I envy you the world you live in, it sounds so much better than the one I live in. In the one I live in, large organizations regularly hire consultants at $100+ an hour to write code; sometimes even ignoring in-house developers would could do the work cheaper. in the world I live in management frequently rewards people who save time and money by doing shoddy security and penalizes people who want to spend a few percent more to do pervasive, correct security.
Why did a cop taking a perfectly legal look at your car give you a lower opinion of them? Your car represented an anomaly, by your own admission it didn't fit the neighborhood. That's exactly the sort of situation that I want cops to take a quick surface look; if it's nothing (as in your case) they'll move on. But sometimes it is something worth investigating: a car full of toilet paper might indicate an imminant TPing of someone's hour. Piles of small valuables might mean he stumbled across a burglary.
MSFT is strongly pushing DRM for video content whereas Apple so far has been silent on the matter.
Out of curiousity, which of the two companies is actively selling DRM encumbered video? I agree, HDMI is a terrible thing, another opportunity to charge people more in exchange for hardware that does less and in the process help stamp out fair use. But Apple's no more our friend in this than Microsoft.
It's not perfect, but it makes attacking a random account harder. That the password is emailed to a known address adds further security. It's probably not good enough to stop a dedicated attacker, but for something relatively unimportant (like a Slashdot login), it's Good Enough. For important things (say, your banking site) I would hope that emailing you your password isn't an option at all (it isn't for my bank).
You can improve your security marginally by making up a consistent fictional answer. Again, not suitable for important sites, but good enough for lightweight stuff.
Agreed! I spend most of my time on Linux. But I keep a dual-boot partitian so I can play games under Windows. I'm not expecting developers to support Linux for their game, but is it so hard to have your web site support me? As you say, letting me a description and some screenshots will increase me chances of taking the time to boot into Windows and give your game a try. Same goes for sites that demand cookies or flash to simply learn about their product.
Puz"zle, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Puzzled (?); p. pr. & vb. n. Puzzling (?).] ...
3. To solve by ingenuity, as a puzzle; -- followed by out; as, to puzzle out a mystery. ...
Puz"zle, v. i. ...
2. To work, as at a puzzle; as, to puzzle over a problem.
Unless you're at least 90 years old, no complaining that the word's meaning has drifted.
I think there is hope in this area. I deal with two local stores that have added self-checkout lines. My local grocery store's system is reasonably intelligent and by and large Just Works. It's a little slower than I'd like, but it's responsive enough that I don't get frustrated. Whoever designed it caught a number of the little details: if you start scanning without picking a language, it just picks english as the most likely one; if you insert cash it assumes you've pressed the "I want to pay" and "Pay with cash" options. The machine gets confused maybe 1 visit out of 10, and when it does the cashier tending the four machines is usually prompt is fixing it. When all of the human-run lines are full self-checkout is much faster, especially for small purchases. End result: the machines get reasonably heavy use. During their most busy times I'm pretty sure it's speeding checkout for everyone.
On the other hand, my local ShopKo's self-checkout system is a pathetic joke. It's painfully slow. It doesn't get any of the little details right. Every single time I used it I hit some problem that requires cashier intervention. End result: they're always empty.
Good systems are possible and it appears customers have no tolerance for bad systems. Things will eventually improve all round.
Re:too hard is bad?
on
Prey Review
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Um where I'm from, the harder a game is the *better* it is.
I trust you're a big fan of NetHack, because by that standard it is possibly the perfect game. *
Harder is not in and of itself better. As Zonk notes it's not that easy is better than hard, it's that too easy is better than too hard. "Too hard" means "I have no hope of finishing it," or maybe "I've got better things to do than replaying the same 5 minutes of game for the next month until I'm good enough to move on." That's not fun, it's just frustrating. At least with the too easy option I can see the story play out and look at the pretty graphics if I'm into it. Depending on the game, I may be able to add my own limitations that make the game harder ("No grabbing health packs," "Only use the pistol," "No building tanks.") If the game is too hard, I'm just done.
