I use OpenWRT on my private router. As can be said of ALL default installed software: SCREW the firmware that comes with the routers.
It's just like my Laptop, Servers, Workstations, and Phone: If I can't install MY OS on it, it's not worth any of my time. If I haven't installed my OS on it, I DON'T USE IT.
That "easy setup" button on my router now gives me a minimal window of time during which I can SSH in to the router itself -- I have to be connected to the router already to do so over Ethernet or WPA2 w/ AES.
If you don't know how to drive GET THE HELL OUT from behind the steering wheel! The same can be said for networks, security, computers in general. If you can't configure your network, get someone who can to do so. Otherwise, expect to lose control and have a horrible accident when you brake instead of clutch, or WPS or WEP instead of WPA PSK w/ custom firmware.
Interesting. If it's "slander" to say Company X supports SOPA, then it must be a very heinous bill indeed.
I get your point: That there's no proof of fact-checking, and I can't find a single person among my associates, friends or family that doesn't detest SOPA; However, a company's name mistakingly placed on a list of entities for or against any bill shouldn't equate to slander. If being associated with the bill in any way is cause for libel, then who could ever support or create it in the first place?
Although I'm not aware of any individuals who are for SOPA, I don't doubt their existence. Would not being incorrectly placed on the list of SOPA supporters have a positive effect in this regard? Are you not also assuming a false dichotomy, of those who are for and those against SOPA?
What of those, like me, who realize they are too disenfranchised to give a damn either way? I'm against SOPA and other such bills that rob us of personal rights, but you must realize that government and corporations by and large wants this to pass. This SOPA or a bill like it WILL pass eventually. The sooner the better.
Not until the common people feel the jack-boot of oppression at their own throats will they have the resolve to rally in opposition to this and other such corruptions of power.
Please, "Literally" has been massacred enough already. Let's this word rest for a couple of decades, unless you are one of the two people in the world that actually uses it appropriately.
Please stop building quote pyramids, that's what the "parent" link is for. Quote the pertinent part, to give your comment a bit of context, not the whole thing.
Please, "massacred" has been used to death already; Let's let this word rest for a couple of eternities, unless you are one of the two people in the world that literally uses it literally.
As such a home owner, I would blame myself for leaving the door unlocked. However, I would blame the intruder for getting shot, or mauled by my two pit bull terriers.
I actually do this: I make all the "best" security decisions default, and automatically applied.
Misbehaving apps in my scripting environment (well, user generated mods for a game engine) simply fail with an error message: "Script Error: #42. - Returning to main menu."
If a user wants to be able to see those detailed dialogs such as: "Script Permission Error #42: MOD attempted a to connect to a domain not in your trust list. [T]rust: some.questionable.site.com [C]ancel and return to main menu. (o) Just this once (_) Always"
Then they must enable them in the advanced options, otherwise the sane defaults are chosen automatically.
This means developers (modders) are more likely to avoid causing such errors since mods that include arcane instructions to manually enable things are shied away from. There is an approved method apps can register trusted domains, and other possibly security sensitive capabilities (Like full disk access), and most modders will use this approach or avoid the needless permission since it gives a better user experience.
Unlike with Android, users can choose which features to allow or deny, and still run the app while deferring the decision to later (this allows sane defaults to be applied). I think Android needs more granular Allow / Deny behavior than "Here's a list of all the shit this game can do: EVERYTHING. Either enable EVERYTHING access or DON'T INSTALL this game" -- Guess which the user will choose? "Install"
My approach is to allow automatic granular defaults to be applied. So, by default when installing a mod "access this list of 3rd party domains..." is disabled. Sane defaults are applied to [X] check or [_] uncheck each permission automatically. A "[D]etails" option allows users to select the individual permissions. Given that such security permission systems have been around practically FOREVER (The king and his family can access the crown jewels, Apache runs as the user Apache, with access to keyrings and files granted by groups -- access is denied when access is requested beyond its current permissions), I find it severely retarded that very few people actually employ granular permission controls...
My Firefox runs as the Firefox user, and is in the "browser" group, so it can't see any files its not supposed to, like: ~/archive/taxes/
Even on most Linux distributions there's only the separation between User and Root by default... Why should Firefox be able to access my ~/Documents/ folder? We need to just run the Apps as their own users, but hardly anyone does. The actual human user account simply has access to all the groups, like "browser", "server", "generic", etc. So they can access the downloads, and what not without problems. (Hint: generic is a group that GIMP, Blender, LibreOffice, etc run under -- access to the ~/documents/ ~/design/ and other "user" home folders, but not ~/archive/taxes or ~/.mozilla, etc)
I see the "exploit" in TFA as an ignorant oversight by the Android devs. Clearly: "Launch URLs in Browser" should also be a capability. IMHO, the real issue here is lack of granularity due to an immature permission system, (which is ridiculous since Android uses Linux!).
My sources tell me that the real evildoers are using the same ICMP technology server side or in transit to discover whom is actually attempting to visit said forbidden servers; This new technique is dubbed: Internet Control of Users Protocol (ICUP).
The resistance is responding by creating a decentralized content store: HTTP over BitTorrent.
<quote>2. Using a tool to wipe all free space - these usually work by creating a file and filling it with zeroes until the OS eventually returns a disk full error, then deleting the file. I have no idea what - if anything - they'll do with any data still sitting around the MFT. Not to mention the fact that they won't help if there's any incriminating files sitting around that weren't deleted in the first place - and as we've established, it's quite possible for an application to do this totally invisibly to the end user.</quote>
HAHAHA. POSIX states that writing zeros doesn't actually have to do anything but remember that it's supposed to return zeros for those blocks. Thus, you can store a file that's 1TB of zeros on a 100GB drive... Morons everywhere.
The magnetic data is analog. so, it's less 1's and 0's than 1.0031 and 0.073... Overwriting with zeros could leave some evidence of the previous data eg (w/ a 1/100th retention: 0.010031 and 0.0073). Amplify those by 100 and you get back your 1.0031 and 0.073. It takes a very sensitive head, multiple reads, and a totally different drive enclosure, but you get the basic idea.
So, what if you write over the data with pseudo random noise? That's better, but not quite good enough. The problem is that we know what the "top layer" of data is, so we can subtract out that layer of noise.
Eg: Let's say we have a multiple zero written surface, we're starting from scratch, and we write: 1010 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0
Now, let's say that we overwrite this with 1100 1.01 1.00 0.01 0.00
We can read back the 1100 and subtract the noise from our signal. 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00
Amplify the signal by a gain of 100. 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0
With VERY sophisticated and sensitive gear you could even read back data after multiple writes. The best part is that the CRC checksums of the sectors will help you verify the data is correct. It's best to overwrite multiple times with a good source of (pseudo)randomness, like a cipher in CBC mode with a strong key and pseudo-random data stream. I'd say 3 times would be more than enough to obfuscate the data, but what do I know?
