First thing to acknowledge is that piracy will happen, and it is not in your interests to spend a million dollars to save a few (eliminating the last 1% of the pirates). Accept that a certain amount of piracy is 'unstoppable', and you can implement a far more pragmatic scheme.
Ours is simple. We distribute our software as v1.0 (regardless of the build). Inside code, we apply a countdown timer that will crash the application after 50 starts. We make it a kind of 'nagware', but a fairly mild one. We don't use those annoying 5 second delays before you can click OK or any of that crap.
The countdown timer can be cancelled when someone patches to any version that doesn't have a '.0' on the end. However, to upgrade, they have to register (which is a semi-automated process). It costs us about 5 seconds to approve someone's registration.
Once again, remember that this is easily hackable. Anyone with an ounce of IT skills could reset the timer, have the version identifier in the exe, etc, etc - but the point is that 98% of people wont, and 1% of people will try unsuccessfully. Every once in a while we discover someone who has pirated the software, and we send them a dirty letter, and most of them true-up at that point too.
Stay pragmatic, and don't let it annoy you. Good luck!
I'm not sure which is the greater humiliation for the U.S...
That their security is so weak that he could do it at all...
Or the war crimes that he revealed...
Or the manner in which they have treated him since...
Regardless, he has won a massive moral and ethical battle against the corruption of the U.S. military. It is sad that he will live out his remaining days battling PTSD and depression as a result of their conduct. It makes the rest of us wonder if his victory was worthwhile... and that's exactly how the U.S. military wants it to be.
In a first world country, he would be released on the grounds of 'abuse of process'. In a first world country...
If you substitute the word 'Car' for the words 'IP Address', the ruling reads:
'just because a CAR is registered to an individual does not mean that he or she is guilty of infringement when that CAR is used to commit infringing activity.'
A whole bunch of 'speed camera law' is in exact opposition to this ruling.
I think that the ruling is positive and constructive - but I also think that it will be overruled at a higher level for the exact same reasons that the speed camera law is in place.
In essence, I agree with your sentiment, but it does have some problems. Let me explain:
The US is only just starting to discover the joys of a public funded health care system. Australia has had it for a couple of decades. I don't think that too many people would argue that drugs is all about health care. People that use drugs in moderation are not the problem. People that have poor impulse control; those who use drugs to excess are the problem. They exist. You might not be one of them - but they are out there in droves. And the government is worried about them. A public healthcare system means that those people obtain bajillions of dollars worth of taxpayers funding because of their drug problem.
Now, I'm not really interested in the question of whether their excessive use of drugs is a 'lifestyle choice' or whether it is a kind of 'disease'. The government's strategy has always been to regulate things that carry significant risks. At the lower end, regulation of drugs means 'prescription drugs'. At the higher end, the drugs are made illegal.
Lets time travel forward a couple of decades to a time when our healthcare system is more advanced. They can detect exactly what's in your system, and they can tell how intensely you've been taking it over the last 12 months. At that point, the drug-taking-moderates will be removed from the equation. It will be easy to determine that they are not burdening the healthcare system with their drug use. At that point, legalisation will be very viable - and very appropriate. The people with an out-of-control drug habit will be identified in the emergency room and handled differently. Maybe forced to pay for their care (like they could afford it) or simply placed in compulsory rehab (a special kind of jail for druggies?) Who knows how we'll deal with them in 20 years?
As far as I'm concerned, its not a question of whether this can happen. Its purely a question of when. Until it happens, legalisation will be all about controlling the flow of people in emergency rooms. And the drug-taking-moderates are hard out of luck - because they will continue to suffer regulation that is not about them.
We distribute to 18 countries, but our primary business is in Australia. We do not sell into the US (and don't want to).
In Australia, the government standard for cloud based EMR is 'Patient Controlled'. They call it PCEHR (Patient Controlled Electronic Health Record). We've nicknamed it 'pecker'. In one sense, it is a good idea, as the patient owns their own data and cannot be held to ransom by their health care provider. Arguably, the authorities could never have made the decision for the data to be owned in any other way.
