Every time there's a story on here about some ISP going after BT traffic, I mention WoW.
Sure, yes, there's a lot of pirated stuff moving across BitTorrent. The big torrent trackers like ThePirateBay are all aimed at piracy... But there's a lot of legitimate traffic moving across BitTorrent as well.
It is a terrific way to reduce the amount of bandwidth you need to distribute something to a large number of people - which is why Blizzard uses it for WoW (does SC2 use it too? Will Diablo 2?) updates. But it isn't just Blizzard. There's plenty of Linux distros available through BT downloads... And there's that TV show...
And since it's all BitTorrent traffic and it's all peer-to-peer, it's very hard to distinguish the good stuff (grabbing a piece of a WoW patch from some random guy in CA) from the bad stuff (grabbing a piece of a pirated copy of Crysis 2 from some random guy in TX).
Depending on what data is being captured by the ISP for management purposes, this COULD be true.
But, if they can track you well enough to meter you (Comcast, AT&T, etc), they can track you down to your IP too.
The problem is that Charter assigns one IP address to my router, and everything behind it is sharing that one IP.
So... Who generated that traffic you're interested in? Was it me? My wife? My kid? One of the few people I've given wireless access to? Somebody who cracked my wireless network?
Situational Irony is where the outcome is has a humorous incongruity or discrepancy from what one would expect, or from what would normally be implied by the situation.
I hate the whole "situational irony" thing... It's bullshit. Situational irony didn't exist until a crop of kids were poorly educated in what irony actually is, and then Alanis wrote her song, and everybody was running around calling everything ironic. It wasn't actually ironic in any way... But trying to correct everyone under the age of 20 in America is a losing battle... So they gave up and said "yeah... it's a different kind of irony..."
Yes, I know, language is a consensus. It grows and changes over the years. And whether I like it or not, "situational irony" now exists. But that doesn't change the fact that it's wrong.
Just like all those folks who call their computer the "modem" or "hard drive" are wrong.
Sure, I won't deny that times are better for Apple. But it's kind of ridiculous to say that Windows is no longer a competitor against Apple, since they are not only actively fighting, but Microsoft is still ahead.
I don't think I'd call Windows a competitor either.
How much of Apple's income is from the sale of computers running OSX? How much comes from iPod/iPhone sales? How much comes from sales on iTunes and the App Store?
And even with those computers running OSX... It seems to me that many people are actually seeking out specifically a Macintosh computer, not just shopping around for a deal. They aren't going to consider purchasing a Windows machine - because it doesn't run OSX.
I wouldn't be surprised if they had planned to announce one more delay from the start... At this point, it'd almost be a shame to actually ship on the date promised.
editors, working for publishers, are behind a lot of the great literary works of the united states.
philip k dick's "a scanner darkly" comes to mind. there are many others.
publishers also deal with libel and defamation lawsuits for you.
they also set up junkets so you can market your book.
im not saying theres no point to self publish, but there are many differences between music industry and book industry.
It's certainly true that publishing companies server useful purposes... But so do recording companies. Different useful purposes, but useful none the less.
In publishing you've got an editor to trim things down, streamline, bounce ideas off of you, and basically get your book into proper shape. In the recording industry you've got various mixing engineers who do similar work with the music. Both industries have lawyers to protect their clients. Both industries do a lot of PR work for their clients.
There certainly is a reason to work with a publishing company...
But they've gotten complacent. For quite some time now, if you wanted a book published you had to go through some publishing company. You didn't have a choice. They were the gatekeepers.
This has meant that not only can they charge what they want, but they're had some rather marked control over what actually gets published. Just look at Peter Watts' book, Behemoth.
But the availability of viable self-publishing options means that the traditional publication companies are going to have to start playing ball... Or they're going to stop being relevant.
Sure, they provide useful functions... But there's no reason why I couldn't start up some ebook publishing company and hire editors and PR people myself, and then only take 50% of the proceeds, instead of the 80% that traditional publication companies are apparently taking. Or the authors can go with some other self-publication service and keep 70% of the proceeds and hire their own editors, lawyers, and PR people.
Is it easier to jailbreak an iPhone (or iDevice) than this? I thought Android devices were "open"; if so shouldn't one be able to change their OS more easily?
Or does the openness of the Android platform refer to the fact that there is no restriction on the Apps you can install? Or is there something else I am missing?
*about this issue. I'm quite knowledgeable about a host of others though!
It depends on what you're referring to when you say "open".
The Android platform itself is completely open source. Anybody can download the source, modify it, compile it, etc. In that respect it's quite a bit more open than the iPhone OS.
The platform, in general, is also more open. You aren't necessarily tied to a single app store. Worst-case scenario, you can load an app from an.apk on an SD card or something. Which makes it far easier to develop your own homebrew/in-house apps.
However, the individual phone manufacturers are free to lock down their hardware as much as they'd like. They'll claim it's a security thing... You wouldn't want some virus to root your phone and start making long-distance phonecalls, would you? But it also ensures that the phones only do what they want, which allows them to charge a premium for specific functions like tethering.
I am so sick of seeing Michio Kaku all over the place...
It made sense back when he was talking about string theory. He's a physicist, after all. But these days he's just some generic scientist who's more than happy to show up on TV and talk about anything even vaguely scientific.
Did you see him commenting on the whirlpool formed after the earthquakes in Japan? Because a physicist is obviously the most qualified person they could find to talk about ocean currents and plate tectonics and whatnot.
What makes Michio Kaku any more qualified to talk about Moor's Law than I am? It isn't like he actually knows anything about microchip fabrication or economics or industrial processes... The guy is a physicist.
How can you secure an OS against users who click "yes"?
To a certain degree, this can be mitigated by the design of the OS.
