I would be happy to pay a fair price for high quality, commercial-free shows that I can download in a fully open file format and view as many times as I want using whatever hardware, OS and player software I choose. If the business model currently used in television has to be scrapped in order to get this I'm all for it.
Right now I don't watch TV -- including the basic cable I'm paying for in order to get my cable modem service. If I did watch TV though I'd still be subsidizing a whole bunch of shit I have less than no interest in (religious channels, sports channels, etc.) so that I could semi-regularly watch fewer than five shows (when they aren't re-runs).
But of course if television moved to the internet there would be all that nasty competition and we just can't have that. Things work out so much better for the big entertainment corporations if everyone is herded into digital TV instead.
I wish AOL/Time Warner and the other cable companies good luck in their goal of getting people to pay for those lines and those dishes and all that other shit without showing things that people want to watch on them.
Radsoft actively chose to bundle in a piece of spyware, the kind which Ad-Aware's sole purpose is to destroy. So how are the two unrelated?
They are unreleated because it is the user that authorizes the removal of the spyware -- not Lavasoft, not AdAware. Furthermore it is the user who chooses to install AdAware in the first place.
Heaven forbid companies actually make enough on their software to stay in business.
If software companies can't figure out a business model that doesn't involve stuffing banner ads down my throat every time I use their software then they can go out of business yesterday. This would save me the trouble of having to try to estimate the threat rating of every piece of "free" (as in beer) Windows software I enounter on the internet before downloading it. Maybe you enjoy shitting yourself but AFAIC, free beer is worthless when it's laced with laxative.
I think if you closely examined it you would be suprised to find out how much some of this "harmless" adware you're so eager to hair-split into legitimacy actually transmits back to the mothership. The ads may look like standard web banner ads but I've found cookies with my name (culled from the registry) and similar information that web sites can't obtain.
I don't care if it's spyware, adware, mangleware or assrapeware. It's not welcome on my computer and it will be removed, bypassed or otherwise nullified. Should all the companies in the world that make free Windows software go out of business as a result of me not being exposed to enough casino ads or get rich quick schemes that's even better because it will give people (including myself) that much more incentive to switch to a truly free operating system such as linux.
So you see, Mr. WanderingHermit: Any way you slice it I win.
So why exactly would anyone download Ad-Aware if they didn't want to remove certain types of software? The software has a single purpose and all associated web pages and documentation for Ad-Aware are quite explicit about what that purpose is.
USB adapters for "legacy" devices can be flaky and just add another potential point of failure to your machine. USB itself was designed specifically by Intel to suck CPU and thus cause people to buy faster processors sooner than they otherwise would. From a performance perspective it's got to be one of the biggest scams in the computer industry and I refuse to participate. If for some bizzare reason in the future I need to use USB I'll find an old, cheap mobo and throw together a machine specifically for that purpose rather than waste cycles on my primary rig with such nonsense.
Integrated peripherals are to be avoided at all cost. What do you do when you can't just unplug it? Disable it in the BIOS. What if disabling it in the BIOS doesn't really fully disable it? What if you can't get to the bios because your integrated video took a shit? What if you can't plug in another video card because the integrated video isn't disabled in the BIOS? No matter what, I *always* want the option of stripping my computer down to nothing but mobo and CPU with no worries about weather or not some major peripheral is TRULY out of the equation.
Everybody seems to have forgotten that motherboard manufacturers tend to stop supporting their products long before companies like Creative Labs. What if the drivers for all these off-brand integrated peripherals are complete ass? What if they are good now but later on start sucking? What if they stop making updates in six months or updates take forever? I've seen all these things happen and more.
Onboard peripherals get shitty support from their manufacturers because they are seen as "freebies". Even on Nvidia's latest motherboard the integrated GeForce isn't compatible with the standard Detonator drivers and updates are much slower in coming.
Beyond all this, I don't enjoy looking like a fucking chump because I've got a shitload of redundant ports on the back of my machine that all go to disabled on-board components. Maybe that's a personal problem as for years I have associated this with shitty machines that say things like "Compaq" or "Packard Bell" on their cases (and within the past five years, shitty machines with *any* OEM brand I recognize on them).
