The point of my comment was not to 'complain about him whining because you think he should be the one liable not the bank', and in fact I didn't.
The point of my comment was to point out that simply because that particular hole exists for debit cards it doesn't have anything to do with the issues he's trying to argue we should have laws 'protecting us' from the banks for.
There are laws in place aready to protect us from those issues. Read up on identity theft law and you will see that the banks are on the hook for it. We don't need more laws simply because he's been bitten once someplace else and is now completely paranoid that the rest of the system is out to get him too.
And regarding the whole "cost" issue, I've had friends that worked in Bank IT Security, and not only did they take it seriously, but they certaintly didn't see the situation to be "maintain the status quo, it costs less". Some of these places make the military and government IT departments look like group of first year LUG members.
The problem is, most identity theft isn't through some 'leet' hacker exploiting an issue that DNSSEC only barely protects against, most identity theft is done the same way it was done centuries ago when it was just plain theft. Through social engineering and taking advantage of those who aren't wary. DNSSEC won't fix that. At best it'll make it a tad harder for someone to pretend to be www.example.com, but they don't do that anyway.
Instead they pretend to be www.example.example.org or some other fake domain designed to look right to "grandma". And this doesn't fix that. All DNSSEC fixes is the potential situation where www.example.com's web site is 'taken over' and pointed to someplace else nefarious.
If I purchase a copyrighted "something" at a store, I dang well expect that it would work on more than just the one machine I used it first in. If it's compatible, it should run in it.
I also expect that should I have to replace it more than once, the item still work.
Additionally, I expect that if someone is selling me something that restricts my rights as the purchaser under the cover of attempting to protect their own as the copyright holder, that those restrictions are reasonable and not simply in place as a surrogate method of forcing me to buy more copies of the item.
For the most part, the only thing DRM accomplishes is that, forcing the 'legitimate' consumer to purchase ever more copies of a work they already own copies.
No, I'm afraid you're wrong. I had my car, a book of checks, and my bank card stolen. The woman who stole these things had watched me punch in the PIN number over my shoulder; she was NOT authorized to dip into my account.
The police recovered the car, the bank made good on the forged checks, but not the debit card; if someone has your PIN number, no matter how they get it, they are authorized.
I no longer use a debit card because of that.
And this has to do with the current discussion of "grandma" being scammed by a sophisticated internet banking scam how? Are you claiming DNSSEC would have saved you then? You even pointed out that the bank made good on the items that they were on the hook for. Are you claiming you don't think that the scam that poor grandma would fall for isn't something they would be on the hook for? Have any references for that?
I place the blame solely on the Federal government for failaing to live up to its responsibility to regulate the banking industries. And it WILL happen again. With luck we'll all be dead; the last time this happened was in 1929 (not counting the S&L debacle).
You sound like a teenage me blaming my parents for not being perfect. Why don't we actually blame the people who made the mistakes, who presumably were adults and capable of making their own decisions, rather than blame the guy who half the time gets screamed at for interfering and the other half the time gets screamed at for not interfering.
If you really want to talk about reality, then evil things are often pretty, seductive, and seem harmless if you don't know any better. If evil always came after you with a pitchfork, horns, and glowing eyes, then it wouldn't be so dangerous. We would just identify it, kill it, and be done with it.
If he should have sued, then that's what he should have done. Just because ypu feel he was being 'generous' in regards to his actions doesn't mean he chose the right course of action.
In my view, when he started using his power as a school official to punish someone for actions outside of school, he stepped over the line. Being 'generous' should not be jusitification for an abuse of power.
I haven't read up on the Judge's decision yet, but I'm leaning towards the idea that the Judge realized this but didn't want a 'punk' to get out of being punished and over reached for a rationalization to back the school.
Banks and other businesses will move to it once they see a good business case in doing so
Yes, THEIR interest. I don't care about their interest, I want protection against them. THEIR interest is what has caused the current banking crisis; deregulation has a large part of the current problem.
Their incentive is the fact that they are already on the hook for Grandma's money if she's scammed.
