Slashdot Mirror


Apple's Game Center Shares Your Real Name

dotarray writes "Apple's Game Center has just made itself a few enemies through a simple change to their Terms of Service. Now, whenever you send a friend invitation, your real name will be attached as well as your Apple ID." Apparently they didn't learn from the poor reaction to Blizzard's similar idea.

140 of 182 comments (clear)

  1. First Impression by Haedrian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    First thought which came to my mind:

    1. Apple has a game center?
    2. This will have 0 negative reaction whatsoever. This is Apple people. If apple forced you to sign your name in blood to buy an iPhone, you would.

    1. Re:First Impression by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Wait, you didn't?

    2. Re:First Impression by TheLink · · Score: 1, Insightful

      First thought that came to my mind:

      Real Name? You're just writing it wrong...

      --
    3. Re:First Impression by spagetti_code · · Score: 2, Informative

      Have you actually *read* the iPhone contract? I'm surprised they didn't require blood.

      When I got my iPhone, I asked to read the contract.
      The store workers had never had anyone ask, so they didn't know where it was.
      Took them a long time to find a copy.
      It was pretty nasty, but from memory (they wouldn't let me keep their
      only copy now that they knew where it was) the worst section was something of the form:

      "if we suspect you may have altered your phone, you agree to let us cancel
      your phone service, and you will keep paying out the rest of your term."

      Suspicion (not proof, just if they felt like it) was enough to give them the right
      to cancel my phone service (and reclaim the phone phone IIRC) and I had to
      keep paying. the monthly fee. And there was no
      appeal or ability to protest your innocence.

    4. Re:First Impression by TheLink · · Score: 1

      So did you keep the phone and agree to the contract?

      --
    5. Re:First Impression by houghi · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This would be great in Belgium. If you were not allowed to take (a copy of) the contract with you it would pretty much mean you do not have a contract, regardless of wehther you signed some other paper where it says that you read it.

      Here you would need to write at least "written and approved" and sign. Also the other party (sales rep) would need to sign and each of you must have a copy.

      In reality it would mean that the customers would not have a contract.

      And even then cancellation would mean then end of payment, regardless of what the contract says as that will be against the law (and could make part or whole of the contract void).

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    6. Re:First Impression by MrQuacker · · Score: 1
      Course he did.

      I'm tempted to go to an ATT or Apple store and do the same thing. Then explain how their legalese word fuckery lost them a customer.

    7. Re:First Impression by noidentity · · Score: 1

      Suspicion (not proof, just if they felt like it) was enough to give them the right to cancel my phone service (and reclaim the phone phone IIRC) and I had to keep paying the monthly fee. And there was no appeal or ability to protest your innocence.

      By signing the contract, YOU would be giving them that right. Your appeal or ability to avoid this is to not sign the contract. It's ALL voluntary, which is why you shouldn't sign contracts you find disgusting.

    8. Re:First Impression by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      I'm sure it'll have similar reaction to Facebook using real names. A few privcy nuts on Slashdot will get their knickers in a twist. Meanwhile, real people will prefer it - they know their friends real names far better than their usernames.

    9. Re:First Impression by AEton · · Score: 1

      And if the contract is in Dutch but you're not in Flanders, it's null and void, right? :)

      --
      We recently had heard in the office over one of the Yellow Machine that's made by Anthology Solutions.
    10. Re:First Impression by gshegosh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And you've bought the phone anyway. What do you think is going to stop them from such practices? Government? Or declining sales?

    11. Re:First Impression by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well I opted for 5 minutes in the woodshed with the devil.

    12. Re:First Impression by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Never again. That guy's so damn vanilla, simply no fun at all with him.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    13. Re:First Impression by dzfoo · · Score: 5, Funny

      OMG! you met Steve Jobs?

            -dZ.

      --
      Carol vs. Ghost
      ...Can you save Christmas?
    14. Re:First Impression by khchung · · Score: 2, Informative

      Welcome to the broken America mobile market. In places where the market actually has competition, eg, Asia , we can buy phones without contract and then use whichever carrier we like, and switch carrier whenever we like. If you enter into a contact with the carrier, you can do so without telling them what's model is your phone (none of their business anyway), and your can change/jb your phone without affecting the contract.

      --
      Oliver.
    15. Re:First Impression by dimeglio · · Score: 1

      Those terms and conditions are meaningless if they attempt to override any of your legal rights. At least that's how it works in our country. Sure they can cancel but they can't force you to pay for a service you no longer have.

      --
      Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
    16. Re:First Impression by Cwix · · Score: 1

      It would be lost on the drones your speaking to.

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    17. Re:First Impression by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes, but not face-to-face.

    18. Re:First Impression by pete's-brain · · Score: 1

      1. Apple has a game center?

      Exactly, don't expect an uproar. No one cares.

      ---------
      petes-brain.com - where you'll find waaayyyy better terms than apple will ever give you

    19. Re:First Impression by delinear · · Score: 1

      Depending on your jurisdiction, it's still not necessarily binding. Plenty of countries have laws or legal precedent to the effect that, to be legally binding, a contract must be equitable to both parties and cannot be unfairly one-sided, meaning any clause in said contract in said jurisdiction would be open to challenge in court (that's not necessarily saying this particular clause would be thrown out, but it's at least not so black and white as many people believe).

    20. Re:First Impression by delinear · · Score: 1

      Those terms and conditions are meaningless if they attempt to override any of your legal rights. At least that's how it works in our country. Sure they can cancel but they can't force you to pay for a service you no longer have.

      We're talking about the US, where I'm given to understand the cust^H^H^Honsumer pretty much has no rights.

    21. Re:First Impression by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      They just stick that stuff in there. It's probably not enforceable.

      The real issue is the spaghetti approach to contracts that our current legal system seems to create a preference for: just throw any onerous terms in and see if anything sticks, maybe you'll slip something through the courts.

      I think the solution would be to get rid of severability. If you want contract terms to be separable, they should be in separate contracts.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    22. Re:First Impression by nosferatu1001 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My suspiciion is that this would be in the US?

      In the UK such a term would fall foul of UCTA as well as general Sales of Goods, and would be unenforceable.

    23. Re:First Impression by nosferatu1001 · · Score: 1

      Not legally binding in the UK or, I suspect, most enlightened countries.

      Being able to force contracts of adhesion (not actual contracts, from a basic idea of how contracts should be formed) means you are then regulated as to their content.

    24. Re:First Impression by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      My first thought was "if you have nothing to hide, why do you care?".

      After all, it is the logic that every fucktard out there applies to every invasion of MY privacy.

    25. Re:First Impression by DJRumpy · · Score: 5, Informative

      Amazing. I love how the Anti-Apple folks on Slashdot are so quick to jump on the bandwagon based on hearsay without the slightest bit of proof offered except for word of mouth.

