Flash ads used to annoy me, but now that I use the Flashblock plugin to Firefox, I only view the flash I want to (99% of the time flash is an annoying animated ad).
This doesn't take care of ad "previews" on the rare flash you may actually want to see, but nobody is forcing to to watch it.
I've been using Flashblock for several years myself but recently stopped putting it on new machines. While I am annoyed that about five percent of Flash ads somehow get past Flashblock, the real issue is how many sites are Flash-heavy now. It isn't uncommon for me to browse to a site and see five or six boxes with an arrow (indicating blocked Flash content), most or all of which are legitimate content and not annoying ads. I've never found Flashblock's whitelist to work properly either.
I now use Adblock Plus with the Filterset.G updater and skip Flashblock altogether. I still block the annoying ads but don't have to deal with a dozen right-clicks per page just to view a site.
I get nauseous when I have to use someone's IE for web browsing. My standard install for all computers I work on (including mine, the one used by my wife and kids, my parents' computer, and my wife's parent's machine) puts Firefox on the desktop with Adblock Plus and Filterset.G. I used to use Flashblock but so many sites use so much Flash that it became a real hassle. Although, others find it humorous that my three-year old knew to right-click on Flash objects so she could get around on PBSkids.org:)
Meanwhile, the right edge of the text of this story is covered by the Flash ad (Sun anniversary pricing) next to it. Really? I see so few ads online that I forget what a stinking mess it is for the non-Adblock masses.
People unwilling to fight for freedom do not deserve it. And, we are losing it at an alarming rate. Unfortunately, that large segment of lazy/ignorant/apathetic Americans are contributing to the loss of freedom for those that do care.
If they protest correctly it is a lot easier to get people to join in. And you demonstrate that fact by describing a poorly-organized protest? Although, I suppose you are correct. A "correct" protest that might get some participation would involve free beer and perhaps a live show by Green Day.
I'm surprised students are not rallying to deal with the RIAA. Traditionally, college students have been one of the largest markets for recorded music. And the RIAA is directly attacking their traditional best customer with law suits. I would have expected campus rallys to fight the RIAA. Students obtaining pledges to boycott RIAA labels and distribution of lists of labels to boycott. Just surprised that theres no organized effort on the part of students to counter this. You're a generation late. Today's students are too caught up with Paris Hilton, American Idol, and beating Gears of War to protest anything of significance. They will riot (and burn couches in Morgantown, WV) over a football game but you can't get more than 20 or 30 to show up for a rally against an illegal war, grotesque violations of privacy, or any other more fundamental causes. Sadly, boycotting the major labels would require more sacrifice than these kids are willing to make.
I wonder if the RIAA will ever stop and realize that if they'd just fought this war fairly, most people would have been understanding with them. That if they'd did all the legal work they should have, and caught people with fair tactics, that jurors and the general public would be on their side. Because it IS against the law to download Intellectual Property you don't have rights to. I'm not sure that they could have attacked it straightforward. They have no real means of doing good police work against people sharing files, unless you know of some other means to legally and accurately collect:
A list of copyrighted files being shared
The IP address of each file sharer
The real name and address of each file sharer
Evidence that conclusively proves each point
Sure, they could have been much more deliberate in their searching and verified each file downloaded, but they knew this would never even ripple the public waters. And, they would still rely on the IP data in the packets, the ISP to provide subscriber data, and finding the same files on a computer at the subscriber's home (all of which have been attacked as problems with their approach).
This is a propaganda scare campaign and nothing more. This was a calculated assault by the RIAA - they decided (probably correctly) that this would be the most cost-effective means of combating wide-spread illegal file sharing.
The RIAA simply stole a page from the corporate dinosaur playbook. Those of us into satellite "testing" saw the exact same ploy used by Dave a few years ago. They raided the offices of several large resellers of hacking equipment then used the seized shipping records to send letters threatening lawsuits to anyone who purchased smartcard programmers. Nevermind that these are completely legal to own and have plenty of legitimate uses outside of satellite television hacking. However, just like with the RIAA, plenty of scared people paid their blackmail and disposed of the "contraband".
That is not how should be characterized. For the record, I was making no claims about the accuracy of those statements - our discussion was about propaganda. However, since you brought it up...
The coalition removed the impediments to democracy so the Iraqis could bring it to themselves. The "coalition" was the United States and a smattering of other nations' troops. Outside of Britain's less than 10,000 troops, the rest of the "coalition" wouldn't even register a visible slice on a pie chart. And, if you think the Iraqis had any choice in their system of government, you are naive beyond belief. The US shoved a western-style constitutional democracy down their throats and told them to like it.
Again, I disagree with your characterization. Again, I remind you that I was pointing out the attitudes of the average American citizen. Yet, since you brought it up...
