No. In this case, Big Three are not blocking specific IP addresses, a range of IP addresses, specific countries, nor specific regions.
They are blocking specific devices. They are simply stating that if you want to view their content on a Google TV, they will not allow you. Get up off the couch, turn on your desktop or grab your laptop and you can watch it. Connect your laptop up to the HDMI port on your LCD TV and you can watch it. Fire up your HTPC and you can watch it.
Never mind that it's the same content. They are blocking specifically Google TV.
"One of the intruders took aim at the resident; the resident fired first."
Pretty clear statement. However, I'd also state that taking aim at the resident provided a threat of deadly force, giving the resident enough reason to justify the shot. None of the intruders were law enforcement, too.
Christ, a fifth of cheap vodka isn't really heavy drinking.
Bull turkey. Have you ever drank cheap vodka? It's got all the taste of rubbing alcohol... removes grease just as good, too. As far as I'm concerned ['cause we all know I'm the leading authority;o)], if you can drink a fifth of cheap vodka, you're either three sheets gone already or on your way there.
IANAL, but I'd imagine that the court/judge doesn't want to "waste" its time by having to follow the citation chain... it'd rather have the lawyer in question do the footwork, trace the citations back, and quote the DSM properly.
I'd see it as more of a "Don't waste my time" and a "I don't want to have to work harder because you want to cut corners" action by a judge than a straight "You're wrong" action.
Who's got access to the Linux kernel's source code? Anyone. Compare that to who's got access to Windows' source code. Who can submit a patch for the Linux kernel? Again, anyone. Compare that to who can submit a patch for Windows.
So if there's an exploit in the Linux kernel, it's our fault... because the only thing holding any of us back from fixing it is our own lack of knowledge, ability, and/or time.
For those Windows exploits, however, we're left at Microsoft's mercy, assuming there's no other way to prevent the exploit than to fix the source code. The same is true for any other closed third party software.
All of your examples are great... any neutral third party should be able to examine each case, see the potential for harm if the information was released, and thus limit its distribution (or censor it appropriately).
My problem is with my distrust of the military/government. I don't feel that giving them the power to declare any and all information secret in the name of national security is responsible. Attempting to bury information because of it's political impact or detrimental effect on current policies... that's not cool in my book.
Since I don't trust them, I'd be much happier with a neutral (as possible) third party providing oversight. That may not be likely to happen, but a man can dream.
You seem to imply that the public should need a reason to know any given piece of information... and if the government believes that the public has no good reason (or the government's need for secrecy is greater), then the public should not know.
I'd counter the opposite. Our government is *OUR* government. It should not keep secrets from the general population without a darn good reason to do so. Furthermore, there should be a neutral third party involved determining the need for secrecy, instead of those in power.
Put simply, I'd rather our government keep too little secret than too much.
I've said it before, I'm gonna say it now, and I'll probably say it again.
I can defend the first "firing run" of that attack helicopter. The video quality isn't great, but there may or may not be weapons carried by the group. Something that may be a shoulder mounted RPG or may be a large shoulder mounted camera/camcorder is being held up. Considering the circumstances, I can see where the pilot would be concerned about a possible ambush, and I'm ok with his decision.
The second "firing run", where the van is fired upon? Yeah, I hope there's a God to weigh that pilot. He calls out to the wounded journalist, telling him that all he has to do is pick up a weapon. If the wounded guy has a weapon, the pilot can fire again and kill him (put him out of misery, I suppose... or provide another reason for a trigger happy pilot to fire again). Then watching the van arrive... its occupants clearly assisted the unarmed man, and the pilot declaring to his superiors that the van occupants are "clearing bodies and collecting weapons"... that's a clear lie. The pilot's already noted the man is unarmed, and he is obviously wounded (and hence, alive). No collection of bodies, no collection of weapons.
He lies to his superiors, and gets approval to fire again, wasting the van and its occupants. That's what pisses me off. Not the first firing, but the second. The first is war. It sucks, it's bad, but it's war. The second? That's murder. A line was crossed.
I hope that pilot spends the rest of his nights dreaming about the occupants of that van went through.
