MSFT is the biggest kid on the block, so of course they're going to catch flak from a certain segment - that goes with the territory.
Sure - there will always be some degree of criticism attracted by the big player. But it is overly dismissive to attribute all of Microsoft's woes to this.
For example, Cisco also dominates its market(s). One could argue that Cisco products have to potential to affect IT even more than Microsoft. Yet you don't see the same degree of criticism Microsoft experiences directed at Cisco. And that is because Microsoft ultimately behaves differently than Cisco.
Just to be clear - Cisco does have its critics. Some of that is due to the aforementioned attention industry leaders attract. And some of it is entirely valid - Cisco is not beyond reproach or without fault in all its dealings. But even this criticism pales in comparison.
They also get to work on hugely important and ambitious endeavors, which would be intriguing for any curious techie.
I don't doubt that Microsoft is an attractive place to work - "evil" or not.
That's a nice link to a bit of history. But I think you missed the parent's point. The point of mentioning elevating privileges is due to most privilege elevation schemes take advantage of some bug in a system. This is not the case here. Fixing the bug, and essentially enabling the virus, is actually fixing a bug... not re-introducing a bug the virus is dependent on.
Discussions on how toe elevate privileges is another subject. And your link... more to do with history than anything really provoking - at least in today's context (or did I miss something).
My original post was to point out that the hyperbole was meaningless to many as the bulk of the world doesn't know what a marshmallow peep is; its an in-joke, which, like most in-jokes, falls flat in front of the wrong audience (hence the subject line, World Wide web). I would have thought the seti@home bit would have made it obvious that it was intended as humour; apparently not. Its clear that some jokes, like what a peep is, need to be explained in certain circles.
You'll note that I did not reply to your parent post. And while the general gyst can be applied to your earlier post... the individual points you replied to are actually reference to a much less-joking post.
As for it being a "rant", the figures I used are roughly accurate, and stated as matter-of-factly as possible in order to emphasise the obviously absurd conclusion; which part of this qualifies as a rant?
Let me quote you:
So what was the point of your link? To say that (a) ingrained, unthinking nationalistic xenobobia is a good thing because it makes you feel big; (b) you find geographic ignorance in an internationally accessable forum laudable because the US education system isn't enough of a laughing stock; or (c) in the six years since Taco answered the question they still haven't reached a decision about foreign mirrors?
If your aim was to paint US citizens as ignorant, insular and lazy, mission accomplished. However, from my exchanges with people from the US on this very site, I know that isn't the case...generally speaking...
There's a lot less calm stating of facts going on there. To your credit, you do note that the less admirable examples of our culture does not necessarily represent the majority of it. Its a shame that part seems to be more an afterthought.
The fact that you see fit to take offence at comments of little to no direct significance to you suggests that childishness is not my exclusive domain (I'm not even going to critique the tiresome anti-French comment as a sign of maturity, or lack thereof). And as for attention seeking, your equally insulting reply shows you wanted my attention just as badly, so hello pot, my name is kettle (I believe the psychoanalytic term for this is "projecting").
I must admit that my response was more to the general theme than your particular post. Your post, replies to your post, and many other posts all critique US-centric aspects of the article. That was a little unfair.
Unfortunately, in our attempts to be clever and slip in snide commentary... I'm afraid the message got lost. It was lost in the reply to your parent thread. And it was lost in your belief that insults were linked to the spoiled demand for attention.
Allow me to be blunt to be sure this gets through: get over yourselves. Every US-centric article is not a personal affront to you and your culture be it from Europe, Asia, Africa, the Americas... or whatever little corner of the world you call your own. This was goofy article on Easter candies. Save your just outrage for something with actual meaning. Otherwise, it just gets tiresome.
As for my poking at the French - they are known for being as pompous as the Ugly American is known for ignorance. Its a stereotype. But it seemed to fit in the general theme being expressed. I'm sure I don't have to stress that this was a joke since you're quite familiar with the concept of discerning jokes.
If your aim was to paint US citizens as ignorant, insular and lazy, mission accomplished.
The mission is to annoy the French. If you are, in fact, French - then mission accomplished. If not... close enough.