And as an aside, you do realize that our current crisis
Involved a completely different sort of bank that Grandma keeps her money in.
Was pretty much everyone invovled's fault. From the borrowers who got in over their head and the lenders who took a risk in giving them the money, to the investors who saw morgage backed securities as the next hot thing to make money on.
Putting the blame soley on one part of the equation is rather short sighted and dangerously close to enabling the whole thing to happen all over again when someone decides that a patch on one section is enough to keep the whole shakey setup going.
Why? Don't we have enough laws that attempt to legislate technology? Yes it's a desirable technology, but do we really need to be chained to it with a law that two decades from now will solely be an obstacle to implementing the next new desirable technology?
Banks and other businesses will move to it once they see a good business case in doing so. Let that decide matters.
Please understand, I'm not a laissez faire sort of fellow most of the time. But if you have the government start trying to decide how the core mechanics of the internet work, and I guareentee you whatever small benefit you gain from the initial decision will be drowned out by the stagnation that results later on.
You make the flawed assumption that the point is to count everyone and not "everyone who is receptive to advertising as used by the networks". Remember, you aren't the customer, you are the product. Networks are selling to advertisers, the only reason they care about you is because that's what they are selling.
I'm guessing you've never seen the cinematics for WoW and it's expansions then (or it's ancestors, WarI-III). Cause DAMN, I'd love to play that game too.
I don't hold too much against them for the trailer. Just kinda wish that there were more.
And to be clear, I do like his games. It's just frustrating that as good as his games are, they would be 1000% better had they actually been what he said they would be.
It seems obvious that he actually believes what he says, he just never seems to be able to deliver on the promises.
I don't think you quite realize the extent of things.
Peter is famous for both being someone who brought us amazing games back in the 'pre-history' of PC gaming, but for being one of the most renown over-promisers of features in the 'new world' of PC gaming.
He was the co-founder of one of the most revered (and lamented) old school game company's out there, Bullfrog. Most of their games are classics:
* Populous (1989)
* Populous II (1991)
* Powermonger (1992)
* Syndicate (1993)
* Magic Carpet (1994)
* Theme Park (1994)
* Syndicate: American Revolt (1994)
* Tube (Game) (1994)
* Hi-Octane (1995)
* Magic Carpet 2 (1995)
* Genewars (1996)
* Syndicate Wars (1996)
* Dungeon Keeper (1997)
* Theme Hospital (1997)
* Populous: The Beginning (1998)
* Theme Park World (SimTheme Park in the US) (1999)
* Dungeon Keeper 2 (1999)
But he's also the founder of Lionhead, whose games are pretty much known for being the worst overhyped games out there:
* 2001 - Black & White
* 2002 - Black & White: Creature Isle
* 2004 - Fable
* 2005 - Fable: The Lost Chapters
* 2005 - Black & White 2
* 2005 - The Movies
* 2006 - Black & White 2: Battle of the Gods
* 2006 - The Movies: Stunts & Effects
These weren't horrible games, but you'd be hard pressed to make the argument that even one of them delivered half of what Peter sold the game as.
We are talking about someone who sells magic beans to little children. Only in our case, the beans never bother to sprout anything but beans.
If you go in expecting just beans, it's OK. You paid for beans and you got beans. But a lot of people have been burnt getting excited over his promises on games like Black & White and Fable and that makes most people a bit skeptical.
between the four branches of the military, the CIA, the FBI, the state dept., the DIA, DHS, ICE, and the DoD itself (and of course all the secret apparatuses we don't know about)...between all of those...you don't think we have hundreds of thousands of analysts???
No. I don't. We might have hundreds of thousands (actually millions) people working in those groups, but the vast majority of them are not analysts. The vast majority are the paid thinkers but the do'ers and the ones who maintain the infrastructure to support the do'ers. I'd be surpirsed if 10% of them were analysts in the sense we are speaking of regarding this article.
And while some Captain in the Air Force might have to write reports for his bosses on the performance of his squad and suggest plans of attack on the upcoming mission, those aren't the same level of intelligence gestalting reports that we are talking about here.
