Which makes me wonder... are some of these "Text us at #### for X (small print: $)" sponsored by the cell phone companies, trying to manually drive up usage?
If the market couldn't bear it, then the parents wouldn't allow their children to send text messages, whether through disallowing the service through contract or *gasp* parenting!
Why the need to provide a 0% error rate? I don't know whether SMS is sent UDP or TCP (or if it is even a TCP/IP application), but haven't we already figured out how to reliably send this stuff over unreliable mediums? UDP can be solved with a simple acknowledgment, and TCP is inherently reliable.
That's right -- the source of the story should be liable.
So, which source? The original journalist, for reporting on an event at the time in 2002? How about the original paper, which listed it as a popular story? Google, which added the story to their news aggregation feed? Other news outlets, for reporting it as new news when it was seen on an automatic feed?
I don't think it would be right to prosecute any of these. Information is not illegal. It's how you act on it that creates a liability. Or am I way off base, here?
Seriously, this is a case of a lot of stupid people making stupid mistakes. If you have a system that dumps all stock based upon a bad headline, then that's how you choose to play the stock market. Nobody can honestly say that it isn't risky to trade in stocks.
If they need something, perhaps going after those companies for artificially deflating the stock's value would be the best course. It's not like this couldn't have happened with humans.
So only Lime Wire LLC can sue, since their product was specifically named? How about anyone who has ever contributed to the various Gnutella clients, since Gnutella is the "network" that Limewire uses?
If I'm not mistaken, there hasn't been a Slashdot editorial review since the last big EA title people were up in arms about over DRM. In November 2007.
Re:It maters not what the review says
on
Review: Spore
·
· Score: 1
I actually live about a mile from EA's Orlando campus. No thanks, I'll pass.
Re:It maters not what the review says
on
Review: Spore
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Sorry, this is the topic at the forefront of many people's minds when they think about Spore.
You can shuffle back to your manager at EA and tell him I said that.
My thoughts exactly. I don't think I've seen a game review in months or more, especially not on the front page. It's quite convenient that one for a decidedly mediocre game would appear, right after it had been completely trashed for its draconian DRM. And at a 4/5?
Many (most?) classified government systems require TEMPEST hardening, to specifically protect against your second point. Many government buildings which contain classified materials also require a similar hardening.
if it was a network problem, then they're in more trouble than the summary implies. It's relatively simple to get 100% uptime (minus a dropped packet or two) in a network. The key here is redundancy. If you throw enough hardware at it, yes, it will not break.
Internal? Dual(+) homed servers, redundant switches, redundant AC, redundant power. External? BGP on 2 or more transits on separate physical runs.
What, you say that you need to account for natural disasters? Then get a second site, at least a few hundred miles away, and repeat.
Virtual 100% uptime is a solved problem in the networking world.
Perhaps the bit you're missing is that windows isn't quite as bad as the/. crowd likes to say it is. Especially if its an older (translation: fixed & stable) variety like win2k or even nt4.
I'm not sure if you're serious or not, but surely you aren't trying to compare NT4 uptime with the 5 9s of a solid System z platform?
I remember a story not too long ago (which may or may not have been on Slashdot) that discussed how the MPAA is opposed to pirating because people who would otherwise go see it opening weekend end up skipping it because of negative reviews from their friends who caught a pirated copy.
DRM as a method of making sure your crappy game sells. Brilliant.
Tagging yourself a pirate means you weren't apt to be a customer in their eyes anyway.
No, no, no. The music, film, and now game industries have all agreed that every pirate could have been worth at least 10 sales. 20 if said "pirate" is an elderly grandmother.
It's not the people who understand that are the problem. It's having to explain to a PHB that the shiny new 100 terabyte SAN only has 90 terabytes of raw capacity.
Now, if you *want* them to screw with your DNS (and there are people who do, for various reasons), they'll happily do that. Yes it's the default behaviour, but it can be changed very easily.
How about we use that same logic to apply to other unwanted behaviors?
Now, if you *want* telemarketers to call you at dinner, they'll happily do that. Yes, it's the default behavior, but that's why there's an opt-out list.
Slashdot Mirror
Which makes me wonder... are some of these "Text us at #### for X (small print: $)" sponsored by the cell phone companies, trying to manually drive up usage?
If the market couldn't bear it, then the parents wouldn't allow their children to send text messages, whether through disallowing the service through contract or *gasp* parenting!
