So, you are arguing that incorrect and/wrong/ information is preferable to true and accurate information?
You're arguing that Wikipedia being factually inaccurate is a/strength/?
No wonder so many people view the place as a joke.
Traditional encyclopedias suffer from the same weakness. The editors of Encyclopedia Britannica can't rely on their personal experience when writing articles.
I'm talking about the resale rights. The right to resell copyrighted media, such as used books, CDs, and computer games, is well established in law. Modern DRM circumvents that right, since it prevents the user from transferring their used games to someone else. It's also anti-competitive, since it prevents legitimate competition (the used games stores).
That's what modern DRM is really about. It's inefficient against piracy, and it's not there just to fuck with the consumer, it's there to prevent competition from used games. Game producers have tried to sue used games stores, claiming they violate copyright just by buying and selling used games. They want a cut every time a used game is being sold. They claim they lose money for every game that's resold and how used games will kill single-player games,
Personally, I think the industry is biting itself in the ass. People sell their old games to get money to buy new ones, and the knowledge that you can sell your used game, makes it easier to shell out $40 for a new one.
DRM does not allow someone to "delete/alter" anything. It only "locks up" in the crypto sense, as DRM is basically crypto code. I dislike DRM, but will defend a software company's right to encrypt their software, and even allow them to require an Internet connection to "unlock/decrypt" that software so that it can be used. This is their choice, and in that respect, "buyer beware".
But if they do that, should they *also* be allowed to protect their games with copyright?
Copyright treats games, books and films as physical goods that can be sold and resold. Game companies want to keep their exclusive right to sell their game, but they want to get rid of the consumer's right to resell it. They do this by treating games as a service, not goods, when it suits them, so they can refuse to serve the second-hand buyers.
The problem is that if you try to boycott every game publisher or developer that does stupid things like this, you'll shortly end up boycotting almost every company.
Correct. But you can boycott the games you feel you can do without, and support the alternatives, such as benevolent companies and games based on free software.
Normal users have no idea what "root" is but they do know what Administrator is. It makes more sense to call malware that usurps Administrator privileges on Windows an Administrator kit rather than a root kit. Ask any disinterested party what makes more intuitive sense and they will almost always pick the latter.
I agree that root and Administrator are two different things, but calling it root access is technically correct.
A root kit is called that because it gains access at the kernel level, i.e, gains root access to the operating system. But the Windows Administrator account has *less* access than root. The Administrator can't bypass certain Windows security features, such as the inability to create files in another user's name.
The Administrator account on Windows doesn't quite have root access. Try, for example, to create a file in another user's name.
As root on ***X, you just create the file and change ownership. Done.
As Administrator on Windows, you have to create the file, give the other user permissions to take ownership of the file, then log in as that user and take ownership of the file.
On Windows machines, I think the closest equivalent to root is the SYSTEM account, not the Administrator account. The Administrator account is locked down for security reasons.
They're circumventing the consumer's legal rights and killing off the used games market. That may be perfectly legal, but loopholes in the law are meant to be closed.
Also, with Steam, you're screwed the day they shut down their servers, or decide a game is no longer profitable and drop support for it, or legal issues causes them to close their subscription service in your country, or...
With a physical copy, you don't have that problem.
I don't know about the Ubisoft rootkit, but Sony's rootkit was actually there to prevent the user from accessing the work, except in those ways Sony approved of. It prevented the user from playing the raw Audio CD, so they had to use the DRM:ed files on the Data portion of the CD instead.
That will just sink the whole company. You might as well set their building on fire.
Closing down the whole company may even be better than trying to run it with government-appointed leadership. If a company closes down, the buildings, equipment, workers and market share become available for anyone who wants to start a new company and fill the hole in the market. If the company survives, but is run inefficiently, it'll just tie up those resources.
But in any case, I agree that the fees need to be substantial.