With all the resources the DoD, CIA, FBI, etc. have at their disposal, this shouldn't happen. Sure, occasionally the MSM or a blogger will scoop the military, but with the hundreds of thousands of people we pay with our tax dollars to do this, it shouldn't be very often.
Hundreds of thousands? I have a hard time believing that. Perhaps if you count all the janitors, catering, and minimium wage earners. But not in the analyst section.
And to some degree, I'd rather the simple, easy to verify, stuff do come from the public domain rather than know the government wasted my tax payer dollars to confirm the name of the president of Russia or a map of Estonia. Let them spend those dollars and the think tank time on figuring who is hiding nuclear testing/refining facilities and the like.
The real question is how much fact checking are they doing on these sources and how much of it is being taken on faith?
And even more direct, I really doubt that in even three years, if were to attempt call in for more activations, you'd be able to.
EA is NOT a company that has a proven track record on long term support. What they do have a proven track record of is a number of 'fire and forget' games.
In my dream home, my highest bandwidth consumption will be internal, not external.
However, even if I never get my dream home. Mesh networks can help ensure you never 'leave' your home network. And the faster wireless gets, the more incentive there is to actually work on creating them.
When the lease to the space the company I worked for was about two years away from expiring, there was a huge and fairly public campaign launched to 'find a new location'. The company wasn't the only in the building, but they did lease about 15% of the floors.
There was much excitement, employees were given surveys and polls. There were even a few... disagreements between people who were for locations closer to home that ended in one or the other no longer working for the company. The Business Journal even ran stories about it.
The company sold the idea heavy for almost the entire year, to the point where everyone was excited to find out where we would be moving to.
A year away from the date the lease was going to expire, the company announced that after exhausive study, it was determined that our current location was the best suited site, and that we had signed a new lease with the building. In consideration for signing the lease early, the building announced that our company's logo would be on the building and the upper management would have reserved parking spaces near the garage elevators.
And given the number of astounded comments, I'm guessing no one else read it.
Why have it connected to the internet? Because the people who design the machinery for these things aren't IT, they are engineers. They don't think they NEED to worry about security. And when they do, it's physical, not electronic.
Wasn't the first go around of the internet being designed almost completely without any thought towards security a lesson to anyone? Haven't the warnings about how easy it would be to take down our whole electric grid due to the crappy security soaked into anyone's head?
On the reverse side, people would have a far easier time justifying to themselves 'paying' for stuff if the people the RIAA represent didn't go out of their way to craft the most one sided deals possible when offering their wares.
There would far fewer 'pirates' in this world if we didn't have things like DRM preventing us from using what we've bought the way we want to. If we didn't have laws like the DMCA attempting to prevent us from fixing things so we could. If our law makers hadn't allowed themselves to be bribed into extending copyrights effectively to infinity.
And yes, if my employer suddenly started stiffing me and I couldn't find a way to make them pay, I think it'd be justified for everyone I knew to bop me upside the head and say "Idiot! Why are you still working there?"
Monopolies are not evil. They are not illegal. They aren't even unethical.
Hershey's has a monopoly on Hershey's branded candy. Apple has a monopoly on iPods. There are plenty of companies out there that make the only one of whatever they make.
Anti-trust (actually more appropriately titled 'anti-competitive') legislation isn't designed to prevent monopolies; it's designed to prevent someone using their monopoly in an anti-competitive manner.
For instance, if you or a group of companies working together control the manufacture and sale of almost all the widgets in the world, use that to set prices (you'll sell our widgets for $20, period, or you won't sell them at all) or to prevent anyone else from getting into the business (buy from our competitor and we'll never sell you another widget again), that is a felony in the USA.
In general using your monopoly to restrict another's business is considered anti-competitive and in most places illegal.
I've yet to hear of anything Google has done that could be portrayed as this, on the other hand Microsoft's entire history has been littered with attempts to pull this off.
MS attempted to force retailers to sell Windows only if the customer also bought MS-DOS. When that failed and they were forced to sign an agreement to never bundle their products again, they released Win95 and lied about MS-DOS being integrated in. The integration was just a checksum against your installed DOS version which refused to let Window start if it wasn't the right version. Years later someone released a patch to remove that check and discovered Windows ran just fine with other people's versions of DOS.
