realityimpaired (1668397), a rather appropriate name. Try reading your own link.
Q. What is considered sexual harassment?
Sexual harassment is unwelcome or unwanted sexual advances or requests for sexual favors. It can also be some kind of sexual action that is aimed at someone because of the person's sex.
It does list "Displays of pornographic materials" as one form that harassment can take, however it is clearly listed in the context of a deliberate display aimed at someone that you are harassing. It is not harassment when you merely view porn and some random person incidentally sees it.
Libraries absolutely need to filter this kind of content
Fuck no.
Librarians tend to have extremely strong views on the subject of censorship. The American Library Association actively promotes books that are targeted for censorship. Most librarians would happily stock Playboy magazine if it didn't cut into their budget for buying other materials.
Library policies and procedures that effectively deny minors equal and equitable access to all library resources and services available to other users violate the Library Bill of Rights. The American Library Association opposes all attempts to restrict access to library services, materials, and facilities based on the age of library users.
Article V of the Library Bill of Rights states, "A person's right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views." The "right to use a library" includes free access to, and unrestricted use of, all the services, materials, and facilities the library has to offer. Every restriction on access to, and use of, library resources, based solely on the chronological age, educational level, literacy skills, or legal emancipation of users violates Article V. [] Libraries should not limit the selection and development of library resources simply because minors will have access to them. Institutional self-censorship diminishes the credibility of the library in the community, and restricts access for all library users.
Children and young adults unquestionably possess First Amendment rights, including the right to receive information through the library in print, nonprint, or digital format. Constitutionally protected speech cannot be suppressed solely to protect children or young adults from ideas or images a legislative body believes to be unsuitable for them. Librarians and library governing bodies should not resort to age restrictions in an effort to avoid actual or anticipated objections, because only a court of law can determine whether material is not constitutionally protected.
The mission, goals, and objectives of libraries cannot authorize librarians or library governing bodies to assume, abrogate, or overrule the rights and responsibilities of parents and guardians. As Libraries: An American Value states, "We affirm the responsibility and the right of all parents and guardians to guide their own children's use of the library and its resources and services." Librarians and library governing bodies cannot assume the role of parents or the functions of parental authority in the private relationship between parent and child. Librarians and governing bodies should maintain that only parents and guardians have the right and the responsibility to determine their children's - and only their children's - access to library resources. Parents and guardians who do not want their children to have access to specific library services, materials, or facilities should so advise their children.
Lack of access to information can be harmful to minors.
Don't most libraries already enforce age restriction and segregation
Hell no, not any library I've ever seen.
Sure most libraries have a children's section and an "adult" section, but when I was in elementary school the children's section got too damn boring after about a half hour. I spent all my time in the very same section of the library that holds the Marquis de Sade books. Several times I went to the librarian requesting assistance finding stuff from the adult section. I took out lots of books, and probably every single one came from the adult section.
Never once did any any librarian tell me I wasn't supposed to be there. They were all extremely helpful.
As long as a kid isn't running and screaming, any good librarian is pleased to see a young person with the interest and ability to utilize the adult section. I dunno, maybe your community library was different. Did you grow up in some repressive fundie backwater?
As others have noted, the laws against murder and theft do not come from Christianity.
If you want something that comes from Christianity, you'd have to turn to something like the First Commandment. You know, the one where God states "I am a Jealous God" and proceeds to show himself to be a vindictive fucker by promising to "visit[] the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation".
Not only does the US *not* have any law based on the first commandment, any such law would be unconstitutional.
So yes indeed, keep your tired old religions out of our law books! Hell, keep any shiny new religions out of our law books too! Those Scientologist stories about UFO's are almost as silly as Christian stories about walking talking snakes and magical fruit.
(Tell me if I'm wrong, but from my side of the Pond, it seems that in the USA an author has no right to complain about the use of his works as long as he's got properly paid).
Maybe I'm nitpicking your wording, but someone cannot merely throw money at an unwilling copyright holder and do as they please with the work.