It was a necessary thing. You're willing to say it was necessary based upon what? I guess you're an Iraqi citizen living in Fallujah? It's great fun to sit back and play Risk from the convenience of your living room, but the "necessity" isn't quite as obvious to the US troops and their families or the Iraqi families. As you point out, life sucks in Iraq right now. This is the fault of the US government, and by proxy, the US populace.
We have made several big mistakes have helped make it suck there as much as it does right now... There's the understatement of the year. The Bush administration went into the war with no good plan for anything beyond the initial assault. The military and police forces were disbanded but there were not sufficient US military forces to maintain the peace (and the bulk of the military police force were untrained Guardsmen, many of whom were left out to dry by an inept chain of command). The Iraqi government was purged of all Baath party members, leaving a huge void of experienced Iraqi leaders. Billions of dollars were given to corrupt Iraqi leaders and US contractors with zero accountability. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians have been killed. Other than the quick overthrow of the previous Iraqi government and eventual capture of Saddam, there's not much that was done right.
...but that doesn't mean it can't become a good thing. Absolutely. But the US had no right to inflict this up the Iraqi people. It will be long time before this gets better.
And judging by recent polling data, I'd also dispute your claim that a majority of Americans currently think this way. Sure thing. I don't have any recent data in front of me on this particular topic, but I can point you to a comparable example.
As this Harris poll from nearly a year ago shows, the American public wasn't afraid to let facts in the way of their opinions. Seventy-two percent thought the Iraqi people were better off last year than under Saddam, despite hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians, daily car bombings and kidnappings, continuing absence of basic public services, etc. Sixty-four percent said it was true that Saddam Hussein had strong links to Al Qaeda, despite this being repeatedly proved false (Dick Cheney went on Rush Limbaugh's show just a few days ago to repeat this lie despite a new US government report disproving it). And, my favorite, fifty percent thought that Iraq had WMDs when the U.S. invaded Iraq.
You had to read the article to find out that Cringely opinion-trolls? He even admitted it in public once. I didn't need to read the article, but I felt it might be nice to include those quotes for anyone new here. Perhaps I just have just gone with a Soviet Russia joke instead. Those are good for a few "Funny" mods, whereas my post is modded redundant for no reason.
Cringely comes to this conclusion after being unable to get a fax line working. His assumption that the (Vonage) line's failure to support faxing is due to Comcast packet prioritizing is not really supported or proved. But his main point about the longstanding existence of service tiering will come as no surprise to this community. But his main point about tiered service is not really supported or proved.
I don't know for sure, but I suspect the answer may well lie in an extension of last week's column about net neutrality.
Readers claim that some -- who knows, maybe ALL -- big broadband ISPs are ALREADY running tiered services.
Well, there are no Net Neutrality rules/laws in place (yet). Correct? So, they can do anything they want, right?
So instead of a true "best effort" network upon which some ISPs want to impose tiered services, what most of us probably have are already tiered services
What a waste of a real estate on the Slashdot front page.
- self destruct, great, so if you want to destroy someones data, just grab their memory stick and intentional use bogus passwords. Now that's brilliant. A MS with a builtin self DOS. Actually, a real self-destruct process would be good - you don't seriously want the government keeping the only copy of their data on these memory sticks? Unfortunately, there is no self-destruct capability in the memory stick. Given the shoddy design in the rest of the product, my guess is that their version of destruction is to delete the files with software.
No security support in hardware, just desolder the actual memory and stick it into your favourite $15 MS. Brilliant. You don't even need to go that far. The design is so bad that you can hack it without removing the chip. It is a consumer-grade memory chip with some crappy software on it.
So smug in their design they don't even encrypt the data. Outstanding. I'm not sure smug is even the appropriate word. I lean toward massive incompetence and ignorance. Their solution seems perfect to someone outside of the computer industry (and, no, I don't include salesmen, PHBs, or government employees) but displays a grotesque lack of understanding of basic data security and common hacking methods.
Software designed apparently by a 12 yo. Oh wait, a 12yo probably wouldn't have made it so dumb. Maybe it was a 6yo, were there identifiers named after Spongebob characters? Unfortunately, stupidity and ignorance often are not solved by additional years on our planet. Just like the electronic voting implementations in the US, this displays the trademarks of a cheap and quick solution with no clue of basic safeguards and standards. And like Diebold, they made a killing by overstating the abilities of their commodity hardware and shitty custom software.
First, it doesn't beg the question. Please learn the proper use of the phrase.
Since there are a ton of these products out there. Does any third party verifiy that they are secure as they are claimed to be? Or are we truly at the mercy of the marketing spin that these companies put out? According to TFA, the product was commissioned by the French government and is approved by the French intelligence service. It also is reportedly used in the defense and banking industries. One would hope that there would be some sort of verification by knowledgeable IT folks prior to approval by all these groups, but it appears that no one gave it a real examination.