MS stole the code to Stacker, and packaged it in Windows to prevent other companies from entering the disk compression market. And later they attempted to use the monopoly with Windows to force their competitors in the web browser and media player markets out of business.
MS attempted to maintain their monopoly by forcing PC makers to install Windows on all their computers (those that didn't were faced threatened with steeper prices or simply a refusal to sell).
Again, I've yet to see anything Google has done that follows those lines.
Slashdot Mirror
That's odd because there is even an option to specificly purchase 'gift' games now. Have you tried recently?
The point of my comment was not to 'complain about him whining because you think he should be the one liable not the bank', and in fact I didn't.
The point of my comment was to point out that simply because that particular hole exists for debit cards it doesn't have anything to do with the issues he's trying to argue we should have laws 'protecting us' from the banks for.
There are laws in place aready to protect us from those issues. Read up on identity theft law and you will see that the banks are on the hook for it. We don't need more laws simply because he's been bitten once someplace else and is now completely paranoid that the rest of the system is out to get him too.
And regarding the whole "cost" issue, I've had friends that worked in Bank IT Security, and not only did they take it seriously, but they certaintly didn't see the situation to be "maintain the status quo, it costs less". Some of these places make the military and government IT departments look like group of first year LUG members.
The problem is, most identity theft isn't through some 'leet' hacker exploiting an issue that DNSSEC only barely protects against, most identity theft is done the same way it was done centuries ago when it was just plain theft. Through social engineering and taking advantage of those who aren't wary. DNSSEC won't fix that. At best it'll make it a tad harder for someone to pretend to be www.example.com, but they don't do that anyway.
Instead they pretend to be www.example.example.org or some other fake domain designed to look right to "grandma". And this doesn't fix that. All DNSSEC fixes is the potential situation where www.example.com's web site is 'taken over' and pointed to someplace else nefarious.
Duh!
It's pretty obvious he already has one, 'some more' would be redundant.
If I purchase a copyrighted "something" at a store, I dang well expect that it would work on more than just the one machine I used it first in. If it's compatible, it should run in it.
I also expect that should I have to replace it more than once, the item still work.
Additionally, I expect that if someone is selling me something that restricts my rights as the purchaser under the cover of attempting to protect their own as the copyright holder, that those restrictions are reasonable and not simply in place as a surrogate method of forcing me to buy more copies of the item.
For the most part, the only thing DRM accomplishes is that, forcing the 'legitimate' consumer to purchase ever more copies of a work they already own copies.
And this has to do with the current discussion of "grandma" being scammed by a sophisticated internet banking scam how? Are you claiming DNSSEC would have saved you then? You even pointed out that the bank made good on the items that they were on the hook for. Are you claiming you don't think that the scam that poor grandma would fall for isn't something they would be on the hook for? Have any references for that?
You sound like a teenage me blaming my parents for not being perfect. Why don't we actually blame the people who made the mistakes, who presumably were adults and capable of making their own decisions, rather than blame the guy who half the time gets screamed at for interfering and the other half the time gets screamed at for not interfering.
Never been married have you?
If he should have sued, then that's what he should have done. Just because ypu feel he was being 'generous' in regards to his actions doesn't mean he chose the right course of action.
In my view, when he started using his power as a school official to punish someone for actions outside of school, he stepped over the line. Being 'generous' should not be jusitification for an abuse of power.
I haven't read up on the Judge's decision yet, but I'm leaning towards the idea that the Judge realized this but didn't want a 'punk' to get out of being punished and over reached for a rationalization to back the school.
Their incentive is the fact that they are already on the hook for Grandma's money if she's scammed.
And as an aside, you do realize that our current crisis
Putting the blame soley on one part of the equation is rather short sighted and dangerously close to enabling the whole thing to happen all over again when someone decides that a patch on one section is enough to keep the whole shakey setup going.