Of course, ideally the game is Just Right, hard enough that I feel challenged, but easy enough that I beat it before I get pissed off and give up. Of course how difficut that is varies from person to person, making it a tough balancing act.
(* NetHack is a brilliant game, but is because of the depth of gameplay, not because it's so brutal that it's self selected to a very small community.)
Between the trolls, complete loons, insane geological theories, loons engaging in revisionist history, bad biological science, and racists. Clearly because some parts of the internet are bad, the entire thing is totally worthless. But if you say this sort of thing, you get shouted down by people who've drunk Tim Berners-Lee's kool-aid. Clearly the logical course of action is to spend my time loudly complaining about how awful the Internet is, how anyone posting content to the web is wasting their time, and how only a web-cultist would claim that even though the web is flawed that there is any value to it.
Why would I trust it as a starting point if I can't trust it as a source?
Trust it about as much as you'd trust the internet as whole. Be realistic; if you're mildly curious about something new to you and you want a quick overview, don't you plug the term into Google and do some quick reading? The results could come from anywhere: hoaxers, someone with a strongly biased agenda, or someone who did bad research (including possibly using Wikipedia). And yet most of the time it's Good Enough. Wikipedia on average is better organized, better written, and more accurate than the internet as whole. If there is a dispute over the topic the entire revision history is transparent so you can see what sort of disagreements have gone on.
Add to this an increased focus in Wikipedia on citing sources. Wikipedia is still far behind where it should be, but progress is being made. As more and more citations are made it's easier for you to check the claims in Wikipedia and better use it as a starting point. (True, the cited works themselves may be flawed, but that's a problem all research has.)
As I understand it, RFID cards don't do anything until they're exposed to an electromagnetic field, which gives them just enough juice to fire off a message, usually an identity code.
They can broadcast whatever they like. In the case of passports, it's much of the information in your passport: name, gender, birthdate, nationality. Several countries are trying to get various forms of biometric information, especially your passport photo.
Unless I've been completely misinformed, you'd have to generate quite the field to even have a chance of reading one of these things at a distance. I know that my RFID card doesn't work until it's within a coupla inches of the appropriate reader.
That's because there is no good reason for, say, an RFID door key reader to detect keys furthere away than a few inches. Any further and you risk someone loitering near the door accidentally letting a bad guy in.
If you're actively interested in reading RFID at a distance, the rules change. The theft detectors in stores are all RFID and some have ranges of 5 or so feet. At least one group has developed tech capable of reading RFID at 69-feet. (Sadly the 1, 2.) It's a big rig, but small enough to hide in the trunk of a large car.
The whole "it's broadcasting all of your personal information!!!!" hype is a bunch of FUD. The only way it could really be a security risk is if the card itself was stolen, and then it's really no different than having your S.S. card or driver's license stolen.
It's broadcasting most of the information in your passport: name, date of birth, gender, nationality. The last one is perhaps the most important. Want to kill some Americans, but don't want to be nearby when it happens? Plant a bomb attached to an RFID reader. You don't need 69 feet of range, 10 or so will be plenty. When it detects 2 or more American passports nearby, explode. Looking for an American to kidnap? Future versions are likely going to be broadcasting a low-resolution version of your passport photo. Set up a scanner in your backpack and wander around.
Only because people raised concerns like this the passport design was modified with a shield in the front cover. If the passport is closed, in theory no data is broadcast. That reduces the exposure, which is good, but isn't perfect. If you're in a foreign country you need to display your passport occasionally: airports, checking into hotels, and the like. The window of exposure is smaller, but not zero.
Copyright law isn't about granting implied licenses. You have a fundamental right to buy a creative work (be it a book or a DVD) then read or watch it. You have the right to resell that particular work. Copyright law has nothing to do with those rights. Absent copyright law nothing would change; you would not need to apply for a license to do so. I no more need a license to read a book or watch a DVD than I do to use the new blender I just purchased.