In general when a copyright holder agrees to payment for a license or sale then the terms are set at at that time. There is no "moral right" for a copyright holder to later renege on a properly agreed license or sale. If you license your music to a convention hall, and you don't want it played during a hated-political-party's convention, then you need to mention that in the original contract.
Copyright holders also receive no rights at all regarding Fair Use of a work. Fair Use is a complicated subject, but it largely covers "purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research", partial quotations and many kinds of personal use such as using a VCR to time-shift a TV show. All rights to such activities are completely retained by the public.
It is not like this issue is something covered on Fox and MSNBC and CNN.
Actually I did see CNN run a segment on SOPA. I wish I had a tape of it to give a better evaluation of the segment, but I'll give the basic impression I had from it. It seemed rather slanted to me. They spend most of the segment talking about how SOPA was a law to protect American jobs against teh evilz international criminals, mentioned that there was controversy over the bill between the Big Media companies and the Big Internet companies, and they wrapped up the segment with a rather weak comment against the bill by one of the opponents.
It seems like 90% of the people who learn about SOPA online come to the conclusion that it's a seriously bad law. My guess is that most people who saw the segment on CNN would have considered the controversy pretty boring and trivial, and probably gotten the impression that the bill was pretty much neutral or perhaps beneficial.
I doubt that 20+ year-old works make up a significant chunk of online piracy.
I'd lay you 10-to-1 odds that the the percentage of 20+ year old works would go up sharply, and the percentage of under 20 year old works would go down sharply, if we were to drop the copyright term to 20 years.
That would include countless albums such as Nirvana's Nevermind and countless movies such as Batman Returns. Click to view a small fraction of other music and movies that people would fileshare massively, legally, and safely.
And not only could all of that be fileshared legally and safely, but all of it would be open for massive commercial revitalization of re-releases and compilations and derivative works. Virtually every Disney movie ever made was based upon an some public domain story. Just imagine all of the new music and movies and books and TV shows and more would flourish based upon unlocking the treasure chest of 20 year old culture.
When it's a case of a GPL violation, the violators who feel entitled to the free labor of strangers are childish and entitled. But in an article on the Pirate Bay, suddenly it's all about demonizing the evil RIAA and MPAA, and piracy is just a cultural revolution that sticks it to the evil corporations--the artists who aren't getting paid don't even enter into the discussion, probably because of the guilty feelings it would inspire to be reminded of the reality of the situation.
First lets note that I myself am a programmer, and in fact I am a copyright holder on GPL code.
I have no "guilty feelings" stating that my GPL code has no need of a 20 year retroactive copyright extension. So how about we start with some reasonable copyright law repealing the Sonny Bono copyright extensions act.
I have no "guilty feelings" suggesting reasonable copyright law to repeal some or all of the other copyright extensions, potentially all the way back to the original 14+14 year US copyright term. I am more than happy to have my copyrighted GPL code, and all GPL code, return to the public domain after no more than 28 years.
I have no "guilty feelings" suggesting that non-commercial infringement of my GPL code should be a civil offense with fines, not a criminal offense, and therefore propose reasonable copyright law to repeal the No Electronic Theft Act which criminalized non-commercial infringement.
Hell, I'm not even certain that commercial infringement should go beyond a civil case with cash damages, so I suggest a review to consider reducing or eliminating the criminal infringement sections 506/2319.
I most certainly do not feel any "guilty feelings" stating that people should not be imprisoned for decrypting my copyrighted code, most especially when they have not committed any infringement of my code. So I suggest reasonable copyright law to either eliminate DMCA anti-circumvention section 1201, or at a minimum amending it to state that there is no criminal offense if the person is cot committing infringement, and amending it to clarify that the trafficking provisions do not apply to legitimate products which satisfying the Sony-Betamax standard of non-infringing purpose.
I'm sure with a little thought I could continue with additional copyright law changes that should be made to properly and reasonably defend MY copyright on my GPL code, but that list should constitute a pretty good start.
The point being that there probably should be an attempt made to hinder online piracy in some way.
Once we start passing some copyright law that has at least some remote resemblance of sanity, I will be more than happy to consider and cooperate on additional reasonable modifications of copyright law.
