I ask you to please present evidence that Cydoor is currently involved in spying on its users. The very URL you gave states this:
"Cydoor has cleaned up its act considerably since previous versions of its software. Previous versions left it up to the host application's vendor to disclose (or not) that Cydoor ad components were being installed, leading to a finger-pointing loop in cases where the software was not disclosed. Additionally, previous versions used a GUID to track individual users across multiple sessions. This has been removed from the current version, as verified by our tests and information on the Cydoor website. Cydoor's components now come with an uninstall feature that was not present in earlier versions."
Sometimes, people are too eager to claim that something is spyware, when this is in fact rumours. So does anyone have any definite information on whether or not Cydoor currently distributes spyware?
Have a look in the Grokster (grokster.com) forums, where their support people explain that Cydoor is in fact not spyware.
"What they have not shown is that they have control over what files are being transfered over the network."
If that is the case, how can it be that they were able to limit the max bitrate of MP3s to 128?
(Of course, this can be changed by editing your registry, but still, it shows that it is easy to block most users from whatever they would want to block them from.)
The protocol switch wasn't intentional. It was forced. Some say that it was intentional by Kazaa to force users to abandon Morpheus and use Kazaa instead, so they could cash in on the ads (and spyware). Accidentally, Kazaa and the FastTrack network are now owned by a company which produces ad solutions.
Strangely enough, the only thing Kazaa/FastTrack has to say about this is "welcome, Morpheus users". They sure know how to feast off of companies in trouble. And seeing as it is possible that Kazaa caused this, their actions are even more despicable.
The truth will surface at some point. I have a hard time believing that a company can be this corrupt, but then again, anything is possible, and Kazaa aren't exactly the company with the highest moral standards out there.
> If this page [infoanarchy.org] is at all correct,
> MusicCity are lying through their teeth.
Excuse me, but that article doesn't say anything about MusicCity lying. It just says that Morpheus users were blocked from the FastTrack network. Nothing about why.
It looks like there is a bit of confusion about who is to blame here, but considering this article, I am starting to lean over towards those who blame Kazaa for the whole thing:
"Zeropaid Rumor: Morpheus is Under Attack":
"Sharman Networks, located in Australia, purchased Kazaa/FastTrack in January of 2002. Who is Sharman and why would they buy a company that is under major legal scrutiny?
Sharmannetworks.com is registered by a guy named Phil Morle (he is out of Australia). The domain was registered about 1 month ago. He has his own website morle.com.. Within that website he proudly links to an article in a Sydney newspaper.. creations.morle.com He is interviewed and listed as a Senior web developer for Brilliant Digital Entertainment."
BDE is actually an ad company, and they apparently own Kazaa/FastTrack?
I have yet to see anyone argue that MusicCity is at fault here, and actually have any evidence of it being so - be it hard facts or speculation based on other facts.
It looks more like BDE (Kazaa/FastTrack) is trying to make more users use their software so they can cash in on the ads. Just look at kazaa.com:
"morpheus users
come on over to our place...
you'll feel quite at home."
This is a very strange thing to do. It almost looks like Kazaa planned all this and tried to ruin MusicCity, in order to get more users over to Kazaa.
I am usually one to laugh at conspiracy theories, but if you look at all the facts, a picture starts emerging: Look at how Kazaa does business. Look at how they infest your PC with spyware and install things like the "BDE player" without your consent. Look at how Kazaa is in reality owned by a company which sells ads. Look at how they smugly try to make users drop Morpheus to use Kazaa instead.
The situation is chaotic, but to me, it looks like Kazaa have tried to pull several filthy tricks, and I don't think they should get away with it.
Mario and Link aren't Nintendo's only strong cards. What about Samus Aran (Metroid) and the whole Pokemon craze?
Not to mention Donkey Kong, Perfect Dark and other gems by Rareware in the UK. Like Fox McCloud of Starfox (Starwing) fame?
And seriously, who else could create novel games like Pikmin and pull it off in style, the way Nintendo did?
Granted, the N64 was not the great success it could have been. But if they don't always deliver the hardware, they at least deliver the games. You may not like them personally, but they are incredibly popular. Note that I've mostly mentioned specific characters above. Nintendo also have great games without any particularly known character in the "lead role", such as Wave Race, as well.
In any case, claiming that Nintendo relies on a couple of games/characters is just plain wrong.
On another (on-topic) note: Sega and Nintendo teaming up is a dream come true. The two companies would be able to grab large parts of the video game market if they put their creative brains together. Well, at least they are cooperating on this project. It would be great if Sega and Nintendo joined forces in the consumer market, and gave Sony and Microsoft some real competition. However, the GameCube is far from dead! It must be considered to be a great success.