Copyright law is about granting a monopoly on reproduction to creators of creative works. Absent copyright law you would be free to
make and distribute copies, possibly after modifying them. (In the early days of the US copyright law didn't protect foreign authors so US based publishers frequently reprinted foreign works without breaking any laws.) Copyright law removes this freedom. To reproduce and distribute a work you then need a license. That license generally needs to be explicit, absent the license you have no right to reproduce, potentially modifiy, and distribute a work. (This is the basis for the GPL's enforcability.)
By accepting the incorrect "you need a license" argument you're playing into the hands of those who want ever more powerful intellectual property laws. Copyright in the US is more powerful than it has ever been; there is no reason to hand over additional power.
Apparently Dawn C. Chmielewski of the L.A. Times had some sort of seizure causing her to type the following insanity:
Few people realize that when they buy software or music or movies, they are actually buying a license to use, watch or listen. That's why it violates copyright laws for people to sell copies of their music collection.
No. Absolutely wrong.
When you buy a copyright protected item, you own that particular thing. You need zero license to make standard use of that particular thing you purchased. Thus, the lack of EULAs on console games, works on DVDs, music on CDs, novels, and even the L.A. Times itself. The reason it's illegal to make and distribute copies isn't that you somehow agreed to some license. The reason is that copyright specifically denies you that right.
I'm sure that Art practices what he preaches. Indeed, I'm sure he's so "driven to make drugs that help patients fight cancer" that any day he'll announce that he's cutting his own $40,000,000 in compensation so that the company has more money to do that research.
($1.6M in 1999. $21M in 2004.)
What you probably have, if you have anything, is receipt of purchase from the dealer - not the receipt of purchase
from the manufacturer.
And? When I buy a book I get a receipt of purchase from Barnes & Noble, not from O'Reilly and Associates.
This document is known as the "Manufacturer's Statement of Origin" (MSO).
The MSO is not a receipt of purchase. It's exactly what it claims to be, a statement of origin. "This car came directly from us." It's essentially a title to the vehicle.
When title in a car (or, say, a house) is transferred, the state wants to
make sure that the previous title is gone. Otherwise two or more people could
have titles and claim ownership. So to apply for title you typically need to
turn in the old title. If you buy a car from me, I sign my title and give it
to you. you go to the DMV and turn in my old title. The DMV issues you a new
title.
Essentially the MSO is the original title for a vehicle. It gets sent to
the state so the state is free to issue you the real title.
Your theory also fails if you get your auto loan from someone other than
your auto dealer (as I did). In that case the dealer transferred the title to
my credit union. At that point the MSO was gone and the credit union had a
title. When I paid off the car they told the state (and turned in their title)
and the state issued me a new title in my name.
If you have the title (in your name) to your car you own your car.
Actually, this is somewhat false - in theory, you can drive it,
without insurance or a license, under the doctrine of "Right to Travel" - but
you must have that MSO with you to have any chance of beating this in court
when you are hauled in.
This will go down in practice about as well as attempts to not pay income
tax. You'll get the occasional lucky people who manages to find a weird
loophole or sloppy prosecutor, be most people trying this stunt will lose in
court. Reasonable, non-discriminatory licensing of vehicles is no more
infringing on your right to travel than licensing of broadcast airwaves
infringes your right to free speech.
The concept of a Licence to Use is firmly, unquestionably, established both in UK and US legal jurisdictions and is the basis on which ALL software is licensed including under the GPL.
You are deeply mistaken. The GPL is not based on EULA law in any way, shape, or form. The GPL itself makes it clear: you do not need to agree to the GPL. "You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works." If you don't, you're under basic copyright law. You're still free to use GPL licensed software. You only need to be aware of an obey the GPL if you plan on distributing copies. Normally copyright law forbids that; the GPL grants you a license to do so provided you agree to some restrictions.
Maybe the online play suffered, but many of us are fans of CoD because of the strength of the single player campaign. From that standpoint CoD2 is a great game. It does lack some of the more memorable scenes from CoD1 (the suicidal landing at Stalingrad is one of my favorite moments in any game ever). Still, the play is rock solid. It looks good and is a blast to play. The "healthy-injured-dead" wound system kept the game moving and risky without the "I think if I backtrack for three minutes I'll find a med-kit" that most single play FPSers suffer from. The play is linear, again helping to keep the action going, but you are constantly making lots of satisfying tactical decisions.