      Here is the Oh So Elusive customer agreement. it's offered with every phone. I seriously doubt the AT&T store couldn't give you a copy. It's freely available on the web.

      http://www.wireless.att.com/cell-phone-service/legal/index.jsp?q_termsKey=wirelessCustomerAgreement&q_termsName=Wireless+Customer+Agreement&print=true#whatIsTheTermOfMyService

      FYI, jailbreaking is legal, so it doesn't meet the definition of 'unlawful' in the contract. In addition, this won't satisfy your anti-Apple craving because the contract is with AT&T, not Apple.

      if we have reasonable cause to believe that your Equipment is being used for an unlawful purpose or in a way that (i) is harmful to, interferes with, or may adversely affect our Services or the network of any other provider, (ii) interferes with the use or enjoyment of Services received by others, (iii) infringes intellectual property rights, (iv) results in the publication of threatening or offensive material, or (v) constitutes spam or other abusive messaging or calling, a security risk, or a violation of privacy,

      Of course what you do with that phone after it's jailbroken is up to you. You might also try to remember the fact that every cell provider has similar verbiage in regards to unauthorized tethering, IP Rights, etc. If you opt to break the contract after signing it, then that is your responsibility, not theirs.

    26. Re:First Impression by commodore64_love · · Score: 1, Insightful

      >>>I love how the Anti-Apple folks on Slashdot are so quick to jump on the bandwagon

      Maybe they just haven't learned to shut-up. I have. I got tired of being modded "troll" whenever I made a "Apple acts no better than microsoft" or similar comment. Apple Fanboys have mod points and they use them to censor people that criticize their Holy Relics or messiah.

      BTW:

      (1) The store has a photocopier. I would have asked for a copy of the contract else: No sale.
      (2) Contracts are not binding if they violate State or Union law. You can not sign your rights or legally-protected privileges away. Paypal discovered that earlier this decade when the judge nullified most of their Terms of Service, and then ordered them to repay all the money they had stolen from customers w/o due process.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    27. Re:First Impression by GNious · · Score: 1

      Vlanderen or Brussels - both allow contracts to be in Dutch.
      I always request my official documents in Dutch (living in Brussels). It confuses people, and the responses I get boil down to: "This is Belgium - we speak French here!"

      *sigh*

      But the "Read and Approved" thing I have to do is both annoying and nice. Protects all parties.

    28. Re:First Impression by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      FYI, claiming someone treats their phone as a holy relic just makes YOU look like a fanboy, not them. Folks are modded as trolls because they tend to do just as the parent above described. They post hearsay, inflammatory text about 'holy relics' and the 'Alter of Steve', or unsupported 'facts' that when examined, often turn out to be less than truthful.

      Did you ever stop to consider that perhaps you actually were being a troll?

    29. Re:First Impression by VisiX · · Score: 1

      Steve Jobs salad isn't going to toss itself.

    30. Re:First Impression by delinear · · Score: 1

      You're right, I haven't spent a great deal of time reading up on this because it has little bearing on me. To clarify, I wasn't trying to be disparaging, I just know that often when people here talk about consumer protections that we take for granted in much of Europe, many people from the US comment there are no equivalent rights or greatly diminished equivalents over there (hence "I'm given to understand" as opposed to "I know for a fact").

    31. Re:First Impression by intheshelter · · Score: 2

      Damn you and your facts!! This is Slashdot. Where people attempt to look cool by putting down Apple and saying that Apple products are only for people who want to look cool!

    32. Re:First Impression by bsdaemonaut · · Score: 1

      Sorry am I the only one that thinking that this pretty much supports the parent post in that they may drop you if your equipment is being used in a way that:

      (i) is harmful to, interferes with, or may adversely affect our Services or the network of any other provider

      The broad langauge there pretty much gives AT&T license to do what they want. Notice that it says "unlawful purpose *OR*", in other words, it doesn't have to be an unlawful act to fall under those conditions.

    33. Re:First Impression by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      And it would even be long on regional managers, vice presidents and CEOs. You are but a single person, they are busy converting the masses to their contractual religion. They genuinely couldn't care less what any individual customer thinks, at all levels of the organization.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    34. Re:First Impression by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      I'm seriously curious...

      So you claim, but the rest of your post seems to suggest otherwise. When you say, "How do you function in life spending your time reading every last bit of every last detail of every last "contract" you enter into?", you seem to stress it as though it's an absurd activity, and you infer from his reading of a single contract that either he engages in this behaviour to extreme extents, or that he "has a bone to pick with AT&T" (which is a false dichotomy, by the way). Since the former is stressed to be absurd, we are led to believe that he has a bone to pick with AT&T.

      Now, if you have "a bone to pick" with someone, there's a mild implication there that it's as much your problem as the other person's fault; that it's your own peculiar and personal bugbears that are influencing your decision, not that there was any serious wrongdoing by the other party. On top of this, you also appear to reject the any negative effects of the contract clause that's causing the OP trouble, which further cements this impression.

      Either way, the possible conclusion that the OP has a bone to pick with AT&T is painted both as inevitable and as bad. Perhaps this was not your intention, but you will excuse me if I hesitate to believe that your post is a search for answers, rather than merely a rant.

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    35. Re:First Impression by grumpyman · · Score: 1
      This is Apple people. If apple forced you to sign your name in blood to buy an iPhone, you would.

      The question is why?

    36. Re:First Impression by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

      Most jurisdictions also have laws/precedent to the effect that, if any single clause in a contract is illegal, the whole contract is null and void.

      The example above, where they can reclaim your phone, terminate your service, and you still have to pay out the rest of the contract? Yah. No. That wouldn't work.

      It was a similar clause... specifically that my cell company could continue to charge for service even if the service was unusable or not available where I lived, and that I would be charged an early termination fee if I cancelled in these circumstances, that I used to get out of my contract with them, too.

    37. Re:First Impression by rwven · · Score: 1

      I don't think it has anything to do with "Apple." People want the service, so they're willing to pay the price in privacy. You'll notice that with all the whining, blizzard's WoW is still just as popular as ever. More-so with all the changes that come down the pipe.

    38. Re:First Impression by meerling · · Score: 1

      Anyone remember Prodigy? For some time they had a clause buried in their EULA that said they owned your computer and everything on it. The point isn't "OMG! Apple is doing something evil while everyone else is playing nice!", rather it's more of a "OMG! Look at how Apple tries to pretend it's so perfect and customer centered and yet they too are trying to screw you with a cactus!".

    39. Re:First Impression by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Have you actually *read* the iPhone contract? I'm surprised they didn't require blood.

      You mean the AT&T contract, right? Hell, that contract is probably the same across every phone you buy on contract, and you'll find similar clauses everywhere else.

      The only contract I found when I had an iPhone4 was the EULA. And nothing about having to pay out the rest of my term (non-contract).

