Interestingly, the previous article summary (linked in TFS) mentions the streaming limitation no less than five times. IMO this second/. article would be unnecessary even if it didn't read like an advertisement.
Since Onlive was in the news, I repost this every time streamed games come up because it's the best way I know to explain this kind of DRM:
Imagine if the Ubisoft always-on DRM had been an inherent, unremoveable aspect of the game system rather than just something tacked on to a few individual games after the fact, such that Ubisoft couldn't even begrudgingly neuter it in a patch. Well, streamed games are even worse than that would be.
The game doesn't even run locally. All you get is streaming video/audio and all the lag you'd expect (including controller lag), which is a recipe for disaster in North America.
Let's say you're lucky enough to have a 30mb/s connection. Why would you want to use it to transfer your game's video instead of, uh, a DVI cable, which is capable of 4 Gb/s? The people who developed DVI apparently understood that that 1920 x 1200 pixels w/ 24 bits/pixels @ 60Hz results in bandwidth well over 3 Gb/s. The people who push streamed gaming seem very, very confused (at best).
Some people consider IPS monitors unsuitable for games requiring fast reflexes (i.e. FPSes) due to their double-digit response times. Internet latency is often worse and certainly more unpredictable than LCD monitor response time, and with streamed games it applies to audio and keyboard/controller/etc input too.
Those of us who know anything about bandwidth and compression and (especially) latency can see the enormous technical obstacles facing a service like this, and I've never heard anyone explain how they intend to solve them. Onlive (for example) did everything they could to lock out independent reviewers with NDAs and closed demonstrations. A friend of mine described it as the gaming equivalent of the perpetual motion scam, and IMO that's spot on (except that streaming would still have the draconian DRM issues even if it worked perfectly).
Streamed gaming appears designed from the ground up to benefit the game publishers and fuck the customers, exactly as you'd expect from any DRM system.
Twitter itself buys into (through their vague ToS and uneven/biased enforcement) arguments equating disagreement with harassment, and criticism with threats. And it throws even those stances out the window when the "harassing" party aligns with the right politics. Their Trust and Safety Council contains known harassers and doxxers.
If Twitter consistently took up a principled position to protect free speech (instead of cracking down on political thoughtcrime at the drop of a hat), they'd be in a much better position to resist this.
I wouldn't put it quite that way, but I cant help but note the usual crowd banging on about "cucks" and "SJWs" or whatever the meaningless/pol/ slur of the week is yet again complaining about sexual assault being investigated.
If anything, they're complaining that the police didn't investigate--because they were never called--yet headlines were written as if there'd been a trial with a guilty verdict.
Are you really surprised that the "crowd" complains when they see potentially life-ruining sexual assault allegations handed over to a private company hired by Tor to do a secret investigation, instead of the justice system?
No matter how notoriously lax or reluctant a company is to support old products, you can always count on tracking* or advertisement** "features" to be backported to as many devices as possible, because those benefit the "top" (execs, marketing, law enforcement, etc.) much more than the "bottom" (users).
No. Because GamerGhazi is built on a tissue of lies. And worse, they paid virtually no attention to this particular scandal, adding even more proof that it was mostly about the gaters' misogyny.
Look at you, still clinging desperately to the "mysogyny and harrassment" narrative and trying to ignore what GG accomplished.
Some of this new guidance directly reflects the language and particulars of the concerns GamerGate asked the FTC to address.
"Is "affiliate link" by itself an adequate disclosure? What about a "buy now" button?"
Consumers might not understand that "affiliate link" means that the person placing the link is getting paid for purchases through the link. Similarly, a "buy now" button would not be adequate
Does this guidance about affiliate links apply to links in my product reviews on someone else’s website, to my user comments, and to my tweets?
Yes, the same guidance applies anytime you endorse a product and get paid through affiliate links.
The revised webpage contains a great deal more language that needs to be analyzed but these two examples in particular reflect specific complaints GamerGate had about how Gawker Media handle their affiliate link disclosures. I know of no other group of people who were vocally complaining about this specific practice to the FTC. In addition, the FTC emails from my previous posts confirm that, yes, the FTC tailored part of their new guidance because of frequent complaints sent by GamerGate.
If you read further, there is specific language about requiring Let's-Players to disclose as well. And then there are the many, many sites that have updated their ethics policies. It's shameful that you will lie about an entire group of people because you and the press want to pretend that GG isn't the driving force behind all this ethics reform.