Linux, for example, is designed to allow folks to run as a limited user and get work done. This limits the impact of any damage done to your machine. It might very well hose up your profile, but it isn't going to take over the entire machine unless you actually allow it to. Microsoft has lately been making moves in that direction, but is still greatly hindered by backwards compatibility. Lots of software still wants to run in root/administrator.
You could also limit what can be done from within the profile itself. Lots of malicious executable don't actually install themselves to/Program Files/ anymore, they'll live in/Temporary Internet Files/ instead. Is there any good reason you should actually be allowed to execute anything stored in your/Temporary Internet Files/?
You could also require more than a simple.exe on the end of a file to make it executable. Lots of folks have file extensions turned off. If you simply name your software something like hotbabe.jpg many people will never even know they're launching a program. And when they're prompted for permission, they'll think they're being asked if they want to display a harmless image. If you had to manually set execute permissions on downloaded files it would be far harder to accidentally install malicious software.
Sure, user education is definitely important. And if you're actually clicking "ok" and letting the software do its thing, then you're already in trouble. But the OS design can certainly mitigate the damage done. And Windows definitely doesn't do as much as it could in that respect.
Windows is already a total pain in the butt trying to nanny/protect people but it's made no difference whatsoever to the amount of spam arriving here.
This is, again, a problem with the design of Windows.
Tons of software requires escalation in order to function, so people get spammed with prompts to basically sudo everything. They go numb. They aren't suspicious when a new piece of software requires escalation, and they just hit "ok".
Common programs like Word and Excel are so inherently fragile that they have to disable macros just to be safe. And if you're opening something with macros you'll be prompted to allow them. And it's now up to the end-user to determine what is actually safe and trusted, rather than it being up to the developer to design a system that can't be destroyed by a word processing document.
If the OS itself was more robust, all these assorted warnings and prompts wouldn't be necessary.
Almost all my professors believed in God. They thought the Initial Singularity, big bang, expansion, evolution of stars, and all of it was part of his design.
Then they aren't creationists.
I'm an atheist, and think all the assorted theists out there are wrong. But that doesn't have to enter into the classroom. You can believe in a god and still do a damn good job of teaching astronomy or physics or biology or whatever else.
Creationists though... That's going to cause a problem. Creationists generally believe in a young earth, and a literal interpretation of Genesis, and generally oppose the idea of evolution.
That might not be much of a problem if you're teaching literature... And I wouldn't expect an art professor to be discriminated against based on the fact that he was a creationist... But it will be a problem if you're trying to teach astronomy, or geology, or something like that.
And I would certainly hope that a college would not hire somebody who believes the world is only 7,000 years old to teach geology.
It isn't so much about belief in a god or your own particular ideology... It's about a denial of evidence and rejection of the scientific process.
If you're going to be teaching science, you need to know what it is and how to do it. You need to be able to look at the evidence around you... Come up with an idea... Test it... And refine it. Or throw it away entirely if it's broken badly enough. And plugging your ears and screaming "god did it" at the top of your lungs does not count as science, no matter how much you want it to.
Folks are already voluntarily giving up privacy in droves.
Ever go shopping at one of those stores with a loyalty card? Give them your name, phone number, and address... They'll save you a few dollars here and there... And you give them the opportunity (whether they use it or not) to track everything you purchase.
And then there's all the big on-line retailers that are keeping track of your purchases and doing all sorts of data mining to recommend stuff to you.
And let's not forget the 800lb gorilla in the room - Facebook. Folks hand their personal information to Facebook happily, just for the opportunity to do a little microblogging and maybe play Farmville.
Video games are an industry. You are attending a giant industry conference. Industries make products. Video game products contain plenty of art, but it's product art, which is to say, kitsch art. Kitsch art is not bad art. It's commercial art. Art designed to be sold, easily and in quantity. And the bigger the audience, the kitschier it's gonna get.
You need to stop looking at the video game industry, and start looking at individual titles.
There is a movie industry, but there are still movies that are called art. There's a publishing industry, but there are still novels that are called art.
But as much as I admire games like M.U.L.E., Balance of Power, Sim City and Civilization, it would never even occur to me to compare them to the treasures of world literature, painting or music.
And you need to look at video games for what they are, instead of what they aren't. You can't really talk about plotlines and character development when you're looking at a painting. You can't talk about colors and media usage and brush strokes when you're looking at a novel. And dissecting video games based on the criteria we use for things that aren't video games just isn't going to work well.
Video games offer immersion and interactivity that traditional media like painting and sculpture and film and prose do not. You aren't told how a room looks. You aren't given a static image of the room. You aren't given a nice camera pan of the room. You actually walk into the room, choose what to look at, approach the things that interest you.
The characters in a video game may not qualify as art. The graphics and imagery may not qualify as art. The soundtrack may not qualify as art. But, taken as a whole, the experience of moving through and discovering this world may very well qualify as art.
In case you're not aware, Ekiga already exists and is a free-software SIP client implementation. See http://ekiga.org/ . At best this should be an extension for Ekiga, not an entirely new project.
-molo
Ekiga is a softphone client, not secure self-organized communication services.
This project aims to implement the entire VOIP network back-end, vaguely similar to how Skype does it (largely P2P).
I am part of the majority. Me and 91% of the Slashdoters think that this story is irrelevant and IE is a piece of... Anyone else with me ?:-)
While I personally reach for pretty much anything but IE when I'm doing my browsing... It isn't irrelevant. IE is installed on the vast majority of computers out there.
I'm going to have to download and evaluate IE9 to see which bits of software it works with, and which bits it breaks. And then I'm going to have to build a deployment package and roll it out to the folks that need it. Because some essential website somewhere is going to start requiring it before too long.
