Re: Re: Re: And it could be soooo much more easier for Google
I've never tried to use AppEngine, but for the life of me I can't figure out how two-factor auth is a bad thing in itself. From my admittedly cursory web searches I see there is a bug when if you turn two factor auth on (so it looks to be optional). However, it appears that it's more of an "Oops we didn't think of that" rather than a "we're adding this specific pain point". Bugs happen on accident, DRM does not.
The number is ridiculous, but it shouldn't take a minute to click a link and see that you are downloading a file named The Dark Knight Rises. They aren't supposed to be determining actual infringement; that's partly the job of the DMCA filer -- who swore under penalty of perjury --, partly of the submitter of the work, but ultimately of the courts if the filer decides to go that far. My bet is one person could knock out 30-60 of these in a minute especially if done in parallel. At 30 per minute, that reduces it to just 35 people. That would be one really boring job though.
Re: And it could be soooo much more easier for Google
Wow. Google is making money hand over fist for making it easy for their users to do stuff. Content producers are, according to their own words, losing money while they make it more difficult for their customers to do stuff in the name of stopping piracy (read DRM). I wonder which is the better option.
You know, maybe Google should be like the MPAA/RIAA/etc. They should worry more about stopping a few illegitimate uses than about making their services easy to use for their users/customers. Then they too can be like the brilliant minds in Hollywood and lose money, fans, loyalty, and goodwill! That'll show those pirates.
I think it is absolutely amazing that the value of a human life is far less than the value of a single song shared on Napster/Kazaa/Bittorrent.
I agree with your sentiment, but what you said is not an example of that. Running a red light doesn't cost a human life. Running a red light and hitting someone does. There are street lights near me that I could run on red all day and not hit anyone. You could pull up to a red light, wait till it's safe and then cross and never cause any loss of life, damage to property, or even raise anyone's heart rate. We can debate about how much loss there really was in the Thomas-Rasset case (though I suspect we'd both agree that it was little if any at all), but there is no loss to anyone if I run a red light when there is no one else anywhere near that intersection.
That's the problem with a lot of traffic laws, and especially automated enforcement of such. There doesn't need to be any danger to anyone for them to be in effect. Why should I be charged with running a red light if I pull up to the intersection, find no one is coming and decide to go?
Disclaimer: I've never run a red light, and I haven't had a speeding ticket since I was a teenager well over a decade ago. This isn't just some rant of a guy who is constantly being fined for driving recklessly.
I've heard of contracts that try to remove the right to sue, but I've never heard of Congress having the power to prevent you from suing. That's absurd. Doesn't that mean that congress could eliminate the entire Judicial Branch?
Whereas, too many people stop us from doing what we want,
I agree that motivations for crime need to be looked at more closely. I'm certain that more crime can be stopped by fixing the reasons for the crime than by making punishments harsher. So many politicians want to be seen as doing something and choose the obvious path of making punishments harsher or increasing enforcement. So few (if any) actually want to change what might be causing* some to turn to crime.
*Right, I get it. It's a choice people make. But why are they making that decision. Sure some people are just bad apples, but some do it because they feel they have no other choice, even thought they do. Would free mental care reduce crime? Would therapy help? Would more jobs help? Would better welfare? Would reducing cops help? Would reducing the number of laws help? Would weakening federal government and diluting power to be more local help? I don't know. But this is an area I'd like to see explored more rather than simply increasing penalties.
What about the Droid Incredible by HTC. I don't think it was just a Motorola thing. (It's still not to be confused with Android, I'm just saying I don't think Droid referring to a line of phones was exclusive to Motorola.)
This is why I propose a system to reward the pioneers and make arrows illegal. Without my system, no one would ever be a pioneer! History, which is on my side, proves it.
If all you have to do is increment the id, then anyone who has taken a first semester programming class and a lot of people that haven't could write that script up in 5 minutes or less. Sharing the script has nothing to do with it. I imagine they wrote a script to see if incrementing really was all you had to do. Write the script that increments and see if you get an email address for each one. Wouldn't take too long and is not necessary to share, but not sharing isn't going to be even the slightest hindrance to anyone.
Transportation Security Administration has put 91 of its full-body scanning machines worth $14 million in storage
91 machines are worth $14 million total.
Originally, the TSA had planned to ship the 91 machines to smaller airports.
This indicates that these aren't all the machines they've bought.
For now, the 91 machines are in a Texas warehouse, which now holds a total of $155 million in unused equipment
$155 million is the total of all unused equipment, of which 91 of these machines are a part, not the sum total. And since machines are still in airports, it's safe to say that these 91 are not the total of all machines the TSA has.
The TSA has spent $140 million on full-body scanners, according to Sanders. This includes $40 million for backscatter machines and $100 million for millimeter-wave machines
Oh, money shot. The TSA has spent $140 million on all machines total, not just these 91.
The agency bought 200 full-body scanners in May, bringing its total to 1,000
1,000 is a whole lot more than 91. $14,000,000/91 = ~$154,000 per machine. $154,000 x 1,000 = $154,000,000 which is just about equal to the $140 million claimed to have been spent on scanners.
No, it's not in his source that these machines are $1,000,000 each. Please kindly cite your source.
Screw the $100M movie! I want a $500M sandwich, but you freetards keeps saying that $10 is enough for a sandwich, so screw you and your "market forces" and your "supply and demand curves". All of you low class pirates stealing your sandwich's for $10, $5 -- gah, dare I say it -- $0.99!!! You are devaluing sandwiches.
