The way I read the article, at the end of the day, Verisign is still in control of DNS and the registry.
This is the heart of the matter. If they don't control the root servers or the registry, then they can't bugger it up with lame ideas that break established RFCs.
Oh well. There isn't much we can do about it now anyway. As long as they don't step out of line again and as long as ICANN isn't afraid to lay the smackdown on them when they do, then I'm (relatively) happy....
I think you completely misunderstood the point of my post and are just trying to be inflammatory but I'll reply under the assumption that you were not.
No, my point was that in a CIVIL court (as in, not CRIMINAL) if it was found that he was wrongfully imprisoned that he can sue the Government for damages. Damages meaning compensation for suffering he may have incurred arising from wrongful imprisonment.
I get the impression Romero really has learned from the mistakes of the past. Not that I know the guy, just a vibe I got from the book.
From the lavish location he chose for a studio, to the methods of employing staff, to his style of management, I get the impression it was in direct opposite to Carmack's just to spite the guy and not with any semblance of sense or logic involved in the decision making process.
If you read Romero's more recent interviews (after the Ion Storm disaster) you can see he has certainly learned from his mistakes. Not the least of which is how to pick staff (Minimum 5 years experience I believe he said - bit stuff, but the point is taken at least).
Romero, like Carmack, just needs to work in their niche. They both know what their niches are. Why fight it? Work with your strengths! Carmack definately knows his (that's why he's the technical director and not CEO). I just hope Romero knows his too. Romero needs to be in design and Carmack on development - to put it simply.
If Tom or someone else can manage Romero (a job in itself it would seem) and keep the company and it's financials in check and leave design to someone who is passionate about games, I think their next game could be everything Daikatana was supposed to be.
At a glance, it is easy to peg this as bad design. And based on the university courses on GUI design, I've had drilled into my head, I'm led to believe that this is the case.
However, we know that this is something very very easy to overlook. How many developers are going to be playing in monochrome realistically? And just how feasible is it? That said, what is wrong with making a game reliant on color differentiation in order to beat it? I don't think I've seen Tetris in monochrome.... original Gameboy notwithstanding....nobody would argue that Tetris is a poorly designed game.
We can't fault developers for not catching EVERYTHING. Only as much as can be reasonably expected. With an award winning game like this one, imagine the bugs and glitches they DID eliminate as opposed to the ones they missed....and this isn't even so much of a glitch as perhaps a slight error in design.
Not saying that nothing is wrong here, only that you have to keep it in perspective.
Why should a rogue get XP for fighting a monster directly? Wouldn't it make more sense to reward the rogue for sneaking behind him and attacking it with a backstab? I'm not saying he shouldn't be rewarded at all, only that the reward should be dependant on rewarding the character's actions based on the character. If it's a system where character is easily discernable by categories such as class, then it makes this option all the more easy to implement.
If a wizard defeats a monster with magic (or at least casts a one or more spells) then that should be rewarded.
If a barbarian attacks a monster without resorting to stealth, then that should be rewarded.
These are only a few examples however and obviously subjective to interpretation. The point however is that character advancement should primarily occur when a character is acting in accordance to his role or nature.
That said, I am more in favor of granting experience for quests than I am for combat.
Although it appears the issue being raised by the posts here is not one of advancement, but the role of non-combatants in RPGs.
I think this is ultimately a good thing, although there has to be a sense of balance. UO I think is a good example of how non-combatants can be well integrated into a game world. That said, I don't want to be stuck in a virtual world where I have to spend weeks on end weaving wicker baskets just to make a buck.
This man will not be happy until everything that we (by we I mean the world, not just US citizens and residents) see, read, and hear, is controlled by the US government and sanitised to determine whether or not it is "appropriate".
Anything they don't want you to see/read/hear they will block it and justify it as either
A) involving "terrorism"
or
B) now "inappropriate for children".
for damages and wrongful prosecution for millions and millions. Maybe then the government will learn from their mistakes in future.
The amount of money he could get for psychological damages from stress, physical damages (arising from stint in prison), ruining his career, etc. etc. could be very substantial. If he was raped in prison, god forbid, and can prove it, then the government could be in for a very big shafting (no pun intended).