The existence and use of non-free software [which] is a social problem. It's an evil. And our aim is a world without that problem.'
This problem will only be solved or approached once
(1) citizens can program, and once there is a language intuitive, useful and easy enough to pick up for non-programmers.
(2) programs can be changed on-the-fly -- like in OLPC/XO where you can switch to the source mode and edit the python code for each activity
As long as programming is not understood by users, the source might as well be not open, because they can not read and make sense of it anyway.
This.
Open source is nice, in theory. And I use plenty of open source software in my day-to-day life. And I appreciate the fact that the code is available and there are tons of people tinkering on it and whatever else. But all that means to me, ultimately, is that I have a product I can use.
I'm no programmer. I'm not going to rip open Asterisk and fix some bug or implement a new feature. I'm waiting on somebody else to fix things for me, waiting on the next release, just like I would be if it was closed-source software.
And unless we get to the point where anybody and everybody can quickly and easily throw together their own code, the whole "open source" thing is largely irrelevant to the population at large. Because they can't read the code, and they can't modify the code. For most people, the source code is no more intelligible or malleable than the binary data the machine actually executes.
Sure, individuals working in IT care about the source code... And curious hobbyists will care about the source code... But the population at large, society as a whole, just isn't going to care.
As long as programming is not understood by users, the source might as well be not open, because they can not read and make sense of it anyway.
If you can't program, you can get someone else to do it for you -- either with money, or with some other persuasion technique.
By that logic, the source doesn't need to be open because people can already make changes in other ways - by passing laws, or voting with their wallets, or whatever.
And the social problem of non-free software? People do not care
Not the point. The point is that they should, and Stallman is trying to make that happen.
The obvious question is why should they? Just because we're geeks and we care about such things doesn't mean that they're actually important.
Sure, it's good to have the source... It's nice to be able to see how things work, to make sure that they're doing the job we think they are, etc., etc. But that doesn't mean it's actually important to everyone that their software (and associated electronic devices) be open source.
I doubt Stallman cares about every little detail about things he uses but isn't that interested in. When he is cooking his tv dinner, he just wants a microwave that works.
You know what, I think Stallman does care whether his microwave has a microphone in it, that he is not allowed to control. And I think he cares about whether his sneakers have a GPS that will not let him decide when it is off or on. I even think you do.
I think you're being a bit obtuse here...
The point is that Stallman probably doesn't insist on full schematics for his microwave. He probably doesn't ask for the complete recipe for the TV dinner he's nuking. He probably doesn't tour the facility where the TV dinner (and/or microwave) was built. He probably doesn't check to make sure that the cows that were used to make the leather for his sneakers were free-range and humanely slaughtered.
Obviously covert surveillance is something to be at least vaguely concerned about... And a cell phone could be put to that use... But that isn't the point that's being made. The point is that everybody cannot pry into the intimate details of everything involved in their lives.
RMS is passionate about software and thinks it should all be free. That's fine for him. The average human being doesn't care. They just want to be able to turn on a computer and check their email and waste time on Facebook.
Other people are passionate about animals, or cooking, or cars, or sewing, or art, or carpentry, or gardening, or whatever... And they'll tell say you really ought to do things a certain way... And that way may very well be superior and better for everyone involved... But the average human being just doesn't care.
People would be alarmed, if every book came with surveillance technology and screamed bloody murder if it came near a photo copier. The 'political arm' of the free software movement is saying you should be equally alarmed with the current state of affairs.
See, that's the thing though... Most people wouldn't be alarmed if every book came with surveillance technology and screamed bloody murder if it came near a photo copier.
Some individuals - like school teachers - would have a problem with it. They'd want some kind of bypass or educational license or something so that they could make copies for students...
But your average person doesn't care all that much about books. Seriously. As long as they can pick up a novel and read it, they'd be happy.
How does this have anything to do with the government clamping down on free speech?
If you actually read the comment you're replying to, you'd see that Bill was talking about anonymous speech on the Internet.
If the blogger had been truly anonymous, there would have been no possibility for a lawsuit. Which is what makes sites like Wikileaks important - they protect those who leak from repercussions that might keep them from leaking the information.
And as the government cracks down on anonymous speech on the Internet - by going after sites like Wikileaks, and passing laws to require you to use your real name on-line, and whatever else - you're going to see more stupidity like this.
but could have chilling unintended consequences for the historical record.
Right.
Because our historical record is chock-full of information about what people had for breakfast, and that bitchin' party they went to, and what dress she wore...
No, I didn't read the fine article. I'm sure it's referring to some specific individual who did something that might actually be of some interest, and wants it stricken from the record because he's gotten in trouble for it. And those chilling consequences are probably some vague reference to somebody, for example, revising history to remove Hitler's anti-Semitism.
And I suppose there is some valid concern there... Our media is becoming increasingly ephemeral. We don't etch anything in stone, we just record it on some magnetic media or print it on paper. And then people forget about it. And a year later you'd have a hard time proving it happened.
But I think that's largely unrelated to being forgotten online.
Either individuals need to be able to be forgotten online... Or we as a society need to learn to deal with the fact that most people did some stupid stuff in college.
Lots of inventions have arrived too early (i.e. before it could be used) such that they saw no success. Like primitive steam engines in ancient Rome. That 1970s project with the plasma screens, et cetera sounds like an idea that came too soon, but still has value in a modern 2010s culture where everyone is connected.
Plasma screens, touch interface... Back in the 70's, putting something like this in schools would have been expensive.
These days we've got computers everywhere. Folks have them at home, they're in public libraries, schools have computer labs, individual people are hauling laptops and smartphones and tablets wherever they go. Delivering this stuff through a web interface is basically free at this point.
It's like saying you're not banned from the baseball stadium, but you aren't allowed to travel there.
