We are making Toyota responsible for all the incidents, and possible future incidents with their acceleration issues, aren't we? Why not hold microsoft responible for their own products too?
You mean other than the fact that the EULA you agree to when using Windows says that Microsoft disclaims all warranties and Toyota has no such contractual agreement with purchasers of their car? And before you go on about being able to ignore that and claiming EULAs are unenforceable (which is a common slashdot meme but it is wrong) then you would have to say that any such disclaimers in FOSS software would be null and void too thus opening them up to being held responsible for any bugs in their software.
Microsoft and its suppliers provide the Software and support services (if any) AS IS AND WITH ALL FAULTS, and hereby disclaim all other warranties and conditions, whether express, implied or statutory, including, but not limited to, any (if any) implied warranties, duties or conditions of merchantability, of fitness for a particular purpose, of reliability or availability, of accuracy or completeness of responses, of results, of workmanlike effort, of lack of viruses, and of lack of negligence, all with regard to the Software, and the provision of or failure to provide support or other services, information, software, and related content through the Software or otherwise arising out of the use of the Software. ALSO, THERE IS NO WARRANTY OR CONDITION OF TITLE, QUIET ENJOYMENT, QUIET POSSESSION, CORRESPONDENCE TO DESCRIPTION OR NON-INFRINGEMENT WITH REGARD TO THE SOFTWARE.
Oh, and having two people play together makes it like a massively multiplayer online game? Right.
No. They said that you get the reward of being able to play together with a friend like you would in an MMO. Not that this constitutes the game BEING an MMO.
I don't say this often, but I hope the hacking community figures out a way to open up the extra content on the disc for free on the PC, because if I owned the game... I'd crack it.
And I'd be willing to bet that 2k Games will then block any person from their servers who have done this.
I never would have considered pirating games until companies went gung-ho with raping their customers with DRM. I only pirate games with DRM and I gladly buy games that don't have DRM (my massive stack of video games attests to the fact that I gladly buy).
Or, you know, you could just avoid the game if you disagree with the practices of the person releasing it. You basically lose any moral or ethical high ground by then going out and pirating the game.
How long until someone cracks this and accesses the 'Downloadable Content' without paying for it?
On the 360 or PS3? It probably will never. Maybe someone can try on the PC but I'm pretty sure they will be doing checks against such a crack when you log in to their servers. It would be trivially easy to detect if someone has done this.
Proponents of DRM everywhere will be proud.
What does DRM have to do with this? This content was absent due to DRM, it just wasn't enabled. The patch will enable it.
Appreciate that they may well be individual legitimate projects and not meaning to cast any aspersions on them, but having an additional 3 options which are how MS renders the web and whatever fobiles that entails, just seems wrong.
Then blame the EU. They are only included due to their list of the top 12 browsers.
Program writing to where it should not? Prompt user for administration password and ask if it's ok to do so. Seems to be that MOST people like it contrary to what you think.
Which is not the same as what was being asked for in what I responded to. But Windows does the same thing since Vista.
Whitelisting is a good approach for certain locked down, single purpose terminals, but for general computing you might just as well deploy Ubuntu to your users instead...
As for who has the authority... that would be the anti-virus vendor. The same people who you've given the authority to tell you what is a virus today.
So the same people that this article is pointing out that are failing to actually protect people? Oh and let's not even get to how many false positives and negatives that are well-known to happen with all the security suites.
Here's a radical new concept. How about an antivirus program that BLOCKS file writes to the operating system UNLESS that file can be confirmed to be "good"?
And how do you think this is going to happen? If it's manual then most users are going to just click through saying it's good all the time or when they get fed up by this behavior they'll just uninstall it. If automatic, how exactly do you expect something to perfectly determine whether something is good or bad? Because if it can't do it with 100% accuracy, then you're going to get lots of complaints about bad files being thought of as good or good files being shitcanned as being bad.
Perfectly perfect installs of antivirus? As in, perfect enough to be NSA backdoors? Other articles mentioned that the exploits were there because of NSA mandates for data access that we can safely assume to include internet-facing Windows computers. If that's true, then the NSA are a helluva lot more stupid(or lazy) than they claim to be.
Yeah and then Schneiner stated in a retraction that that wasn't the case.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, such a disclaimer of warranty is in the Windows EULA that you agree to when using the product and has been since the beginning.
We are making Toyota responsible for all the incidents, and possible future incidents with their acceleration issues, aren't we? Why not hold microsoft responible for their own products too?
You mean other than the fact that the EULA you agree to when using Windows says that Microsoft disclaims all warranties and Toyota has no such contractual agreement with purchasers of their car? And before you go on about being able to ignore that and claiming EULAs are unenforceable (which is a common slashdot meme but it is wrong) then you would have to say that any such disclaimers in FOSS software would be null and void too thus opening them up to being held responsible for any bugs in their software.
Maybe you should read the Windows EULA?