Good God, you're right! I almost forgot how much faster I was suddenly able to type after I switched to a PS/2 keyboard!
I'm all for new things as long as they're really and truly better. Unfortunately DIN 5 connectors are (still) perfectly suitable and USB was intentionally designed by Intel to suck CPU.
I've been hating on USB ever since it came out and gotten lots of funny looks for it from so-called performance junkies but the fact is it DOES hog CPU time that could be better put to use rendering my graphics.
The drawback you didn't mention was the fact that built-in peripherals are an extremely Bad Thing. What happens when Abit stops making drivers? What if their drivers suck ass from the beginning? Give me name-brand components and plenty of slots to put them in, thankyouverymuch.
The U. S.
has traditionally been a strong supporter of copyright holders.
I'm not a Senator nor am I particularly well versed in copyright law, but even I know that originally the U.S. only respected copyrights for U.S. citizens and that even after that was ended the copyright holders didn't get many additional rights until that Sonny Bono thing in the 70's.
Are things so bad that we can't even expect better non-answers than this from our elected officials?
It's generally accepted that computer/console RPGs are only related to "table top" RPGs by their use of various numbers to describe character's attributes.
If you really want to get technical you should keep in mind that computer "games" really aren't games at all due to the limited number of outcomes possible. To be correct you should call them "computer puzzles".
Are we supposed to believe that this couldn't possibly be caused by the bottom dropping out of the ad banner market?
Also "more prominent and explanatory privacy policies" does not make "more privacy". For one thing nobody reads them, for another they can be changed at any time (just like any other policy). Oh yeah, and there's nobody actually ENFORCING these things either. Privacy policies aren't worth the bits they're taking up.
I think you're missing the point-- single-player gaming is being out-competed in the marketplace by multiplayer gaming...
This is not true. If you look at the sales figures you'll still find the lists dominated by single-player titles (often shockingly low quality). Most people still have dial-up internet connections and no money nor incentive to purchase broadband even if it is available to them (which isn't in most areas). Hell, most people are probably as likely to play Windows Solitaire as they are the (few) games they purchase.
Multiplayer games work better with an increasing level of developer support. Patches, servers, matchmaking, all of these are necessary for a smoothly-running multiplayer experience.
If I'm using FUD then pot, kettle, black. These features are such a necessity that Counter-Strike is still the single most popular FPS on the internet and has been for years now.
There are two distinctly different approaches to multi-player gaming that can be taken: centralized and decentralized. I am in favor of a decentralized model that gives users more control at a better price. You are in favor of a centralized approach that gives users less control at a higher price. It really is this simple.
As with any proponent/apologist for attempts to transition any class of product into a service you claim that it is nebulously "worth" the additional price (and your cute answer to anyone who disagrees is to tell them not to buy it -- nevermind that I've already stated I won't). History tells me that quality multi-player PC games with a decentralized server model created by companies willing to meet their customers half way on support will attract communities that provide better service than any game with a centralized server model for free. The developers of a little game you might have heard of called "Neverwinter Nights" seem to believe this.
Behind every game with a monthly fee is a company that is gouging it's customers, not confident in the quality of it's product or both.
The switch to a subscription-based model will expand the possibilities for multiplayer gaming by extending the financial support available for providing an excellent service.
Or the switch to a subscription-based model will expand the possibilities for gaming companies to make more money while doing less development and providing service which may or may not be excellent (and could even vary widely in quality from day to day, month to month). Just leave you say? Not so easy after you've spent months of gameplay and hundreds of dollars on something that goes away forever when you stop paying.
I want to play the kind of games that a cohesive revenue model will allow
Yes, like EverQuest. Didn't they just drastically increase the price of that particular service three times what it was? Is the game really three times bigger/better/more fun now?
Most of the objections raised by Taco and others posting here can be applied equally to EverQuest and all of the other pay2play MMORPGs
Which is exactly why I don't, haven't and won't play MMORPGs. The fact that everything is server-side makes the level of control the company has ridiculous and ridiculously easy to abuse. Even if they don't decide to ban me from the game (which is not a product but a service) a single mistake on their end can cost me untold hours of character building and I have no recourse but to leave. This is not acceptable and I won't pay for it one time -- let alone monthly.
