There's a difference - the average person doesn't mind drugs although they wouldn't bother with them (excepting cannabis, which is almost universal.. heck you can get high from the smoke alone in most busses) . Most people in the UK have no interest in coming within 20 miles of a gun.
If I see someone with drugs I ignore them.. it's a common enough sight. If I saw someone with a gun I'd be on the phone to the police in double quick time (as would everyone else). I never have done though... I hope I never do.
Sure, they exist, but even criminals know that using them in a crime involves a mandatory 2 year sentence just for the possesion of the firearm, so it's so rare than when one *is* used it makes front page news.
Well yes, actually... as this discussion shows. The (largely US based) slashdot don't like regulating anything, whereas the average UK citizen can't see what the problem with this is (although we mostly know that the knife crime issue is being used as a political football right now - with a government in trouble they need to be seen to be doing something to gain some popularity).
They're different societies with vastly different ideas of what they see as acceptable.
To an extent they are - a movie involving violence is likely to be an 18, or at the minimum a 15 (for what they call 'mild violence'). There are no such rules regarding internet videos (because nobody's worked out a way of enforcing it short of something like the great firewall of china).
It uses 192.88.99.1 - that might have worked a few years ago but increasingly that's not routed any more. eg. of the 3 accounts I have access to here 2 of them return no routing for that address, and the third is the ISP I use from home that has routed ipv6 anyway.
There's a whole standard for IPV6 NAT. Cisco routers support it, and if ipv6 ever takes off then I expect most home routers will support it. I expect that linux supports it.. it would be odd if it didn't.
That will work only if your boss is an idiot and doesn't realize that you cost money. Personally I'd rather ask for a couple of days off on full pay.. you're effectively asking for the same thing but it's more fun.
Well your wine install would be trojanned (but you could sandbox that), and you'd still have the 3 install issue... but it'd work.
Re:Why do people complain?
on
Review: Spore
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
There's a *huge* difference between requiring a floppy or CD in the drive and installing malware on your PC which sends 'marketing data' back to the mothership, screws around with the OS and will turn your game in to a coaster if you have audacity to install it once too often.
Read up on SecureROM. It really isn't in the same league.
Re:newerakb
on
Review: Spore
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Except you've given money to the scumbags that want to install malware on your PC, so they've won. They have their sale, and the shareholders are happy.
Re:If EA is reading this
on
Review: Spore
·
· Score: 1
It'll have ring 0 components as it's able to hide from the user... you can't do that at ring 3. Those will be patched directly in as drivers on boot (which is why you can't remove it even in safe mode - drivers are supposed to detect safe mode and not load, but malware like this can ignore the rules).
1. It hides itself from the user. It is installed without the users knowledge or permission. 2. It cannot be easily removed. 3. It performs intrusive monitoring of the system, causing some applications (and even some hardware) to fail. 4. It sends data back to EA, whether you're running the game or not.
It's malware plain and simple. A few years ago people who designed that kind of stuff would have been fighting lawsuits. Nowadays people actually try to defend them. That's fucked up.
Cross your fingers your hardware stays solid for a while:p
Re:Looked for a rootkit on the Mac version
on
Review: Spore
·
· Score: 1
Apparently it also modifies system files to do its work, and of course it'll be running as root because it needs intrusive access to all parts of the OS to make sure you've not got anything subversive on there.
The 3 install thing is a real issue even then - Mac users don't often upgrade hardware but upgrading the OS is pretty much an annual event.. so at most you've got 3 years before it's a coaster... *much* less if you upgrade your machine or something breaks and needs replacing.
EA themselves have said there's a 3 install limit. Many users have hit that limit and the game has only been out a few days.
You go ahead and convince yourself that SecureROM is OK, right up until the point you can't play the game you bought and it's fucked up your DVD drive in the process.
1. SecureROM will detect you're in a VM and barf. 2. If you get past that, the graphics acceleration even in the latest VMWare isn't that fast - certainly not fast enough for a new game.
Windows rarely asks for activation and is very lenient on what you do to your machine. Reactivating is a local rate or free phone call depending on where you are.
Spore can be installed exactly 3 times. Upgrading anything like a video card is counted as a reinstallation. Uninstalling does *not* count either. The only way to get it to work again after is to call EA on a premium rate phone call and beg for one more chance to install the game you paid for. Several people have tried to do this already... they failed, and were told to *write a begging letter* to EA just to install the game they'd bought a few days previously.
Re:Don't Play On A PC
on
Review: Spore
·
· Score: 4, Informative
They ported SecureROM to the mac. Apparently it's just as invasive on that too (at least one person claims to have had his machine trashed by it).
