Please read the discussion - zip2tax provides only zip code tax information, which is 100% useless for many places, where zip codes cross county and city lines at will. Much greater specificity than zip code alone is needed; whether that entails lat/long coordinates or merely address tracking is not clear.
The problem with your argument is that people will pay whatever the carriers want, unless it's completely ridiculous. This is, at least in part, because of two things: one, two-year-contracts and two, more importantly, the fact that ALL THE CARRIERS CHARGE THE SAME. There simply ISN'T a national alternative - no carrier has any incentive to decrease price because none of them wants to kill the goose that lays golden eggs. Before someone says this isn't true, it's generally very well established and accepted (even the NYT article mentions it) that SMS is entirely free to the carriers - there is no work or maintenance required beyond what is already done for voice services.
Actually what the cable guy did was conveniently forget to put on the "2-70 trap" for your incoming line. That's supposed to block the analog cable signal since you're subscribing to internet only.
Even the most strict cable installers will usually give you a splitter and maybe a bit of cable if you ask nicely and don't tell them what you plan to do with it. The cool ones, with a bit of chatting and maybe a few bucks under the table will pretty much set you up however you like as far as wiring, splitters and "basic extended 2-70" tv service for free. It helps if you don't actually say "free service" - just say "hey, any way you could forget about that filter or leave it for me to install later?" or something like that. They know what's up, but don't always want to be slapped in the face with it blatantly...
The single most positive thing about this might be that, if it gets sufficient press play and such, it could showcase how AsinineThieves&Tyrants screws their customres over.
No, really, pretty please, I'm BEGGING to be allowed to use a tiny netbook on a problematic network and pour whatever AsinineThieves&Tyrants demands out of my wallet! Just please use lube - oh, wait, that costs $20 a month extra, doesn't it?
The person originally posting this should have qualified their statement - there's no such thing as irreparable damage TO THE SOFTWARE PROGRAM, which is by definition simply 0's and 1's - BUT there sure is such a thing as software which, because it's broken, causes the hardware to malfunction/stop working/break/"release its magic smoke!" All of your examples are of this sort, and you do have a valid point - just recognize that he has a valid point too.
Also, for those (including parent) who have never been to law school, you'd be surprised how much various statutes, rules, codes and procedural directives can look like fragments of broken (programming-language) code, complete with broken cross-references and forgotten definitions for variables. Looking for some kind of grounds to file suit under bears more resemblance to bug-hunting code than you'd probably think.
Also, the iPhone's subsidization by AT&T is part of the case, but it's also wholly irrelevant. Even if AT&T sold it at full price, they would still need to sign a two year contract -- but have five years of exclusivity. Thus, if you want to continue to use your device, you MUST stay on AT&T. That's the complaint, boiled-down-very-simplified for you.
And yes, this is most likely illegal according to the plain language and letter of the law on tying (as a prior poster said, Magnuson-Moss covers a lot of things besides plain warranty). The question becomes what incentive this particular judge has to find a way for AT&T to wiggle out of this. (Apple is only peripherally related, honestly - the real meat of this is against AT&T. But if plaintiffs had only sued AT&T, AT&T would likely have drawn Apple in as an intervening defendant under their contract anyway)
This is true - use SATA/SATA2 and USB, those are so popular it's unlikely they'll be unusable at that point.
I'd almost be more concerned about the persistence of the media through that kind of time period - modern tech just hasn't been around long enough to really FOR SURE say what'll happen.
Duplicate copies, definitely - but a lot depends on your space available and budget.
A couple of USB keys and a couple of digital picture frames seems like a decent solution - or maybe even leave the pictures on a card already inserted in the picture frame.
One important thing - make sure you include a paper list/instructions for retrieval, because there's no guarantee that anyone will remember how to work those godforsaken menu options and file formats in 25 years!
In fact, that might be more of an issue than the physical media reading - look at a 5 1/4 floppy with old code on it; there are drives, sure, and plenty of people remember how to hook them up and use them if they had a REALLY GOOD REASON TO - but using the old code requires literally a manhunt to find someone who can do it, and they're probably already retired!