Why the need to provide a 0% error rate? I don't know whether SMS is sent UDP or TCP (or if it is even a TCP/IP application), but haven't we already figured out how to reliably send this stuff over unreliable mediums? UDP can be solved with a simple acknowledgment, and TCP is inherently reliable.
That's right -- the source of the story should be liable.
So, which source? The original journalist, for reporting on an event at the time in 2002? How about the original paper, which listed it as a popular story? Google, which added the story to their news aggregation feed? Other news outlets, for reporting it as new news when it was seen on an automatic feed?
I don't think it would be right to prosecute any of these. Information is not illegal. It's how you act on it that creates a liability. Or am I way off base, here?
just suck it up as part of the price they pay for being publicly traded?
Bingo. Publicly traded companies hide behind that for all sorts of things, with personal liability being a big one. Let them eat their cake, too.
Outlawing software? Wow... Am I on /. still?
Seriously, this is a case of a lot of stupid people making stupid mistakes. If you have a system that dumps all stock based upon a bad headline, then that's how you choose to play the stock market. Nobody can honestly say that it isn't risky to trade in stocks.
If they need something, perhaps going after those companies for artificially deflating the stock's value would be the best course. It's not like this couldn't have happened with humans.
So only Lime Wire LLC can sue, since their product was specifically named? How about anyone who has ever contributed to the various Gnutella clients, since Gnutella is the "network" that Limewire uses?
If I'm not mistaken, there hasn't been a Slashdot editorial review since the last big EA title people were up in arms about over DRM. In November 2007.
I actually live about a mile from EA's Orlando campus. No thanks, I'll pass.
Sorry, this is the topic at the forefront of many people's minds when they think about Spore.
You can shuffle back to your manager at EA and tell him I said that.
My thoughts exactly. I don't think I've seen a game review in months or more, especially not on the front page. It's quite convenient that one for a decidedly mediocre game would appear, right after it had been completely trashed for its draconian DRM. And at a 4/5?
Easy. 8/10. I lurned my fracshuns in elamentry skool.
He is. Rebroadcasting a satellite feed is simple.
Many (most?) classified government systems require TEMPEST hardening, to specifically protect against your second point. Many government buildings which contain classified materials also require a similar hardening.
Even if your 1 vote is counted correctly, a compromised voting machine farm can render it negligible in terms of effect.
It's called redundancy. Yes, a single router will fail. 2 at once? Likely not. 3? No.
if it was a network problem, then they're in more trouble than the summary implies. It's relatively simple to get 100% uptime (minus a dropped packet or two) in a network. The key here is redundancy. If you throw enough hardware at it, yes, it will not break.
Internal? Dual(+) homed servers, redundant switches, redundant AC, redundant power.
External? BGP on 2 or more transits on separate physical runs.
What, you say that you need to account for natural disasters? Then get a second site, at least a few hundred miles away, and repeat.
Virtual 100% uptime is a solved problem in the networking world.
Perhaps the bit you're missing is that windows isn't quite as bad as the /. crowd likes to say it is. Especially if its an older (translation: fixed & stable) variety like win2k or even nt4.
I'm not sure if you're serious or not, but surely you aren't trying to compare NT4 uptime with the 5 9s of a solid System z platform?
I remember a story not too long ago (which may or may not have been on Slashdot) that discussed how the MPAA is opposed to pirating because people who would otherwise go see it opening weekend end up skipping it because of negative reviews from their friends who caught a pirated copy.
DRM as a method of making sure your crappy game sells. Brilliant.
Tagging yourself a pirate means you weren't apt to be a customer in their eyes anyway.
No, no, no. The music, film, and now game industries have all agreed that every pirate could have been worth at least 10 sales. 20 if said "pirate" is an elderly grandmother.
According to the article, Kevin Mitnick is historically insignificant. Well, at least if the lack of tag for "Historic Significance" means anything.
This was significantly easier years ago when you could say that a 500MB drive lost ~24MB due to "formatting."
It's not the people who understand that are the problem. It's having to explain to a PHB that the shiny new 100 terabyte SAN only has 90 terabytes of raw capacity.
Ummm. They do use powers of 1024 because they want to match the SI prefixes reasonably closely.
And here I was thinking that 1024 was just 2^10.
Thanks for clearing that up for me.
Now, if you *want* them to screw with your DNS (and there are people who do, for various reasons), they'll happily do that. Yes it's the default behaviour, but it can be changed very easily.
How about we use that same logic to apply to other unwanted behaviors?
Now, if you *want* telemarketers to call you at dinner, they'll happily do that. Yes, it's the default behavior, but that's why there's an opt-out list.