The idea of more games going with this model of "everthing is controlled by the company" disturbs me. One reason is that it may mean more games going to monthly subscription models and implementing enforcable EULAs that cause me to not purchase them for the same reasons I currently don't purchase MMORPGs. Another reason is that I don't want to use my broadband for downloading games. I pay a significant amount of money for my cable modem service and I don't think it's unreasonable to demand complete control over what my own equipment is used for and when.
"They can choose when they wish to interrupt us [...]": This is a problem with *any* application you run with priveliges to access the internet. If you don't like what an application does, don't run it. The distribution method is irrelevant.
This is a theoretical problem with any application with internet privs. In practice very few actually implement anything like this -- and those that do can be easily detected, avoided and bypassed. A system which requires the internet to be present in order to work makes such abuses easier to perpetrate -- it encourages them and makes them difficult or impossible to bypass or avoid all at once. This is all very obvious and you seem to work pretty hard to ignore it. Who writes your paychecks anyway?
As for concerns about advertising... *why*? This is obviously being modeled as a continuous revenue stream-- monthly fees.
To that I say: "Not 'no' but 'HELL no!'". All the games I know of with monthly fees (MMORPGs) have highly restrictive and highly enforcable EULAs. Why should I pay what amounts to MORE money for what amounts to FEWER rights and what in most cases will amount to the SAME service? As it stands when an upgrade to a game comes out I have the freedom to read up on it, choose to upgrade (and take on the risks associated with any software upgrade) or ignore it.
Ads that annoy and alienate players are a net LOSE for their bottom line.
Then why are so many ads on the internet annoying as hell? Even ads that can be pretty well targeted just by the sites they're on! If you went to Penny Arcade last week you'd know exactly what I mean. I still have nightmares about the guy in that ad. It makes me want to seek out and destroy Sega products rather than purchasing them.
The scary parts of Steam aren't anything new
They are indeed new. I don't currently need permission from anyone or even an internet connection to play any of the games on my computer. I intend to use every method at my disposal to ensure this does not change, including abandoning games that go to this more restrictive model.
Imagine being able to get a refund for games that simply refuse to run on your system
Keep imagining it. Also keep imagining the "savings" you will be getting by not paying for games you don't want to play after a month. In reality you will be paying so much more for the games you DO want to play that it will entirely nullify any of these "savings". This entire system and those like it are designed for only one real purpose: To make customers even more dependant on and beholden to software companies than they already are.
Re:MAPS is still alive and well.
on
ORBZ Shuts Down
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Any time Apache asks anything it's different than when Microsoft "asks" because Apache doesn't walk around toting baseball bats and asking for favors while in the next breath mentioning what a shame it would be if a fine establishment like yours were to burn down.
> even if you're not involved in SPAM, you never know if your IP has been
> used for mischief in the past, or if your ISP is a moron
Sure you do. Searching news.admin.net-abuse.* on the ISP's domain name is a good start. After that it's just a matter of ensuring that you've got some good clauses in the contract you sign with the ISP that define spam and keeps the ISP from knowingly hosting spammers or spam support services through the use of hefty penalties for doing so (cost of switching ISP's, damage to reputation, etc.)
If the ISP actually follows the anti-spam terms of service that they probably have they should have no problems with a contract like this. If they refuse the changes then find another provider and go back to step one.
If I sell you something with a "Two year Warranty" that goes on for pages about services I am required to provide by law anyway or that are entirely obvious ("we use cookies!") then in section 47b. states that "For two years I will provide you with absolutely nothing in the way of service or support" is that deceptive?
Not legally of course but a rose by any other name...
You talk about the DMA as if they were legitimate or something.
Don't let the suits and the high membership dues fool you, they're spammers just like that guy in the WWF shirt with the KFC stains on it relay-raping a server in Taiwan to bring you news about underage cum sluts from the safety of his Alabama trailer.
I'm sure these "regulations" will be enforced with the same tenacity that Sprint displays while constistantly failing to enforce the anti-spam clause in their AUP.