I'm pissed that our military covered it up. I'd be a lot happier if our government stood up and said "We're sorry. This happened. This is why it happened. This is where we made our mistake. This is what we're doing to make sure things like that never happen again."
Instead, I get to hear about it through Wikileaks, get to hear about *MY* government hiding things from *ME* that shouldn't be hidden, under the guise of national security. I'm sorry, but when a mistake is made, *MY* government should man up, admit it, and fix it. It should not sweep it under the rug to be hidden away, pretending that it's going to seriously impact the safety of the nation.
To a point, I agree. I'm willing to state that the first "fire fight" is warranted. I can see where someone onlooking would interpret the video as a group of armed men on the ground preparing an ambush. When someone's got to make a call on that point, I'd rather they err on the side of caution and protect our men on the ground.
I'm not willing to call the second "fire fight" warranted, however. The video clearly shows the wounded reporter without a weapon, and the van's occupants attempting to "rescue" him. There are no weapons in sight. Nobody's recovering weapons. Nobody's recovering bodies... you've got what's clearly an unarmed and wounded man being helped by more unarmed people. Firing on that van was not warranted and cannot be covered under any rules of engagement I'm comfortable with OUR military operating under.
Yes, shit happens. It's war. Bad things happen in war. But when we do bad shit, we should own up to it. Stand up and say "Yes, we made a mistake. This is why we made it. This is why we won't make it again."
We should not declare it "classified" and attempt to sweep it under the rug, away from the world and away from our own citizens. That is wrong, and just as reprehensible as the act of firing on the van.
So then you end up having a leak or a big bad explosion, so that the "rig" "sinks"? Then you spend over a month trying to solve the problem while the Sun leaks all over the world?
No thanks. The oil leak in the Gulf is bad enough. I don't to see what happens when we hand you the Sun and a really big pipe.
Just a heads up, if they've got a router. I've seen a few bits of malware that log into a router using default credentials, then point it to a custom DNS server. It was fun finding that out after a fresh reinstall...
I believe he's referring to the "balanced leveling"... where Oblivion levels the world with you. It's why I've moved to using OOO (lately, FCOM) as a major mod... it overhauls the world, including releveling the bad guys.
Of course, we live in a world where a pilot that fails to avoid geese is a hero.
An Airbus A320 isn't the most nimble of aircraft. After take-off, I'd imagine it's traveling at a good clip... 150-200 knots. A Canadian goose's wingspan ought to be around five feet... it's length, three feet. To be able to spot that bird and react quick enough to maneuver the aircraft to avoid the birds? Yeah, right.
We still can't prevent a two ton (-ish) car traveling ~60 mph from hitting a deer on a highway... and you want an Airbus to dodge birds?
Try keeping an aircraft straight and level for hours on end, day after day. It'll drive you crazy. It certainly won't do anything for your ability to handle an emergency.
Kind of like learning to drive a car in a snowstorm... you won't learn how the car handles on a slick snow covered road by driving for hours on a dry four lane highway.
You contradict yourself. You use Netflix, Hulu, iTunes as examples of successful alternatives. Then you claim that they'll never take off if piracy is allowed.
Up 'til now, I haven't heard of many preventions in place to stop people from downloading torrents (other than suing The Pirate Bay, etc).
Don't get me wrong... I'm not trying to defend piracy. I love my Netflix subscription, and it's a lot easier paying ~$15 a month than having to download torrent after torrent looking for a good quality rip, not to mention the time spent downloading. I'd rather wait for the DVD to come in the mail. Hulu's pretty sweet, too.
Suing the pirates smacks of corporate greed, in my opinion... they want every last dime they can grab, and someone's convinced them that squeezing the pirates out will gain them some extra cash. I don't like their "Anybody innocent that gets caught in the crossfire be damned" attitude, too. They're not talking about a $100 settlement... more like $500-$1000. That's not chump change, at least to me.
Suing on the basis of an IP address is just not enough. I'd hate for my ISP to make a mistake in their logs and misidentify me as a pirate. I won't be caving in for a settlement if I'm innocent, even if it's cheaper. Proving I'm innocent is going to be a pain in the arse. The likelihood of being found guilty regardless is scary.