P.S./r/GamerGhazi is an anti-Gamergate cesspool, so of course it is based on lies. But you already knew that.
P.P.S. Yes, Gamergate paid plenty of attention to this scandal. You did know that it was leaked by TotalBiscuit (during a time period when anti-GG was relentlessly shitting on him), right?
And hell, even before this... I sure don't recall a lot of outrage over Jeff Gerstmann being fired from GameSpot for giving Kane and Lynch: Dead Men a bad review. (As in, the review was that the game was bad, not that it was a substandard review.)
OK, try this. Go discuss review embargos and payola and other AAA corruption on a bunch of game news websites' forums or article comments and see how many censor the discussion, much less ban your account.
Now go back to the same sites and try to discuss Nathan Grayson or Patricia Hernandez and see how much censorship and ban hammerage and pure venom you encounter, by contrast.
Also notice that Gerstmann's Kane&Lynch firing was somehow not subject to a week-long, industry-wide news blackout in hopes it would go away. And that the people reporting on it weren't called harassers or mysogynists or terrorists in an attempt to intimidate them and distract from the criticism.
It is the behavior of the press that is the difference. The long-running popularity of Gamergate is the response to the gaming press's long-running cover up of journalistic corruption and smear campaign against gamers. "It's about misogyny and harassment!" is the real tired cliche.
One fine point to remember is that gamers weren't truly angry and forming a widespread movement immediately after the initial journalistic corruption was exposed. There was still some good faith that the news sites involved had the shred of integrity needed to take responsibility and clean up their own houses.
Gamergate only exploded after the cover-up, week-long universal blackout, and finally the launch of the (still ongoing) smear campaign on August 28, 2014 (a.k.a. "Gamers Are Dead" day). None of that appalling gaming press behavior has happened with other corruption stories, so there's nothing for Gamergate to do about them. They have a chance at getting proper coverage anyway.
In the unlikely event that almost every gaming site censors discussion of (for example) AAA review embargos, enacts a news media blackout (a bit late for that), and then begins slandering anyone who even mentions the embargos as misogynists, harassers, and terrorists, then (and only then) maybe another Gamergate-type customer revolt will be needed.
Why only list DMCAs? Because they're a special subset of cases that sometimes makes Github look like the good guy?
How about listing the repos they forced offline themselves for petty ideological reasons?
Instead of using a broad, feel-good word like "transparency," they should just call it the DMCA report since that's the one specific kind of censorship it discloses.
How many times did he genuinely piss off the natives, other than in Argentina (the Alabama "attack" was clearly fake, for those who haven't figured it out yet)?
Clarkson's Motorworld series shows he can probably pull something like this off, dropping in May and Hammond (with proven chemistry) to fill out the hour.
Yeah, we keep getting this "Laser based weapons platforms" stuff every once in a while. I guess to keep the funding going. "Until miniaturization" is something I been hearing since the 90s.
But they never really tell us how they solved the energy density problem.
They've developed transparent aluminum, allowing the shark tank walls to be MUCH thinner and lighter.
She lost at trial and, later, stepped down from her position as interim CEO of Reddit following a severe harassment campaign
Please. Here's an outline of the shitshow that Pao and the rest of the Reddit regime (which is still largely intact) caused, leading to her ouster: https://news.slashdot.org/comm...
A bit off topic, but can anyone recommend some good science fiction novels that deal with this subject (i.e. the consquences of living in a world where aging was suddenly easily cured, and people died only by violence (and maybe disease too))?
Either that, or you have an irrational hatred of feminists, probably due to deep and perfectly valid feelings of inadequacy, and try to blame them for everything.
To sociologist Gail Dines, a self-identifying radical feminist and “anti-porn advocate,” these findings added to a body of evidence that she deemed conclusive. Dines believes that non-coercive pornography cannot exist in a capitalist society, where sex-based media will always lead to an industry that becomes a violent manifestation of structural inequalities. In The Washington Post this weekend, Dines wrote a column that spread widely: “Is Porn Immoral? That Doesn’t Matter: It’s a Public-Health Crisis.”
The divisive proclamation was occasioned by a bill passed last month in Utah declaring pornography to be “a public-health crisis.” The bill, like the phrase, traces back to Dines, who has spoken and lectured on the evils of pornography around the world.
