I have mixed emotions about Network Neutrality. The concept has some good points, but there are large down sides as well. The worst thing is AFAIK no one has ever found a case that would be affected by most of the proposals I've seen posted. The closest I have seen was a telco blocking Vonage's SIP registration ports several years back, which the FCC caught. Neither AT&T nor Verizon are major rural players and mobile is most certainly not the way people in rural areas get their broadband. Perhaps the Senator should go a little further off the highway to see how people are connecting. FIXED wireless (Alvarion, Tranzeo, Canopy, etc), DSL, DOCSIS cable, and a surprising amount of FTTx but damn little mobile broadband.
I agree, but they also caught a ton of grief over it. I have acquaintances that refused to touch Civ4 specifically because of the inclusion of religion. Interestingly the people I know who felt that way fell into both the very religious (in this case fundamentalist Christians) and in the very non-religious (strident atheist in this case).
Pardon my bluntness, but have you ever negotiated a franchise? I have and they are far from being government subsidies in any way, shape, or form. Now, I don't work with the Comcast's of the world but I do work with lots of smaller cable and phone companies and there are cases where the government _does_ provide assistance, most often under Carrier of Last Resort obligations. That is what those annoying Universal Service Funds we all pay go to support. If you want to understand CoLR read the intro in this PDF http://www.nrri.org/pubs/telecommunications/COLR_july09-10.pdf
In my experience CoLR is a mixed bag, most of the big guys (AT&T, Qwest, Verizon, etc) hate CoLR and lose money on it most of the time while a lot of the rural telco's do ok (which the big guys hate too). Having said all of that I can't think of case where a cable company has been held to CoLR requirements, though I certainly couldn't say it hasn't happened its also certainly not common.
The problem with the author's position is that no one is asking for open access to the "Internet". They are asking for open access to networks that were privately funded, like Comcast's _access_ network. The government didn't help AT&T (or any of the component companies SBC, Bellsouth, etc) run copper lines to houses nor wire fiber to digital loop carriers in neighborhoods. The government was of course deeply involved in the initial build of the Internet and did in fact try to give it to the original AT&T (who declined because they didn't think it was commercially viable), but none of that infrastructure is in service nor has it been for a very long time. No one has a complaint about getting access to the Internet. Google and all of the other commercial entities asking for open access don't care about access to the core, they have that in spades already, what they want is a guarantee that people who built _access_ networks can't charge them for sending their content over those networks. I personally see merit on both sides of this position, but the author of the Techdirt article is dead wrong.
I know I personally bought 2 copies of Civ IV, I have no idea where my copy of Civ III is, and I like playing older games. Steam = much easier access to my games. That may or may not be true for everyone, but then again not everyone is married to compulsive organizer who puts things where they make sense for her but are incomprehensible for me.
Good move, kudos to Sid and company for ignoring the idiotic knee jerk reactions seen on some message boards I won't mention. Requiring occasional (I have gone at least 2 weeks before) access back to Steam as opposed to having to keep track of some number of CD's _and_ being able to have the game installed on multiple PC's is a net positive IMNHO. The improved matchmaking sounds like icing on the cake.
I can't believe someone hasn't already pointed out MoCA its what Verizon is using for their in house wiring for FioS installs. You will need an adapter per device, which is kind of a drag since they are ~ $150.00 or so, but the 1.1 spec offers 175 mbps of through put.
You're pretty sad, if I cared enough to do more than laugh at your paranoia I _might_ get a bit irritated but all I can think of when I read your post(s) is an aspiring Limbaugh wannabe. I wonder if your face is as red as I imagine it to be;p Your only instance of "harm" is pure user error in one case and idiocy in the other. Your assertion that Steam doesn't support resuming updates is false. Of course your available bandwidth will affect how fast you can pull said updates or other content(including backups), but that is analogous to have a requirement that you have a working CD ROM drive to play back the media you would have purchased for boxed software. Is it the fault of the software vendor that you don't have a working drive (or damaged media)?
You _were_ able to get your content and complaining about having to have a broadband connection to do so is laughable. Which is more onerous to the user, having to maintain install media, all of which have a definable shelf life in years, as well as the drives to read said media or to simply have an IP connection? I know that I have personally lost a hell of a lot more CD ROM's, floppies, and DVD's with content I "owned" than I have ever had or seen reported for people losing access to content via Steam. That's also true of the other major online game retailers like GOG and DirecttoDrive.
Again, please show some evidence of actual harm. You can dislike phoning home, but it is one of the trade offs to address publisher concerns. I can demonstrate the harm of using physical media both to the user themselves and to society as a whole, all you've shown is that you were inconvenienced when you lacked a broadband connection. Are you old enough to remember the alternatives for piracy prevention? DRM now and before that having to keep manuals so you could refer to page so and so and find word number 12 in paragraph 2.