I'd also feel a lot more reasonable about them chasing down pirates if the copyright extensions hadn't been put in place. Extending them every so often just reeks of corporate greed, too.
I browsed the "U.S. Copyright Group's" website. To me, it screams sleazy lawyer. They claim to "obtain the ISP addresses of the infringers" as if that's a surefire way of establishing identity.
Then there is this: "The person who unlawfully downloads a movie cannot afford to pay a $10,000 settlement to avoid legal trouble. BUT, they can and will pay $500-$1,000 to avoid civil legal prosecution for copyright infringement. Multiply these settlement amounts by 10,000, 30,000 or 50,000 infringers, and we have created a tremendous solution to stop film piracy and recover the copyright owner’s losses."
My response: I'm sorry that new technology has rendered the movie industry's business/delivery model obsolete. I'm not sorry that they're choosing to litigate instead of innovate.
I will not support the efforts of any group that uses the U.S. legal system as a crowbar to pry money out of the general public.
Does someone have a list a of filmmakers that use the "U.S. Copyright Group"? I'd love to send out a few handwritten letters explaining why I'll never spend a dime on one of their products again.
Which is all well and good until they move to a Console-style saving system of only letting you save at arbitrary points (which they might do anyway, but I've not been paying much attention after they said it had the terrible DRM). Then you could be a few yards from the next checkpoint, have your Net die and lose all that progress. Do that a couple of times and I bet he'd be cursing it.
Allegedly, that was AC2's original behavior. Ubisoft patched AC2 to eliminate this... so if the connection goes down, the player's progress since the last checkpoint is saved. I suppose if enough people complain.
What everyone's missing with that "Permanent Internet Connection Required" sticker: It doesn't require a permanent connection to the internet. It requires a permanent connection to Ubisoft's servers.
So your single player, offline (except for the DRM) game doesn't work if Ubisoft's servers are down, regardless of the status of your internet connection.
Blame it on bad server maintenance, pirate clans attacking the Ubisoft authentication/login servers, whatever... Since Ubisoft released Silent Hunter 5 and AC2, they've been having intermittent problems with their DRM. Subsim.com has quite a few threads on the issues.
So when folks pick up their AC2, can't play it weekend after weekend, I hope they'll remember it the next time they're staring at a "Permanent Internet Connection Required" sticker.
There's not enough detail in the article to make those assumptions. I'll play devil's advocate here, and spin the article off in my own direction:
Wife hears something, assumes that someone's trying to break in. Wife freaks out.
Husband grabs handgun, loads it, and investigates the noise. Tells wife to stop freaking out and call 911.
Husband stops investigating (can't find anything?) and returns to the living room. Wife is still freaking out, now on the phone with 911.
Husband sets the gun down as he takes the phone from his wife. He's calmer, and the dispatcher can actually understand him.
Wife continues to freak. Husband starts pacing, since he's stressed.
Three year old walks out to the living room during all the commotion. Neither parent sees the kid, since mom's freaking out and dad's pacing across the room, talking with the dispatcher. Kid sees the handgun on the coffee table, and picks it up incorrectly. Trigger is pulled during the process. Single action hand gun with a light trigger pull. Boom.
Note that the Wii accessory was purchased at the local Dollar Store, cheap and from China. Limited shipment.
One spin is an accident, the other criminally negligent (at best). Let the cops who investigated the matter decide. According to the article, they're looking at it more as an accident. End of story.
One more gaming company to avoid. EA sucks because of the way they treat their programmers, not to mention milking every last drop out of each year's sports games. Ubisoft just announced draconian DRM. Now Activision is acting like a spoiled kid. They keep this up, and they can cry all they want to about pirates, lost sales, and stolen IP.
Slashdot Mirror
No. In this case, Big Three are not blocking specific IP addresses, a range of IP addresses, specific countries, nor specific regions.
They are blocking specific devices. They are simply stating that if you want to view their content on a Google TV, they will not allow you. Get up off the couch, turn on your desktop or grab your laptop and you can watch it. Connect your laptop up to the HDMI port on your LCD TV and you can watch it. Fire up your HTPC and you can watch it.