The problem is, that malicious intent could be found in your signing up for RevWaldo@gmail.com if you offend someone on there.
Intent like that is difficult to show, and for prosecutors they'll just infer it after the fact. Especially if you're Al Capone.:)
Normal people get charged with tax evasion too, including some who never even intended to do it. Can you imagine what would happen if you insulted your boss in an email and he had a heart attack because it upset him? That's the real reason why this is troubling - you clearly had malicious intent to hurt your boss, and why else would you sign up for a RevWaldo email account?!
Yes, prosecutors really are this stupid and misguided sometimes, often around elections. Sit in on court in your jurisdiction sometime, you'll be surprised.
There is, in fact, something wrong with this - it's near-malicious prosecution because they want to hurt Lori Drew.
As I noted in another post, the problem here isn't that they're trying to provide benefit to the community by, for example, getting gang members off the streets on bogus minor in possession charges, they're ripping a law from its purpose and using it in ways never intended.
Not to mention the facts do not support the charge whatsoever!
Oh, and don't even spout off about grand juries, they're basically a rubber-stamp for prosecutors and anyone with any legal experience knows this. Petit juries, on the other hand... very different purpose.
You're clearly very biased - referring to defendants as "bitches" is generally frowned on, for example;)
No offense, but civil court is the place for this. Why? Because no criminal law was broken.
Wrongful death or similar are all that's probably likely to result. Sorry, but that's how it is - otherwise, you'd be liable if you insulted someone and then they had a heart attack because they got red in the face.
You do, however, sign up to free email accounts, sometimes perhaps even not using your real name, right?
You've certainly signed up to Slashdot using a fake name, as would anyone with any degree of sanity!
But what if you offend someone on here, or in an email? What if you offend them or hurt their feelings so grievously that they kill themselves? You may not have meant to, sure, but in hindsight, it will be awfully easy for anyone to point the finger at you and say it's all your fault. Then you start finding yourself on the wrong end of near-malicious prosecutions...
Not that I approve of Drew's actions, but I think there are lines that need to be drawn.
Latitude and discretion - ahh, two things prosecutors are supposed to have.
The problem is, many lack the facilities necessary to employ them appropriately.
Still others are little more than political mouthpieces - somewhere in this jurisdiction, some mayor or other local government official is already salivating over the possibilities.
Precedent is precedent, though degrees of binding vary in a lot of ways.
It seems that many people clearly don't understand the legal issues presented here.
Lori Drew, regardless of what she did or did not do with respect to the girl, did nothing illegal. Those of you saying she should be thrown in jail or prosecuted for murder just do not understand the facts of things - maybe OJ should be in jail, but guess what? He's not!
At any rate, this is simply an attempt to hijack another statute (yes, another, this happens all the time) to find SOMETHING to charge her with because some people morally disapproved. (Not that I don't, but let's be honest here - it's not civil libertarians who are crying out for Ms. Drew's head!) This hijacking, as I said, happens all the time - right down to a cop deciding he saw you with a beer can on the street if you're bothering some local business, even if no such thing occurred. Usually, there's a reason or purpose, and no real backfiring for the community.
The major problem with this prosecution is the LACK of that balance - there's a massive backfiring going on here. This is the incredibly troubling precedent this case has the potential to set, which most people seem to understand to some degree.
That said, if Ms. Drew has an even halfway competent attorney, this charge will not stick. Prosecutors in general are renowned for not understanding the events they charge based on, especially when it comes to technology and security issues. The only angle they potentially have on this is "with intent to do harm" or something like that.
The problem with that specific requirement, which apologists will say eliminates most people from being charged, is this: if Joe Prosecutor logs into his Gmail - jprosecutor@gmail.com - and fires off a nasty email to a subordinate, he has arguably used an alias to cause harm to another, and the intent level would be assumed and automatic, by the logic used in the Drew case.