Put yourself in this guys place. He did everything he could legally in this situation. Then he got sent to jail for it. Only to be told that he was sent to jail by ACCIDENT. What would you do?
until you fail to recite the pledge and get beaten into a bloody pulp by your classmates for being "Unamerican" even if you are exercising your "American" constitutional rights in not doing so.
Seriously, it's all fun and games until someone looses an eye.
In Australia nobody ever took our Monday morning assemblies seriously. We may have recited the national anthem but it was very half hearted if at all. And the worst we'd ever get was a stern look if we didn't do it at all or do it properly. You can diss Aussies for not being patriotic, but you can't diss us for being free thats for sure.
There's a lot I could say on this issue but apart from the fact I'm still a foreigner, even living here (in the US). But let me just say that from a foreigner's perspective, it's not something you get used to very easily - singing a national anthem of a country that is not your native one.
In a nutshell, my stance is that nobody should be *forced* into saying it. That said, I think they should keep the anthem as is, and if people want to say it should do so in it's entirety. But dancing around a solitary line for fear of stepping on someone's politically sensitive toes is just plain stupidity.
" If a taxi cab company made drivers sign non-competes, then the ability of taxi drivers to move from city to city or company to company would be severely hampered.
Apply this to many job types, in fact.
Why is technology so special, that you can sign away your career at other companies with an employment agreement? How is that legal, and if so, why? It certainly isn't moral, it reminds me of the wild west and the "company store" (where they paid you just enough to keep you indebted to them). "
Because cab drivers don't innovate. They just drive.
These clauses were initially designed to protect the business interests of the company, particularly with regard to development of new technology or proprietary product as well as business contacts and associates for sales and marketing reps. They were not intended however, to be at the expense of the employee.
For instance, a 3d programmer can't run off and join another company to work on the same engine he was working on with his former company. That's not to say he cannot quit one job and go to another however - especially if it's within an industry. Normally the contracts which state you cannot work in the same industry are not enforced (at least in my experience). If they ever were, I think the company which made you sign that contract would have a very hard time defending that action in court (I remember at one point strongarm tactics were employed where I worked to make us sign these ridiculuous waivers that we knew were completely unenforceable).
If that's what this ruling is about, then I think there will be some real litigation about to take place in Quebec to protect workers rights.
Failing that, he could always up and move to the US and get a working visa, which would effectively spit on Ubisoft's restraining order on the Quebec courts for abiding such a stupid ruling.
So if I decide to start my own website, say a discussion forum, and someone posts links to their own H/P/A/V or warez website or even just posts how to build a bomb, whats to stop the feds from declaring my site as a "terrorist" organisation or "supporting terrorism activities" and then locking my bank account, sending me to jail, no access to a lawyer and then sentencing me to death?
Land of the free, my f*cking ass... this country is only free until you say something that pisses the Powers That Be off. So much for the First Ammendment. That Zappa quote hit the nail on the head. Freedom and democracy is a total illusion in the US and it's only a matter of time before someone really does lift the veil from the eyes of the people....
From a purely business perspective, lets says you need to outsource a software development project and have two good choices - a strong US company of 20 skilled IT workers or an Indian company of 60 equally skilled IT workers (using the 3:1 ratio I spouted off earlier).
Assuming all things are equal apart from the workforce size, it only makes sense to pick the Indian company every time. You cannot fault the decision makers for picking what logically and financially makes sense.
You can however, make them accountable for actions which are detrimental to the country that they make their base of operations out of, or do the most business with. Which is where the government should be stepping in.
We cannot rely on business to make morally correct decisions for the benefit of the people. That's (meant to be) the governments job. Thats why we elect these people - to make decisions on behalf of the people in the first place.
So write to your senators, trade unions and lobby groups. Complain long and loud. Nobody will listen unless the cacophony of voices is too loud to ignore.
It used to be skilled IT workers could get awesome pay, decent job perks and benefits. Now we're lucky to get half of the pay we would have five to ten years ago and that's not even counting inflation.
Now skilled IT staff are treated as little more than skilled mechanics. Worse still, because of the industry we work in, they can fob jobs off to other countries. Until recently I worked in Melbourne, Australia but now I live in L.A, USA. It's not just an American concern. It's a global concern. Telstra (Australia's largest telco) got sprung about six months ago because they were hiring programmers and support staff in India for one third of the price they'd be paying for workers in Australia. Worse still, Telstra is still majority owned by the government. Where was the Australian government through all this?