"No, it's QuickTime that renders PNG transparency poorly; IE6's support works perfectly fine."
I must disagree with you here, based on my own experiences.
I happen to have a squeaky clean installation of Windows XP here (updated through Windows Update, but I doubt it installs QuickTime automatically just like that), and decided to test Internet Explorer 6's PNG alpha transparency handling. This page should make a good test:
The results are as follows (if I counted correctly):
IE6 - 2 of 20 right
Mozilla 0.9.7 - 20 of 20 right
Opera 6 - 20 of 20 right
I have no additional plugins installed, and this is a clean installation of Windows XP, with all upgrades from Windows Update applied. It is clear that something is not right with IE's handling of these images.
Could you please point us in the direction of information which will show that IE does in fact have better support for PNG alpha transparency than this test would indicate?
"Me, I think Jon is a talentless semi-cracker that bragged about his efforts (He said first that he did the cracking, but later said the code was from a German guy and he only did the GUI and decrypting."
Is that really the case? Do you have anything to back up this claim?
As someone pointed out, LinuxWorld had an interview in February 2000 (I believe), where Jon was quoted as saying:
"the encryption code wasn't in fact written by me, but written by the German member"
Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten also reports that:
"In hacker circles Johansen has come under criticism for taking the credit for the codebreaking, but Johansen himself says he has been misquoted by the media."
I personally find it easy to believe that the media would misquote him, as they misquote everyone else. When they can write big headlines, they don't worry about twisting facts, and a Norwegian kid doing something like this - now that was something they couldn't resist!
I personally will refrain from judging anyone (heh). If you can give me conclusive evidence that Jon did in fact have the nerve to take all the credit himself, I'll be happy to concede defeat.
"Is it a 'waste' of bandwidth for me to run nmap on remote servers to test them?"
No, but you won't get your free e-mail service flooded with angry responses because of it, like some e-mail providers have even seen their systems grind to a halt because of massive spammer attacks.
"What about the kid down the street running quake. Is he costing me money becaue he's eating my bandwitch on my cablemodem?"
Are you forced to watch the game?
The point is that spammers abuse other people's systems and force others to receive mail, while making money from it themselves.
"Of all the worthwhile causes out there to fight for: Human rights, whaling, the rainforest etc..."
Are you saying that just because there are other worthwile causes, one should ignore the ones you personally don't see a point in following up on? If we spent less money cleaning up the mess spammers are making, we could perhaps spend more money on issues like human rights, the rainforest and poverty.
(By the way, is whaling even an issue these days? The minke whale is far from threatened by extincion, and it's the one certain countries hunt.)
"It takes about two minutes a day tops to delete it all."
Those two minutes are a waste of time. Why should I have to spend several minutes every day to delete mails I don't even want in the first place? It doesn't make sense. And since I am often connected with a dialup and since we actually have to pay per minute where I live, spam also costs me money. I have to download it! And have you any idea how large some of these spammers manage to make their mails? HTML mail doesn't exactly make them smaller either.
"I don't like spam but it's not the end of the frickin world. Delete it and move on with your life."
It isn't that simple. Spam costs me time and money, and is useless.
"Do you write letters to every company that sends you unsolicited ads in your snail mailbox? Of course not."
No, but I can easily stop people putting ads in my mailbox by adding my address to a list. If anyone sends me ads after this, I can have them sued for breaking the law.
(And as I wrote in my previous reply to you (I assume it was you), I don't spend a lot of time fighting spam. I try to filter as much as possible, and I generally ignore it and move on. I do appreciate that someone takes the time to fight spam, though.)
Not only that, e-mail spammers abuse other people's systems and make others pay to receive the spam. Yes, you are actually paying to receive those spam mails every day, as it takes up your disk space and your bandwidth.
"Out of all the things to get bent out of shape about, getting unwanted email is so petty it's ridiculous."
Not if you have better things to do, and not when:
1. Spammers abuse other people's resources
2. I have to pay for spam when I am connected via dialup
Now, to answer your main point, which is that you are wondering why people spend their time yelling about spam and trying to fight it. Having to deal with spam is boring and pointless. Fighting spam, however, is contributing something to the Internet community as a whole. You are doing something valuable with your time.
If someone feels that fighting for what they think is a good cause is worthwhile, why spend your time complaining about them? Because that's what you are doing. Follow your own advice.
Why should spam fighters stop fighting? Because they'll never achieve their goals? How would you know? What if everyone had your attitude and stopped fighting for good causes just because it looks hopeless?
