think Pandarens don't predate Kung Fu Panda by several years.
Bullshit.
The short duration between expansions isn't anything new. When they made and released Cataclysm they said they were moving towards a shorter expansion duration so they could put out more large content quicker. That's why the cap only increases by 5 now.
Troll.
n/t
It's not that I don't agree with what you've said, but the problem is that this behavior encompasses far more than just people committing copyright infringement.
It was a part that was created for the purpose of being destroyed. So he took it without asking his boss which seems to be the norm then. Is this a case of "If I can't have it no one can"? It's an old outdated relic that serves no useful purpose aside from being some sort of space flight museum piece.
Let the guy keep/sell it. Jesus. Do we really need to waste money on a trial for this? NASA should be spending its money to further space projects, not going after people over an item destined for destruction they saved 40 years ago as a memento.
This doesn't hurt the economy at all. No gold is materialized, so it's no more detrimental to the economy than someone buying and selling a rare item they found on a mob in the auction house. When I first read the headline I assumed you could actually buy gold or something. I don't think this is as bad as people seem to be blowing it up to be.
There isn't going to be a huge market for this item in the way something like PLEX is in EVE. It's a pet. The pet collectors out there will get it one way or another and then it will be very slow going.
Windows doesn't show file sizes under 1KB in Explorer/Open/Save dialogs. The file could be 2 bytes big and Explorer will still report that it's 1KB in the size column. You'd have to view the file properties to get the true size.
Windows never displays file sizes under 1KB in the size column in Explorer, so it's impossible to know for sure just how big the files are. They could be a mere 2 bytes big and still appear as 1KB in Explorer.
You mean they cherry picked pictures that lent themselves well to the demo? Say it ain't so!
Adobe always uses ideal images when they demonstrate complex functionality like this. Anyone remember content-aware healing? The pictures they used required little more than using the tool to completely eradicate entire structures. In reality you will almost always need to do a considerable number of extra work but it's a good starting point.
Even if they picked easy targets for this demonstration that does not mean this is not incredible or useful. In fact, I really hope this makes it into a final product some dya.
Most likely a sheep swayed by listening to someone else complain about something and they took it to heart. It's usually just a good idea to ignore those type of people who can't offer anything to substantiate their opinions.