I am arguing the meaning of the words and whether they apply to this context.
Extortion is generally "Pay me $X or I'll break your thing."
Sony isn't letting you pay to keep the "Other OS" ability. Giving you an either-or choice doesn't automagically make it extortion.
I just think it doesn't help anyone to go around screaming OMG EXTORTION when the word "extortion" doesn't actually apply.
Yes, it's a jerky thing to do, but it's not extortion.
If you want Sony to listen to you, and subsequently change their minds, starting with accusations of extortion (when the word doesn't really apply going by its definition) doesn't help anything.
Except in this case, they're saying "Your toy Linux installation or your gaming network." Not both, and there's no way to stop it.
It's not nice, but it's not extortion. Extortion would be them saying "We're disabling Other OS installations unless you pay $X." They're not saying that.
This update is them saying "We're disabling half the functionality of the machine, but we'll let you choose which half." There's nothing you can do to stop this; you can't pay to keep all of it.
It's not very nice, but it's not extortion.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not exactly amused by this move, but calling it something it's not will just give Sony a reason to not change their mind (that is, they'll realize you're just raging at them, and ignore anything else you have to say regardless of its merit).
Taking away functionality is keeping the status quo? Seems to me they're changing something but maybe in this twitter world the definition of status quo has changed and I'm just not up to date./s
I didn't say that. I said there isn't a way to keep the status quo (which is to say, you won't be able to have both Linux and PSN working).
There's no baseball bat because they're not threatening you with anything. It's a jerk move, disabling other OS installations, sure, but it's not a threat, and they're giving you fair warning to back up your data.
Anyone who bought a PS3 did so knowing Sony updates the firmware regularly. It's not nice of them to remove functionality via an essentially required update, but it's not extortion, and you don't have to keep giving Sony your money...
Bat? What bat? They're not threatening you with anything.
Like I said, it's not nice, but it's not extortion. Specifically, there isn't a way to *keep* the functionality they're getting rid of, and they're not asking for anything in exchange for the status quo.
If Microsoft dropped XP mode in Win7 SP1 citing maintenance and security concerns, would we be screaming "OMG EXTORTION!"? Of course not. (At least, if we did, it would be just as ridiculous.) Yes, they'd be arbitrarily removing a feature they had previously advertised, but that doesn't make it extortion.
Don't get me wrong, I think Sony is being a collective jerkface here, but let's not call it extortion when the word's definition just doesn't fit. That doesn't help us any.
They are extorting us out of features that we paid for.
How is it extortion? You bought it knowing you'd have to keep the PS3's own firmware updated to play PS3 games online; furthermore, the update isn't holding anything ransom in exchange for something you have, it's "merely" disabling functionality.
It's a jerk move, sure, and maybe even class-actionable, but it's not extortion.
Only high karma accounts have the Submit button immediately available.
Is the karma level required for that higher or lower than the karma level required to shut off ads? They let me turn off ads, but I only get a Preview button...
If it's a site I respect, I disable adblock. Sites I respect tend to have respectable ads, as well.
For example, Penny-Arcade approves every ad that shows up on their site. They're not going to approve an ad that distributes malware, and I like Penny-Arcade, so I disable adblock on Penny-Arcade. I do this on a case-by-case basis. You may not agree with doing it that way, but that's not my problem;)
This is only relevant for pay-per-impression ads. If you never click pay-per-click ads anyway, then blocking them has no effect.
Have you no respect for intellectual property? This may even be a DMCA violation - are you giving legal advice?
Those are three completely unrelated topics, and they're unrelated to ads as well. Blocking ads has nothing to do with IP, nor with the DMCA, nor with legal advice. I'm left assuming you're trolling:P
Yes, I realize that 7 9s was an exaggeration. It was meant to be.
I've often considered NoScript, but then, I've never had a Javascript-based exploit infect me (or if it has, Avast hasn't detected it, so antivirus wouldn't help anyway). Basically I have no motivation to install it.
Using Linux or OSX doesn't magically make you safe, you know, and Windows 7 is fairly secure, as long as you're careful what you download and install.