This isn't the first time feminists have teamed up with the far right to restrict freedom (see: horseshoe theory).
a) It simply and directly addressed a useless kind of content that users had been vocal about.
b) It didn't try to mislead the reader, strawman those who had complained as something evil (racists, sexists, luddites, etc.), or reframe the problem as something else.
c) It promised binding results, which (AFAIK) were honored.
Was it just a one-off? Will we ever see such a no-nonsense poll again?
For a while we've seen attempts like this in the open source world.
Want to muscle your way into an OSS project, despite lacking the talent or skill (or willingness) to contribute anything other than drama, identity politics, and an insatiable urge control others (or remove them if they don't fall in line)? Force a Code of Conduct (which is often explicitly racist and/or sexist, dismissive of merit, and vague enough to be selectively enforced) down its throat! It even works on the largest projects, and lets you dictate developers' behavior on unrelated corners of the web!
Makes sense that they would like even more to impose a Code of Conduct on life, starting when you're a kid.
According to Cable Store FAQ, users will have to go through Comcast directly if they want to make any changes to their existing plan.
Wow, could it be any redder of a flag that a company famous for thwarting attempts to cancel service wants to insert itself between customers and Amazon (a company known for oozing convenience) at the critical moment when they want to make a change?
Slashdot Mirror
The lies will continue until trust in Hillary improves.
Interestingly, the previous article summary (linked in TFS) mentions the streaming limitation no less than five times. IMO this second /. article would be unnecessary even if it didn't read like an advertisement.
Since Onlive was in the news, I repost this every time streamed games come up because it's the best way I know to explain this kind of DRM:
Imagine if the Ubisoft always-on DRM had been an inherent, unremoveable aspect of the game system rather than just something tacked on to a few individual games after the fact, such that Ubisoft couldn't even begrudgingly neuter it in a patch. Well, streamed games are even worse than that would be.
The game doesn't even run locally. All you get is streaming video/audio and all the lag you'd expect (including controller lag), which is a recipe for disaster in North America.
Let's say you're lucky enough to have a 30mb/s connection. Why would you want to use it to transfer your game's video instead of, uh, a DVI cable, which is capable of 4 Gb/s? The people who developed DVI apparently understood that that 1920 x 1200 pixels w/ 24 bits/pixels @ 60Hz results in bandwidth well over 3 Gb/s. The people who push streamed gaming seem very, very confused (at best).
Some people consider IPS monitors unsuitable for games requiring fast reflexes (i.e. FPSes) due to their double-digit response times. Internet latency is often worse and certainly more unpredictable than LCD monitor response time, and with streamed games it applies to audio and keyboard/controller/etc input too.
Those of us who know anything about bandwidth and compression and (especially) latency can see the enormous technical obstacles facing a service like this, and I've never heard anyone explain how they intend to solve them. Onlive (for example) did everything they could to lock out independent reviewers with NDAs and closed demonstrations. A friend of mine described it as the gaming equivalent of the perpetual motion scam, and IMO that's spot on (except that streaming would still have the draconian DRM issues even if it worked perfectly).
Streamed gaming appears designed from the ground up to benefit the game publishers and fuck the customers, exactly as you'd expect from any DRM system.
Twitter itself buys into (through their vague ToS and uneven/biased enforcement) arguments equating disagreement with harassment, and criticism with threats. And it throws even those stances out the window when the "harassing" party aligns with the right politics. Their Trust and Safety Council contains known harassers and doxxers.
If Twitter consistently took up a principled position to protect free speech (instead of cracking down on political thoughtcrime at the drop of a hat), they'd be in a much better position to resist this.
I wouldn't put it quite that way, but I cant help but note the usual crowd banging on about "cucks" and "SJWs" or whatever the meaningless /pol/ slur of the week is yet again complaining about sexual assault being investigated.
If anything, they're complaining that the police didn't investigate--because they were never called--yet headlines were written as if there'd been a trial with a guilty verdict.
Are you really surprised that the "crowd" complains when they see potentially life-ruining sexual assault allegations handed over to a private company hired by Tor to do a secret investigation, instead of the justice system?
Naw, neither Comcast nor Rightscorp are (technically) part of the government.