Anything the DMA states isn't worth reading because the organization has always been rabidly pro-spam and shows no signs of changing this position. If they want people to listen they need to start taking action instead of making up guidelines that are nothing more than an attempt at legitimizing spam as a practice while simultaneously discrediting their competition (spammers who aren't part of the DMA).
You can be sure that this "self-regulation" will be as honest as that practiced by Trust-E and ICANN.
It is so good to hear from a fellow-countryman, having been raised and lived for many years in our most beautiful homeland, Nigeria. I want to send you my sincere thanks and gratitude for your kind offer of USD$25,000.000.00 (TWENTY FIVE MILLION UNITED STATE DOLLARS) for taking part in this funds transfer transaction.
However, I am a businessman too, and I make my living transferring large sums of money from and to my friends, relatives, and business associates in Nigeria. Therefore, I know that you would agree, that in order to participate in this wonderful opportunity, I must have an advance monetary commitment from you -- a good faith gesture on your part -- in order to proceed.
Therefore, I ask that you deposit just 10% ($2,500,000) of the $25M into my PayPal account as an indication that you truly possess the funds and are actually authorized to release them. Using the online PayPal service is a very convenient and secure way to transfer funds. All you need do is access the PayPal web site -- http://www.paypal.com -- open a PayPal account, deposit the funds into your new account, and then transfer the money into my existing account, which has already been set up to receive the $25M.
You only need my email address, which you already have, to transfer the funds into my account. Therefore, the complete safety of your account, as well as mine, is guaranteed and insured unconditionally. You have asked that this matter be handled with the strictest confidentiality, and I will agree to that condition, provided that the transfer takes place in a reasonable period of time, say by Friday, 5 October.
If the money has not been received by that time, I must assume that you are not making a legitimate offer, and that you might be someone other than who you say you are -- although I can tell by the exceptional language of your email, that is probably not the case. However, if that is the case, then I will be forced to embark upon a most unpleasant course of action that I would prefer not to undertake.
Because I have so many loyal friends in the Government of Nigeria and the Military, and many close ties within the Security Service where you work, it would be quite easy to locate your office and your home, as well as learn the identities of your friends and relatives.
I truly don't believe that you would want to jeopardize their health and well-being, and your own future. I will access my PayPal account on next Saturday to verify that your good-faith payment has been made. Once that takes place, we can move forward with the final transfer.
I trust that you will not disappoint me in this matter, since the consequences for non-compliance could be quite severe. I look forward with great anticipation to working with you.
Yours faithfully,
Issa Gidada, JD, MMB,
President & CEO
U.S./Nigeria Funds Transfer Organization
Beverly Hills, CA
You poor, naieve fools. This is the cable company you're dealing with! And you trusted them not to put anything harmful or obnoxious on their CD? I can only hope you've learned your lesson.
My linux-based router knows how to use DHCP as well as can be expected of any x86 OS.
Slashdot Mirror
Why hello there Comic Shop Guy!
I would be happy to pay a fair price for high quality, commercial-free shows that I can download in a fully open file format and view as many times as I want using whatever hardware, OS and player software I choose. If the business model currently used in television has to be scrapped in order to get this I'm all for it.
Right now I don't watch TV -- including the basic cable I'm paying for in order to get my cable modem service. If I did watch TV though I'd still be subsidizing a whole bunch of shit I have less than no interest in (religious channels, sports channels, etc.) so that I could semi-regularly watch fewer than five shows (when they aren't re-runs).
But of course if television moved to the internet there would be all that nasty competition and we just can't have that. Things work out so much better for the big entertainment corporations if everyone is herded into digital TV instead.
That's cool, that's cool.
I wish AOL/Time Warner and the other cable companies good luck in their goal of getting people to pay for those lines and those dishes and all that other shit without showing things that people want to watch on them.
Radsoft actively chose to bundle in a piece of spyware, the kind which Ad-Aware's sole purpose is to destroy. So how are the two unrelated?
They are unreleated because it is the user that authorizes the removal of the spyware -- not Lavasoft, not AdAware. Furthermore it is the user who chooses to install AdAware in the first place.
Heaven forbid companies actually make enough on their software to stay in business.