I hate corporations as much as the next guy (especially working for them), but what would you suggest if a corporation screws up as badly as the individual who lost his summer cabin, children, dog, and job? Shut them down? Then all of their employees lose their jobs.
Ah, but dismantling a corporation doesn't mean all the factories are closed, their products are no longer sold, and all their employees are without a job. As long as the market is profitable, someone will buy most of the buildings and equipment and hire most of the workers, since there's a profit to be made by filling the void. The problems are mostly temporary.
It's different from when a firm goes bankrupt because the market is no longer profitable, like when the steel or automobile producers have to close because foreign companies can produce the same goods much cheaper.
I don't think the main complaint is about monitoring communications, it's about opening up users' machines to being remote controlled, and potentially infested by third-party malware.
My first thought was that if the Hobbit is worth 3 movies, why didn't he make 6 or more movies out of LotR?
Because it wasn't his call... someone has to finance the film. Normally, it's next to impossible to sell a trilogy where the story isn't finished until all three films are done. Jackson only pulled it off because it was Lord of The Rings. He may be able to pull it off with The Hobbit too, since he proved he could do it successfully with LoTR.
In other famous film series, like Star Wars or The Godfather, there's an overarching story that carries over from film to film, but each film can still stand on its own. Not so with LoTR -- it would have been thoroughly unsatisfying to watch the Fellowship break up at the end of the first film, and then find out the second and third film never got made.
Slashdot Mirror
So, you are arguing that incorrect and /wrong/ information is preferable to true and accurate information?
You're arguing that Wikipedia being factually inaccurate is a /strength/?
No wonder so many people view the place as a joke.
Traditional encyclopedias suffer from the same weakness. The editors of Encyclopedia Britannica can't rely on their personal experience when writing articles.
"sleep 100" won't do you much good. You need to do "for i=1 to 100 do null" ;=)
Gender is not just a linguistic term, it's also a sociological term. If society treats you as a (man|woman), then your gender is (male|female).
How about not worrying about every possible abnormality and just banning everybody except for XX and XY?
Still won't solve those cases where someone develops into the other sex due to abnormalities in individual genes.
So what? Gender is just a social construct anyway. :p
So, a human with XX chromosomes should compete against women even if they have male genitalia, muscle mass and look exactly like a man?
Wow, that's some heavy stuff. I'm an EQ2 player since many years (although not very active now), and I'll make sure to check this out.
Ironically, the web content filter here at work blocks the SoE forums for having potentially harmful content.
That only allows you to run a program with the same privileges you already have.
I'm talking about the resale rights. The right to resell copyrighted media, such as used books, CDs, and computer games, is well established in law. Modern DRM circumvents that right, since it prevents the user from transferring their used games to someone else. It's also anti-competitive, since it prevents legitimate competition (the used games stores).
That's what modern DRM is really about. It's inefficient against piracy, and it's not there just to fuck with the consumer, it's there to prevent competition from used games. Game producers have tried to sue used games stores, claiming they violate copyright just by buying and selling used games. They want a cut every time a used game is being sold. They claim they lose money for every game that's resold and how used games will kill single-player games,
Personally, I think the industry is biting itself in the ass. People sell their old games to get money to buy new ones, and the knowledge that you can sell your used game, makes it easier to shell out $40 for a new one.
DRM does not allow someone to "delete/alter" anything. It only "locks up" in the crypto sense, as DRM is basically crypto code. I dislike DRM, but will defend a software company's right to encrypt their software, and even allow them to require an Internet connection to "unlock/decrypt" that software so that it can be used. This is their choice, and in that respect, "buyer beware".
But if they do that, should they *also* be allowed to protect their games with copyright?
Copyright treats games, books and films as physical goods that can be sold and resold. Game companies want to keep their exclusive right to sell their game, but they want to get rid of the consumer's right to resell it. They do this by treating games as a service, not goods, when it suits them, so they can refuse to serve the second-hand buyers.
The problem is that if you try to boycott every game publisher or developer that does stupid things like this, you'll shortly end up boycotting almost every company.