"Get a grip."
Why? I have the right to spend my spare time on Slashdot, discussing spam. I think spam is a major problem, and hope that those who actively fight it will eventually prevail.
Please, don't try to push your attitude on others. Without people who actually cared for something, we would be getting nowhere. I'm glad someone can find a worthwile cause to fight for.
If you had read my previous message, you would have seen that I do not spend a lot of time fighting spam. I do, however, support those who do. It is a worthwile cause, because spam is a major problem.
One piece of spam a day takes not effort to delete at all. A hundred takes considerable time to delete.
If only spam didn't take time to deal with... As it is now, it is important that someone can actually be bothered to fight back, in the hope that spam will at some point be a thing of the past. I am grateful towards those who take up the fight, and I try to do it myself when I feel like it.
I've never received spam from Google. I've never even received a single e-mail from them.
- Irrelevant search results?
Blame the page authors who try to get more hits by including irrelevant information in META tags.
Google don't hide ads in-between search results either (unlike certain other search engines) - the ads are clearly marked with a different background colour and the text "Sponsored Link".
"You seem to have a hang up on what seem like "time wasters" to you."
My point is that people who could easily have found an answer by searching for it, take up time that would be better spent helping customers that really need help. You see, if you can find the answer without contacting someone, everyone wins:
o You find the answer quickly, which saves you time and perhaps even money.
o The support person saves time and can help someone who really needs it, and who won't be able to find an answer easily.
I hope you understand this, and I take it you do not actually disagree.
"Don't forget they paid your wages!"
These people may well pay the support people's wages, but at the same time, it is frustrating for a support person to not have enough time to follow up on customers that really need help. I have found that some support people actually care about their jobs and want to help as best they can:)
"trained support techs know how to deal with upset customers."
That may very well be, but a pleasant tone gets you that much further. You are talking to a real person, remember. If you have a bad day, a yelling customer most certainly will not help:)
(I would like to clarify my comment on customer service only costing a company: This is of course provided that one does free support. Some charge for it, and they may well make money.)
"When my original NES died after only 2 days of play it took 2 months to get a replacement from Nintendo. The store wouldn't take it back, they said I had to deal with Nintendo directly."
You aren't supposed to deal with Nintendo directly - that's the store's responsibility. All you should consider is that the store sold you a faulty product, and you have the right to a replacement from the very store you purchased it in.
I remember having an ISDN card which suddenly stopped working. I went to the store and swapped it for a new one - no problem. Then this card broke as well, and I returned to the same store. I got a new card again, and the person who helped me said that this was something between the manufacturer and them, and that I could just take the replacement card and let them handle the faulty one.
This was the same store - twice - and it was about a year between the two times I got a new card.
"Is there really anyplace the provides good customer service anymore?"
The problem with customer service is that the more popular your product becomes, the more people will need help. Customer service doesn't give you any direct income at all, it is just there to perhaps hold on to customers that may go away if they don't have their problems solved.
When trying to get in touch with a company, there's a reason why you sometimes have to jump through hoops to get in touch with someone: The information is often available somewhere already, but many can't even be bothered to search for a solution to their problems.
This is very frustrating, because these people make it more difficult for those who actually need help to get a quick and helpful response.
Since customer service is so expensive, and since people who can't be bothered to even try to help themselves, many companies have to take action to force people to actually do something. If you can find information about your problem, it is also a lot quicker and less painful than having to wait for a response, or explain your problem again and again.
You may say that if you have purchased an expensive product and have problems, you should be entitled to good customer service. Yes, you may be right in thinking that, but then again, what if you can get the help you need without contacting customer service? If you have a really bad problem and need to talk to someone, but can't seem to get in touch with a real person, remember that this is in part due to people who can't be bothered to help themselves.
Some people also appear to be completely oblivious of the fact that there is a real life person in the other end (once you find one, mind you). It is so much easier to be helpful to people who are calm and rational, and realize that the person they are communicating with is not responsible for your problems. They didn't create the product - they are just there to help you. Yelling at them won't help, except perhaps making you feel better. Actually, if you are obnoxious, the support person might not feel like giving you good customer service. Have you any idea how much easier it is to help someone who is nice to you and how much better you feel afterwards if the conversation was a pleasant one?
"From what I've seen and heard in regard to Warcraft 3, they seem to be focusing on making it some kind of bastardization between a RPG and a RTS (real time strategy). I sure hope they don't mess it up. The two sure don't sound like they mix well"
That's a bit hard to guess before you have actually tried it, wouldn't you say?