Clearly, jprosecutor is an alias, right? If you do anything online with anything other than My.Full.Name and then do anything that anyone might not like, or that might insult or hurt anyone else's feelings, guess what? Legally speaking, you're liable! Better pray whoever you offend, intentionally or otherwise, doesn't know enough to call the cops on you.
That said, I have some faith in the judge here to recognize this railroading for what it is, and throw it out.
I think the best argument against this is twofold, from a legal perspective: a)compilation copyright issues and b)unwanted traffic.
If you are, in fact, metered, the company most likely has your standard "bend over and smile while we do what we like" ToS attached - and this may or may not be enough to get around these issues. I think the unwanted traffic issue will be covered until a court is presented with a REALLY EXTREME example - like someone who an ISP accidentally sent 250gb of data to and tried to make them pay for it.
The compilation copyright claim is probably stronger, but would require action from a third party - namely, the website owner or some such. For example, if an ad I've put up on my webcomic page for, say, t-shirts I sell to do with my comic is replaced. That's quite possibly a relevant claim, BUT I, as the WEBCOMIC OWNER, would need to present a claim (since I've suffered the harm). You haven't been harmed, technically.
Relatedly, if an ad I serve on my webpage (and am being paid to do so) is replaced by the ISP, I'm losing money - so that's a fair claim. Net neutrality legislation would almost certainly bar this type of practice - it would just be prioritizing ISP ads over website ads, and if that isn't biased, I don't know what is. The free market doesn't work in a situation like that, where any one website, unless it's Google or Amazon, is nothing but a puny gnat compared to the near-monopolistic ISP's.
Another interesting question would be to do with those sites where you go and do nothing but click ads to donate money to charity, or the like. Those sites would become basically completely defunct, and though ISP's would try to say "oh, we'll except you!" it's very problematic to actually do so in practice, for every site, every time, with perfect reliability, as new sites pop up and old ones have subtle programming changes. Even if they do "fix" it, those are great examples to bring into court!
In short, I think an American company that uses this should expect to be sued posthaste. There's no reason to think there's any level of benevolence in American ISP's, so expect this to be adopted as quickly as they can get away with it - just like Time Warner is trying to pull with its "test" of bandwidth "caps" that's really a staged setup.
Nothing is really going to change until legislation or large legal judgments come down, I fear.
Actually, I know lawyers who would love to look at a case involving a company that ignored DMCA takedowns. It's not even so much a money thing as an interesting subject, because nobody but NOBODY ignores those. Under the common reading of the DMCA, if they ignored a takedown, they would lose protections, period.
If you lose DMCA protections, it's very, very easy for sharks to smell blood in the water, and no serious ISP/tech company of any sort wants that.
Pirated copies being better for Microsoft is probably true - and that's one reason nobody was really surprised at the lax "enforcement" actions taken, by and large, until WGA came out. Anyway, even with WGA, there are always workarounds posted approximately 30 seconds after M$ releases an update - but it's arguably those people who *don't* know enough for those that affect the market more, and those people who *don't* know anything about computers affect OS penetration more, especially with casual piracy being harder to pass off to Grandma Susie now that yellow crap will pop up.
What do I mean? I just mean that Bob the Small Business Manager who buys a Dell (and so M$'s latest OS) every 2-3 years has more influence over his office's OS composition than Steve the Hacker who installs Pirated Windows every chance he gets - especially if Steve doesn't have time to go around to all his friends, fix their computers and reassure them every time something pops up about "not genuine." That manager is going to want ease of use and integration - I've seen this in many a small office with XP, where the manager wants it to "just work" and would rather pay for a whole new computer for 3 drafting stations than pay a tech to set up the network appropriately with a mix of OS's.
So let's email this Jeff Grady - public courtesy is nice (and lawsuit-avoiding) on commercial webpages such as PodBuddy's, but this is slashdot;)
Forget the company box:P
That is, unfortunately, about all M$ does. You've seen the "studies" they advertise about TCO, which have been largely debunked. You've seen the dismissive attitude.
