Add to that the fact that Fat Noodle has come back and demonstrated that they had come up with the concept for their restaurant in 2008, trademarked the name in 2012, and failed to hear a word from Chubby Noodle's lawyers for months, suggests the Fat Noodle lawyers might need to get their heads straight.
Maybe that sentence has too many Noodles to be sure, but I think you meant to reference Chubby Noodle's lawyers as needing a good head straightening.
Just as IQ is really only a measure of how good you are at taking IQ tests, the only thing those brain games improve is your ability in that specific game. You might improve over time in that game, but that won't carry over into anything else.
That fuzziness or stretching sometimes makes it hard to make out fine details. E.g., when a character looks at phone. With lower quality video, all that you'll see is blurred letters.
Higher quality video won't make a bad movie good, but it does enhance my enjoyment of a good movie.
If you already have a movie in DVD format, there's no need to go out and buy a Blu-ray version. The increased quality is probably only worth ~$1-$3 (depending on how good the movie is), not the $20 you'll pay for a replacement.
I certainly don't get 4k, unless your TV takes up a wall. 1080p makes sense in some scenarios, but I usually go with 720p where available. My monitor is only 24", so I can't tell the difference between 1080p and 720p. Might as well save the bandwidth/space.
"(Source: 14 years of research into domain registration patterns and what's likely the largest database of abusive domains.)"
Oh yeah, the old "I won't provide my sources or credentials but I *know* and you just have to believe me". That's always a good argument. /s
Eh... I think I'll take him at his word on that. I've worked for a registrar before, and a common pattern of domains that show up in the abuse department is that most used the private registration service.
The problem is, there's a huge selection bias in his sample. He's seeing only those domains that cause problems, not the copious quantities of private domains registered for legitimate privacy / anti-spam (digital and physical) reasons.
I get what you're trying to say, but it's not exactly accurate.
Registering a domain requires registering a valid point of contact with ICANN. A "privately registered domain" is really another entity (usually the registrar, such as Go Daddy) putting themselves as the point of contact, and then forwarding you any correspondence (digital or otherwise) associated with that domain.
What you're paying for is the cost of that forwarding. Some companies may tack some profit on there, which is a bit reprehensible, but it's not as if it's a zero-cost thing.
There is no such thing as absolute security. Period, full stop. It doesn't matter how big or how small the target is.
That said, why should NDT know better? He's not a security expert, he isn't even in the IT field. He's a frakking astrophysicist. Because he's a celebrity, suddenly that means he has to be absolutely accurate 100% of the time, without leaving any room in his statements for misinterpretation? Just as the only unhackable system is one that doesn't exist, the only person who hasn't made a mistake in his statements is one that has never spoken. Why are people surprised that he's human? Why attack him just because he isn't infallible, when he never claimed to be?
The basic premise of NDT's statement is sound, even if he screwed up in the delivery.
It seems to me that his point was a bit muddled by his attempt to be pithy. Investing in better security is obviously a better use of resources than pointlessly sanctioning NK. (Are there any sanctions we aren't already using?)
This is just nitpicking about a poor choice of phrase.
Pick two separate targets you want to harm -- then attack one and make it appear like the attack is coming from the other.
Even when not intentionally trying to provoke a hacking war, it's common practice for hackers to use compromised third party systems as launching points for attacks. It is difficult to determine (by the target) which machines are owned by the attackers, and which are members of a botnet. Collateral damage is a real ongoing concern with counter-hacking.
Re: Re: Good thing this syndrome didn't begin in an earlier era
Take a look at Android fragmentation and Software/Hardware Smartphone battles for a good idea of what the Personal Computer would like if today's IP laws were in place in the 80s. There are a lot of parallels.
Re: Re: Re: Nit: The filenames contained the word "password"
All it takes is one executive with hubris and impatience (often IT are either unaware, understaffed, or ignored, or any combination thereof).
There is a fair amount of ambiguity and conflicting precedent involving the 100-500ft airspace. That's one of the things that needs to be ironed out. However, the idea of Air Rights has strong legal precedent, and it is (slowly) being applied to UAVs and Drones. While the case law is currently murky, I do believe that Air Rights is the best option at hand to mitigate the privacy concerns inherent in remote flying cameras. Certainly better than any ham-fisted approach that may be being considered.