On the other hand, Blizzard appeared to agree with you, since they toned down the RPG part and focused more on standard RTS elements. They still do have RPG'ish features, though, like Heroes, that can gain levels and power, and act like leaders to your troops. You can also find neutral characters on the various levels, and even go treasure hunting.
But the first version of WC3 was a lot more focused on RPG - even the camera was completely different. You couldn't move it freely, as it was tied to the Hero you were using at the moment. After experimenting with this, Blizzard released the camera and moved it to a more "overhead" perspective - which makes it look more of a standard RTS again.
This actually shows why Blizzard have an excellent "track record" in games. Every game has been a winner. They aren't afraid to redo something if it doesn't work.
Let's hope they can deliver with WC3 as well... I personally have confidence in the company. I still play Starcraft! Now that's a classic. (And yes, I wish they would do SC2, but sadly, they have stated that there are no plans for that at the moment.)
"What is not often quite obvious is organized crimes syndicates have taken to selling pirated software and pawning pirated software as legal copies to fund their illegal activities."
...
"These are the people that the government is going after, not joe blow who copied his friends version of Photoshop."
As far as I know, DrinkOrDie (DoD) is no organized "mafia" - they don't make any money from what they do. They simply distribute commercial software illegally. While this is morally wrong, they are actually not "using it to fund their illegal activities". If they did, why would they use their company's or even their university's equipment and connections to do so?
No, the people they are going after are the major site owners - the ones that distribute commercial software illegally. These site owners do not make a dime, it is done on a purely voluntary basis.
If they want to go after organized crime and people who use this to fund their crimes, why don't they attack those who actually sell "warez"? I don't know the answer to this, but it is strange that they spend over a year to plan an operation against people who don't make any money from it. People who are simply part of a community which shares information and data.
After all, they visited a number of universities and forced FTP servers to shut down, not factories creating bootleg CDs.
That these people are evil and probably murderers, child molesters, and whatever bad one can think of is simply a way to build up a public opinion against them.
In reality, most are individuals who just do it on their spare time.
Disclaimer: I am not defending warez, I am simply pointing out that these people are not part of the mafia or organized crime or make money from it, which they use to fund further illegal activities.
(I also apologize for the rant, and welcome any corrections, but the above is the way I understand the situation.)
The Gamecube is better than the PS/2, but lacks the graphics, sound, interface, and raw CPU power of the X-Box.
Well, that's the point. It doesn't look "as good" on paper, so to speak.
What I, perhaps a bit clumsily, was trying to say is that impressive hardware specs won't help if it doesn't allow developers to do what they want.
This will mainly be a problem in the beginning, before developers get more acquainted with the strengths and weaknesses of a system. The initial impressions quoted developers as saying that the Gamecube was amazing to develop for. Nintendo learned from the mistakes they made with the N64. This gives people developing for the Gamecube a head start when it comes to actually utilizing the power within the system.
The X-Box does have nice specs, but it isn't all that much more powerful than the Gamecube. Something to keep in mind is that the games that are being done today can be done on just about any of the current generation consoles. Sometimes, one may have to sacrifice speed or certain "extras" if one wants to port a game. However, the X-Box does not beat the Gamecube on all fronts. Gamecube has its strengths, as the X-Box does, though the X-Box probably has the upper hand. This is only true when the developers can actually use the power of the system properly, which is a lot easier with the Gamecube than the N64, for example. I haven't read too many comments on the X-Box and its "development-friendlyness", but I think Nintendo has a winner here.
I think the interest in the GCN is partly because it is a very good system hardware wise, partly because it is something of interest to many people reading Slashdot (see the "News for Nerds." part of the Slashdot logo), and also because Nintendo is still an important power in the console market. The availability of such articles is also an issue. Why not post news about it? It certainly interests me, and you can always skip the article if you don't want to read it.
But, we shouldn't even be discussing this. There is no point in complaining here. Just calm down and enjoy the news you like to read. Let's try to get on-topic again:
When it comes to the Gamecube, its hardware allows great real-life performance when you consider the theoretical limits, compared to the X-Box. The X-Box has impressive specs on paper, but in reality, the Gamecube can actually match this.
It could be that the Gamecube hardware is better "integrated", allowing better performance with less hardware due to fewer bottlenecks.
But hardware matters less and less in my opinion. With the powerful systems of today, the developer is the limit, most of the time. The Gamecube does a lot for developers, since it it apparently a dream to develop for, in contrast to the N64, which gave developers a lot of headaches.