0day exploits. you have nothing protecting you against them.
Eh... antivirus programs aren't going to help you there unless the payload of the exploit is a known virus...
While you might feel safe using gmail, what about a bad ad that installs malware?
Adblock. Firefox is configured to not let things install without permission. Don't run flash on unknown sites. Etc etc etc.
What I'm describing is "safe internet browsing". It's not that hard a concept, and the fact that you seem to think drive-by malware installs via ads are inevitable merely proves that you don't know how to browse safely.
Don't take that to mean I think I'm immune to drive-by malware, only that I don't think they're inevitable.
For all you know, you've already been rootkit'd and you don't know, and want to blame the slowness on your AV program.
How exactly would one go about verifying that?
No wait, it's easy to verify. Compare video game load times with antivirus enabled to the same game's load times with antivirus disabled. You'll see exactly what I'm talking about.
You also get an additional slowdown when you first log in while the antivirus program loads itself, scans things already resident in memory, and so on. My work laptop has this problem - it is literally unusable for five minutes after I log in, because McAfee is so much of a resource hog. (If I stupidly start up Outlook while McAfee is still doing its startup routine, I get to wait a whole twenty minutes.) Granted, Avast isn't nearly that bad, but it's still a noticeable slowdown during the first minute or so of use after I log in.
Anyway, you, like so many others, have completely missed my point. I haven't said I can't get a virus. I've merely said that the chances of actually getting a virus are extremely slim. To me, it's not worth two years of resource hogging and slower load times to defend against the extremely slim chance that I'll get a virus.
Given that my computer usage habits have not changed in the last three years, and given that not once have I ever seen a virus warning pop up during those three years, I am led to the conclusion that my usage habits do not result in virus infections. Why then should I bother running antivirus?
And yes, you are going to get a virus/malware, unless you disable all USB ports, ethernet ports, modems, cd rom drives, etc.
I think you're being far too pessimistic.
Tell you what. One year from today -- I've put it on my calendar -- I'll post on my blog the results of a virus scan and a malware scan. We'll see whether I can stay virus-free for a year.
No, it's not like that at all. It's like sleeping with the same woman every night while taking the chance that someone has come by and stuck her with a needle she wasn't aware of.
The chances of that happening are extremely slim.
So... the sites I use often. When was the last time Ars Technica or Slashdot was compromised with something spreading a virus? How about Penny-Arcade or xkcd?
I haven't said it isn't possible, I've only said I'm willing to risk the extremely small chance that I'll get a virus.
I have to wonder what sort of nefarious sites you people are visiting that you get attacked by drive-by PDF downloads. I've not once had this happen to me.
Similarly, what nefarious sites are serving you malicious Flash? The only Flash-enabled sites I ever visit are Youtube and Hulu, and it's hard to believe *those* sites would let themselves get compromised. I have adblock blocking flash ads.
As for running as admin... have you ever tried running Windows XP as non-admin? I have to, on my work laptop, and it's so much of a pain that for a personal machine you're better off taking the risk running as admin.
Windows 7's got its little UAC thing, and I don't run Linux as root...
I can tell you that Bittorrent is not the way people get virus/malware today.
I didn't mean that Bittorrent itself is a vector for virus propogation, only that back in my high school days when I pirated things via P2P networks, most every pirated game came laden with viruses. I suppose I simply assumed that pirated games obtained via P2P networks today would also have that problem.
Yeah, I can see drive-by infections being more of a problem. Of course, as one of the guys on my Steam friends list could tell you, it takes me a long time knowing you before I'll trust random links you send me.
Yeah, I wouldn't let my sister touch my computer. The last computer I had to remove viruses from was hers... I've never seen a computer with so many viruses. Spent like five hours trying to remove them, but finally gave up and reformatted, saving what documents I could.
That depends on what you mean by "browse the internet". I visit a very small list of sites, and rarely visit anywhere else. If I don't recognize domain name in a URL, I probably won't go to it.