Never mind that it's the same content. They are blocking specifically Google TV.
That's where the problem lies.
and does anybody know what hours of watching 3D might do to young, unformed brains?
Yeah... it might just cause lazy eye, which compromises depth perception. See the prior Slashdot article.
Nope. From the first link:
"One of the intruders took aim at the resident; the resident fired first."
Pretty clear statement. However, I'd also state that taking aim at the resident provided a threat of deadly force, giving the resident enough reason to justify the shot. None of the intruders were law enforcement, too.
Christ, a fifth of cheap vodka isn't really heavy drinking.
;o)], if you can drink a fifth of cheap vodka, you're either three sheets gone already or on your way there.
Bull turkey. Have you ever drank cheap vodka? It's got all the taste of rubbing alcohol... removes grease just as good, too. As far as I'm concerned ['cause we all know I'm the leading authority
A good whiskey, now... that's a different story.
IANAL, but I'd imagine that the court/judge doesn't want to "waste" its time by having to follow the citation chain... it'd rather have the lawyer in question do the footwork, trace the citations back, and quote the DSM properly.
I'd see it as more of a "Don't waste my time" and a "I don't want to have to work harder because you want to cut corners" action by a judge than a straight "You're wrong" action.
Probably since we're not Microsoft. Really.
Who's got access to the Linux kernel's source code? Anyone. Compare that to who's got access to Windows' source code. Who can submit a patch for the Linux kernel? Again, anyone. Compare that to who can submit a patch for Windows.
So if there's an exploit in the Linux kernel, it's our fault... because the only thing holding any of us back from fixing it is our own lack of knowledge, ability, and/or time.
For those Windows exploits, however, we're left at Microsoft's mercy, assuming there's no other way to prevent the exploit than to fix the source code. The same is true for any other closed third party software.
All of your examples are great... any neutral third party should be able to examine each case, see the potential for harm if the information was released, and thus limit its distribution (or censor it appropriately).
My problem is with my distrust of the military/government. I don't feel that giving them the power to declare any and all information secret in the name of national security is responsible. Attempting to bury information because of it's political impact or detrimental effect on current policies... that's not cool in my book.
Since I don't trust them, I'd be much happier with a neutral (as possible) third party providing oversight. That may not be likely to happen, but a man can dream.
You seem to imply that the public should need a reason to know any given piece of information... and if the government believes that the public has no good reason (or the government's need for secrecy is greater), then the public should not know.
I'd counter the opposite. Our government is *OUR* government. It should not keep secrets from the general population without a darn good reason to do so. Furthermore, there should be a neutral third party involved determining the need for secrecy, instead of those in power.
Put simply, I'd rather our government keep too little secret than too much.
I've said it before, I'm gonna say it now, and I'll probably say it again.
I can defend the first "firing run" of that attack helicopter. The video quality isn't great, but there may or may not be weapons carried by the group. Something that may be a shoulder mounted RPG or may be a large shoulder mounted camera/camcorder is being held up. Considering the circumstances, I can see where the pilot would be concerned about a possible ambush, and I'm ok with his decision.
The second "firing run", where the van is fired upon? Yeah, I hope there's a God to weigh that pilot. He calls out to the wounded journalist, telling him that all he has to do is pick up a weapon. If the wounded guy has a weapon, the pilot can fire again and kill him (put him out of misery, I suppose... or provide another reason for a trigger happy pilot to fire again). Then watching the van arrive... its occupants clearly assisted the unarmed man, and the pilot declaring to his superiors that the van occupants are "clearing bodies and collecting weapons"... that's a clear lie. The pilot's already noted the man is unarmed, and he is obviously wounded (and hence, alive). No collection of bodies, no collection of weapons.
He lies to his superiors, and gets approval to fire again, wasting the van and its occupants. That's what pisses me off. Not the first firing, but the second. The first is war. It sucks, it's bad, but it's war. The second? That's murder. A line was crossed.
I hope that pilot spends the rest of his nights dreaming about the occupants of that van went through.
