And I'm guessing they're used only when someone with a badge wants to make a point and not blanket enforced? A lot of these "anti-social behaviour" laws seem to be convenient throwaway excuses for picking on people the authorities don't like or who aren't doing anything particularly wrong but they want to move along (I should know, I come from the land that came up with the ASBO. If they were properly enforced across the board they'd be completely unworkable, it's just a legal way to hassle people.
Looking at the average Panda, I'd say store most of it as fat. Anyway, even a small energy return might still be more efficient than digging up fossil fuels, smashing atoms or gathering sunbeams, given how quickly bamboo grows (so farming it for energy use could be a simple, even automated process) and how difficult/costly the other processes are.
What if she was caught on CCTV in the local Starbucks using the laptop. Would that be evidence the police could use? If so, apart from her false expectation of privacy (she was using someone else's laptop and even if she didn't know it was stolen she evidently hadn't checked that there was no snooping software on there) I see no difference here. If anything, the manager of Starbucks would be obstructing the police in their investigation if he didn't give them the footage.
No, it's not like you putting the pictures on the internet, it's like you showing the pictures to the police in order for them to identify a possible culprit, and those pictures then being used by a judge and jury in a court case. In that case the question in your hypothetical example is whether the person in the picture was criminally culpable for trespass - i.e. should they have reasonably known they were illegally in someone else's house or were they acting in good faith. That person suing you for using your security system to identify them is ridiculous.
For music, Apple is the company that finally ended DRM. For that you should thank and support them, not curse them.
I keep seeing this quoted as gospel. I remember it far differently, in fact Apple publicly complained about DRM for a long time but did very little to leverage their massive buying power (they were basically the only player in town at the time) to rid us of it. It was only when several other big names in the industry started moving towards DRM-free that Apple seemed to realise there had been a sea-change in what customers wanted and, very late in the day, announced that they would follow suit. Of course they did it with the usual marketing elan that made it sound like it was their idea all along, but that's simply not the case if you look at the timelines.
They did this to protect their relevance in the market place, not to give the customer a good deal (look at pretty much everything else they do to see what they really think of DRM), although this is an interesting take on events that suggests Apple's insistance on only supporting either their own DRM (which they were reticent to licence) or DRM-free on iPods is what drove the rest of the industry down the DRM free path. To say they did that to fight DRM would be skewed thinking though, in reality they just wanted to own the distribution model the way they do for Apps (and I'm sure a lot of what they learned with iTunes shaped the Apps model so that it was fully in their favour).
While you are right it would probably help somewhat, it wouldn't defeat phishing attacks which usually rely on "social engineering" (i.e. making someone want to do the thing you want them to do). If you can put the right attack in front of the right user (one with sufficient rights and insufficient knowledge) then no amount of security in the OS will help.
But for a firm whose bottom line is securing your access, the balance should be heavily tipped in favour of security. We know security is inconvenient, that's why we pay a firm to handle it. We don't want said firm to just do what's convenient, or we'd just do it ourselves, much cheaper.
How many people are really going to hire private detectives to dig into someone's background? Compare that to being able to take a photo on your phone where an app instantly drops it into Facebook/Google and lets you see what comes up and they are a world apart. That's the story, not that this is possible but that it's reaching the point where it's trivial.
I personally know at least a half-dozen cops (through various organizations I am involved in) and I can't see a single one of them doing anything like that.
You can't see them showing up at a bust to disrupt it or you can't see them covering for their friends and colleagues or turning a blind eye?
So long as the surgeon didn't get lazy and start giving all the undercover police the same face. It would be too ironic to change your face so nobody knew you were a cop only for Facebook to then identify you as a different cop who was no longer working undercover.
The point is you don't need to have an account for people to have added your photo, and soon anyone who wants to find out who you are will just be able to create an account, upload your photo and ask it to look for tagged matches and they'll instantly see the photos from the policeman's christmas ball or whatever. Your idea of not matching certain faces is unworkable for one simple reason: I create an account, I upload some guy's face to my wall and tag it, I create another account and upload the same photo as the owner's face. Facebook returns a "no matches found" message. Since I know the photo is there and is identical there's only one reason they'd return that message - you've just created a more reliable method of identifying undercover police that doesn't rely on tagging or matching blurry photos. The law against facial recognition is a nice idea that will never happen for one simple reason, it's potentially more useful to the authorities than the problems it creates.