If software companies can't figure out a business model that doesn't involve stuffing banner ads down my throat every time I use their software then they can go out of business yesterday. This would save me the trouble of having to try to estimate the threat rating of every piece of "free" (as in beer) Windows software I enounter on the internet before downloading it. Maybe you enjoy shitting yourself but AFAIC, free beer is worthless when it's laced with laxative.
I think if you closely examined it you would be suprised to find out how much some of this "harmless" adware you're so eager to hair-split into legitimacy actually transmits back to the mothership. The ads may look like standard web banner ads but I've found cookies with my name (culled from the registry) and similar information that web sites can't obtain.
I don't care if it's spyware, adware, mangleware or assrapeware. It's not welcome on my computer and it will be removed, bypassed or otherwise nullified. Should all the companies in the world that make free Windows software go out of business as a result of me not being exposed to enough casino ads or get rich quick schemes that's even better because it will give people (including myself) that much more incentive to switch to a truly free operating system such as linux.
So you see, Mr. WanderingHermit: Any way you slice it I win.
So why exactly would anyone download Ad-Aware if they didn't want to remove certain types of software? The software has a single purpose and all associated web pages and documentation for Ad-Aware are quite explicit about what that purpose is.
USB adapters for "legacy" devices can be flaky and just add another potential point of failure to your machine. USB itself was designed specifically by Intel to suck CPU and thus cause people to buy faster processors sooner than they otherwise would. From a performance perspective it's got to be one of the biggest scams in the computer industry and I refuse to participate. If for some bizzare reason in the future I need to use USB I'll find an old, cheap mobo and throw together a machine specifically for that purpose rather than waste cycles on my primary rig with such nonsense.
Integrated peripherals are to be avoided at all cost. What do you do when you can't just unplug it? Disable it in the BIOS. What if disabling it in the BIOS doesn't really fully disable it? What if you can't get to the bios because your integrated video took a shit? What if you can't plug in another video card because the integrated video isn't disabled in the BIOS? No matter what, I *always* want the option of stripping my computer down to nothing but mobo and CPU with no worries about weather or not some major peripheral is TRULY out of the equation.
Everybody seems to have forgotten that motherboard manufacturers tend to stop supporting their products long before companies like Creative Labs. What if the drivers for all these off-brand integrated peripherals are complete ass? What if they are good now but later on start sucking? What if they stop making updates in six months or updates take forever? I've seen all these things happen and more.
Onboard peripherals get shitty support from their manufacturers because they are seen as "freebies". Even on Nvidia's latest motherboard the integrated GeForce isn't compatible with the standard Detonator drivers and updates are much slower in coming.
Beyond all this, I don't enjoy looking like a fucking chump because I've got a shitload of redundant ports on the back of my machine that all go to disabled on-board components. Maybe that's a personal problem as for years I have associated this with shitty machines that say things like "Compaq" or "Packard Bell" on their cases (and within the past five years, shitty machines with *any* OEM brand I recognize on them).
Good God, you're right! I almost forgot how much faster I was suddenly able to type after I switched to a PS/2 keyboard!
I'm all for new things as long as they're really and truly better. Unfortunately DIN 5 connectors are (still) perfectly suitable and USB was intentionally designed by Intel to suck CPU.
Amen, my brother!
I've been hating on USB ever since it came out and gotten lots of funny looks for it from so-called performance junkies but the fact is it DOES hog CPU time that could be better put to use rendering my graphics.
The drawback you didn't mention was the fact that built-in peripherals are an extremely Bad Thing. What happens when Abit stops making drivers? What if their drivers suck ass from the beginning? Give me name-brand components and plenty of slots to put them in, thankyouverymuch.
There is no security on this earth. There is only opportunity.
-- General Douglas MacArthur
The U. S. has traditionally been a strong supporter of copyright holders.
I'm not a Senator nor am I particularly well versed in copyright law, but even I know that originally the U.S. only respected copyrights for U.S. citizens and that even after that was ended the copyright holders didn't get many additional rights until that Sonny Bono thing in the 70's.Are things so bad that we can't even expect better non-answers than this from our elected officials?