However, it also means that the electronic patient record contains only the data that the patient wishes to include. Any practitioner would be crazy to accept that record as 'complete' - and for the sake of their PI insurance (and the patient's wellbeing), they basically have to disregard the online electronic record and start from scratch every time.
Furthermore, most health care providers value their business based on the IP in their electronic records (more traditionally known as 'Good Will'). They will not willingly give up that information - at least, not quickly.
Sadly, I can't see an easy solution. It will take time and a bucketload of stakeholder engagement by the government - something that most governments are not very good at.
Now, be nice. Your acidic remarks are unecessary and uncalled-for.
We are currently one of the cheapest products in our marketplace. We do not sell hardware - and for people who really want touch screens, we recommend wall mounted all-in-ones that sit around U$900.
Also, subby wasn't talking about reading books. He was talking about reading stapled printouts. There is a big weight difference. If you want an eBook reader for bedtime or on a plane - then, sure, grab one.
Please do your research before posting snippy responses in/.
My company makes software for allied health professionals, and a large number of our customers are chiropractors. They are starting to use tablets quite extensively for recording their medical notes, so I am perfectly positioned to offer a slightly tangential response. Full disclosure: I am not a chiropractor - I've just worked with thousands of them, so I know a bit about spines and posture.
Subby, you mentioned that your back isn't what it used to be. This is an important factor.
During our lab trials of tablets, we received a lot of feedback about the ergonomics of tablets - and one tester actually had to be excused from testing after a measly 15 minutes due to neck pain developing. Here's the problem:
- A tablet has a very small screen. Don't let anybody trick you into thinking that a 10.1" screen is big. Its not. You have to hold the tablet quite close to your face to be able to read it comfortably.
- Even the lightest tablets still have significant weight. You can safely anticipate that your tablet will weigh about a kilogram.
- When you hold a kilogram weight up in front of your face, it distorts your body's centre of balance. In order to compensate, your body transfers weight either resulting in you leaning backwards, or sticking your backside out. Either of these are posturally abnormal positions. For the first 5 minutes, no problems - but for extended periods, this can (and likely will) result in back pain, neck pain and headaches. Over weeks and months, it will damage your spine.
- The alternative is to sit in a relaxed position and hold the device in your lap. Sounds good until you realise that your entire body is falling into a C shape (when seen from the side). This is also an abnormal position for the spine - and creates the same problems. We see a lot of x-rays of children who spent excessive time with the iPod/PST/handheld device in their lap - their spine is worse than that of a 40 year old.
In the end, we published an official white paper advising our customers that A) tablets work fine; the technology is sound and reasonably mature; B) we DO NOT recommend that they use them.
I've received two calls in the last week so I'm not sure how the USFTC can claim to have 'shut them down'.
My strategy these days is to ask them to hang on 'for just a minute' and then go and leave my phone under a cushion for 20 minutes. I figure that wasting their time is the most effective way to fight back.
Whilst I feel some anger towards EA for this Exec's blatant greed ('this is not DRM' - yeah, right), I take a more 'market driven' approach towards this problem. Good games will always sell - and they'll make lots of money. Studios that cultivate good single-player games won't work with EA, and another publisher will win the profits. EA botched Mass Effect 3 (slowest boot up ever), but that wasn't bad enough to destroy the game. If/when they're inflexible business policy does destroy a game, it just won't sell. Simple.
Do you not even understand the difference between oppression and 'video piracy'? I suppose that you would apply 'stand your ground' laws if someone tried to take your parking spot too?
So if it became law that laws could not be changed...[snip]
Laws are intended to maintain a consistent environment within which people can carry out their lives. Laws define their rights and obligations as members of their society. The whole idea is that if people abide by the laws, the life experiences of those people will be better than if they did not (abide by the laws). Some societies have police forces to uphold and maintain the laws. People who refuse to abide by the laws are incarcerated in jails - to either be reformed so that they may re-enter society - or to protect society from them.
Your frustration with the laws is understandable. There are plenty of laws out there that I dislike (eg I am not allowed to go and beat up my partner's ex husband when he abuses their children). However, society as a whole have decided that if we act outside the law, society will put us in jail.
