Then you better hope Anonymous is destroyed. Raids are more often than not carried out by a bunch of people utilizing a particular program from their home connections.
I wonder how many people might kill themselves for having been replaced by a robot and have no job rather than killed themselves over nasty working conditions. I doubt the possibility really isn't that unrealistic.
"Proving your not installing the same copy everywhere" only involves them asking "Have you removed it from all other machines?" and you saying "Yes".
I'd had to call Microsoft at least 7 times from 2007 to 2008 because I'd had really bad luck with hardware I'd purchased and had no issues whatsoever from Microsoft support regarding activation.
With a majority of 'customers' moving towards open source technologies such as Linux,
...what? What majority is that?
I think this guy is a bit delusional when it comes to how he perceives the broad majority of users. Most users don't give a shit if the product is open source/free software and especially what that means at the source level. They just want something that works for them. If it happens to be free, great, but it often isn't, and it more than often isn't Linux. Vendor lock is meaningless to the broad majority of users.
This is why I don't understand DRM these days. DRM doesn't stop pirates. Pirates never have to deal with DRM, and even this advanced form Ubisoft is throwing around has been rendered useless in previous games infected by it. All this sort of thing seems to discourage is actually purchasing the game at all.
No they didn't. People who chose not to spend any money are not disadvantaged in any way whatsoever. You can make the argument that the game looks ridiculously silly now (in a good or bad way depending on whose opinion it is), but they didn't "ruin" the game. It's still as fun as its always been.
There has not been a need to take such a drastic reduction in quality to play games at max settings in years now. Necessary hardware has more or less hit a peak since 95% of the big names in games have to target consoles as well. The only perks PC games tend to get these days are sometimes we get higher resolution textures. But that's about it.
That particular instance may not be exactly the same but Wikileaks has been following this pattern for a long, long time. Drumming up hype and keeping it in the news until the inevitable payoff.
Or how about the registry. Why they haven't given up on what was clearly a bad idea a long time ago is beyond me.
They have given up on the registry. It's only included in Windows right now for backwards compatibility. Microsoft has been encouraging developers to stop using it for years now.
Not just because they are trying to license more content, but there is a big prediction that content providers are going to increase Netflix's licensing costs substantially.
It is no surprise. The good game to crap ratio in XBLIG is terrible just due to the nature of how games are put there, and games have almost no chance of making a real profit there. There's no proper advertising or anything. You just dump your game there and spread advertising through word of mouth yourself. Advertise yourself, and hope you can make some money.
Steam is different. They advertise (a lot) for you, help you pick out a good price, have all sorts of awesome deals you can arrange. It's a wonderful place to make money.
I just don't like how when they announced it they made it sound like it was the greatest thing since sliced bread for customers. People don't like being lied to right to their faces.
I don't understand why an iPhone is necessary here. Surely they could have included all the necessary components an iPhone would provide and it would even be cheaper. Sounds like unnecessary baggage tied in to look more trendy. Since when do police apartments need to look trendy?
This sounds like them trying to rationalize making shorter games which means they get to spend less money. Of course they wont pass on these savings to the customer. They'll likely expect to charge $50-$60 for a 2 hour game.
As a matter of curiosity, why do people assume that open source helps anything (regarding a situation like this)? Sure they could release the software as open source, but 99% of people wouldn't be compiling the source onto their phone which means if they wanted to do anything untrustworthy they could just put it in the precompiled binary.
FTA: "In total, 382 networks were detected with 2.6 per cent operating without password protection."
So, out of all the networks they tested, only 9 networks we unsecured? I don't think this small a pool is very significant statistically. There could be a number of reasons for those 9 people to be operating a wifi without a password. It isn't necessarily just being "uninformed"
If this were simply a case of bad training, why did the rep that Verizon sent also claim that the only way they would give any information about a past charge in response to a consumer inquiry was to require that customer hire a lawyer and subpoena their own usage information?
Slashdot Mirror
Then you better hope Anonymous is destroyed. Raids are more often than not carried out by a bunch of people utilizing a particular program from their home connections.
I wonder how many people might kill themselves for having been replaced by a robot and have no job rather than killed themselves over nasty working conditions. I doubt the possibility really isn't that unrealistic.