Seriously though, I would think the vast majority of Slashdot readers do, in fact, know that "the world" expands beyond the borders of the US. Even if they are US citizens. Having said that, the idea of Peeps conquering the world is pure hyperbole. I'm not so sure Peeps have conquered anything... much less "the world". Using said hyperbole as a springboard to rant about World population and insult people strikes me as less an educational or intellectual behavior and more that associated with a spoiled child demanding attention.
If you're making one version more secure than another, you're simply admitting that you're not too concerned about the minimal package being pirated but you cannot afford to have Aero pirated. I think that says a lot about how you really view the core operating system and how it's becoming recognized more and more as a necessary tool and not some software bonus. Many software models have developed into being very successful by offering a "Lite" version of the software product for free and encouraging an upgrade to more features by buying a full fledged license from the homepage.
It's an interesting way of looking at this. But I would be surprised if that is ENTIRELY the intent. Why? Commoditization.
Microsoft seems to be doing a lot to try and avoid the perception that an OS is a commodity. A hardware platform that became a commodity environment meant IBM lost control of the market. And that is the real threat from the likes of Linux, *BSD, etc. The last thing Microsoft wants is for a perception that the entire platform - hardware and OS - is immaterial or at least a very distant second to an application. Remember that this was the mantra Netscape liked to push before Microsoft performed its historical turn-on-a-dime strategy shift. And one might even note that the vast majority of consumers are almost to this point anyway (how many average users really understand the implications of an OS).
Now - its entirely possible that despite Microsoft's best efforts, the market is pushing in that direction anyway. This may be a slight capitulation to this kind of pressure. But I would not expect Microsoft to do anything that would drive home the commodity perception until well after it has already taken hold of the market. I doubt the market is at that point yet.
If anything, this is simply part of Microsoft's attempt to avoid their OS becoming a commodity. It started with WinXP. Before then, who really cared about "piracy"? After all, the major players (OEMs, business, etc.) already pay. The "Linux Refund Day" exercise showed what a consumer Windows license is worth. Up to a certain point in history, accepting "piracy" helped ensure Windows continued to proliferate as a common environment while not getting in the way of paying customers. Introducing rudimentary copy protection didn't happen until commodity OS platforms started to really gain attention. And even then, it didn't really do much to stem "piracy". But it did drive home the point that Windows wasn't a freebie - keeping it out of the same mental pigeon-hole IT managers stick "freeware" commodity platforms... specifically Linux.
Aero is not an important component. But it is the more visceral piece - it's prominant in screenshots and marketing. Linking copy protection to this component continues to push the message that Windows is something special. And if for some reason a paying customer runs afoul of that copy protection and Aero shuts down, they will likely still be able to limp along doing their important activities until the situation can be resolved - perhaps only annoying them instead of really upsetting them and producing more fodder for various switcher campaigns.
A quick Google for "ODF" would indicate that it has something to do with either the Oregon Department of Forestry or something called the Open Document Format. Choosing between the two should be a fairly easy exercise for the reader. You should be able to surmise that in the context of Open Source and software in general, of the two, its most likely the Open Document Format. Unless, of course, you got caught up in the belief that there really IS a Lumber Cartel.
Sometimes I wonder if this is exactly what companies *want*. They don't want people to use outside e-mail (especially ones running over https) because then they can't easily monitor what their staff is doing.
They don't want you to use outside email because email is the most common vector for various viruses and other malware, phishing scams, and other shenanigans. They're not going to trust some external, unknown entity to filter that crap out. And they're not going to be too thrilled when they have to run around cleaning up after whatever got in to the network via someone's webmail.
The HTTPS issue? HTTPS simply makes it harder to know where you're going. If they didn't care about webmail being a security risk, they wouldn't care whether you were doing it over SSL or not.
You sound like a reasonable, technically competent user. You're in the minority. And you're not the one driving these totalitarian rules.
Don't get me wrong - I dislike this attitude too. I buck the system myself. But I also see where its coming from.
The problem isn't you and your FrameScript. Its the guy in the neighboring office who insists on installing BonzaiBuddy, Weatherbug, runs the latest joke attachment, and otherwise executes any other flashy trojan paraded in front of his cursor. I take that back - it's not THAT guy. It's that guy and dozens / hundreds / thousands of like-minded users in your environment who do the same thing.
Don't blame your sysadmin / IT weenies. The blame lays somewhat with IT management's reactionary policies - but mostly the vast masses of uneducated (or uncaring) end users around you.