You mentioned Rosa Parks and Gandhi. They were people who were willing to go to jail to support their desire to change the laws. They were contesting substantive human rights violations.
By contrast, this thread is about 'not being able to download some old episode of The Kenny Everett Video Show'.
Now, I liked that show. I liked it heaps. I'm not prepared to go to jail over it. Are you?
Are you encouraging others to destroy the fabric of society over such an insignificant thing?
Do you genuinely believe that you can use Gandhi to validate video show piracy?
Sadly, this mentality is too prevalent in the Science/IT community. It goes like this:
If 'person X' can't prove to me that 'law Y' is 'beneficial/valid/just/whatever-polarised-measure-of-truth-I-like-at-the-time', then we should all just ignore it.
There was a time in the past when humanity largely lived by this philosophy. It was called the Stone Age.
As long as you perpetuate a Fight Club mentality, or encourage others to do so, you are effectively supporting anarchy. Whilst you may think that a little anarchy in copyright law is a good thing, you may not like a little anarchy in your daughter's classroom - or in your parents' retirement village.
The world is a complex place, and only children have the luxury of viewing it in black and white terms.
If the laws are wrong, change them. Carry on breaking them willfully, and I will continue to fight like hell to see you in prison where you belong.
In Australia (and most western countries I imagine), there is a distinction between Criminal matters (eg breaking the law), and Civil matters (eg breaking a contract). Generally speaking, Civil matters won't see you landed in jail, but could bankrupt you.
Anyway, the point is, anybody who sells anything (including software) is open to be sued in a Civil court. If you are negligent, and it can be proved that you are negligent, then you can be held accountable for it.
Interestingly, in Australia, the burden of proof is different for Civil matters. There is no 'beyond reasonable doubt' clause for Civil matters. It is generally decided by a judge (not a jury) on the basis of 'the balance of evidence'. But I digress...
The point is: We are already liable. Its not a criminal matter - and nor should it be, unless there are lives at stake. Admittedly, some software is life-critical, but there are already laws covering professional negligence in these cases.
IMHO, this academic has an axe to grind that has not yet come to light. Scratch and sniff, and something probably stinks...
Rather than whitelist, I choose to blacklist - and I do so very discriminately.
In essence, I allow a website's ads to stream freely until they stream an ad that offends me. As soon as that happens, I adblock them.
I figure that this introduces a kind of moral/ethical gate in advertising. As long as the advertisers conduct themselves ethically, I will allow them space on my (browser) desktop. If an advertiser is unethical, they lose that right. Now, its up to them...
Bad news for/. - your advertisers have been blacklisted for bad behaviour. I don't bother to tick the box, as they're already blocked.
A 24TB NAS is not very hard to assemble. Relatively cheap, and basically transfers data at Gb speed - assuming that you populate it with fast disks. Set one up with RAID and you're away. Personally, I would do it with a low end server and a big-ass RAID array. That way, you can really control its behaviour via the OS. Linux is ferpect for this kind of thing.
+1
But it won't just be the USA. I'm in Oz, and just had my crazy father-in-law bounce in to the room announcing that this is proof that AGW is rubbish.
A couple of months ago, when I ws selling my motorbike, I received a few of those 'I'm on an offshore oilrig and I want to buy your bike' spams. I was curious, so I constructed a honeypot to see if I could gather some intel on the perps before going to the police.
Sure enough, within a day, I had IP addresses and was able to resolve to the attackers location. He was stupid enough to not be using a proxy, and stupid enough to leave some vulnerabilities open on his PC - that made it very easy to be certain that he was the attacker.
I collated my data, and presented it to the Feds. They weren't interested. Couldn't even care less.
So I contacted the attacker independently (through my own proxies), and let them know that they should get better at what they're doing, or get out of the game. They didn't try to contact me again.
I can understand why people would be tempted to undertake their own vigilante actions.
Blizzard is simply exploiting the power gamers. Our society has a culture of 'must win at all costs'. Blizzard likes the sound of that.