I'm probably risking a lot of downmods here--if there's anything Slashdot seems to dislike more than comments about Slashdot, it's comments that are anti-piracy.
No, not many people object to anti-piracy comments. But what a great many of us object to are people who defend butt-fuck insane draconian expansions of copyright law on a threadbare excuse that the Noble Ends justify Any and All Means. No, having the US government go on a crusade of international censorship, and doing so with total disregard for the question of whether any infringement exists at all, is Not AGood Idea.
SOPA and PIPA are absurdly BAD laws. Just because the motivation for them is to reduce infringement does not justify passing bad and destructive laws.
It should be pretty easy to create such a list. Simply project the plane of orbit out across the sky. If my math is right, there should be about 0.54 degree range for another star to see the Earth transit the sun. However that goes up to about a 1.4 degree range if they take interest after seeing a Mercury transit.
Lets not forget the part of the law that makes infringement a FELONY eligible for serious prison time.
Actually it was the No Electronic Theft Act in 1997 that made most infringement on the internet into a felony with a sentence of up to 1, 3, or even 5 years if you have a hundred-odd music file collection, or even 10 years on a second offense.
The new bill would "merely" make a small amendment somewhat expanding the application of the criminal-copyright law.
Make the minimum penalty for copyright infringement 2 years jail, and make it a criminal offence
While the minimum penalty for infringement is merely big fines, most copyright infringement is already a criminal offense. For example effectively any P2P copyright infringement is already a felony with up to 1, 3, 5, or even 10 years in prison depending on circumstances. That's right, a FIVE YEAR felony for of having a modest sized music library on P2P, and a TEN YEAR felony for a second offense of having a modest sized music library on P2P. A rather substantial percentage of the united states population, several tens of millions of people, are already technical subject to several years in federal prison for criminal copyright infringement. The fact that the law is rarely enforced does not alter the fact that the law exists, and does not alter the fact that several tens of millions of people are legally guilty and legally subject to several years in prison but merely "not yet charged" for the crime.
Lets forget the fact that several legislators themselves would be imprisoned. Lets forget the fact that the MAJORITY of legislators would be seeing one or more of their own kids imprisoned. Lets forget the fact that we'd need to build something like twenty times as many prisons as exist now. Lets forget the fact that the US economy would instantly collapse if you attempted to imprison such a large percentage of the population. If copyright law were actually and fully enforced, the population of the United States would overthrow the entire US government in under 48 hours. When you factor in the outraged friends and families of the copyright-felons, you'd have over two hundred million people ready to burn down every congressional office for the utter STUPIDITY of attempting to imprison several tens of millions of ordinary people for several years merely because they used P2P.
They don't consider it broken, so they won't be 'fixing' it.
Yeah, that's pretty much what I expect.
And what they can expect is: (1) this issue to continue to dominate any internet discussion even remotely related to Diablo III. (2) someone else will almost certainly fix it, and when they do I will buy a copy from them. They deserve to get paid for their valuable work fixing the game, but they'll probably charge zero. Oh well. Bummer.
I guess we won't be seeing you in Sanctuary then, because D3 requires an always on net connection.
Right. I bought Diablo I and Diablo II. There is no chance in hell I'm buying this deliberately crippled crap until it's fixed.
This has been debated here and other forums previously.
You, and Blizzard, can expect this issue to continue to dominate any internet discussion even remotely related to Diablo III, up until the point that Blizzard fixes it.
This move is primarily (according to Bliz) to stop the hacking and loot dupping that was rife in D2.
You know what's worse than a company that lies? A company that insults our intelligence with stupid blatant lies. If someone is playing single player then who the fuck would care if they're hacking or loot duping?
If they want to store online-character data server side to avoid duping and whatnot, sure. Just keep the same old offline single-player mode with the locally saved character data. If they want to get fancy they could add an the ability to download your online character for offline use, simply make it one-way with no possibility to upload anything back to the online multiplayer universe.
But enough of us will buy it that it won't matter to them.
In case anyone at Blizzard or any other game company reads Slashdot, I'll add my voice here.