In my experience, it all depends on the particular tech you're working with. I've found a lot of useful information for various *nix flavors and Cisco kit. A lot less useful information for Microsoft and other more proprietary solutions.
I suspect it has something to do with the cultures involved.
Note that when citing an encyclopedia, you also cite the version of the publication. The parent noted Encylopedias also change over time. It just tends to take longer due to the nature of the publication.
It should also be pointed out that the possibility of infringement isn't even Ballmer's statement. If someone were to later hold Microsoft accountable for not having followed up with legal action, Ballmer will simply note that he was just responding to what he's heard these unnamed "experts" claim. Not that he had any prior knowledge on the validity of those claims.
It's not impossible for Linux or Linux users to be in the wrong by, e.g., infringing MS's patents.
It's not that Linux developers are above and beyond the law. By all means, if something like this has been done - point it out. But first know that it has, indeed, happened... and be willing to back the claim.
The "FUD" comes from the wink-wink-nudge-nudge nature of the statement. Note that Ballmer does not confirm nor deny. But he does attribute all manner of dire consequences to these claims. Assuming they're correct. But you can't tell - you don't even know who the "experts" are... much less what the claims are. It's classic FUD.
A more appropriate way of handling this question would be either "we are investigating these claims", "we are not aware of any such case at this point", etc. These are not FUD statements. However, I understand that Ballmer just isn't that kind of guy. A spade being a spade and all that.
Right now, there is in the U.S. venture capital community about $25 billion that remains uninvested from funds that will end their lifespans in the next 12-18 months. If the VCs return those funds to investors they'll also have to return $3 billion in already-spent management fees. Alternately, they can invest the money -- even if they invest it in bad deals -- and NOT have to cough-up that $3 billion. So the VCs have to find in the next few months places to throw that $25 billion. They waited this long in hopes that the economy would improve and that technical trends would become clear so they could do their typical lemming-like jump off the same investment cliff as all the other VCs. Well, we're at the edge of the cliff, so get ready for the most furious venture investing cycle in history.
Well, hey, by that reasoning, there is no problem people archiving your telephone conversations, right? I mean, there are so many way it can (and is) being done.
Are you trying to say that USENET and IRC is a private conversation? A better analogy is whether you can expect your comments to be recorded when you make statements out loud in a public room.
The real question is, in the end, not what USENET authors failed to prohibit, the real question is what the hell gives companies the right to copy content from the web and republish it in perpetuity from their own websites for commercial gain. And that's a question nobody has given a good answer to.
Interesting question. I agree its not about what authors failed to prohibit. I would see the issue of whether authors' expectations are reasonable (or even applicable). And what is the state of the copyright on all this?
I attended a conference a few weeks ago. The speaker was being recorded - which makes sense as I know the conference organizers use these recordings for online instruction, etc. But now it makes me wonder... when audience members ask questions or make comments... can those comments be included in the recording?
With the images, simply viewing the image does not invoke the license. However, if you wish to publish one of these images, you have to deal with Copyright. And to avoid breaking the law, you have to comply with the terms of the license the licensee has outlined. Claiming ignorance of the license is not a valid defense (even more so for someone in a publishing industry). The term "users of such content" is really a reference to publishers... not a general user, or consumer.
With shrinkwrap licenses, one has to agree to a license to USE the product. Copyright still applies - but shrinkwrap licenses are not about copyright. They are about restricting the use of the product that would otherwise be implied. Copyright is still in effect, of course. If one wanted to copy a software package covered by a shrinkwrap license, it tends to require negotiation of additional licenses.
It should also be stressed that the "shrinkwrap" license, in the classic sense involves, breaking a shrinkwrap seal on a package. This makes the software impossible to return for a refund. Yet one has to do this to see the license... which is invoked at the point that the seal is broken.
Sssh. Don't say that too loud. Next thing you know, someone's going to get out a pen and re-write all contracts, Copyright, deeds, and other legal documents. They'll own everything. Then someone else'll rewrite those changes. And then someone else will do it. Next thing you know, everyone'll be running around the streets, pens and markers in hand. It'll be pandemonium!
But, if you were to find a snippet of code or a line from a song just laying in the street, that's completely different, because even though you're holding that code or song, it really belongs to someone else (this must be that remaining 1/10).