If you just want to play the game 'for the gameplay', then you don't need the auction house, and you won't get bot-kicked.
Unfortunately, D3 is a bit of a disappointment from that perspective. The eye candy is good, but the gameplay is inferior to D2 - as is the skill tree - and the plot is basically identical.
Having played several new release games recently, it is quite clear that some game-makers are trying to give something good to the gaming community. They charge for their efforts, but they really want to delight their audience. And then there's Blizzard. Clearly jaded by years of piracy, Blizzard is simply extracting revenge on the gaming community. I will be much more cautious next time I consider purchasing anything from them.
For a time, I worked as an Infrastructure/Purchasing Manager for a mid-sized government department. During that time, I was responsible for the oversight of the purchase of several software packages - ranging from PC-based client/server packages through to mid-range AS/400 packages. Our general rule of thumb (and I emphasise that it was nothing more than that) was to pay around 10-15% of the original purchase price each year as a general maintenancce fee. If this included a minimal level of desktop support, we were winners. If it only included bug-fixes, it was tolerable.
The definition of democracy is that your leaders are ultimately accountable to the population at large. If you are unhappy with their performance in any way (including their deceptions), then you (the broader 'all of you') are the ONLY people accountable for replacing them.
So, by simple extension of the definition, you (as a homogenous democratic mass - known as 'Americans') are responsible for your leaders' actions.
Now, you (as an individual) might not have voted for that particular leader. You may be lobbying your local representative to replace your leaders. As such, that grants you some level of exemption (but, only if you are doing those things).
So, by further extension, your only exemption from being lambasted is to lambast your own government - and therefore, by extension, the American people.
Slashdot Mirror
First thing to acknowledge is that piracy will happen, and it is not in your interests to spend a million dollars to save a few (eliminating the last 1% of the pirates). Accept that a certain amount of piracy is 'unstoppable', and you can implement a far more pragmatic scheme.
Ours is simple. We distribute our software as v1.0 (regardless of the build). Inside code, we apply a countdown timer that will crash the application after 50 starts. We make it a kind of 'nagware', but a fairly mild one. We don't use those annoying 5 second delays before you can click OK or any of that crap.
The countdown timer can be cancelled when someone patches to any version that doesn't have a '.0' on the end. However, to upgrade, they have to register (which is a semi-automated process). It costs us about 5 seconds to approve someone's registration.
Once again, remember that this is easily hackable. Anyone with an ounce of IT skills could reset the timer, have the version identifier in the exe, etc, etc - but the point is that 98% of people wont, and 1% of people will try unsuccessfully. Every once in a while we discover someone who has pirated the software, and we send them a dirty letter, and most of them true-up at that point too.
Stay pragmatic, and don't let it annoy you. Good luck!
[Citation Needed]
Don't you mean...
1."Serve the public trust"
2."Protect the innocent"
3."Uphold the law"
I'm not sure which is the greater humiliation for the U.S...
That their security is so weak that he could do it at all...
Or the war crimes that he revealed...
Or the manner in which they have treated him since...
Regardless, he has won a massive moral and ethical battle against the corruption of the U.S. military. It is sad that he will live out his remaining days battling PTSD and depression as a result of their conduct. It makes the rest of us wonder if his victory was worthwhile... and that's exactly how the U.S. military wants it to be.
In a first world country, he would be released on the grounds of 'abuse of process'. In a first world country...
If you substitute the word 'Car' for the words 'IP Address', the ruling reads:
'just because a CAR is registered to an individual does not mean that he or she is guilty of infringement when that CAR is used to commit infringing activity.'
A whole bunch of 'speed camera law' is in exact opposition to this ruling.
I think that the ruling is positive and constructive - but I also think that it will be overruled at a higher level for the exact same reasons that the speed camera law is in place.
Your suggestion is actually quite a good one.
Microwaves are particularly troublesome for WiFi
So, you could effectively jam the leech with a Microwave transmitter.