I also, I want $1,000M statues, but you masnick-loving freetardians keep saying that the statue can be seen from miles away so why should you pay. You people make me sick. Can't you just avert your eyes until you've paid the creator?! No, you pirate glances at the $1,000M statues making it impossible for that creator to make more.
Stupid freetardian, masnick-devil-hitler-loving, stalinesque pirating, pol potian grifters the lot of you!!
No, again, I don't think that wish is unreasonable. If that person really likes Friends, particularly that episode, or doesn't like Football, their wish isn't unreasonable. However, their expectation that their wish be granted is unreasonable.
It is not unreasonable that people's wants/wishes are selfish. It's completely expected and natural for that to be the case. However, it is unreasonable if they expect everyone else to give in to their selfish desires. It is not unreasonable to want to eat your cake and have it, too. It is, however, completely unreasonable to expect that to happen.
I don't know, I'm fairly certain Gary Johnson wouldn't have signed this. And while it might be true that Romney would have done the same thing if he had the opportunity, the reality is that your statement is true in one sense. No matter who won the election last week, Obama would have signed this anyway. If Obama had lost the election, he'd still be PotUS right now.
On the post: DMCA Copyright Takedowns To Google Increased 10x In Just The Past Six Months
Re: Re: Re: And it could be soooo much more easier for Google
Sorry, try again.
On the post: DMCA Copyright Takedowns To Google Increased 10x In Just The Past Six Months
Re: 2.5 Million Takedowns
On the post: DMCA Copyright Takedowns To Google Increased 10x In Just The Past Six Months
Re: Re: "over 10 million takedowns per month"
On the post: DMCA Copyright Takedowns To Google Increased 10x In Just The Past Six Months
Re: And it could be soooo much more easier for Google
You know, maybe Google should be like the MPAA/RIAA/etc. They should worry more about stopping a few illegitimate uses than about making their services easy to use for their users/customers. Then they too can be like the brilliant minds in Hollywood and lose money, fans, loyalty, and goodwill! That'll show those pirates.
On the post: Jammie Thomas Asks Supreme Court: How Much Is Too Much For Copyright Infringement?
Re: Re:
That's the problem with a lot of traffic laws, and especially automated enforcement of such. There doesn't need to be any danger to anyone for them to be in effect. Why should I be charged with running a red light if I pull up to the intersection, find no one is coming and decide to go?
Disclaimer: I've never run a red light, and I haven't had a speeding ticket since I was a teenager well over a decade ago. This isn't just some rant of a guy who is constantly being fined for driving recklessly.
On the post: Appeals Court Holds Firm: The Government Cannot Be Sued For Violating Its Own Wiretapping Laws
Whereas, too many people stop us from doing what we want,
It is resolved that no one can sue us anymore.
PS. You can't sue us for this law either.
On the post: Protip: After Successfully Stealing A Car And Robbing A Bank... Don't Brag About It On YouTube
Re: SAD
*Right, I get it. It's a choice people make. But why are they making that decision. Sure some people are just bad apples, but some do it because they feel they have no other choice, even thought they do. Would free mental care reduce crime? Would therapy help? Would more jobs help? Would better welfare? Would reducing cops help? Would reducing the number of laws help? Would weakening federal government and diluting power to be more local help? I don't know. But this is an area I'd like to see explored more rather than simply increasing penalties.
On the post: News Corp. Finally Realizes Locked Up, iPad-Only News Publication Was A Dud, Shuts It Down
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: How The Video Game Industry Was Launched 40 Years Ago... Thanks To Infringement
Re: Something I learned as a young sprout
On the post: Expose Blatant Security Hole From AT&T... Face Five Years In Jail
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Recording Industry Rep Suggests Parents Should Slap Their Children To Stop Piracy
Re: By their logic...
On the post: Recording Industry Rep Suggests Parents Should Slap Their Children To Stop Piracy
Re:
On the post: Naked Scanner Maker Accused Of Manipulating Tests To Make Scans Look Less Invasive
Re: "91 machines, worth $14 million"
No, it's not in his source that these machines are $1,000,000 each. Please kindly cite your source.
On the post: Doug Stanhope: Piracy Is A Problem Only If You Think Of It As A Problem
Re: Abolish copyright
On the post: Doug Stanhope: Piracy Is A Problem Only If You Think Of It As A Problem
Re: Re: Okay, now what about $100M movies?
I also, I want $1,000M statues, but you masnick-loving freetardians keep saying that the statue can be seen from miles away so why should you pay. You people make me sick. Can't you just avert your eyes until you've paid the creator?! No, you pirate glances at the $1,000M statues making it impossible for that creator to make more.
Stupid freetardian, masnick-devil-hitler-loving, stalinesque pirating, pol potian grifters the lot of you!!
On the post: University Of Washington's Defense Of Twitter Limits On Journalists More Ridiculous Than The Restrictions Themselves
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It is not unreasonable that people's wants/wishes are selfish. It's completely expected and natural for that to be the case. However, it is unreasonable if they expect everyone else to give in to their selfish desires. It is not unreasonable to want to eat your cake and have it, too. It is, however, completely unreasonable to expect that to happen.
I'll admit it's a bit pedantic, though.
On the post: University Of Washington's Defense Of Twitter Limits On Journalists More Ridiculous Than The Restrictions Themselves
Re: Re:
On the post: President Obama Signs 'Secret Directive' On Cybersecurity
Re: Presidential overreach....
On the post: President Obama Signs 'Secret Directive' On Cybersecurity
Re:
On the post: President Obama Signs 'Secret Directive' On Cybersecurity
Re:
Next >>