Because now Apple is getting virii and they want to start expanding their recruitment to actually replace their "security through obscurity" model by implementing *real* security measures.
It's probably more about image damage-control after having a reasonable-sized botnet stroll in through the wide open door of complacency on one of their platforms.
Up until less than a year ago, there was no security division that external parties could even contact to tell Apple about vulnerabilities.
There's a feedback loop of critical thinking failure at the heart of this.
Part of the problem with a lack of developed critical thinking skills is that in such a cultural environment the mere act of questioning something makes that something look bad. Defective questions are often taken to be equivalent to good questions. Questions can be left unanswered but still carry dire implications that become accepted as truth. A question is then a tool to make a statement without requiring any evidence to back it, and without exposing liability for slander or libel.
In such an environment, where the questions themselves have significant negative impact, the act of questioning something becomes quite harmful. Wholesale thought control can be achieved through the direction of carefully-crafted questions designed to instill emotional response. This leads to questioners in turn being attacked by questions of their political propriety, patriotism or moral character as a riposte in the duel for control of the message. The end result is a disastrously adversarial political system paralyzed by continual assaults of defective questions and information media that value impact and sensation more than truth or substance, reinforced by a public that lacks any objective tools to discern questions from truths, much less judge quality of questions or evidence.
What a lot of people fail to realize is that values and truths can be reinforced by answering questions. A leader can be proven to have integrity by withstanding criticism and scrutiny. An idea can be proven to have merit by having its results measured, and the idea can be refined by diligently seeking its defects.
When children are taught to unquestioningly believe what they're instructed by the "appropriate" authority, what happens when a megalomaniacal politician, con artist, cult leader or abusive partner manages to establish grounds for seeming appropriate? One insular creed can be supplanted by another, even one in diametric opposition, given the right emotional impetus or illusion of authority. A healthy dose of critical thinking may result in more fluid interpretations of values that are inclined to wander and evolve over time, but if that foundation incorporates reason then it is less likely for an emotional event or charismatic individual to induce a sudden and dramatic—potentially catastrophic—shift.
I personally like nice even fifths. The bottom 20% are lower class, next 20% lower-middle, next 20% middle-middle, next 20% upper-middle, and the top 20% as upper class. The middle class, being the bulk of the population, can be those three middle fifths, which leaves quite a spread but focuses nicely on the middle of the bell curve.
So where does a household (solitary individuals, other non-family households and families combined) earning $250K/year sit in that breakdown? In the 2009 tax year (the most current data), there were roughly 2,372,000 households earning $250K+/year out of a total of 117,538,000 households in the US. That puts a household earning exactly $250K/year above 97.98% of the whole batch. That seems quite a lot towards the upper end to me, and not very middle at all.
And for good measure, the top 5%: $180,001+ (Mean $295,388)
I would imagine that the vast majority of new businesses created are created by people earning substantially less money than you claim. I see a lot of small firms of professionals, construction & trades contractors, mom & pop corner retail stores, basement tech startups, or even just entrepreneurs with a crazy big idea they try to make real. Some may have had a sweet job earning the big bucks before striking out on their own, but I doubt it's anywhere near most. A lot of people mortgage their houses to get startup money, then seek out venture capital as things get rolling. Many fizzle and fail in the first year.
Where you have a point about business creation is for people earning $250K+/year in investment income. They tend to be able to start businesses left and right, and can afford to have a few fail without disrupting their portfolios. But we call those rich people, because they usually have net worths in the multi-millions.
If the top-heavy international finance economy centered in the US collapses, all of the necessary factors will be in place to quickly reinvent the US as a new economic superpower. There are many good reasons why the US is the wealthiest country on the planet in spite of its mistakes, and those reasons will survive any potential economic collapse.
You have a large and educated workforce. (And any recent undermining of the education system can be easily reversed.)
You have a well-developed nation-wide transportation infrastructure. (Maybe a little light on rail, but just look at Canada for comparison and it looks fantastic.)
You have vast tracts of rich agricultural land and substantial areas of year-round growing seasons.
You have immense mineral wealth, including a very good supply of rare earth elements and nuclear fuels.
If things continue to decline, and in a period of turmoil the old way cracks apart and topples, it seems likely that a new paradigm could develop that focuses on long-term economic health rather than short term gains to share value or dividend of stocks, one that is inclusive of the working class and even more favorable to the innovative class. If that happens, the turnaround will be awe-inspiring.