What paranoia? Where in my comment does it look like I think everyone is out to get me? We're talking about one company's plot to screw everyone, it's quite the opposite. Reading comprehension? YOU FAIL IT
Really, is that the best you can do this morning? You must have skipped breakfast. What actual harm(s) have you or anyone else experienced from using Steam? Quick, point out all of the complaints of Valve abusing their customer...sadly (for you) despite the millions of Steam users you can't find them. You can find complaints about some of the of patches and software quality they have put out but that isn't an indication of their (in your eyes) plot to "screw everyone". BTW, in your paranoid version of the universe what is Steam's motivation for abusing their customers? I mean, they are already one of the most successful online software distributions companies on the planet. Why would they want to do something to jeopardize that?
That has nothing to do with anything. I am not required to trust them when I buy an installable software product, unlike a Steam-powered game, because I can simply install from the media and use the software. If I cannot do so, I am protected by California state law, and may return the product regardless of the store's policies on software returns; my state protects me from defective merchandise. In fact, by state law, I may return it under any warranty to any outlet which sells the same product. Since the original warranty covers the product's ability to work at all (though nothing else) I can take it back any ol' place.
So you were happy with the rootkit that SOE installed because you could return the software (though the rootkit would remain) but you're unhappy with Steam. Why is it that you believe that the California law wouldn't apply to Steam purchases? The licenses for the games are identical to the boxed versions... This is nothing more than a red herring, you can return games under Steam and you have no more and no fewer rights as a software licensee than you would have if you purchased a boxed copy.
My phone can operate in standalone mode. It's called airplane mode. Nice try though, son.
Next time try harder to be insulting, you might actually pull it of but you seem to lack the imagination. I have to ask, when your phone is in standalone mode do you call yourself? While the device (iPhone, Blackberry, Android, etc) might have functions that it can be used for when it's not connected to its network it most certainly cannot be used as a phone. The analogy is appropriate here since its another piece of technology that not only requires a network connection it requires one from a specific provider or one that has an agreement with your specific provider, as opposed to a generic IP connection that Steam needs.
Steam is spyware.
Really? Want to point out a rootkit or user level monitoring software that Steam has installed? How about some evidence? Sony and others (hence the question about other software vendors) have done this exactly, but Steam does not.
Please, hold the paranoia. Do you trust any of your software vendors? Really? Do you worry about the phone company (VOIP or traditional POTS) listening to your calls or perhaps the fact that your phone can't operate in standalone mode? IMO Valve has found a happy medium between user concerns and publisher concerns. Both groups have legitimate areas to worry about as well as less legitimate ones but Valve hasn't installed spy ware (AFAIK) for any publisher. You can play your games without having to connect to Steam, I have a laptop that seldom if ever actually connects to the service and its saved huge amounts of natural resources by being one of (if not the) most popular platforms for buying games without boxes and packaging materials.
As soon as the rabid "It's still DRM" crowd either a) Get's over their kneejerk reaction b) Get's ignored since they don't buy games anyway c) Get's distracted by the next Sony DRM debacle
people will realize that this is exactly what the industry needs. MMO's don't have (much) of a piracy problem, but game developers that want to just sell software need help. DRM has failed not because the concept is flawed, it's not, but because the implementations have been silly. The idea that you can create a procedure and have it work without change forever is simply a waste of money. I can already think of several methods of lying to this kind of system, but Steam makes things harder just by combining a form of file check along with a log on to a remote server. To "lie" you will have to convince Steam that are a registered user, have permission to run the game you want to pirate, and your file(s) matches the CRC or other check they do. Once someone figures that out, or even _gasp_ before, they can add another check (or set of checks) to make things more difficult.
ISP's have been managing UDP traffic for years now, this won't change anything. Any of the deep packet inspection boxes (Packeteer, Allot, Sandvine, Ellacoya, etc) can identify the traffic whether it is UDP or TCP as can open source tools like Ntop. Encrypting the traffic can of course disguise what's in the packets, but the overhead hurts transfer speed. In addition, several of the new generation of traffic shapers don't even care what layer 4 protocol you're using, things like Netequalizer just looks at the two IP end points of a given conversation and treats it as a flow regardless.
The implication of a government person saying we have a problem, is that the government should do something about it. And for the military and other government networks, that's fine.
But why do we ("we" being the government) need to do anything to protect corporate (or any other private) computers? The owner/operators of computers can protect them on their own. Just stop running foreign code.
This isn't like physical security, where, say, IBM can't (and shouldn't have the means) to protect themselves from nuclear ICBM attack. It makes sense to put government in charge of securing the country against certain threats, and that job (if stated broadly enough) is arguably the only reason we need government to exist at all. But cyber-security isn't one of those situations, because individuals and groups can protect themselves, without putting anyone else at risk.