Among by friends who are fans of FPSs (and really don't care about online play), CoD2 is generally held to be among the best.
Taking mental shortcuts will be just as beneficial.
Exactly right. Just like switching from the imperial measurement system to metric made everyone less intelligent. Look at scientists who pretty much exclusively use metric: they've gone all soft-headed. A man who tracks his milage in rods per hogshead is a man getting his daily mental workout.
However, whatever their reasoning it's still a matter of biting the hand that feeds you kind of thing.
Well, that's part of the point isn't it? Video game journalism has incentives to cozy up to publishers, compromising the resulting reporting. Square Enix wouldn't have asked this if they didn't think at least some journalists would agree. What does it say about the state of video game journalism that a publisher believes it can ask journalists to stay silent about publically available information solely for marketing reasons? (Of coruse, this is hardly unique to the video game journalism; it's distressingly common in political journalism.)
The journalists are partialy to blame; they trade integrity for "exclusive preview" access and early copies so they can release a review simultaneously with the game's release. Readers enjoy the lion's share of the blame; they demand those previews and instant reviews while not caring about the cozy relationship between game publishers and the media. It is good for everyone to be regularly reminded of this cozy relationship.
I'm not saying I'm a fan of DRM, but anyone that compares a hard-copy book to DRM media and sees the DRM media as a pain in the ass is just bonkers.
The key is that a book is reliable. Properly cared for a book will last a long, long time. The author and publisher can't stop me from reading, lending out, giving away, or selling the book. If a publisher goes bankrupt, there is no risk that my paper books will suddenly become unreadable when their authorization servers go down. (As happened for anyone who purchased "silver" unlimited access to DIVX movies.) There is no practical way for a publisher to somehow lock down a book to make it impossible to, say, scan a page and reproduce it for commentary purposes.
I've copied most of Square Enix's request, but skipped over the most important part! Go re-read the article. At the very least, scan or search for "The following areas are embargoed until the corresponding dates:". The text below that is white-on-white to prevent spoilers, so in some web browsers you'll have to select the text to see it. The key point is that information about specific areas in the game is "embargoed" until a set of seven different dates, all of which are before the game's release. While much of the request is legit, the embargo list isn't about spoilers. This is about waiting so that Square Enix can announce it themselves (presumably on their web site). This is about yielding to Square Enix's marketing effort. That's the point where Square Enix crossed the line. Asking journalists to help them with their marketing is inappropriate.
Scalable text. You can change the font size of your text to suit your own reading comfort. (Format and DRM dependant.)
Making the text larger so I can more easily read it is DRM dependant!? Anyone suggesting "DRM will never get in your way unless you're a thief" needs to be kicked in nuts.
Lots of people are suggesting, "Hey, I drive safely while talking on my cell phone, why regulate me?" Great! You're fine. But what about the other people on the road? Let's be honest, there is a small but not insignificant number of absolute idiots of the road. You've seen them. They weave across lanes while arguing with someone in their backseat. They block through a red light while fiddling with the radio. A cell phone isn't as safe as arguing with someone in the car; the person in the car can at least shout "Stop!" when something goes wrong. A cell phone takes more attention and for longer than fiddling with a radio. Do you trust these idiots with phones? I sure as hell don't. So while I have absolute faith in your ability to talk and drive (And I trust you have just as much faith in me), how about we agree there are other idiots on the road we can't trust. And since they're behind the wheel of cars and can kill other people, maybe we need to regulate those idiotics to protect ourselves. This is hardly a civil right we're regulating; (almost) everyone still gets to drive, and everyone gets to use their cell phone, just not at the same time. We lose a minor freedom, but idiots who would abuse that freedom lose the legal right to put us at risk.
This is all about a group of whiny people who want to control what other people do. Punish people for what they do that actually harms others, not what could possibly harm others.