In essence, I agree with your sentiment, but it does have some problems. Let me explain:
The US is only just starting to discover the joys of a public funded health care system. Australia has had it for a couple of decades. I don't think that too many people would argue that drugs is all about health care. People that use drugs in moderation are not the problem. People that have poor impulse control; those who use drugs to excess are the problem. They exist. You might not be one of them - but they are out there in droves. And the government is worried about them. A public healthcare system means that those people obtain bajillions of dollars worth of taxpayers funding because of their drug problem.
Now, I'm not really interested in the question of whether their excessive use of drugs is a 'lifestyle choice' or whether it is a kind of 'disease'. The government's strategy has always been to regulate things that carry significant risks. At the lower end, regulation of drugs means 'prescription drugs'. At the higher end, the drugs are made illegal.
Lets time travel forward a couple of decades to a time when our healthcare system is more advanced. They can detect exactly what's in your system, and they can tell how intensely you've been taking it over the last 12 months. At that point, the drug-taking-moderates will be removed from the equation. It will be easy to determine that they are not burdening the healthcare system with their drug use. At that point, legalisation will be very viable - and very appropriate. The people with an out-of-control drug habit will be identified in the emergency room and handled differently. Maybe forced to pay for their care (like they could afford it) or simply placed in compulsory rehab (a special kind of jail for druggies?) Who knows how we'll deal with them in 20 years?
As far as I'm concerned, its not a question of whether this can happen. Its purely a question of when. Until it happens, legalisation will be all about controlling the flow of people in emergency rooms. And the drug-taking-moderates are hard out of luck - because they will continue to suffer regulation that is not about them.
I own a software house that makes EMR software.
We distribute to 18 countries, but our primary business is in Australia. We do not sell into the US (and don't want to).
In Australia, the government standard for cloud based EMR is 'Patient Controlled'. They call it PCEHR (Patient Controlled Electronic Health Record). We've nicknamed it 'pecker'. In one sense, it is a good idea, as the patient owns their own data and cannot be held to ransom by their health care provider. Arguably, the authorities could never have made the decision for the data to be owned in any other way.
However, it also means that the electronic patient record contains only the data that the patient wishes to include. Any practitioner would be crazy to accept that record as 'complete' - and for the sake of their PI insurance (and the patient's wellbeing), they basically have to disregard the online electronic record and start from scratch every time.
Furthermore, most health care providers value their business based on the IP in their electronic records (more traditionally known as 'Good Will'). They will not willingly give up that information - at least, not quickly.
Sadly, I can't see an easy solution. It will take time and a bucketload of stakeholder engagement by the government - something that most governments are not very good at.
Come back in 10 years.
Now, be nice. Your acidic remarks are unecessary and uncalled-for.
/.
We are currently one of the cheapest products in our marketplace. We do not sell hardware - and for people who really want touch screens, we recommend wall mounted all-in-ones that sit around U$900.
Oh, and by the way, your ~0.5kg is false.
iPad weight = 652 grams (here is a citation: http://www.apple.com/ipad/specs/). That's the lighter version.
iPad cover weight = 338 grams (citation: http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/features/apple/3345046/best-cases-covers-for-new-ipad/)
Apple make lighter cases, but the lightest I've seen still comes in at about 180 grams.
Total weight 830 grams at best - though if you choose the 'recommended covers', it will be much closer to 1kg.
Also, subby wasn't talking about reading books. He was talking about reading stapled printouts. There is a big weight difference. If you want an eBook reader for bedtime or on a plane - then, sure, grab one. Please do your research before posting snippy responses in
My company makes software for allied health professionals, and a large number of our customers are chiropractors. They are starting to use tablets quite extensively for recording their medical notes, so I am perfectly positioned to offer a slightly tangential response. Full disclosure: I am not a chiropractor - I've just worked with thousands of them, so I know a bit about spines and posture.
Subby, you mentioned that your back isn't what it used to be. This is an important factor.
During our lab trials of tablets, we received a lot of feedback about the ergonomics of tablets - and one tester actually had to be excused from testing after a measly 15 minutes due to neck pain developing. Here's the problem:
- A tablet has a very small screen. Don't let anybody trick you into thinking that a 10.1" screen is big. Its not. You have to hold the tablet quite close to your face to be able to read it comfortably.