If you're premise was correct your position would have some merit, but because you're probably thinking very narrowly about the problem you've missed some very big issues.
First, much of our infrastructure is run by private companies. Think about how effective inter agency communication isn't when phones and cell phones don't work (think Katrina and 9-11). Our utilities are almost completely under private control and that includes nuclear reactors, dams, and the electrical grid. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission sets standards for security, but computer systems and security (both virtual and real) are all handled by private companies, most often contractors.
Second, even non-infrastructure companies can be hugely disruptive. Think what could happen if someone gained control over the automated systems that report on the prices of stocks, commodities, bonds, and other financial mechanisms. Creating a run on a bank, Wall Street, or a huge fluctuations in the value of the Dollar would be trivial if someone just had access for a short time period. If someone had undetected access and a more subtle mindset the damage could be both much longer term and much worse.
Finally, even companies and organizations that don't control infrastructure or financial systems can have a huge impact if their systems are compromised. Your example of IBM's being able to protect themselves without risk to others is also critically flawed. Last year IBM did $1.43 billion in consulting work for the US government. (1.4% of total 2007 revenue) You don't suppose that in that some of the work is classified? I know some of it is and further, given continued access, I could see the new stuff as the contracts are awarded to Big Blue. This also ignores the disruption that they could create because they are a well trusted ASN on the Internet. The sheer number of workstations and servers they have would also make them attractive to operate as part of a bot net.
In short, there are lots of ways that any large company can hurt the rest of us if they aren't responsible with their security. Now, I'm not buying into the idea that the government being responsible for everyone's network security, they couldn't if they wanted to, but right now network security is something that a lot of companies haven't taken seriously and they _can_ harm us with their negligence.
Fitting in with the values and social expectations of the people who hire me: check.
Self limiting your returns, check. Now, if you're willing to pay that price then by all means go ahead. My point is that there is a price, it _does_ matter, if you can make a comfortable living and you're happy that's fine, but most people won't find that to be the case.
Sorry, but as someone who both hires people, contracts out work, and works with customers on projects it _does_ matter. Whether or not it should is a completely different, and largely irrelevant, question but disputing the fact is foolish. This is similar to someone claiming that it doesn't matter how they dress, since fashion has nothing to do with their job, and just as dumb. You want work, especially good projects, you present a professional appearance. If you don't give a damn about competing purely on price against the off shoring guys, then go ahead and show up in a Quiet Riot t-shirt, no business cards, and scribble your @yahoo email address on a borrowed piece of paper and see how that compares to when a real consultant/contractor shows up.
Remember, when you're a one person company marketing is just as much your responsibility as coding is.
No, Volatile is _not_ the normal update stream. When the US decided to update DS volatile was not even considered as an option, the changes went into the normal updates long before the change took affect on the ground. This is _not_ an example of Debian doing things the "right way" but rather them not being able to match their own processes to get updates in a timely fashion.
They're only right in the context of the system that they created and only on the point that this is not a security fix. Where they are wrong is the fact that the update, which had been written some time ago, did not make it into the normal system updates _as planned_ because of timing. To me the problem is why did a fix that was available for months take so long to get into the normal update stream? Ubuntu was able to make that happen in less than a week...
When processes fail to serve your customers you have a problem with your process.
Keep in mind that this conversation is from a subset of the Debian developers, the glibc team/group. They are correct in saying that this is not a security fix, and that's not how they planned on releasing the update. Its clear from this statement "It will go through etch/updates when the new point release will be issued, andwe missed the previous window because the bug was open a few days before the last release, and it couldn't make it sorry. So we pushed it in any other place we have access to, namely backports.org and volatile.debian.org (the latter is designed to fulfill updates of volatile packages, _LIKE_ timezone datas)." That the normal method of updating wasn't an option before the change took effect because the team missed the deadline. The wrong part of this that the patch for handling this change was completed at the of July and yet the Debian team was unable to get it into the normal release flow. Strangely enough the folks at Ubuntu seem to have gotten this handled much more rapidly, "2007f-0ubuntu0.6.10 Published in edgy-updates on 2007-08-03, Published in edgy-proposed on 2007-07-27".
While I understand the knee jerk reactions that some have to this idea, they should realize that this isn't really a model for single player games IMO but more of a new model for Pay to Play games. So while this doesn't work for say Bioshock (I'd be pissed if 2k wanted to me to buy my Power to the People Terminals!) but it does work for online games. Right now the only legal currency in most MMO's is time, if you put in the time to "earn" (silly concept in a game) something its yours to keep or trade. Now, the problem is that most MMO's are closed systems meaning that even though you can trade, its only for in game items or money that were "earned" by someone else's time. I have long felt that any business model that favors the unemployed (they have lots of time) over skilled gamers who might not have as much free time, is flawed. Micro transaction based games at least offer a possibility of changing that model. The current system of favoring college students, the chronically unemployable, or those willing to break the EULA to buy stuff from IGE or other virtual to real money trader is dumb.
