They don't target 'big uploaders', the target people they know can't/won't put up a real fight. The lawsuits are for PR purposes, they'd be fscked if someone with the resources to hire the right lawyers ended up fighting until a real precedent was set.
At least while they have Windows there are more "average people" that can help them with their problems
In my experience these "average people" are the cause of many of the problems I've been asked to solve. There's nothing as dangerous as someone who thinks they know more than they do.
I agree that recommending linux to anyone who's clueless is an exercise in futility, but I have no problem recommending a mac to one of them. There's a reason my I convinced my mother to buy a mac in 2000, and she's stuck with it since (she bought a dual-g4 6 months ago on her own). Where she used to call me regularly for stupid pc issues, now she only calls me to remind me to exercise and eat right.
The point isn't that new games journalism isn't subjective, because as you point out it is even more subjective than the traditional style, the point is that it accepts that game reviews are inherently subjective and isn't trying to dress it up with some fancy pseudo-scientific rating system.
The theory is that by describing the intensely personal feelings and experiences that are given by the game you give a better sense of what the 'actual' experience of playing the game is like.
I don't know if I buy it, but I know for a fact I don't buy the traditional reviews. Every time I've been duped into spending $50-80 on a crappy title it's because I thought to give a game a try based on mainstream reviews... I've basically written off ever buying any game at release, prefering to wait a week or two post release to scrape the msg boards for honest opinions.
It's a common misconception that the pop-ups and other annoying intarweb ad-vectors are created by the same people whose products you see advertised over them, however this is not the case.
Generally there is a company with a product that they want advertised, and a company whose product is you, the audience who sees the advertisements. To the companies who sell audiences to product manufacturers there is a large incentive to make the number of individuals in their audience as large as possible. Hence going through all the trouble to circumvent your carefully placed defences.
As an aside, most large 'web-aware' advertisers (the products you see advertised) have decent geeks in their employ within their interactive marketing sub-dept, so they (the marketing organization as a whole) are somewhat aware of the futility of sending their message to users who do not want to see it.
I suspect there is a dynamic within the market where those with the best audiences for sale, ie: those most likely to click and follow through to a sale or whatever, charge the most and probably avoid annoyance tactics as much as possible. While those who specialize in circumventing the anti-popup measures sell for lower prices to more marginal advertisers (pr0n, free ipod scams, low budget startups etc).
But for spyware writers to care, wouldn't the browser need a market share of 50% or more.
I don't think so, I think even a relatively small, but noticable and increasing, percentage of web share would be sufficent for spyware manufacturers to attack firefox.
For one, they want to ensure their product (and I use the term loosely) is on as many computers as possible. For two if they could successfully make firefox a vehicle for their crap for the average user, then one of the major incentives for switching to firefox would be lessened, and they'd maybe keep as many users as possible on IE where it's so much easier to infect them.
disclaimer: IANAL, nor do I know for certain that this act requires the warranty to stand regardless of reasonable upgrades. However in my jurisdiction we have legistlation that basically means that a manufacturer must warranty a product in light of 'reasonable' modifications... which ram, add on cards, and hdd upgrades would certainly be included under (where a mod chip would not).
102.1 "the edge"
used to be CFNY, a really cool station that played music nobody was willing to put money behind...
then...
came the mid 90s, and that music now had money behind it... and they were promptly purchased by a bigger company (don't ask me who, i don't know...) they are now still playing the same "alternative" music that they were playing 5 years ago... there has been no progression.. yes they do play "new" music in addition the lot's of old nirvana and tool (which is great, just not what you'd expect from something which touts itself as the bleeding edge of new music), but the "new" music you do hear sound suspicously like the "old" music, also there is also a near monopoly of big label bands and more ads than music during peak listening hours...
basically they're no better than any other commerical "alternative" station...
Grocery stores own the space that they are selling, where as radio stations must apply for a license to use the publicly owned air waves...
i don't know about you, but i'd rather see more productive use of the public spectrum, instead of the overly commercial crap we're fed... imho, stations that take this sort of kickback should have their license revoked to make room for stations that play what people actually want to hear...