Everyone wonders why IT unemployment is up higher than any other industry (in Australia it's higher than 11% for IT, which is waaay beyond the unemployment figures being spouted elsewhere). This is why. It's because workers are not only easy to find, it's easier to outsource it to another country and replace 3 people for the one you just sacked!
Every citizen of every first world country (especially citizens who read sites like this one) should be concerned, because they have no way of knowing if their jobs will be next.
Nobody dismisses that other countries should be trying to compete. But nobody wants it to affect them or their country. Therein lies the problem:
Businesses operate independant of countries. And it's issues like this that bring it to the forefront.
If a country instigates laws which work against a business they will move their business off shore.
There is no moral compass guiding big business, which is why people must voice their concerns to the government to act as that compass.
If morality does not factor business decisions at some point then profits will drive the entire world into oblivion as they crash countless economies, burn up all our resources and pollute the planet until it is uninhabitable - all because of the bottom line.
Bioware have locked certain parts of their boards to players only who have the appropriate serial key.
And they are one of the best companies in so far as developing patches, communicating with the player base as well (ie. Bioware Wednesday) and taking feedback, as well as juggling development issues and business decisions.
This game pretty weak by all accounts (no I am not a player but I am interested in RPGs and MMORPGs). If there is no method of playing it without paying for the online subscription then the game should be reasonably priced.
If they're going to patch the server then patch the server. But do it properly! Schedule the outage. Minimise your downtime and test your bloody patches first!
Most of the issues that exist with this game should have been ironed out with extensive Q&A and beta testing. But it hasn't been. And now the community is paying the price and doing the beta testing for them. The community has every right to be outraged at a crappy planning and development lifecycle.
I wouldn't be suprised if everyone winds up leaving for the new MMORPGs that are coming out in the next 12 months (FF, EQ2, WOW, Matrix Online, etc. etc.).
If you really want to express your outrage, express it where it hurts them the most - the hip pocket, and cancel your account.
If cases like these were documented and escalated to Abuse helpdesks, that could help. Particularly if it was supplied with evidence of spam, DNS query/responses, etc. etc.
Even large ISPs would be quickly swamped by such queries. Most ISPs would still choke under the load (if they're not already).
From a technical viewpoint, ISPs are nearing their limits to deal with spam. It will take a significant change in either ISP policy (and the enforcement of it) and/or legislation to combat this situation.
Linford is on the ball. These people need jail time. Too bad ISPs don't have unaccountable black ops budgets....
Legislation is working, albeit slowly.
What is required is that we start fining the companies being spamvertised.
This will force companies to assess who they deal with and make damn sure they understand that they are responsible for this just as much as the spammer (they are the ones that ultimately benefit and therefore pay the spammers).
This would only work however if you could prove a legitimate relationship exists between the spammer being sued and the company. With sufficient resources and investigation this is not as hard as it sounds.
If a company is joe-jobbed in someway, then the spamvertised company shouldn't be targeted unless you can catch the spammer as well and prove that a relationship exists between the two entities. You are then just working up chain, similarly to how cops catch street dealers and work their way up.
Regardless, there are many ways joe-jobbing could be resolved. This is just one idea.
What would eventually happen (through smart legislation) is that it will force spammers to use servers in other countries where it is legal.
This is where blacklists will become most effective then. Business and individuals in these countries will create a public outcry so large that legislation will have to change. And if legislation doesn't change, they still remain blacklisted.
This would stop a significant portion of spam.
The rest (abused networks, open relays) should be be made liable and culpable for spamming. A few well aimed lawsuits against companies with negligent system administrators or people running dedicated servers should get the point across. I have no sympathy for Joe Blow with Winbloze 95 who has no firewall software, no anti virus software, has no idea what a patch is, and expects the ISP to take care of it all for him. And they are just as liable.
We don't let people drive without a license, it should be the same principle with users on the Internet - because there are very real and sometimes drastic consequences of their actions (or lack thereof). It is already in the T's & C's of every AUP for every ISP that the end user is responsible for their actions under their account. It's time that ISPs and the courts *SERIOUSLY* enforce it!!
Slashdot Mirror
Take that EMA. It's a shame we can't hang spammers.
This is exactly what I was going to post.
