And where do you think the pirates would get the password currently in use for that key? Either from the customer or the company. There's no way the pirates are going to be able to run that unimaginable number of guesses by the game company's server before they notice something's up.
Really mods, are we going to go there? I suggest a simple household experiment with 2 of the most common resources on the planet to a person who has a slashdot ID and thus money, and easy access to a computer, and who seemingly refuses to use Google or Yahoo or any other search engine, and *I* get dinged as overrated, and *he* gets upped as underrated?
Obviously it's the same person who moderated it. But guess what? Just because you don't like science or lessening your ignorance, doesn't mean things will magically change to your viewpoint.
I'm not sure why that's unintuitive to you. Do you cook at all?
Stick a thermometer in containers of the same volume of water and air. Heat up the containers to the same temperature. Let them sit. Which do you think will cool off first?
Maybe I have to hint to you that the density makes a big difference? Think about heating up a large solid metal plug of the same volume to the same temperature as the water and air. If you chose a temperature where you wouldn't stick your finger into that water, how long do you think it would take for that metal plug to cool off before you would touch it?
Or even better, how long are you going to wait for that cookie sheet to cool off before grabbing it with your bare hand? Notice that the cookies cooled off long before the cookie sheet.
Do you really need citations for elementary and high school level science experiments?
Any time I read about Google, I remember how Larry and Sergey control the vast majority of voting shares at Google and that there is a "poison pill" designed to always give Larry and Sergey majority control.
So while Sergey abstained from this particular vote, it didn't really matter because Larry voted NO. The only shareholders that make a difference in voting at Google are Larry and Sergey. Everybody else is just propping up the share price.
The "shareholders" probably know this and left voting up to proxies, who also know this. Voting is futile unless Larry and Sergey both don't vote (and then is there a quorum?). The "shareholders" were probably only at the meeting for the free food.
To quote Orwell, "The Proles will never revolt." As long as we HAVE our X-Factor, our America's Next Top Model, our Pop Idol, and our never ending Lost series, we'll let them do whatever the fuck they want. Bah... Baaaah...
Why didn't you also mention "Big Brother" -- the popular TV show that makes this so ironic?
OK, I know you're just trolling at this point, but I'll give you a serious answer.
Up until this point, I'd just been ignoring any e-book reader in the triple-digit range. And it wasn't until 2004 that the first reader with e-paper came out, and that wasn't followed until 2006, when many more offerings came out. So, effectively, anything with decent tech has only been around less than 2 years. I wouldn't consider my previous lack of knowledge as being "under a rock" when figuring it's still a small market and the e-paper based products' availability as a percentage of my age.
I already have a PDA. It doesn't have e-ink type of screen, and it still eats up power about as much as the Kindle. It's just not a great book reading device for those reasons.
The Kindle still appears to use power to display the print. Battery life is like a cell-phone (even without the wireless turned on.) If it truly isn't using power, the battery should last for months without recharging.
The only error I made was the brain fart with saying "most" instead of "best odds." My original point was to clarify DarkOx's comment that rolling dice will give you an even distribution. It won't. If you naively assume that just because one die does, you'll lose at the craps table.
And since you verified my betting proposition, you obviously know I'm not bad at maths.
I followed the link and scrolled down, and I even hit "next" a few times to see if I missed something. But unless Timothy can point to the exact post that Mr. French made where he rescinds the every-10-day rule, I'm inclined to believe that Timothy is just flat wrong.
Direct quote from Mr. French:
If the system cannot connect to the internet after the 10 days, you will not be able to play MEPC until you are connected to the internet. Once you reconnect to the internet and try to play, it will re-validate and you can play as normal for another period of 10 days as before.
They're trying to defend against people who intentionally give out their keys. I agree that your password system would protect people whose keys are compromised without their consent, but it wouldn't remove the need to phone home every 10 days to verify that the key/password combination isn't banned.
And I counter that it can also remove that need because each time there's a new installation, it will need to be activated, which will cause a phone home event. If people are activating the software once, then fixing it so it can be copied limitlessly without contacting the server, how is this different than a cracked copy? At this point, the number of days between contacts (0 to N) is just a matter of how much the executives want to "feel good" and not about actually keeping piracy in check. The game company has all the information on the customer *and* a unique identifier (the password). A copied key will not work without the customer's password.
And we're talking about games that can (or should be allowed to) be played *offline* here, just so there's no confusion.
let me suggest a way to ensure that my legitimate key will not be used by someone else inadvertently or through piracy
That's not what they're protecting against. That rarely happens.
I disagree.
They're protecting against people giving out their keys intentionally, which is what usually happens. Those people, and those they gave the key too, will find their copy is disabled after the 10 day check determines that their key is on the banned list.
These are the two reasons I disagree: 1) Many people have had their key compromised, one way or another -- usually through keygens. I suspect it has happened to me in the past (not quite sure since the software was a bit buggy), and I keep reading over and over on Slashdot and other forums that legit customers are having problems with keys that come pre-used or get used afterward and banned.
2) With the password system, if the key *and* password are leaked, or goes past the limit of allowed simultaneous copies, the customer doesn't have an excuse anymore. Time to buy another copy or reduce the number of copies online.
We're not talking about cracked copies here. We're talking about legitimate or unaltered copies. It's pointless to talk about the cracked copies as they won't be activated online.
I appreciate the back and forth here as defending my idea can make it stronger. Please continue the analysis as all good systems should have done to them.
Well, yes I did take into account keygens. What I didn't specify was what happens *before* the initial activation. I was trying to keep it simple here, because I'm trying to cost the game company less money, not more by needing to roll out expensive special software or hardware to stores. But you still bring up a good point.
