And there's a reply to that asking why the hell he didn't contact valve to explain that he worked abroad a lot as part of the US military.
I'm sure they'd be more than happy to accomodate this fact and restore his access. Or there's the possibility that stories like this miss out key information like "Valve acted because the games were played from a USA and a German IP address within 20 minutes of each other".
Well I suppose you could consider it the least limiting if you ignore all the limitations but that doesn't make a lot of sense now does it?
Valve DRM:
- Limits when you can activate the game, if Valve ever goes bust and hence doesn't release a patch you'll never be able to activate your game again. Any problem with their activation servers will too prevent you from activating and hence playing a game you've purchased.
If Valve ever go bust and this stops me playing my games (which is unlikely for a variety of reasons already discussed above and below) then I'll have no problem cracking them to continue playing. I paid for them, and I doubt any judge would rule I was breaking the law. You may disagree, but I and apparently many others don't even think this is a problem. Next please.
- Need to activate to play online, in the above scenario you could crack it to allow activation but will likely be unable to play online still
I have a persistent Internet connection, probably like almost everyone who buys games through Steam. Internet access is never an issue for me, and when I go travelling I play using offline mode. Again, a lot of other people in thr thread support this approach. Next please.
- Can't sell your games on second hand
One of the only valid points, but one that is shared by a lot of other DRM schemes. This is not a Steam-specific issue, but is is one that the DRM implementers need to address. However, considering the value for money I get out of the games I buy on Steam, I never feel like I need to recoup some money by selling it on. I buy most of the games when the price drops, and those who have to have a game on release have made that choice themselves. No-one forces them to pay £40 (or whatever) for the game, a price many say is unreasonable and use this as a justification for why the need to resell. If it's unreasonable then don't buy it. Boycott Steam. Boycott Valve. Don't bloody use the system while simultaneously slamming it for being evil.
- Prevents you playing games offline
You might want to check your facts on that. You don't even have to look very far, dozens of posts about playing offline.
- Forces you to have Steam on your system to be able to play a game that doesn't use Steam's features even if you bought it outside of Steam's distribution channel
Then don't buy any games that require you to use Steam. Again no-one forces you, but all the time you're installing games that run through Steam you're validating the very business model that Valve are selling. Speak with your dollars, not hypocritical criticism. If enough people think Steam is a bad system then they wouldn't make a profit, and they wouldn't be able to run.
- Forces you to accept updates to be able to play (What if you come home, want to play a game you've bought but find you have to download a 100mb+ update and you have to pay for your bandwidth because it's capped like many people in the UK do?)
Again, forces you to play with the most updated version for online games. Offline games don't have that many updates, and even when they do it's rarely the 100mb+ hyperbole example you're using. If download limits are an issue then again, one has to question the sense in choosing to play games that rely on Steam. Once more, no-one is forcing you.
Effectively whilst most classic DRM can be used to prevent people copying game disks, it does at very least allow continued ownership of the product, the ability to install it at will even after the company has gone bust and still allows you to sell the product on second hand, Steam removes the product from your control entirely even if you have purchased the actual physical media in a shop. Valve also can prevent activation of a product you didn't even buy from them as happened with me with DoW2, I
Yep, have to agree with this. Very related is the seemingly L4D "exclusive feature" whereby you get dropped from the game for no reason, then you're told the game is full even though your friends are staring at the blank slot where you were a minute before.
Lobbys work quite well in some games, and would probably work nicely in L4D if it wasn't so full of bugs. I'm just glad you can still open a server browser, albeit through a console command.
Gabe Newell tells us he hates DRM so that people bow down whilst he's simultaneously enforcing some of the most limiting DRM in the software world on people?
Some would argue that it's actually one of the least limiting forms of DRM in the software world. You can play your games anywhere, on any PC and download them as many times as you want. Configs and savegames (separate from DRM I know) are portable and stored remotely so it's even less hassle for you.
...to balance the obvious flaws and substantial criticism it's receiving here (which is justified - there are a lot of technology shortfalls at present).
Playing a game in this manner could potentially eliminate cheating. If the processing is all done remotely from the player, and the only legal inputs allowed from the player are button presses/mouse clicks etc. then you have a pretty secure game. No more third party software letting players speedhack or duplicate items. This assumes of course that the game code is resistant to anything that tries to cheat through macro-like button presses or anything that manipulates the allowed inputs. Hmmmm, now I think about it, I'm pretty sure people would find a way to exploit even such a restricted system. The desire to cheat is strong indeed...
Surely there are more direct ways to cause you harm than changing your recorded blood group on the off-chance that you'll receive a transfusion. Breaking into your house at night and clubbing you over the head with a bat for example. Or running you down with a stolen car. Or a sniper rifle. The list goes on. And even when this information is recorded on a local doctor's computer system, or in true old-school paper files, it's still succeptable to tampering by an evil-doer.