Amazingly there was only one intelligent thing said in the whole article. "Digital switching is key" is correct. Whats amazing is that some consulting has the balls to act like $great_prophet when proclaiming it. I mean, its not like Cablelabs hasn't been hard at work on the technologies to address the bandwidth issue. Both DOCSIS 3.0 (http://www.cablemodem.com/specifications/specific ations30.html) and Modular CMTS (http://www.cablemodem.com/specifications/m-cmts.h tml are designed to address this problem. M-CMTS basically works to divide cable plant into smaller sections by pushing the RF interfaces further out to the edge. This is done by placing fairly dumb/inexpensive edge QAM's out in the plant, these devices encapsulate DOCSIS frames into Gigabit Ethernet to carry them back to a packet processing engine. What this buys the operator is the ability to use fewer RF channels but gain more bandwidth at the cost of having some additional backhaul (to carry the GigE). Now some people might wonder if this consulting company is merely championing an idea that hasn't been developed, but sadly that isn't the case either. Many manufacturers are already producing EQAM's including big hitters like Cisco (http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/cable/ps22 09/products_implementation_design_guide_chapter091 86a00807c73c7.html/) These same EQAM's also handle switching of digital video so cable companies save on both switched video and normal IP traffic. DOCSIS 3.0 allows for bonding DOCSIS channels to create far more bandwidth, which is likely to be used for business services as well as more rich IP services. Comcast in my area already offers multiple HD on demand channels, for example HBO and Showtime. (http://www.comcast.com/HBOondemand/ and http://www.tvweek.com/news/2007/03/comcast_launche s_showtime_hdvo.php/)
Quite honestly it sounds like the "consultant" needs to do some research.
From a long time player I've often wondered why they bothered with PvE in GW, the implementation is at best boring and it cuts down on the competitive aspect of the game. The scenery and the art work is pretty, but the actual game play leaves me cold. GW2 sounds like they are moving more toward a more traditional MMO setup.
I never suggested, nor do I believe, that the Cuban people or the government shouldn't be using Linux. The problem is simply having RMS go to Cuba and champion ideas that fit well with Castro's regime but few else in the world is harmful to the cause of OSS adoption.
To quote from the article,"Middle-aged communist bureaucrats and ponytailed young Cuban programmers applauded as the computer scientist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology insisted that copyright laws violate basic morality; he compared them to laws that would threaten people with jail for sharing or modifying kitchen recipes."
Having RMS decry the "evil" of copyright laws is a POLITICAL statement and that has an impact.
I don't have to pretend, as I noted above I compete with MS solutions every week. I _know_ people in the US will care because the MS spin machine will make it an issue, they already attempt to make the association between OSS and communism and this will make that link much easier to make. I'm glad that people in Cuba use and hopefully improve Linux and other OSS products. What I'm not happy about is that the father of FSF feels that he has to go make a sales pitch to the government of Cuba.
Lets reverse the situation, if RMS stood up with George Bush, or high ranking members of his administration, that would negatively impact the adoption of GNU and other OSS projects in countries where GWB or current American policy is unpopular.
In summary, people using Linux anywhere is good for Linux but having RMS stand with political leaders isn't. Do you really believe that PR machine in Cuba won't use this or that the propaganda they produce won't trickle back into the US?
I'm not worried about switching family members, every time OSS solutions are proposed in the corporate world there is some degree of push back. Many decision makers and influencer's are didn't experience the growth of OSS themselves, they don't understand the distinction between OSS and FSF nor do they care to. When I get asked by the CEO of a company about this, and I will since I compete with MS driven solutions every week, I have to admit that RMS is indeed responsible for a large portion of the code that I use. The MS reseller justs nods quietly and mumbles communist under his breath. That has an impact on decision makers, most of whom are not technical themselves. If the choice for a company president is 800 Linux terminals or 800 Windows workstations more than just cost/performance comes into play and few (or none at all) American corporation wants to be associated with anything that Fidel Castro uses or supports.
Once again Stallman proves that brilliance as a programmer does not necessarily translate into brilliance, or even competence, in other fields. I'll bet that the MS PR team is practically salivating over this little tidbit. Thanks Richard, you've just made it harder to move people into OSS in most of the industrialized countries of the world and in exchange you were able to "win over" a nation that already has a small economy, limited technical personnel, and little encouragement for technical innovation at the state level. As an added bonus you grabbed the good will of another nation that is busily shrinking its economy and following the path of the first.
People wonder why the OSS movement struggles to attract more support....