    40. Re:First Impression by Americano · · Score: 1

      Really - you weren't provided with a copy of your service contract? The thing you had to sign in order to activate service? The contract you sign with AT&T, not Apple? And the "store workers" couldn't find a copy of the thing you needed to sign to activate service?

      And you can't remember much about the contract, except that there's a part in there that was "awful, just awful," and you paraphrase it from memory, rather than, you know, citing relevant portions of the contract which is posted online for all to read?

      You fail at trolling. Your story doesn't even pass the most rudimentary smell test. You're full of shit, you don't own an iphone, and this "story" never happened.

    41. Re:First Impression by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      How do you function in life spending your time reading every last bit of every last detail of every last "contract" you enter into?

      Anyone who does not read contracts before agreeing to them is a fool.

      Do you pore over the signs on the door of a super market before you go in?

      No contract there.

      Do you read all the licence and copyright agreements before you update your OS?

      I use Free Software. No contracts.

      Do you go outside before you memorize every aspect of your city's civic code?

      No contract there.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    42. Re:First Impression by toxonix · · Score: 1

      yeah I thought there must be some mistake. Games on a Mac? Forsooth!

    43. Re:First Impression by Score+Whore · · Score: 2

      The cactus may not be a deal-breaker, what kind of cactus?

    44. Re:First Impression by yomammamia · · Score: 1

      Actually, you can often ignore lines like that. Contract law protects you from unfair, extortionate and unreasonable contracts. If they cancelled your contract under that clause without any proof of phone alteration that line would not necessarily prevent you from taking them to court on the matter, however you would first have to legally battle them on the fairness of their consumer contract.

      The real problem of fairness that arises with this line is whether or not the contract fee for some term is actually paying for the phone or not. In some cases it would be fair, but not obviously so and in other cases it would be unfair.

    45. Re:First Impression by OldeTimeGeek · · Score: 1

      Not to be argumentative, but I would say that the software that you use probably does have a contract. If it's licensed under the GPL, the GPL is a contract - it may not say "EULA" on it, but it assigns specific roles and responsibilities to all parties and places restrictions on certain use cases. You may not feel that it applies to you, but it's there nevertheless...

    46. Re:First Impression by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      I've bought two iPhones over the years, one at an Apple Store (iPhone 3G), one at an AT&T store (iPhone 4), both included the giant mass of a contract with the phone.

    47. Re:First Impression by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 1

      When I got my iPhone, I asked to read the contract. The store workers had never had anyone ask, so they didn't know where it was. Took them a long time to find a copy.

      A scene I've seen played out a few times for a few different companies. No one expects me to ask to see the contract I'm agreeing to. And no one lets me keep the thing either.

    48. Re:First Impression by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I am not a lawyer, but how enforceable is a contract that you never actually read? How can you agree to something without seeing it?

    49. Re:First Impression by CheerfulMacFanboy · · Score: 1

      >>>I love how the Anti-Apple folks on Slashdot are so quick to jump on the bandwagon

      Maybe they just haven't learned to shut-up. I have. I got tired of being modded "troll" whenever I made a "Apple acts no better than microsoft" or similar comment.

      "Apple is evil and I will get modded down for this" == "+5 Insightful"

      --
      Fandroids hate facts.
    50. Re:First Impression by CheerfulMacFanboy · · Score: 1

      Anyone remember Prodigy? For some time they had a clause buried in their EULA that said they owned your computer and everything on it. The point isn't "OMG! Apple is doing something evil while everyone else is playing nice!", rather it's more of a "OMG! Look at how Apple tries to pretend it's so perfect and customer centered and yet AT&T are trying to screw you with a cactus!".

      Fixed that for you.

      --
      Fandroids hate facts.
    51. Re:First Impression by gshegosh · · Score: 1

      He's said himself that _suspicion_ of modifying his phone woule be enough. Of course a handful of people refusing to buy the phone won't stop them but it doesn't stop me thinking it's completely wrong to not accept such stuff from Apple, Sony, etc. but still buy their hardware.

    52. Re:First Impression by gshegosh · · Score: 1

      Hey, "face" is a copyrighted word, stop using it!

    53. Re:First Impression by BlackBloq · · Score: 1

      Way to jump the thoughtless anti Apple bandwagon. You talk about being a blind follower but; you are the same as guys who hate all cops or think one race steals more then others. You are, simply stated, unoriginal and a follower, needing someone to talk down about. There is well over 200 million windows 7 users. Lets say 50% computer literate (generous). That leaves about 100 million morons! Way more then mac. Maybe your poor, and can't afford a Mac or maybe you have no life and like to play around all day with your system. Either way I think you are pathetic. More pathetic than some mom who wants an I-phone but doesn't know why. Grow up.

    54. Re:First Impression by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      That's not a very good argument against police patrolling dark alleys, though....

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  2. Spartacus! by Random+Data · · Score: 4, Funny

    As far as Apple is aware, I'm Steve Jobs.

    1. Re:Spartacus! by martin-boundary · · Score: 2, Funny

      Don't worry, the Apple billing system knows you're not the real Steve Jobs, he's already registered under the name God...

    2. Re:Spartacus! by Adambomb · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, the Apple billing system knows you're not the real Steve Jobs, he's already registered under the name God...

      God wouldn't be up this late...

      --
      Ice Cream has no bones.
  3. it's apple by bakamorgan · · Score: 1

    either this will go like blizzard or everyone will be all happy cuz apple did it then everyone will follow suit... my hope is towards the same as blizzard

    1. Re:it's apple by Opportunist · · Score: 1, Interesting

      My hope is, people will follow through it like the sheeple they are, then it backfires BADLY at them, with stalkers and stolen IDs that make the evening news.

      That's my hope.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:it's apple by dzfoo · · Score: 1

      Blizzard tried to introduce this feature to an already existing community of anonymous people. Apple introduced the Game Center and Ping services as a way to interact with your family and friends. It was never intended to be a free-for-all, anonymous community and lots of people accept this.

              -dZ.

      --
      Carol vs. Ghost
      ...Can you save Christmas?
    3. Re:it's apple by delinear · · Score: 3, Informative

      Blizzard tried to introduce this feature to an already existing community of anonymous people. Apple introduced the Game Center and Ping services as a way to interact with your family and friends. It was never intended to be a free-for-all, anonymous community and lots of people accept this.

      Never intended? Maybe some should tell Apple that, they seem to think otherwise:

      Game Center lets friends — and soon-to-be-friends — in on the action. Invite someone to join, then get a game going. Or go up against people you don’t know, from anywhere in the world, in a multiplayer game.

      Emphasis mine, wording very much Apple's.

    4. Re:it's apple by DJRumpy · · Score: 1

      Not quite. Blizzard tried to force people to use their real name on the blizzard Forums as well as on Battle Net, so that any stranger could see your real name. As far as I know, the only people who see your real name in this case are those you specifically send an invitation to (meaning someone you know).

