Sounds like they've got an expansion coming out this year and want to market it, the same as... oh... I don't know... every other game company on the planet that has a game coming out in a couple months?
The privacy czar cares about people's privacy! Shocking footage at 11!
The commentary at the end of this summary is entirely not necessary. Frankly, having somebody who is a bit crazy in how much privacy they fight for is probably a good thing in that position. I know I'd rather have them as the privacy czar then pretty well anybody in the US Government these days.
Its true. WB had the same problem with the Dukes of Hazzard movie, and simply had to pay a bunch of money to make the problem go away. I doubt Fox actually wants to stop the movie, nobody makes any money then. They'll just be bought off if they win.
Well, they are enforcing it against the positive review on AICN, along with the negative one that was removed. They aren't enforcing it against MSNBC's negative one, probably because MSNBC had some sort of arrangement to get a screening without being embargoed.
Nobody is taking away free speech. But reviewers don't have a fundamental right to be given advance screenings. This time, they were offered one in exchange for not writing about it until Friday.
From one of the summary's linked articles. So at least some people clearly did. The taken down articles did too. The ones that are still up are a mixed bag, but they weren't under an embargo (MSNBC's is negative, and the above embargoed one is positive, so its not just banning negative reviews).
Why they did it that way is a mystery, but they're completely within the rights to say "we'll give you an advance screening if you don't post your review until Friday." They could just as easily say "we don't trust you, so you can buy a ticket on opening night and then review it later."
Really, the whole thing is pretty routine. Its only turned into a big deal because... well, I'm not sure. Maybe out of a sentiment of sticking it to The Man®. But its not a free speech issue, and its not a reviewer integrity issue. There's nothing anywhere here that says "its embargoed unless its positive."
Your reputation for independence comes from posting truthful reviews, rather then shills. You can do that on Friday just as well as you can do it today.
Besides, I'm not sure how you can say "people with integrity should break an agreement made in good faith to post a review two days early." Usually integrity requires that you live up to what you agreed to do.
No, it doesn't. The First Amendment blocks the government from telling you that you can't post a negative review of the movie.
It doesn't say that you can't willingly enter into an agreement with a private company that will give you an advance screening in exchange for not posting a review until Friday.
Its Warner AFAIK, and yeah, they can bar them from future screenings. If your job is movie reviews, being barred from screenings of the largest studio in the market is a pretty big deal.
Its just like with game reviews: ones that come out first get more hits then the later ones. Being last all the time is bad for your career.
It looks like its creating a procedure and then running it, which can do that. Technically I guess you could blame MS, but it'd be like blaming them because a third party used Visual Studio to write a program with a buffer overflow, which got exploited and was used to run a spambot.
They've been giving people the tools to prevent SQL injection for a very long time now. That its still happening isn't their fault, any more then its the fault of <language that lets people run direct SQL>.
"No modes, views, triggers, prepared statements, stored procedures, query cache, data conversion inserts, ACL. Fewer data types. Less engines, less code. "
So yes they're going to a module type system, but it says flat out these things are removed entirely.
And I agree with the first comment. We already had this, its called MySQL 3.
Tanks get replaced by Druids? (Feral tanks actually scale badly past T4 content, Warriors and Paladins are safe, and Warriors are in fact specifically required.)
Vanilla WoW not having content only the most hardcore with the best gear can do? (Never heard of the great blunder, Naxxramus? So few people saw that one they're redoing it and putting it back in Wrath.)
Man, did you stop playing 2 years ago or something?
Having played several other MMOs in the post-WoW era, I found three things:
1. Morons, same as WoW has 2. Elitist jerks who think they're cool because they're playing some less popular game, no matter how much of a half-baked buggy mess it happens to be. This varies from the WoW Elitist jerks, who feel that way because they have more purples or bought a higher arena rating. 3. Relatively normal people who enjoy playing the game and like playing with others who also enjoy playing it.
The only real difference is the brand of Elitist jerk, and the scale of the games.
In a post about Death Knight talent specs, someone spends an entire post talking about another game.
What planet do you live on where thats not offtopic? Its no different then going into a post about kernel licensing and talking about some new doodad in Vista.
The real problem with world PvP is that too many servers are faction imbalanced. When one side outnumbers the other 2:1 at ANY encounter, the whole thing becomes pointless.
Making it give rewards makes the problem worse, since the bigger side always wins, it'll also outgear the smaller side. It also encourages people to leech (such as AFKing in BGs and the rampant cheating in Season 3 arenas) to get the rewards faster, instead of actually playing.