Slashdot Mirror
I have mixed emotions about Network Neutrality. The concept has some good points, but there are large down sides as well. The worst thing is AFAIK no one has ever found a case that would be affected by most of the proposals I've seen posted. The closest I have seen was a telco blocking Vonage's SIP registration ports several years back, which the FCC caught. Neither AT&T nor Verizon are major rural players and mobile is most certainly not the way people in rural areas get their broadband. Perhaps the Senator should go a little further off the highway to see how people are connecting. FIXED wireless (Alvarion, Tranzeo, Canopy, etc), DSL, DOCSIS cable, and a surprising amount of FTTx but damn little mobile broadband.
I agree, but they also caught a ton of grief over it. I have acquaintances that refused to touch Civ4 specifically because of the inclusion of religion. Interestingly the people I know who felt that way fell into both the very religious (in this case fundamentalist Christians) and in the very non-religious (strident atheist in this case).
Pardon my bluntness, but have you ever negotiated a franchise? I have and they are far from being government subsidies in any way, shape, or form. Now, I don't work with the Comcast's of the world but I do work with lots of smaller cable and phone companies and there are cases where the government _does_ provide assistance, most often under Carrier of Last Resort obligations. That is what those annoying Universal Service Funds we all pay go to support. If you want to understand CoLR read the intro in this PDF
http://www.nrri.org/pubs/telecommunications/COLR_july09-10.pdf
In my experience CoLR is a mixed bag, most of the big guys (AT&T, Qwest, Verizon, etc) hate CoLR and lose money on it most of the time while a lot of the rural telco's do ok (which the big guys hate too). Having said all of that I can't think of case where a cable company has been held to CoLR requirements, though I certainly couldn't say it hasn't happened its also certainly not common.
The problem with the author's position is that no one is asking for open access to the "Internet". They are asking for open access to networks that were privately funded, like Comcast's _access_ network. The government didn't help AT&T (or any of the component companies SBC, Bellsouth, etc) run copper lines to houses nor wire fiber to digital loop carriers in neighborhoods. The government was of course deeply involved in the initial build of the Internet and did in fact try to give it to the original AT&T (who declined because they didn't think it was commercially viable), but none of that infrastructure is in service nor has it been for a very long time. No one has a complaint about getting access to the Internet. Google and all of the other commercial entities asking for open access don't care about access to the core, they have that in spades already, what they want is a guarantee that people who built _access_ networks can't charge them for sending their content over those networks. I personally see merit on both sides of this position, but the author of the Techdirt article is dead wrong.
I know I personally bought 2 copies of Civ IV, I have no idea where my copy of Civ III is, and I like playing older games. Steam = much easier access to my games. That may or may not be true for everyone, but then again not everyone is married to compulsive organizer who puts things where they make sense for her but are incomprehensible for me.
Good move, kudos to Sid and company for ignoring the idiotic knee jerk reactions seen on some message boards I won't mention. Requiring occasional (I have gone at least 2 weeks before) access back to Steam as opposed to having to keep track of some number of CD's _and_ being able to have the game installed on multiple PC's is a net positive IMNHO. The improved matchmaking sounds like icing on the cake.
I can't believe someone hasn't already pointed out MoCA its what Verizon is using for their in house wiring for FioS installs. You will need an adapter per device, which is kind of a drag since they are ~ $150.00 or so, but the 1.1 spec offers 175 mbps of through put.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multimedia_over_Coax_Alliance
http://www.ecost.com/detail.aspx?edp=44551040&source=k232270&cm_mmc=Affiliates-_-Performics-_-k232270-_-Primary
You're pretty sad, if I cared enough to do more than laugh at your paranoia I _might_ get a bit irritated but all I can think of when I read your post(s) is an aspiring Limbaugh wannabe. I wonder if your face is as red as I imagine it to be ;p Your only instance of "harm" is pure user error in one case and idiocy in the other. Your assertion that Steam doesn't support resuming updates is false. Of course your available bandwidth will affect how fast you can pull said updates or other content(including backups), but that is analogous to have a requirement that you have a working CD ROM drive to play back the media you would have purchased for boxed software. Is it the fault of the software vendor that you don't have a working drive (or damaged media)?
You _were_ able to get your content and complaining about having to have a broadband connection to do so is laughable. Which is more onerous to the user, having to maintain install media, all of which have a definable shelf life in years, as well as the drives to read said media or to simply have an IP connection? I know that I have personally lost a hell of a lot more CD ROM's, floppies, and DVD's with content I "owned" than I have ever had or seen reported for people losing access to content via Steam. That's also true of the other major online game retailers like GOG and DirecttoDrive.
Again, please show some evidence of actual harm. You can dislike phoning home, but it is one of the trade offs to address publisher concerns. I can demonstrate the harm of using physical media both to the user themselves and to society as a whole, all you've shown is that you were inconvenienced when you lacked a broadband connection. Are you old enough to remember the alternatives for piracy prevention? DRM now and before that having to keep manuals so you could refer to page so and so and find word number 12 in paragraph 2.