If you're a disorganized and scattered band of protesters-turned-rebels trying to go about restoring communications infrastructure, how do you communicate to coordinate everything that's required to restore communications infrastructure?
Actually, imprisonment for non-violent drug offences has some direct parallel to imprisonment for practicing a banned religion.
Members of the Native American Church are allowed under law to use peyote in their religious practices. A new age spiritualist distributing personal-use quantities of psychedelic mushrooms to a group of followers so they can have an entheogenic experience qualifies for a massive amount of time in prison, potentially a de-facto life sentence based upon the number of individuals involved.
Or you could always just compare legal vs illegal intoxicants. Alcohol and GHB have similar impairing effects, are both strongly associated with nonconsensual sex, and both cause a statistically significant number of deaths among their users from accident and overdose. One is legal for adults over 21 to put into their bodies, as the potential harm they cause themselves through its use is within their rights over their own persons, and the other is illegal for adults to put into their bodies, as those rights over their own persons vanish because the chemical is not an approved intoxicating substance.
I personally find rights over one's own person to be powerfully similar to freedom of religious practice, as both are purely personal choices, and would suggest that any nation that espouses personal liberty has no just grounds to interfere with either. The USA is a nation that incarcerates a massive number of citizens for abusively lengthly terms for either engaging in prohibited practices over their own persons or enabling others to do so. The difference between the prohibition against drugs and a prohibition against masturbation or tattooing is minimal at best.
Press release URL broken
on
GNOME 3 Released
·
· Score: 3, Informative
I don't believe that the majority of these shipped app device units are being used in a true computing capacity. In my day to day exposure, smart phones in particular don't tend to be used for much beyond the capabilities of earlier cell phones.
Especially among the younger crowd, who now seem to think that owning an iPhone 4 is the new minimum requirement for acceptance by their peers, the typical use seems to mostly comprise texting and music playback, with the occasional use of the camera for taking pictures of their friends while drunk. Facebook has definitely made significant inroads, but not too many people are using advanced features of Facebook or using more complex web applications from their smartphones. Some games are present, which are definitely more impressive than what previously existed as games on cell phones, but which mostly fill the same role: idle time wasters when on the go.
In my office environment, everyone has a smart phone. No one uses one as a primary email device, a primary web browsing device or a general office productivity device. The dominant use is scheduling, which requires syncronization with their computer-based scheduling, and email & web browsing while not in the office.
iPads have made some inroads as a computer replacement, with a few people using them as laptop-replacements for meeting notetaking and presentations, but still they're not being used as a primary productivity device.
I see these mobile devices, currently, as a supplement to personal computers which can be omni-present. Because they fit in a pocket and combine functionality with a required gadget (cell phones), more people are web browsing on the go or performing some tasks that previously may have required access to a computer. They still have syncing relationships to computers that are critical to many of their functions, and most functions still work better from a real computer. I doubt that any time soon you will see someone replacing their work PC with a smart phone, and the consumers that might replace a home PC with one probably didn't use that home PC very much.
This is the continuation of Facebook's rubber-band of privacy policy. First, they open up a grievous hole. Then, there's an inevitable tide of user outrage, usually coinciding with a Facebook group complaining about it and threatening mass exodus, creating tension on the rubber band. Eventually, the tension overcomes Facebook's inertia and motivates them to fix the hole they created, jerking things forward to be briefly in sync with sensible standards, until they make the next grievous hole and start the stretching process again.
It's a game of seeing how much they can get away with and for how long, only addressing their own problems with minimal efforts when a snapping point nears. Eventually, there will be an API-level prevention of this sort of behaviour, only to be replaced with a new massive security hole.
Most users will just continue blissfully onward posting photos of themselves and friends engaged in compromising situations while under the influence of a wide array of intoxicants, with every sordid detail shared freely with prospective employers. Even iron-tight platform security can't cure the kind of stupid that is Facebook's bread and butter.
It's interesting in that it's one of the cases where pursuit of an aesthetic has undermined functionality.
I work at a university where its Industrial Design program is a pretty big deal, but it's plagued with projects that completely fail in usability (ie, a brushed metal and fogged glass "chair" that will explode into twisted shrapnel if more than 20lbs of load is applied). Strangely, the completely nonfunctional pieces tend to be awarded higher grades because they're more "daring" or have more "vision". The mindset is often that concept of the design is most important, and it will be someone else's job to work out the crippling problems presented by the unrealistic choices made by the designer.