Provided sufficiently strong security is used then I don't see how this is any different from online banking or credit card purchases through online stores, except all that's being stored here is medical information. I do take your point that data duplicated online is exposed to greater risk, but someone breaking into the system and seeing that dates of my vaccinations and that embarrasing STD is still a better prospect for me than having my online banking details stolen.
Slightly venomous last line there, but never mind. They've used mathematical axioms to express the apparent link between human free will and the supposed free will of particles. I'm merely curious if these axioms hold both ways. Nothing to do with logic my friend, I'm interested in the maths.
The relevant field deficiency here is comprehension. Don't think they teach that either, do they? No big loss - it's overrated.
A more forgiving person might have read that as meaning he goes to renovation sites where they're removing old windows, and says "Can I take the old glass that you're going to throw away?".
Not sure if the axioms they've defined work both ways, but if we take the reverse case, particles being incapable of free will would seem to imply that we oursleves don't have free will. So how can we determine whether or not particles are incapable of free will? Does free will require intelligence and the ability to think, thus implying that particles simply aren't capable of exercising some degree of free will? I'm not sure, but if this is true then perhaps this could be used to disprove the notion of us having free will.
Or is that a gross oversimplification resulting from me not being a whizz at maths?
No. The facts people need to believe accusation like this are memos to Shell executives specifically stating their intention and methodology, evidence of them "holding back" solar and wind technology by restricting research in the area, specifically at the university and independent industry levels where making a breakthrough in technology/efficiency would make people EXTREMELY rich.
Sadly until you can come up with something like that you're just another guy with a conspiracy theory. Putting "SIMPLE LOGIC" in caps doesn't make you right. Let me demonstrate. It's SIMPLE LOGIC that you're claims are false and you're a nut job. Do you believe me now? Didn't think so...
"Reason to believe" implies that you've been following clues and you're on the verge of unearthing solid evidence. Is this the case, or are you simply repeating things you've read elsewhere, or possibly been told by an over-entusiastic college Professor?
Facts and figures my friend, they'll speak volumes for the point that you're trying to get across.
I thought this too. If it's not a direct monetary cost then surely it'll still introduce a cost in terms of efficiency. Apparently/. as a whole is more interested in discussing the relative merits of the Farenheit and Celsius temperature systems though...
Not sure what version of Firefox you're on, but here my 3.0.7 didn't run Google Gravity properly, nor did it run the balls one. My frantic attempts to shake the browser window and make some balls appear was starting to attract attention from my colleagues, so I quit then. 2 failures out of 2 for me though.
Fair enough, some people are in a position to do the right thing, but I'm just saying that a lot of people couldn't have done that. Someone single. Someone with no family to help them. Someone whose wife's employers aren't as generous as you.
Even respectable people need money to eat and pay the rent. Having superior morals is fine and dandy until you lose your job and have to work somewhere like Officemax, where you either play the game and do as your manager tells you to, or you lose your job, and then maybe your home.
All adding a dimension does is tact on a couple extra bytes to each transfer.
And conveniently allows the patent to ignore prior art that was 2D based.
It's like me patenting exactly the same thing but stipulating that it applies to virtual reality worlds that go beyond 3D reprentations of worlds on 2D monitors. Hmmm, maybe I should do it.
...as "An anonymous reader from the Macmod forum wrote in with this appalling hack"
Given the amount of effort required just to install a tiny screen that faces away from you while you use the MacBook, I think my interpretation might be more accurate!
The patent system is being blatantly misused and judges are enforcing the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law. Sadly you can only enforce the letter of the law since the spirit is open to interpretation. I'm fairly sure that most reasonable human beings would agree that patents should protect legitamite inventors and innovators from having their ideas stolen, not be used to patent basic concepts on the off chance they'll be used in the future so you can get rich, or to patent existing technology that you didn't invent but which you can show hasn't been patented. Removing prior art as a consideration by muddying the waters with (IMO irrelavent) differentiations between 2D and 3D worlds, or client/server considerations is just another step along the "fuck you justice, we have the law on our side" road.
Source on this please? I'd really like to see the CCTV footage that shows them killing an unarmed man who is complying with their instructions, especially considering the officers have been cleared of charges against them.
Slashdot Mirror
Because you're doing it wrong.
1. Play versus 2. Quick Match
Same thing, but faster.
Fair enough. Now we have:
1. Play versus
2. Quick Match
3. Error: Game is Full
You're right, that's much better. I got to the point of rage 33% faster.
And there's a reply to that asking why the hell he didn't contact valve to explain that he worked abroad a lot as part of the US military.