"Proving your not installing the same copy everywhere" only involves them asking "Have you removed it from all other machines?" and you saying "Yes".
I'd had to call Microsoft at least 7 times from 2007 to 2008 because I'd had really bad luck with hardware I'd purchased and had no issues whatsoever from Microsoft support regarding activation.
With a majority of 'customers' moving towards open source technologies such as Linux,
...what? What majority is that?
I think this guy is a bit delusional when it comes to how he perceives the broad majority of users. Most users don't give a shit if the product is open source/free software and especially what that means at the source level. They just want something that works for them. If it happens to be free, great, but it often isn't, and it more than often isn't Linux. Vendor lock is meaningless to the broad majority of users.
This is why I don't understand DRM these days. DRM doesn't stop pirates. Pirates never have to deal with DRM, and even this advanced form Ubisoft is throwing around has been rendered useless in previous games infected by it. All this sort of thing seems to discourage is actually purchasing the game at all.
No they didn't. People who chose not to spend any money are not disadvantaged in any way whatsoever. You can make the argument that the game looks ridiculously silly now (in a good or bad way depending on whose opinion it is), but they didn't "ruin" the game. It's still as fun as its always been.
There has not been a need to take such a drastic reduction in quality to play games at max settings in years now. Necessary hardware has more or less hit a peak since 95% of the big names in games have to target consoles as well. The only perks PC games tend to get these days are sometimes we get higher resolution textures. But that's about it.
It must suck living in such poverty that you can't even afford to spend a penny and instead waste your time arguing semantics on slashdot. :)
hurr durr
There's more than just bandwidth to consider, you know. Granted you probably only spent a dollar anyway.
That particular instance may not be exactly the same but Wikileaks has been following this pattern for a long, long time. Drumming up hype and keeping it in the news until the inevitable payoff.
You sound like a real jerkoff.
+1 Insightful.
Or how about the registry. Why they haven't given up on what was clearly a bad idea a long time ago is beyond me.
They have given up on the registry. It's only included in Windows right now for backwards compatibility. Microsoft has been encouraging developers to stop using it for years now.
Not just because they are trying to license more content, but there is a big prediction that content providers are going to increase Netflix's licensing costs substantially.
It is no surprise. The good game to crap ratio in XBLIG is terrible just due to the nature of how games are put there, and games have almost no chance of making a real profit there. There's no proper advertising or anything. You just dump your game there and spread advertising through word of mouth yourself. Advertise yourself, and hope you can make some money.
Steam is different. They advertise (a lot) for you, help you pick out a good price, have all sorts of awesome deals you can arrange. It's a wonderful place to make money.
I just don't like how when they announced it they made it sound like it was the greatest thing since sliced bread for customers. People don't like being lied to right to their faces.
I don't understand why an iPhone is necessary here. Surely they could have included all the necessary components an iPhone would provide and it would even be cheaper. Sounds like unnecessary baggage tied in to look more trendy. Since when do police apartments need to look trendy?
It was just nominated. That doesn't mean it's going to get one.
This sounds like them trying to rationalize making shorter games which means they get to spend less money. Of course they wont pass on these savings to the customer. They'll likely expect to charge $50-$60 for a 2 hour game.
It's hilarious getting such a serious and scary dialog in Google Chrome while attempting to visit that address.
As a matter of curiosity, why do people assume that open source helps anything (regarding a situation like this)? Sure they could release the software as open source, but 99% of people wouldn't be compiling the source onto their phone which means if they wanted to do anything untrustworthy they could just put it in the precompiled binary.
FTA: "In total, 382 networks were detected with 2.6 per cent operating without password protection."
So, out of all the networks they tested, only 9 networks we unsecured? I don't think this small a pool is very significant statistically. There could be a number of reasons for those 9 people to be operating a wifi without a password. It isn't necessarily just being "uninformed"
Oh man, such a clever and original burn.
If this were simply a case of bad training, why did the rep that Verizon sent also claim that the only way they would give any information about a past charge in response to a consumer inquiry was to require that customer hire a lawyer and subpoena their own usage information?
Bad training for their witness too?