The way I read the article, at the end of the day, Verisign is still in control of DNS and the registry.
This is the heart of the matter. If they don't control the root servers or the registry, then they can't bugger it up with lame ideas that break established RFCs.
Oh well. There isn't much we can do about it now anyway. As long as they don't step out of line again and as long as ICANN isn't afraid to lay the smackdown on them when they do, then I'm (relatively) happy....
I think you completely misunderstood the point of my post and are just trying to be inflammatory but I'll reply under the assumption that you were not.
No, my point was that in a CIVIL court (as in, not CRIMINAL) if it was found that he was wrongfully imprisoned that he can sue the Government for damages. Damages meaning compensation for suffering he may have incurred arising from wrongful imprisonment.
I get the impression Romero really has learned from the mistakes of the past. Not that I know the guy, just a vibe I got from the book.
From the lavish location he chose for a studio, to the methods of employing staff, to his style of management, I get the impression it was in direct opposite to Carmack's just to spite the guy and not with any semblance of sense or logic involved in the decision making process.
If you read Romero's more recent interviews (after the Ion Storm disaster) you can see he has certainly learned from his mistakes. Not the least of which is how to pick staff (Minimum 5 years experience I believe he said - bit stuff, but the point is taken at least).
Romero, like Carmack, just needs to work in their niche. They both know what their niches are. Why fight it? Work with your strengths! Carmack definately knows his (that's why he's the technical director and not CEO). I just hope Romero knows his too. Romero needs to be in design and Carmack on development - to put it simply.
If Tom or someone else can manage Romero (a job in itself it would seem) and keep the company and it's financials in check and leave design to someone who is passionate about games, I think their next game could be everything Daikatana was supposed to be.
At a glance, it is easy to peg this as bad design. And based on the university courses on GUI design, I've had drilled into my head, I'm led to believe that this is the case.
However, we know that this is something very very easy to overlook. How many developers are going to be playing in monochrome realistically? And just how feasible is it? That said, what is wrong with making a game reliant on color differentiation in order to beat it? I don't think I've seen Tetris in monochrome.... original Gameboy notwithstanding....nobody would argue that Tetris is a poorly designed game.
We can't fault developers for not catching EVERYTHING. Only as much as can be reasonably expected. With an award winning game like this one, imagine the bugs and glitches they DID eliminate as opposed to the ones they missed....and this isn't even so much of a glitch as perhaps a slight error in design.
Not saying that nothing is wrong here, only that you have to keep it in perspective.
Why should a rogue get XP for fighting a monster directly? Wouldn't it make more sense to reward the rogue for sneaking behind him and attacking it with a backstab? I'm not saying he shouldn't be rewarded at all, only that the reward should be dependant on rewarding the character's actions based on the character. If it's a system where character is easily discernable by categories such as class, then it makes this option all the more easy to implement.
If a wizard defeats a monster with magic (or at least casts a one or more spells) then that should be rewarded.
If a barbarian attacks a monster without resorting to stealth, then that should be rewarded.
These are only a few examples however and obviously subjective to interpretation. The point however is that character advancement should primarily occur when a character is acting in accordance to his role or nature.
That said, I am more in favor of granting experience for quests than I am for combat.
Although it appears the issue being raised by the posts here is not one of advancement, but the role of non-combatants in RPGs.
I think this is ultimately a good thing, although there has to be a sense of balance. UO I think is a good example of how non-combatants can be well integrated into a game world. That said, I don't want to be stuck in a virtual world where I have to spend weeks on end weaving wicker baskets just to make a buck.
This man will not be happy until everything that we (by we I mean the world, not just US citizens and residents) see, read, and hear, is controlled by the US government and sanitised to determine whether or not it is "appropriate".
Anything they don't want you to see/read/hear they will block it and justify it as either
A) involving "terrorism"
or
B) now "inappropriate for children".
Fuck Bush and the horse he rode in on.
for damages and wrongful prosecution for millions and millions. Maybe then the government will learn from their mistakes in future.
The amount of money he could get for psychological damages from stress, physical damages (arising from stint in prison), ruining his career, etc. etc. could be very substantial. If he was raped in prison, god forbid, and can prove it, then the government could be in for a very big shafting (no pun intended).