So what's new here? M$ has a very well-funded, well-oiled PR machine, and it's just working as normal here.
100% right on target! The article linked to has no comments - it used to have comments, all debunking and ridiculing the article, but moderators removed them and closed the article to further comment.
The "warez" release has nothing to do with Valve. The topic referenced here is merely the "cd-key" trick that was used on the first day or so of play - Valve was merely banning those who tried the "two-bars-in-steam-then-disconnect-from-internet" trick to fool Steam into activating HL2 improperly. The warez version does not even need Steam - heck, it has a "steam emulator" included, so you don't even run the game with the main "hl2.exe" executable.
This is commonly available information for anyone who wishes to search for it -.nfos float all over.
In summation, the article is nothing but a misinterpretation of a carefully crafted, terse response given to an email sent to Gabe Newell. Note also the purported author of the article: ~azzkiker azzkiker@hl2files.com HL2Fil es.com Site Admin
Hmmm... Sounds to me like a "Site Admin" would have a vested interest in discouraging "warez" use and in fact would have very good reasons to attempt to scare whatever kiddies off that he/she can. There's no proof this is even a third party, either - Valve had something to do with it, for all we really know.
Finally, the claim in the article that the release originated on BitTorrent is completely false. NOTHING gets to BT until a good while after it's actually "released," at least in the "warez" world. This means that there is absolutely no weight, merit or grain of truth to the article - EXCEPT that Valve is banning from Steam those kiddies who used the "activate without valid CD-key" trick, which is exactly what Gabe was trying to say in his email.
Bottom line: It's FUD, people - don't pay it any attention!
Oh, wait, I think there was one other thing that might have been true: "VALVe Software spent over $40 Million to develop Half-Life 2." Of course, we don't really know that...
Slashdot Mirror
Please read the discussion - zip2tax provides only zip code tax information, which is 100% useless for many places, where zip codes cross county and city lines at will. Much greater specificity than zip code alone is needed; whether that entails lat/long coordinates or merely address tracking is not clear.
It's the only way to be sure!
If you're stupid enough to buy Alienware - from the company or otherwise - you deserve what you've got coming to you.
That said, it looks like Alienware just wishes there were no Doctrine of First Sale, from the phrasing of their denial.
The problem with your argument is that people will pay whatever the carriers want, unless it's completely ridiculous. This is, at least in part, because of two things: one, two-year-contracts and two, more importantly, the fact that ALL THE CARRIERS CHARGE THE SAME. There simply ISN'T a national alternative - no carrier has any incentive to decrease price because none of them wants to kill the goose that lays golden eggs. Before someone says this isn't true, it's generally very well established and accepted (even the NYT article mentions it) that SMS is entirely free to the carriers - there is no work or maintenance required beyond what is already done for voice services.
Actually what the cable guy did was conveniently forget to put on the "2-70 trap" for your incoming line. That's supposed to block the analog cable signal since you're subscribing to internet only.
Even the most strict cable installers will usually give you a splitter and maybe a bit of cable if you ask nicely and don't tell them what you plan to do with it. The cool ones, with a bit of chatting and maybe a few bucks under the table will pretty much set you up however you like as far as wiring, splitters and "basic extended 2-70" tv service for free. It helps if you don't actually say "free service" - just say "hey, any way you could forget about that filter or leave it for me to install later?" or something like that. They know what's up, but don't always want to be slapped in the face with it blatantly...
The single most positive thing about this might be that, if it gets sufficient press play and such, it could showcase how AsinineThieves&Tyrants screws their customres over.
No, really, pretty please, I'm BEGGING to be allowed to use a tiny netbook on a problematic network and pour whatever AsinineThieves&Tyrants demands out of my wallet! Just please use lube - oh, wait, that costs $20 a month extra, doesn't it?