I'm sure they'd be more than happy to accomodate this fact and restore his access. Or there's the possibility that stories like this miss out key information like "Valve acted because the games were played from a USA and a German IP address within 20 minutes of each other".
Well I suppose you could consider it the least limiting if you ignore all the limitations but that doesn't make a lot of sense now does it?
Valve DRM: - Limits when you can activate the game, if Valve ever goes bust and hence doesn't release a patch you'll never be able to activate your game again. Any problem with their activation servers will too prevent you from activating and hence playing a game you've purchased.
If Valve ever go bust and this stops me playing my games (which is unlikely for a variety of reasons already discussed above and below) then I'll have no problem cracking them to continue playing. I paid for them, and I doubt any judge would rule I was breaking the law. You may disagree, but I and apparently many others don't even think this is a problem. Next please.
- Need to activate to play online, in the above scenario you could crack it to allow activation but will likely be unable to play online still
I have a persistent Internet connection, probably like almost everyone who buys games through Steam. Internet access is never an issue for me, and when I go travelling I play using offline mode. Again, a lot of other people in thr thread support this approach. Next please.
- Can't sell your games on second hand
One of the only valid points, but one that is shared by a lot of other DRM schemes. This is not a Steam-specific issue, but is is one that the DRM implementers need to address. However, considering the value for money I get out of the games I buy on Steam, I never feel like I need to recoup some money by selling it on. I buy most of the games when the price drops, and those who have to have a game on release have made that choice themselves. No-one forces them to pay £40 (or whatever) for the game, a price many say is unreasonable and use this as a justification for why the need to resell. If it's unreasonable then don't buy it. Boycott Steam. Boycott Valve. Don't bloody use the system while simultaneously slamming it for being evil.
- Prevents you playing games offline
You might want to check your facts on that. You don't even have to look very far, dozens of posts about playing offline.
- Forces you to have Steam on your system to be able to play a game that doesn't use Steam's features even if you bought it outside of Steam's distribution channel
Then don't buy any games that require you to use Steam. Again no-one forces you, but all the time you're installing games that run through Steam you're validating the very business model that Valve are selling. Speak with your dollars, not hypocritical criticism. If enough people think Steam is a bad system then they wouldn't make a profit, and they wouldn't be able to run.
- Forces you to accept updates to be able to play (What if you come home, want to play a game you've bought but find you have to download a 100mb+ update and you have to pay for your bandwidth because it's capped like many people in the UK do?)
Again, forces you to play with the most updated version for online games. Offline games don't have that many updates, and even when they do it's rarely the 100mb+ hyperbole example you're using. If download limits are an issue then again, one has to question the sense in choosing to play games that rely on Steam. Once more, no-one is forcing you.
Effectively whilst most classic DRM can be used to prevent people copying game disks, it does at very least allow continued ownership of the product, the ability to install it at will even after the company has gone bust and still allows you to sell the product on second hand, Steam removes the product from your control entirely even if you have purchased the actual physical media in a shop. Valve also can prevent activation of a product you didn't even buy from them as happened with me with DoW2, I
Yep, have to agree with this. Very related is the seemingly L4D "exclusive feature" whereby you get dropped from the game for no reason, then you're told the game is full even though your friends are staring at the blank slot where you were a minute before.
Lobbys work quite well in some games, and would probably work nicely in L4D if it wasn't so full of bugs. I'm just glad you can still open a server browser, albeit through a console command.
For no good reason? They just decided "Ah yeah, let's mess with thsi guy today. Hit the big red button that takes all his games away".
Where's the benefit for them in doing that?
Gabe Newell tells us he hates DRM so that people bow down whilst he's simultaneously enforcing some of the most limiting DRM in the software world on people?
Some would argue that it's actually one of the least limiting forms of DRM in the software world. You can play your games anywhere, on any PC and download them as many times as you want. Configs and savegames (separate from DRM I know) are portable and stored remotely so it's even less hassle for you.
But don't let me stop you ranting...
...to balance the obvious flaws and substantial criticism it's receiving here (which is justified - there are a lot of technology shortfalls at present).
Playing a game in this manner could potentially eliminate cheating. If the processing is all done remotely from the player, and the only legal inputs allowed from the player are button presses/mouse clicks etc. then you have a pretty secure game. No more third party software letting players speedhack or duplicate items. This assumes of course that the game code is resistant to anything that tries to cheat through macro-like button presses or anything that manipulates the allowed inputs. Hmmmm, now I think about it, I'm pretty sure people would find a way to exploit even such a restricted system. The desire to cheat is strong indeed...