By that standard we should allow drunk driving. Hell, get rid of the whole licensing system: if you can afford a car feel free to drive!
Cars are dangerous. Misused, people die. If only the driver were putting himself at risk, I really wouldn't care. But your mistakes can put other people on the road at risk. So we regulate the heck out of driving. All in all the risk-to-benefit of drunk drivers wasn't good enough, so it was made illegal. Sure, some people can drive at 0.08 without risk, but some can't, and those who can't don't realize it. Same for speed limits; some people can drive faster safely, but how can you tell them apart from the people who think they can, but actually can't? Stopping them after they've had an accident and killed someone is too late, so we set speed limits that apply to evenyone.
Science is suggesting that the risk-to-benefit of calling on the road is risky, so we consider making it illegal. To be fair, this is something we should seriously consider, but at the moment the science isn't on your side. Sure, maybe you're able to safely drive on the phone. But lots of other people who think that are wrong. I'm perfectly happy to have you talking on the phone while you drive, but I'd rather those other idiots weren't because they might hit me!
If I'm getting more tense from the driving condition, I quickly tell the person I'll call them back and I pay attention. Driving doesn't always require 100% attention.
The problem is that you can't completely predict when you'll need that attention. The situation may see safe, then the driver ahead of suddenly breaks erratically. Maybe he has a seizure. The oncoming car's tire may blow out and swerve into your lane. While some accidents cannot be avoided, even by a perfect driver, there are some accidents that can be avoided if you're paying attention. Every bit you lower your attention increases the number of accidents you get into.
(This is, by the way, why your insurance company will raise your rates after you get into two accidents, even if the other guy is totally at fault. Statistically it suggests that you might not be paying enough attention and while the other guy may have made the mistake, you might have been able to compensate for it.)
Slashdot Mirror
I envy you the world you live in, it sounds so much better than the one I live in. In the one I live in, large organizations regularly hire consultants at $100+ an hour to write code; sometimes even ignoring in-house developers would could do the work cheaper. in the world I live in management frequently rewards people who save time and money by doing shoddy security and penalizes people who want to spend a few percent more to do pervasive, correct security.
Why did a cop taking a perfectly legal look at your car give you a lower opinion of them? Your car represented an anomaly, by your own admission it didn't fit the neighborhood. That's exactly the sort of situation that I want cops to take a quick surface look; if it's nothing (as in your case) they'll move on. But sometimes it is something worth investigating: a car full of toilet paper might indicate an imminant TPing of someone's hour. Piles of small valuables might mean he stumbled across a burglary.
Out of curiousity, which of the two companies is actively selling DRM encumbered video? I agree, HDMI is a terrible thing, another opportunity to charge people more in exchange for hardware that does less and in the process help stamp out fair use. But Apple's no more our friend in this than Microsoft.
It's not perfect, but it makes attacking a random account harder. That the password is emailed to a known address adds further security. It's probably not good enough to stop a dedicated attacker, but for something relatively unimportant (like a Slashdot login), it's Good Enough. For important things (say, your banking site) I would hope that emailing you your password isn't an option at all (it isn't for my bank).
You can improve your security marginally by making up a consistent fictional answer. Again, not suitable for important sites, but good enough for lightweight stuff.
Agreed! I spend most of my time on Linux. But I keep a dual-boot partitian so I can play games under Windows. I'm not expecting developers to support Linux for their game, but is it so hard to have your web site support me? As you say, letting me a description and some screenshots will increase me chances of taking the time to boot into Windows and give your game a try. Same goes for sites that demand cookies or flash to simply learn about their product.
Quoth the 1913 edition of Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary:
Unless you're at least 90 years old, no complaining that the word's meaning has drifted.
On the other hand, my local ShopKo's self-checkout system is a pathetic joke. It's painfully slow. It doesn't get any of the little details right. Every single time I used it I hit some problem that requires cashier intervention. End result: they're always empty.
Good systems are possible and it appears customers have no tolerance for bad systems. Things will eventually improve all round.