Sounds to me like you'll be an Apple fanboy once you get a new job and start making more money! :)
The person originally posting this should have qualified their statement - there's no such thing as irreparable damage TO THE SOFTWARE PROGRAM, which is by definition simply 0's and 1's - BUT there sure is such a thing as software which, because it's broken, causes the hardware to malfunction/stop working/break/"release its magic smoke!" All of your examples are of this sort, and you do have a valid point - just recognize that he has a valid point too.
Also, for those (including parent) who have never been to law school, you'd be surprised how much various statutes, rules, codes and procedural directives can look like fragments of broken (programming-language) code, complete with broken cross-references and forgotten definitions for variables. Looking for some kind of grounds to file suit under bears more resemblance to bug-hunting code than you'd probably think.
Also, the iPhone's subsidization by AT&T is part of the case, but it's also wholly irrelevant. Even if AT&T sold it at full price, they would still need to sign a two year contract -- but have five years of exclusivity. Thus, if you want to continue to use your device, you MUST stay on AT&T. That's the complaint, boiled-down-very-simplified for you.
And yes, this is most likely illegal according to the plain language and letter of the law on tying (as a prior poster said, Magnuson-Moss covers a lot of things besides plain warranty). The question becomes what incentive this particular judge has to find a way for AT&T to wiggle out of this. (Apple is only peripherally related, honestly - the real meat of this is against AT&T. But if plaintiffs had only sued AT&T, AT&T would likely have drawn Apple in as an intervening defendant under their contract anyway)
This is true - use SATA/SATA2 and USB, those are so popular it's unlikely they'll be unusable at that point.
I'd almost be more concerned about the persistence of the media through that kind of time period - modern tech just hasn't been around long enough to really FOR SURE say what'll happen.
Duplicate copies, definitely - but a lot depends on your space available and budget.
A couple of USB keys and a couple of digital picture frames seems like a decent solution - or maybe even leave the pictures on a card already inserted in the picture frame.
One important thing - make sure you include a paper list/instructions for retrieval, because there's no guarantee that anyone will remember how to work those godforsaken menu options and file formats in 25 years!
In fact, that might be more of an issue than the physical media reading - look at a 5 1/4 floppy with old code on it; there are drives, sure, and plenty of people remember how to hook them up and use them if they had a REALLY GOOD REASON TO - but using the old code requires literally a manhunt to find someone who can do it, and they're probably already retired!
The problem is, that malicious intent could be found in your signing up for RevWaldo@gmail.com if you offend someone on there.
Intent like that is difficult to show, and for prosecutors they'll just infer it after the fact. Especially if you're Al Capone. :)
Normal people get charged with tax evasion too, including some who never even intended to do it. Can you imagine what would happen if you insulted your boss in an email and he had a heart attack because it upset him? That's the real reason why this is troubling - you clearly had malicious intent to hurt your boss, and why else would you sign up for a RevWaldo email account?!
Yes, prosecutors really are this stupid and misguided sometimes, often around elections. Sit in on court in your jurisdiction sometime, you'll be surprised.
There is, in fact, something wrong with this - it's near-malicious prosecution because they want to hurt Lori Drew.
As I noted in another post, the problem here isn't that they're trying to provide benefit to the community by, for example, getting gang members off the streets on bogus minor in possession charges, they're ripping a law from its purpose and using it in ways never intended.
Not to mention the facts do not support the charge whatsoever!
Oh, and don't even spout off about grand juries, they're basically a rubber-stamp for prosecutors and anyone with any legal experience knows this. Petit juries, on the other hand... very different purpose.
You're clearly very biased - referring to defendants as "bitches" is generally frowned on, for example ;)
No offense, but civil court is the place for this. Why? Because no criminal law was broken.
Wrongful death or similar are all that's probably likely to result. Sorry, but that's how it is - otherwise, you'd be liable if you insulted someone and then they had a heart attack because they got red in the face.
You do, however, sign up to free email accounts, sometimes perhaps even not using your real name, right?
You've certainly signed up to Slashdot using a fake name, as would anyone with any degree of sanity!