What paranoia? Where in my comment does it look like I think everyone is out to get me? We're talking about one company's plot to screw everyone, it's quite the opposite. Reading comprehension? YOU FAIL IT
Really, is that the best you can do this morning? You must have skipped breakfast. What actual harm(s) have you or anyone else experienced from using Steam? Quick, point out all of the complaints of Valve abusing their customer...sadly (for you) despite the millions of Steam users you can't find them. You can find complaints about some of the of patches and software quality they have put out but that isn't an indication of their (in your eyes) plot to "screw everyone". BTW, in your paranoid version of the universe what is Steam's motivation for abusing their customers? I mean, they are already one of the most successful online software distributions companies on the planet. Why would they want to do something to jeopardize that?
That has nothing to do with anything. I am not required to trust them when I buy an installable software product, unlike a Steam-powered game, because I can simply install from the media and use the software. If I cannot do so, I am protected by California state law, and may return the product regardless of the store's policies on software returns; my state protects me from defective merchandise. In fact, by state law, I may return it under any warranty to any outlet which sells the same product. Since the original warranty covers the product's ability to work at all (though nothing else) I can take it back any ol' place.
So you were happy with the rootkit that SOE installed because you could return the software (though the rootkit would remain) but you're unhappy with Steam. Why is it that you believe that the California law wouldn't apply to Steam purchases? The licenses for the games are identical to the boxed versions... This is nothing more than a red herring, you can return games under Steam and you have no more and no fewer rights as a software licensee than you would have if you purchased a boxed copy.
My phone can operate in standalone mode. It's called airplane mode. Nice try though, son.
Next time try harder to be insulting, you might actually pull it of but you seem to lack the imagination. I have to ask, when your phone is in standalone mode do you call yourself? While the device (iPhone, Blackberry, Android, etc) might have functions that it can be used for when it's not connected to its network it most certainly cannot be used as a phone. The analogy is appropriate here since its another piece of technology that not only requires a network connection it requires one from a specific provider or one that has an agreement with your specific provider, as opposed to a generic IP connection that Steam needs.
Steam is spyware.
Really? Want to point out a rootkit or user level monitoring software that Steam has installed? How about some evidence? Sony and others (hence the question about other software vendors) have done this exactly, but Steam does not.
Please, hold the paranoia. Do you trust any of your software vendors? Really? Do you worry about the phone company (VOIP or traditional POTS) listening to your calls or perhaps the fact that your phone can't operate in standalone mode? IMO Valve has found a happy medium between user concerns and publisher concerns. Both groups have legitimate areas to worry about as well as less legitimate ones but Valve hasn't installed spy ware (AFAIK) for any publisher. You can play your games without having to connect to Steam, I have a laptop that seldom if ever actually connects to the service and its saved huge amounts of natural resources by being one of (if not the) most popular platforms for buying games without boxes and packaging materials.
As soon as the rabid "It's still DRM" crowd either
a) Get's over their kneejerk reaction
b) Get's ignored since they don't buy games anyway
c) Get's distracted by the next Sony DRM debacle
people will realize that this is exactly what the industry needs. MMO's don't have (much) of a piracy problem, but game developers that want to just sell software need help. DRM has failed not because the concept is flawed, it's not, but because the implementations have been silly. The idea that you can create a procedure and have it work without change forever is simply a waste of money. I can already think of several methods of lying to this kind of system, but Steam makes things harder just by combining a form of file check along with a log on to a remote server. To "lie" you will have to convince Steam that are a registered user, have permission to run the game you want to pirate, and your file(s) matches the CRC or other check they do. Once someone figures that out, or even _gasp_ before, they can add another check (or set of checks) to make things more difficult.
Many imperfect walls > 1 (supposedly) perfect one
ISP's have been managing UDP traffic for years now, this won't change anything. Any of the deep packet inspection boxes (Packeteer, Allot, Sandvine, Ellacoya, etc) can identify the traffic whether it is UDP or TCP as can open source tools like Ntop. Encrypting the traffic can of course disguise what's in the packets, but the overhead hurts transfer speed. In addition, several of the new generation of traffic shapers don't even care what layer 4 protocol you're using, things like Netequalizer just looks at the two IP end points of a given conversation and treats it as a flow regardless.
The implication of a government person saying we have a problem, is that the government should do something about it. And for the military and other government networks, that's fine.
But why do we ("we" being the government) need to do anything to protect corporate (or any other private) computers? The owner/operators of computers can protect them on their own. Just stop running foreign code.
This isn't like physical security, where, say, IBM can't (and shouldn't have the means) to protect themselves from nuclear ICBM attack. It makes sense to put government in charge of securing the country against certain threats, and that job (if stated broadly enough) is arguably the only reason we need government to exist at all. But cyber-security isn't one of those situations, because individuals and groups can protect themselves, without putting anyone else at risk.