      Blizzard tried to introduce this feature to an already existing community of anonymous people. Apple introduced the Game Center and Ping services as a way to interact with your family and friends. It was never intended to be a free-for-all, anonymous community and lots of people accept this.

    5. Re:it's apple by truthsearch · · Score: 1

      I don't know anyone who "invites a friend" on the GameCenter who doesn't know them in person. Unless you're friending people you randomly find in forums this isn't an issue.

      If you're not an Apple customer why would you care what people's reaction is? Or are you just a hater?

    6. Re:it's apple by dzfoo · · Score: 1

      I think your comment agrees with my point, though you said it more directly: the Blizzard Forum was public and people expected to be anonymous, while the Apple service is intended for private interactions between already acquainted people.

              -dZ.

      --
      Carol vs. Ghost
      ...Can you save Christmas?
    7. Re:it's apple by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1

      If you're not an Apple customer why would you care what people's reaction is? Or are you just a hater?

      I'll answer that one for you. Trends. I despise Facebook. Yet we have people being conditioned to accept invasion of privacy and exhibition (I don't mind exhibitionists as long as I'm not expected to become one) as normal behavior at least partly (if not largely) because of it. Then you have companies like Blizzard / Activision deciding they need to follow suit. Whether that's because because "social networking" is a Big Thing or simply to convert their user base in to the same kind of market data machine is up for debate. But the outcome is still the same following the same trend.

  4. Re:Blizzard RealID does the same by Montezumaa · · Score: 2, Informative

    You can add people without sharing your real name in either the World of Warcraft, or through the Battle.net service for Starcraft 2(SC2) and other games. You can choose you share your real name with others, when adding them as a friend, or you can choose not to.

  5. If it's a friend... by 91degrees · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Chances are they know your real name.

    Blizzard users objected to needing to use their names on the forums.

    1. Re:If it's a friend... by MarkGriz · · Score: 1

      No kidding. I don't quite see how this is earth shattering news.

      ZOMG! Now my friends will know my REAL name

      --
      Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
    2. Re:If it's a friend... by seebs · · Score: 1

      "Chances are" is a shitty way to design policy.

      If you want to marry someone, "chances are" that person is of the opposite sex.
      If you want to marry someone, "chances are" that person has about the same skin color you do.
      If you have a job, "chances are" that you are physically present in an office with your coworkers every working day.

      In the real world, people like to have "friends" in online games who may not be people they know in real life, or whose real names they know.

      --
      My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
  6. not quite like Blizzard by Achoi77 · · Score: 3, Informative

    I figured Apple's intention is to thwart spammers; if you were able to recognize the real name of your buddy you were more likely accept the invitation rather than someone with a username like "THISISNOTVIAGRASPAM." Playing the whole social angle.

    What Blizzard was intending was different. They wanted to put paper trail on all users on a publicly viewable form, in the interest of minimizing trolls and thus improving the quality of posts on their forums - to 'shame' the trolls from posting mindless drivel. Yeah, that didn't work out too well.

    1. Re:not quite like Blizzard by Haedrian · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Since the game center works on their iProducts only, any spammer who is going to buy a ton of those in order to spam other players deserves a medal for stupidity.

      I'm pretty sure you can easily lock the phone of a spammer (or at least stop him making accounts) without needing to spread names around.

    2. Re:not quite like Blizzard by Barny · · Score: 1

      But all my friends know me as CHEAPMEDS$$$NOPRESCRIPTIONNEEDED, if it uses my real name half of them won't recognise it.

      --
      ...
      /me sighs
    3. Re:not quite like Blizzard by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      You might be kidding, but it is actually true for me. I have a few fairly good friends whose real names will at best make me go "who?" because I never even heard their real name, let alone connect it with the person. Likewise, they have no idea what my real name would be. And there is effectively no reason for it.

      A name is an identification string, preferably only usable within context. Just as global variables are bad because they can interfere with local requirements, so are globally known names bad because they might give away information that certain functional units are not supposed to have. Plus they make it very much impossible to encapsulate anything sensibly.

      Likewise, I use different names and IDs for different circles of people I deal with. Partly for good reason, partly because I don't see why person A needs to know that I deal with person B in other circumstances, even if these two people do not even know about each other's existence. It does not provide me with a benefit and there is a nonzero chance that it might be a drawback. Should it turn out to be beneficial I can still opt to connect two different IDs and inform the respective circle of people about them belonging to the same person.

      Where is my benefit for using a real ID?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:not quite like Blizzard by ukyoCE · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure if it's spammers exactly, but Apple probably wanted people to see something to indicate who was adding them besides an email address.

      WOW is an MMO where you spend a lot of time with people you only know from the internet. Real names don't even mean anything there between most friends. "Tom? Who the crap is that? Oh, you mean elwinlybronzebottom?"

      Gamescenter, from what I can tell, is for you to play Scrabble with people you're already friends with. Does it even support playing with random players on the internet? Maybe some games do, but without voice or fast-typing chat, you're probably not going to be making many friends on the service.

      They could avoid the whole issue by only showing your real name when you add someone by e-mail address, which you tend to give out to people you know IRL, and not using real names when friending by Apple/Gamecenter ID. If you're adding someone from a menu within a game, for instance, odds are you don't know the person. (If such alternate friends-adding options even exist, which they probably don't)

    5. Re:not quite like Blizzard by truthsearch · · Score: 1

      "Fairly good friends" whose real names you don't know? I don't think that phrase means what you think it means.

    6. Re:not quite like Blizzard by StuartHankins · · Score: 1

      +1 Insightful.

    7. Re:not quite like Blizzard by seebs · · Score: 1

      You cannot seriously expect me to believe that they thought it would "minimize trolls".

      They've been lying about this stuff from Day 1. And yes, I mean "lying" -- they have said things which they can't possibly have believed to be true, because they've said things which were mutually exclusive.

      Note that they did, in fact, go live with new forums on which your real name is displayed, in theory only to you -- but it's sent in unencrypted http, so...

      --
      My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
    8. Re:not quite like Blizzard by Barny · · Score: 1

      No, not +1 insightful, -1 overrated.

      As a long time MMOG player (DAoC in the past and primarily) I can name the online aliases of about 50 people I consider good friends and about 20 I consider close friends who at best I have a first name for.

      As well as the alias I use here (which was a nickname from college, that eventually everyone just 'knew me by') I am known by at least two other online alias' by a fair number of folks, some even know me by more than one of them. Its not paranoia, its just as I get older and do different things, people will know me by different names, Barny, Damage.Inc, Norwegian Jarlsburg, just labels in a world where at its core people end up as just a number... 103770

      --
      ...
      /me sighs
    9. Re:not quite like Blizzard by Reaperducer · · Score: 1

      MMORPG Player != Friend. If you think so, the people you actualy know in real life must be terribly insulted.