I trust you're a big fan of NetHack, because by that standard it is possibly the perfect game. *
Harder is not in and of itself better. As Zonk notes it's not that easy is better than hard, it's that too easy is better than too hard. "Too hard" means "I have no hope of finishing it," or maybe "I've got better things to do than replaying the same 5 minutes of game for the next month until I'm good enough to move on." That's not fun, it's just frustrating. At least with the too easy option I can see the story play out and look at the pretty graphics if I'm into it. Depending on the game, I may be able to add my own limitations that make the game harder ("No grabbing health packs," "Only use the pistol," "No building tanks.") If the game is too hard, I'm just done.
Of course, ideally the game is Just Right, hard enough that I feel challenged, but easy enough that I beat it before I get pissed off and give up. Of course how difficut that is varies from person to person, making it a tough balancing act.
(* NetHack is a brilliant game, but is because of the depth of gameplay, not because it's so brutal that it's self selected to a very small community.)
Between the trolls, complete loons, insane geological theories, loons engaging in revisionist history, bad biological science, and racists. Clearly because some parts of the internet are bad, the entire thing is totally worthless. But if you say this sort of thing, you get shouted down by people who've drunk Tim Berners-Lee's kool-aid. Clearly the logical course of action is to spend my time loudly complaining about how awful the Internet is, how anyone posting content to the web is wasting their time, and how only a web-cultist would claim that even though the web is flawed that there is any value to it.
Trust it about as much as you'd trust the internet as whole. Be realistic; if you're mildly curious about something new to you and you want a quick overview, don't you plug the term into Google and do some quick reading? The results could come from anywhere: hoaxers, someone with a strongly biased agenda, or someone who did bad research (including possibly using Wikipedia). And yet most of the time it's Good Enough. Wikipedia on average is better organized, better written, and more accurate than the internet as whole. If there is a dispute over the topic the entire revision history is transparent so you can see what sort of disagreements have gone on.
Add to this an increased focus in Wikipedia on citing sources. Wikipedia is still far behind where it should be, but progress is being made. As more and more citations are made it's easier for you to check the claims in Wikipedia and better use it as a starting point. (True, the cited works themselves may be flawed, but that's a problem all research has.)
They can broadcast whatever they like. In the case of passports, it's much of the information in your passport: name, gender, birthdate, nationality. Several countries are trying to get various forms of biometric information, especially your passport photo.
That's because there is no good reason for, say, an RFID door key reader to detect keys furthere away than a few inches. Any further and you risk someone loitering near the door accidentally letting a bad guy in.
If you're actively interested in reading RFID at a distance, the rules change. The theft detectors in stores are all RFID and some have ranges of 5 or so feet. At least one group has developed tech capable of reading RFID at 69-feet. (Sadly the 1, 2.) It's a big rig, but small enough to hide in the trunk of a large car.
It's broadcasting most of the information in your passport: name, date of birth, gender, nationality. The last one is perhaps the most important. Want to kill some Americans, but don't want to be nearby when it happens? Plant a bomb attached to an RFID reader. You don't need 69 feet of range, 10 or so will be plenty. When it detects 2 or more American passports nearby, explode. Looking for an American to kidnap? Future versions are likely going to be broadcasting a low-resolution version of your passport photo. Set up a scanner in your backpack and wander around.
Only because people raised concerns like this the passport design was modified with a shield in the front cover. If the passport is closed, in theory no data is broadcast. That reduces the exposure, which is good, but isn't perfect. If you're in a foreign country you need to display your passport occasionally: airports, checking into hotels, and the like. The window of exposure is smaller, but not zero.
Copyright law isn't about granting implied licenses. You have a fundamental right to buy a creative work (be it a book or a DVD) then read or watch it. You have the right to resell that particular work. Copyright law has nothing to do with those rights. Absent copyright law nothing would change; you would not need to apply for a license to do so. I no more need a license to read a book or watch a DVD than I do to use the new blender I just purchased.