It's generally accepted that computer/console RPGs are only related to "table top" RPGs by their use of various numbers to describe character's attributes.
If you really want to get technical you should keep in mind that computer "games" really aren't games at all due to the limited number of outcomes possible. To be correct you should call them "computer puzzles".
Are we supposed to believe that this couldn't possibly be caused by the bottom dropping out of the ad banner market?
Also "more prominent and explanatory privacy policies" does not make "more privacy". For one thing nobody reads them, for another they can be changed at any time (just like any other policy). Oh yeah, and there's nobody actually ENFORCING these things either. Privacy policies aren't worth the bits they're taking up.
I think you're missing the point-- single-player gaming is being out-competed in the marketplace by multiplayer gaming...
This is not true. If you look at the sales figures you'll still find the lists dominated by single-player titles (often shockingly low quality). Most people still have dial-up internet connections and no money nor incentive to purchase broadband even if it is available to them (which isn't in most areas). Hell, most people are probably as likely to play Windows Solitaire as they are the (few) games they purchase.
Multiplayer games work better with an increasing level of developer support. Patches, servers, matchmaking, all of these are necessary for a smoothly-running multiplayer experience.
If I'm using FUD then pot, kettle, black. These features are such a necessity that Counter-Strike is still the single most popular FPS on the internet and has been for years now.
There are two distinctly different approaches to multi-player gaming that can be taken: centralized and decentralized. I am in favor of a decentralized model that gives users more control at a better price. You are in favor of a centralized approach that gives users less control at a higher price. It really is this simple.
As with any proponent/apologist for attempts to transition any class of product into a service you claim that it is nebulously "worth" the additional price (and your cute answer to anyone who disagrees is to tell them not to buy it -- nevermind that I've already stated I won't). History tells me that quality multi-player PC games with a decentralized server model created by companies willing to meet their customers half way on support will attract communities that provide better service than any game with a centralized server model for free. The developers of a little game you might have heard of called "Neverwinter Nights" seem to believe this.
Behind every game with a monthly fee is a company that is gouging it's customers, not confident in the quality of it's product or both.
The switch to a subscription-based model will expand the possibilities for multiplayer gaming by extending the financial support available for providing an excellent service.
Or the switch to a subscription-based model will expand the possibilities for gaming companies to make more money while doing less development and providing service which may or may not be excellent (and could even vary widely in quality from day to day, month to month). Just leave you say? Not so easy after you've spent months of gameplay and hundreds of dollars on something that goes away forever when you stop paying.
I want to play the kind of games that a cohesive revenue model will allow
Yes, like EverQuest. Didn't they just drastically increase the price of that particular service three times what it was? Is the game really three times bigger/better/more fun now?
Most of the objections raised by Taco and others posting here can be applied equally to EverQuest and all of the other pay2play MMORPGs
Which is exactly why I don't, haven't and won't play MMORPGs. The fact that everything is server-side makes the level of control the company has ridiculous and ridiculously easy to abuse. Even if they don't decide to ban me from the game (which is not a product but a service) a single mistake on their end can cost me untold hours of character building and I have no recourse but to leave. This is not acceptable and I won't pay for it one time -- let alone monthly.
The idea of more games going with this model of "everthing is controlled by the company" disturbs me. One reason is that it may mean more games going to monthly subscription models and implementing enforcable EULAs that cause me to not purchase them for the same reasons I currently don't purchase MMORPGs. Another reason is that I don't want to use my broadband for downloading games. I pay a significant amount of money for my cable modem service and I don't think it's unreasonable to demand complete control over what my own equipment is used for and when.
"They can choose when they wish to interrupt us [...]": This is a problem with *any* application you run with priveliges to access the internet. If you don't like what an application does, don't run it. The distribution method is irrelevant.
This is a theoretical problem with any application with internet privs. In practice very few actually implement anything like this -- and those that do can be easily detected, avoided and bypassed. A system which requires the internet to be present in order to work makes such abuses easier to perpetrate -- it encourages them and makes them difficult or impossible to bypass or avoid all at once. This is all very obvious and you seem to work pretty hard to ignore it. Who writes your paychecks anyway?