      --
      -- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."
  7. Re:Kiinda like Liberals cheering for Wikileaks by powerspike · · Score: 1

    to hide nothing....
    but this is games we are talking about, if you beat some kiddie in his mothers basement, he's going to take exception to you...

  8. This is serious by Chrisq · · Score: 2, Funny

    This is serious. I mean everyone knows that using the Apple game centre is tantamount to an admission of being gay.

    1. Re:This is serious by yomammamia · · Score: 1

      Actually, that doesn't count if the user is a female or a child.

  9. Not a problem by duk242 · · Score: 1

    When Blizzard did it, a bunch of people complained, but then you realise that you're adding friends of your own, it's not like it's broadcasting your email and name across the internet to everyone. Who over the age of 15 these days cares if their supposed "friends" knows their real name?

    1. Re:Not a problem by xclr8r · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't share my last name with people I game with. Actually I don't even share my 1st name with them, they just call me by my avatar's name. Having my real name + an e-mail address for a guild forum where some one can log my ip address is just asking for trouble.

      --
      Beware of those who profit off the docile and persecute the unbelievers.
    2. Re:Not a problem by MareLooke · · Score: 1

      There is no reason to give your RealID (as the thing is called) to anyone in your guild. It's only useful for cross-game (as long as you stay with Blizzard games anyway, yay for another closed platform) and cross-realm messaging and if I care enough to bother contacting them when they/I move to another realm they probably know my name anyway. For guildies (why even add those to your friends list anyway, something wrong with the guild listing?) or realm specific buddies you can just use the good old nickname based functionality.

      Your name's also not displayed anywhere on sites or anything except possibly for people you added, if you use your real name for a guild website that's your choice, not something Blizzard forces onto you.

  10. Whooptie-crap. by magnusrex1280 · · Score: 1

    Anyone I'm sending game invites to already knows my real name. I only care about gaming with people I already know in the real world.

  11. Apple doesn't "get" Social Media by Renderer+of+Evil · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Apple is great at many things. They're just excellent in their core competencies. No debate about it.

    But they absolutely suck at social media on a grand scale. Hard to believe how tone-deaf they are when it comes to stuff like Ping and Gamecenter. Does it come from the leadership? Maybe. The company is run by old guys in their 40's and up. Maybe they just don't get it.

    Perhaps they can hire back Guy Kawasaki to spearhead their social media wing. He saved Apple's bacon once. Perhaps he'll do it again if they asked him nicely.

    1. Re:Apple doesn't "get" Social Media by dzfoo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think you do not understand Apple's approach to "social media". There is a large part of the population who is not interested in the accretion of unknown and anonymous "friends", and thus shy away from vastly over-abused services like Facebook. Apple is attempting to fill that gap by offering a "social media" experience that is truly social, and revolves around people's real friends and family.

      Their intention was never to compete with Facebook or the like, but to offer their users a way to participate in music sharing and games with their friends without having to go out into the wilderness.

                -dZ.

      --
      Carol vs. Ghost
      ...Can you save Christmas?
    2. Re:Apple doesn't "get" Social Media by capmilk · · Score: 1

      You do realise Guy Kawaski also isn't as young as he used to be? Though he probably aged a lot slower than the management guys...

    3. Re:Apple doesn't "get" Social Media by boarder8925 · · Score: 1

      The company is run by old guys in their 40's and up. Maybe they just don't get it.

      On the contrary, I think they see millions of young people who are willing to hand over much more than their real names to Facebook and so are trying to extend that concept to their own products.

    4. Re:Apple doesn't "get" Social Media by stewbacca · · Score: 2

      Hey, hey...easy with the "40 and up" zingers! I'll be 41 in a couple of weeks and you are right. I really don't get it (social media). I do have a facebook account that I use to post random musing and pics of my children, but other than that, we "old" guys are mostly too busy with real life.

    5. Re:Apple doesn't "get" Social Media by dzfoo · · Score: 1

      Right, because having a small market share is killing Apple, while Microsoft's margins keep on growing along with their desktop OS market share.

            -dZ.

      --
      Carol vs. Ghost
      ...Can you save Christmas?
    6. Re:Apple doesn't "get" Social Media by dzfoo · · Score: 1

      Some people enjoy interacting in a personal way with people they already know. Game Center is geared towards the users not the game developers. It seems to work well so far.

            -dZ.

      --
      Carol vs. Ghost
      ...Can you save Christmas?
  12. Not blood ... livers! by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm surprised they didn't require blood.

    Apple needs livers! Soylent iPhones are made of human livers!

    I finally bought my girlfriend an iPhone 4, because I could buy it officially unlocked. It did annoy me that I had to install iTunes to get it activated, though.

    On the positive side it is a very impressive chunk of technology, and it is fun to play with. Both of us are left handed, and we have not experienced any problems with dropped calls, which are apparently more common with left handers.

    Although I am not an Apple fanboy, I can understand how the Apple Inquisition's three main weapons, are: fear, surprise and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Jobs . . . their *four*...no... *Amongst* their weapons . . .

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    1. Re:Not blood ... livers! by stealth_finger · · Score: 2, Funny

      Although I am not an Apple fanboy, I can understand how the Apple Inquisition's three main weapons, are: fear, surprise and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Jobs . . . their *four*...no... *Amongst* their weapons . . .

      Nobody expects the Apple Inquisition!

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    2. Re:Not blood ... livers! by careysub · · Score: 1

      ...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Jobs . . .

      You got to give it the Jobs. Back in the 80s everyone was second-guessing him. How much of Apple's success was due to Jobs alone? Was really a good leader? A good manager? Did he just get lucky? Jobs brought in another guy as CEO himself, and then of course the board kicked him out.

      Then they brought him back. A nifty natural experiment.

      The contrast between Apple's performance during both"Jobs" eras and the "No Jobs" era is astonishing.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
  13. Re:Good idea by Haedrian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The thing is that-

    1. If your friend already knows your first and last name, you probably know him enough to be able to talk to him about it on another communication channel ("Hey, I'm adding you to my apple game list")
    2. If you don't know your friend personally, because you met him in another game, or another community - then you probably don't want him knowing details like that. I play a lot with the same community. In this case they will know me enough to recognise my nickname, but giving them my name and surname will not help them identify me any more than I would want them to.

  14. Re:Kiinda like Liberals cheering for Wikileaks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Kiinda like Liberals cheering for Wikileaks

    Ahh, bringing politics into this discussion, and implying governments and corporations should have the same right to privacy as real people (not that legal definition BS with corporate personhood). Fuck you.