I bought Diablo. I bought Diablo II. I have towering stacks of other purchased games. I've had to throw out most of the boxes, just the naked CD cases stack a few feet tall.
I am pissed off at the crapfest DRM that has been getting shoveled onto games. I am pissed off at games being deliberately crippled.
No. I'm done with deliberately crippled crap.
Under no circumstances am I going to be buying Diablo III so long as it has no offline single player and other DRM crap. I don't care if every review touts Diablo III as Must-Have-Game-Of-The-Century. I just don't fucking care. I'm sick of DRM-crippled crap. I won't pay fucking ninety nine cents for it from a bargain bin.
Sooner or later someone, whether Blizzard or someone else, will produce a version with a properly function offline mode, with the DRM crap stripped off, and probably with a properly functioning LAN mode to boot. Assuming Diablo III is at least half as good as Diablo II was, then I'll buy that version. I'll buy it from Blizzard, or I'll buy it from whoever else does the work needed to repair the game. And if it's someone other than Blizzard who repairs the game, and if they insist on a price of zero, oh well. Somehow I'll manage to survive the sacrifice of having to pay that price.
Too bad there's usually no way to pay the people who do the valuable work fixing Defective games.
Slashdot Mirror
realityimpaired (1668397), a rather appropriate name. Try reading your own link.
Q. What is considered sexual harassment?
Sexual harassment is unwelcome or unwanted sexual advances or requests for sexual favors. It can also be some kind of sexual action that is aimed at someone because of the person's sex.
It does list "Displays of pornographic materials" as one form that harassment can take, however it is clearly listed in the context of a deliberate display aimed at someone that you are harassing. It is not harassment when you merely view porn and some random person incidentally sees it.
-
censorship arguments are ludicrous
Fuck you.
Libraries absolutely need to filter this kind of content
Fuck no.
Librarians tend to have extremely strong views on the subject of censorship. The American Library Association actively promotes books that are targeted for censorship. Most librarians would happily stock Playboy magazine if it didn't cut into their budget for buying other materials.
How about I quote the American Library Association:
Library policies and procedures that effectively deny minors equal and equitable access to all library resources and services available to other users violate the Library Bill of Rights. The American Library Association opposes all attempts to restrict access to library services, materials, and facilities based on the age of library users.
Article V of the Library Bill of Rights states, "A person's right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views." The "right to use a library" includes free access to, and unrestricted use of, all the services, materials, and facilities the library has to offer. Every restriction on access to, and use of, library resources, based solely on the chronological age, educational level, literacy skills, or legal emancipation of users violates Article V.
[]
Libraries should not limit the selection and development of library resources simply because minors will have access to them. Institutional self-censorship diminishes the credibility of the library in the community, and restricts access for all library users.
Children and young adults unquestionably possess First Amendment rights, including the right to receive information through the library in print, nonprint, or digital format. Constitutionally protected speech cannot be suppressed solely to protect children or young adults from ideas or images a legislative body believes to be unsuitable for them. Librarians and library governing bodies should not resort to age restrictions in an effort to avoid actual or anticipated objections, because only a court of law can determine whether material is not constitutionally protected.
The mission, goals, and objectives of libraries cannot authorize librarians or library governing bodies to assume, abrogate, or overrule the rights and responsibilities of parents and guardians. As Libraries: An American Value states, "We affirm the responsibility and the right of all parents and guardians to guide their own children's use of the library and its resources and services." Librarians and library governing bodies cannot assume the role of parents or the functions of parental authority in the private relationship between parent and child. Librarians and governing bodies should maintain that only parents and guardians have the right and the responsibility to determine their children's - and only their children's - access to library resources. Parents and guardians who do not want their children to have access to specific library services, materials, or facilities should so advise their children.
Lack of access to information can be harmful to minors.
-
Don't most libraries already enforce age restriction and segregation
Hell no, not any library I've ever seen.