Now, a factor of 100 is a gross simplification for example purposes only. This was a bigger concern with older hard drives; Modern hard drives store the magnetic fields in such a way that it's even harder to recover, but the truth is it's not digital. It's still analog underneath, and subject to the same type of retrieval practices with very good gear.
SSDs use ware leveling, so over writing data does nothing but place the new data somewhere else, leaving the old data intact.
In any event, if you want the data really gone, just hit it with a hammer a few times... Thermite may attract more attention than its worth.
I do use PGP to sign my messages, but I don't use it to encrypt messages because most people I send email to don't have a public key published.
Setting up a public & private key pair is not part of the default setup process. Average users don't know how to manage passwords let alone Managing key-pairs.
Let's be frank: It's not that PGP is difficult, it's just that the system is cumbersome to lazy dumbasses.
My 75 year old retired Air Force mechanic neighbor knew next to nothing about computers when I helped him and his out of state family by giving him my decent used computer. Two months later he's now proficient at using GNU/Linux + Gnome (never uses the terminal). After I explained it, he now signs and/or encrypts his email messages with PGP.
Point is: He's not a dumbass, he's willing to learn. Most people ARE either dumbasses or not willing to learn. My neighbor and are are (slightly) ahead of the curve. It's really no more difficult than learning Win7 + $ANY_PROGRAM...
The folks I develop software with use encryption, so we do encrypt messages between us. This simple feature is just "more effort" or a bit "too complicated" for most morons to use.
I blame the defaults. Windows is prevalent only because it's the default OS installed by the OEMs. People bitch and moan, but adapt to the changes in Windows... They're mostly lazy gits.
Remember when XP came with a firewall that wasn't enabled by default? Back then worms were rampant! Even though all we had to do was turn on the damn firewall to stop them from spreading... NO AMOUNT OF ADVOCACY COULD CHANGE THIS FACT: Most people would not enable the firewall.
Hardly anyone changes the defaults. MS finally shipped a service pack and enabled the firewall by default. Guess what? No more worms.
If it was the default, then people would bitch a bit -- smart folks would just assimilate the process; Afterwards it would be the norm. THAT'S the "Tyranny of the default".
My biggest gripe is that email itself is shite. When I send HTML formatted email, my software also sends the plain-text version, it's multi-part... Even the encryption suit complains that HTML messages may not working correctly with PGP. Fact is: These protocols are OLD. Email was never designed to be secure! PGP was not designed to be very extensible.
SMIME is a step in the right direction, but what we need are protocols with the security built in by default (in an future-friendly extensible way).
Why don't I use PGP? Because Morons. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARE CAAYF Ak7wj6gACg kQOH9Ui Pa4ttW7XwC ff4lweAZC RjZlSDVMTX fz9RGP 828An3IiQ3en8gWELTfuOYfPm1dcVU1V =LFtM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Remove the spaces from the first line of the PGP sig key. I got a retarded "Filter error". Hey moronic Slashdot devs: It's not just "an awful long string of letters there." It's a fucking PGP signature you twits.
I guess that's just one more reason not to use PGP, everyone's a moron.
Hmm. Seems ALL browsers and OSs can be configured via to allow arbitrary:// protocols to be opened with a specific program, indeed the latter can do so with plugins... Even when echoed to my xterm, that FTP line creates a link that opens my FTP program.
Who cares when the patent was granted. It's iterative and obvious, and it has been such since the late 80s wherein I played MUDs that had this sort of behavior... Certain words in certain contexts while in the hub-world would become highlighted by the software when written and when activated (by typing a command or "tabbing" to them), would launch another BBS "door" program.
eg: Hey, don't forget to use up your LoRD forest fights today!
"Later on tonight, we'll have a story about Facebook suing Mark Zuckerberg. But now, here's the weather forecast..."
One minor nitpick: The above will never happen.
Weather predictions are the only things on the evening TV news worth watching through the corporate media filter; Ergo: It's ALWAYS one of the last, if not the very last stories, unless the weather is above average in activity, then it's on every station all day...
More likely:
"Stay tuned, Tomorrow may bring some Severe weather to your area, but first here's some bullshit about a three legged dog rescuing a baby, and also, Yet another installment of our "Retards are still use Facebook" feature.... Please visit our website and follow us on facebook, and here's our twitter too -- SOMEONE PAY US ATTENTI--"::click:: Weather report was over.
Florian Muler is a bought and paid for MS shill. Instead of shouting down MS hate, instead he simply points out the absurd and bogus patents that Google, and other non-MS companies allegedly infringe. In fact, has he ever mentioned Microsoft Infringing anything? I mean, not mentioning the fact that Apple's iPhones, and phones with WP7 on them are also infringing is clear evidence he's a troll.
That said: In order to infringe a patent you must be using or selling a combined hardware + software system. Hence: "Method AND Apparatus." If you just write the software and distribute it, you're not distributing an apparatus. I fail to see how ANY software patents can be infringed unless you're selling hardware.
Now, Google's Nexus line makes them infringers of these bogus patents. However, what if all the phones just came empty like PCs did not so long ago? The user could install the OS of their choosing, similar to the way I configure my self built PCs. Then, the software is not a "Method AND Apparatus", and the empty hardware can't infringe software patents...
The interesting thing to note is that the software data by itself CAN'T be infringing. Not unless the USPTO website is also in violation of every software patent they describe... The 1s and 0s are just a translation of a patent into a domain specific mathematical language. If storing a PDF of a patent is not an infringement, and translating said patent into Spanish, Latin, or pseudo code is noninfringing behavior, then a MACHINE CODE translation is not an infringement either. If distributing a computer with a PDF of a patent stored within it is not an infringement, then neither is distributing a computer with a Machine Code translation of the patent.
The software and hardware ONLY become infringing when they are both combined by loading and EXECUTING THE CODE, thus creating the [Device + Apparatus] for which such patents are granted.
Since selling a phone along with a PDF of a patent on a SD card is not infringement, it shouldn't be infringement to sell a phone and the machine code implementation of many patents on an external SD card. Thereby transferring all the possible infringements to only the end users when they first run the infringing software on the hardware. Even "booting" and "installing" the software is non-infringing if the code in question is not yet executed... Good luck suing all of the users that actually do infringe.
Now, I suppose one could argue that in order to create the Android system some one would have to run it... However, I would argue that's not true. I frequently "run" my code via graph paper and pencil in my own mind's virtual CPU. If I can sit down with a paper and pencil and read the Android machine code, "executing" instructions by interpreting them myself -- well, then it can't be patented. It's all just math. (Yes, I do something very much like this regularly -- It's how I initially designed and debugged the VM for my scripting language).