As for concerns about advertising... *why*? This is obviously being modeled as a continuous revenue stream-- monthly fees.
To that I say: "Not 'no' but 'HELL no!'". All the games I know of with monthly fees (MMORPGs) have highly restrictive and highly enforcable EULAs. Why should I pay what amounts to MORE money for what amounts to FEWER rights and what in most cases will amount to the SAME service? As it stands when an upgrade to a game comes out I have the freedom to read up on it, choose to upgrade (and take on the risks associated with any software upgrade) or ignore it.
Ads that annoy and alienate players are a net LOSE for their bottom line.
Then why are so many ads on the internet annoying as hell? Even ads that can be pretty well targeted just by the sites they're on! If you went to Penny Arcade last week you'd know exactly what I mean. I still have nightmares about the guy in that ad. It makes me want to seek out and destroy Sega products rather than purchasing them.
The scary parts of Steam aren't anything new
They are indeed new. I don't currently need permission from anyone or even an internet connection to play any of the games on my computer. I intend to use every method at my disposal to ensure this does not change, including abandoning games that go to this more restrictive model.
Imagine being able to get a refund for games that simply refuse to run on your system
Keep imagining it. Also keep imagining the "savings" you will be getting by not paying for games you don't want to play after a month. In reality you will be paying so much more for the games you DO want to play that it will entirely nullify any of these "savings". This entire system and those like it are designed for only one real purpose: To make customers even more dependant on and beholden to software companies than they already are.
MAPS is also emasculated ever since the lawsuits.
SPEWS is where it's at now.
The problem with turning off cookie persistance in Mozilla is that there's no way to exempt certain cookies that you DON'T want deleted.
This is easilly accomplished in Communicator by write protecting the cookies.txt, but Mozilla stores them differently.
Not really similar at all.
Any time Apache asks anything it's different than when Microsoft "asks" because Apache doesn't walk around toting baseball bats and asking for favors while in the next breath mentioning what a shame it would be if a fine establishment like yours were to burn down.
> even if you're not involved in SPAM, you never know if your IP has been
> used for mischief in the past, or if your ISP is a moron
Sure you do. Searching news.admin.net-abuse.* on the ISP's domain name is a good start. After that it's just a matter of ensuring that you've got some good clauses in the contract you sign with the ISP that define spam and keeps the ISP from knowingly hosting spammers or spam support services through the use of hefty penalties for doing so (cost of switching ISP's, damage to reputation, etc.)
If the ISP actually follows the anti-spam terms of service that they probably have they should have no problems with a contract like this. If they refuse the changes then find another provider and go back to step one.
It's deceitful by it's very name.
If I sell you something with a "Two year Warranty" that goes on for pages about services I am required to provide by law anyway or that are entirely obvious ("we use cookies!") then in section 47b. states that "For two years I will provide you with absolutely nothing in the way of service or support" is that deceptive?
Not legally of course but a rose by any other name...
You talk about the DMA as if they were legitimate or something.
Don't let the suits and the high membership dues fool you, they're spammers just like that guy in the WWF shirt with the KFC stains on it relay-raping a server in Taiwan to bring you news about underage cum sluts from the safety of his Alabama trailer.
I'm sure these "regulations" will be enforced with the same tenacity that Sprint displays while constistantly failing to enforce the anti-spam clause in their AUP.
Spammers lie.
Anything the DMA states isn't worth reading because the organization has always been rabidly pro-spam and shows no signs of changing this position. If they want people to listen they need to start taking action instead of making up guidelines that are nothing more than an attempt at legitimizing spam as a practice while simultaneously discrediting their competition (spammers who aren't part of the DMA).
You can be sure that this "self-regulation" will be as honest as that practiced by Trust-E and ICANN.
My favorite reply to the 419 scam (found in the spamcop.geeks group on the spamcop.net news server):
You poor, naieve fools. This is the cable company you're dealing with! And you trusted them not to put anything harmful or obnoxious on their CD? I can only hope you've learned your lesson.
My linux-based router knows how to use DHCP as well as can be expected of any x86 OS.
Well if you can find an outlet in the theater somewhere you can use one of these.