You can throw in a lot of hardware which is powerful in theory - and when it is not part of a whole. This only leads to bottlenecks, however, so Nintendo have apparently chosen the hardware carefully to get a balanced system, and appear to have kept the specs more in the background when marketing the system. Their focus now is on games, the software available for the Gamecube.
Nintendo don't want the Gamecube to be a "home entertainment system", but want a pure gaming system - for gamers.
There are so many aspecs of their choice of hardware and media which can be discussed. The controllers are incredible. Nintendo have actually created even better ones than before, and unlike many others, they go new ways to make the controllers part of the gaming experience.
Miyamoto apparently was very much involved in the shaping of the controllers, and it shows. He truly knows what he is doing. Miyamoto is important to Nintendo, and we can all see why. Can he err?
Slashdot Mirror
"Cydoor has cleaned up its act considerably since previous versions of its software. Previous versions left it up to the host application's vendor to disclose (or not) that Cydoor ad components were being installed, leading to a finger-pointing loop in cases where the software was not disclosed. Additionally, previous versions used a GUID to track individual users across multiple sessions. This has been removed from the current version, as verified by our tests and information on the Cydoor website. Cydoor's components now come with an uninstall feature that was not present in earlier versions."
Sometimes, people are too eager to claim that something is spyware, when this is in fact rumours. So does anyone have any definite information on whether or not Cydoor currently distributes spyware?
Have a look in the Grokster (grokster.com) forums, where their support people explain that Cydoor is in fact not spyware.
If that is the case, how can it be that they were able to limit the max bitrate of MP3s to 128?
(Of course, this can be changed by editing your registry, but still, it shows that it is easy to block most users from whatever they would want to block them from.)
"The Morpheus network" is Gnutella :)
These are probably of interest:
http://www.zeropaid.com/news/articles/auto/03012 00 2b.php
http://www.zeropaid.com/news/articles/auto/02282 00 2c.php
Strangely enough, the only thing Kazaa/FastTrack has to say about this is "welcome, Morpheus users". They sure know how to feast off of companies in trouble. And seeing as it is possible that Kazaa caused this, their actions are even more despicable.
The truth will surface at some point. I have a hard time believing that a company can be this corrupt, but then again, anything is possible, and Kazaa aren't exactly the company with the highest moral standards out there.
> MusicCity are lying through their teeth.
Excuse me, but that article doesn't say anything about MusicCity lying. It just says that Morpheus users were blocked from the FastTrack network. Nothing about why.
Well, the following article might be of interest:
"Morpheus is not the probem; KaZaA is the problem" (thanks to whoever posted the URL first)
It looks like there is a bit of confusion about who is to blame here, but considering this article, I am starting to lean over towards those who blame Kazaa for the whole thing:
"Zeropaid Rumor: Morpheus is Under Attack":
"Sharman Networks, located in Australia, purchased Kazaa/FastTrack in January of 2002. Who is Sharman and why would they buy a company that is under major legal scrutiny?
Sharmannetworks.com is registered by a guy named Phil Morle (he is out of Australia). The domain was registered about 1 month ago. He has his own website morle.com.. Within that website he proudly links to an article in a Sydney newspaper.. creations.morle.com He is interviewed and listed as a Senior web developer for Brilliant Digital Entertainment."
BDE is actually an ad company, and they apparently own Kazaa/FastTrack?
I have yet to see anyone argue that MusicCity is at fault here, and actually have any evidence of it being so - be it hard facts or speculation based on other facts.
It looks more like BDE (Kazaa/FastTrack) is trying to make more users use their software so they can cash in on the ads. Just look at kazaa.com:
"morpheus users
come on over to our place...
you'll feel quite at home."
This is a very strange thing to do. It almost looks like Kazaa planned all this and tried to ruin MusicCity, in order to get more users over to Kazaa.
I am usually one to laugh at conspiracy theories, but if you look at all the facts, a picture starts emerging: Look at how Kazaa does business. Look at how they infest your PC with spyware and install things like the "BDE player" without your consent. Look at how Kazaa is in reality owned by a company which sells ads. Look at how they smugly try to make users drop Morpheus to use Kazaa instead.
The situation is chaotic, but to me, it looks like Kazaa have tried to pull several filthy tricks, and I don't think they should get away with it.
Mario and Link aren't Nintendo's only strong cards. What about Samus Aran (Metroid) and the whole Pokemon craze?
Not to mention Donkey Kong, Perfect Dark and other gems by Rareware in the UK. Like Fox McCloud of Starfox (Starwing) fame?
And seriously, who else could create novel games like Pikmin and pull it off in style, the way Nintendo did?