But you're missing the point. I'm not claiming I'll never get a virus. I'm claiming I'll most likely never get a virus.
Even if I do somehow get a virus sometime in the next two years, to me it's not worth two years of resource hogging and slower file loads just to avoid the chance.
No, I'm talking as if you only get viruses by downloading random crap from unknown places. (Also by using thumb drives that have touched public computers, but I don't do that either.)
Just because you can't be 100% safe with any given product is no reason to abandon it entirely.
I recently reinstalled Windows, and while I've historically used Avast, I opted to go with nothing this time around. I'm tired of resource usage and slower load times for everything thanks to antivirus; I've moved my e-mail to Google Apps, so they scan my e-mails for viruses. My use of Bittorrent is extremely limited (I only have it installed because Star Trek Online's installer is available via torrent), and I never visit the seedier side of the internet. I'm behind a firewall.
Basically I'm not going to get a virus, so I see no reason to run anti-virus software. Rather than "Can't be 100% safe, may as well not use it", my reasoning is "I'm already 99.99999% safe, so why bother".
(Yes, I know it's still technically possible to get a virus. But the chances are extremely slim, given the way I use my computer.)
The nice thing is that the Steam distribution platform is now cross-platform, so it's easier for other developers to get Mac games out there. I suspect you'll be seeing all sorts of Mac games published on Steam relatively soon, not just Valve's FPSes.
How would they do that? As far as I know, the pirated version doesn't even try to phone home, so there would be no way to track pirates.
I find it endlessly amusing that the only people who can play AC2 right now are the people who pirated it, despite the fact that the DRM is intended to prevent piracy. No pirates are inconvenienced by this outage; only customers who have already paid.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps I should have been more specific: they're not letting you pay to maintain the existing feature set.
I am arguing the meaning of the words and whether they apply to this context.
Extortion is generally "Pay me $X or I'll break your thing."
Sony isn't letting you pay to keep the "Other OS" ability. Giving you an either-or choice doesn't automagically make it extortion.
I just think it doesn't help anyone to go around screaming OMG EXTORTION when the word "extortion" doesn't actually apply.
Yes, it's a jerky thing to do, but it's not extortion.
If you want Sony to listen to you, and subsequently change their minds, starting with accusations of extortion (when the word doesn't really apply going by its definition) doesn't help anything.
Except in this case, they're saying "Your toy Linux installation or your gaming network." Not both, and there's no way to stop it.
It's not nice, but it's not extortion. Extortion would be them saying "We're disabling Other OS installations unless you pay $X." They're not saying that.
This update is them saying "We're disabling half the functionality of the machine, but we'll let you choose which half." There's nothing you can do to stop this; you can't pay to keep all of it.
It's not very nice, but it's not extortion.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not exactly amused by this move, but calling it something it's not will just give Sony a reason to not change their mind (that is, they'll realize you're just raging at them, and ignore anything else you have to say regardless of its merit).
Taking away functionality is keeping the status quo? Seems to me they're changing something but maybe in this twitter world the definition of status quo has changed and I'm just not up to date. /s
I didn't say that. I said there isn't a way to keep the status quo (which is to say, you won't be able to have both Linux and PSN working).
There's no baseball bat because they're not threatening you with anything. It's a jerk move, disabling other OS installations, sure, but it's not a threat, and they're giving you fair warning to back up your data.
Anyone who bought a PS3 did so knowing Sony updates the firmware regularly. It's not nice of them to remove functionality via an essentially required update, but it's not extortion, and you don't have to keep giving Sony your money...
Bat? What bat? They're not threatening you with anything.
Like I said, it's not nice, but it's not extortion. Specifically, there isn't a way to *keep* the functionality they're getting rid of, and they're not asking for anything in exchange for the status quo.
If Microsoft dropped XP mode in Win7 SP1 citing maintenance and security concerns, would we be screaming "OMG EXTORTION!"? Of course not. (At least, if we did, it would be just as ridiculous.) Yes, they'd be arbitrarily removing a feature they had previously advertised, but that doesn't make it extortion.