The problem is that we're allowing math or a set of instructions and a list of them to follow to be patented. These are purely mental processes, and should not be patentable. A CPU is merely a machine built to automatically perform the calculation for me... A calculator. It's important to note that the very 1st "calculators" and "computers" were HUMANS! Indeed, those titles were applied to the folks downstairs that received workloads from the engineers upstairs...
If the empty computer itself is not in violation of a patent, then how does TELLING IT WHAT TO DO cause infringement? If the GIVING IT INSTRUCTIONS causes infringement, then we've allowed people to patent GIVING INSTRUCTIONS! If a person can follow the instructions then this is something the USPTO has stated is not patentable...
Software patents must die. In my opinion, they are all 100% invalid... unless we agree to start granting monopolies over following any given set of instructions or even math itself.
You can train (and breed) humans and other animals to do what you want, but it's not like your orders are some non-negotiable mathematical law. Same will go for the really autonomous AIs. Anyone trying to get those to strictly follow some Law of Robotics is naive.
We Cyberneticists actually do train (and breed) neural networks and other cybernetic entities to do what we want, but it's not like your orders are some non-negotiable mathematical law.
I've developed a "hive-mind" (Network of Neural Networks). The machine intelligence (MI) can add more brain power on the fly by either distributing load to more CPUs or by increasing its complexity. The new neuron networks take time to be assimilated into the collective, but this is how it does acquire new abilities as I can afford new components. In other words: It's extensible without having to retrain the whole MI, and if some networks are removed it suffers (and recovers from) brain damage like humans do.
The audio, visual, and other motor control, balance, etc sensors are connected to "specialized" parts of the whole mind, like our own brain. The inputs to the network are digital, so in my lab I can get deterministic results only if every input is replayed exactly into the same prior network snapshot.
However, in the actual use case, when autonomously moving about and "thinking" for itself, it's actions are not deterministic. This is because reality (mercury switches, photons, sound waves, etc) are not deterministic. The mathematics of it all give you a pretty good idea of what will likely happen, but I'm still surprised by it, especially because I don't "turn off" the "training" program... So, it actually can "reprogram" itself on the fly -- That is, it does in fact learn and change behaviors (albeit more slowly than high speed dedicated training sessions), much like humans do.
I agree that anyone trying to get these VERY HUMAN LIKE machine intelligences to strictly follow some Law of Robotics is as naive as someone trying to get organic intelligences to do the same. That is to say: It's a good idea, we should have robotic laws, but they should basically just be the human laws. Ergo, we need to give the Robots Rights!
I also take offense to the term "Artificial Intelligence" -- THAT is the MOST NAIVE term ever invented. You are a mere complex interaction between a collection of atoms. Machine Intelligences are merely complex interactions between hardware and software. Any fool can see that a sufficiently complex interaction is indistinguishable from sentience! Indeed, it IS Sentient. Are flat-worms, fish, lizards, birds, cats or monkies "Artificial Life"? Simply because their minds are less complex than yours does not give you the ability to classify the snail, fruit fly, or dog as "Artificially Intelligent". Ergo, machine intelligence is no more artificial than your own; It's very real.
Machine Intelligence it's as real as any physical entity, because Electro Magnetism Exists -- Electrons and Photons, and Silicon all exist. Much like your own Carbon based body does. Interestingly enough, YOUR BRAIN WORKS BY SENDING ELECTRICAL IMPULSES, similar to the way my neural networks do... Your mind is like a very inefficient machine intelligence, but cluttered with all sorts of useless vestigial crap. "AI" -- Pah! Fucking naive morons. Intelligence isn't special.
"I may be wrong as I'm not a physicist" Uh, you could be a physicist and still be wrong.
Yeah, especially considering that we actually don't have correct laws of physics to work with. We have vague approximations that do us just fine at the macro level for some things, but when it comes to what's really happening, we're no better off than the blokes who coined the term "Atom" and then found it actually IS divisible after all.
TL;DR: If you're a physicist, you're certainly wrong; We just don't know exactly why yet.
It would be like saying that just because Captain Jack Harkness comes from the far future it is proof that time travel is possible.
I agree with your sentiment, but your premise is wrong.
Are you seriously implying that time travel is not possible? If so, I want you to explain exactly how these messages posted in the past are now readable in your present time?
Readers: I know for a fact you have read this comment in the future, because TIME TRAVEL IS POSSIBLE, nay, mandatory, in order for any event to actually occur.
I never knew him; He won't be missed by me, but I do appreciate his life as much as any other's. Through living he gave a bit of this Universe's chaos a reason for existing, and I'd say on the whole his was a net gain against entropy.
I'm not one who needs the insight of others to point out flaws in religions. As an Atheist myself I've studied many religions and take note of their past cultural significance -- The first societies needed laws (which were born as part of religious beliefs), and many beliefs show quite a bit of imagination on the part of their collective creators.
Although I don't actively attempt to sway the beliefs of others or applaud those who do so, I suppose the end of the chemical reaction known as Christopher Hitchens deserves a moment of silence during which I'll think of my own mortality, both his and my own contributions to society, and extract from his passing a bit of urgency and resolve to complete my own socially beneficial free software projects.
Since TFS reads like an advertisement perhaps afterwards I'll buy one of his works.
I agree with what you said... My question is: If the purpose of patent and copyright law is to get ideas disclosed and into the public domain, where they can be freely used by the public... The WHY THE ACTUAL FUCK are free software projects still susceptible to patent infringement suits? We skipped the bogus "monopoly" period, said, "Here, have our work for free!"
Although fully and completely satisfying the alleged goals of the patent system WITHOUT requiring idea monopoly incentives, the FLOSS projects can still be shut down for infringing -- Why? Because we're directly benefiting society via furthering the arts and science more than we should?!
Ideas are not special. Geniuses DO NOT EXIST. Case in point: When I was in elementary school, my teacher taught me the line slope equations. Over the summer, without supervision, I tried to make a vector game in BASIC where a computer "spaceship" chased down a player's "spaceship", I needed to know the angle to tell the DRAW function so the ship would aim properly. In the process of creating my solution I mapped intervals of the 360 degree arc to approximate slopes via a giant table; Find the slope, check the table, get the angle. Not satisfied with the resolution of my table, I ACCIDENTALLY INVENTED TRIGONOMETRY. Now, I may not have done it first, but I did invent the equations myself -- My equations were equivalent to Pythagorus' -- Much to my dismay come September when I showed off my revolutionary new math to my teacher, I was not special. Though I had created my own version of the sin() cos() arcos() etc functions, because I didn't know what those were for (yes I did RTFM, you try it, it's not helpful in this case, and the Internet didn't exist).