Ooh... I like analogies. Let's see... How about this? It's like saying you're not banned from the baseball stadium, but you can't fly Northwest to get there.
The part that is not working is the part where he installs the software he purchased from EA's online store. Not the part where he actually plays the game. Presumably (though I could be wrong) he would not be having this problem if he'd bought a physical disc or if he'd bought from a different online store.
"The actual situation is no different than if his Internet went out " Yes. it. is. different.
Nope. Not different.
If he hadn't said anything on any forum, but still bought his game on-line through EA, and his Internet went out, and he tried to install it, it wouldn't work.
I'm not saying that EA didn't ban him, or didn't mean to inconvenience him with the ban. I'm not saying any of this is a good thing. What I'm saying is that he'd be just as unable to install his game if his Internet went out.
Well, are you sure would really want to tell right away to some girl you meet that you read comic books or watch anime? Things like can make people think about you wrongly. And for example, when I'm visiting Thailand I like the ladyboys there, but it's not something I'd say to anyone when I first meet them.
Depends on context.
I'm not going to walk into a job interview and start telling them how much I love Minecraft and Dwarf Fortress, but that doesn't make it a dirty secret.
If I meet some random person on the street I'm not going to start talking about how much I love the ease of provisioning a new VM in our new cluster, but that doesn't make it a dirty secret.
And if I met some girl that I was attracted to (as you seem to be suggesting, rather than just some random acquaintance who happens to be female), I most certainly would tell them that I read comic books and watch anime.
That's not just part of the installation process, it's part of the launch process. If you have no internet access, you can't play Mass Effect 2, for example. I'm assuming DA2 is the same way (but after the brutal ass rape DRM in ME2, why would I ever even think of buying another Bioware shitpile ever again?)
I bought Mass Effect 2 through Steam. I played it without Internet access (damn you Charter!) on numerous occasions.
Your summary implies that EA could, at any time, swoop in and prevent gamers from playing their games. This may actually be true. But that isn't what's happening here.
They can. Check out the Bioware answer in the last post of the thread that's linked from the summary:
2. EA Community bans come down from a different department and are the result of someone hitting the REPORT POST button. These bans can affect access to your game and/or DLC.
That still doesn't indicate whether a ban on the forums will necessarily prevent you from playing a game that you've already installed. Only that it can affect access. Being unable to download a fresh copy for a new computer would affect my access... But it wouldn't prevent me from playing one I already had installed.
Of course I'm going to be called a pedant and told that this doesn't matter...
But what if he'd bought his game from a brick & mortar store? Would he still be having trouble playing with this ban? Would it actually disable the game itself? Or is it just because he bought it from EA?
And that's just so messed up it's unbelievable.
I'll agree that it is not an idea situation... But it's very believable. This isn't the first story here on Slashdot about somebody losing access to their EA games because of forum activity.
And for some reason you think this distinction is important.
It is an important distinction.
Presumably (though I could be wrong) he would not be having this problem if he'd purchased through a different on-line retailer like Steam, or if he'd bought a physical disc.
The summary implies that he was blocked from playing a game, not that he was blocked from accessing an on-line retailer.
Did you know that a BioWare rep confirmed this as intended behavior, that the system is working as designed? That means they know that disabling the account will lock paying customers out of not-yet-installed single-player games. That makes it intentional. That makes it a way to remotely disable those games.
It means that they know banning a forum account will return a blanket "not authorized" for any ownership checks. And, yes, that will result in somebody being unable to install a game that they should actually be authorized to.
That does not mean that they intentionally designed the system such that a forum ban will keep you from playing your games.
They may have actually done just that. Or they may have simply gotten lazy.
Did you know -- you could design a forum that lets you ban users from the forum without disabling any other accounts they possess?
Of course. But that isn't what EA did. So what's your point?
Did you know -- that an honest company would refund his money now that he cannot play a game he has bought?
Meh.
Honesty doesn't have much to do with anything when you're a company the size of EA. Most of the crappy things you do just never get noticed. Generate enough bad publicity, and they'll wind up giving this guy a refund and letting him keep his game.
But, let's be honest here... It's a temporary ban. It isn't like they took away his game forever. So, unless he decided he never wants to play it, he'll eventually get his money's worth.
Did you know -- the bad publicity and general assholeness EA is displaying here will cost them a lot more than the purchase price of this game, in the form of lost reputation and potential customers who go elsewhere?
Unlikely.
There's been plenty of bad sentiment about EA for quite some time. They're still making craptons of money.
Folks will forget about this in a few weeks/months.
Hell, this guy's ban will expire and he'll install DA2 and have a great time playing it. He'll probably forget all about this in a few months and wind up buying something else from EA before the year is up.
Please, make some more excuses. I want to see just how brainwashed someone can be when they see a corporate logo. They're angels who can do no wrong, aren't they? Tell us why you want more companies to be able to rip people off like this. Tell us why that's a good thing. Tell us how this incident is going to discourage a would-be pirate and tell us how that's good for the game industry.
Where did I suggest that this was a good thing? I simply pointed out that the summary was inaccurate.
To be completely honest, I think this is a crappy situation. I don't think it's fair for a company to disable access to your purchases because of something you said on their forums. And I think the distinction that folks are making - that this is a single player game - is just silly. Unless it's an MMOG of some sort, leave it up to the players to decide if they want to play with a specific person. If he's enough of an asshat in-game he'll get banned/booted from the server anyway.
I'm not a big fan of EA in general. I've enjoyed some specific titles that they've published... But I've got absolutely no loyalty to EA at all.
I've thoroughly enjoyed just about everything that Bioware has released, so I might be able to muster up some loyalty towards them... But they aren't the ones who built this online
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure a lot of us saw this coming.