Don't get me wrong, I think Sony is being a collective jerkface here, but let's not call it extortion when the word's definition just doesn't fit. That doesn't help us any.
They are extorting us out of features that we paid for.
How is it extortion? You bought it knowing you'd have to keep the PS3's own firmware updated to play PS3 games online; furthermore, the update isn't holding anything ransom in exchange for something you have, it's "merely" disabling functionality.
It's a jerk move, sure, and maybe even class-actionable, but it's not extortion.
Not really relevant; he was acting like there isn't a PC alternative to TVs for over-the-air video broadcasts ;)
But what's the PC's counterpart to an over-the-air broadcast?
You mean besides PCI TV tuner cards?
Only high karma accounts have the Submit button immediately available.
Is the karma level required for that higher or lower than the karma level required to shut off ads? They let me turn off ads, but I only get a Preview button...
If it's a site I respect, I disable adblock. Sites I respect tend to have respectable ads, as well.
For example, Penny-Arcade approves every ad that shows up on their site. They're not going to approve an ad that distributes malware, and I like Penny-Arcade, so I disable adblock on Penny-Arcade. I do this on a case-by-case basis. You may not agree with doing it that way, but that's not my problem ;)
This is only relevant for pay-per-impression ads. If you never click pay-per-click ads anyway, then blocking them has no effect.
Have you no respect for intellectual property? This may even be a DMCA violation - are you giving legal advice?
Those are three completely unrelated topics, and they're unrelated to ads as well. Blocking ads has nothing to do with IP, nor with the DMCA, nor with legal advice. I'm left assuming you're trolling :P
Since you won't visit unknown sites
You don't have to be condescending. hp.com is hardly an "unknown site".
I realize that new attack vectors pop up from time to time. I'm willing to take the risk.
So... turn on adblock, and disable flash. The math seems fairly simple, to me.
Yes, I realize that 7 9s was an exaggeration. It was meant to be.
I've often considered NoScript, but then, I've never had a Javascript-based exploit infect me (or if it has, Avast hasn't detected it, so antivirus wouldn't help anyway). Basically I have no motivation to install it.
You use windows, so you are not safe.
Using Linux or OSX doesn't magically make you safe, you know, and Windows 7 is fairly secure, as long as you're careful what you download and install.
0day exploits. you have nothing protecting you against them.
Eh... antivirus programs aren't going to help you there unless the payload of the exploit is a known virus...
While you might feel safe using gmail, what about a bad ad that installs malware?
Adblock. Firefox is configured to not let things install without permission. Don't run flash on unknown sites. Etc etc etc.
What I'm describing is "safe internet browsing". It's not that hard a concept, and the fact that you seem to think drive-by malware installs via ads are inevitable merely proves that you don't know how to browse safely.
Don't take that to mean I think I'm immune to drive-by malware, only that I don't think they're inevitable.
For all you know, you've already been rootkit'd and you don't know, and want to blame the slowness on your AV program.
How exactly would one go about verifying that?
No wait, it's easy to verify. Compare video game load times with antivirus enabled to the same game's load times with antivirus disabled. You'll see exactly what I'm talking about.
You also get an additional slowdown when you first log in while the antivirus program loads itself, scans things already resident in memory, and so on. My work laptop has this problem - it is literally unusable for five minutes after I log in, because McAfee is so much of a resource hog. (If I stupidly start up Outlook while McAfee is still doing its startup routine, I get to wait a whole twenty minutes.) Granted, Avast isn't nearly that bad, but it's still a noticeable slowdown during the first minute or so of use after I log in.
Anyway, you, like so many others, have completely missed my point. I haven't said I can't get a virus. I've merely said that the chances of actually getting a virus are extremely slim. To me, it's not worth two years of resource hogging and slower load times to defend against the extremely slim chance that I'll get a virus.
Given that my computer usage habits have not changed in the last three years, and given that not once have I ever seen a virus warning pop up during those three years, I am led to the conclusion that my usage habits do not result in virus infections. Why then should I bother running antivirus?