Does that also mean that "bringing the democracy" and "invade a country out of a lie and without UN mandate then let the place fall into chaos because unilateral decisions calls for adverse reactions" are the same thing? Poll the American public and I think you'll find that regardless of the reality on the ground in Iraq, they believe that the US military has brought democracy to Iraq and that it was a good thing. So, I guess they can be the same thing.
But on the other hand, although I hate GWB as much as any other non-US citizen, I refuse that title to people who, for example, come from Iran or Syria (or any other place) to Irak and blindly kill civilian because bringing chaos to Irak serves the political agenda of the country that funds them.
And yes, propaganda can be a tool of terrorism.
And given your extensive first-hand experience with these folks, you can clearly delineate the terrorists from the freedom fighters? Most of the world's "knowledge" of these foreign "terrorists" is based upon the US military's reports. Propaganda is a much stronger tool of the government, who has a built-in sense of legitimacy with many people and has more resources to repeat it until it is accepted.
Terrorists and Freedom Fighters are the same people - the names are but propaganda used by each side.
I'd love to see TigerDirect try to compete with Intel and AMD's chip manufacturing operations. I was simply running with your example. This obviously is a terrible one for this argument, given the huge expense involved in building a chip fab plant. However, there are many pharm labs that could quickly whip up their own batch of drug X and sell it with a tiny bit of the R&D required of Merck. To steal a Slashdot meme:
1. Let Merck develop, test, and get FDA approval for a new drug
2. Create your own version based upon Merck's extensive R&D
3. Profit!
No, I don't see anything wrong with trademarks. Decorating your product with an Apple logo, when that logo is associated with Apple Inc. in the public eye, is equivalent to saying "this product was made by Apple Inc.", which is obviously false if it really wasn't. Trademark infringement is a form of fraud, and can justifiably be punished without having to pretend that the company "owns" a picture of an apple. But your reputation is less tangible than songs, novels, and engineering plans. Why can't I start a computer company named "Apple", put a little apple on my artsy computers, load OS X on them, and sell them? I don't have to say that I'm the same company lead by Steve Jobs and headquartered in Cupertino, CA, in order to make people think I am. Stop repressing my freedom of speech.
That's antiquated thinking. In a world where ideas can't be owned, you get someone to promise you money first, then you put forth the effort - just like any other service. You can't get cheated out of your labor unless you choose to give it away for free (or unless you get kidnapped and enslaved, but I think we can ignore that possibility). And you're thinking only of the laborer, not the person investing the money. Or, the situation outside of corporate America where these are the same person. If I'm an author with a small publishing company, I no longer have a business model. Free-lance everything goes out the door.
A single person, probably not. But a thousand people? A million people? If the average person isn't going to invest blood, sweat, and tears (and cash) in something where their best outcome is to break even, I don't understand how you think millions of people will.
The past few election cycles have proved that you can raise millions of dollars from individual contributions. They've also proven that individuals have no power in the face of corporate donations and that the will of the people doesn't matter on election day.
And remember, they don't need a monetary return in order for it to be a good deal. If you're a computer enthusiast, you value the very existence of fast CPUs, and you'll be willing to contribute to the research just as you're willing to buy a CPU off the shelf. But the number of people who fall into that category is small enough to get lost in the shuffle. People buy a new CPU off the shelf knowing (roughly) what its capabilities are and how much better it is than what they currently have. This does not map at all to investing up front in the hopes of a better one existing when you need it.
I really don't disagree with you too much on how things should work and this has been an enjoyable academic discussion. However, I am genuine in my belief that such pipe dreams will not work in the real world on anything more than a trivial scale. Yes, we have a good example of the potential in today's open source software movement - people use the product and a few donate money in hopes of keeping development going in the future. And, they make their code available for anyone else to use (but with certain restrictions, which would no longer be valid in your free world). I wish you best of luck; please let me know when you have completed your revolution:)
No he isn't talking about Hot Coffee. He's talking about Oblivion (also published by Take2, http://www.2kgames.com/index.php?p=games&title=obl ivion&platform=PC) which did get hit by this. Someone altered the models to let them appear nude, and as a result the game's rating was changed. All this on a game that came with an editor and encouraged modding. http://biz.gamedaily.com/industry/feature/?id=1260 4 for an old link to this story. Perhaps so. His post was so vague and full of misinformation it was tough to guess where in reality he might be pointing.