Yup.
Every time there's a story on here about some ISP going after BT traffic, I mention WoW.
Sure, yes, there's a lot of pirated stuff moving across BitTorrent. The big torrent trackers like ThePirateBay are all aimed at piracy... But there's a lot of legitimate traffic moving across BitTorrent as well.
It is a terrific way to reduce the amount of bandwidth you need to distribute something to a large number of people - which is why Blizzard uses it for WoW (does SC2 use it too? Will Diablo 2?) updates. But it isn't just Blizzard. There's plenty of Linux distros available through BT downloads... And there's that TV show...
And since it's all BitTorrent traffic and it's all peer-to-peer, it's very hard to distinguish the good stuff (grabbing a piece of a WoW patch from some random guy in CA) from the bad stuff (grabbing a piece of a pirated copy of Crysis 2 from some random guy in TX).
Depending on what data is being captured by the ISP for management purposes, this COULD be true.
But, if they can track you well enough to meter you (Comcast, AT&T, etc), they can track you down to your IP too.
The problem is that Charter assigns one IP address to my router, and everything behind it is sharing that one IP.
So... Who generated that traffic you're interested in? Was it me? My wife? My kid? One of the few people I've given wireless access to? Somebody who cracked my wireless network?
Situational Irony is where the outcome is has a humorous incongruity or discrepancy from what one would expect, or from what would normally be implied by the situation.
I hate the whole "situational irony" thing... It's bullshit. Situational irony didn't exist until a crop of kids were poorly educated in what irony actually is, and then Alanis wrote her song, and everybody was running around calling everything ironic. It wasn't actually ironic in any way... But trying to correct everyone under the age of 20 in America is a losing battle... So they gave up and said "yeah... it's a different kind of irony..."
Yes, I know, language is a consensus. It grows and changes over the years. And whether I like it or not, "situational irony" now exists. But that doesn't change the fact that it's wrong.
Just like all those folks who call their computer the "modem" or "hard drive" are wrong.
Sure, I won't deny that times are better for Apple. But it's kind of ridiculous to say that Windows is no longer a competitor against Apple, since they are not only actively fighting, but Microsoft is still ahead.
I don't think I'd call Windows a competitor either.
How much of Apple's income is from the sale of computers running OSX? How much comes from iPod/iPhone sales? How much comes from sales on iTunes and the App Store?
And even with those computers running OSX... It seems to me that many people are actually seeking out specifically a Macintosh computer, not just shopping around for a deal. They aren't going to consider purchasing a Windows machine - because it doesn't run OSX.
I wouldn't be surprised if they had planned to announce one more delay from the start... At this point, it'd almost be a shame to actually ship on the date promised.
editors, working for publishers, are behind a lot of the great literary works of the united states.
philip k dick's "a scanner darkly" comes to mind. there are many others.
publishers also deal with libel and defamation lawsuits for you.
they also set up junkets so you can market your book.
im not saying theres no point to self publish, but there are many differences between music industry and book industry.
It's certainly true that publishing companies server useful purposes... But so do recording companies. Different useful purposes, but useful none the less.
In publishing you've got an editor to trim things down, streamline, bounce ideas off of you, and basically get your book into proper shape. In the recording industry you've got various mixing engineers who do similar work with the music. Both industries have lawyers to protect their clients. Both industries do a lot of PR work for their clients.
There certainly is a reason to work with a publishing company...
But they've gotten complacent. For quite some time now, if you wanted a book published you had to go through some publishing company. You didn't have a choice. They were the gatekeepers.
This has meant that not only can they charge what they want, but they're had some rather marked control over what actually gets published. Just look at Peter Watts' book, Behemoth.
But the availability of viable self-publishing options means that the traditional publication companies are going to have to start playing ball... Or they're going to stop being relevant.
Sure, they provide useful functions... But there's no reason why I couldn't start up some ebook publishing company and hire editors and PR people myself, and then only take 50% of the proceeds, instead of the 80% that traditional publication companies are apparently taking. Or the authors can go with some other self-publication service and keep 70% of the proceeds and hire their own editors, lawyers, and PR people.
Competition is usually a good thing.
... so maybe this is a stupid question.
Is it easier to jailbreak an iPhone (or iDevice) than this? I thought Android devices were "open"; if so shouldn't one be able to change their OS more easily?
Or does the openness of the Android platform refer to the fact that there is no restriction on the Apps you can install? Or is there something else I am missing?
*about this issue. I'm quite knowledgeable about a host of others though!
It depends on what you're referring to when you say "open".
The Android platform itself is completely open source. Anybody can download the source, modify it, compile it, etc. In that respect it's quite a bit more open than the iPhone OS.
The platform, in general, is also more open. You aren't necessarily tied to a single app store. Worst-case scenario, you can load an app from an .apk on an SD card or something. Which makes it far easier to develop your own homebrew/in-house apps.
However, the individual phone manufacturers are free to lock down their hardware as much as they'd like. They'll claim it's a security thing... You wouldn't want some virus to root your phone and start making long-distance phonecalls, would you? But it also ensures that the phones only do what they want, which allows them to charge a premium for specific functions like tethering.
I am so sick of seeing Michio Kaku all over the place...
It made sense back when he was talking about string theory. He's a physicist, after all. But these days he's just some generic scientist who's more than happy to show up on TV and talk about anything even vaguely scientific.
Did you see him commenting on the whirlpool formed after the earthquakes in Japan? Because a physicist is obviously the most qualified person they could find to talk about ocean currents and plate tectonics and whatnot.
What makes Michio Kaku any more qualified to talk about Moor's Law than I am? It isn't like he actually knows anything about microchip fabrication or economics or industrial processes... The guy is a physicist.
How can you secure an OS against users who click "yes"?