I was not to be praised as highly as Pythagorus is, even though he apparently was no more insightful than a 11 year old child. OBVIOUSNESS is a requirement of all patents. We have too many people working on a planet that's too well interconnected for anyone to approach a problem that others are not approaching. If my 11 year old mind found Trig Obvious, then ALL SOLUTIONS ARE OBVIOUS to Anyone who approaches the problem with any measure of intellect and determination. To prevent others from using THEIR IDEAS, simply because you thought of it first is LUDICROUS! The Telephone Had TWO Patent applications in at the same time! USPTO Has NEVER worked as intended: How could you deem a dually independently invented technology NON OBVIOUS?
We humans exist at the top of the food chain only due to our ability to share knowledge and ideas. WE'RE NO DIFFERENT THAN APES, except we have better data sharing capabilities! IT IS A FUNDAMENTAL UNIVERSAL RIGHT OF ALL SENTIENT BEINGS, the very ESSENCE of human nature itself, to share ideas and knowledge, and put them to use. ANY RESTRICTION thereof should be PROHIBITED! Making laws against human nature, or nature itself is the very definition of a police state!
THIS PRACTICE MUST NOT STAND!
NO ONE actually goes digging in the patent database to discover how to do a thing, then gets fined for infringement later... No! We STUMBLE UPON THE IDEAS ourselves, and so what if others had them first? Humans are clever, SOLUTIONS ARE NOT SPECIAL! Are we all not working from the same problem space? Did we both not spend the time and energy to arrive at a solution? Why should ANYONE be allowed an exclusive monopoly on an idea?
We granted the copyright and patent monopolies once, WE CAN TAKE THEM ALL AWAY. And WE SHOULD! Any lawyer will tell a software dev DO NOT LOOK IN THE USPTO, foreknowledge brings greater fines. THE PATENT SYSTEM IS NOW ABSOLUTELY USELESS for advancing the state of the art, and is a burden to society.
My strategy is to have no DRM, but I do need a way to incentivise good behavior in the official servers (hacking's fine, but do it on your own server -- spreading viruses via mods is a no-no too). So a valid code to play online will be required (to get a handle on our bandwith costs), but offline play requires no check. We'll tie your online code to an email address, so you can retrieve it if you forgot (and reDL), or transfer the game & code to someone else via changing the registered email address (for gifts, resale, etc).
By default, the software will auto-log you in when you try to join an official server (not spying, just for convenience; You can turn it off & go manual). You can have as many copies installed as you like, but only one active online session will be allowed on the official servers (join a private one if you want unlimited instead -- It's not our bandwidth).
We'll have the capability to invalidate license codes, but only do so at your request or extreme abuse (hundred+ logins from all over the globe -- we'll email you the new code & deactivate the old one). This way, if the code get's stolen, or accidentally winds up out of your control you can get the game back.
Now copyright infringement is supposed to be free marketing... So, since, in this instance, we can somewhat detect the default scenario (lots of folks trying to log in with the same code) I've been thinking that that in turn for their free advertising efforts we could give alleged infringers an unlockable item -- a pirate's eye patch or a monocle (a $70 value!*).
If what many say is true: that people will pay if the price is right; Then, what about if the free advertising is incentivized? I'm betting it would have little to no effect on actual sales either way; However, without a proper control group, experiments like this are hard to prove reliable.
The real question is: Would most people commit copyright infringement for free in-game swag? Actually, The real question is: If we give so little of a damn about copyright that you're even considering the previous question, and content producers (like myself) are making games of the act itself, WTF are we doing with such draconian copyright laws? It's still, "We the people," right?
* no we don't actually plan to sell trivial DLC for those prices, it's an EoL reference (no, the game, not the control code (no, the mind-mastery-message, not TTY escape) ).
Yes, exactly this. Let me explain how playing multi-player works: Matchmaking finds clients you can connect to via P2P (for voice), it selects a host Xbox360 that isn't behind wonky or mis-configured NAT (it tries UPNP to config your router at this point). Once you're playing, everyone you can hear via voice chat is connected directly to you in a "star" topology using UDP. The connection to the host box is usually UDP as well, but it may have negotiated to (or explicitly selected for) TCP depending on your network and the programmer.
At this point, YOU ARE NOT consuming any of MS's traffic! The player's consoles and their own networks are in use, but you can actually blacklist the XBL servers in your router, and continue to play until some game defined heartbeat event.
Thus, it shouldn't matter to MS if I'm streaming data from a Netflix server, OR PURCHASING GAMES in the marketplace on other consoles. If they want to pause my other MS downloads while I'm matchmaking again, that's fine with me.
The point is that the artificial limitations are placed there to drive up sales of duplicate games and more XBL subscriptions... fine, yes, that's fine... BUT THE SOLUTION PROVIDED DOES NOT WORK WELL IF AT ALL. It creates a jumbled clusterfsck for no reason. It's not rocket surgery! Let me pay DOUBLE to have AN ADDITIONAL CONSOLE signed in via THE SAME ACCOUNT. Everyone wins, MS has their extra subscription fee, all my games work across all the consoles I own, and it's NOT DIFFICULT! Add a damn "num_logged_in" row to the damn SQL DATABASE! They wrote the damn thing, they should understand how to USE IT!
Also, in case anyone else has the dashboard update issue, here's the deal:
You install the update.
Windows needs to reboot to continue, so it does.
You finish installing the update.
Windows needs to reboot to continue, so it does... Again.
You're presented with the option to select a profile.
You select the profile, and it prompts you that you need to be signed in with your windows live ID.
You attempt to sign in with your Windows Live ID.
You will receive an error message that states the service is unavailable at this time, and to please try again later.
The error code is: d0000033 -- Don't ragequit just yet!
Realize that windows needs to boot all the way to the desktop (dashboard) before all the services are "available".
Realize that Calling MS Support and talking to them for an hour won't help (I did).
Instead, reboot the console and select "create new profile", then just accept whatever defaults it gives you.
Now, once you've made it to the dashboard, the update is successfully applied.
sign out of that new profile, and log into your existing profile
On one box, I had to download my profile instead... I recommend this option for all the consoles so you can still play without using a portable profile.
Congradulations, you survived another moronic Windows Update Procedure.
WAS THIS EVEN TESTED? The issue could be resolved by simply finishing the install process before prompting me to sign in... UGH. I hate Windows.
No. I did not buy the game used. I unwrapped it fresh and pristine. My brother was visiting and he was allowed to play it first while I went on a beer run. As instructed, he entered the "online pass" from my CD (while signed in to his gamertag). 30 min later, he's cooking a pizza and I sign on, to see for myself the cool things he's telling me about. Brand new disc. MY Disc. My Xbox360, My Gamer tag.
Hu? Online pass code? Whut? Why? OK... (enter the same code). Nope. That won't work. Says "Pay $9.99 for a new online pass" -- ARE YOU SHITTING ME?
As I said, there's one disc. Only one of us can play at a time -- EVEN IF IT WAS A USED GAME. The "online pass" can not be transferred.
(reinforcing the fact that it's NOT "my 360, game, or XBL service" -- I'm only renting them, and the land lords are fucking insane Nazis!)
