Time and time again, I hear outside observers believe that the startup world is very insular and only focused on their own goals.
I have to wonder if this is because people don't see startups, they see large corporations that have grown out of or fed off startups and selfishness at some point becomes a defining feature of almost every corporation.
The real, and I'd say only important question then is, how many of those (rightly) objecting will refuse to buy the game(s) because of it?
Meh.. haven't bought an Ubisoft title (shelf full of previous ones) since they started the "always on internet" crap. Don't really care whether they've stopped that now, they've already lost me as a customer. Stuff like this just confirms it.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Fraud, where are our, ahem, protectors?
I don't see a problem with advertising a service like that as "up to 100 Mbps", with the details in the fine print.
Hmmm dunno how it is the the US, but in the UK "up to..." is usually code for "this is the theoretical maximum speed for the type of line that might be achievable in practice if you live next door to the exchange"
I always figured that honest BB speed advertising would quote the minimum average expected speed along with perhaps the 90% rate you suggest. I.e. "Over 1 billing period (month) your average line speed will not fall below the quoted rate"
But the amazing thing about a rapidly changing world where people are doing things in a decentralized and open way is that each of those failures only contributes to the knowledge for future projects, in which more and more people are testing more and more things
And here we see why big legacy players like patent and copyright so much... If you lock everything down it slows innovation and they don't have to change how they do things.
The wonders are that Governments swallow the bullshit and that the legacy players think their stranglehold will last forever.
Much of the ridiculous TheStreet article focuses on the fact that they're shocked (shocked!) that Twitter hasn't magically found all of the prostitutes using Twitter and killed their accounts. Hang on a mo... on the one hand he's talking about prostitution, on the other human trafficking as if they are the same thing. And you seem to be doing the same... There's no doubt a Venn diagram of the 2 would have an obvious overlap, but neither completely contains the other.
Among other things, isn't prostitution legal in many places? Nevada for example? The Netherlands? (Sort of) the UK? How could twitter ever be expected to block access to legal things based on local geo-targetting?
So... yet another know-nothing anti-freedom piece of crap from the "moral majority" of politics.
While he was in prison for this, the thing with the thumb drive came up.
If it's the crime he was convicted of, the evidence would seem to be fairly irrelevant as evidence would it not? If it's not the crime he was convicted of, then the same protection applies. Just because you're guilty of one crime does not mean you are assumed guilty of further crimes.
suggests that Linux and GNU should close their source and start selling because its obvious which s more in use.
Erm... not sure what you're trying to get at. Are you suggesting that MS software is used more because it's closed source? That's hardly "looking at it neutrally". Far as I can see MS became the most used OS because 1/ It was among the first to develop a relatively computer-illiterate-friendly interface and 2/ It got (illegally) copied massively 3/ Now it's largely inertia from 1 and 2 driven by businesses who think they can't afford to retrain their staff.
And planning to bomb people or property by discussing how to do it as part of a terrorist group is enough probable cause for me.
Except this is the whole point (theoretically at least) of "innocent until proven guilty". Until the plan and the discussing have been proved in a court of law, his denial carries more weight than the police accusation. Compelling a suspect to produce private information under threat of a slam-dunk criminal offence (if you refuse you are de-facto a criminal under this law - you will lose in court) is an end-run around the basis of UK law. This was Tim's point - no matter how much it might be clear the guy is a terrorist, law should apply equally otherwise it's not "just and fair". Imagine you're accused of, let's say, rape. Your word against hers (or his as the case may be), but the police demand you turn over that password to your secure files. You know there's nothing relevant in there, but it's personal and private - perhaps it's embarrassing, perhaps it'll ruin your career or marriage. You now have a choice of those consequences or going to jail for being simply accused of something I'm going to assume you didn't do.