To a certain degree, this can be mitigated by the design of the OS.
Linux, for example, is designed to allow folks to run as a limited user and get work done. This limits the impact of any damage done to your machine. It might very well hose up your profile, but it isn't going to take over the entire machine unless you actually allow it to. Microsoft has lately been making moves in that direction, but is still greatly hindered by backwards compatibility. Lots of software still wants to run in root/administrator.
You could also limit what can be done from within the profile itself. Lots of malicious executable don't actually install themselves to /Program Files/ anymore, they'll live in /Temporary Internet Files/ instead. Is there any good reason you should actually be allowed to execute anything stored in your /Temporary Internet Files/?
You could also require more than a simple .exe on the end of a file to make it executable. Lots of folks have file extensions turned off. If you simply name your software something like hotbabe.jpg many people will never even know they're launching a program. And when they're prompted for permission, they'll think they're being asked if they want to display a harmless image. If you had to manually set execute permissions on downloaded files it would be far harder to accidentally install malicious software.
Sure, user education is definitely important. And if you're actually clicking "ok" and letting the software do its thing, then you're already in trouble. But the OS design can certainly mitigate the damage done. And Windows definitely doesn't do as much as it could in that respect.
Windows is already a total pain in the butt trying to nanny/protect people but it's made no difference whatsoever to the amount of spam arriving here.
This is, again, a problem with the design of Windows.
Tons of software requires escalation in order to function, so people get spammed with prompts to basically sudo everything. They go numb. They aren't suspicious when a new piece of software requires escalation, and they just hit "ok".
Common programs like Word and Excel are so inherently fragile that they have to disable macros just to be safe. And if you're opening something with macros you'll be prompted to allow them. And it's now up to the end-user to determine what is actually safe and trusted, rather than it being up to the developer to design a system that can't be destroyed by a word processing document.
If the OS itself was more robust, all these assorted warnings and prompts wouldn't be necessary.
Almost all my professors believed in God. They thought the Initial Singularity, big bang, expansion, evolution of stars, and all of it was part of his design.
Then they aren't creationists.
I'm an atheist, and think all the assorted theists out there are wrong. But that doesn't have to enter into the classroom. You can believe in a god and still do a damn good job of teaching astronomy or physics or biology or whatever else.
Creationists though... That's going to cause a problem. Creationists generally believe in a young earth, and a literal interpretation of Genesis, and generally oppose the idea of evolution.
That might not be much of a problem if you're teaching literature... And I wouldn't expect an art professor to be discriminated against based on the fact that he was a creationist... But it will be a problem if you're trying to teach astronomy, or geology, or something like that.
And I would certainly hope that a college would not hire somebody who believes the world is only 7,000 years old to teach geology.
It isn't so much about belief in a god or your own particular ideology... It's about a denial of evidence and rejection of the scientific process.
If you're going to be teaching science, you need to know what it is and how to do it. You need to be able to look at the evidence around you... Come up with an idea... Test it... And refine it. Or throw it away entirely if it's broken badly enough. And plugging your ears and screaming "god did it" at the top of your lungs does not count as science, no matter how much you want it to.
Folks are already voluntarily giving up privacy in droves.
Ever go shopping at one of those stores with a loyalty card? Give them your name, phone number, and address... They'll save you a few dollars here and there... And you give them the opportunity (whether they use it or not) to track everything you purchase.
And then there's all the big on-line retailers that are keeping track of your purchases and doing all sorts of data mining to recommend stuff to you.
And let's not forget the 800lb gorilla in the room - Facebook. Folks hand their personal information to Facebook happily, just for the opportunity to do a little microblogging and maybe play Farmville.
Video games are an industry. You are attending a giant industry conference. Industries make products. Video game products contain plenty of art, but it's product art, which is to say, kitsch art. Kitsch art is not bad art. It's commercial art. Art designed to be sold, easily and in quantity. And the bigger the audience, the kitschier it's gonna get.
You need to stop looking at the video game industry, and start looking at individual titles.
There is a movie industry, but there are still movies that are called art. There's a publishing industry, but there are still novels that are called art.
But as much as I admire games like M.U.L.E., Balance of Power, Sim City and Civilization, it would never even occur to me to compare them to the treasures of world literature, painting or music.
And you need to look at video games for what they are, instead of what they aren't. You can't really talk about plotlines and character development when you're looking at a painting. You can't talk about colors and media usage and brush strokes when you're looking at a novel. And dissecting video games based on the criteria we use for things that aren't video games just isn't going to work well.
Video games offer immersion and interactivity that traditional media like painting and sculpture and film and prose do not. You aren't told how a room looks. You aren't given a static image of the room. You aren't given a nice camera pan of the room. You actually walk into the room, choose what to look at, approach the things that interest you.
The characters in a video game may not qualify as art. The graphics and imagery may not qualify as art. The soundtrack may not qualify as art. But, taken as a whole, the experience of moving through and discovering this world may very well qualify as art.
In case you're not aware, Ekiga already exists and is a free-software SIP client implementation. See http://ekiga.org/ . At best this should be an extension for Ekiga, not an entirely new project.
-molo
Ekiga is a softphone client, not secure self-organized communication services.
This project aims to implement the entire VOIP network back-end, vaguely similar to how Skype does it (largely P2P).
I am part of the majority. Me and 91% of the Slashdoters think that this story is irrelevant and IE is a piece of ... :-)
Anyone else with me ?
While I personally reach for pretty much anything but IE when I'm doing my browsing... It isn't irrelevant. IE is installed on the vast majority of computers out there.
I'm going to have to download and evaluate IE9 to see which bits of software it works with, and which bits it breaks. And then I'm going to have to build a deployment package and roll it out to the folks that need it. Because some essential website somewhere is going to start requiring it before too long.