Copyright law is about granting a monopoly on reproduction to creators of creative works. Absent copyright law you would be free to make and distribute copies, possibly after modifying them. (In the early days of the US copyright law didn't protect foreign authors so US based publishers frequently reprinted foreign works without breaking any laws.) Copyright law removes this freedom. To reproduce and distribute a work you then need a license. That license generally needs to be explicit, absent the license you have no right to reproduce, potentially modifiy, and distribute a work. (This is the basis for the GPL's enforcability.)
By accepting the incorrect "you need a license" argument you're playing into the hands of those who want ever more powerful intellectual property laws. Copyright in the US is more powerful than it has ever been; there is no reason to hand over additional power.
No. Absolutely wrong.
When you buy a copyright protected item, you own that particular thing. You need zero license to make standard use of that particular thing you purchased. Thus, the lack of EULAs on console games, works on DVDs, music on CDs, novels, and even the L.A. Times itself. The reason it's illegal to make and distribute copies isn't that you somehow agreed to some license. The reason is that copyright specifically denies you that right.
I'm sure that Art practices what he preaches. Indeed, I'm sure he's so "driven to make drugs that help patients fight cancer" that any day he'll announce that he's cutting his own $40,000,000 in compensation so that the company has more money to do that research. ($1.6M in 1999. $21M in 2004.)
And? When I buy a book I get a receipt of purchase from Barnes & Noble, not from O'Reilly and Associates.
The MSO is not a receipt of purchase. It's exactly what it claims to be, a statement of origin. "This car came directly from us." It's essentially a title to the vehicle.
When title in a car (or, say, a house) is transferred, the state wants to make sure that the previous title is gone. Otherwise two or more people could have titles and claim ownership. So to apply for title you typically need to turn in the old title. If you buy a car from me, I sign my title and give it to you. you go to the DMV and turn in my old title. The DMV issues you a new title.
Essentially the MSO is the original title for a vehicle. It gets sent to the state so the state is free to issue you the real title.
Your theory also fails if you get your auto loan from someone other than your auto dealer (as I did). In that case the dealer transferred the title to my credit union. At that point the MSO was gone and the credit union had a title. When I paid off the car they told the state (and turned in their title) and the state issued me a new title in my name.
If you have the title (in your name) to your car you own your car.
This will go down in practice about as well as attempts to not pay income tax. You'll get the occasional lucky people who manages to find a weird loophole or sloppy prosecutor, be most people trying this stunt will lose in court. Reasonable, non-discriminatory licensing of vehicles is no more infringing on your right to travel than licensing of broadcast airwaves infringes your right to free speech.
You are deeply mistaken. The GPL is not based on EULA law in any way, shape, or form. The GPL itself makes it clear: you do not need to agree to the GPL. "You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works." If you don't, you're under basic copyright law. You're still free to use GPL licensed software. You only need to be aware of an obey the GPL if you plan on distributing copies. Normally copyright law forbids that; the GPL grants you a license to do so provided you agree to some restrictions.
Among by friends who are fans of FPSs (and really don't care about online play), CoD2 is generally held to be among the best.
Exactly right. Just like switching from the imperial measurement system to metric made everyone less intelligent. Look at scientists who pretty much exclusively use metric: they've gone all soft-headed. A man who tracks his milage in rods per hogshead is a man getting his daily mental workout.
Well, that's part of the point isn't it? Video game journalism has incentives to cozy up to publishers, compromising the resulting reporting. Square Enix wouldn't have asked this if they didn't think at least some journalists would agree. What does it say about the state of video game journalism that a publisher believes it can ask journalists to stay silent about publically available information solely for marketing reasons? (Of coruse, this is hardly unique to the video game journalism; it's distressingly common in political journalism.)
The journalists are partialy to blame; they trade integrity for "exclusive preview" access and early copies so they can release a review simultaneously with the game's release. Readers enjoy the lion's share of the blame; they demand those previews and instant reviews while not caring about the cozy relationship between game publishers and the media. It is good for everyone to be regularly reminded of this cozy relationship.