- Even the lightest tablets still have significant weight. You can safely anticipate that your tablet will weigh about a kilogram.
- When you hold a kilogram weight up in front of your face, it distorts your body's centre of balance. In order to compensate, your body transfers weight either resulting in you leaning backwards, or sticking your backside out. Either of these are posturally abnormal positions. For the first 5 minutes, no problems - but for extended periods, this can (and likely will) result in back pain, neck pain and headaches. Over weeks and months, it will damage your spine.
- The alternative is to sit in a relaxed position and hold the device in your lap. Sounds good until you realise that your entire body is falling into a C shape (when seen from the side). This is also an abnormal position for the spine - and creates the same problems. We see a lot of x-rays of children who spent excessive time with the iPod/PST/handheld device in their lap - their spine is worse than that of a 40 year old.
In the end, we published an official white paper advising our customers that A) tablets work fine; the technology is sound and reasonably mature; B) we DO NOT recommend that they use them.
I've received two calls in the last week so I'm not sure how the USFTC can claim to have 'shut them down'.
My strategy these days is to ask them to hang on 'for just a minute' and then go and leave my phone under a cushion for 20 minutes. I figure that wasting their time is the most effective way to fight back.
Whilst I feel some anger towards EA for this Exec's blatant greed ('this is not DRM' - yeah, right), I take a more 'market driven' approach towards this problem. Good games will always sell - and they'll make lots of money. Studios that cultivate good single-player games won't work with EA, and another publisher will win the profits. EA botched Mass Effect 3 (slowest boot up ever), but that wasn't bad enough to destroy the game. If/when they're inflexible business policy does destroy a game, it just won't sell. Simple.
Only the Sith deal in absolutes... lol
So if it became law that laws could not be changed...[snip]
What world do you live in?
Laws are intended to maintain a consistent environment within which people can carry out their lives. Laws define their rights and obligations as members of their society. The whole idea is that if people abide by the laws, the life experiences of those people will be better than if they did not (abide by the laws). Some societies have police forces to uphold and maintain the laws. People who refuse to abide by the laws are incarcerated in jails - to either be reformed so that they may re-enter society - or to protect society from them.
Your frustration with the laws is understandable. There are plenty of laws out there that I dislike (eg I am not allowed to go and beat up my partner's ex husband when he abuses their children). However, society as a whole have decided that if we act outside the law, society will put us in jail.
You mentioned Rosa Parks and Gandhi. They were people who were willing to go to jail to support their desire to change the laws. They were contesting substantive human rights violations.
By contrast, this thread is about 'not being able to download some old episode of The Kenny Everett Video Show'.
Now, I liked that show. I liked it heaps. I'm not prepared to go to jail over it. Are you?
Are you encouraging others to destroy the fabric of society over such an insignificant thing?
Do you genuinely believe that you can use Gandhi to validate video show piracy?
Get some perspective.
Sadly, this mentality is too prevalent in the Science/IT community. It goes like this:
If 'person X' can't prove to me that 'law Y' is 'beneficial/valid/just/whatever-polarised-measure-of-truth-I-like-at-the-time', then we should all just ignore it.
There was a time in the past when humanity largely lived by this philosophy. It was called the Stone Age.
As long as you perpetuate a Fight Club mentality, or encourage others to do so, you are effectively supporting anarchy. Whilst you may think that a little anarchy in copyright law is a good thing, you may not like a little anarchy in your daughter's classroom - or in your parents' retirement village.
The world is a complex place, and only children have the luxury of viewing it in black and white terms.
If the laws are wrong, change them. Carry on breaking them willfully, and I will continue to fight like hell to see you in prison where you belong.
In Australia (and most western countries I imagine), there is a distinction between Criminal matters (eg breaking the law), and Civil matters (eg breaking a contract). Generally speaking, Civil matters won't see you landed in jail, but could bankrupt you.
Anyway, the point is, anybody who sells anything (including software) is open to be sued in a Civil court. If you are negligent, and it can be proved that you are negligent, then you can be held accountable for it.