Why? Don't we have enough laws that attempt to legislate technology? Yes it's a desirable technology, but do we really need to be chained to it with a law that two decades from now will solely be an obstacle to implementing the next new desirable technology?
Banks and other businesses will move to it once they see a good business case in doing so. Let that decide matters.
Please understand, I'm not a laissez faire sort of fellow most of the time. But if you have the government start trying to decide how the core mechanics of the internet work, and I guareentee you whatever small benefit you gain from the initial decision will be drowned out by the stagnation that results later on.
You make the flawed assumption that the point is to count everyone and not "everyone who is receptive to advertising as used by the networks". Remember, you aren't the customer, you are the product. Networks are selling to advertisers, the only reason they care about you is because that's what they are selling.
Wife?
I'm guessing you've never seen the cinematics for WoW and it's expansions then (or it's ancestors, WarI-III). Cause DAMN, I'd love to play that game too.
I don't hold too much against them for the trailer. Just kinda wish that there were more.
I bow to your superior metaphor. ^_^
And to be clear, I do like his games. It's just frustrating that as good as his games are, they would be 1000% better had they actually been what he said they would be.
It seems obvious that he actually believes what he says, he just never seems to be able to deliver on the promises.
I don't think you quite realize the extent of things.
Peter is famous for both being someone who brought us amazing games back in the 'pre-history' of PC gaming, but for being one of the most renown over-promisers of features in the 'new world' of PC gaming.
He was the co-founder of one of the most revered (and lamented) old school game company's out there, Bullfrog. Most of their games are classics:
* Populous (1989)
* Populous II (1991)
* Powermonger (1992)
* Syndicate (1993)
* Magic Carpet (1994)
* Theme Park (1994)
* Syndicate: American Revolt (1994)
* Tube (Game) (1994)
* Hi-Octane (1995)
* Magic Carpet 2 (1995)
* Genewars (1996)
* Syndicate Wars (1996)
* Dungeon Keeper (1997)
* Theme Hospital (1997)
* Populous: The Beginning (1998)
* Theme Park World (SimTheme Park in the US) (1999)
* Dungeon Keeper 2 (1999)
But he's also the founder of Lionhead, whose games are pretty much known for being the worst overhyped games out there:
* 2001 - Black & White
* 2002 - Black & White: Creature Isle
* 2004 - Fable
* 2005 - Fable: The Lost Chapters
* 2005 - Black & White 2
* 2005 - The Movies
* 2006 - Black & White 2: Battle of the Gods
* 2006 - The Movies: Stunts & Effects
These weren't horrible games, but you'd be hard pressed to make the argument that even one of them delivered half of what Peter sold the game as.
We are talking about someone who sells magic beans to little children. Only in our case, the beans never bother to sprout anything but beans.
If you go in expecting just beans, it's OK. You paid for beans and you got beans. But a lot of people have been burnt getting excited over his promises on games like Black & White and Fable and that makes most people a bit skeptical.
Whoops, fixed that for me?
No. I don't. We might have hundreds of thousands (actually millions) people working in those groups, but the vast majority of them are not analysts. The vast majority are the paid thinkers but the do'ers and the ones who maintain the infrastructure to support the do'ers. I'd be surpirsed if 10% of them were analysts in the sense we are speaking of regarding this article.
And while some Captain in the Air Force might have to write reports for his bosses on the performance of his squad and suggest plans of attack on the upcoming mission, those aren't the same level of intelligence gestalting reports that we are talking about here.
Hundreds of thousands? I have a hard time believing that. Perhaps if you count all the janitors, catering, and minimium wage earners. But not in the analyst section.
And to some degree, I'd rather the simple, easy to verify, stuff do come from the public domain rather than know the government wasted my tax payer dollars to confirm the name of the president of Russia or a map of Estonia. Let them spend those dollars and the think tank time on figuring who is hiding nuclear testing/refining facilities and the like.
The real question is how much fact checking are they doing on these sources and how much of it is being taken on faith?
You do realize his nick is "apathy maybe". Doesn't seem exactly hard to infer the amount of effort he'd be willing to put into things...