The odd piece is quite complete and very functional, but usually gets awarded a B for not having enough time spent obsessing over the finishing, because a critical design requirement is to spend dozens of hours sanding.
So cheap, shiny things like bluetooth ear-pieces, chrome wheel spinners, and big necklaces became a sort of caricature of the desperation to appear wealthy.
White with iPhones is a way of advertising that you have the more expensive model, as it historically only exists as an option for the top-end model. All of the people who know the difference will be totally impressed when they see it and will respect you and/or want to have sex with you.
It's like wearing a fancy watch or paying for a drink with a hundred dollar bill at the bar. Visible signs of wealth trump personality and good looks.
There are a lot of different things that make people quit... for example, I didn't care much for the original herding-massive-quantities-of-cats-into-gigantic-raids-to-get-a-chance-at-one-piece-of-loot model that they used in the original and quit after becoming frustrated with the end game. Some of the changes that have been made since then might have convinced me to stick around if they'd come earlier.
There seems to be a rotating focus on some alienated portion of the player-base with each iteration, now with some bones being thrown back to the uberhardcore raid nuts, the very same group that the original version of WoW catered to and then abandoned progressively with each expansion. While attempting to juggle all of the competing interests of a diverse playerbase, they're definitely dropping some balls. Maybe the next expansion will have something that rekindles your interest, or maybe you'll remain free of the addiction like me and marvel at how much extra time you have to waste on other equally meaningless pursuits.
Yeah, that sounds downright unpleasant, and for your case the missing LAN functionality is a definite hindrance. Hopefully things improve, because those sorts of internet connectivity issues would be disruptive to, well, anything. Maybe I'm spoiled by having a choice of a plethora of reliable DSL providers and one very good cable provider in my local market. You could always move just so you can play a game reliably! Hmm, I think I'd be awfully tempted to move in such a circumstance, but I have unusual priorities.
There are some people for whom the argument of the existence or nonexistence of LAN play is a purely ideological one and not based on disruption from internet connectivity issues, which I find a little bit odd. The case of anyone who is left out by the combination of Blizzard's design choice and lack of connectivity, however, does erode away from my previous statements. For most people, their model is equivalent, but for some it admittedly is not. In some future world where crappy ISPs no longer exist, or there is always a viable alternate choice in every local market, they will become equivalent, and I don't think that's all that far off.
There's not really any stopping game developers from moving towards the fully internet-based model regardless of whether some (potential or actual) customers have prohibitive connectivity issues. They will just blame the ISPs and say that there isn't enough demand to justify dedicated LAN functionality, and that they're not in the business of providing workaround for ISPs who fail to provide their service. They can only get away with that stance because internet connectivity is now practically universal and generally very good quality for large portions of the world and the expectation of consumers is becoming that ISPs *should* provide consistently working service, rather than accepting that connection drops and packet loss are the norm.
Your case is decidedly lame and it would be nice if you had some recourse.
Can't say they've ever happened to me yet. I guess if I had a crappy internet connection I'd have an issue, but I would complain to my ISP or change ISPs if I did.
Even then, the "lack" of LAN-play for SC2 and Diablo 3 is splitting technical hairs.
Your computer doesn't host the game and a connection to battle.net is required to play. What real-world difference does this make? How many people set up a LAN party without having an internet connection these days?
I play SC2 with other folks connected via a LAN all the time, moreso than I play with random people online. This supposedly missing feature hasn't affected my LAN-play experience one bit. I don't even get an uneasy feeling that my consumer rights are being eroded by corporations as I do so, it's that seamless.
A big component of the battle.net service is DRM. Requiring an account to play, even offline single player via check-ins, is the most effective way that they've come up with to prevent piracy.
They made a gamble that it would be something that their playerbase would be willing to swallow, and it seems like they were right: for most folks its restrictions aren't a hindrance, and there are a few benefits thrown in, like being able to download, install and play the game on any computer. It has a lot less ugly pointy barbs than some other (cough Ubisoft) DRM schemes in recent history.
I'm sure there are some people who don't want multiplayer and don't want content updates and don't want cloud-based saved games and don't want achievements and whatnot and who find authenticating to play a single-player game inherently offensive. But seriously, you obviously have an internet connection, and you're only being inconvenienced for seconds to get a month of unrestricted take-it-anywhere play on that (or any other) computer. That one login gets you enough time to play through the whole single player campaign, and then you can uninstall the game to free up its huge disk footprint and move on with your life.