Microsoft and its suppliers provide the Software and support services (if any) AS IS AND WITH ALL FAULTS, and hereby disclaim all other warranties and conditions, whether express, implied or statutory, including, but not limited to, any (if any) implied warranties, duties or conditions of merchantability, of fitness for a particular purpose, of reliability or availability, of accuracy or completeness of responses, of results, of workmanlike effort, of lack of viruses, and of lack of negligence, all with regard to the Software, and the provision of or failure to provide support or other services, information, software, and related content through the Software or otherwise arising out of the use of the Software. ALSO, THERE IS NO WARRANTY OR CONDITION OF TITLE, QUIET ENJOYMENT, QUIET POSSESSION, CORRESPONDENCE TO DESCRIPTION OR NON-INFRINGEMENT WITH REGARD TO THE SOFTWARE.
I don't know who to trust here. Apple may be litigious, but it's not stupid - if it was a simple case, they would have settled it by now.
Yeah Apple never files stupid cases.
Such as?
Oh, and having two people play together makes it like a massively multiplayer online game? Right.
No. They said that you get the reward of being able to play together with a friend like you would in an MMO. Not that this constitutes the game BEING an MMO.
Did you miss the part where it said PC?
I don't say this often, but I hope the hacking community figures out a way to open up the extra content on the disc for free on the PC, because if I owned the game... I'd crack it.
And I'd be willing to bet that 2k Games will then block any person from their servers who have done this.
Or you can just get a used copy of ODST and get all the multiplayer maps included.
I never would have considered pirating games until companies went gung-ho with raping their customers with DRM. I only pirate games with DRM and I gladly buy games that don't have DRM (my massive stack of video games attests to the fact that I gladly buy).
Or, you know, you could just avoid the game if you disagree with the practices of the person releasing it. You basically lose any moral or ethical high ground by then going out and pirating the game.
The presence of DLC causes me to pirate games I would otherwise (joyfully) pay for.
Because you are entitled to play the game? Two wrongs don't make a right.
Would it even be illegal for someone to do this?
Most likely. But even if it's not it would be trivially easy for 2k Games to block people from their servers by trying to crack the game to access it.
They bought a license to it already, is the publisher breaking the law by forcing someone to pay more to access something they already bought?
Under what statutory or case law would constitute this as illegal? It's content that was disabled and never advertised as being part of the package.
That was meant to be "wasn't absent".
How long until someone cracks this and accesses the 'Downloadable Content' without paying for it?
On the 360 or PS3? It probably will never. Maybe someone can try on the PC but I'm pretty sure they will be doing checks against such a crack when you log in to their servers. It would be trivially easy to detect if someone has done this.
Proponents of DRM everywhere will be proud.
What does DRM have to do with this? This content was absent due to DRM, it just wasn't enabled. The patch will enable it.
It is nowhere near akin to leaking sensitive information from totalitarian or repressive regimes, or even from corporate entities.
You mean except for when the leaks are about the government doing things that you only see happening in totalitarian regimes?
Appreciate that they may well be individual legitimate projects and not meaning to cast any aspersions on them, but having an additional 3 options which are how MS renders the web and whatever fobiles that entails, just seems wrong.
Then blame the EU. They are only included due to their list of the top 12 browsers.
You mean like how OSX and Linux does WITHOUT Antivirus?
And you mean like Windows has done since Vista also without antivirus? Or do you think UAC doesn't exist?
You must be pretty butthurt about something to constantly troll my posts.
Program writing to where it should not? Prompt user for administration password and ask if it's ok to do so. Seems to be that MOST people like it contrary to what you think.
Which is not the same as what was being asked for in what I responded to. But Windows does the same thing since Vista.
Whitelisting is a good approach for certain locked down, single purpose terminals, but for general computing you might just as well deploy Ubuntu to your users instead...
That is until they download Ubuntu malware.
Yeah, read the whole thread. You might notice that that was my original point.
And yet you think they are magically going to be able to implement an automatic white listing mechanism?
The "security industry" has no real interest in solving (or reducing) the problem because they're making so much money off of it.
And because many of them are just flat out incompetent.
If they did want to fix the issue, the simple example I gave would go a long way towards doing just that.
But they don't do that. See the sentence above the sentence right above this one.
And would be just as fraught false positives and negatives as their current software.
Where did the feds threaten him with jail time?
As for who has the authority ... that would be the anti-virus vendor. The same people who you've given the authority to tell you what is a virus today.
So the same people that this article is pointing out that are failing to actually protect people? Oh and let's not even get to how many false positives and negatives that are well-known to happen with all the security suites.
Here's a radical new concept. How about an antivirus program that BLOCKS file writes to the operating system UNLESS that file can be confirmed to be "good"?
And how do you think this is going to happen? If it's manual then most users are going to just click through saying it's good all the time or when they get fed up by this behavior they'll just uninstall it. If automatic, how exactly do you expect something to perfectly determine whether something is good or bad? Because if it can't do it with 100% accuracy, then you're going to get lots of complaints about bad files being thought of as good or good files being shitcanned as being bad.
Perfectly perfect installs of antivirus? As in, perfect enough to be NSA backdoors? Other articles mentioned that the exploits were there because of NSA mandates for data access that we can safely assume to include internet-facing Windows computers. If that's true, then the NSA are a helluva lot more stupid(or lazy) than they claim to be.
Yeah and then Schneiner stated in a retraction that that wasn't the case.