  15. The difference between Apple and Blizzard by Sharp-kun · · Score: 2, Informative

    The difference between this and Blizzard's RealID is that RealID is a service on tp of the normal friends system in WoW - you can friend someone without giving your name, you just don't get as much info (see what char/server they're on at any time etc). Blizzard marketed it as something to use with people you actually know, not that Death Knight you thought was hot that one evening in Gundrak". That to me made it a lot less objectionable since there was no obligation to use it with all my friends. Apple on the other hand seem to be going with this by default.

    1. Re:The difference between Apple and Blizzard by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      No, the difference between Blizzard and Apple is that my kids' WoW account gets hacked at least once a month. Apple stuff is important enough to hack into (my mobile me account is super boring, and I have no idea what Ping is supposed to be..maybe you can buy songs with my credit card if you hack me?).

    2. Re:The difference between Apple and Blizzard by seebs · · Score: 1

      That's a very marginal defense of Real ID, since the pirmary purpose of a "friends" system would be to let you keep in touch across multiple alts.

      --
      My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
    3. Re:The difference between Apple and Blizzard by Binestar · · Score: 1

      You're probably joking about his account being hacked monthly, but you can get a Blizzard Authenticator for a very cheap price. You have an added advantage in that if you ground him from the game you can take the authenticator and he can't login behind your back. Also, if he's getting hacked that much, teach him how to work with phishing emails and to keep his Adobe Reader, Flash and Java up to date.

      --
      Do you Gentoo!?
    4. Re:The difference between Apple and Blizzard by neminem · · Score: 1

      You can get a mobile authenticator for free. If you don't have an iPhone or any devices running Android, there's at least a couple unofficial PC ports of the mobile authenticator, too (obviously not as secure, if you run it on the same computer you're playing WoW on, but still way more secure than not having one at all.)

      I say this as someone who thought having an authenticator sounded like way too much work, and who was going to hack my WoW account anyway? My WoW account got hacked (most likely password-guessed; I didn't put that secure a password on it either, cause it was "just a game"), and after having to deal with Blizzard's insanely busy support line... I put a more secure password on it and added an authenticator. (I have an Android-running mp3 player.)

  16. Re:Kiinda like Liberals cheering for Wikileaks by iainl · · Score: 1

    Sure, you've probably got perfectly good reasons to hide your real name from the Internet At Large, e.g. ID theft.

    But, as I'm a computer-savvy 'retard', could you explain a bit more why I should be hiding my real name from those I send a friend request to? After all, they're my friends, and already know it.

    --
    "I Know You Are But What Am I?"
  17. Bullshit, sorry by Moraelin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Actually, BS. While the trolls were the first excuse Blizzard thought of, they also gave interviews in which they explicitly stated that they want to get more users out of it. They were hoping you'd basically advertise their cash cow for them, either directly or via the human tendency for mindless conformism. Think, "ooh, Jack and Jill from work and 10 of their facebook 'friends' are playing WoW, let's join them."

    Heck, they even tried to spin it as a positive thing that they want your "friends of friends" (read, and anyone from the list of 2000 names someone can't even remember without the list, of someone you added just because there was no other global friend option) to keep messaging you they want you to return and tank for their preciousss epics. That's their #1 way to retain players long past the point where they've seen all quests and got bored with the repetitive raid grind. There must be a million people just in Blizzard's player base who are there just because of some delusion that if they quit a game they got bored with, or even if they skip one raid, they'll be somehow failing their guild and their "friends" who need them. Blizard just wanted to take that to the next level: let those people know who you are, where you are and what are they doing, and basically just help create more peer pressure to keep paying.

    Heck, for their own BattleNet the above _still_ is listed as an advantage. That you can see if someone is playing Diablo or StarCraft instead of coming help get your epics, and you can message them to come back.

    Basically I doubt that trolls were even a factor there, except as a more palatable excuse.

    And in that aspect, I don't think Apple's move is any different. They too hope to use people's names to get more business, and probably give just as little about your privacy if it helps make a quick buck.

    And frankly, how is it different from spam anyway? Anyone who knows me well enough to be called a friend, already knows how to contact me and ask me if I want to join in anything. Like, you know, send an email first, or give a call, or even an SMS, or whatever. If an invitation comes out of the blue actually needs something -- name or otherwise -- to convince me it's not random spam, then it _is_ spam. The only difference is that instead of being a batch run, it gives idiots a button to spam all their contacts for Apple's benefit.

    And really, how's plastering someone's name on it going to help anyway? If I see my buddy's John Doe' name on an unsolicited email trying to sell me Viagra or wanting me to open a "taxes.xls.exe" file, I will think "Joe Job", not "ooh, it must be genuine". Why would I think if it's an other kind unsolicited ad, and John never bothered telling me about it before, it's any better? And yes, there will be smacktards who fall for it anyway, but then you could give most of those an email from "login.scam@i-pwn-u.ru" and they'd follow it anyway.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    1. Re:Bullshit, sorry by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Think, "ooh, Jack and Jill from work and 10 of their facebook 'friends' are playing WoW, let's join them."

      And the problem with that is what, exactly? Isn't that kind of the entire point of social media?

    2. Re:Bullshit, sorry by Moraelin · · Score: 1

      Except nobody said that _that_ is the problem.

      --
      A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    3. Re:Bullshit, sorry by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      You just wrote 7 paragraphs ripping Blizzard's "cash cow" and the "smacktards'" "mindless conformity" and how Blizzard is putting a "positive spin" or creating "peer pressure to keep paying" and how Apple is the same, using "people's names to get more business" and not caring about "your privacy if it helps makes a quick buck."

      Sounds like you think that's the problem to me. What else could the problem be, given you've posted no alternative?

  18. Nope, not really by Moraelin · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Blizzard too wanted to do just that. They backed down on RealID only because of the massive negative reaction -- and the cynics would say probably temporarily, until they manage to find some better excuse.

    The original idea for RealID was precisely that it will be on for everyone. Including, yes, that Death Knight who you think has teh hots for you because she boosted you once in the Deadmines, and that healer who must be all over your junk 'cause she was healing you more, and that hunter who probably wants your child because she agreed with you twice on the boards, and whatnot. And everyone who ever posted on the boards, including to ask for some tech support. Why do you think there was that much outrage and some women were scared shitless of stalkers and rapists when that idea came out?

    So let's not pretend that Blizzard was so much smarter or better people. Blizzard wanted to rape your privacy twice as hard as Apple for a quick buck, they just had to back down when their idea turned out as popular as free kicks in the crotch for everyone.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    1. Re:Nope, not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      yes that's right, perpetuate those negative male stereotypes like a good feminist.

  19. No problem by Rik+Sweeney · · Score: 3, Funny

    My apple ID is some random rubbish and I can just make up something stupid for my real name! Now no-one will know who I really am!

    1. Re:No problem by Rik+Sweeney · · Score: 4, Funny

      Shit, I forgot to check "Post Anonymously" :(

    2. Re:No problem by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      ...until Apple finds it fishy that your credit card belongs to someone different than the name in your "official" name and locks your account until you prove that you are the person whose name you used.