Even if you are correct, the facts here don't help him either. Like the example I cited, this was content included in the game but not accessible by normal means of game play. A modder did not create these art files and include them with their mod - they used what was already in the game. And, no one was sued for all they were worth - they simply had to change their ESRB rating to reflect was actually included with the game. Where is the problem here?
The funny thing is, you didn't address a single one of the parent's points, but merely attacked the poster personally at each quote.
In terms of rational discussion, it seems you haven't grasped the basic concept.
Sure I did. I just didn't give the answer you like.
If we were renting hardware from a games manufacturer as a delivery vehicle for their games, a restriction on what we can do with the hardware would be proper. In respect of our own personal PCs, it is not proper, and you can't fudge around that basic point regardless of any gaming issues that stem from it.
Perhaps *YOU* have handed over the rights to your hardware to Blizzard, but most of us have not. And we're going to use our hardware to the fullest extent possible. These restrictions are valid only if you decide to pay for Blizzard's product (not once, but continue to pay an additional cost every month), install it on your own personal PC, and play the game. When you do, you agree to some basic ground rules.
Playing any competitive game requires that everyone agrees to basic ground rules. If you don't like them, create your own game or don't play.
And if you don't like it, tough. You certainly can't do anything about it. I most certainly can and I have. I quit sending Blizzard my money every month and told them why. They can now decide whether the loss of me and others who expect the enforcement of basic rules are worth more to them than cheaters like you. Thus far Blizzard has decided that the appearance of caring is good enough for the average player, so they undertake some basic anti-cheating measures (like occasional bans of large numbers of accounts).
How interesting that you'd call these ideas "socialist". I'd say they're libertarian. I say tomayto, you say tomahto. Regardless, as I said earlier, we have all of human history indicating that your ideas will not work in reality. Enough people are addicted to money and power to ruin any and every fair system.
People are also willing to spend money on things that directly benefit them. When I spend $12 on a haircut, it's not because I think my sharp new look will entice others to pay me more than $12. It's because I like the look myself. Actually, you are. Whether it is to get or maintain a job, to attract other people to you (for friendship or sexual relations), or just to fit in, people pay $12 for a haircut because they see some benefit outside of having shorter hair. Some cultures wear their hair long and rarely if ever get haircuts while other cultures wear their hair extremely short. Most people conform to this because they want to fit in.
But the profit motive will still be there. If I'm a computer retailer or manufacturer, then I'll be willing to invest in new chip designs. I want to keep selling new computers to people, and I can sell a lot more when this year's model is better than last year's. So Dell and Best Buy will finance chip research now? And, they are perfectly happy when they make a big breakthrough, only to have the design copied and sold by TigerDirect with 5% of the cost?
And Apple won't be harmed when Bob's Computer Shack can legally sell less dependable iBooks with an authentic-looking Apple logo on it.? If we can't own ideas, methods, thoughts, etc, we also can't own reputations so trademarks are gone. This would seem counter to libertarian philosophy of not harming others in the exercise of your liberty.
Likewise, if I contribute to cancer research, it won't be because I want to get rich off of cancer patients, it'll be because I want there to be a cure if I get cancer. Like most people, I've decided that my odds of getting cancer are low enough to opt out of the high cost cancer insurance available now. I would be even less likely to invest in an unlikely cure for a disease I'm unlikely to get.
If the person who did the original work has already been paid for his effort, then why should he care who uses it? First, you are assuming that his effort has been paid for. It might take years to recoup the original investment. If you grant zero rights to the original developer or inventor, you are guaranteeing that many people would lose money despite successful research, which clearly disincentivizes the whole process. Secondly, even if you could guarantee that the person did get paid for their work, the average person will not be willing to invest large sums of time and money in hopes of only breaking even.
It's sad that people can't just either play and enjoy the game the way it's intended or simply not play. That they have to cheat, and then when Blizzard tries to protect the integrity of their game, come up with bullshit like this to try and justify their cheating. It's just a game. If you really feel you have to cheat at it, you should simply not play, because it defeats the purpose of the game. You destroy the experience not only for yourself, but you cheapen it for those around you. I agree 110% with everything but the bolded portion.
It's one thing to cheat, but then to turn around and try to morally justify it like this, is just pathetic. This has nothing to do with software freedom. Blizzard is simply using the tools before them to try and protect the integrity of their game. This case isn't about players who cheated and were caught - Blizzard is going after the person who wrote the botting software. While I can see why they would want to do this, they are stretching the DMCA well past even its evil intentions.
Translation: "I can't win fairly so I cheat and try to justify it. My e-peen hurts."
It's not Blizzard's business to tell us how we are permitted to generate keystroke events on our private machines.
If we want to generate them by pressing keyboard buttons, fine, but if instead we want to use our machines' powerful capabilities to generate them for us, that's also fine. They're our computers, not Blizzard's, and their attempt to limit our use of computing resources is extremely blinkered.