The only point I would make is that someone else does not "own" the code or song. The right to copy and reproduce that code or song is restricted by Copyright law and is likely reserved by someone else. Of course, you do not know for sure just by picking up the snippet on the street; it may already be in the public domain. It would take some research to know for sure.
And this is why I like the analogy so much. It really stresses that Copyright is not property law.
This is how I feel, I just wonder why it's so difficult for people to PORTAL BACK IN TIME and understand what it was like for people then to post on USENET. eg: I sit in irc all the time, I expect that none of my conversations are archived (I can even contact the admins of said servers to ensure this)...
To further expand on my previous post in this thread, this expectation was simply short-sighted. I understand how one could arrive at it. Both USENET and IRC seem rather ethereal even by electronic media standards; IRC even more so than USENET. But to think that conversations are not being archived simply ignores the many ways it can (and is) being done. The most obvious method is a client / bot in a channel logging all conversation. But there are also occasional IRC servers in debug mode (or otherwise modified) and logging all conversations that particular server sees routed through it. And while I would agree that this practice tends to be frowned on if not outright forbidden by many IRC networks - what guarantee do you have?
...the problem is with archiving: USENET was originally not intended to be archived, and the fact that it is being archived has greatly changed it.
Undoubtedly, there are those who never considered the possibility of USENET being archived. But really - those people just weren't thinking things out. Keep in mind that Google's archive is complete as it is because of archive donations from various individuals who, on their own accord and at their own expense, began archiving USENET well before "Google" or "Deja News" was first uttered. USENET archives have existed as long as USENET.
Perhapse you haven't noticed the breadth of history presented by that list?. This kind of thing has gone on for a long time... and isn't likely to stop any time soon.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure - there will always be some degree of criticism attracted by the big player. But it is overly dismissive to attribute all of Microsoft's woes to this.
For example, Cisco also dominates its market(s). One could argue that Cisco products have to potential to affect IT even more than Microsoft. Yet you don't see the same degree of criticism Microsoft experiences directed at Cisco. And that is because Microsoft ultimately behaves differently than Cisco.
Just to be clear - Cisco does have its critics. Some of that is due to the aforementioned attention industry leaders attract. And some of it is entirely valid - Cisco is not beyond reproach or without fault in all its dealings. But even this criticism pales in comparison.
I don't doubt that Microsoft is an attractive place to work - "evil" or not.
That's a nice link to a bit of history. But I think you missed the parent's point. The point of mentioning elevating privileges is due to most privilege elevation schemes take advantage of some bug in a system. This is not the case here. Fixing the bug, and essentially enabling the virus, is actually fixing a bug... not re-introducing a bug the virus is dependent on.
Discussions on how toe elevate privileges is another subject. And your link... more to do with history than anything really provoking - at least in today's context (or did I miss something).
You'll note that I did not reply to your parent post. And while the general gyst can be applied to your earlier post... the individual points you replied to are actually reference to a much less-joking post.
Let me quote you:
There's a lot less calm stating of facts going on there. To your credit, you do note that the less admirable examples of our culture does not necessarily represent the majority of it. Its a shame that part seems to be more an afterthought.
I must admit that my response was more to the general theme than your particular post. Your post, replies to your post, and many other posts all critique US-centric aspects of the article. That was a little unfair.
Unfortunately, in our attempts to be clever and slip in snide commentary... I'm afraid the message got lost. It was lost in the reply to your parent thread. And it was lost in your belief that insults were linked to the spoiled demand for attention.
Allow me to be blunt to be sure this gets through: get over yourselves. Every US-centric article is not a personal affront to you and your culture be it from Europe, Asia, Africa, the Americas... or whatever little corner of the world you call your own. This was goofy article on Easter candies. Save your just outrage for something with actual meaning. Otherwise, it just gets tiresome.
As for my poking at the French - they are known for being as pompous as the Ugly American is known for ignorance. Its a stereotype. But it seemed to fit in the general theme being expressed. I'm sure I don't have to stress that this was a joke since you're quite familiar with the concept of discerning jokes.
The mission is to annoy the French. If you are, in fact, French - then mission accomplished. If not... close enough.
Seriously though, I would think the vast majority of Slashdot readers do, in fact, know that "the world" expands beyond the borders of the US. Even if they are US citizens. Having said that, the idea of Peeps conquering the world is pure hyperbole. I'm not so sure Peeps have conquered anything... much less "the world". Using said hyperbole as a springboard to rant about World population and insult people strikes me as less an educational or intellectual behavior and more that associated with a spoiled child demanding attention.