I'm pissed that our military covered it up. I'd be a lot happier if our government stood up and said "We're sorry. This happened. This is why it happened. This is where we made our mistake. This is what we're doing to make sure things like that never happen again."
Instead, I get to hear about it through Wikileaks, get to hear about *MY* government hiding things from *ME* that shouldn't be hidden, under the guise of national security. I'm sorry, but when a mistake is made, *MY* government should man up, admit it, and fix it. It should not sweep it under the rug to be hidden away, pretending that it's going to seriously impact the safety of the nation.
To a point, I agree. I'm willing to state that the first "fire fight" is warranted. I can see where someone onlooking would interpret the video as a group of armed men on the ground preparing an ambush. When someone's got to make a call on that point, I'd rather they err on the side of caution and protect our men on the ground.
I'm not willing to call the second "fire fight" warranted, however. The video clearly shows the wounded reporter without a weapon, and the van's occupants attempting to "rescue" him. There are no weapons in sight. Nobody's recovering weapons. Nobody's recovering bodies... you've got what's clearly an unarmed and wounded man being helped by more unarmed people. Firing on that van was not warranted and cannot be covered under any rules of engagement I'm comfortable with OUR military operating under.
Yes, shit happens. It's war. Bad things happen in war. But when we do bad shit, we should own up to it. Stand up and say "Yes, we made a mistake. This is why we made it. This is why we won't make it again."
We should not declare it "classified" and attempt to sweep it under the rug, away from the world and away from our own citizens. That is wrong, and just as reprehensible as the act of firing on the van.
Wouldn't it be "conspiracy to commit murder"?
I may have watched a little too much CSI...
So then you end up having a leak or a big bad explosion, so that the "rig" "sinks"? Then you spend over a month trying to solve the problem while the Sun leaks all over the world?
No thanks. The oil leak in the Gulf is bad enough. I don't to see what happens when we hand you the Sun and a really big pipe.
Just a heads up, if they've got a router. I've seen a few bits of malware that log into a router using default credentials, then point it to a custom DNS server. It was fun finding that out after a fresh reinstall...
From what I hear, though, they're a major pain to get working reliably.
So they're no different that my current Time Warner DVR?
Their recent "update" significantly changing the front end and God knows what on the back end certainly didn't do any improvement, either.
I believe he's referring to the "balanced leveling"... where Oblivion levels the world with you. It's why I've moved to using OOO (lately, FCOM) as a major mod... it overhauls the world, including releveling the bad guys.
Of course, we live in a world where a pilot that fails to avoid geese is a hero.
An Airbus A320 isn't the most nimble of aircraft. After take-off, I'd imagine it's traveling at a good clip... 150-200 knots. A Canadian goose's wingspan ought to be around five feet... it's length, three feet. To be able to spot that bird and react quick enough to maneuver the aircraft to avoid the birds? Yeah, right.
We still can't prevent a two ton (-ish) car traveling ~60 mph from hitting a deer on a highway... and you want an Airbus to dodge birds?
Try keeping an aircraft straight and level for hours on end, day after day. It'll drive you crazy. It certainly won't do anything for your ability to handle an emergency.
Kind of like learning to drive a car in a snowstorm... you won't learn how the car handles on a slick snow covered road by driving for hours on a dry four lane highway.
You contradict yourself. You use Netflix, Hulu, iTunes as examples of successful alternatives. Then you claim that they'll never take off if piracy is allowed.
Up 'til now, I haven't heard of many preventions in place to stop people from downloading torrents (other than suing The Pirate Bay, etc).
Don't get me wrong... I'm not trying to defend piracy. I love my Netflix subscription, and it's a lot easier paying ~$15 a month than having to download torrent after torrent looking for a good quality rip, not to mention the time spent downloading. I'd rather wait for the DVD to come in the mail. Hulu's pretty sweet, too.
Suing the pirates smacks of corporate greed, in my opinion... they want every last dime they can grab, and someone's convinced them that squeezing the pirates out will gain them some extra cash. I don't like their "Anybody innocent that gets caught in the crossfire be damned" attitude, too. They're not talking about a $100 settlement... more like $500-$1000. That's not chump change, at least to me.