Simple fix - don't buy the game and stop sending them $15 every month. A game that is multiplayer ONLY and competitive requires ground rules and some means of enforcement.
If Blizzard want to apply controls, they should do so on their servers. Our machines are not theirs to control. Then get their software off it. When you clicked through that EULA, you agreed to these terms.
The "cheating" arguments are entirely irrelevant. Your need to put cheating in quotes only confirms my translation above.
By that ridiculous logic, anyone who has a faster computer, a clearer monitor or a faster network than others is also "cheating", and the ever-changing evolution and progress of equipment stops dead. I'm amazed that you managed to spell logic, given your lack of familiarity with it. When a game allows for differences such as connection speeds and computer specs, playing on a DS3 isn't cheating. OTOH, when a game clearly prohibits using botting software to automate gameplay, doing so clearly is cheating.
I'm sorry that you aren't good at this game or coping with that fact.
So...why don't we help them out? Can anyone here come up with another way to attack the situation, besides declaring memory access of the WoW client "copyright violation?" It really isn't complicated - go after the cheaters and eliminate (or significantly reduce) the market for WoWGlider. I haven't played in a few months but I doubt that things have changed drastically since - known bots are allowed to operate for weeks or months without interruption. When you make enough money to cover your purchase of the bot software, a new account every few months, and still clear a nice profit on eBay gold, people will abuse the system.
Many of us started policing zones as best we could (which was easier on PvP servers) by sharing lists of bots and spending our spare time killing the botting characters. I ended many nights by getting my 10 HKs per player in Felwood, repeatedly killing the same bots that I reported each night for weeks.
Well, although it may be your right to manipulate your own RAM however you see fit, don't forget that if you manipulate the game to show a nipple or sexually suggestive positions, it is your parent's/crusader group's right to sue Blizzard for everything they're worth. Faced with the fact that Blizzard will be held liable for everything everyone else does to their game, what choice do they have but to pursue any messed up agressive ways of getting you to stop?
One can only reasonably assume that using such software would be your right. However, one would also reasonably assume that you are responsible for any modifications you make to game. I'm just saying that legal responsibilities surrounding software and computers are really fucked up. If I was a game manufacturer, I'd be scared to death of modders now that I've found out that the company can be liable for what they do. Thank you lawyers, crusaders, and politicians!
I hope someone out there gets to metamoderate the folks who called this "interesting".
These two situations aren't even in the same ballpark. Take 2 included adult content in their game but disabled easy access to it. They were sued because they didn't disclose this content when getting their ESRB rating. Had Take 2 revealed the content enabled by the Hot Coffee mod, they would not have gotten an M rating and they wouldn't have sold a fraction of number of units they did. This suit wasn't about people adding nipples to the game - the sex minigame was included but undocumented. The suit was about business practices, fair competition, and the game ratings system.
Also, you can at least say they are taking a pro-active, even if they overstepped here, approach to cheating. Cheaters wreck the game for everyone. While I don't like Blizzard's secrecy about Warden and its snooping, I do applaud efforts to control cheating. However, they overstepped by attacking the guy who made botting software. There is no legitimate copyright claim here.
How about: wasting your life on something you've already done once is lame. Don't do it.
Blizzard just needs to let you create maxed or almost maxed characters if you already have a level 70 instead of forcing you to level through the same material over and over. If you could start a new character at level 50, that would give plenty of room to learn how to play the class. That's all they have to do to reign in the botting. You could make all the money you need from leveling alts to 70 and then doing the quests for gold.
Because most botters are level 23 alts? The vast majority of bots are high level characters (50+) that are used to farm gold or other resources that are sold for gold.
How about not wasting your life (and $15/month) on a game that you don't enjoy?
Two hundred years ago, if I'd said "people have no legitimate right to own slaves", would that also be false because I'd be on the wrong side of who-knows-how-many years of law? Or would I just be talking about something more fundamental than statutes? So the right to own something you create is now being compared to slavery?
Free speech is an American value too, far more important than any economic principles, and copyright is in direct opposition to it. And free speech has plenty of limitations on it...
Nonsense. All you have to do is ask yourself, "Would anyone benefit from this research? Do those people have money?" If the answers are yes, there will be funding for research. Perhaps in your utopian socialist state, but not in reality. Research funding is speculative - people are willing to invest money in the hopes they will make more money down the road. Doing away with all patents, copyrights, and such will mean those who can quickly copy another's work will make the money with little upfront investment, which will eliminate all but the most high-risk investors. Yes, there will be those who are more interested in the good of man, but that is only a drop in the bucket.