And even more direct, I really doubt that in even three years, if were to attempt call in for more activations, you'd be able to.
EA is NOT a company that has a proven track record on long term support. What they do have a proven track record of is a number of 'fire and forget' games.
Yes, but that was just to fight the Blue Meanies.
In my dream home, my highest bandwidth consumption will be internal, not external.
However, even if I never get my dream home. Mesh networks can help ensure you never 'leave' your home network. And the faster wireless gets, the more incentive there is to actually work on creating them.
When the lease to the space the company I worked for was about two years away from expiring, there was a huge and fairly public campaign launched to 'find a new location'. The company wasn't the only in the building, but they did lease about 15% of the floors.
There was much excitement, employees were given surveys and polls. There were even a few... disagreements between people who were for locations closer to home that ended in one or the other no longer working for the company. The Business Journal even ran stories about it.
The company sold the idea heavy for almost the entire year, to the point where everyone was excited to find out where we would be moving to.
A year away from the date the lease was going to expire, the company announced that after exhausive study, it was determined that our current location was the best suited site, and that we had signed a new lease with the building. In consideration for signing the lease early, the building announced that our company's logo would be on the building and the upper management would have reserved parking spaces near the garage elevators.
Take this for what you will.
Given Wednesday's article on hacking industrial control machinery.
And given the number of astounded comments, I'm guessing no one else read it.
Why have it connected to the internet? Because the people who design the machinery for these things aren't IT, they are engineers. They don't think they NEED to worry about security. And when they do, it's physical, not electronic.
Wasn't the first go around of the internet being designed almost completely without any thought towards security a lesson to anyone? Haven't the warnings about how easy it would be to take down our whole electric grid due to the crappy security soaked into anyone's head?
This isn't exceptional, this is the norm.
On the reverse side, people would have a far easier time justifying to themselves 'paying' for stuff if the people the RIAA represent didn't go out of their way to craft the most one sided deals possible when offering their wares.
There would far fewer 'pirates' in this world if we didn't have things like DRM preventing us from using what we've bought the way we want to. If we didn't have laws like the DMCA attempting to prevent us from fixing things so we could. If our law makers hadn't allowed themselves to be bribed into extending copyrights effectively to infinity.
And yes, if my employer suddenly started stiffing me and I couldn't find a way to make them pay, I think it'd be justified for everyone I knew to bop me upside the head and say "Idiot! Why are you still working there?"
Monopolies are not evil. They are not illegal. They aren't even unethical.
Hershey's has a monopoly on Hershey's branded candy. Apple has a monopoly on iPods. There are plenty of companies out there that make the only one of whatever they make.
Anti-trust (actually more appropriately titled 'anti-competitive') legislation isn't designed to prevent monopolies; it's designed to prevent someone using their monopoly in an anti-competitive manner.
For instance, if you or a group of companies working together control the manufacture and sale of almost all the widgets in the world, use that to set prices (you'll sell our widgets for $20, period, or you won't sell them at all) or to prevent anyone else from getting into the business (buy from our competitor and we'll never sell you another widget again), that is a felony in the USA.
In general using your monopoly to restrict another's business is considered anti-competitive and in most places illegal.
I've yet to hear of anything Google has done that could be portrayed as this, on the other hand Microsoft's entire history has been littered with attempts to pull this off.
MS attempted to force retailers to sell Windows only if the customer also bought MS-DOS. When that failed and they were forced to sign an agreement to never bundle their products again, they released Win95 and lied about MS-DOS being integrated in. The integration was just a checksum against your installed DOS version which refused to let Window start if it wasn't the right version. Years later someone released a patch to remove that check and discovered Windows ran just fine with other people's versions of DOS.
MS stole the code to Stacker, and packaged it in Windows to prevent other companies from entering the disk compression market. And later they attempted to use the monopoly with Windows to force their competitors in the web browser and media player markets out of business.
MS attempted to maintain their monopoly by forcing PC makers to install Windows on all their computers (those that didn't were faced threatened with steeper prices or simply a refusal to sell).
Again, I've yet to see anything Google has done that follows those lines.