No matter how notoriously lax or reluctant a company is to support old products, you can always count on tracking* or advertisement** "features" to be backported to as many devices as possible, because those benefit the "top" (execs, marketing, law enforcement, etc.) much more than the "bottom" (users).
* see telemetry and other spying in Windows 7/8
** see Samsung pushing embedded ads to legacy TVs
phone
WHO?
No. Because GamerGhazi is built on a tissue of lies. And worse, they paid virtually no attention to this particular scandal, adding even more proof that it was mostly about the gaters' misogyny.
Look at you, still clinging desperately to the "mysogyny and harrassment" narrative and trying to ignore what GG accomplished.
Gamergate campaigned to inform the FTC of this kind of unethical behavior, and the FTC got involved as far back as December 2014 in direct response to Gamergate pressure, and Gawker was forced update their disclosure policy (and tons of articles that were then clearly in violation). And the FTC also updated their disclosure guidelines several times, including last summer (guess who was running an ethics campaign asking for exactly that?):
http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/38gocf/ethics_major_ftc_update_the_ftc_has_updated_their/
The section of the FTC's website that deals with disclosures was updated late last month:
https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advic...
Some of this new guidance directly reflects the language and particulars of the concerns GamerGate asked the FTC to address.
"Is "affiliate link" by itself an adequate disclosure? What about a "buy now" button?"
Consumers might not understand that "affiliate link" means that the person placing the link is getting paid for purchases through the link. Similarly, a "buy now" button would not be adequate
Does this guidance about affiliate links apply to links in my product reviews on someone else’s website, to my user comments, and to my tweets?
Yes, the same guidance applies anytime you endorse a product and get paid through affiliate links.
The revised webpage contains a great deal more language that needs to be analyzed but these two examples in particular reflect specific complaints GamerGate had about how Gawker Media handle their affiliate link disclosures. I know of no other group of people who were vocally complaining about this specific practice to the FTC. In addition, the FTC emails from my previous posts confirm that, yes, the FTC tailored part of their new guidance because of frequent complaints sent by GamerGate.
If you read further, there is specific language about requiring Let's-Players to disclose as well. And then there are the many, many sites that have updated their ethics policies. It's shameful that you will lie about an entire group of people because you and the press want to pretend that GG isn't the driving force behind all this ethics reform.
P.S. /r/GamerGhazi is an anti-Gamergate cesspool, so of course it is based on lies. But you already knew that.
P.P.S. Yes, Gamergate paid plenty of attention to this scandal. You did know that it was leaked by TotalBiscuit (during a time period when anti-GG was relentlessly shitting on him), right?
And hell, even before this... I sure don't recall a lot of outrage over Jeff Gerstmann being fired from GameSpot for giving Kane and Lynch: Dead Men a bad review. (As in, the review was that the game was bad, not that it was a substandard review.)
OK, try this. Go discuss review embargos and payola and other AAA corruption on a bunch of game news websites' forums or article comments and see how many censor the discussion, much less ban your account.
Now go back to the same sites and try to discuss Nathan Grayson or Patricia Hernandez and see how much censorship and ban hammerage and pure venom you encounter, by contrast.
Also notice that Gerstmann's Kane&Lynch firing was somehow not subject to a week-long, industry-wide news blackout in hopes it would go away. And that the people reporting on it weren't called harassers or mysogynists or terrorists in an attempt to intimidate them and distract from the criticism.
It is the behavior of the press that is the difference. The long-running popularity of Gamergate is the response to the gaming press's long-running cover up of journalistic corruption and smear campaign against gamers. "It's about misogyny and harassment!" is the real tired cliche.
One fine point to remember is that gamers weren't truly angry and forming a widespread movement immediately after the initial journalistic corruption was exposed. There was still some good faith that the news sites involved had the shred of integrity needed to take responsibility and clean up their own houses.
Gamergate only exploded after the cover-up, week-long universal blackout, and finally the launch of the (still ongoing) smear campaign on August 28, 2014 (a.k.a. "Gamers Are Dead" day). None of that appalling gaming press behavior has happened with other corruption stories, so there's nothing for Gamergate to do about them. They have a chance at getting proper coverage anyway.
In the unlikely event that almost every gaming site censors discussion of (for example) AAA review embargos, enacts a news media blackout (a bit late for that), and then begins slandering anyone who even mentions the embargos as misogynists, harassers, and terrorists, then (and only then) maybe another Gamergate-type customer revolt will be needed.