Sure most libraries have a children's section and an "adult" section, but when I was in elementary school the children's section got too damn boring after about a half hour. I spent all my time in the very same section of the library that holds the Marquis de Sade books. Several times I went to the librarian requesting assistance finding stuff from the adult section. I took out lots of books, and probably every single one came from the adult section.
Never once did any any librarian tell me I wasn't supposed to be there. They were all extremely helpful.
As long as a kid isn't running and screaming, any good librarian is pleased to see a young person with the interest and ability to utilize the adult section. I dunno, maybe your community library was different. Did you grow up in some repressive fundie backwater?
-
Atheism is a religion just like off is a TV channel.
-
As others have noted, the laws against murder and theft do not come from Christianity.
If you want something that comes from Christianity, you'd have to turn to something like the First Commandment. You know, the one where God states "I am a Jealous God" and proceeds to show himself to be a vindictive fucker by promising to "visit[] the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation".
Not only does the US *not* have any law based on the first commandment, any such law would be unconstitutional.
So yes indeed, keep your tired old religions out of our law books!
Hell, keep any shiny new religions out of our law books too! Those Scientologist stories about UFO's are almost as silly as Christian stories about walking talking snakes and magical fruit.
-
Those Micro$oft bastards are trying to abuse their operating system monopoly to gain monopoly control over....
uhhh... marriage? Waitaminiute...
Google tries their best not to be Evil.
Microsoft tries their best to be Evil.
I guess it's true what they say. Nobody's perfect.
-
That shouldn't come as any surprise. The House and Senate have been blowing media executives for decades.
-
it'll just resurface in 2012 attached to the back of the "True Patriotic Americans against Pedophiles and Terrorists" bill.
TPAPT?
I doubt many congress critters even know what a palindrome is, and even fewer who can pronounce what appears to be Vulcan language.
.
Bing??
It's a tough call, but I think I'd rather use a SOPAized Google.
-
(Tell me if I'm wrong, but from my side of the Pond, it seems that in the USA an author has no right to complain about the use of his works as long as he's got properly paid).
Maybe I'm nitpicking your wording, but someone cannot merely throw money at an unwilling copyright holder and do as they please with the work.
In general when a copyright holder agrees to payment for a license or sale then the terms are set at at that time. There is no "moral right" for a copyright holder to later renege on a properly agreed license or sale. If you license your music to a convention hall, and you don't want it played during a hated-political-party's convention, then you need to mention that in the original contract.
Copyright holders also receive no rights at all regarding Fair Use of a work. Fair Use is a complicated subject, but it largely covers "purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research", partial quotations and many kinds of personal use such as using a VCR to time-shift a TV show. All rights to such activities are completely retained by the public.
-
You mean Iraqi-aki-aki-aki-stan-stan?
P.S.
I love how Herman Cain still picked up over 200 primary votes. lolz
-
It is not like this issue is something covered on Fox and MSNBC and CNN.
Actually I did see CNN run a segment on SOPA. I wish I had a tape of it to give a better evaluation of the segment, but I'll give the basic impression I had from it. It seemed rather slanted to me. They spend most of the segment talking about how SOPA was a law to protect American jobs against teh evilz international criminals, mentioned that there was controversy over the bill between the Big Media companies and the Big Internet companies, and they wrapped up the segment with a rather weak comment against the bill by one of the opponents.
It seems like 90% of the people who learn about SOPA online come to the conclusion that it's a seriously bad law. My guess is that most people who saw the segment on CNN would have considered the controversy pretty boring and trivial, and probably gotten the impression that the bill was pretty much neutral or perhaps beneficial.
-
This isn't just law and order.
Speaking of Law & Order, under a twenty year copyright term the first three seasons would be public domain right now.
1992_in_American_television
-
I doubt that 20+ year-old works make up a significant chunk of online piracy.
I'd lay you 10-to-1 odds that the the percentage of 20+ year old works would go up sharply, and the percentage of under 20 year old works would go down sharply, if we were to drop the copyright term to 20 years.
That would include countless albums such as Nirvana's Nevermind and countless movies such as Batman Returns. Click to view a small fraction of other music and movies that people would fileshare massively, legally, and safely.