The key is that a book is reliable. Properly cared for a book will last a long, long time. The author and publisher can't stop me from reading, lending out, giving away, or selling the book. If a publisher goes bankrupt, there is no risk that my paper books will suddenly become unreadable when their authorization servers go down. (As happened for anyone who purchased "silver" unlimited access to DIVX movies.) There is no practical way for a publisher to somehow lock down a book to make it impossible to, say, scan a page and reproduce it for commentary purposes.
True, books are a nuisance to copy or scan, but it's possible (as the small but vibrant illegal e-books scene shows).
Wow, I suck. "I've copied" should be "You've copied" refering to the grandparent poster. Kinda changes the entire message.
I've copied most of Square Enix's request, but skipped over the most important part! Go re-read the article. At the very least, scan or search for "The following areas are embargoed until the corresponding dates:". The text below that is white-on-white to prevent spoilers, so in some web browsers you'll have to select the text to see it. The key point is that information about specific areas in the game is "embargoed" until a set of seven different dates, all of which are before the game's release. While much of the request is legit, the embargo list isn't about spoilers. This is about waiting so that Square Enix can announce it themselves (presumably on their web site). This is about yielding to Square Enix's marketing effort. That's the point where Square Enix crossed the line. Asking journalists to help them with their marketing is inappropriate.
Making the text larger so I can more easily read it is DRM dependant!? Anyone suggesting "DRM will never get in your way unless you're a thief" needs to be kicked in nuts.
Lots of people are suggesting, "Hey, I drive safely while talking on my cell phone, why regulate me?" Great! You're fine. But what about the other people on the road? Let's be honest, there is a small but not insignificant number of absolute idiots of the road. You've seen them. They weave across lanes while arguing with someone in their backseat. They block through a red light while fiddling with the radio. A cell phone isn't as safe as arguing with someone in the car; the person in the car can at least shout "Stop!" when something goes wrong. A cell phone takes more attention and for longer than fiddling with a radio. Do you trust these idiots with phones? I sure as hell don't. So while I have absolute faith in your ability to talk and drive (And I trust you have just as much faith in me), how about we agree there are other idiots on the road we can't trust. And since they're behind the wheel of cars and can kill other people, maybe we need to regulate those idiotics to protect ourselves. This is hardly a civil right we're regulating; (almost) everyone still gets to drive, and everyone gets to use their cell phone, just not at the same time. We lose a minor freedom, but idiots who would abuse that freedom lose the legal right to put us at risk.
By that standard we should allow drunk driving. Hell, get rid of the whole licensing system: if you can afford a car feel free to drive!
Cars are dangerous. Misused, people die. If only the driver were putting himself at risk, I really wouldn't care. But your mistakes can put other people on the road at risk. So we regulate the heck out of driving. All in all the risk-to-benefit of drunk drivers wasn't good enough, so it was made illegal. Sure, some people can drive at 0.08 without risk, but some can't, and those who can't don't realize it. Same for speed limits; some people can drive faster safely, but how can you tell them apart from the people who think they can, but actually can't? Stopping them after they've had an accident and killed someone is too late, so we set speed limits that apply to evenyone. Science is suggesting that the risk-to-benefit of calling on the road is risky, so we consider making it illegal. To be fair, this is something we should seriously consider, but at the moment the science isn't on your side. Sure, maybe you're able to safely drive on the phone. But lots of other people who think that are wrong. I'm perfectly happy to have you talking on the phone while you drive, but I'd rather those other idiots weren't because they might hit me!
The problem is that you can't completely predict when you'll need that attention. The situation may see safe, then the driver ahead of suddenly breaks erratically. Maybe he has a seizure. The oncoming car's tire may blow out and swerve into your lane. While some accidents cannot be avoided, even by a perfect driver, there are some accidents that can be avoided if you're paying attention. Every bit you lower your attention increases the number of accidents you get into.
(This is, by the way, why your insurance company will raise your rates after you get into two accidents, even if the other guy is totally at fault. Statistically it suggests that you might not be paying enough attention and while the other guy may have made the mistake, you might have been able to compensate for it.)