Desktops are for workers working on code or spreadsheets.
Given the millions of people that applies to, I'd say it's a little early to say tablets are better than desktops right now. Better in your instance, better in a lot of people's situations, but the right job needs the right tool. We won't be seeing the end of the desktop anytime soon, but what we'll definitely see is far fewer homes buying desktops for leisure/hobby use.
He can try one at the store. Sure that won't let him carry it around in his usual day and see where and how it might be useful, but the same pretty much applies to every consumer purchase. What would have happened if everyone said the same thing for TVs, or microwaves, or personal computers? I've been fortunate enough to play around with a few different tablets at work. For me personally I think they're just on the wrong side of the price vs utility balance - if I bought one right now it'd be for novelty value and I have many more things higher up my wish list.
Is it not just that the UI changes based on the device? It would seem crazy if 3 is purely tablet oriented, where is development of 2.* meant to go? It'd mean phones couldn't ever go beyond 2.* unless there was a merging in a future version (4?).
This is one of the primary reasons I buy so few games from bricks and mortar stores in the UK. There are a couple (mostly big supermarkets) who don't engage in the practice of opening the game and storing the contents in a drawer behind the counter, but more and more seem to go with the latter approach. Considering how much hassle it would be to get a game exchanged on the basis that it was scratched (I know how much trouble it is with pre-owned games), I'm not willing to let them introduce another opportunity that they can use to damage the product before selling it to me. I'm sure they'd argue that sticking the disk in a tight fitting cardboard sleeve and throwing it into a drawer then trying to manhandle it back out and into the case while juggling bags and cash and other products and vouchers and whatever else is risk free, but why take the chance when I can buy the game sealed online, usually cheaper (and if it's a pre-order like this, often get it the day before release).
They'll boycott gamestop if and only if the employees mug them at gunpoint when they come in.
Minus the gunpoint that's pretty much already the model. I can't believe all the people I see in there are so uninformed - there are plenty of young, net savvy people in there (although there are also plenty of confused looking older relatives). The only reason I can possibly believe anyone shops at these places is the "I want it now" attitude. That's where digital distribution worries them far more than online shopping does, which explains why they're taking underhand measures to fight it. Although if half of what we hear about OnLive's performance is true, they might do more to fight it by giving away free vouchers and showing people how bad it is:)
OP was happy enough for one troll to define the group. I play both PC and console games - I play console games not because I care about piracy or being "hax0red" but because sometimes I don't want the hassle of installations and driver incompatabilities and badly thought out DRM solutions. Hell, Steam is one of the most popular distribution channels on the PC and that's even more locked down than consoles (I can let anyone with physical access to my copy of the game play it on their account on the console, or I can choose to sell the game on - neither option is available to me under Steam, so far as I can see), so I'm really not sure what his point was.
I avoid Game (pretty much the same thing in the UK) whenever possible for much the same reason. I had the misfortune of having to shop there a couple of weeks ago (the other half wanted a Kinect and they were running a pretty good bundle deal) and it occurred to me: instead of a loyalty card that customers have to pay £3 per year for, how about some marketing spiel opt out. I wouldn't mind paying £3 for some kind of annual badge that I can flash that basically says just put the goddamn game in the bag and ring it up, I don't want insurance, I don't want to know about the trade in system, I'm not interested in buying anything else (if I was I would have brought it to the counter at the same time), I don't have nor do I want a loyalty card, I don't want news on upcoming games or console releases and I don't want to attend your gaming convention - yes, these were all actually questions I had to field before they deigned to let me spend £130+ with them.
Slashdot Mirror
And I'm guessing they're used only when someone with a badge wants to make a point and not blanket enforced? A lot of these "anti-social behaviour" laws seem to be convenient throwaway excuses for picking on people the authorities don't like or who aren't doing anything particularly wrong but they want to move along (I should know, I come from the land that came up with the ASBO. If they were properly enforced across the board they'd be completely unworkable, it's just a legal way to hassle people.