And not only could all of that be fileshared legally and safely, but all of it would be open for massive commercial revitalization of re-releases and compilations and derivative works. Virtually every Disney movie ever made was based upon an some public domain story. Just imagine all of the new music and movies and books and TV shows and more would flourish based upon unlocking the treasure chest of 20 year old culture.
-
When it's a case of a GPL violation, the violators who feel entitled to the free labor of strangers are childish and entitled. But in an article on the Pirate Bay, suddenly it's all about demonizing the evil RIAA and MPAA, and piracy is just a cultural revolution that sticks it to the evil corporations--the artists who aren't getting paid don't even enter into the discussion, probably because of the guilty feelings it would inspire to be reminded of the reality of the situation.
First lets note that I myself am a programmer, and in fact I am a copyright holder on GPL code.
I have no "guilty feelings" stating that my GPL code has no need of a 20 year retroactive copyright extension. So how about we start with some reasonable copyright law repealing the Sonny Bono copyright extensions act.
I have no "guilty feelings" suggesting reasonable copyright law to repeal some or all of the other copyright extensions, potentially all the way back to the original 14+14 year US copyright term. I am more than happy to have my copyrighted GPL code, and all GPL code, return to the public domain after no more than 28 years.
I have no "guilty feelings" suggesting that non-commercial infringement of my GPL code should be a civil offense with fines, not a criminal offense, and therefore propose reasonable copyright law to repeal the No Electronic Theft Act which criminalized non-commercial infringement.
Hell, I'm not even certain that commercial infringement should go beyond a civil case with cash damages, so I suggest a review to consider reducing or eliminating the criminal infringement sections 506/2319.
I most certainly do not feel any "guilty feelings" stating that people should not be imprisoned for decrypting my copyrighted code, most especially when they have not committed any infringement of my code. So I suggest reasonable copyright law to either eliminate DMCA anti-circumvention section 1201, or at a minimum amending it to state that there is no criminal offense if the person is cot committing infringement, and amending it to clarify that the trafficking provisions do not apply to legitimate products which satisfying the Sony-Betamax standard of non-infringing purpose.
I'm sure with a little thought I could continue with additional copyright law changes that should be made to properly and reasonably defend MY copyright on my GPL code, but that list should constitute a pretty good start.
The point being that there probably should be an attempt made to hinder online piracy in some way.
Once we start passing some copyright law that has at least some remote resemblance of sanity, I will be more than happy to consider and cooperate on additional reasonable modifications of copyright law.
I'm probably risking a lot of downmods here--if there's anything Slashdot seems to dislike more than comments about Slashdot, it's comments that are anti-piracy.
No, not many people object to anti-piracy comments. But what a great many of us object to are people who defend butt-fuck insane draconian expansions of copyright law on a threadbare excuse that the Noble Ends justify Any and All Means. No, having the US government go on a crusade of international censorship, and doing so with total disregard for the question of whether any infringement exists at all, is Not A Good Idea.
SOPA and PIPA are absurdly BAD laws. Just because the motivation for them is to reduce infringement does not justify passing bad and destructive laws.
-
It should be pretty easy to create such a list. Simply project the plane of orbit out across the sky.
If my math is right, there should be about 0.54 degree range for another star to see the Earth transit the sun. However that goes up to about a 1.4 degree range if they take interest after seeing a Mercury transit.
-
Lets not forget the part of the law that makes infringement a FELONY eligible for serious prison time.
Actually it was the No Electronic Theft Act in 1997 that made most infringement on the internet into a felony with a sentence of up to 1, 3, or even 5 years if you have a hundred-odd music file collection, or even 10 years on a second offense.
The new bill would "merely" make a small amendment somewhat expanding the application of the criminal-copyright law.
-
How much closer to the source do you want?
I won't believe it until I get to read it in the original Klingon.