I personally will gladly authenticate every time I play in order to spare the headache of having to put in an original optical disc. I think the latter is far more inconvenient.
I'm not sure what any of this has to do with WoW, though, which has always required authentication for all forms of play. It, like all MMOs, is a 100% online game.
And the reason why they use draconian bans rather than half-measures is that it's a remarkably effective way to keep the online experience very clean.
They could form a special Cesspool League where known cheaters could freely compete with each other however they please using whatever hacks they want on the software they purchased, and give all other players the ability to never be matched up with a known cheater. Coupled with that, they could nullify all achievements for cheaters and put a big black mark on their profiles. This would superficially segregate the people who wish to use hacks to damage the multiplayer experience of other players from those who want a clean game, and perhaps everyone would be happy.
The drawback to this is that it would give the cheaters a venue to test their craft, perhaps finding ways to sneak past the cheat detectors and have their scumminess bubble forth and pollute the experience of the mainstream. It would also mean a softer deterrent which would likely not be as effective in preventing that first offense. So in the end, Blizzard opts for the scorched-earth cheating policy that most of their customers either love or have no issue with, thus maintaining a first-rate multiplayer experience rather than allowing it to degenerate and ruin the experience, as has happened repeatedly throughout internet gaming history. They would rather have a very effective weapon against cheaters and use it than continually play catch-up with patches and lose paying customers due to cheater-related frustration.
As one of the people who does not cheat in games, I don't have any real issue with their attitudes towards cheating. It may set an ugly precedent in that a software company can arbitrarily deny a paying customer the right to use purchased software, but counter-balanced with the Big Happy Bonus of not having to put up with cheaters in multiplayer... well that soothes any chafing I might have with the principle and allows them to retain my free-market-voting dollars. I actually trust their profit motive not to cross me and I don't plan to cross them.
Slashdot Mirror
Because now Apple is getting virii and they want to start expanding their recruitment to actually replace their "security through obscurity" model by implementing *real* security measures.
It's probably more about image damage-control after having a reasonable-sized botnet stroll in through the wide open door of complacency on one of their platforms.
Up until less than a year ago, there was no security division that external parties could even contact to tell Apple about vulnerabilities.
Apple's Product Security page, complete with contact information for reporting security issues, has publicly existed in its current location since at least November 2001.
There's a feedback loop of critical thinking failure at the heart of this.
Part of the problem with a lack of developed critical thinking skills is that in such a cultural environment the mere act of questioning something makes that something look bad. Defective questions are often taken to be equivalent to good questions. Questions can be left unanswered but still carry dire implications that become accepted as truth. A question is then a tool to make a statement without requiring any evidence to back it, and without exposing liability for slander or libel.
In such an environment, where the questions themselves have significant negative impact, the act of questioning something becomes quite harmful. Wholesale thought control can be achieved through the direction of carefully-crafted questions designed to instill emotional response. This leads to questioners in turn being attacked by questions of their political propriety, patriotism or moral character as a riposte in the duel for control of the message. The end result is a disastrously adversarial political system paralyzed by continual assaults of defective questions and information media that value impact and sensation more than truth or substance, reinforced by a public that lacks any objective tools to discern questions from truths, much less judge quality of questions or evidence.
What a lot of people fail to realize is that values and truths can be reinforced by answering questions. A leader can be proven to have integrity by withstanding criticism and scrutiny. An idea can be proven to have merit by having its results measured, and the idea can be refined by diligently seeking its defects.
When children are taught to unquestioningly believe what they're instructed by the "appropriate" authority, what happens when a megalomaniacal politician, con artist, cult leader or abusive partner manages to establish grounds for seeming appropriate? One insular creed can be supplanted by another, even one in diametric opposition, given the right emotional impetus or illusion of authority. A healthy dose of critical thinking may result in more fluid interpretations of values that are inclined to wander and evolve over time, but if that foundation incorporates reason then it is less likely for an emotional event or charismatic individual to induce a sudden and dramatic—potentially catastrophic—shift.
How do you define middle and upper-middle class?
I personally like nice even fifths. The bottom 20% are lower class, next 20% lower-middle, next 20% middle-middle, next 20% upper-middle, and the top 20% as upper class. The middle class, being the bulk of the population, can be those three middle fifths, which leaves quite a spread but focuses nicely on the middle of the bell curve.