It's an interesting way of looking at this. But I would be surprised if that is ENTIRELY the intent. Why? Commoditization.
Microsoft seems to be doing a lot to try and avoid the perception that an OS is a commodity. A hardware platform that became a commodity environment meant IBM lost control of the market. And that is the real threat from the likes of Linux, *BSD, etc. The last thing Microsoft wants is for a perception that the entire platform - hardware and OS - is immaterial or at least a very distant second to an application. Remember that this was the mantra Netscape liked to push before Microsoft performed its historical turn-on-a-dime strategy shift. And one might even note that the vast majority of consumers are almost to this point anyway (how many average users really understand the implications of an OS).
Now - its entirely possible that despite Microsoft's best efforts, the market is pushing in that direction anyway. This may be a slight capitulation to this kind of pressure. But I would not expect Microsoft to do anything that would drive home the commodity perception until well after it has already taken hold of the market. I doubt the market is at that point yet.
If anything, this is simply part of Microsoft's attempt to avoid their OS becoming a commodity. It started with WinXP. Before then, who really cared about "piracy"? After all, the major players (OEMs, business, etc.) already pay. The "Linux Refund Day" exercise showed what a consumer Windows license is worth. Up to a certain point in history, accepting "piracy" helped ensure Windows continued to proliferate as a common environment while not getting in the way of paying customers. Introducing rudimentary copy protection didn't happen until commodity OS platforms started to really gain attention. And even then, it didn't really do much to stem "piracy". But it did drive home the point that Windows wasn't a freebie - keeping it out of the same mental pigeon-hole IT managers stick "freeware" commodity platforms... specifically Linux.
Aero is not an important component. But it is the more visceral piece - it's prominant in screenshots and marketing. Linking copy protection to this component continues to push the message that Windows is something special. And if for some reason a paying customer runs afoul of that copy protection and Aero shuts down, they will likely still be able to limp along doing their important activities until the situation can be resolved - perhaps only annoying them instead of really upsetting them and producing more fodder for various switcher campaigns.
Wait... Bill Gates is a Slashbot? Huh. All the trolling makes sense now.
A quick Google for "ODF" would indicate that it has something to do with either the Oregon Department of Forestry or something called the Open Document Format. Choosing between the two should be a fairly easy exercise for the reader. You should be able to surmise that in the context of Open Source and software in general, of the two, its most likely the Open Document Format. Unless, of course, you got caught up in the belief that there really IS a Lumber Cartel.
They don't want you to use outside email because email is the most common vector for various viruses and other malware, phishing scams, and other shenanigans. They're not going to trust some external, unknown entity to filter that crap out. And they're not going to be too thrilled when they have to run around cleaning up after whatever got in to the network via someone's webmail.
The HTTPS issue? HTTPS simply makes it harder to know where you're going. If they didn't care about webmail being a security risk, they wouldn't care whether you were doing it over SSL or not.
You sound like a reasonable, technically competent user. You're in the minority. And you're not the one driving these totalitarian rules.
Don't get me wrong - I dislike this attitude too. I buck the system myself. But I also see where its coming from.
The problem isn't you and your FrameScript. Its the guy in the neighboring office who insists on installing BonzaiBuddy, Weatherbug, runs the latest joke attachment, and otherwise executes any other flashy trojan paraded in front of his cursor. I take that back - it's not THAT guy. It's that guy and dozens / hundreds / thousands of like-minded users in your environment who do the same thing.
Don't blame your sysadmin / IT weenies. The blame lays somewhat with IT management's reactionary policies - but mostly the vast masses of uneducated (or uncaring) end users around you.
In my experience, it all depends on the particular tech you're working with. I've found a lot of useful information for various *nix flavors and Cisco kit. A lot less useful information for Microsoft and other more proprietary solutions.
I suspect it has something to do with the cultures involved.
Note that when citing an encyclopedia, you also cite the version of the publication. The parent noted Encylopedias also change over time. It just tends to take longer due to the nature of the publication.
It should also be pointed out that the possibility of infringement isn't even Ballmer's statement. If someone were to later hold Microsoft accountable for not having followed up with legal action, Ballmer will simply note that he was just responding to what he's heard these unnamed "experts" claim. Not that he had any prior knowledge on the validity of those claims.
