So have all sort of things. Look, I don't want to minimize the crime. I get it, they're really bad people, and they do really bad things.

The same can be said about gun owners, cars, airplanes, lightning... They're all more likely to kill you than a terrorist. Is that worth another Red Scare, or Salem? If you train the people to distrust each other, you lose your society. So, I'm all for being vigilant. If you see someone in their back yard trying to bring in a big bag of gunpowder and some pressure cookers, by all means ask them what's up.

But, please don't justify this as a "terrorists are bad so we should constantly report each other for suspicious activity."

In that case, how often does Adobe release a new edition of the software? It looks like (we'll be generous) 2 years for each iteration. So, if after two years you paid for about the boxed version, Adobe doesn't seem to come out very much ahead. Businesses will buy the latest one regardless, so it doesn't seem much different.

I'm thinking the benefit to them is the guarantee that there are only so many instances of CS available at one time to each customer. Businesses that over-license may save money (because they wouldn't be anymore), but the ones that have "one or two+ rogue installs" won't anymore. I'm taking a guess that's what's up here. Another poster made the point that the business customer gets to write off a "subscription cost of business" instead of an asset that has to depreciate over however long that is.

So, yea, it looks like Adobe wins in that they are guaranteed a license for every installation, and businesses get instant writeoffs (and built-in license compliance). Individuals, who might use the same software for 4+ years because of cost, get the downside. Adobe doesn't care because, individuals are a small part of their market.

And the point that GP, and up are trying to make is... Yup, they're apologizing for getting caught. Unlike most non-apologies, at least some good is coming out of it, and they're at least putting up a good show to show they're sorry.

That's better than the vast majority of non-apologies, and they're at least acknowledging that their image is important enough to them to try to make some amends.

I'm sure you paid all those speeding tickets that you could've been cited for, so I should just leave well enough alone.

Too bad NetCraft says it's dying :D

If you're going to tie it into your mortgage, you're in luck. Because you can get a 10K Watt system installed into the house, which will probably put energy back into the grid (paying you during peak hours). You'll end up coming out way ahead even with maintenance. Numbers vary based on location and who does the installation, but you'll be in fantastic shape before year 15 in just about every case without incentives.

The best part? Those expensive $150/month bills will be the happiest months because you'll be feeding even more energy into the grid.

And please, don't scoff at energy incentives. We pump enough subsidies into fossil fuels and nobody seems to complain too much. We might as well put these energies into equal competition.

12 Month membership cards can be bought for $45 (maybe less, but that seems like a reasonable price).
To play any games with anyone else, you need a gold membership, so you're getting one.
So:
$299 + $240 = $539 at the two year mark.
$499 + $90 = $589 at the two year mark.

From that point on, you're paying $45 a month regardless. So, there is a point to it if you're going to have the membership anyway. If you can get your 12 month membership for under $20, then you can get ahead.

...And sadly the download probably does too.

Assuming it actually delivers that speed, of course.

I remember working with a couple of those resellers, and SBC a lot in those years. I hated SBC with a passion.

The resellers treated me much better. Unfortunately, every once in a while one of my clients would lose their internet connection... The reason? At the SBC telco office, the loop would suddenly go missing.

It did eventually stop, and it was about when they became AT&T... So either the reseller fixed up their problem, or complained to the right people. I'll never know if they were telling me the truth, but I was quite quick to believe it.

I never claimed it was some conspiracy. That's not the point of my post. It's just a case where I have to jump through extra hoops, and as far as I can tell there is no real gain on the end of Netflix. And yes, I understand I can watch it on just about anything that isn't a standard Linux.

They locked in with Silverlight to present to PCs and Mac, because of DRM requirements. A side effect of the solution they chose is that it's inconvenient for me, and grandma isn't going to figure it out on her own. That makes it "not good" in my humble opinion, and that's what I'm trying to point out. The only real effect it has is that it gives one less reason to adopt Linux, and that's for a video streaming service.

No conspiracy, just silly.

"If they provided me with good cheap DRM'd service, they'd have my dollars."

And I guess that's where this is really irritating. Because, as of yet, there hasn't been a "good" nor "cheap," let alone "good and cheap" DRM service. Really, DRM has been about making sure you have to fit a very specific set of conditions to view content that you probably paid for. Usually those conditions involve "viewing from Device P, running Operating System Q, with Browser R," even though it has nothing to do with the content you're viewing.

So, we look at Netflix as the opening case. To watch a movie in Netflix on my laptop that is running Linux, I have to jump through a large number of hoops... Or, I can fire up my Xbox 360, or my PS3, or another machine running Windows. Why is that? Certainly it's not about stopping piracy... Because I can still jump through those hoops and get there.

DVD regions... Why did they exist? It was certainly not to prevent piracy, because you could easily copy the bejeezus out of them. Rather, it's to prevent you from buying a copy cheaply in one region, and bringing it home... Because their content is overpriced here. BlueRay? Same deal right? Again, not about piracy.

Really, DRM has always been about soaking legal users as much as possible, or it's been about shady corporate deals to force users onto particular platforms to make them have to pay their partners. That is all it accomplishes, and that's perfectly fine with them.

Fortunately, Mr. Rogers was able to make this a complete scumbag deal by putting him and his wife in a position to profit by it becoming law:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130417/16253022748/oh-look-rep-mike-rogers-wife-stands-to-benefit-greatly-cispa-passing.shtml

That wouldn't surprise me.

He even made a bet saying that black holes didn't exist. It was a hedge because it would've blown up a bunch of his own research if he had won. I rather enjoy that he doesn't take himself too seriously when it comes to these bets.

So, for the sake of argument, let's assume those computers are "secure enough." Let's also assume that these new fangled fuses, or whatever, are installed, and we have a dead-simple meter for measuring how much electricity is actually being used.

I'm wondering what the impact would be if someone did indeed try to compromise the station. Is it unreasonable to think the station (or pump) would be affected, hopefully by being shut off? Let's compare that to a gas station and a match.... Much bigger impact. I think this article is cute in that, yes we do need to be aware of challenges of having a new fueling infrastructure. I'm of the opinion that hacking the whole grid through one of these chargers would require way more stupidity on the part of infrastructure designers than reasonably expected. Wait, I think I just answered the question above...

I don't know what the proper term is relating to what I think are "patent departments." I'd like to see if there's a breakdown in the acceptance rates across various lines of expertise. The reason is because I have a belief that much of this is indeed because of patent trolling. If that were the case, I'd expect that a number of departments would still show about the same acceptance rate.

Since the Comp Sci patent applications typically invent and redefine their terms in the patent application (after all, they're creating new "ideas"), they've found more effective ways to get their "inventions" defined in a way that appears more patentable. Also, it looks like some work at Stanford showed that rejecting patents really just increased their workload for a variety of reasons. Path of least resistance will eventually win you know...

http://siepr.stanford.edu/?q=/system/files/shared/pubs/11-014.pdf

I think this post is an excellent example of Poe's Law.

I cannot tell if you're serious or being extremely funny.