Copyright was originally introduced to protect the economic interests of those who reproduced writings, not the authors themselves. The version of copyright that came into vogue in the early 1700s took the power away from the printing guilds and gave it to the public. As you can see, these laws have been twisted over the years to again benefit those groups with power and money. What makes you think this wouldn't happen again if copyright was completely abolished tomorrow?
They don't legitimately have the right to control distribution of their work. You can't own an idea, and the childish attitude of "I invented it, so it's MINE and you can't use it", which has found its way into some of our laws, is not getting us anywhere as a society. You make it sound like this is some recent invention of Congress and lobbyists. Copyright law goes back five or six hundred years, with something similar to what is found in our Constitution existing since at least the early 1700s. Our Constitution includes copyright protection "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." While I don't find much interesting in today's Top 40 pukefest, I believe it technically qualifies as art and the artists qualify as authors. It is exactly false to claim that authors and musical artists have no legitimate right to control the distribution of their work; you are on the wrong side of at least 300 solid years of copyright law. You might want to argue that this whole idea is flawed and should be changed, but that is a different path than where you're going right now.
There's certainly plenty of room for criticism of the corporate-owned version of copyright that exists in the US today, but your suggestion flies in the face of private property rights, capitalism, and other holy American values (I bet Jesus even supports copyright laws!). If an artist has no right of control over a song they create, a sculpture they make, or a book they write, then you cannot extend that protection to patents on more "practical" items. With no profit motive, most pharmaceutical research stops, technology innovation in IT and computing dies, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
This doesn't take care of ad "previews" on the rare flash you may actually want to see, but nobody is forcing to to watch it.
I've been using Flashblock for several years myself but recently stopped putting it on new machines. While I am annoyed that about five percent of Flash ads somehow get past Flashblock, the real issue is how many sites are Flash-heavy now. It isn't uncommon for me to browse to a site and see five or six boxes with an arrow (indicating blocked Flash content), most or all of which are legitimate content and not annoying ads. I've never found Flashblock's whitelist to work properly either.I now use Adblock Plus with the Filterset.G updater and skip Flashblock altogether. I still block the annoying ads but don't have to deal with a dozen right-clicks per page just to view a site.
I get nauseous when I have to use someone's IE for web browsing. My standard install for all computers I work on (including mine, the one used by my wife and kids, my parents' computer, and my wife's parent's machine) puts Firefox on the desktop with Adblock Plus and Filterset.G. I used to use Flashblock but so many sites use so much Flash that it became a real hassle. Although, others find it humorous that my three-year old knew to right-click on Flash objects so she could get around on PBSkids.org :)
- A list of copyrighted files being shared
- The IP address of each file sharer
- The real name and address of each file sharer
- Evidence that conclusively proves each point
Sure, they could have been much more deliberate in their searching and verified each file downloaded, but they knew this would never even ripple the public waters. And, they would still rely on the IP data in the packets, the ISP to provide subscriber data, and finding the same files on a computer at the subscriber's home (all of which have been attacked as problems with their approach).This is a propaganda scare campaign and nothing more. This was a calculated assault by the RIAA - they decided (probably correctly) that this would be the most cost-effective means of combating wide-spread illegal file sharing.
The RIAA simply stole a page from the corporate dinosaur playbook. Those of us into satellite "testing" saw the exact same ploy used by Dave a few years ago. They raided the offices of several large resellers of hacking equipment then used the seized shipping records to send letters threatening lawsuits to anyone who purchased smartcard programmers. Nevermind that these are completely legal to own and have plenty of legitimate uses outside of satellite television hacking. However, just like with the RIAA, plenty of scared people paid their blackmail and disposed of the "contraband".
...but that doesn't mean it can't become a good thing. Absolutely. But the US had no right to inflict this up the Iraqi people. It will be long time before this gets better. And judging by recent polling data, I'd also dispute your claim that a majority of Americans currently think this way. Sure thing. I don't have any recent data in front of me on this particular topic, but I can point you to a comparable example. As this Harris poll from nearly a year ago shows, the American public wasn't afraid to let facts in the way of their opinions. Seventy-two percent thought the Iraqi people were better off last year than under Saddam, despite hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians, daily car bombings and kidnappings, continuing absence of basic public services, etc. Sixty-four percent said it was true that Saddam Hussein had strong links to Al Qaeda, despite this being repeatedly proved false (Dick Cheney went on Rush Limbaugh's show just a few days ago to repeat this lie despite a new US government report disproving it). And, my favorite, fifty percent thought that Iraq had WMDs when the U.S. invaded Iraq.I don't know for sure, but I suspect the answer may well lie in an extension of last week's column about net neutrality.
Readers claim that some -- who knows, maybe ALL -- big broadband ISPs are ALREADY running tiered services.