(Honestly, world PvP was at its best in the days of the original Taren Mill vs. Southshore fights, which had no rewards whatsoever. People did it because it was fun, not to get l33t shinies.)
I haven't been following this game (not interested), so I don't know how bad these changes are.
They LOOK terrible though. This is Mythic failing to live up to their own hype. Its disappointment and bad publicity created entirely by themselves.
Blizzard is a lot better at this. They don't put out release dates. They don't (generally) advertise features they won't actually deliver. They certainly don't remove 2/3 of the cities.
The most important thing in the first month of a new MMO is people having fun playing it. Unfortunately, people tend to have less fun if they're feeling let down by a game that fails to live up to the hype. Creating hype you can't possibly deliver on is bad. If you set more realistic expectations that you might actually meet, people won't focus on what you didn't do. Instead they might play the game and discover they like what you DID do.
"it just happens BEFORE the marketing, rather than after."
Yep. Thats also why they don't announce release dates.
People flip out if you promise the moon and fail to live up to your own hype, even if the game is fun. Take away the promises, and people may find that the game is fun without thinking about some missing feature.
Of course, Blizzard's marketing department is a good deal more intelligent then that of most other game developers.
Entrust here likes to advertise they're 1/7th as expensive as the ones RSA sells, and those are still $4/year.
So at $6 until the token dies, Blizzard isn't exactly making a mint on these things. The profit for them comes in reduced account restorations.
Unless you'd care to source me someone who sells them so cheap that Blizzard is making a fortune at these prices, since there's probably also costs for the server end of the setup?
I had the same problem with it. I'm willing to live with running into walls of max level players if it means the game that I play is actually finished.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like they've got an expansion coming out this year and want to market it, the same as... oh... I don't know... every other game company on the planet that has a game coming out in a couple months?
The privacy czar cares about people's privacy! Shocking footage at 11!
The commentary at the end of this summary is entirely not necessary. Frankly, having somebody who is a bit crazy in how much privacy they fight for is probably a good thing in that position. I know I'd rather have them as the privacy czar then pretty well anybody in the US Government these days.
Its true. WB had the same problem with the Dukes of Hazzard movie, and simply had to pay a bunch of money to make the problem go away. I doubt Fox actually wants to stop the movie, nobody makes any money then. They'll just be bought off if they win.
Here's a good writeup on the issue: http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/urgent-warners-watchmen-in-legal-peril/
Probably, which is why awards shouldn't given out in these judged "sports". Its just too open to corruption.
Well, they are enforcing it against the positive review on AICN, along with the negative one that was removed. They aren't enforcing it against MSNBC's negative one, probably because MSNBC had some sort of arrangement to get a screening without being embargoed.
Nobody is taking away free speech. But reviewers don't have a fundamental right to be given advance screenings. This time, they were offered one in exchange for not writing about it until Friday.
Pretty routine, really.
"When I went to see THE CLONE WARS in Los Angeles, I was told there was an embargo on reviews until the day of release."
From one of the summary's linked articles. So at least some people clearly did. The taken down articles did too. The ones that are still up are a mixed bag, but they weren't under an embargo (MSNBC's is negative, and the above embargoed one is positive, so its not just banning negative reviews).
Why they did it that way is a mystery, but they're completely within the rights to say "we'll give you an advance screening if you don't post your review until Friday." They could just as easily say "we don't trust you, so you can buy a ticket on opening night and then review it later."
Really, the whole thing is pretty routine. Its only turned into a big deal because... well, I'm not sure. Maybe out of a sentiment of sticking it to The Man®. But its not a free speech issue, and its not a reviewer integrity issue. There's nothing anywhere here that says "its embargoed unless its positive."
Your reputation for independence comes from posting truthful reviews, rather then shills. You can do that on Friday just as well as you can do it today.
Besides, I'm not sure how you can say "people with integrity should break an agreement made in good faith to post a review two days early." Usually integrity requires that you live up to what you agreed to do.
No, it doesn't. The First Amendment blocks the government from telling you that you can't post a negative review of the movie.
It doesn't say that you can't willingly enter into an agreement with a private company that will give you an advance screening in exchange for not posting a review until Friday.
Its Warner AFAIK, and yeah, they can bar them from future screenings. If your job is movie reviews, being barred from screenings of the largest studio in the market is a pretty big deal.
Its just like with game reviews: ones that come out first get more hits then the later ones. Being last all the time is bad for your career.
4. Wait for someone to realize your code still has SQL injection vulnerabilities, and just write an attack query in PGSQL syntax instead.