So where does a household (solitary individuals, other non-family households and families combined) earning $250K/year sit in that breakdown? In the 2009 tax year (the most current data), there were roughly 2,372,000 households earning $250K+/year out of a total of 117,538,000 households in the US. That puts a household earning exactly $250K/year above 97.98% of the whole batch. That seems quite a lot towards the upper end to me, and not very middle at all.
So how do the fifths break down?
Lowest: $0 - $20,453 (Mean $11,552)
Second: $20,454 - $38,550 (Mean $29,257)
Third: $38,551 - $61,801 (Mean $49,534)
Fourth: $61,802 - $100,000 (Mean $78,694)
Fifth: $100,001+ (Mean $170,844)
And for good measure, the top 5%: $180,001+ (Mean $295,388)
I would imagine that the vast majority of new businesses created are created by people earning substantially less money than you claim. I see a lot of small firms of professionals, construction & trades contractors, mom & pop corner retail stores, basement tech startups, or even just entrepreneurs with a crazy big idea they try to make real. Some may have had a sweet job earning the big bucks before striking out on their own, but I doubt it's anywhere near most. A lot of people mortgage their houses to get startup money, then seek out venture capital as things get rolling. Many fizzle and fail in the first year.
Where you have a point about business creation is for people earning $250K+/year in investment income. They tend to be able to start businesses left and right, and can afford to have a few fail without disrupting their portfolios. But we call those rich people, because they usually have net worths in the multi-millions.
If the top-heavy international finance economy centered in the US collapses, all of the necessary factors will be in place to quickly reinvent the US as a new economic superpower. There are many good reasons why the US is the wealthiest country on the planet in spite of its mistakes, and those reasons will survive any potential economic collapse.
You have a large and educated workforce. (And any recent undermining of the education system can be easily reversed.)
You have a well-developed nation-wide transportation infrastructure. (Maybe a little light on rail, but just look at Canada for comparison and it looks fantastic.)
You have vast tracts of rich agricultural land and substantial areas of year-round growing seasons.
You have immense mineral wealth, including a very good supply of rare earth elements and nuclear fuels.
If things continue to decline, and in a period of turmoil the old way cracks apart and topples, it seems likely that a new paradigm could develop that focuses on long-term economic health rather than short term gains to share value or dividend of stocks, one that is inclusive of the working class and even more favorable to the innovative class. If that happens, the turnaround will be awe-inspiring.
If you're a disorganized and scattered band of protesters-turned-rebels trying to go about restoring communications infrastructure, how do you communicate to coordinate everything that's required to restore communications infrastructure?
Actually, imprisonment for non-violent drug offences has some direct parallel to imprisonment for practicing a banned religion.
Members of the Native American Church are allowed under law to use peyote in their religious practices. A new age spiritualist distributing personal-use quantities of psychedelic mushrooms to a group of followers so they can have an entheogenic experience qualifies for a massive amount of time in prison, potentially a de-facto life sentence based upon the number of individuals involved.
Or you could always just compare legal vs illegal intoxicants. Alcohol and GHB have similar impairing effects, are both strongly associated with nonconsensual sex, and both cause a statistically significant number of deaths among their users from accident and overdose. One is legal for adults over 21 to put into their bodies, as the potential harm they cause themselves through its use is within their rights over their own persons, and the other is illegal for adults to put into their bodies, as those rights over their own persons vanish because the chemical is not an approved intoxicating substance.
I personally find rights over one's own person to be powerfully similar to freedom of religious practice, as both are purely personal choices, and would suggest that any nation that espouses personal liberty has no just grounds to interfere with either. The USA is a nation that incarcerates a massive number of citizens for abusively lengthly terms for either engaging in prohibited practices over their own persons or enabling others to do so. The difference between the prohibition against drugs and a prohibition against masturbation or tattooing is minimal at best.
The press release link is a moving target. It's now: http://www.gnome.org/press/2011/04/gnome-3-0-released-better-for-users-developers-3/
I don't believe that the majority of these shipped app device units are being used in a true computing capacity. In my day to day exposure, smart phones in particular don't tend to be used for much beyond the capabilities of earlier cell phones.
Especially among the younger crowd, who now seem to think that owning an iPhone 4 is the new minimum requirement for acceptance by their peers, the typical use seems to mostly comprise texting and music playback, with the occasional use of the camera for taking pictures of their friends while drunk. Facebook has definitely made significant inroads, but not too many people are using advanced features of Facebook or using more complex web applications from their smartphones. Some games are present, which are definitely more impressive than what previously existed as games on cell phones, but which mostly fill the same role: idle time wasters when on the go.