Has a hashtag ever inspired this much violence, much less murder?
Why only list DMCAs? Because they're a special subset of cases that sometimes makes Github look like the good guy? How about listing the repos they forced offline themselves for petty ideological reasons?
The 2014 report failed to list the takedown of the Gamergate hub, and this 2015 report doesn't mention how Github took down WebMConverter to strongarm the developer into changing its content.
Instead of using a broad, feel-good word like "transparency," they should just call it the DMCA report since that's the one specific kind of censorship it discloses.
He asked first.
Patent trolling is the motherfucker of invention.
How many times did he genuinely piss off the natives, other than in Argentina (the Alabama "attack" was clearly fake, for those who haven't figured it out yet)?
Clarkson's Motorworld series shows he can probably pull something like this off, dropping in May and Hammond (with proven chemistry) to fill out the hour.
Yeah, we keep getting this "Laser based weapons platforms" stuff every once in a while. I guess to keep the funding going. "Until miniaturization" is something I been hearing since the 90s.
But they never really tell us how they solved the energy density problem.
They've developed transparent aluminum, allowing the shark tank walls to be MUCH thinner and lighter.
She lost at trial and, later, stepped down from her position as interim CEO of Reddit following a severe harassment campaign
Please. Here's an outline of the shitshow that Pao and the rest of the Reddit regime (which is still largely intact) caused, leading to her ouster:
https://news.slashdot.org/comm...
Would you like to add fries and a soda to that for only $0.49 more?
No way; everyone knows that's where they rip you off and make most of their profit!
A bit off topic, but can anyone recommend some good science fiction novels that deal with this subject (i.e. the consquences of living in a world where aging was suddenly easily cured, and people died only by violence (and maybe disease too))?
should've been this one:
http://www.theatlantic.com/hea...
Either that, or you have an irrational hatred of feminists, probably due to deep and perfectly valid feelings of inadequacy, and try to blame them for everything.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
To sociologist Gail Dines, a self-identifying radical feminist and “anti-porn advocate,” these findings added to a body of evidence that she deemed conclusive. Dines believes that non-coercive pornography cannot exist in a capitalist society, where sex-based media will always lead to an industry that becomes a violent manifestation of structural inequalities. In The Washington Post this weekend, Dines wrote a column that spread widely: “Is Porn Immoral? That Doesn’t Matter: It’s a Public-Health Crisis.”
The divisive proclamation was occasioned by a bill passed last month in Utah declaring pornography to be “a public-health crisis.” The bill, like the phrase, traces back to Dines, who has spoken and lectured on the evils of pornography around the world.
This isn't the first time feminists have teamed up with the far right to restrict freedom (see: horseshoe theory).
Remember this poll?: https://slashdot.org/poll/2973...
It had some interesting qualities:
a) It simply and directly addressed a useless kind of content that users had been vocal about.
b) It didn't try to mislead the reader, strawman those who had complained as something evil (racists, sexists, luddites, etc.), or reframe the problem as something else.
c) It promised binding results, which (AFAIK) were honored.
Was it just a one-off? Will we ever see such a no-nonsense poll again?
For a while we've seen attempts like this in the open source world. Want to muscle your way into an OSS project, despite lacking the talent or skill (or willingness) to contribute anything other than drama, identity politics, and an insatiable urge control others (or remove them if they don't fall in line)? Force a Code of Conduct (which is often explicitly racist and/or sexist, dismissive of merit, and vague enough to be selectively enforced) down its throat! It even works on the largest projects, and lets you dictate developers' behavior on unrelated corners of the web!
Makes sense that they would like even more to impose a Code of Conduct on life, starting when you're a kid.
https://twitter.com/siloraptor...
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CS...
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CS...
https://www.reddit.com/r/Kotak...
https://www.reddit.com/r/Kotak... http://todogroup.org/opencodeo...
https://www.reddit.com/r/Kotak...
http://contributor-covenant.or...
http://developers.slashdot.org...
https://www.reddit.com/r/freeb...
According to Cable Store FAQ, users will have to go through Comcast directly if they want to make any changes to their existing plan.
Wow, could it be any redder of a flag that a company famous for thwarting attempts to cancel service wants to insert itself between customers and Amazon (a company known for oozing convenience) at the critical moment when they want to make a change?
. . . when your own unethical journalism catches up with you?