Granted, the N64 was not the great success it could have been. But if they don't always deliver the hardware, they at least deliver the games. You may not like them personally, but they are incredibly popular. Note that I've mostly mentioned specific characters above. Nintendo also have great games without any particularly known character in the "lead role", such as Wave Race, as well.
In any case, claiming that Nintendo relies on a couple of games/characters is just plain wrong.
On another (on-topic) note: Sega and Nintendo teaming up is a dream come true. The two companies would be able to grab large parts of the video game market if they put their creative brains together. Well, at least they are cooperating on this project. It would be great if Sega and Nintendo joined forces in the consumer market, and gave Sony and Microsoft some real competition. However, the GameCube is far from dead! It must be considered to be a great success.
I must disagree with you here, based on my own experiences.
I happen to have a squeaky clean installation of Windows XP here (updated through Windows Update, but I doubt it installs QuickTime automatically just like that), and decided to test Internet Explorer 6's PNG alpha transparency handling. This page should make a good test:
http://entropymine.com/jason/testbed/pngtrans/
The results are as follows (if I counted correctly):
I have no additional plugins installed, and this is a clean installation of Windows XP, with all upgrades from Windows Update applied. It is clear that something is not right with IE's handling of these images.
Could you please point us in the direction of information which will show that IE does in fact have better support for PNG alpha transparency than this test would indicate?
I apologize for replying to that message. It was unnecessary and uncalled for. Again, I apologize.
If you aren't trolling, then why are you posting anonymously?
Is that really the case? Do you have anything to back up this claim?
As someone pointed out, LinuxWorld had an interview in February 2000 (I believe), where Jon was quoted as saying:
"the encryption code wasn't in fact written by me, but written by the German member"
Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten also reports that:
"In hacker circles Johansen has come under criticism for taking the credit for the codebreaking, but Johansen himself says he has been misquoted by the media."
I personally find it easy to believe that the media would misquote him, as they misquote everyone else. When they can write big headlines, they don't worry about twisting facts, and a Norwegian kid doing something like this - now that was something they couldn't resist!
I personally will refrain from judging anyone (heh). If you can give me conclusive evidence that Jon did in fact have the nerve to take all the credit himself, I'll be happy to concede defeat.
No, but you won't get your free e-mail service flooded with angry responses because of it, like some e-mail providers have even seen their systems grind to a halt because of massive spammer attacks.
"What about the kid down the street running quake. Is he costing me money becaue he's eating my bandwitch on my cablemodem?"
Are you forced to watch the game?
The point is that spammers abuse other people's systems and force others to receive mail, while making money from it themselves.
Are you saying that just because there are other worthwile causes, one should ignore the ones you personally don't see a point in following up on? If we spent less money cleaning up the mess spammers are making, we could perhaps spend more money on issues like human rights, the rainforest and poverty.
(By the way, is whaling even an issue these days? The minke whale is far from threatened by extincion, and it's the one certain countries hunt.)
Do you think disk space and bandwidth is free?
Those two minutes are a waste of time. Why should I have to spend several minutes every day to delete mails I don't even want in the first place? It doesn't make sense. And since I am often connected with a dialup and since we actually have to pay per minute where I live, spam also costs me money. I have to download it! And have you any idea how large some of these spammers manage to make their mails? HTML mail doesn't exactly make them smaller either.
"I don't like spam but it's not the end of the frickin world. Delete it and move on with your life."
It isn't that simple. Spam costs me time and money, and is useless.
"Do you write letters to every company that sends you unsolicited ads in your snail mailbox? Of course not."
No, but I can easily stop people putting ads in my mailbox by adding my address to a list. If anyone sends me ads after this, I can have them sued for breaking the law.
(And as I wrote in my previous reply to you (I assume it was you), I don't spend a lot of time fighting spam. I try to filter as much as possible, and I generally ignore it and move on. I do appreciate that someone takes the time to fight spam, though.)
Not only that, e-mail spammers abuse other people's systems and make others pay to receive the spam. Yes, you are actually paying to receive those spam mails every day, as it takes up your disk space and your bandwidth.
"Out of all the things to get bent out of shape about, getting unwanted email is so petty it's ridiculous."
Not if you have better things to do, and not when:
1. Spammers abuse other people's resources
2. I have to pay for spam when I am connected via dialup
Now, to answer your main point, which is that you are wondering why people spend their time yelling about spam and trying to fight it. Having to deal with spam is boring and pointless. Fighting spam, however, is contributing something to the Internet community as a whole. You are doing something valuable with your time.