In my office environment, everyone has a smart phone. No one uses one as a primary email device, a primary web browsing device or a general office productivity device. The dominant use is scheduling, which requires syncronization with their computer-based scheduling, and email & web browsing while not in the office.
iPads have made some inroads as a computer replacement, with a few people using them as laptop-replacements for meeting notetaking and presentations, but still they're not being used as a primary productivity device.
I see these mobile devices, currently, as a supplement to personal computers which can be omni-present. Because they fit in a pocket and combine functionality with a required gadget (cell phones), more people are web browsing on the go or performing some tasks that previously may have required access to a computer. They still have syncing relationships to computers that are critical to many of their functions, and most functions still work better from a real computer. I doubt that any time soon you will see someone replacing their work PC with a smart phone, and the consumers that might replace a home PC with one probably didn't use that home PC very much.
This is the continuation of Facebook's rubber-band of privacy policy. First, they open up a grievous hole. Then, there's an inevitable tide of user outrage, usually coinciding with a Facebook group complaining about it and threatening mass exodus, creating tension on the rubber band. Eventually, the tension overcomes Facebook's inertia and motivates them to fix the hole they created, jerking things forward to be briefly in sync with sensible standards, until they make the next grievous hole and start the stretching process again.
It's a game of seeing how much they can get away with and for how long, only addressing their own problems with minimal efforts when a snapping point nears. Eventually, there will be an API-level prevention of this sort of behaviour, only to be replaced with a new massive security hole.
Most users will just continue blissfully onward posting photos of themselves and friends engaged in compromising situations while under the influence of a wide array of intoxicants, with every sordid detail shared freely with prospective employers. Even iron-tight platform security can't cure the kind of stupid that is Facebook's bread and butter.
It's interesting in that it's one of the cases where pursuit of an aesthetic has undermined functionality.
I work at a university where its Industrial Design program is a pretty big deal, but it's plagued with projects that completely fail in usability (ie, a brushed metal and fogged glass "chair" that will explode into twisted shrapnel if more than 20lbs of load is applied). Strangely, the completely nonfunctional pieces tend to be awarded higher grades because they're more "daring" or have more "vision". The mindset is often that concept of the design is most important, and it will be someone else's job to work out the crippling problems presented by the unrealistic choices made by the designer.
The odd piece is quite complete and very functional, but usually gets awarded a B for not having enough time spent obsessing over the finishing, because a critical design requirement is to spend dozens of hours sanding.
So cheap, shiny things like bluetooth ear-pieces, chrome wheel spinners, and big necklaces became a sort of caricature of the desperation to appear wealthy.
And what a target market that is!
White with iPhones is a way of advertising that you have the more expensive model, as it historically only exists as an option for the top-end model. All of the people who know the difference will be totally impressed when they see it and will respect you and/or want to have sex with you.
It's like wearing a fancy watch or paying for a drink with a hundred dollar bill at the bar. Visible signs of wealth trump personality and good looks.
There are a lot of different things that make people quit... for example, I didn't care much for the original herding-massive-quantities-of-cats-into-gigantic-raids-to-get-a-chance-at-one-piece-of-loot model that they used in the original and quit after becoming frustrated with the end game. Some of the changes that have been made since then might have convinced me to stick around if they'd come earlier.
There seems to be a rotating focus on some alienated portion of the player-base with each iteration, now with some bones being thrown back to the uberhardcore raid nuts, the very same group that the original version of WoW catered to and then abandoned progressively with each expansion. While attempting to juggle all of the competing interests of a diverse playerbase, they're definitely dropping some balls. Maybe the next expansion will have something that rekindles your interest, or maybe you'll remain free of the addiction like me and marvel at how much extra time you have to waste on other equally meaningless pursuits.
I took up alcohol.
Yeah, that sounds downright unpleasant, and for your case the missing LAN functionality is a definite hindrance. Hopefully things improve, because those sorts of internet connectivity issues would be disruptive to, well, anything. Maybe I'm spoiled by having a choice of a plethora of reliable DSL providers and one very good cable provider in my local market. You could always move just so you can play a game reliably! Hmm, I think I'd be awfully tempted to move in such a circumstance, but I have unusual priorities.