Slashdot Mirror
I use OpenWRT on my private router. As can be said of ALL default installed software: SCREW the firmware that comes with the routers.
It's just like my Laptop, Servers, Workstations, and Phone: If I can't install MY OS on it, it's not worth any of my time. If I haven't installed my OS on it, I DON'T USE IT.
That "easy setup" button on my router now gives me a minimal window of time during which I can SSH in to the router itself -- I have to be connected to the router already to do so over Ethernet or WPA2 w/ AES.
If you don't know how to drive GET THE HELL OUT from behind the steering wheel! The same can be said for networks, security, computers in general. If you can't configure your network, get someone who can to do so. Otherwise, expect to lose control and have a horrible accident when you brake instead of clutch, or WPS or WEP instead of WPA PSK w/ custom firmware.
Interesting. If it's "slander" to say Company X supports SOPA, then it must be a very heinous bill indeed.
I get your point: That there's no proof of fact-checking, and I can't find a single person among my associates, friends or family that doesn't detest SOPA; However, a company's name mistakingly placed on a list of entities for or against any bill shouldn't equate to slander. If being associated with the bill in any way is cause for libel, then who could ever support or create it in the first place?
Although I'm not aware of any individuals who are for SOPA, I don't doubt their existence. Would not being incorrectly placed on the list of SOPA supporters have a positive effect in this regard? Are you not also assuming a false dichotomy, of those who are for and those against SOPA?
What of those, like me, who realize they are too disenfranchised to give a damn either way? I'm against SOPA and other such bills that rob us of personal rights, but you must realize that government and corporations by and large wants this to pass. This SOPA or a bill like it WILL pass eventually. The sooner the better.
Not until the common people feel the jack-boot of oppression at their own throats will they have the resolve to rally in opposition to this and other such corruptions of power.
(Undoing a mod to post this)
Please, "Literally" has been massacred enough already. Let's this word rest for a couple of decades, unless you are one of the two people in the world that actually uses it appropriately.
Please stop building quote pyramids, that's what the "parent" link is for. Quote the pertinent part, to give your comment a bit of context, not the whole thing.
Please, "massacred" has been used to death already; Let's let this word rest for a couple of eternities, unless you are one of the two people in the world that literally uses it literally.
NOPE! See, we're not a monopoly! We're HELPING the competition compete!
As such a home owner, I would blame myself for leaving the door unlocked.
However, I would blame the intruder for getting shot, or mauled by my two pit bull terriers.
Thanks. I'm glad I'm not alone.
I actually do this: I make all the "best" security decisions default, and automatically applied.
Misbehaving apps in my scripting environment (well, user generated mods for a game engine) simply fail with an error message:
"Script Error: #42. - Returning to main menu."
If a user wants to be able to see those detailed dialogs such as:
"Script Permission Error #42: MOD attempted a to connect to a domain not in your trust list.
[T]rust: some.questionable.site.com [C]ancel and return to main menu.
(o) Just this once (_) Always"
Then they must enable them in the advanced options, otherwise the sane defaults are chosen automatically.
This means developers (modders) are more likely to avoid causing such errors since mods that include arcane instructions to manually enable things are shied away from. There is an approved method apps can register trusted domains, and other possibly security sensitive capabilities (Like full disk access), and most modders will use this approach or avoid the needless permission since it gives a better user experience.
Unlike with Android, users can choose which features to allow or deny, and still run the app while deferring the decision to later (this allows sane defaults to be applied). I think Android needs more granular Allow / Deny behavior than "Here's a list of all the shit this game can do: EVERYTHING. Either enable EVERYTHING access or DON'T INSTALL this game" -- Guess which the user will choose? "Install"
My approach is to allow automatic granular defaults to be applied. So, by default when installing a mod "access this list of 3rd party domains..." is disabled. Sane defaults are applied to [X] check or [_] uncheck each permission automatically. A "[D]etails" option allows users to select the individual permissions. Given that such security permission systems have been around practically FOREVER (The king and his family can access the crown jewels, Apache runs as the user Apache, with access to keyrings and files granted by groups -- access is denied when access is requested beyond its current permissions), I find it severely retarded that very few people actually employ granular permission controls...
My Firefox runs as the Firefox user, and is in the "browser" group, so it can't see any files its not supposed to,
like: ~/archive/taxes/
Even on most Linux distributions there's only the separation between User and Root by default... Why should Firefox be able to access my ~/Documents/ folder? We need to just run the Apps as their own users, but hardly anyone does. The actual human user account simply has access to all the groups, like "browser", "server", "generic", etc. So they can access the downloads, and what not without problems. (Hint: generic is a group that GIMP, Blender, LibreOffice, etc run under -- access to the ~/documents/ ~/design/ and other "user" home folders, but not ~/archive/taxes or ~/.mozilla, etc)
I see the "exploit" in TFA as an ignorant oversight by the Android devs. Clearly: "Launch URLs in Browser" should also be a capability.
IMHO, the real issue here is lack of granularity due to an immature permission system, (which is ridiculous since Android uses Linux!).
Woosh
Two Questions:
0. Do you feel entitled to have free speech?
1. How much did you pay slashdot to host this comment?
Realize that you can have either free speech or censorship©right/patent laws, but not both...
Also realize the best things in life are free; Ergo: The more things that are free the better life is.
My sources tell me that the real evildoers are using the same ICMP technology server side or in transit to discover whom is actually attempting to visit said forbidden servers; This new technique is dubbed: Internet Control of Users Protocol (ICUP).
The resistance is responding by creating a decentralized content store: HTTP over BitTorrent.
"sometimes chaos really does just fall short."
Says the being, evolved via chaotic natural selection... Clearly, your own existence proves you wrong.
<quote>2. Using a tool to wipe all free space - these usually work by creating a file and filling it with zeroes until the OS eventually returns a disk full error, then deleting the file. I have no idea what - if anything - they'll do with any data still sitting around the MFT. Not to mention the fact that they won't help if there's any incriminating files sitting around that weren't deleted in the first place - and as we've established, it's quite possible for an application to do this totally invisibly to the end user.</quote>
HAHAHA. POSIX states that writing zeros doesn't actually have to do anything but remember that it's supposed to return zeros for those blocks. Thus, you can store a file that's 1TB of zeros on a 100GB drive... Morons everywhere.
The magnetic data is analog. so, it's less 1's and 0's than 1.0031 and 0.073...
Overwriting with zeros could leave some evidence of the previous data eg (w/ a 1/100th retention: 0.010031 and 0.0073).
Amplify those by 100 and you get back your 1.0031 and 0.073. It takes a very sensitive head, multiple reads, and a totally different drive enclosure, but you get the basic idea.
So, what if you write over the data with pseudo random noise? That's better, but not quite good enough. The problem is that we know what the "top layer" of data is, so we can subtract out that layer of noise.