Interestingly, in Australia, the burden of proof is different for Civil matters. There is no 'beyond reasonable doubt' clause for Civil matters. It is generally decided by a judge (not a jury) on the basis of 'the balance of evidence'. But I digress...
The point is: We are already liable. Its not a criminal matter - and nor should it be, unless there are lives at stake. Admittedly, some software is life-critical, but there are already laws covering professional negligence in these cases.
IMHO, this academic has an axe to grind that has not yet come to light. Scratch and sniff, and something probably stinks...
Rather than whitelist, I choose to blacklist - and I do so very discriminately.
/. - your advertisers have been blacklisted for bad behaviour. I don't bother to tick the box, as they're already blocked.
In essence, I allow a website's ads to stream freely until they stream an ad that offends me. As soon as that happens, I adblock them.
I figure that this introduces a kind of moral/ethical gate in advertising. As long as the advertisers conduct themselves ethically, I will allow them space on my (browser) desktop. If an advertiser is unethical, they lose that right. Now, its up to them...
Bad news for
A 24TB NAS is not very hard to assemble. Relatively cheap, and basically transfers data at Gb speed - assuming that you populate it with fast disks. Set one up with RAID and you're away. Personally, I would do it with a low end server and a big-ass RAID array. That way, you can really control its behaviour via the OS. Linux is ferpect for this kind of thing.
+1
But it won't just be the USA. I'm in Oz, and just had my crazy father-in-law bounce in to the room announcing that this is proof that AGW is rubbish.
A couple of months ago, when I ws selling my motorbike, I received a few of those 'I'm on an offshore oilrig and I want to buy your bike' spams. I was curious, so I constructed a honeypot to see if I could gather some intel on the perps before going to the police.
Sure enough, within a day, I had IP addresses and was able to resolve to the attackers location. He was stupid enough to not be using a proxy, and stupid enough to leave some vulnerabilities open on his PC - that made it very easy to be certain that he was the attacker.
I collated my data, and presented it to the Feds. They weren't interested. Couldn't even care less.
So I contacted the attacker independently (through my own proxies), and let them know that they should get better at what they're doing, or get out of the game. They didn't try to contact me again.
I can understand why people would be tempted to undertake their own vigilante actions.
Blizzard is simply exploiting the power gamers. Our society has a culture of 'must win at all costs'. Blizzard likes the sound of that.
If you just want to play the game 'for the gameplay', then you don't need the auction house, and you won't get bot-kicked.
Unfortunately, D3 is a bit of a disappointment from that perspective. The eye candy is good, but the gameplay is inferior to D2 - as is the skill tree - and the plot is basically identical.
Having played several new release games recently, it is quite clear that some game-makers are trying to give something good to the gaming community. They charge for their efforts, but they really want to delight their audience. And then there's Blizzard. Clearly jaded by years of piracy, Blizzard is simply extracting revenge on the gaming community. I will be much more cautious next time I consider purchasing anything from them.
404
For a time, I worked as an Infrastructure/Purchasing Manager for a mid-sized government department. During that time, I was responsible for the oversight of the purchase of several software packages - ranging from PC-based client/server packages through to mid-range AS/400 packages. Our general rule of thumb (and I emphasise that it was nothing more than that) was to pay around 10-15% of the original purchase price each year as a general maintenancce fee. If this included a minimal level of desktop support, we were winners. If it only included bug-fixes, it was tolerable.
The definition of democracy is that your leaders are ultimately accountable to the population at large. If you are unhappy with their performance in any way (including their deceptions), then you (the broader 'all of you') are the ONLY people accountable for replacing them.
So, by simple extension of the definition, you (as a homogenous democratic mass - known as 'Americans') are responsible for your leaders' actions.
Now, you (as an individual) might not have voted for that particular leader. You may be lobbying your local representative to replace your leaders. As such, that grants you some level of exemption (but, only if you are doing those things).
So, by further extension, your only exemption from being lambasted is to lambast your own government - and therefore, by extension, the American people.
So, what's it to be then?