But what if you offend someone on here, or in an email? What if you offend them or hurt their feelings so grievously that they kill themselves? You may not have meant to, sure, but in hindsight, it will be awfully easy for anyone to point the finger at you and say it's all your fault. Then you start finding yourself on the wrong end of near-malicious prosecutions...
Not that I approve of Drew's actions, but I think there are lines that need to be drawn.
Latitude and discretion - ahh, two things prosecutors are supposed to have.
The problem is, many lack the facilities necessary to employ them appropriately.
Still others are little more than political mouthpieces - somewhere in this jurisdiction, some mayor or other local government official is already salivating over the possibilities.
Precedent is precedent, though degrees of binding vary in a lot of ways.
It seems that many people clearly don't understand the legal issues presented here.
Lori Drew, regardless of what she did or did not do with respect to the girl, did nothing illegal. Those of you saying she should be thrown in jail or prosecuted for murder just do not understand the facts of things - maybe OJ should be in jail, but guess what? He's not!
At any rate, this is simply an attempt to hijack another statute (yes, another, this happens all the time) to find SOMETHING to charge her with because some people morally disapproved. (Not that I don't, but let's be honest here - it's not civil libertarians who are crying out for Ms. Drew's head!) This hijacking, as I said, happens all the time - right down to a cop deciding he saw you with a beer can on the street if you're bothering some local business, even if no such thing occurred. Usually, there's a reason or purpose, and no real backfiring for the community.
The major problem with this prosecution is the LACK of that balance - there's a massive backfiring going on here. This is the incredibly troubling precedent this case has the potential to set, which most people seem to understand to some degree.
That said, if Ms. Drew has an even halfway competent attorney, this charge will not stick. Prosecutors in general are renowned for not understanding the events they charge based on, especially when it comes to technology and security issues. The only angle they potentially have on this is "with intent to do harm" or something like that.
The problem with that specific requirement, which apologists will say eliminates most people from being charged, is this: if Joe Prosecutor logs into his Gmail - jprosecutor@gmail.com - and fires off a nasty email to a subordinate, he has arguably used an alias to cause harm to another, and the intent level would be assumed and automatic, by the logic used in the Drew case.
Clearly, jprosecutor is an alias, right? If you do anything online with anything other than My.Full.Name and then do anything that anyone might not like, or that might insult or hurt anyone else's feelings, guess what? Legally speaking, you're liable! Better pray whoever you offend, intentionally or otherwise, doesn't know enough to call the cops on you.
That said, I have some faith in the judge here to recognize this railroading for what it is, and throw it out.
I think the best argument against this is twofold, from a legal perspective: a)compilation copyright issues and b)unwanted traffic. If you are, in fact, metered, the company most likely has your standard "bend over and smile while we do what we like" ToS attached - and this may or may not be enough to get around these issues. I think the unwanted traffic issue will be covered until a court is presented with a REALLY EXTREME example - like someone who an ISP accidentally sent 250gb of data to and tried to make them pay for it. The compilation copyright claim is probably stronger, but would require action from a third party - namely, the website owner or some such. For example, if an ad I've put up on my webcomic page for, say, t-shirts I sell to do with my comic is replaced. That's quite possibly a relevant claim, BUT I, as the WEBCOMIC OWNER, would need to present a claim (since I've suffered the harm). You haven't been harmed, technically. Relatedly, if an ad I serve on my webpage (and am being paid to do so) is replaced by the ISP, I'm losing money - so that's a fair claim. Net neutrality legislation would almost certainly bar this type of practice - it would just be prioritizing ISP ads over website ads, and if that isn't biased, I don't know what is. The free market doesn't work in a situation like that, where any one website, unless it's Google or Amazon, is nothing but a puny gnat compared to the near-monopolistic ISP's. Another interesting question would be to do with those sites where you go and do nothing but click ads to donate money to charity, or the like. Those sites would become basically completely defunct, and though ISP's would try to say "oh, we'll except you!" it's very problematic to actually do so in practice, for every site, every time, with perfect reliability, as new sites pop up and old ones have subtle programming changes. Even if they do "fix" it, those are great examples to bring into court! In short, I think an American company that uses this should expect to be sued posthaste. There's no reason to think there's any level of benevolence in American ISP's, so expect this to be adopted as quickly as they can get away with it - just like Time Warner is trying to pull with its "test" of bandwidth "caps" that's really a staged setup. Nothing is really going to change until legislation or large legal judgments come down, I fear.
