Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
[SOPA] is shelved. EU voted [ACTA] down; rises from grave as [CETA]
Posts
I would straight up refuse to hand over that kind of information for a job application though. If that is a deal breaker, see ya, I have better places to work. The one exception I can see would be applying for a job that requires a security clearance of some sort. I recognize that background checks need to be more thorough in those situations.
Well, that's a different and more sensible thing.
I mean, my facebook is set pretty restricted, but still. Fuck off, Lord CEOs of America. Gotta love feudalism.
Steam: DigitalArcanist | XBoxLive: DigitalArcanist | PSN: DigitalArcanist | Backloggery: Houn
Steam: DigitalArcanist | XBoxLive: DigitalArcanist | PSN: DigitalArcanist | Backloggery: Houn
What do you suggest?
Steam: DigitalArcanist | XBoxLive: DigitalArcanist | PSN: DigitalArcanist | Backloggery: Houn
The company I work for has also fired people for things on their Facebook page, but ONLY if the person lists that they work for the company. The company policy is that if you put your place of work on Facebook, then you are required to abide by company policies in regards to public information that you post. This policy came about because a potential client searched Facebook for company employees and found some rather...embarrassing pictures on one of the employees accounts. Suffice to say, we didn't get the client, and it cost the company quite a bit of revenue.
If you don't put down the company as where you work, though, they don't care what you post on it.
This seems a sensible update to me. It's akin to wearing a company logod shirt after hours and in public, if you're doing so then you're representing the company and need to act like such. We're a business casual office and wear what we want for the most part but we do get company t-shirts and polos, so if you're out drinking or just in general acting a fool, you better not be sporting that company logo.
Sauce
If you don't have an account they'll presume you're lying to them and depending on how many candidates they have (I would imagine enough, they're not going to do this particular thing for higher level stuff for a number of reasons), probably not hire you.
Why I have a locked down profile intentionally for public dissemination.
And this presumes just deleting or hiding the profile will keep it safe anyway. If they want to put in even the most minimal effort, they can pull up a surprising amount of supposedly hidden or deleted data you've put out there.
This music is being (preemptively) removed from the public domain; it's being stolen from the people."
As a result, an estimated 99.9% of sites are now breaking the law. This includes most state websites, most political party websites etcet.
The reason is that someone threw a fit about tracking cookies, and as a result those must now be opt-in. All of them.
Including stuff like Facebook like buttons, google-analytics etcet.
(The law also does other thing such as include net neutrality for any site not found illegal under Dutch law)
Is that it dead, or does Parliament have to have a vote on it?
That's four out of four committees that have rejected ACTA. It'll take some major dirty deals to get it voted through in Parliament in spite of that.
edit: of course, the turd will just get some fresh polish and a new name, like the last couple of times.
This in spite of the conservative groups, who earlier were against taking ACTA to EU Court to look at its legality when they wanted to fast-track it and now were for taking it to court for the same reasons in order to delay today's vote. Assholes. Their vote to take ACTA to court fell, 255 for 420 against.
The ACTA vote itself: 39 for, 478 against (165 abstained).
This means that EU member states will not ratify ACTA. And from the looks of it, ACTA in its current form is effectively dead - which other nation would want to ratify it if the EU isn't also aboard?
But that's just ACTA. This godawful zombie will rise again with a new coat of paint and another name. Trust me on that.
And then there's the price of hard drives. Again, it's becoming practical to put your entire movie collection onto an insanely cheap 2Tb drive and just lend it to people - obviously a smaller group than you would with a semi-disposable key drive, but the effective bandwidth is still massive.
Before broadband was cheap and widely available, people did pretty much the same thing with CD-Rs, and that was much less convenient (and rather more expensive per bit).
While I don't have any stats to back this up, I'd think that the amount of piracy that can be done via physical drives is orders of magnitude lower than what's currently done on the internet.
When I did the physical CDRs back in school, everything was limited to what other people had, and who I knew, where as now it's limited to my imagination. And my data-cap
This is probably especially true for 1st day downloads.
http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf3/user/Mort-ZA/
@MortNZ
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
I'm guessing that convenience has a non-zero effect on piracy, at least amongst those with disposable income. It won't kill piracy, but the volume of material for the average user will probably drop.
http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf3/user/Mort-ZA/
@MortNZ
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
If anyone can eke out a market in Somalia, it's Valve.
Physical swapping of content is far far more restrictive though.
Tor does not work. Or rather, it only guarantees you a certain level of privacy. (PGP is still unbreakable don't worry!)
Every ISP is required to log the communications going through it, and the government already knows what Tor traffic looks like, so... yeah. Use internet cafes and a flash drive if you actually want to maintain anonymity.
Fun fact, the construction of mandatory "soft wiretapping" nerve centers is one of the largest impediments to the construction of broadband infrastructure in the US. They cost absurd sums and clog tubes like nought else. Also, the more of them there are, the slower the flow of info will go.
Not an expert or anything, but their stance does kind of make sense, if they're using private infrastructure. But isn't a large part of it government funded?
http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf3/user/Mort-ZA/
@MortNZ
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
Dear Ron Paul: Fuck you.
Yes, for the most part, the actual laying of cable and installing of infrastructure is very heavily subsidied by the government. Personally, it's why I think Verizon pretty much halted any FIOS expansion. Our broadband infrastructure in the US is complete dogshit, and Verizon was trying to position fiber obtics as the next big thing, so when/if the gov't decides to fund infrastructure projects, they have a leg up on the contract.
So they're abandoning Common Carrier then?
Their reasoning does seem to open them up to liability for any and all pirating that occurs over their network. Although I guess they could then just seek recovery from the violators and I assume the content providers would be willing to waive suit against Verizon in exchange for telling them who did the pirating so they could go after them directly (although Verizon has much deeper pockets than any of its customers so...).
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/sopa-lives-new-bill-seeks-to-resurrect-expansion-of-ip-enforcement-powers.php
Steam: DigitalArcanist | XBoxLive: DigitalArcanist | PSN: DigitalArcanist | Backloggery: Houn