It looks like its creating a procedure and then running it, which can do that. Technically I guess you could blame MS, but it'd be like blaming them because a third party used Visual Studio to write a program with a buffer overflow, which got exploited and was used to run a spambot.
They've been giving people the tools to prevent SQL injection for a very long time now. That its still happening isn't their fault, any more then its the fault of <language that lets people run direct SQL>.
Take a look down here for more info: http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=643879&cid=24574393
Take a look at the article from this comment, it has a "use at your own risk" procedure. You could probably modify it appropriately.
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=643879&cid=24574393
From the FAQ:
"No modes, views, triggers, prepared statements, stored procedures, query cache, data conversion inserts, ACL. Fewer data types. Less engines, less code. "
So yes they're going to a module type system, but it says flat out these things are removed entirely.
And I agree with the first comment. We already had this, its called MySQL 3.
How many times have you seen an ad for coke on TV, then immediately run out to the store to buy it? Can't say I ever have, but they keep on doing it.
Advertising exists for more then making instant purchase decisions.
Tanks get replaced by Druids? (Feral tanks actually scale badly past T4 content, Warriors and Paladins are safe, and Warriors are in fact specifically required.)
Vanilla WoW not having content only the most hardcore with the best gear can do? (Never heard of the great blunder, Naxxramus? So few people saw that one they're redoing it and putting it back in Wrath.)
Man, did you stop playing 2 years ago or something?
Having played several other MMOs in the post-WoW era, I found three things:
1. Morons, same as WoW has
2. Elitist jerks who think they're cool because they're playing some less popular game, no matter how much of a half-baked buggy mess it happens to be. This varies from the WoW Elitist jerks, who feel that way because they have more purples or bought a higher arena rating.
3. Relatively normal people who enjoy playing the game and like playing with others who also enjoy playing it.
The only real difference is the brand of Elitist jerk, and the scale of the games.
In a post about Death Knight talent specs, someone spends an entire post talking about another game.
What planet do you live on where thats not offtopic? Its no different then going into a post about kernel licensing and talking about some new doodad in Vista.
The real problem with world PvP is that too many servers are faction imbalanced. When one side outnumbers the other 2:1 at ANY encounter, the whole thing becomes pointless.
Making it give rewards makes the problem worse, since the bigger side always wins, it'll also outgear the smaller side. It also encourages people to leech (such as AFKing in BGs and the rampant cheating in Season 3 arenas) to get the rewards faster, instead of actually playing.
(Honestly, world PvP was at its best in the days of the original Taren Mill vs. Southshore fights, which had no rewards whatsoever. People did it because it was fun, not to get l33t shinies.)
I haven't been following this game (not interested), so I don't know how bad these changes are.
They LOOK terrible though. This is Mythic failing to live up to their own hype. Its disappointment and bad publicity created entirely by themselves.
Blizzard is a lot better at this. They don't put out release dates. They don't (generally) advertise features they won't actually deliver. They certainly don't remove 2/3 of the cities.
The most important thing in the first month of a new MMO is people having fun playing it. Unfortunately, people tend to have less fun if they're feeling let down by a game that fails to live up to the hype. Creating hype you can't possibly deliver on is bad. If you set more realistic expectations that you might actually meet, people won't focus on what you didn't do. Instead they might play the game and discover they like what you DID do.
"it just happens BEFORE the marketing, rather than after."
Yep. Thats also why they don't announce release dates.
People flip out if you promise the moon and fail to live up to your own hype, even if the game is fun. Take away the promises, and people may find that the game is fun without thinking about some missing feature.
Of course, Blizzard's marketing department is a good deal more intelligent then that of most other game developers.
Blizzard's page says its $6.50 to buy it, and doesn't say anything about an annual fee. Got a link?
Depends on who is making them.
http://www.entrust.com/strong-authentication/identityguard/calculator.cfm
Entrust here likes to advertise they're 1/7th as expensive as the ones RSA sells, and those are still $4/year.
So at $6 until the token dies, Blizzard isn't exactly making a mint on these things. The profit for them comes in reduced account restorations.
Unless you'd care to source me someone who sells them so cheap that Blizzard is making a fortune at these prices, since there's probably also costs for the server end of the setup?
Except for the dozens of comments already pointing out that its evidence in a criminal trial, and has been proven to be real.
I had the same problem with it. I'm willing to live with running into walls of max level players if it means the game that I play is actually finished.
What they released is beta-quality, at best.
Is there anything in .info worth reading anyway?
Seems like its only purpose is to garner registration fees.