Suing on the basis of an IP address is just not enough. I'd hate for my ISP to make a mistake in their logs and misidentify me as a pirate. I won't be caving in for a settlement if I'm innocent, even if it's cheaper. Proving I'm innocent is going to be a pain in the arse. The likelihood of being found guilty regardless is scary.
I'd also feel a lot more reasonable about them chasing down pirates if the copyright extensions hadn't been put in place. Extending them every so often just reeks of corporate greed, too.
I browsed the "U.S. Copyright Group's" website. To me, it screams sleazy lawyer. They claim to "obtain the ISP addresses of the infringers" as if that's a surefire way of establishing identity.
Then there is this: "The person who unlawfully downloads a movie cannot afford to pay a $10,000 settlement to avoid legal trouble. BUT, they can and will pay $500-$1,000 to avoid civil legal prosecution for copyright infringement. Multiply these settlement amounts by 10,000, 30,000 or 50,000 infringers, and we have created a tremendous solution to stop film piracy and recover the copyright owner’s losses."
My response: I'm sorry that new technology has rendered the movie industry's business/delivery model obsolete. I'm not sorry that they're choosing to litigate instead of innovate.
I will not support the efforts of any group that uses the U.S. legal system as a crowbar to pry money out of the general public.
Does someone have a list a of filmmakers that use the "U.S. Copyright Group"? I'd love to send out a few handwritten letters explaining why I'll never spend a dime on one of their products again.
Which is all well and good until they move to a Console-style saving system of only letting you save at arbitrary points (which they might do anyway, but I've not been paying much attention after they said it had the terrible DRM). Then you could be a few yards from the next checkpoint, have your Net die and lose all that progress. Do that a couple of times and I bet he'd be cursing it.
Allegedly, that was AC2's original behavior. Ubisoft patched AC2 to eliminate this... so if the connection goes down, the player's progress since the last checkpoint is saved. I suppose if enough people complain.
What everyone's missing with that "Permanent Internet Connection Required" sticker: It doesn't require a permanent connection to the internet. It requires a permanent connection to Ubisoft's servers.
So your single player, offline (except for the DRM) game doesn't work if Ubisoft's servers are down, regardless of the status of your internet connection.
Blame it on bad server maintenance, pirate clans attacking the Ubisoft authentication/login servers, whatever... Since Ubisoft released Silent Hunter 5 and AC2, they've been having intermittent problems with their DRM. Subsim.com has quite a few threads on the issues.
So when folks pick up their AC2, can't play it weekend after weekend, I hope they'll remember it the next time they're staring at a "Permanent Internet Connection Required" sticker.
There's not enough detail in the article to make those assumptions. I'll play devil's advocate here, and spin the article off in my own direction:
Wife hears something, assumes that someone's trying to break in. Wife freaks out.
Husband grabs handgun, loads it, and investigates the noise. Tells wife to stop freaking out and call 911.
Husband stops investigating (can't find anything?) and returns to the living room. Wife is still freaking out, now on the phone with 911.
Husband sets the gun down as he takes the phone from his wife. He's calmer, and the dispatcher can actually understand him.
Wife continues to freak. Husband starts pacing, since he's stressed.
Three year old walks out to the living room during all the commotion. Neither parent sees the kid, since mom's freaking out and dad's pacing across the room, talking with the dispatcher. Kid sees the handgun on the coffee table, and picks it up incorrectly. Trigger is pulled during the process. Single action hand gun with a light trigger pull. Boom.
Note that the Wii accessory was purchased at the local Dollar Store, cheap and from China. Limited shipment.
One spin is an accident, the other criminally negligent (at best). Let the cops who investigated the matter decide. According to the article, they're looking at it more as an accident. End of story.
One more gaming company to avoid. EA sucks because of the way they treat their programmers, not to mention milking every last drop out of each year's sports games. Ubisoft just announced draconian DRM. Now Activision is acting like a spoiled kid. They keep this up, and they can cry all they want to about pirates, lost sales, and stolen IP.
They still won't be getting any of my money.
Nah, not all that impossible.
Try hanging a mirror.