      Good luck, sir.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:No problem by delinear · · Score: 1

      He probably only has to prove that he's the person named on the credit card. I'm sure they don't really care if one person wants to pay on behalf of another person, so long as they get the agreement of the person with the money. Aside from verifying the payer is who he says, I'm not sure they'd be too bothered about proving who the beneficiary is, unless there is some condition of the service that says these must be the same person (I know I've paid for things on behalf of family and friends using my CC before and in every case my identity was the only one the vendor cared about verifying).

    4. Re:No problem by MarkGriz · · Score: 1

      Twice!

      --
      Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
    5. Re:No problem by Reaperducer · · Score: 1

      Unlikely. People pay for other people's things all the time. A husband's iTunes account may be billed to his wife's credit card. A child's account may be paid for by a parent. A company may pay for its employees. The list goes on and on an on.

      All Apple cares about is that the billing address and CVV are valid.

      You can take your hatred for Apple and stuff it in your tinfoil hat.

      --
      -- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."
  20. Re:Kiinda like Liberals cheering for Wikileaks by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Care to show how opening government secrets (read: Secrets my employee has from me as his employer) is somehow similar to relaying private secrets of a person to the public?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  21. Same as Blizzard? I don't think so... by cbope · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I believe the Blizzard reaction was justified because RealID was going to be used in their forums. You know... where everyone in the world with a Blizzard forum account will be able to see it. Dumb idea.

    This on the other hand, is very different. I didn't RTFA, but from the information in the news post, only friends to whom you send invitations will be sent your real name.

    Entertain me here, but I would guess that if you are sending an invitation to someone specifically, you already know them and they probably know your real name anyway. If you are the sort of person who sends invites to people you don't know, then you deserve what you get if unknown_person_a gets your real name along with the invitation and does something bad with it. That's just being Darwin stupid.

    At least on the surface, this is FAR different than Blizzard's RealID fiasco.

    1. Re:Same as Blizzard? I don't think so... by N0Man74 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Entertain me here, but I would guess that if you are sending an invitation to someone specifically, you already know them and they probably know your real name anyway. If you are the sort of person who sends invites to people you don't know, then you deserve what you get if unknown_person_a gets your real name along with the invitation and does something bad with it. That's just being Darwin stupid.

      There are many people that I only know by online persona or in games, that sometimes I have moved on to playing other games with. Just because I game with someone online doesn't mean they know my real name, or that I want them to. This is true whether or not I use forums.

    2. Re:Same as Blizzard? I don't think so... by Beerdood · · Score: 1

      Entertain me here, but I would guess that if you are sending an invitation to someone specifically, you already know them and they probably know your real name anyway.

      For games? Well no... I barely know anyone's real name for online gaming friends. I'll use steam as an example, i probably have at least 100 "friends" on my account there. If I play a random public game and enjoy the conversation, or teamwork, or experience with the people that I play with I can't see why I shouldn't be able to add them as a "friend" and hope to play with them again some time. I don't see why I should need to know them in real life. I don't need to know their names and I don't want them knowing mine. This just makes for better gaming.

      There's only 6 actual friends on my battle.net account though. I don't want any random people there knowing my actual name, but I'm required to register with it. This makes for crappy gaming, and almost defeats the purpose of having online friends here.

      --
      Global warming and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking number of pirates - Gospel of the FSM
  22. What's the problem? It's actually useful! by Lord+Satri · · Score: 1

    I invite friends, and my friends know my name. I don't see the problem at all.

    Actually, when I tried Game Center some time ago, the fact that I did not know who was "Weird Username Here" who accepted my invitation was kind of awkward. As much as usernames are cool, I also want to know which username is associated to which friend.

    This change sounds like a improvement to me.

    1. Re:What's the problem? It's actually useful! by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      Your inability to alias your friends usernames in your head does not justify others losing their privacy in-game. most im systems let you rename your userlists locally, which negates the need to demand that users spill everything online just to play a damned game.

  23. Would *you* keep paying them? by RulerOf · · Score: 1

    And even then cancellation would mean then end of payment, regardless of what the contract says

    If my service was canceled and my hardware was taken away from me, I sure as hell wouldn't keep paying the bill.

    Gotta make sure it's less than $2000 though. A judge would throw that shit right out. But if Jammie Thomas is any indication, a jury would be stupid enough to hand back a verdict saying you actually owe them the money.

    --
    Boot Windows, Linux, and ESX over the network for free.
  24. Not everything in a contract is binding. by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

    You do not that everything in a contract is not legally binding, even if you sign it right? This is why there is a clause to the effect that if any part of the contract is found to be invalid, the remaining parts are still binding. A lot gets put in there just so they can convince you that you don't have a leg to stand on, in hopes that the client doesn't know any better, as is quite often the case. I rather doubt that a court would order you to keep paying on the contract, or give up the phone for that matter.

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  25. Re:Kiinda like Liberals cheering for Wikileaks by zippthorne · · Score: 1

    Didn't wikileaks wiki leak the climategate emails..?

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  26. Re:Kiinda like Liberals cheering for Wikileaks by delinear · · Score: 2, Informative

    The way this works in reality, people send friend requests to complete strangers all the time. Say you've trawled through hundreds of idiots in various online games and you finally meet someone who matches your play style and seems like they'd be fun to play with again. You can either send them a friend request while not really knowing the first thing about them, or you can hope that, over the course of hundreds more games, you will meet them multiple times until you eventually consider them a real friend. Most people go with the former, you wouldn't necessarily want to send that person your name.

  27. Re:Kiinda like Liberals cheering for Wikileaks by konohitowa · · Score: 1

    Didn't wikileaks wiki leak the climategate emails..?

    Obviously you haven't accepted what's written in the handbook. Back to stage one of reintegration for you!

  28. Tipical anti-Mac stuff by MrJones · · Score: 1

    This is getting silly, anti-mac is over the place. Why is this anti-mac? Because is not the same as Blizzard forum.

    Apple is sharing your name to your friend that you choosen to be your friend. Blizzard was sharing your Name with
    all the thousand forum members.

    I don't come for this to /., I will go for this to gizmodo, saaaad

    --
    Get my e-mail after a captcha test in: http://tinymailt
  29. Re:Kiinda like Liberals cheering for Wikileaks by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

    Ahh, bringing politics into this discussion, and implying governments and corporations should have the same right to privacy as real people (not that legal definition BS with corporate personhood).

    Using the same system of logic by which you derived this "fact", I can similarly derive the "fact" that you want to destroy all government and authority, and live in complete anarchy, where you can live greedily and without responsibility.

    Ahh, partisan politics; there's no substitute for intelligent and rational thought that's more socially accepted.

    --
    You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
  30. Nobody said they're about all males by Moraelin · · Score: 1

    yes that's right, perpetuate those negative male stereotypes like a good feminist.