Put yourself in this guys place. He did everything he could legally in this situation. Then he got sent to jail for it. Only to be told that he was sent to jail by ACCIDENT. What would you do?
until you fail to recite the pledge and get beaten into a bloody pulp by your classmates for being "Unamerican" even if you are exercising your "American" constitutional rights in not doing so.
Seriously, it's all fun and games until someone looses an eye.
In Australia nobody ever took our Monday morning assemblies seriously. We may have recited the national anthem but it was very half hearted if at all. And the worst we'd ever get was a stern look if we didn't do it at all or do it properly. You can diss Aussies for not being patriotic, but you can't diss us for being free thats for sure.
There's a lot I could say on this issue but apart from the fact I'm still a foreigner, even living here (in the US). But let me just say that from a foreigner's perspective, it's not something you get used to very easily - singing a national anthem of a country that is not your native one.
In a nutshell, my stance is that nobody should be *forced* into saying it. That said, I think they should keep the anthem as is, and if people want to say it should do so in it's entirety. But dancing around a solitary line for fear of stepping on someone's politically sensitive toes is just plain stupidity.
Everyone here takes stuff far too seriously....
When Feargus Urquhart and the Black Isle founders aren't even on the list. What about Romero?? Highly questionable...
" If a taxi cab company made drivers sign non-competes, then the ability of taxi drivers to move from city to city or company to company would be severely hampered.
Apply this to many job types, in fact.
Why is technology so special, that you can sign away your career at other companies with an employment agreement? How is that legal, and if so, why? It certainly isn't moral, it reminds me of the wild west and the "company store" (where they paid you just enough to keep you indebted to them). "
Because cab drivers don't innovate. They just drive.
These clauses were initially designed to protect the business interests of the company, particularly with regard to development of new technology or proprietary product as well as business contacts and associates for sales and marketing reps. They were not intended however, to be at the expense of the employee.
For instance, a 3d programmer can't run off and join another company to work on the same engine he was working on with his former company. That's not to say he cannot quit one job and go to another however - especially if it's within an industry. Normally the contracts which state you cannot work in the same industry are not enforced (at least in my experience). If they ever were, I think the company which made you sign that contract would have a very hard time defending that action in court (I remember at one point strongarm tactics were employed where I worked to make us sign these ridiculuous waivers that we knew were completely unenforceable).
If that's what this ruling is about, then I think there will be some real litigation about to take place in Quebec to protect workers rights.
Failing that, he could always up and move to the US and get a working visa, which would effectively spit on Ubisoft's restraining order on the Quebec courts for abiding such a stupid ruling.
So if I decide to start my own website, say a discussion forum, and someone posts links to their own H/P/A/V or warez website or even just posts how to build a bomb, whats to stop the feds from declaring my site as a "terrorist" organisation or "supporting terrorism activities" and then locking my bank account, sending me to jail, no access to a lawyer and then sentencing me to death?
Land of the free, my f*cking ass... this country is only free until you say something that pisses the Powers That Be off. So much for the First Ammendment. That Zappa quote hit the nail on the head. Freedom and democracy is a total illusion in the US and it's only a matter of time before someone really does lift the veil from the eyes of the people....
From a purely business perspective, lets says you need to outsource a software development project and have two good choices - a strong US company of 20 skilled IT workers or an Indian company of 60 equally skilled IT workers (using the 3:1 ratio I spouted off earlier).
Assuming all things are equal apart from the workforce size, it only makes sense to pick the Indian company every time. You cannot fault the decision makers for picking what logically and financially makes sense.
You can however, make them accountable for actions which are detrimental to the country that they make their base of operations out of, or do the most business with. Which is where the government should be stepping in.
We cannot rely on business to make morally correct decisions for the benefit of the people. That's (meant to be) the governments job. Thats why we elect these people - to make decisions on behalf of the people in the first place.
So write to your senators, trade unions and lobby groups. Complain long and loud. Nobody will listen unless the cacophony of voices is too loud to ignore.
It used to be skilled IT workers could get awesome pay, decent job perks and benefits. Now we're lucky to get half of the pay we would have five to ten years ago and that's not even counting inflation.
Now skilled IT staff are treated as little more than skilled mechanics. Worse still, because of the industry we work in, they can fob jobs off to other countries. Until recently I worked in Melbourne, Australia but now I live in L.A, USA. It's not just an American concern. It's a global concern. Telstra (Australia's largest telco) got sprung about six months ago because they were hiring programmers and support staff in India for one third of the price they'd be paying for workers in Australia. Worse still, Telstra is still majority owned by the government. Where was the Australian government through all this?