It's not that Linux developers are above and beyond the law. By all means, if something like this has been done - point it out. But first know that it has, indeed, happened... and be willing to back the claim.
The "FUD" comes from the wink-wink-nudge-nudge nature of the statement. Note that Ballmer does not confirm nor deny. But he does attribute all manner of dire consequences to these claims. Assuming they're correct. But you can't tell - you don't even know who the "experts" are... much less what the claims are. It's classic FUD.
A more appropriate way of handling this question would be either "we are investigating these claims", "we are not aware of any such case at this point", etc. These are not FUD statements. However, I understand that Ballmer just isn't that kind of guy. A spade being a spade and all that.
From http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0168122/quotes:
Steve Jobs: We're better than you are! We have better stuff.
Bill Gates: You don't get it, Steve. That doesn't matter!
Aren't these off-the-shelf products being customized? And isn't the Open Source software IBM has just as off-the-shelf... if not more so?
Are you trying to say that USENET and IRC is a private conversation? A better analogy is whether you can expect your comments to be recorded when you make statements out loud in a public room.
Interesting question. I agree its not about what authors failed to prohibit. I would see the issue of whether authors' expectations are reasonable (or even applicable). And what is the state of the copyright on all this?
I attended a conference a few weeks ago. The speaker was being recorded - which makes sense as I know the conference organizers use these recordings for online instruction, etc. But now it makes me wonder... when audience members ask questions or make comments... can those comments be included in the recording?
Keep in mind when these licenses come to play.
With the images, simply viewing the image does not invoke the license. However, if you wish to publish one of these images, you have to deal with Copyright. And to avoid breaking the law, you have to comply with the terms of the license the licensee has outlined. Claiming ignorance of the license is not a valid defense (even more so for someone in a publishing industry). The term "users of such content" is really a reference to publishers... not a general user, or consumer.
With shrinkwrap licenses, one has to agree to a license to USE the product. Copyright still applies - but shrinkwrap licenses are not about copyright. They are about restricting the use of the product that would otherwise be implied. Copyright is still in effect, of course. If one wanted to copy a software package covered by a shrinkwrap license, it tends to require negotiation of additional licenses.
It should also be stressed that the "shrinkwrap" license, in the classic sense involves, breaking a shrinkwrap seal on a package. This makes the software impossible to return for a refund. Yet one has to do this to see the license... which is invoked at the point that the seal is broken.
Sssh. Don't say that too loud. Next thing you know, someone's going to get out a pen and re-write all contracts, Copyright, deeds, and other legal documents. They'll own everything. Then someone else'll rewrite those changes. And then someone else will do it. Next thing you know, everyone'll be running around the streets, pens and markers in hand. It'll be pandemonium!
The only point I would make is that someone else does not "own" the code or song. The right to copy and reproduce that code or song is restricted by Copyright law and is likely reserved by someone else. Of course, you do not know for sure just by picking up the snippet on the street; it may already be in the public domain. It would take some research to know for sure.
And this is why I like the analogy so much. It really stresses that Copyright is not property law.
To further expand on my previous post in this thread, this expectation was simply short-sighted. I understand how one could arrive at it. Both USENET and IRC seem rather ethereal even by electronic media standards; IRC even more so than USENET. But to think that conversations are not being archived simply ignores the many ways it can (and is) being done. The most obvious method is a client / bot in a channel logging all conversation. But there are also occasional IRC servers in debug mode (or otherwise modified) and logging all conversations that particular server sees routed through it. And while I would agree that this practice tends to be frowned on if not outright forbidden by many IRC networks - what guarantee do you have?
Undoubtedly, there are those who never considered the possibility of USENET being archived. But really - those people just weren't thinking things out. Keep in mind that Google's archive is complete as it is because of archive donations from various individuals who, on their own accord and at their own expense, began archiving USENET well before "Google" or "Deja News" was first uttered. USENET archives have existed as long as USENET.
Perhapse you haven't noticed the breadth of history presented by that list?. This kind of thing has gone on for a long time... and isn't likely to stop any time soon.
Oddly enough... there's this whole bunch of other WINE and Cedega users who don't get banned. Myself included. Huh.
(I have always wondered how Warden reports my environment, though)
Maybe you don't need an instant 500 gold.