    Except for the fact that nobody said it's a stereotypes about all males. Just that such people do exist.

    Frankly, out of the population at large, about 10% are retarded. (So, if you thought there must be a million retards running around on WoW, you were probably actually right.) About 1 in 30 are sociopaths. About 1.5% are schizophrenic. Etc.

    You don't even need to do more than stand in Stormwind or Orgrimar or Dalaran to come in contact with several of each of the above. And it's those that most people would rather avoid.

    The sample around you on any given server will include everyone from nice-guy to deranged stalker, and from level headed guy to the one who foams at the mouth and spews death threats if you as much as rolled need on the dagger he wanted. And you don't know which is which. Yeah, you're probably going to tell me _you_ aren't the kind anyone should be affraid of, but then so would the guy who sends death threats to the girl who doesn't want to meet him IRL. And you don't know who is who. And most importantly Blizzard didn't propose to vet everyone who'd see those real names first: it's not just you who'd see them, it's also every psychotic and stalker and whatever out there.

    But otherwise, yeah, thanks for being the kind of cretin who takes any possible criticism of any particular male or male subset as, verily, a personal attack on males everywhere, and the work of those evil feminists.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
  31. re: the actual iPhone service contract by King_TJ · · Score: 1

    That's interesting (because admittedly, I didn't read the contract back when I activated my iPhone). But would clauses like the one you mention keep me from signing up for service with the phone? Honestly, no... probably not. Why? Because any time a company puts unreasonable demands/statements in a contract, they're subject to legal challenge and typically, never really acted upon anyway.

    For example, a long time ago, I purchased a copy of the DeLorme "Street Atlas USA" software bundled with one of their "Tripmate" battery powered GPS units that plugged into a computer's serial port. One day, I was bored and took the manual out of the CD jewel case and read the whole EULA. I was amazed to find a portion of it where DeLorme claimed that by purchasing the package, you agreed to ONLY use the GPS device with the INCLUDED SOFTWARE. How enforceable would THAT ever be??

    You can put all sorts of insane things in a contract, but that doesn't make them legally binding. Typically, the attorneys hired to write up these documents go overboard, thinking (at least from THEIR point of view), it's always better to cover EVERYTHING conceivable, and let people fight it out in court later if they don't like it. (Lawyers get paid a second time if they get hired to write this stuff up initially, and then hired to defend it in a court battle later on!)

  32. Except for the changing meaning of "friend" by Moraelin · · Score: 1

    Well, yes, if you use the offline meaning of friend, circa 1990 or earlier. In the meantime, "social networks" and online games devalued it to meaning basically "one of the 2000 people on a list of names of people not only I don't know personally, but I wouldn't even remember their name without that list" (check out the Dunbar number for humans: it's not 2000) or just "random stranger I met in some online game, who was healing well and I might look up in the next raid if our secondary healer is late again."

    Either way, to be on someone's friend list on some online service, and doubly so in a game or game network, it doesn't mean the same thing as the kind of friend you've been knowing for years and going bowling with. It often just means some guy who's just one step above perfect stranger, but short of what you'd even call "acquaintance" IRL and very very much short of what would pass for a "RL" friend. You've played together once or twice, have seen his character, maybe know that he had awesome damage per second or maybe can't remember even that about him. But other than that, for a lot of them you don't really know much. He could be the nicest guy, or he could be a psychotic dude who has voices in his head telling to do weird things.

    So basically let's not do the equivocation fallacy. Just because some things would be expected for the old RL meaning of "friend", doesn't mean they're equally expected or even sane for the watered down online meaning of "friend".

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
  33. Um, mischaracterization of the Bliz thing here... by DdJ · · Score: 1

    Actually, Blizzard's "similar" idea that got the bad reaction was to use real names on forums, not on in-game friend-lists and invites. Blizzards system does show me real-life names on friend-lists and invites to friend-lists, and my friends and I are as a rule not upset about it. They're only copying what Blizzard has succesfully implemented here.

  34. Real names for friend request only. by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1

    How the hell is anyone supposed to know that their friend "Fred Johnson" is UberGamer34? If you are sending out a friend invite, that person should already know your name right? In real life, I assume that you give your friends your real name.

    As for people that you say are your friends "online". Listen, if you cannot trust them with your real name then they are not really your friends. Stop calling strangers that you talk with online "friends".

    --
    Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
  35. Re:Good idea by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1

    The thing is that-

    1. If your friend already knows your first and last name, you probably know him enough to be able to talk to him about it on another communication channel ("Hey, I'm adding you to my apple game list")
    2. If you don't know your friend personally, because you met him in another game, or another community - then you probably don't want him knowing details like that. I play a lot with the same community. In this case they will know me enough to recognise my nickname, but giving them my name and surname will not help them identify me any more than I would want them to.

    Uh. Someone think of the children. It is important to for some parents to know who their child is communicating with and playing with. This makes it a lot harder for some pervs to "friend" children on game center.

    If you don't know them personally, then they are not your friend. If you don't have any actual friends, then maybe you should get out more in the real world and make some.

    --
    Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
  36. Re:Kiinda like Liberals cheering for Wikileaks by zioncat · · Score: 1

    Didn't wikileaks wiki leak the climategate emails..?

    Climategate files were uploaded to Russian FTP server and link to it was provided in a comment on this blog post at Air Vent(comment #10).

    Wikileaks had nothing to do with leak in Climategate.

  37. Re:Um, mischaracterization of the Bliz thing here. by seebs · · Score: 1

    The people who are upset about it left. I'm one of them. One of my best friends, with whom I used to play WoW, is a guy whose legal name is "Jessica". We do not want to use real names, but we wanted to be able to be friends across alts/factions/etc.

    So we went to City of Heroes, which uses a global handle instead of real names, and we're happy.

    --
    My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
  38. Re:Um, mischaracterization of the Bliz thing here. by DdJ · · Score: 1

    The people who are upset about it left.

    I didn't see many people leave. I am not sure why many would, myself -- I only add people to my battle.net friends list if I'm friends with the actual human being in real life. If I'm not, the in-game character-based friends lists are sufficient.

    Maybe Blizzard's (and Apple's) intent is to just get more gamers to think like me and my friends (you don't get on my friend list unless I'd go drinking with you in real life), and less like XBLA gamers (who often invite people to their friends lists simply because they had a good gaming experience with them, which I confess to not understand myself.).

  39. I was pretty excited by soupforare · · Score: 1

    I figure it would be a cool way to keep track of players who weren't douchebags when playing board games on idevices. The problem is, there aren't that many classic board games that actually allow for free/random play online, most tie-in with facebook. On top of that, the list of gamecenter-enabled games is pretty crappy, a whole hell of a lot of press-button-receive-cookie games. :(

    --
    --- Do you believe in the day?