Everyone wonders why IT unemployment is up higher than any other industry (in Australia it's higher than 11% for IT, which is waaay beyond the unemployment figures being spouted elsewhere). This is why. It's because workers are not only easy to find, it's easier to outsource it to another country and replace 3 people for the one you just sacked!
Every citizen of every first world country (especially citizens who read sites like this one) should be concerned, because they have no way of knowing if their jobs will be next.
Nobody dismisses that other countries should be trying to compete. But nobody wants it to affect them or their country. Therein lies the problem: Businesses operate independant of countries. And it's issues like this that bring it to the forefront.
If a country instigates laws which work against a business they will move their business off shore. There is no moral compass guiding big business, which is why people must voice their concerns to the government to act as that compass.
If morality does not factor business decisions at some point then profits will drive the entire world into oblivion as they crash countless economies, burn up all our resources and pollute the planet until it is uninhabitable - all because of the bottom line.
Bioware have locked certain parts of their boards to players only who have the appropriate serial key.
And they are one of the best companies in so far as developing patches, communicating with the player base as well (ie. Bioware Wednesday) and taking feedback, as well as juggling development issues and business decisions.
This game pretty weak by all accounts (no I am not a player but I am interested in RPGs and MMORPGs). If there is no method of playing it without paying for the online subscription then the game should be reasonably priced.
If they're going to patch the server then patch the server. But do it properly! Schedule the outage. Minimise your downtime and test your bloody patches first!
Most of the issues that exist with this game should have been ironed out with extensive Q&A and beta testing. But it hasn't been. And now the community is paying the price and doing the beta testing for them. The community has every right to be outraged at a crappy planning and development lifecycle.
I wouldn't be suprised if everyone winds up leaving for the new MMORPGs that are coming out in the next 12 months (FF, EQ2, WOW, Matrix Online, etc. etc.).
If you really want to express your outrage, express it where it hurts them the most - the hip pocket, and cancel your account.
If cases like these were documented and escalated to Abuse helpdesks, that could help. Particularly if it was supplied with evidence of spam, DNS query/responses, etc. etc.
Even large ISPs would be quickly swamped by such queries. Most ISPs would still choke under the load (if they're not already).
From a technical viewpoint, ISPs are nearing their limits to deal with spam. It will take a significant change in either ISP policy (and the enforcement of it) and/or legislation to combat this situation.
Linford is on the ball. These people need jail time. Too bad ISPs don't have unaccountable black ops budgets....
Legislation is working, albeit slowly.
What is required is that we start fining the companies being spamvertised.
This will force companies to assess who they deal with and make damn sure they understand that they are responsible for this just as much as the spammer (they are the ones that ultimately benefit and therefore pay the spammers).
This would only work however if you could prove a legitimate relationship exists between the spammer being sued and the company. With sufficient resources and investigation this is not as hard as it sounds.
If a company is joe-jobbed in someway, then the spamvertised company shouldn't be targeted unless you can catch the spammer as well and prove that a relationship exists between the two entities. You are then just working up chain, similarly to how cops catch street dealers and work their way up.
Regardless, there are many ways joe-jobbing could be resolved. This is just one idea.
What would eventually happen (through smart legislation) is that it will force spammers to use servers in other countries where it is legal.
This is where blacklists will become most effective then. Business and individuals in these countries will create a public outcry so large that legislation will have to change. And if legislation doesn't change, they still remain blacklisted.
This would stop a significant portion of spam.
The rest (abused networks, open relays) should be be made liable and culpable for spamming. A few well aimed lawsuits against companies with negligent system administrators or people running dedicated servers should get the point across. I have no sympathy for Joe Blow with Winbloze 95 who has no firewall software, no anti virus software, has no idea what a patch is, and expects the ISP to take care of it all for him. And they are just as liable.
We don't let people drive without a license, it should be the same principle with users on the Internet - because there are very real and sometimes drastic consequences of their actions (or lack thereof). It is already in the T's & C's of every AUP for every ISP that the end user is responsible for their actions under their account. It's time that ISPs and the courts *SERIOUSLY* enforce it!!