Also if you don't like it on the PC and install it on the Mac that's two of your three installs gone already. One more attempt and it's down to begging EA for the rights to play the game using premium rate phone lines.
A certain amount of data retention *is* required by law - they're billing you for that data, so they need to keep records of exactly what they're billing you for for (IIRC) 7 years.
Of course any company with a backbone when faced with a request for data will reply 'STFU - come back with a court order'.. I know my ISP would as they've said as much publically. If all ISPs did that it wouldn't be economic to gather all that data.
The reason they didn't turn up is because they didn't actually know there was a court case against them - they had moved house and the lawyers didn't bother to find out the new address. How the hell they managed to get a judgement when the accused didn't even know they'd been accused of anything I've no idea.
The iplayer is the only useful one. The others use Kontiki practically malware.. it's Windows only, can't be easily uninstalled (add/remove programs does *not* uninstall it) and sucks your bandwidth whether you're using it or not. For the majority of poeple with bandwidth limits it's just not an option.
Are you kidding? There's massess of masses of Solaris, HPUX, etc. out there and companies aren't moving.
In the commercial world people don't change unless there's a good reason to. That's why we still ship Solaris 8 versions of our stuff, and have to build in compatibility with Oracle 8 because upgrading just doesn't happen that fast. HPUX 11.11 is ancient but still powers entire data centres and there's no inclination to move.. because it's solid, works and has uptime measured in years.
Also how could the anti Tivoisation GPLv3 clause work if Tivo got to decide which license people used? They could just opt to license code under GPLv2. It only makes sense if the users get to decide to use GPLv3 and thus get the power to compel Tivo to do something it doesn't want to do?
It works because new code is licensed under the GPLv3. Existing code is unnaffected. The 'or later' clause is just there to remove incompatibility between GPLv2 and GPLv3 (since v3 introduces more restrictions it's technically incompatible with v2). The kernel does not have the 'or later' clause so cannot become GPLv3 without all the authors agreeing to a license change, exactly as if they wanted to move to BSD or anything else.
There's no way for users to force Tivo to do anything, let alone adopt a license they don't want.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. I have one (on a better deal IMO) and use it only when on holiday.. it plugs into the eeepc just fine.
Compared to hotel internet/wifi it's dirt cheap.. I don't need it when at home though.
For an HSPDA modem that's not bad. The price is dropping fast but £20? I bet the chips in there cost that. It comes free if you get a contract.
There are laptops with HSPDA built in coming out and if you have one of those you won't even need to pay that.
There's a difference - the average person doesn't mind drugs although they wouldn't bother with them (excepting cannabis, which is almost universal.. heck you can get high from the smoke alone in most busses) . Most people in the UK have no interest in coming within 20 miles of a gun.
If I see someone with drugs I ignore them.. it's a common enough sight. If I saw someone with a gun I'd be on the phone to the police in double quick time (as would everyone else). I never have done though... I hope I never do.
Sure, they exist, but even criminals know that using them in a crime involves a mandatory 2 year sentence just for the possesion of the firearm, so it's so rare than when one *is* used it makes front page news.
But they don't provide internet service, which is the normal way of using that term.
Well yes, actually... as this discussion shows. The (largely US based) slashdot don't like regulating anything, whereas the average UK citizen can't see what the problem with this is (although we mostly know that the knife crime issue is being used as a political football right now - with a government in trouble they need to be seen to be doing something to gain some popularity).
They're different societies with vastly different ideas of what they see as acceptable.
To an extent they are - a movie involving violence is likely to be an 18, or at the minimum a 15 (for what they call 'mild violence'). There are no such rules regarding internet videos (because nobody's worked out a way of enforcing it short of something like the great firewall of china).
It uses 192.88.99.1 - that might have worked a few years ago but increasingly that's not routed any more. eg. of the 3 accounts I have access to here 2 of them return no routing for that address, and the third is the ISP I use from home that has routed ipv6 anyway.
There's a whole standard for IPV6 NAT. Cisco routers support it, and if ipv6 ever takes off then I expect most home routers will support it. I expect that linux supports it.. it would be odd if it didn't.
That will work only if your boss is an idiot and doesn't realize that you cost money. Personally I'd rather ask for a couple of days off on full pay.. you're effectively asking for the same thing but it's more fun.
Well your wine install would be trojanned (but you could sandbox that), and you'd still have the 3 install issue... but it'd work.