If someone feels that fighting for what they think is a good cause is worthwhile, why spend your time complaining about them? Because that's what you are doing. Follow your own advice.
Why should spam fighters stop fighting? Because they'll never achieve their goals? How would you know? What if everyone had your attitude and stopped fighting for good causes just because it looks hopeless?
"Get a grip."
Why? I have the right to spend my spare time on Slashdot, discussing spam. I think spam is a major problem, and hope that those who actively fight it will eventually prevail.
Please, don't try to push your attitude on others. Without people who actually cared for something, we would be getting nowhere. I'm glad someone can find a worthwile cause to fight for.
If you had read my previous message, you would have seen that I do not spend a lot of time fighting spam. I do, however, support those who do. It is a worthwile cause, because spam is a major problem.
If only spam didn't take time to deal with... As it is now, it is important that someone can actually be bothered to fight back, in the hope that spam will at some point be a thing of the past. I am grateful towards those who take up the fight, and I try to do it myself when I feel like it.
(Sorry for replying to this obvious troll...)
- E-mail?
I've never received spam from Google. I've never even received a single e-mail from them.
- Irrelevant search results?
Blame the page authors who try to get more hits by including irrelevant information in META tags.
Google don't hide ads in-between search results either (unlike certain other search engines) - the ads are clearly marked with a different background colour and the text "Sponsored Link".
So, what do you mean by "spam"?
My point is that people who could easily have found an answer by searching for it, take up time that would be better spent helping customers that really need help. You see, if you can find the answer without contacting someone, everyone wins:
o You find the answer quickly, which saves you time and perhaps even money.
o The support person saves time and can help someone who really needs it, and who won't be able to find an answer easily.
I hope you understand this, and I take it you do not actually disagree.
"Don't forget they paid your wages!"
These people may well pay the support people's wages, but at the same time, it is frustrating for a support person to not have enough time to follow up on customers that really need help. I have found that some support people actually care about their jobs and want to help as best they can :)
"trained support techs know how to deal with upset customers."
That may very well be, but a pleasant tone gets you that much further. You are talking to a real person, remember. If you have a bad day, a yelling customer most certainly will not help :)
(I would like to clarify my comment on customer service only costing a company: This is of course provided that one does free support. Some charge for it, and they may well make money.)
You aren't supposed to deal with Nintendo directly - that's the store's responsibility. All you should consider is that the store sold you a faulty product, and you have the right to a replacement from the very store you purchased it in.
I remember having an ISDN card which suddenly stopped working. I went to the store and swapped it for a new one - no problem. Then this card broke as well, and I returned to the same store. I got a new card again, and the person who helped me said that this was something between the manufacturer and them, and that I could just take the replacement card and let them handle the faulty one.
This was the same store - twice - and it was about a year between the two times I got a new card.
Now that's how it's supposed to be done!
The problem with customer service is that the more popular your product becomes, the more people will need help. Customer service doesn't give you any direct income at all, it is just there to perhaps hold on to customers that may go away if they don't have their problems solved.
When trying to get in touch with a company, there's a reason why you sometimes have to jump through hoops to get in touch with someone: The information is often available somewhere already, but many can't even be bothered to search for a solution to their problems.
This is very frustrating, because these people make it more difficult for those who actually need help to get a quick and helpful response.
Since customer service is so expensive, and since people who can't be bothered to even try to help themselves, many companies have to take action to force people to actually do something. If you can find information about your problem, it is also a lot quicker and less painful than having to wait for a response, or explain your problem again and again.
You may say that if you have purchased an expensive product and have problems, you should be entitled to good customer service. Yes, you may be right in thinking that, but then again, what if you can get the help you need without contacting customer service? If you have a really bad problem and need to talk to someone, but can't seem to get in touch with a real person, remember that this is in part due to people who can't be bothered to help themselves.
Some people also appear to be completely oblivious of the fact that there is a real life person in the other end (once you find one, mind you). It is so much easier to be helpful to people who are calm and rational, and realize that the person they are communicating with is not responsible for your problems. They didn't create the product - they are just there to help you. Yelling at them won't help, except perhaps making you feel better. Actually, if you are obnoxious, the support person might not feel like giving you good customer service. Have you any idea how much easier it is to help someone who is nice to you and how much better you feel afterwards if the conversation was a pleasant one?
Support techs are humans as well, after all.
That's a bit hard to guess before you have actually tried it, wouldn't you say?
On the other hand, Blizzard appeared to agree with you, since they toned down the RPG part and focused more on standard RTS elements. They still do have RPG'ish features, though, like Heroes, that can gain levels and power, and act like leaders to your troops. You can also find neutral characters on the various levels, and even go treasure hunting.