This problem will only be solved or approached once
(1) citizens can program, and once there is a language intuitive, useful and easy enough to pick up for non-programmers.
(2) programs can be changed on-the-fly -- like in OLPC/XO where you can switch to the source mode and edit the python code for each activity
As long as programming is not understood by users, the source might as well be not open, because they can not read and make sense of it anyway.
This.
Open source is nice, in theory. And I use plenty of open source software in my day-to-day life. And I appreciate the fact that the code is available and there are tons of people tinkering on it and whatever else. But all that means to me, ultimately, is that I have a product I can use.
I'm no programmer. I'm not going to rip open Asterisk and fix some bug or implement a new feature. I'm waiting on somebody else to fix things for me, waiting on the next release, just like I would be if it was closed-source software.
And unless we get to the point where anybody and everybody can quickly and easily throw together their own code, the whole "open source" thing is largely irrelevant to the population at large. Because they can't read the code, and they can't modify the code. For most people, the source code is no more intelligible or malleable than the binary data the machine actually executes.
Sure, individuals working in IT care about the source code... And curious hobbyists will care about the source code... But the population at large, society as a whole, just isn't going to care.
As long as programming is not understood by users, the source might as well be not open, because they can not read and make sense of it anyway.
If you can't program, you can get someone else to do it for you -- either with money, or with some other persuasion technique.
By that logic, the source doesn't need to be open because people can already make changes in other ways - by passing laws, or voting with their wallets, or whatever.
And the social problem of non-free software? People do not care
Not the point. The point is that they should, and Stallman is trying to make that happen.
The obvious question is why should they? Just because we're geeks and we care about such things doesn't mean that they're actually important.
Sure, it's good to have the source... It's nice to be able to see how things work, to make sure that they're doing the job we think they are, etc., etc. But that doesn't mean it's actually important to everyone that their software (and associated electronic devices) be open source.
I doubt Stallman cares about every little detail about things he uses but isn't that interested in. When he is cooking his tv dinner, he just wants a microwave that works.
You know what, I think Stallman does care whether his microwave has a microphone in it, that he is not allowed to control. And I think he cares about whether his sneakers have a GPS that will not let him decide when it is off or on. I even think you do.
I think you're being a bit obtuse here...
The point is that Stallman probably doesn't insist on full schematics for his microwave. He probably doesn't ask for the complete recipe for the TV dinner he's nuking. He probably doesn't tour the facility where the TV dinner (and/or microwave) was built. He probably doesn't check to make sure that the cows that were used to make the leather for his sneakers were free-range and humanely slaughtered.
Obviously covert surveillance is something to be at least vaguely concerned about... And a cell phone could be put to that use... But that isn't the point that's being made. The point is that everybody cannot pry into the intimate details of everything involved in their lives.
RMS is passionate about software and thinks it should all be free. That's fine for him. The average human being doesn't care. They just want to be able to turn on a computer and check their email and waste time on Facebook.
Other people are passionate about animals, or cooking, or cars, or sewing, or art, or carpentry, or gardening, or whatever... And they'll tell say you really ought to do things a certain way... And that way may very well be superior and better for everyone involved... But the average human being just doesn't care.
People would be alarmed, if every book came with surveillance technology and screamed bloody murder if it came near a photo copier. The 'political arm' of the free software movement is saying you should be equally alarmed with the current state of affairs.
See, that's the thing though... Most people wouldn't be alarmed if every book came with surveillance technology and screamed bloody murder if it came near a photo copier.
Some individuals - like school teachers - would have a problem with it. They'd want some kind of bypass or educational license or something so that they could make copies for students...
But your average person doesn't care all that much about books. Seriously. As long as they can pick up a novel and read it, they'd be happy.
"Does not compute!"
How does this have anything to do with the government clamping down on free speech?
If you actually read the comment you're replying to, you'd see that Bill was talking about anonymous speech on the Internet.
If the blogger had been truly anonymous, there would have been no possibility for a lawsuit. Which is what makes sites like Wikileaks important - they protect those who leak from repercussions that might keep them from leaking the information.
And as the government cracks down on anonymous speech on the Internet - by going after sites like Wikileaks, and passing laws to require you to use your real name on-line, and whatever else - you're going to see more stupidity like this.
but could have chilling unintended consequences for the historical record.
Right.
Because our historical record is chock-full of information about what people had for breakfast, and that bitchin' party they went to, and what dress she wore...
No, I didn't read the fine article. I'm sure it's referring to some specific individual who did something that might actually be of some interest, and wants it stricken from the record because he's gotten in trouble for it. And those chilling consequences are probably some vague reference to somebody, for example, revising history to remove Hitler's anti-Semitism.
And I suppose there is some valid concern there... Our media is becoming increasingly ephemeral. We don't etch anything in stone, we just record it on some magnetic media or print it on paper. And then people forget about it. And a year later you'd have a hard time proving it happened.
But I think that's largely unrelated to being forgotten online.
Either individuals need to be able to be forgotten online... Or we as a society need to learn to deal with the fact that most people did some stupid stuff in college.
+1 insightful.
Lots of inventions have arrived too early (i.e. before it could be used) such that they saw no success. Like primitive steam engines in ancient Rome. That 1970s project with the plasma screens, et cetera sounds like an idea that came too soon, but still has value in a modern 2010s culture where everyone is connected.
Plasma screens, touch interface... Back in the 70's, putting something like this in schools would have been expensive.
These days we've got computers everywhere. Folks have them at home, they're in public libraries, schools have computer labs, individual people are hauling laptops and smartphones and tablets wherever they go. Delivering this stuff through a web interface is basically free at this point.