Well, there are no Net Neutrality rules/laws in place (yet). Correct? So, they can do anything they want, right?
So instead of a true "best effort" network upon which some ISPs want to impose tiered services, what most of us probably have are already tiered services
What a waste of a real estate on the Slashdot front page.
And yes, propaganda can be a tool of terrorism.
And given your extensive first-hand experience with these folks, you can clearly delineate the terrorists from the freedom fighters? Most of the world's "knowledge" of these foreign "terrorists" is based upon the US military's reports. Propaganda is a much stronger tool of the government, who has a built-in sense of legitimacy with many people and has more resources to repeat it until it is accepted.Terrorists and Freedom Fighters are the same people - the names are but propaganda used by each side.
1. Let Merck develop, test, and get FDA approval for a new drug
No, I don't see anything wrong with trademarks. Decorating your product with an Apple logo, when that logo is associated with Apple Inc. in the public eye, is equivalent to saying "this product was made by Apple Inc.", which is obviously false if it really wasn't. Trademark infringement is a form of fraud, and can justifiably be punished without having to pretend that the company "owns" a picture of an apple. But your reputation is less tangible than songs, novels, and engineering plans. Why can't I start a computer company named "Apple", put a little apple on my artsy computers, load OS X on them, and sell them? I don't have to say that I'm the same company lead by Steve Jobs and headquartered in Cupertino, CA, in order to make people think I am. Stop repressing my freedom of speech. That's antiquated thinking. In a world where ideas can't be owned, you get someone to promise you money first, then you put forth the effort - just like any other service. You can't get cheated out of your labor unless you choose to give it away for free (or unless you get kidnapped and enslaved, but I think we can ignore that possibility). And you're thinking only of the laborer, not the person investing the money. Or, the situation outside of corporate America where these are the same person. If I'm an author with a small publishing company, I no longer have a business model. Free-lance everything goes out the door. A single person, probably not. But a thousand people? A million people? If the average person isn't going to invest blood, sweat, and tears (and cash) in something where their best outcome is to break even, I don't understand how you think millions of people will. The past few election cycles have proved that you can raise millions of dollars from individual contributions. They've also proven that individuals have no power in the face of corporate donations and that the will of the people doesn't matter on election day. And remember, they don't need a monetary return in order for it to be a good deal. If you're a computer enthusiast, you value the very existence of fast CPUs, and you'll be willing to contribute to the research just as you're willing to buy a CPU off the shelf. But the number of people who fall into that category is small enough to get lost in the shuffle. People buy a new CPU off the shelf knowing (roughly) what its capabilities are and how much better it is than what they currently have. This does not map at all to investing up front in the hopes of a better one existing when you need it.2. Create your own version based upon Merck's extensive R&D
3. Profit!
I really don't disagree with you too much on how things should work and this has been an enjoyable academic discussion. However, I am genuine in my belief that such pipe dreams will not work in the real world on anything more than a trivial scale. Yes, we have a good example of the potential in today's open source software movement - people use the product and a few donate money in hopes of keeping development going in the future. And, they make their code available for anyone else to use (but with certain restrictions, which would no longer be valid in your free world). I wish you best of luck; please let me know when you have completed your revolution :)
Even if you are correct, the facts here don't help him either. Like the example I cited, this was content included in the game but not accessible by normal means of game play. A modder did not create these art files and include them with their mod - they used what was already in the game. And, no one was sued for all they were worth - they simply had to change their ESRB rating to reflect was actually included with the game. Where is the problem here?
In terms of rational discussion, it seems you haven't grasped the basic concept.
Sure I did. I just didn't give the answer you like. If we were renting hardware from a games manufacturer as a delivery vehicle for their games, a restriction on what we can do with the hardware would be proper. In respect of our own personal PCs, it is not proper, and you can't fudge around that basic point regardless of any gaming issues that stem from it. Perhaps *YOU* have handed over the rights to your hardware to Blizzard, but most of us have not. And we're going to use our hardware to the fullest extent possible. These restrictions are valid only if you decide to pay for Blizzard's product (not once, but continue to pay an additional cost every month), install it on your own personal PC, and play the game. When you do, you agree to some basic ground rules.Playing any competitive game requires that everyone agrees to basic ground rules. If you don't like them, create your own game or don't play.
And if you don't like it, tough. You certainly can't do anything about it. I most certainly can and I have. I quit sending Blizzard my money every month and told them why. They can now decide whether the loss of me and others who expect the enforcement of basic rules are worth more to them than cheaters like you. Thus far Blizzard has decided that the appearance of caring is good enough for the average player, so they undertake some basic anti-cheating measures (like occasional bans of large numbers of accounts).And Apple won't be harmed when Bob's Computer Shack can legally sell less dependable iBooks with an authentic-looking Apple logo on it.? If we can't own ideas, methods, thoughts, etc, we also can't own reputations so trademarks are gone. This would seem counter to libertarian philosophy of not harming others in the exercise of your liberty.