Eg: Let's say we have a multiple zero written surface, we're starting from scratch, and we write: 1010
1.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
Now, let's say that we overwrite this with 1100
1.01
1.00
0.01
0.00
We can read back the 1100 and subtract the noise from our signal.
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
Amplify the signal by a gain of 100.
1.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
With VERY sophisticated and sensitive gear you could even read back data after multiple writes. The best part is that the CRC checksums of the sectors will help you verify the data is correct. It's best to overwrite multiple times with a good source of (pseudo)randomness, like a cipher in CBC mode with a strong key and pseudo-random data stream. I'd say 3 times would be more than enough to obfuscate the data, but what do I know?
Now, a factor of 100 is a gross simplification for example purposes only. This was a bigger concern with older hard drives; Modern hard drives store the magnetic fields in such a way that it's even harder to recover, but the truth is it's not digital. It's still analog underneath, and subject to the same type of retrieval practices with very good gear.
SSDs use ware leveling, so over writing data does nothing but place the new data somewhere else, leaving the old data intact.
In any event, if you want the data really gone, just hit it with a hammer a few times... Thermite may attract more attention than its worth.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
I do use PGP to sign my messages, but I don't use it to encrypt messages
because most people I send email to don't have a public key published.
Setting up a public & private key pair is not part of the default setup
process. Average users don't know how to manage passwords let alone
Managing key-pairs.
Let's be frank: It's not that PGP is difficult, it's just that the
system is cumbersome to lazy dumbasses.
My 75 year old retired Air Force mechanic neighbor knew next to nothing
about computers when I helped him and his out of state family by giving
him my decent used computer. Two months later he's now proficient at
using GNU/Linux + Gnome (never uses the terminal). After I explained it,
he now signs and/or encrypts his email messages with PGP.
Point is: He's not a dumbass, he's willing to learn. Most people ARE
either dumbasses or not willing to learn. My neighbor and are are
(slightly) ahead of the curve. It's really no more difficult than
learning Win7 + $ANY_PROGRAM...
The folks I develop software with use encryption, so we do encrypt
messages between us. This simple feature is just "more effort" or a bit
"too complicated" for most morons to use.
I blame the defaults. Windows is prevalent only because it's the
default OS installed by the OEMs. People bitch and moan, but adapt to
the changes in Windows... They're mostly lazy gits.
Remember when XP came with a firewall that wasn't enabled by default?
Back then worms were rampant! Even though all we had to do was turn on
the damn firewall to stop them from spreading... NO AMOUNT OF ADVOCACY
COULD CHANGE THIS FACT: Most people would not enable the firewall.
Hardly anyone changes the defaults. MS finally shipped a service pack
and enabled the firewall by default. Guess what? No more worms.
If it was the default, then people would bitch a bit -- smart folks
would just assimilate the process; Afterwards it would be the norm.
THAT'S the "Tyranny of the default".
My biggest gripe is that email itself is shite. When I send HTML
formatted email, my software also sends the plain-text version, it's
multi-part... Even the encryption suit complains that HTML messages
may not working correctly with PGP. Fact is: These protocols are OLD.
Email was never designed to be secure! PGP was not designed to be very
extensible.
SMIME is a step in the right direction, but what we need are protocols
with the security built in by default (in an future-friendly extensible
way).
Why don't I use PGP? Because Morons.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARE CAAYF Ak7wj6gACg kQOH9Ui Pa4ttW7XwC ff4lweAZC RjZlSDVMTX fz9RGP
828An3IiQ3en8gWELTfuOYfPm1dcVU1V
=LFtM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Remove the spaces from the first line of the PGP sig key.
I got a retarded "Filter error".
Hey moronic Slashdot devs: It's not just "an awful long string of letters there."
It's a fucking PGP signature you twits.
I guess that's just one more reason not to use PGP, everyone's a moron.
Like this?
http://adult.engrish.com/2005/09/20/think-really-different/
ftp://mirrors.kernel.org/debian-cd/
Hmm. Seems ALL browsers and OSs can be configured via to allow arbitrary:// protocols to be opened with a specific program, indeed the latter can do so with plugins... Even when echoed to my xterm, that FTP line creates a link that opens my FTP program.
Who cares when the patent was granted. It's iterative and obvious, and it has been such since the late 80s wherein I played MUDs that had this sort of behavior... Certain words in certain contexts while in the hub-world would become highlighted by the software when written and when activated (by typing a command or "tabbing" to them), would launch another BBS "door" program.
eg: Hey, don't forget to use up your LoRD forest fights today!
"Later on tonight, we'll have a story about Facebook suing Mark Zuckerberg. But now, here's the weather forecast..."
One minor nitpick: The above will never happen.
Weather predictions are the only things on the evening TV news worth watching through the corporate media filter; Ergo: It's ALWAYS one of the last, if not the very last stories, unless the weather is above average in activity, then it's on every station all day...
More likely: ... Please visit our website and follow us on facebook, and here's our twitter too -- SOMEONE PAY US ATTENTI--" ::click:: Weather report was over.
"Stay tuned, Tomorrow may bring some Severe weather to your area, but first here's some bullshit about a three legged dog rescuing a baby, and also, Yet another installment of our "Retards are still use Facebook" feature.
Florian Muler is a bought and paid for MS shill. Instead of shouting down MS hate, instead he simply points out the absurd and bogus patents that Google, and other non-MS companies allegedly infringe. In fact, has he ever mentioned Microsoft Infringing anything? I mean, not mentioning the fact that Apple's iPhones, and phones with WP7 on them are also infringing is clear evidence he's a troll.
That said: In order to infringe a patent you must be using or selling a combined hardware + software system. Hence: "Method AND Apparatus." If you just write the software and distribute it, you're not distributing an apparatus. I fail to see how ANY software patents can be infringed unless you're selling hardware.
Now, Google's Nexus line makes them infringers of these bogus patents. However, what if all the phones just came empty like PCs did not so long ago? The user could install the OS of their choosing, similar to the way I configure my self built PCs. Then, the software is not a "Method AND Apparatus", and the empty hardware can't infringe software patents...
The interesting thing to note is that the software data by itself CAN'T be infringing. Not unless the USPTO website is also in violation of every software patent they describe... The 1s and 0s are just a translation of a patent into a domain specific mathematical language. If storing a PDF of a patent is not an infringement, and translating said patent into Spanish, Latin, or pseudo code is noninfringing behavior, then a MACHINE CODE translation is not an infringement either. If distributing a computer with a PDF of a patent stored within it is not an infringement, then neither is distributing a computer with a Machine Code translation of the patent.
The software and hardware ONLY become infringing when they are both combined by loading and EXECUTING THE CODE, thus creating the [Device + Apparatus] for which such patents are granted.