If you're premise was correct your position would have some merit, but because you're probably thinking very narrowly about the problem you've missed some very big issues.
First, much of our infrastructure is run by private companies. Think about how effective inter agency communication isn't when phones and cell phones don't work (think Katrina and 9-11). Our utilities are almost completely under private control and that includes nuclear reactors, dams, and the electrical grid. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission sets standards for security, but computer systems and security (both virtual and real) are all handled by private companies, most often contractors.
Second, even non-infrastructure companies can be hugely disruptive. Think what could happen if someone gained control over the automated systems that report on the prices of stocks, commodities, bonds, and other financial mechanisms. Creating a run on a bank, Wall Street, or a huge fluctuations in the value of the Dollar would be trivial if someone just had access for a short time period. If someone had undetected access and a more subtle mindset the damage could be both much longer term and much worse.
Finally, even companies and organizations that don't control infrastructure or financial systems can have a huge impact if their systems are compromised. Your example of IBM's being able to protect themselves without risk to others is also critically flawed. Last year IBM did $1.43 billion in consulting work for the US government. (1.4% of total 2007 revenue) You don't suppose that in that some of the work is classified? I know some of it is and further, given continued access, I could see the new stuff as the contracts are awarded to Big Blue. This also ignores the disruption that they could create because they are a well trusted ASN on the Internet. The sheer number of workstations and servers they have would also make them attractive to operate as part of a bot net.
In short, there are lots of ways that any large company can hurt the rest of us if they aren't responsible with their security. Now, I'm not buying into the idea that the government being responsible for everyone's network security, they couldn't if they wanted to, but right now network security is something that a lot of companies haven't taken seriously and they _can_ harm us with their negligence.
Fitting in with the values and social expectations of the people who hire me: check.
Self limiting your returns, check. Now, if you're willing to pay that price then by all means go ahead. My point is that there is a price, it _does_ matter, if you can make a comfortable living and you're happy that's fine, but most people won't find that to be the case.
Sorry, but as someone who both hires people, contracts out work, and works with customers on projects it _does_ matter. Whether or not it should is a completely different, and largely irrelevant, question but disputing the fact is foolish. This is similar to someone claiming that it doesn't matter how they dress, since fashion has nothing to do with their job, and just as dumb. You want work, especially good projects, you present a professional appearance. If you don't give a damn about competing purely on price against the off shoring guys, then go ahead and show up in a Quiet Riot t-shirt, no business cards, and scribble your @yahoo email address on a borrowed piece of paper and see how that compares to when a real consultant/contractor shows up.
Remember, when you're a one person company marketing is just as much your responsibility as coding is.
No, Volatile is _not_ the normal update stream. When the US decided to update DS volatile was not even considered as an option, the changes went into the normal updates long before the change took affect on the ground. This is _not_ an example of Debian doing things the "right way" but rather them not being able to match their own processes to get updates in a timely fashion.
They're only right in the context of the system that they created and only on the point that this is not a security fix. Where they are wrong is the fact that the update, which had been written some time ago, did not make it into the normal system updates _as planned_ because of timing. To me the problem is why did a fix that was available for months take so long to get into the normal update stream? Ubuntu was able to make that happen in less than a week...
When processes fail to serve your customers you have a problem with your process.
Keep in mind that this conversation is from a subset of the Debian developers, the glibc team/group. They are correct in saying that this is not a security fix, and that's not how they planned on releasing the update. Its clear from this statement "It will go through etch/updates when the new point release will be issued, andwe missed the previous window because the bug was open a few days before the last release, and it couldn't make it sorry. So we pushed it in any other place we have access to, namely backports.org and volatile.debian.org (the latter is designed to fulfill updates of volatile packages, _LIKE_ timezone datas)." That the normal method of updating wasn't an option before the change took effect because the team missed the deadline. The wrong part of this that the patch for handling this change was completed at the of July and yet the Debian team was unable to get it into the normal release flow. Strangely enough the folks at Ubuntu seem to have gotten this handled much more rapidly, "2007f-0ubuntu0.6.10 Published in edgy-updates on 2007-08-03, Published in edgy-proposed on 2007-07-27".
While I understand the knee jerk reactions that some have to this idea, they should realize that this isn't really a model for single player games IMO but more of a new model for Pay to Play games. So while this doesn't work for say Bioshock (I'd be pissed if 2k wanted to me to buy my Power to the People Terminals!) but it does work for online games. Right now the only legal currency in most MMO's is time, if you put in the time to "earn" (silly concept in a game) something its yours to keep or trade. Now, the problem is that most MMO's are closed systems meaning that even though you can trade, its only for in game items or money that were "earned" by someone else's time. I have long felt that any business model that favors the unemployed (they have lots of time) over skilled gamers who might not have as much free time, is flawed. Micro transaction based games at least offer a possibility of changing that model. The current system of favoring college students, the chronically unemployable, or those willing to break the EULA to buy stuff from IGE or other virtual to real money trader is dumb.