-
Make the minimum penalty for copyright infringement 2 years jail, and make it a criminal offence
While the minimum penalty for infringement is merely big fines, most copyright infringement is already a criminal offense. For example effectively any P2P copyright infringement is already a felony with up to 1, 3, 5, or even 10 years in prison depending on circumstances. That's right, a FIVE YEAR felony for of having a modest sized music library on P2P, and a TEN YEAR felony for a second offense of having a modest sized music library on P2P. A rather substantial percentage of the united states population, several tens of millions of people, are already technical subject to several years in federal prison for criminal copyright infringement. The fact that the law is rarely enforced does not alter the fact that the law exists, and does not alter the fact that several tens of millions of people are legally guilty and legally subject to several years in prison but merely "not yet charged" for the crime.
Lets forget the fact that several legislators themselves would be imprisoned. Lets forget the fact that the MAJORITY of legislators would be seeing one or more of their own kids imprisoned. Lets forget the fact that we'd need to build something like twenty times as many prisons as exist now. Lets forget the fact that the US economy would instantly collapse if you attempted to imprison such a large percentage of the population. If copyright law were actually and fully enforced, the population of the United States would overthrow the entire US government in under 48 hours. When you factor in the outraged friends and families of the copyright-felons, you'd have over two hundred million people ready to burn down every congressional office for the utter STUPIDITY of attempting to imprison several tens of millions of ordinary people for several years merely because they used P2P.
-
Maybe he should stop leaving his wallet unattended on his yacht.
-
They don't consider it broken, so they won't be 'fixing' it.
Yeah, that's pretty much what I expect.
And what they can expect is:
(1) this issue to continue to dominate any internet discussion even remotely related to Diablo III.
(2) someone else will almost certainly fix it, and when they do I will buy a copy from them. They deserve to get paid for their valuable work fixing the game, but they'll probably charge zero. Oh well. Bummer.
-
But does it blend?
I bet that video will have a more entertaining result.
-
I guess we won't be seeing you in Sanctuary then, because D3 requires an always on net connection.
Right. I bought Diablo I and Diablo II. There is no chance in hell I'm buying this deliberately crippled crap until it's fixed.
This has been debated here and other forums previously.
You, and Blizzard, can expect this issue to continue to dominate any internet discussion even remotely related to Diablo III, up until the point that Blizzard fixes it.
This move is primarily (according to Bliz) to stop the hacking and loot dupping that was rife in D2.
You know what's worse than a company that lies?
A company that insults our intelligence with stupid blatant lies.
If someone is playing single player then who the fuck would care if they're hacking or loot duping?
If they want to store online-character data server side to avoid duping and whatnot, sure. Just keep the same old offline single-player mode with the locally saved character data. If they want to get fancy they could add an the ability to download your online character for offline use, simply make it one-way with no possibility to upload anything back to the online multiplayer universe.
-
But enough of us will buy it that it won't matter to them.
In case anyone at Blizzard or any other game company reads Slashdot, I'll add my voice here.
I bought Diablo.
I bought Diablo II.
I have towering stacks of other purchased games.
I've had to throw out most of the boxes, just the naked CD cases stack a few feet tall.
I am pissed off at the crapfest DRM that has been getting shoveled onto games. I am pissed off at games being deliberately crippled.
No. I'm done with deliberately crippled crap.
Under no circumstances am I going to be buying Diablo III so long as it has no offline single player and other DRM crap. I don't care if every review touts Diablo III as Must-Have-Game-Of-The-Century. I just don't fucking care. I'm sick of DRM-crippled crap. I won't pay fucking ninety nine cents for it from a bargain bin.
Sooner or later someone, whether Blizzard or someone else, will produce a version with a properly function offline mode, with the DRM crap stripped off, and probably with a properly functioning LAN mode to boot. Assuming Diablo III is at least half as good as Diablo II was, then I'll buy that version. I'll buy it from Blizzard, or I'll buy it from whoever else does the work needed to repair the game. And if it's someone other than Blizzard who repairs the game, and if they insist on a price of zero, oh well. Somehow I'll manage to survive the sacrifice of having to pay that price.
Too bad there's usually no way to pay the people who do the valuable work fixing Defective games.
-
pressurise the moron
After we pressurise him, can we abruptly remove the pressure and watch him expand in a bubbling frothing mess?
-