In my opinion, if the Kite had a camera attached, I'd say yes. It's less about moving equipment over other's property, more so a privacy concern. Still, a valid question, and the entire point of my previous post was we need to ask these questions instead of making knee jerk reactions.
In this specific case the mode of transport is irrelevant, whether autonomous drone, remote piloted, or a camera on a string, but there is precedent for control of the air space above private land (up to a point). See Air Rights. While the FAA does designate the height (and to some degree, the activity) that those Air Rights extend to, I am unsure where the legal authority of private citizens exercising control over their Air Rights resides.
Tl;dr: It's up to the land owner. If you don't have their permission, you can't do it.
I have several points of view on Drones in general, and this regulation in particular. Firstly, regulations (of any kind) that can be exempted for those with enough clout, while restricting individuals and innovators, are always a recipe for abuse and discriminatory practice.
That said, blanket regulations by the FAA on Drone use are undeniably required. Common sense safety restrictions (avoiding airports for one) should certainly be implemented.
There are, additionally, privacy concerns. I do not believe that the regulation thereof falls under the FAA's purview, but piloting a Drone over private property without permission should be considered trespassing.
However, while common sense rules and regulations are indeed required, we also need to take care that said regulations do not hinder personal liberty or economic innovation. As I mentioned above, I have varied points of view on Drone regulation. In addition to my concerns as a citizen for my safety and privacy, I have concerns as a business executive. My company had to scrap a project and business venture due to FAA Drone regulations. (Specifically, the line of sight requirement.)
I'm not sure I have a conclusion, I just wanted to share what may be a unique perspective. I suppose I'll just leave you with this final thought. Too often have legislation and regulation been used as cudgels against innovation by those that fear it; if we wish for this nation to truly be as great as we like to claim, we must ensure that the Rule of Law is used to protect the People, and not to reduce them.
Yeah, that sounds like what would happen if SecuROM couldn't contact the activation servers. I remember it was very late in the install process, and if it failed you had to start all over again. If this was anytime near launch day, their servers were wonky for days, so you may very well have had been suffering alongside myself.
Ugh... I just had flashbacks of just how much SecuROM sucked... My first encounter with SecuROM was way back in 2007. I had purchased an honest to goodness physical copy of Bioshock from an old-fashioned brick and mortar store (which I walked to barefoot in the snow uphill both ways).
I brought it home, unwrapped it, popped the DVD in my computer and installed. That is, I tried to. This being launch day, their activation servers were overwhelmed, and I couldn't reach them. I give up for the night, and try again the next day. This time I manage to activate it.
I then try to launch the game. It does not. Instead, I get a SecuROM error message with an obscure error code, Error: 5024. After doing some research, I find this. (I'm a bit surprised that page is still up, actually.) So it turns out, it wouldn't launch because I was running Process Explorer. I mean, seriously, wtf? I quit process explorer and tried to run Bioshock again, but apparently process explorer leaves a trace on the system SecuROM could detect, so I had to restart my entire machine. Except I forgot process explorer was set to run at startup. So I had to disable that, and restart again. Finally, finally, I got it to run, but at this point I was too angry to actually enjoy the game, so I quit after 5 minutes.
I also sure as hell wasn't willing to go through that each and every time I wanted to play Bioshock, so I found this obscure program called ProcexpUnloader from a shady looking site. I spent 15 minutes throwing antivirus scans at it, poking at it with a hex editor, and wondering whether it was worth the risk. I decide to try it, and lo and behold it did exactly what it said on the tin and nothing more.
Anyway, sorry for the rant, but that was my first (and only) experience with SecuROM.
It depends on the specific content. You first need to realize that 99% of all media (including books) is crap. Acknowledge that and it becomes a matter of personal preference, not the platform.
E.g., I prefer the Walking Dead TV show over the books, it works much better as a animated (ha!) visual medium. The directing of the show does a much better job of presenting the fear and despair than the graphic novels manage. On the other hand, I prefer the Song of Ice and Fire books to the Game of Thrones show. The books do a much better job at delving into individual character perceptions and motivations, while the show tends towards gratuitous sex and violence (which are much more subtle in the books).
TV is not better than Books, and Books are not better than TV. They're just different.
Ignoring for a moment the sheer absurdity of needing a separate law for online acts (are these acts illegal in person, as is implied?), I'm curious about what the exact definition of trolling is, as far as the law is concerned.