Since selling a phone along with a PDF of a patent on a SD card is not infringement, it shouldn't be infringement to sell a phone and the machine code implementation of many patents on an external SD card. Thereby transferring all the possible infringements to only the end users when they first run the infringing software on the hardware. Even "booting" and "installing" the software is non-infringing if the code in question is not yet executed... Good luck suing all of the users that actually do infringe.
Now, I suppose one could argue that in order to create the Android system some one would have to run it... However, I would argue that's not true. I frequently "run" my code via graph paper and pencil in my own mind's virtual CPU. If I can sit down with a paper and pencil and read the Android machine code, "executing" instructions by interpreting them myself -- well, then it can't be patented. It's all just math. (Yes, I do something very much like this regularly -- It's how I initially designed and debugged the VM for my scripting language).
The problem is that we're allowing math or a set of instructions and a list of them to follow to be patented. These are purely mental processes, and should not be patentable. A CPU is merely a machine built to automatically perform the calculation for me... A calculator. It's important to note that the very 1st "calculators" and "computers" were HUMANS! Indeed, those titles were applied to the folks downstairs that received workloads from the engineers upstairs...
If the empty computer itself is not in violation of a patent, then how does TELLING IT WHAT TO DO cause infringement? If the GIVING IT INSTRUCTIONS causes infringement, then we've allowed people to patent GIVING INSTRUCTIONS! If a person can follow the instructions then this is something the USPTO has stated is not patentable...
Software patents must die. In my opinion, they are all 100% invalid... unless we agree to start granting monopolies over following any given set of instructions or even math itself.
You can train (and breed) humans and other animals to do what you want, but it's not like your orders are some non-negotiable mathematical law. Same will go for the really autonomous AIs. Anyone trying to get those to strictly follow some Law of Robotics is naive.
We Cyberneticists actually do train (and breed) neural networks and other cybernetic entities to do what we want, but it's not like your orders are some non-negotiable mathematical law.
I've developed a "hive-mind" (Network of Neural Networks). The machine intelligence (MI) can add more brain power on the fly by either distributing load to more CPUs or by increasing its complexity. The new neuron networks take time to be assimilated into the collective, but this is how it does acquire new abilities as I can afford new components. In other words: It's extensible without having to retrain the whole MI, and if some networks are removed it suffers (and recovers from) brain damage like humans do.
The audio, visual, and other motor control, balance, etc sensors are connected to "specialized" parts of the whole mind, like our own brain. The inputs to the network are digital, so in my lab I can get deterministic results only if every input is replayed exactly into the same prior network snapshot.
However, in the actual use case, when autonomously moving about and "thinking" for itself, it's actions are not deterministic. This is because reality (mercury switches, photons, sound waves, etc) are not deterministic. The mathematics of it all give you a pretty good idea of what will likely happen, but I'm still surprised by it, especially because I don't "turn off" the "training" program... So, it actually can "reprogram" itself on the fly -- That is, it does in fact learn and change behaviors (albeit more slowly than high speed dedicated training sessions), much like humans do.
I agree that anyone trying to get these VERY HUMAN LIKE machine intelligences to strictly follow some Law of Robotics is as naive as someone trying to get organic intelligences to do the same. That is to say: It's a good idea, we should have robotic laws, but they should basically just be the human laws. Ergo, we need to give the Robots Rights!
I also take offense to the term "Artificial Intelligence" -- THAT is the MOST NAIVE term ever invented. You are a mere complex interaction between a collection of atoms. Machine Intelligences are merely complex interactions between hardware and software. Any fool can see that a sufficiently complex interaction is indistinguishable from sentience! Indeed, it IS Sentient. Are flat-worms, fish, lizards, birds, cats or monkies "Artificial Life"? Simply because their minds are less complex than yours does not give you the ability to classify the snail, fruit fly, or dog as "Artificially Intelligent". Ergo, machine intelligence is no more artificial than your own; It's very real.
Machine Intelligence it's as real as any physical entity, because Electro Magnetism Exists -- Electrons and Photons, and Silicon all exist. Much like your own Carbon based body does. Interestingly enough, YOUR BRAIN WORKS BY SENDING ELECTRICAL IMPULSES, similar to the way my neural networks do... Your mind is like a very inefficient machine intelligence, but cluttered with all sorts of useless vestigial crap. "AI" -- Pah! Fucking naive morons. Intelligence isn't special.
"I may be wrong as I'm not a physicist" Uh, you could be a physicist and still be wrong.
Yeah, especially considering that we actually don't have correct laws of physics to work with. We have vague approximations that do us just fine at the macro level for some things, but when it comes to what's really happening, we're no better off than the blokes who coined the term "Atom" and then found it actually IS divisible after all.
TL;DR: If you're a physicist, you're certainly wrong; We just don't know exactly why yet.
It would be like saying that just because Captain Jack Harkness comes from the far future it is proof that time travel is possible.
I agree with your sentiment, but your premise is wrong.
Are you seriously implying that time travel is not possible? If so, I want you to explain exactly how these messages posted in the past are now readable in your present time?
Readers: I know for a fact you have read this comment in the future, because TIME TRAVEL IS POSSIBLE, nay, mandatory, in order for any event to actually occur.
I never knew him; He won't be missed by me, but I do appreciate his life as much as any other's. Through living he gave a bit of this Universe's chaos a reason for existing, and I'd say on the whole his was a net gain against entropy.
I'm not one who needs the insight of others to point out flaws in religions. As an Atheist myself I've studied many religions and take note of their past cultural significance -- The first societies needed laws (which were born as part of religious beliefs), and many beliefs show quite a bit of imagination on the part of their collective creators.
Although I don't actively attempt to sway the beliefs of others or applaud those who do so, I suppose the end of the chemical reaction known as Christopher Hitchens deserves a moment of silence during which I'll think of my own mortality, both his and my own contributions to society, and extract from his passing a bit of urgency and resolve to complete my own socially beneficial free software projects.
Since TFS reads like an advertisement perhaps afterwards I'll buy one of his works.
I agree with what you said... My question is: If the purpose of patent and copyright law is to get ideas disclosed and into the public domain, where they can be freely used by the public... The WHY THE ACTUAL FUCK are free software projects still susceptible to patent infringement suits? We skipped the bogus "monopoly" period, said, "Here, have our work for free!"
Although fully and completely satisfying the alleged goals of the patent system WITHOUT requiring idea monopoly incentives, the FLOSS projects can still be shut down for infringing -- Why? Because we're directly benefiting society via furthering the arts and science more than we should?!