Likewise, if I contribute to cancer research, it won't be because I want to get rich off of cancer patients, it'll be because I want there to be a cure if I get cancer. Like most people, I've decided that my odds of getting cancer are low enough to opt out of the high cost cancer insurance available now. I would be even less likely to invest in an unlikely cure for a disease I'm unlikely to get. If the person who did the original work has already been paid for his effort, then why should he care who uses it? First, you are assuming that his effort has been paid for. It might take years to recoup the original investment. If you grant zero rights to the original developer or inventor, you are guaranteeing that many people would lose money despite successful research, which clearly disincentivizes the whole process. Secondly, even if you could guarantee that the person did get paid for their work, the average person will not be willing to invest large sums of time and money in hopes of only breaking even.If we want to generate them by pressing keyboard buttons, fine, but if instead we want to use our machines' powerful capabilities to generate them for us, that's also fine. They're our computers, not Blizzard's, and their attempt to limit our use of computing resources is extremely blinkered.
Simple fix - don't buy the game and stop sending them $15 every month. A game that is multiplayer ONLY and competitive requires ground rules and some means of enforcement. If Blizzard want to apply controls, they should do so on their servers. Our machines are not theirs to control. Then get their software off it. When you clicked through that EULA, you agreed to these terms. The "cheating" arguments are entirely irrelevant. Your need to put cheating in quotes only confirms my translation above. By that ridiculous logic, anyone who has a faster computer, a clearer monitor or a faster network than others is also "cheating", and the ever-changing evolution and progress of equipment stops dead. I'm amazed that you managed to spell logic, given your lack of familiarity with it. When a game allows for differences such as connection speeds and computer specs, playing on a DS3 isn't cheating. OTOH, when a game clearly prohibits using botting software to automate gameplay, doing so clearly is cheating.I'm sorry that you aren't good at this game or coping with that fact.
Many of us started policing zones as best we could (which was easier on PvP servers) by sharing lists of bots and spending our spare time killing the botting characters. I ended many nights by getting my 10 HKs per player in Felwood, repeatedly killing the same bots that I reported each night for weeks.
One can only reasonably assume that using such software would be your right. However, one would also reasonably assume that you are responsible for any modifications you make to game. I'm just saying that legal responsibilities surrounding software and computers are really fucked up. If I was a game manufacturer, I'd be scared to death of modders now that I've found out that the company can be liable for what they do. Thank you lawyers, crusaders, and politicians!
I hope someone out there gets to metamoderate the folks who called this "interesting".These two situations aren't even in the same ballpark. Take 2 included adult content in their game but disabled easy access to it. They were sued because they didn't disclose this content when getting their ESRB rating. Had Take 2 revealed the content enabled by the Hot Coffee mod, they would not have gotten an M rating and they wouldn't have sold a fraction of number of units they did. This suit wasn't about people adding nipples to the game - the sex minigame was included but undocumented. The suit was about business practices, fair competition, and the game ratings system.
Also, you can at least say they are taking a pro-active, even if they overstepped here, approach to cheating. Cheaters wreck the game for everyone. While I don't like Blizzard's secrecy about Warden and its snooping, I do applaud efforts to control cheating. However, they overstepped by attacking the guy who made botting software. There is no legitimate copyright claim here.Blizzard just needs to let you create maxed or almost maxed characters if you already have a level 70 instead of forcing you to level through the same material over and over. If you could start a new character at level 50, that would give plenty of room to learn how to play the class. That's all they have to do to reign in the botting. You could make all the money you need from leveling alts to 70 and then doing the quests for gold.
Because most botters are level 23 alts? The vast majority of bots are high level characters (50+) that are used to farm gold or other resources that are sold for gold.How about not wasting your life (and $15/month) on a game that you don't enjoy?
Copyright was originally introduced to protect the economic interests of those who reproduced writings, not the authors themselves. The version of copyright that came into vogue in the early 1700s took the power away from the printing guilds and gave it to the public. As you can see, these laws have been twisted over the years to again benefit those groups with power and money. What makes you think this wouldn't happen again if copyright was completely abolished tomorrow?
There's certainly plenty of room for criticism of the corporate-owned version of copyright that exists in the US today, but your suggestion flies in the face of private property rights, capitalism, and other holy American values (I bet Jesus even supports copyright laws!). If an artist has no right of control over a song they create, a sculpture they make, or a book they write, then you cannot extend that protection to patents on more "practical" items. With no profit motive, most pharmaceutical research stops, technology innovation in IT and computing dies, etc.