Actually, I know lawyers who would love to look at a case involving a company that ignored DMCA takedowns. It's not even so much a money thing as an interesting subject, because nobody but NOBODY ignores those. Under the common reading of the DMCA, if they ignored a takedown, they would lose protections, period. If you lose DMCA protections, it's very, very easy for sharks to smell blood in the water, and no serious ISP/tech company of any sort wants that.
Pirated copies being better for Microsoft is probably true - and that's one reason nobody was really surprised at the lax "enforcement" actions taken, by and large, until WGA came out. Anyway, even with WGA, there are always workarounds posted approximately 30 seconds after M$ releases an update - but it's arguably those people who *don't* know enough for those that affect the market more, and those people who *don't* know anything about computers affect OS penetration more, especially with casual piracy being harder to pass off to Grandma Susie now that yellow crap will pop up.
What do I mean? I just mean that Bob the Small Business Manager who buys a Dell (and so M$'s latest OS) every 2-3 years has more influence over his office's OS composition than Steve the Hacker who installs Pirated Windows every chance he gets - especially if Steve doesn't have time to go around to all his friends, fix their computers and reassure them every time something pops up about "not genuine." That manager is going to want ease of use and integration - I've seen this in many a small office with XP, where the manager wants it to "just work" and would rather pay for a whole new computer for 3 drafting stations than pay a tech to set up the network appropriately with a mix of OS's.
So let's email this Jeff Grady - public courtesy is nice (and lawsuit-avoiding) on commercial webpages such as PodBuddy's, but this is slashdot ;)
Forget the company box :P
That is, unfortunately, about all M$ does. You've seen the "studies" they advertise about TCO, which have been largely debunked. You've seen the dismissive attitude. So what's new here? M$ has a very well-funded, well-oiled PR machine, and it's just working as normal here.
100% right on target! The article linked to has no comments - it used to have comments, all debunking and ridiculing the article, but moderators removed them and closed the article to further comment.
.nfos float all over.
l es.com Site Admin
The "warez" release has nothing to do with Valve. The topic referenced here is merely the "cd-key" trick that was used on the first day or so of play - Valve was merely banning those who tried the "two-bars-in-steam-then-disconnect-from-internet" trick to fool Steam into activating HL2 improperly. The warez version does not even need Steam - heck, it has a "steam emulator" included, so you don't even run the game with the main "hl2.exe" executable.
This is commonly available information for anyone who wishes to search for it -
In summation, the article is nothing but a misinterpretation of a carefully crafted, terse response given to an email sent to Gabe Newell.
Note also the purported author of the article:
~azzkiker
azzkiker@hl2files.com
HL2Fi
Hmmm... Sounds to me like a "Site Admin" would have a vested interest in discouraging "warez" use and in fact would have very good reasons to attempt to scare whatever kiddies off that he/she can. There's no proof this is even a third party, either - Valve had something to do with it, for all we really know.
Finally, the claim in the article that the release originated on BitTorrent is completely false. NOTHING gets to BT until a good while after it's actually "released," at least in the "warez" world. This means that there is absolutely no weight, merit or grain of truth to the article - EXCEPT that Valve is banning from Steam those kiddies who used the "activate without valid CD-key" trick, which is exactly what Gabe was trying to say in his email.
Bottom line: It's FUD, people - don't pay it any attention!
Oh, wait, I think there was one other thing that might have been true: "VALVe Software spent over $40 Million to develop Half-Life 2." Of course, we don't really know that...
IF YOU LIKE IT, BUY IT!