Looking at the average Panda, I'd say store most of it as fat. Anyway, even a small energy return might still be more efficient than digging up fossil fuels, smashing atoms or gathering sunbeams, given how quickly bamboo grows (so farming it for energy use could be a simple, even automated process) and how difficult/costly the other processes are.
What if she was caught on CCTV in the local Starbucks using the laptop. Would that be evidence the police could use? If so, apart from her false expectation of privacy (she was using someone else's laptop and even if she didn't know it was stolen she evidently hadn't checked that there was no snooping software on there) I see no difference here. If anything, the manager of Starbucks would be obstructing the police in their investigation if he didn't give them the footage.
No, it's not like you putting the pictures on the internet, it's like you showing the pictures to the police in order for them to identify a possible culprit, and those pictures then being used by a judge and jury in a court case. In that case the question in your hypothetical example is whether the person in the picture was criminally culpable for trespass - i.e. should they have reasonably known they were illegally in someone else's house or were they acting in good faith. That person suing you for using your security system to identify them is ridiculous.
And, unfortunately, DRM in games will scupper this as a means to avoid having the disk physically in the drive every time we want to play :(
For music, Apple is the company that finally ended DRM. For that you should thank and support them, not curse them.
I keep seeing this quoted as gospel. I remember it far differently, in fact Apple publicly complained about DRM for a long time but did very little to leverage their massive buying power (they were basically the only player in town at the time) to rid us of it. It was only when several other big names in the industry started moving towards DRM-free that Apple seemed to realise there had been a sea-change in what customers wanted and, very late in the day, announced that they would follow suit. Of course they did it with the usual marketing elan that made it sound like it was their idea all along, but that's simply not the case if you look at the timelines.
They did this to protect their relevance in the market place, not to give the customer a good deal (look at pretty much everything else they do to see what they really think of DRM), although this is an interesting take on events that suggests Apple's insistance on only supporting either their own DRM (which they were reticent to licence) or DRM-free on iPods is what drove the rest of the industry down the DRM free path. To say they did that to fight DRM would be skewed thinking though, in reality they just wanted to own the distribution model the way they do for Apps (and I'm sure a lot of what they learned with iTunes shaped the Apps model so that it was fully in their favour).
...the US government will probably believe China.
For politicial and economic reasons it has to "believe" China. Whether it privately actually believes China is a completely different matter.
Unfortunately they're going to need a lot of investment if they hope to hit the ground running.
While you are right it would probably help somewhat, it wouldn't defeat phishing attacks which usually rely on "social engineering" (i.e. making someone want to do the thing you want them to do). If you can put the right attack in front of the right user (one with sufficient rights and insufficient knowledge) then no amount of security in the OS will help.
But for a firm whose bottom line is securing your access, the balance should be heavily tipped in favour of security. We know security is inconvenient, that's why we pay a firm to handle it. We don't want said firm to just do what's convenient, or we'd just do it ourselves, much cheaper.
2. You can prove that the use of your connection was unauthorized (and that you were not negligent in securing access to your equipment).
Well that's pretty much everyone with an unpatched Windows botnet zombie going to jail, then.
It's only BIG business that's above the law.
How many people are really going to hire private detectives to dig into someone's background? Compare that to being able to take a photo on your phone where an app instantly drops it into Facebook/Google and lets you see what comes up and they are a world apart. That's the story, not that this is possible but that it's reaching the point where it's trivial.
And then sometimes they do something like this that's really not helping their cause at all...
I personally know at least a half-dozen cops (through various organizations I am involved in) and I can't see a single one of them doing anything like that.
You can't see them showing up at a bust to disrupt it or you can't see them covering for their friends and colleagues or turning a blind eye?
So long as the surgeon didn't get lazy and start giving all the undercover police the same face. It would be too ironic to change your face so nobody knew you were a cop only for Facebook to then identify you as a different cop who was no longer working undercover.