Slashdot Mirror
They don't target 'big uploaders', the target people they know can't/won't put up a real fight. The lawsuits are for PR purposes, they'd be fscked if someone with the resources to hire the right lawyers ended up fighting until a real precedent was set.
l4h
In my experience these "average people" are the cause of many of the problems I've been asked to solve. There's nothing as dangerous as someone who thinks they know more than they do.
I agree that recommending linux to anyone who's clueless is an exercise in futility, but I have no problem recommending a mac to one of them. There's a reason my I convinced my mother to buy a mac in 2000, and she's stuck with it since (she bought a dual-g4 6 months ago on her own). Where she used to call me regularly for stupid pc issues, now she only calls me to remind me to exercise and eat right.
The point isn't that new games journalism isn't subjective, because as you point out it is even more subjective than the traditional style, the point is that it accepts that game reviews are inherently subjective and isn't trying to dress it up with some fancy pseudo-scientific rating system.
The theory is that by describing the intensely personal feelings and experiences that are given by the game you give a better sense of what the 'actual' experience of playing the game is like.
I don't know if I buy it, but I know for a fact I don't buy the traditional reviews. Every time I've been duped into spending $50-80 on a crappy title it's because I thought to give a game a try based on mainstream reviews... I've basically written off ever buying any game at release, prefering to wait a week or two post release to scrape the msg boards for honest opinions.
l4h
It's a common misconception that the pop-ups and other annoying intarweb ad-vectors are created by the same people whose products you see advertised over them, however this is not the case.
Generally there is a company with a product that they want advertised, and a company whose product is you, the audience who sees the advertisements. To the companies who sell audiences to product manufacturers there is a large incentive to make the number of individuals in their audience as large as possible. Hence going through all the trouble to circumvent your carefully placed defences.
As an aside, most large 'web-aware' advertisers (the products you see advertised) have decent geeks in their employ within their interactive marketing sub-dept, so they (the marketing organization as a whole) are somewhat aware of the futility of sending their message to users who do not want to see it.
I suspect there is a dynamic within the market where those with the best audiences for sale, ie: those most likely to click and follow through to a sale or whatever, charge the most and probably avoid annoyance tactics as much as possible. While those who specialize in circumventing the anti-popup measures sell for lower prices to more marginal advertisers (pr0n, free ipod scams, low budget startups etc).
l4h
But for spyware writers to care, wouldn't the browser need a market share of 50% or more.
I don't think so, I think even a relatively small, but noticable and increasing, percentage of web share would be sufficent for spyware manufacturers to attack firefox.
For one, they want to ensure their product (and I use the term loosely) is on as many computers as possible. For two if they could successfully make firefox a vehicle for their crap for the average user, then one of the major incentives for switching to firefox would be lessened, and they'd maybe keep as many users as possible on IE where it's so much easier to infect them.
l4h
Maybe a bit more info is required...
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
disclaimer: IANAL, nor do I know for certain that this act requires the warranty to stand regardless of reasonable upgrades. However in my jurisdiction we have legistlation that basically means that a manufacturer must warranty a product in light of 'reasonable' modifications... which ram, add on cards, and hdd upgrades would certainly be included under (where a mod chip would not).
l4h
102.1 "the edge"
used to be CFNY, a really cool station that played music nobody was willing to put money behind...
then...
came the mid 90s, and that music now had money behind it... and they were promptly purchased by a bigger company (don't ask me who, i don't know...) they are now still playing the same "alternative" music that they were playing 5 years ago... there has been no progression.. yes they do play "new" music in addition the lot's of old nirvana and tool (which is great, just not what you'd expect from something which touts itself as the bleeding edge of new music), but the "new" music you do hear sound suspicously like the "old" music, also there is also a near monopoly of big label bands and more ads than music during peak listening hours...
basically they're no better than any other commerical "alternative" station...
This grocery store analogy is fundamentaly flawed
Grocery stores own the space that they are selling, where as radio stations must apply for a license to use the publicly owned air waves...
i don't know about you, but i'd rather see more productive use of the public spectrum, instead of the overly commercial crap we're fed... imho, stations that take this sort of kickback should have their license revoked to make room for stations that play what people actually want to hear...