Ideas are not special. Geniuses DO NOT EXIST. Case in point: When I was in elementary school, my teacher taught me the line slope equations. Over the summer, without supervision, I tried to make a vector game in BASIC where a computer "spaceship" chased down a player's "spaceship", I needed to know the angle to tell the DRAW function so the ship would aim properly. In the process of creating my solution I mapped intervals of the 360 degree arc to approximate slopes via a giant table; Find the slope, check the table, get the angle. Not satisfied with the resolution of my table, I ACCIDENTALLY INVENTED TRIGONOMETRY. Now, I may not have done it first, but I did invent the equations myself -- My equations were equivalent to Pythagorus' -- Much to my dismay come September when I showed off my revolutionary new math to my teacher, I was not special. Though I had created my own version of the sin() cos() arcos() etc functions, because I didn't know what those were for (yes I did RTFM, you try it, it's not helpful in this case, and the Internet didn't exist).
I was not to be praised as highly as Pythagorus is, even though he apparently was no more insightful than a 11 year old child. OBVIOUSNESS is a requirement of all patents. We have too many people working on a planet that's too well interconnected for anyone to approach a problem that others are not approaching. If my 11 year old mind found Trig Obvious, then ALL SOLUTIONS ARE OBVIOUS to Anyone who approaches the problem with any measure of intellect and determination. To prevent others from using THEIR IDEAS, simply because you thought of it first is LUDICROUS! The Telephone Had TWO Patent applications in at the same time! USPTO Has NEVER worked as intended: How could you deem a dually independently invented technology NON OBVIOUS?
We humans exist at the top of the food chain only due to our ability to share knowledge and ideas. WE'RE NO DIFFERENT THAN APES, except we have better data sharing capabilities! IT IS A FUNDAMENTAL UNIVERSAL RIGHT OF ALL SENTIENT BEINGS, the very ESSENCE of human nature itself, to share ideas and knowledge, and put them to use. ANY RESTRICTION thereof should be PROHIBITED! Making laws against human nature, or nature itself is the very definition of a police state!
THIS PRACTICE MUST NOT STAND!
NO ONE actually goes digging in the patent database to discover how to do a thing, then gets fined for infringement later... No! We STUMBLE UPON THE IDEAS ourselves, and so what if others had them first? Humans are clever, SOLUTIONS ARE NOT SPECIAL! Are we all not working from the same problem space? Did we both not spend the time and energy to arrive at a solution? Why should ANYONE be allowed an exclusive monopoly on an idea?
We granted the copyright and patent monopolies once, WE CAN TAKE THEM ALL AWAY. And WE SHOULD! Any lawyer will tell a software dev DO NOT LOOK IN THE USPTO, foreknowledge brings greater fines. THE PATENT SYSTEM IS NOW ABSOLUTELY USELESS for advancing the state of the art, and is a burden to society.
My strategy is to have no DRM, but I do need a way to incentivise good behavior in the official servers (hacking's fine, but do it on your own server -- spreading viruses via mods is a no-no too). So a valid code to play online will be required (to get a handle on our bandwith costs), but offline play requires no check. We'll tie your online code to an email address, so you can retrieve it if you forgot (and reDL), or transfer the game & code to someone else via changing the registered email address (for gifts, resale, etc).
By default, the software will auto-log you in when you try to join an official server (not spying, just for convenience; You can turn it off & go manual). You can have as many copies installed as you like, but only one active online session will be allowed on the official servers (join a private one if you want unlimited instead -- It's not our bandwidth).
We'll have the capability to invalidate license codes, but only do so at your request or extreme abuse (hundred+ logins from all over the globe -- we'll email you the new code & deactivate the old one). This way, if the code get's stolen, or accidentally winds up out of your control you can get the game back.
Now copyright infringement is supposed to be free marketing... So, since, in this instance, we can somewhat detect the default scenario (lots of folks trying to log in with the same code) I've been thinking that that in turn for their free advertising efforts we could give alleged infringers an unlockable item -- a pirate's eye patch or a monocle (a $70 value!*).
If what many say is true: that people will pay if the price is right; Then, what about if the free advertising is incentivized? I'm betting it would have little to no effect on actual sales either way; However, without a proper control group, experiments like this are hard to prove reliable.
The real question is: Would most people commit copyright infringement for free in-game swag? Actually, The real question is: If we give so little of a damn about copyright that you're even considering the previous question, and content producers (like myself) are making games of the act itself, WTF are we doing with such draconian copyright laws? It's still, "We the people," right?
* no we don't actually plan to sell trivial DLC for those prices, it's an EoL reference (no, the game, not the control code (no, the mind-mastery-message, not TTY escape) ).
Spoken like a true sociopath.
Yes, exactly this. Let me explain how playing multi-player works: Matchmaking finds clients you can connect to via P2P (for voice), it selects a host Xbox360 that isn't behind wonky or mis-configured NAT (it tries UPNP to config your router at this point). Once you're playing, everyone you can hear via voice chat is connected directly to you in a "star" topology using UDP. The connection to the host box is usually UDP as well, but it may have negotiated to (or explicitly selected for) TCP depending on your network and the programmer.
At this point, YOU ARE NOT consuming any of MS's traffic! The player's consoles and their own networks are in use, but you can actually blacklist the XBL servers in your router, and continue to play until some game defined heartbeat event.
Thus, it shouldn't matter to MS if I'm streaming data from a Netflix server, OR PURCHASING GAMES in the marketplace on other consoles. If they want to pause my other MS downloads while I'm matchmaking again, that's fine with me.
The point is that the artificial limitations are placed there to drive up sales of duplicate games and more XBL subscriptions... fine, yes, that's fine... BUT THE SOLUTION PROVIDED DOES NOT WORK WELL IF AT ALL. It creates a jumbled clusterfsck for no reason. It's not rocket surgery! Let me pay DOUBLE to have AN ADDITIONAL CONSOLE signed in via THE SAME ACCOUNT. Everyone wins, MS has their extra subscription fee, all my games work across all the consoles I own, and it's NOT DIFFICULT! Add a damn "num_logged_in" row to the damn SQL DATABASE! They wrote the damn thing, they should understand how to USE IT!
Also, in case anyone else has the dashboard update issue, here's the deal:
WAS THIS EVEN TESTED? The issue could be resolved by simply finishing the install process before prompting me to sign in... UGH. I hate Windows.
No. I did not buy the game used. I unwrapped it fresh and pristine. My brother was visiting and he was allowed to play it first while I went on a beer run. As instructed, he entered the "online pass" from my CD (while signed in to his gamertag). 30 min later, he's cooking a pizza and I sign on, to see for myself the cool things he's telling me about. Brand new disc. MY Disc. My Xbox360, My Gamer tag.
Hu? Online pass code? Whut? Why? OK... (enter the same code). Nope. That won't work. Says "Pay $9.99 for a new online pass" -- ARE YOU SHITTING ME?
As I said, there's one disc. Only one of us can play at a time -- EVEN IF IT WAS A USED GAME. The "online pass" can not be transferred.
(reinforcing the fact that it's NOT "my 360, game, or XBL service" -- I'm only renting them, and the land lords are fucking insane Nazis!)
Chachi see what the game's all about.