There's a *huge* difference between requiring a floppy or CD in the drive and installing malware on your PC which sends 'marketing data' back to the mothership, screws around with the OS and will turn your game in to a coaster if you have audacity to install it once too often.
Read up on SecureROM. It really isn't in the same league.
Except you've given money to the scumbags that want to install malware on your PC, so they've won. They have their sale, and the shareholders are happy.
It'll have ring 0 components as it's able to hide from the user... you can't do that at ring 3. Those will be patched directly in as drivers on boot (which is why you can't remove it even in safe mode - drivers are supposed to detect safe mode and not load, but malware like this can ignore the rules).
Yes it is.
1. It hides itself from the user. It is installed without the users knowledge or permission.
2. It cannot be easily removed.
3. It performs intrusive monitoring of the system, causing some applications (and even some hardware) to fail.
4. It sends data back to EA, whether you're running the game or not.
It's malware plain and simple. A few years ago people who designed that kind of stuff would have been fighting lawsuits. Nowadays people actually try to defend them. That's fucked up.
Well that's 2 of your installs gone...
Cross your fingers your hardware stays solid for a while :p
Apparently it also modifies system files to do its work, and of course it'll be running as root because it needs intrusive access to all parts of the OS to make sure you've not got anything subversive on there.
The 3 install thing is a real issue even then - Mac users don't often upgrade hardware but upgrading the OS is pretty much an annual event.. so at most you've got 3 years before it's a coaster... *much* less if you upgrade your machine or something breaks and needs replacing.
EA themselves have said there's a 3 install limit. Many users have hit that limit and the game has only been out a few days.
You go ahead and convince yourself that SecureROM is OK, right up until the point you can't play the game you bought and it's fucked up your DVD drive in the process.
Except:
1. SecureROM will detect you're in a VM and barf.
2. If you get past that, the graphics acceleration even in the latest VMWare isn't that fast - certainly not fast enough for a new game.
Windows rarely asks for activation and is very lenient on what you do to your machine. Reactivating is a local rate or free phone call depending on where you are.
Spore can be installed exactly 3 times. Upgrading anything like a video card is counted as a reinstallation. Uninstalling does *not* count either. The only way to get it to work again after is to call EA on a premium rate phone call and beg for one more chance to install the game you paid for. Several people have tried to do this already... they failed, and were told to *write a begging letter* to EA just to install the game they'd bought a few days previously.
They ported SecureROM to the mac. Apparently it's just as invasive on that too (at least one person claims to have had his machine trashed by it).
Also if you don't like it on the PC and install it on the Mac that's two of your three installs gone already. One more attempt and it's down to begging EA for the rights to play the game using premium rate phone lines.
A certain amount of data retention *is* required by law - they're billing you for that data, so they need to keep records of exactly what they're billing you for for (IIRC) 7 years.
Of course any company with a backbone when faced with a request for data will reply 'STFU - come back with a court order'.. I know my ISP would as they've said as much publically. If all ISPs did that it wouldn't be economic to gather all that data.
The reason they didn't turn up is because they didn't actually know there was a court case against them - they had moved house and the lawyers didn't bother to find out the new address. How the hell they managed to get a judgement when the accused didn't even know they'd been accused of anything I've no idea.
The iplayer is the only useful one. The others use Kontiki practically malware.. it's Windows only, can't be easily uninstalled (add/remove programs does *not* uninstall it) and sucks your bandwidth whether you're using it or not. For the majority of poeple with bandwidth limits it's just not an option.
Are you kidding? There's massess of masses of Solaris, HPUX, etc. out there and companies aren't moving.
In the commercial world people don't change unless there's a good reason to. That's why we still ship Solaris 8 versions of our stuff, and have to build in compatibility with Oracle 8 because upgrading just doesn't happen that fast. HPUX 11.11 is ancient but still powers entire data centres and there's no inclination to move.. because it's solid, works and has uptime measured in years.
Also how could the anti Tivoisation GPLv3 clause work if Tivo got to decide which license people used? They could just opt to license code under GPLv2. It only makes sense if the users get to decide to use GPLv3 and thus get the power to compel Tivo to do something it doesn't want to do?
It works because new code is licensed under the GPLv3. Existing code is unnaffected. The 'or later' clause is just there to remove incompatibility between GPLv2 and GPLv3 (since v3 introduces more restrictions it's technically incompatible with v2). The kernel does not have the 'or later' clause so cannot become GPLv3 without all the authors agreeing to a license change, exactly as if they wanted to move to BSD or anything else.
There's no way for users to force Tivo to do anything, let alone adopt a license they don't want.