But the first version of WC3 was a lot more focused on RPG - even the camera was completely different. You couldn't move it freely, as it was tied to the Hero you were using at the moment. After experimenting with this, Blizzard released the camera and moved it to a more "overhead" perspective - which makes it look more of a standard RTS again.
This actually shows why Blizzard have an excellent "track record" in games. Every game has been a winner. They aren't afraid to redo something if it doesn't work.
Let's hope they can deliver with WC3 as well... I personally have confidence in the company. I still play Starcraft! Now that's a classic. (And yes, I wish they would do SC2, but sadly, they have stated that there are no plans for that at the moment.)
...
"These are the people that the government is going after, not joe blow who copied his friends version of Photoshop."
As far as I know, DrinkOrDie (DoD) is no organized "mafia" - they don't make any money from what they do. They simply distribute commercial software illegally. While this is morally wrong, they are actually not "using it to fund their illegal activities". If they did, why would they use their company's or even their university's equipment and connections to do so?
No, the people they are going after are the major site owners - the ones that distribute commercial software illegally. These site owners do not make a dime, it is done on a purely voluntary basis.
If they want to go after organized crime and people who use this to fund their crimes, why don't they attack those who actually sell "warez"? I don't know the answer to this, but it is strange that they spend over a year to plan an operation against people who don't make any money from it. People who are simply part of a community which shares information and data.
After all, they visited a number of universities and forced FTP servers to shut down, not factories creating bootleg CDs.
That these people are evil and probably murderers, child molesters, and whatever bad one can think of is simply a way to build up a public opinion against them.
In reality, most are individuals who just do it on their spare time.
Disclaimer: I am not defending warez, I am simply pointing out that these people are not part of the mafia or organized crime or make money from it, which they use to fund further illegal activities.
(I also apologize for the rant, and welcome any corrections, but the above is the way I understand the situation.)
Well, that's the point. It doesn't look "as good" on paper, so to speak.
What I, perhaps a bit clumsily, was trying to say is that impressive hardware specs won't help if it doesn't allow developers to do what they want.
This will mainly be a problem in the beginning, before developers get more acquainted with the strengths and weaknesses of a system. The initial impressions quoted developers as saying that the Gamecube was amazing to develop for. Nintendo learned from the mistakes they made with the N64. This gives people developing for the Gamecube a head start when it comes to actually utilizing the power within the system.
The X-Box does have nice specs, but it isn't all that much more powerful than the Gamecube. Something to keep in mind is that the games that are being done today can be done on just about any of the current generation consoles. Sometimes, one may have to sacrifice speed or certain "extras" if one wants to port a game. However, the X-Box does not beat the Gamecube on all fronts. Gamecube has its strengths, as the X-Box does, though the X-Box probably has the upper hand. This is only true when the developers can actually use the power of the system properly, which is a lot easier with the Gamecube than the N64, for example. I haven't read too many comments on the X-Box and its "development-friendlyness", but I think Nintendo has a winner here.
But, we shouldn't even be discussing this. There is no point in complaining here. Just calm down and enjoy the news you like to read. Let's try to get on-topic again:
When it comes to the Gamecube, its hardware allows great real-life performance when you consider the theoretical limits, compared to the X-Box. The X-Box has impressive specs on paper, but in reality, the Gamecube can actually match this.
It could be that the Gamecube hardware is better "integrated", allowing better performance with less hardware due to fewer bottlenecks.
But hardware matters less and less in my opinion. With the powerful systems of today, the developer is the limit, most of the time. The Gamecube does a lot for developers, since it it apparently a dream to develop for, in contrast to the N64, which gave developers a lot of headaches.
You can throw in a lot of hardware which is powerful in theory - and when it is not part of a whole. This only leads to bottlenecks, however, so Nintendo have apparently chosen the hardware carefully to get a balanced system, and appear to have kept the specs more in the background when marketing the system. Their focus now is on games, the software available for the Gamecube.
Nintendo don't want the Gamecube to be a "home entertainment system", but want a pure gaming system - for gamers.
There are so many aspecs of their choice of hardware and media which can be discussed. The controllers are incredible. Nintendo have actually created even better ones than before, and unlike many others, they go new ways to make the controllers part of the gaming experience.
Miyamoto apparently was very much involved in the shaping of the controllers, and it shows. He truly knows what he is doing. Miyamoto is important to Nintendo, and we can all see why. Can he err?
No chance of making it available online somewhere (web/ftp)? I'd be happy to mirror it for you, for as long as my bandwidth can handle it :)