Surely there are more direct ways to cause you harm than changing your recorded blood group on the off-chance that you'll receive a transfusion. Breaking into your house at night and clubbing you over the head with a bat for example. Or running you down with a stolen car. Or a sniper rifle. The list goes on. And even when this information is recorded on a local doctor's computer system, or in true old-school paper files, it's still succeptable to tampering by an evil-doer.
Provided sufficiently strong security is used then I don't see how this is any different from online banking or credit card purchases through online stores, except all that's being stored here is medical information. I do take your point that data duplicated online is exposed to greater risk, but someone breaking into the system and seeing that dates of my vaccinations and that embarrasing STD is still a better prospect for me than having my online banking details stolen.
Slightly venomous last line there, but never mind. They've used mathematical axioms to express the apparent link between human free will and the supposed free will of particles. I'm merely curious if these axioms hold both ways. Nothing to do with logic my friend, I'm interested in the maths.
The relevant field deficiency here is comprehension. Don't think they teach that either, do they? No big loss - it's overrated.
A more forgiving person might have read that as meaning he goes to renovation sites where they're removing old windows, and says "Can I take the old glass that you're going to throw away?".
Not sure if the axioms they've defined work both ways, but if we take the reverse case, particles being incapable of free will would seem to imply that we oursleves don't have free will. So how can we determine whether or not particles are incapable of free will? Does free will require intelligence and the ability to think, thus implying that particles simply aren't capable of exercising some degree of free will? I'm not sure, but if this is true then perhaps this could be used to disprove the notion of us having free will.
Or is that a gross oversimplification resulting from me not being a whizz at maths?
No. The facts people need to believe accusation like this are memos to Shell executives specifically stating their intention and methodology, evidence of them "holding back" solar and wind technology by restricting research in the area, specifically at the university and independent industry levels where making a breakthrough in technology/efficiency would make people EXTREMELY rich.
Sadly until you can come up with something like that you're just another guy with a conspiracy theory. Putting "SIMPLE LOGIC" in caps doesn't make you right. Let me demonstrate. It's SIMPLE LOGIC that you're claims are false and you're a nut job. Do you believe me now? Didn't think so...
"Reason to believe" implies that you've been following clues and you're on the verge of unearthing solid evidence. Is this the case, or are you simply repeating things you've read elsewhere, or possibly been told by an over-entusiastic college Professor?
Facts and figures my friend, they'll speak volumes for the point that you're trying to get across.
I thought this too. If it's not a direct monetary cost then surely it'll still introduce a cost in terms of efficiency. Apparently /. as a whole is more interested in discussing the relative merits of the Farenheit and Celsius temperature systems though...
Not sure what version of Firefox you're on, but here my 3.0.7 didn't run Google Gravity properly, nor did it run the balls one. My frantic attempts to shake the browser window and make some balls appear was starting to attract attention from my colleagues, so I quit then. 2 failures out of 2 for me though.
Fair enough, some people are in a position to do the right thing, but I'm just saying that a lot of people couldn't have done that. Someone single. Someone with no family to help them. Someone whose wife's employers aren't as generous as you.
Even respectable people need money to eat and pay the rent. Having superior morals is fine and dandy until you lose your job and have to work somewhere like Officemax, where you either play the game and do as your manager tells you to, or you lose your job, and then maybe your home.
With no chemical reactions in play, does this mean people won't be forced to upgrade their phones simply because their battery is all but dead?
This may come as something of a shock, but you can buy a new battery for your existing phone.
All adding a dimension does is tact on a couple extra bytes to each transfer.
And conveniently allows the patent to ignore prior art that was 2D based.
It's like me patenting exactly the same thing but stipulating that it applies to virtual reality worlds that go beyond 3D reprentations of worlds on 2D monitors. Hmmm, maybe I should do it.
They even copy Briney Spears.
Is she Britney's pirate cousin?
...as "An anonymous reader from the Macmod forum wrote in with this appalling hack"
Given the amount of effort required just to install a tiny screen that faces away from you while you use the MacBook, I think my interpretation might be more accurate!
The patent system is being blatantly misused and judges are enforcing the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law. Sadly you can only enforce the letter of the law since the spirit is open to interpretation. I'm fairly sure that most reasonable human beings would agree that patents should protect legitamite inventors and innovators from having their ideas stolen, not be used to patent basic concepts on the off chance they'll be used in the future so you can get rich, or to patent existing technology that you didn't invent but which you can show hasn't been patented. Removing prior art as a consideration by muddying the waters with (IMO irrelavent) differentiations between 2D and 3D worlds, or client/server considerations is just another step along the "fuck you justice, we have the law on our side" road.
Yeah, it says that clear as day in TFA.
Source on this please? I'd really like to see the CCTV footage that shows them killing an unarmed man who is complying with their instructions, especially considering the officers have been cleared of charges against them.