Correct. But you can boycott the games you feel you can do without, and support the alternatives, such as benevolent companies and games based on free software.
Normal users have no idea what "root" is but they do know what Administrator is. It makes more sense to call malware that usurps Administrator privileges on Windows an Administrator kit rather than a root kit. Ask any disinterested party what makes more intuitive sense and they will almost always pick the latter.
I agree that root and Administrator are two different things, but calling it root access is technically correct.
A root kit is called that because it gains access at the kernel level, i.e, gains root access to the operating system. But the Windows Administrator account has *less* access than root. The Administrator can't bypass certain Windows security features, such as the inability to create files in another user's name.
The Administrator account on Windows doesn't quite have root access. Try, for example, to create a file in another user's name.
As root on ***X, you just create the file and change ownership. Done.
As Administrator on Windows, you have to create the file, give the other user permissions to take ownership of the file, then log in as that user and take ownership of the file.
On Windows machines, I think the closest equivalent to root is the SYSTEM account, not the Administrator account. The Administrator account is locked down for security reasons.
They're circumventing the consumer's legal rights and killing off the used games market. That may be perfectly legal, but loopholes in the law are meant to be closed.
I just buy the game, and then download the crack to make it usable. Doesn't everyone?
Also, with Steam, you're screwed the day they shut down their servers, or decide a game is no longer profitable and drop support for it, or legal issues causes them to close their subscription service in your country, or...
With a physical copy, you don't have that problem.
I don't know about the Ubisoft rootkit, but Sony's rootkit was actually there to prevent the user from accessing the work, except in those ways Sony approved of. It prevented the user from playing the raw Audio CD, so they had to use the DRM:ed files on the Data portion of the CD instead.
That will just sink the whole company. You might as well set their building on fire.
Closing down the whole company may even be better than trying to run it with government-appointed leadership. If a company closes down, the buildings, equipment, workers and market share become available for anyone who wants to start a new company and fill the hole in the market. If the company survives, but is run inefficiently, it'll just tie up those resources.
But in any case, I agree that the fees need to be substantial.
I hate corporations as much as the next guy (especially working for them), but what would you suggest if a corporation screws up as badly as the individual who lost his summer cabin, children, dog, and job? Shut them down? Then all of their employees lose their jobs.
Ah, but dismantling a corporation doesn't mean all the factories are closed, their products are no longer sold, and all their employees are without a job. As long as the market is profitable, someone will buy most of the buildings and equipment and hire most of the workers, since there's a profit to be made by filling the void. The problems are mostly temporary.
It's different from when a firm goes bankrupt because the market is no longer profitable, like when the steel or automobile producers have to close because foreign companies can produce the same goods much cheaper.
The Everquest 2 client includes an in-game web browser derived from Mozilla. Could that have any connection to the plug-in?
As noted elsewhere in the thread, it MAY be enforceable, depending on the circumstances.
I don't think the main complaint is about monitoring communications, it's about opening up users' machines to being remote controlled, and potentially infested by third-party malware.
Still, if you strike out clauses before you click "Ok", shouldn't that make those clauses "legally un-binding"?
In Sweden, the law explicitly states that if a part of a contract is found invalid, the rest of the contract is still legally binding.
My first thought was that if the Hobbit is worth 3 movies, why didn't he make 6 or more movies out of LotR?
Because it wasn't his call... someone has to finance the film. Normally, it's next to impossible to sell a trilogy where the story isn't finished until all three films are done. Jackson only pulled it off because it was Lord of The Rings. He may be able to pull it off with The Hobbit too, since he proved he could do it successfully with LoTR.
In other famous film series, like Star Wars or The Godfather, there's an overarching story that carries over from film to film, but each film can still stand on its own. Not so with LoTR -- it would have been thoroughly unsatisfying to watch the Fellowship break up at the end of the first film, and then find out the second and third film never got made.