And yes, you are going to get a virus/malware, unless you disable all USB ports, ethernet ports, modems, cd rom drives, etc.
I think you're being far too pessimistic.
Tell you what. One year from today -- I've put it on my calendar -- I'll post on my blog the results of a virus scan and a malware scan. We'll see whether I can stay virus-free for a year.
No, it's not like that at all. It's like sleeping with the same woman every night while taking the chance that someone has come by and stuck her with a needle she wasn't aware of.
The chances of that happening are extremely slim.
So... the sites I use often. When was the last time Ars Technica or Slashdot was compromised with something spreading a virus? How about Penny-Arcade or xkcd?
I haven't said it isn't possible, I've only said I'm willing to risk the extremely small chance that I'll get a virus.
I have to wonder what sort of nefarious sites you people are visiting that you get attacked by drive-by PDF downloads. I've not once had this happen to me.
Similarly, what nefarious sites are serving you malicious Flash? The only Flash-enabled sites I ever visit are Youtube and Hulu, and it's hard to believe *those* sites would let themselves get compromised. I have adblock blocking flash ads.
As for running as admin... have you ever tried running Windows XP as non-admin? I have to, on my work laptop, and it's so much of a pain that for a personal machine you're better off taking the risk running as admin.
Windows 7's got its little UAC thing, and I don't run Linux as root...
I can tell you that Bittorrent is not the way people get virus/malware today.
I didn't mean that Bittorrent itself is a vector for virus propogation, only that back in my high school days when I pirated things via P2P networks, most every pirated game came laden with viruses. I suppose I simply assumed that pirated games obtained via P2P networks today would also have that problem.
Yeah, I can see drive-by infections being more of a problem. Of course, as one of the guys on my Steam friends list could tell you, it takes me a long time knowing you before I'll trust random links you send me.
I use Adblock Plus :)
I only disable adblock on two sites right now, and that only because I feel they deserve the ad income.
Yeah, I wouldn't let my sister touch my computer. The last computer I had to remove viruses from was hers... I've never seen a computer with so many viruses. Spent like five hours trying to remove them, but finally gave up and reformatted, saving what documents I could.
That depends on what you mean by "browse the internet". I visit a very small list of sites, and rarely visit anywhere else. If I don't recognize domain name in a URL, I probably won't go to it.
But you're missing the point. I'm not claiming I'll never get a virus. I'm claiming I'll most likely never get a virus.
Even if I do somehow get a virus sometime in the next two years, to me it's not worth two years of resource hogging and slower file loads just to avoid the chance.
No, I'm talking as if you only get viruses by downloading random crap from unknown places. (Also by using thumb drives that have touched public computers, but I don't do that either.)
Just because you can't be 100% safe with any given product is no reason to abandon it entirely.
I recently reinstalled Windows, and while I've historically used Avast, I opted to go with nothing this time around. I'm tired of resource usage and slower load times for everything thanks to antivirus; I've moved my e-mail to Google Apps, so they scan my e-mails for viruses. My use of Bittorrent is extremely limited (I only have it installed because Star Trek Online's installer is available via torrent), and I never visit the seedier side of the internet. I'm behind a firewall.
Basically I'm not going to get a virus, so I see no reason to run anti-virus software. Rather than "Can't be 100% safe, may as well not use it", my reasoning is "I'm already 99.99999% safe, so why bother".
(Yes, I know it's still technically possible to get a virus. But the chances are extremely slim, given the way I use my computer.)
The nice thing is that the Steam distribution platform is now cross-platform, so it's easier for other developers to get Mac games out there. I suspect you'll be seeing all sorts of Mac games published on Steam relatively soon, not just Valve's FPSes.
How would they do that? As far as I know, the pirated version doesn't even try to phone home, so there would be no way to track pirates.
I find it endlessly amusing that the only people who can play AC2 right now are the people who pirated it, despite the fact that the DRM is intended to prevent piracy. No pirates are inconvenienced by this outage; only customers who have already paid.