Amazingly there was only one intelligent thing said in the whole article. "Digital switching is key" is correct. Whats amazing is that some consulting has the balls to act like $great_prophet when proclaiming it. I mean, its not like Cablelabs hasn't been hard at work on the technologies to address the bandwidth issue. Both DOCSIS 3.0 (http://www.cablemodem.com/specifications/specific ations30.html) and Modular CMTS (http://www.cablemodem.com/specifications/m-cmts.h tml are designed to address this problem. M-CMTS basically works to divide cable plant into smaller sections by pushing the RF interfaces further out to the edge. This is done by placing fairly dumb/inexpensive edge QAM's out in the plant, these devices encapsulate DOCSIS frames into Gigabit Ethernet to carry them back to a packet processing engine. What this buys the operator is the ability to use fewer RF channels but gain more bandwidth at the cost of having some additional backhaul (to carry the GigE). Now some people might wonder if this consulting company is merely championing an idea that hasn't been developed, but sadly that isn't the case either. Many manufacturers are already producing EQAM's including big hitters like Cisco (http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/cable/ps22 09/products_implementation_design_guide_chapter091 86a00807c73c7.html/) These same EQAM's also handle switching of digital video so cable companies save on both switched video and normal IP traffic. DOCSIS 3.0 allows for bonding DOCSIS channels to create far more bandwidth, which is likely to be used for business services as well as more rich IP services. Comcast in my area already offers multiple HD on demand channels, for example HBO and Showtime. (http://www.comcast.com/HBOondemand/ and http://www.tvweek.com/news/2007/03/comcast_launche s_showtime_hdvo.php/)
Quite honestly it sounds like the "consultant" needs to do some research.
From a long time player I've often wondered why they bothered with PvE in GW, the implementation is at best boring and it cuts down on the competitive aspect of the game. The scenery and the art work is pretty, but the actual game play leaves me cold. GW2 sounds like they are moving more toward a more traditional MMO setup.
Did you bother to read my post?
I never suggested, nor do I believe, that the Cuban people or the government shouldn't be using Linux. The problem is simply having RMS go to Cuba and champion ideas that fit well with Castro's regime but few else in the world is harmful to the cause of OSS adoption.
To quote from the article,"Middle-aged communist bureaucrats and ponytailed young Cuban programmers applauded as the computer scientist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology insisted that copyright laws violate basic morality; he compared them to laws that would threaten people with jail for sharing or modifying kitchen recipes."
Having RMS decry the "evil" of copyright laws is a POLITICAL statement and that has an impact.
I don't have to pretend, as I noted above I compete with MS solutions every week. I _know_ people in the US will care because the MS spin machine will make it an issue, they already attempt to make the association between OSS and communism and this will make that link much easier to make. I'm glad that people in Cuba use and hopefully improve Linux and other OSS products. What I'm not happy about is that the father of FSF feels that he has to go make a sales pitch to the government of Cuba.
Lets reverse the situation, if RMS stood up with George Bush, or high ranking members of his administration, that would negatively impact the adoption of GNU and other OSS projects in countries where GWB or current American policy is unpopular.
In summary, people using Linux anywhere is good for Linux but having RMS stand with political leaders isn't. Do you really believe that PR machine in Cuba won't use this or that the propaganda they produce won't trickle back into the US?
I'm not worried about switching family members, every time OSS solutions are proposed in the corporate world there is some degree of push back. Many decision makers and influencer's are didn't experience the growth of OSS themselves, they don't understand the distinction between OSS and FSF nor do they care to. When I get asked by the CEO of a company about this, and I will since I compete with MS driven solutions every week, I have to admit that RMS is indeed responsible for a large portion of the code that I use. The MS reseller justs nods quietly and mumbles communist under his breath. That has an impact on decision makers, most of whom are not technical themselves. If the choice for a company president is 800 Linux terminals or 800 Windows workstations more than just cost/performance comes into play and few (or none at all) American corporation wants to be associated with anything that Fidel Castro uses or supports.
Once again Stallman proves that brilliance as a programmer does not necessarily translate into brilliance, or even competence, in other fields. I'll bet that the MS PR team is practically salivating over this little tidbit. Thanks Richard, you've just made it harder to move people into OSS in most of the industrialized countries of the world and in exchange you were able to "win over" a nation that already has a small economy, limited technical personnel, and little encouragement for technical innovation at the state level. As an added bonus you grabbed the good will of another nation that is busily shrinking its economy and following the path of the first.
People wonder why the OSS movement struggles to attract more support....