There are some people for whom the argument of the existence or nonexistence of LAN play is a purely ideological one and not based on disruption from internet connectivity issues, which I find a little bit odd. The case of anyone who is left out by the combination of Blizzard's design choice and lack of connectivity, however, does erode away from my previous statements. For most people, their model is equivalent, but for some it admittedly is not. In some future world where crappy ISPs no longer exist, or there is always a viable alternate choice in every local market, they will become equivalent, and I don't think that's all that far off.
There's not really any stopping game developers from moving towards the fully internet-based model regardless of whether some (potential or actual) customers have prohibitive connectivity issues. They will just blame the ISPs and say that there isn't enough demand to justify dedicated LAN functionality, and that they're not in the business of providing workaround for ISPs who fail to provide their service. They can only get away with that stance because internet connectivity is now practically universal and generally very good quality for large portions of the world and the expectation of consumers is becoming that ISPs *should* provide consistently working service, rather than accepting that connection drops and packet loss are the norm.
Your case is decidedly lame and it would be nice if you had some recourse.
Can't say they've ever happened to me yet. I guess if I had a crappy internet connection I'd have an issue, but I would complain to my ISP or change ISPs if I did.
If they gave Tauren players plainsrunning then people would want to be able to ride Tauren players as mounts, which would be... awesome!
Even then, the "lack" of LAN-play for SC2 and Diablo 3 is splitting technical hairs.
Your computer doesn't host the game and a connection to battle.net is required to play. What real-world difference does this make? How many people set up a LAN party without having an internet connection these days?
I play SC2 with other folks connected via a LAN all the time, moreso than I play with random people online. This supposedly missing feature hasn't affected my LAN-play experience one bit. I don't even get an uneasy feeling that my consumer rights are being eroded by corporations as I do so, it's that seamless.
A big component of the battle.net service is DRM. Requiring an account to play, even offline single player via check-ins, is the most effective way that they've come up with to prevent piracy.
They made a gamble that it would be something that their playerbase would be willing to swallow, and it seems like they were right: for most folks its restrictions aren't a hindrance, and there are a few benefits thrown in, like being able to download, install and play the game on any computer. It has a lot less ugly pointy barbs than some other (cough Ubisoft) DRM schemes in recent history.
I'm sure there are some people who don't want multiplayer and don't want content updates and don't want cloud-based saved games and don't want achievements and whatnot and who find authenticating to play a single-player game inherently offensive. But seriously, you obviously have an internet connection, and you're only being inconvenienced for seconds to get a month of unrestricted take-it-anywhere play on that (or any other) computer. That one login gets you enough time to play through the whole single player campaign, and then you can uninstall the game to free up its huge disk footprint and move on with your life.
I personally will gladly authenticate every time I play in order to spare the headache of having to put in an original optical disc. I think the latter is far more inconvenient.
I'm not sure what any of this has to do with WoW, though, which has always required authentication for all forms of play. It, like all MMOs, is a 100% online game.
And the reason why they use draconian bans rather than half-measures is that it's a remarkably effective way to keep the online experience very clean.
They could form a special Cesspool League where known cheaters could freely compete with each other however they please using whatever hacks they want on the software they purchased, and give all other players the ability to never be matched up with a known cheater. Coupled with that, they could nullify all achievements for cheaters and put a big black mark on their profiles. This would superficially segregate the people who wish to use hacks to damage the multiplayer experience of other players from those who want a clean game, and perhaps everyone would be happy.
The drawback to this is that it would give the cheaters a venue to test their craft, perhaps finding ways to sneak past the cheat detectors and have their scumminess bubble forth and pollute the experience of the mainstream. It would also mean a softer deterrent which would likely not be as effective in preventing that first offense. So in the end, Blizzard opts for the scorched-earth cheating policy that most of their customers either love or have no issue with, thus maintaining a first-rate multiplayer experience rather than allowing it to degenerate and ruin the experience, as has happened repeatedly throughout internet gaming history. They would rather have a very effective weapon against cheaters and use it than continually play catch-up with patches and lose paying customers due to cheater-related frustration.
As one of the people who does not cheat in games, I don't have any real issue with their attitudes towards cheating. It may set an ugly precedent in that a software company can arbitrarily deny a paying customer the right to use purchased software, but counter-balanced with the Big Happy Bonus of not having to put up with cheaters in multiplayer... well that soothes any chafing I might have with the principle and allows them to retain my free-market-voting dollars. I actually trust their profit motive not to cross me and I don't plan to cross them.