The point is you don't need to have an account for people to have added your photo, and soon anyone who wants to find out who you are will just be able to create an account, upload your photo and ask it to look for tagged matches and they'll instantly see the photos from the policeman's christmas ball or whatever. Your idea of not matching certain faces is unworkable for one simple reason: I create an account, I upload some guy's face to my wall and tag it, I create another account and upload the same photo as the owner's face. Facebook returns a "no matches found" message. Since I know the photo is there and is identical there's only one reason they'd return that message - you've just created a more reliable method of identifying undercover police that doesn't rely on tagging or matching blurry photos. The law against facial recognition is a nice idea that will never happen for one simple reason, it's potentially more useful to the authorities than the problems it creates.
Desktops are for workers working on code or spreadsheets.
Given the millions of people that applies to, I'd say it's a little early to say tablets are better than desktops right now. Better in your instance, better in a lot of people's situations, but the right job needs the right tool. We won't be seeing the end of the desktop anytime soon, but what we'll definitely see is far fewer homes buying desktops for leisure/hobby use.
He can try one at the store. Sure that won't let him carry it around in his usual day and see where and how it might be useful, but the same pretty much applies to every consumer purchase. What would have happened if everyone said the same thing for TVs, or microwaves, or personal computers? I've been fortunate enough to play around with a few different tablets at work. For me personally I think they're just on the wrong side of the price vs utility balance - if I bought one right now it'd be for novelty value and I have many more things higher up my wish list.
Is it not just that the UI changes based on the device? It would seem crazy if 3 is purely tablet oriented, where is development of 2.* meant to go? It'd mean phones couldn't ever go beyond 2.* unless there was a merging in a future version (4?).
This is one of the primary reasons I buy so few games from bricks and mortar stores in the UK. There are a couple (mostly big supermarkets) who don't engage in the practice of opening the game and storing the contents in a drawer behind the counter, but more and more seem to go with the latter approach. Considering how much hassle it would be to get a game exchanged on the basis that it was scratched (I know how much trouble it is with pre-owned games), I'm not willing to let them introduce another opportunity that they can use to damage the product before selling it to me. I'm sure they'd argue that sticking the disk in a tight fitting cardboard sleeve and throwing it into a drawer then trying to manhandle it back out and into the case while juggling bags and cash and other products and vouchers and whatever else is risk free, but why take the chance when I can buy the game sealed online, usually cheaper (and if it's a pre-order like this, often get it the day before release).
They'll boycott gamestop if and only if the employees mug them at gunpoint when they come in.
Minus the gunpoint that's pretty much already the model. I can't believe all the people I see in there are so uninformed - there are plenty of young, net savvy people in there (although there are also plenty of confused looking older relatives). The only reason I can possibly believe anyone shops at these places is the "I want it now" attitude. That's where digital distribution worries them far more than online shopping does, which explains why they're taking underhand measures to fight it. Although if half of what we hear about OnLive's performance is true, they might do more to fight it by giving away free vouchers and showing people how bad it is :)
OP was happy enough for one troll to define the group. I play both PC and console games - I play console games not because I care about piracy or being "hax0red" but because sometimes I don't want the hassle of installations and driver incompatabilities and badly thought out DRM solutions. Hell, Steam is one of the most popular distribution channels on the PC and that's even more locked down than consoles (I can let anyone with physical access to my copy of the game play it on their account on the console, or I can choose to sell the game on - neither option is available to me under Steam, so far as I can see), so I'm really not sure what his point was.
I avoid Game (pretty much the same thing in the UK) whenever possible for much the same reason. I had the misfortune of having to shop there a couple of weeks ago (the other half wanted a Kinect and they were running a pretty good bundle deal) and it occurred to me: instead of a loyalty card that customers have to pay £3 per year for, how about some marketing spiel opt out. I wouldn't mind paying £3 for some kind of annual badge that I can flash that basically says just put the goddamn game in the bag and ring it up, I don't want insurance, I don't want to know about the trade in system, I'm not interested in buying anything else (if I was I would have brought it to the counter at the same time), I don't have nor do I want a loyalty card, I don't want news on upcoming games or console releases and I don't want to attend your gaming convention - yes, these were all actually questions I had to field before they deigned to let me spend £130+ with them.
Here you go...