It's like saying you're not banned from the baseball stadium, but you aren't allowed to travel there.
Ooh... I like analogies. Let's see... How about this? It's like saying you're not banned from the baseball stadium, but you can't fly Northwest to get there.
The part that is not working is the part where he installs the software he purchased from EA's online store. Not the part where he actually plays the game. Presumably (though I could be wrong) he would not be having this problem if he'd bought a physical disc or if he'd bought from a different online store.
"The actual situation is no different than if his Internet went out "
Yes. it. is. different.
Nope. Not different.
If he hadn't said anything on any forum, but still bought his game on-line through EA, and his Internet went out, and he tried to install it, it wouldn't work.
I'm not saying that EA didn't ban him, or didn't mean to inconvenience him with the ban. I'm not saying any of this is a good thing. What I'm saying is that he'd be just as unable to install his game if his Internet went out.
Well, are you sure would really want to tell right away to some girl you meet that you read comic books or watch anime? Things like can make people think about you wrongly. And for example, when I'm visiting Thailand I like the ladyboys there, but it's not something I'd say to anyone when I first meet them.
Depends on context.
I'm not going to walk into a job interview and start telling them how much I love Minecraft and Dwarf Fortress, but that doesn't make it a dirty secret.
If I meet some random person on the street I'm not going to start talking about how much I love the ease of provisioning a new VM in our new cluster, but that doesn't make it a dirty secret.
And if I met some girl that I was attracted to (as you seem to be suggesting, rather than just some random acquaintance who happens to be female), I most certainly would tell them that I read comic books and watch anime.
That's not just part of the installation process, it's part of the launch process. If you have no internet access, you can't play Mass Effect 2, for example. I'm assuming DA2 is the same way (but after the brutal ass rape DRM in ME2, why would I ever even think of buying another Bioware shitpile ever again?)
I bought Mass Effect 2 through Steam. I played it without Internet access (damn you Charter!) on numerous occasions.
Your summary implies that EA could, at any time, swoop in and prevent gamers from playing their games. This may actually be true. But that isn't what's happening here.
They can. Check out the Bioware answer in the last post of the thread that's linked from the summary:
2. EA Community bans come down from a different department and are the result of someone hitting the REPORT POST button. These bans can affect access to your game and/or DLC.
That still doesn't indicate whether a ban on the forums will necessarily prevent you from playing a game that you've already installed. Only that it can affect access. Being unable to download a fresh copy for a new computer would affect my access... But it wouldn't prevent me from playing one I already had installed.
Of course I'm going to be called a pedant and told that this doesn't matter...
But what if he'd bought his game from a brick & mortar store? Would he still be having trouble playing with this ban? Would it actually disable the game itself? Or is it just because he bought it from EA?
And that's just so messed up it's unbelievable.
I'll agree that it is not an idea situation... But it's very believable. This isn't the first story here on Slashdot about somebody losing access to their EA games because of forum activity.
And for some reason you think this distinction is important.
It is an important distinction.
Presumably (though I could be wrong) he would not be having this problem if he'd purchased through a different on-line retailer like Steam, or if he'd bought a physical disc.
The summary implies that he was blocked from playing a game, not that he was blocked from accessing an on-line retailer.
Did you know that a BioWare rep confirmed this as intended behavior, that the system is working as designed? That means they know that disabling the account will lock paying customers out of not-yet-installed single-player games. That makes it intentional. That makes it a way to remotely disable those games.
It means that they know banning a forum account will return a blanket "not authorized" for any ownership checks. And, yes, that will result in somebody being unable to install a game that they should actually be authorized to.
That does not mean that they intentionally designed the system such that a forum ban will keep you from playing your games.
They may have actually done just that. Or they may have simply gotten lazy.
Did you know -- you could design a forum that lets you ban users from the forum without disabling any other accounts they possess?
Of course. But that isn't what EA did. So what's your point?
Did you know -- that an honest company would refund his money now that he cannot play a game he has bought?
Meh.
Honesty doesn't have much to do with anything when you're a company the size of EA. Most of the crappy things you do just never get noticed. Generate enough bad publicity, and they'll wind up giving this guy a refund and letting him keep his game.
But, let's be honest here... It's a temporary ban. It isn't like they took away his game forever. So, unless he decided he never wants to play it, he'll eventually get his money's worth.
Did you know -- the bad publicity and general assholeness EA is displaying here will cost them a lot more than the purchase price of this game, in the form of lost reputation and potential customers who go elsewhere?
Unlikely.
There's been plenty of bad sentiment about EA for quite some time. They're still making craptons of money.
Folks will forget about this in a few weeks/months.
Hell, this guy's ban will expire and he'll install DA2 and have a great time playing it. He'll probably forget all about this in a few months and wind up buying something else from EA before the year is up.
Please, make some more excuses. I want to see just how brainwashed someone can be when they see a corporate logo. They're angels who can do no wrong, aren't they? Tell us why you want more companies to be able to rip people off like this. Tell us why that's a good thing. Tell us how this incident is going to discourage a would-be pirate and tell us how that's good for the game industry.
Where did I suggest that this was a good thing? I simply pointed out that the summary was inaccurate.
To be completely honest, I think this is a crappy situation. I don't think it's fair for a company to disable access to your purchases because of something you said on their forums. And I think the distinction that folks are making - that this is a single player game - is just silly. Unless it's an MMOG of some sort, leave it up to the players to decide if they want to play with a specific person. If he's enough of an asshat in-game he'll get banned/booted from the server anyway.
I'm not a big fan of EA in general. I've enjoyed some specific titles that they've published... But I've got absolutely no loyalty to EA at all.
I've thoroughly enjoyed just about everything that Bioware has released, so I might be able to muster up some loyalty towards them... But they aren't the ones who built this online