I'd address that by allowing the customer who had a legit copy but a pre-used key to be able to call up the company and fax (or scan and e-mail) the receipt. That key could then be reinitialized or a new key could be given out. Sure, it'll take a phone call, but only for the initial setup. With the password system I described, a company should be more willing to do this, as they now have your contact information and a more airtight usage tracking method.
If you are going to require that my copy of your game must phone home to be activated AND phone home every N days, even though that excludes extended periods of offline play, please let me suggest a way to ensure that my legitimate key will not be used by someone else either inadvertently or through piracy.
I propose hashing my key with a password of *my* choosing, and you storing it upon activation. When someone else tries to play with my legitimate key, you'll know it's not me, and thus you won't simply ban that key. If legitimate key/password hashes started phoning in simultaneously from around the world, then at least you'd have a better case for banning that key from further play.
Do not, under any circumstances, have the game software locally store my password. (And don't store it in the clear on *your* servers.) I don't want some unknown (but plausible) trojan/hacker stealing it from the disk (I prefer them to have to work for it). When time comes for reauthentication, just have the software ask again for my password.
Perhaps with this new authentication scheme, you'll find that you won't need my copy to reauthenticate so often, if at all past the initial contact. No one's going to be able to reuse my key (gotten from a keygen or other means) online unless I give out my password. Obviously, this won't cut down on cracked copies that don't phone home, but it will cut down on the resources you need for authentication and the frustration level for your paying customers.
How's this: the "warez scene" that grows around the underground trading of software is like the "drug scene" that grows around the underground traffic of illegal drugs.
I see the picture you're trying to paint, but it has the wrong focus. Tony Kvaric was not just some impressionable young member, he is the co-founder of Fairlight. To correctly expand your analogy about the "drug scene," it would be as if Pablo Escobar of the Medellin Cartel had come to the USA and become a Democratic Party leader.
I'm all for people changing, but Tony Kvaric hasn't admitted anything yet. Without that, he's a huge hypocrite because he hasn't shown us he's incapable of change.
Slashdot Mirror
And where do you think the pirates would get the password currently in use for that key? Either from the customer or the company. There's no way the pirates are going to be able to run that unimaginable number of guesses by the game company's server before they notice something's up.
Really mods, are we going to go there? I suggest a simple household experiment with 2 of the most common resources on the planet to a person who has a slashdot ID and thus money, and easy access to a computer, and who seemingly refuses to use Google or Yahoo or any other search engine, and *I* get dinged as overrated, and *he* gets upped as underrated?
Obviously it's the same person who moderated it. But guess what? Just because you don't like science or lessening your ignorance, doesn't mean things will magically change to your viewpoint.
I'm not sure why that's unintuitive to you. Do you cook at all?
Stick a thermometer in containers of the same volume of water and air. Heat up the containers to the same temperature. Let them sit. Which do you think will cool off first?
Maybe I have to hint to you that the density makes a big difference? Think about heating up a large solid metal plug of the same volume to the same temperature as the water and air. If you chose a temperature where you wouldn't stick your finger into that water, how long do you think it would take for that metal plug to cool off before you would touch it?
Or even better, how long are you going to wait for that cookie sheet to cool off before grabbing it with your bare hand? Notice that the cookies cooled off long before the cookie sheet.
Do you really need citations for elementary and high school level science experiments?
Physics? Chemistry?
Run your own experiment on heating and cooling a liter of water vs. a liter of air.
hate to know what a fleet of jets with titanium tipped, actively-cooled wings would cost.
$72 million for 3 such jets in 1993.
Any time I read about Google, I remember how Larry and Sergey control the vast majority of voting shares at Google and that there is a "poison pill" designed to always give Larry and Sergey majority control.
So while Sergey abstained from this particular vote, it didn't really matter because Larry voted NO. The only shareholders that make a difference in voting at Google are Larry and Sergey. Everybody else is just propping up the share price.
The "shareholders" probably know this and left voting up to proxies, who also know this. Voting is futile unless Larry and Sergey both don't vote (and then is there a quorum?). The "shareholders" were probably only at the meeting for the free food.
OK, I know you're just trolling at this point, but I'll give you a serious answer.
Up until this point, I'd just been ignoring any e-book reader in the triple-digit range. And it wasn't until 2004 that the first reader with e-paper came out, and that wasn't followed until 2006, when many more offerings came out. So, effectively, anything with decent tech has only been around less than 2 years. I wouldn't consider my previous lack of knowledge as being "under a rock" when figuring it's still a small market and the e-paper based products' availability as a percentage of my age.
I already have a PDA. It doesn't have e-ink type of screen, and it still eats up power about as much as the Kindle. It's just not a great book reading device for those reasons.
Hmmm. The Sony Reader is $300. Still too expensive.
7500 "turns" on a charge. At about 20 books, that does seem to use much less power than Kindle's 1 week (maybe!) rating.
The e-books cost the same as normal books? WTF? And I'm tied into only Sony's selection, unless a publisher provides it DRM-free.
If the price were to drastically drop, maybe to $50, for that reader, and the ridiculous prices on the books were lowered, I'd buy it.
So there. I learned something new. But my overall opinion hasn't changed.
Sorry. Forgot to add: Doesn't cost near $400?
The Kindle still appears to use power to display the print. Battery life is like a cell-phone (even without the wireless turned on.) If it truly isn't using power, the battery should last for months without recharging.
Is there one that doesn't need a backlight or continuous power to display? Can I read it in the sunlight or under a lamp?
The only error I made was the brain fart with saying "most" instead of "best odds." My original point was to clarify DarkOx's comment that rolling dice will give you an even distribution. It won't. If you naively assume that just because one die does, you'll lose at the craps table.
And since you verified my betting proposition, you obviously know I'm not bad at maths.
Direct quote from Mr. French:This is still 10 days.
And we're talking about games that can (or should be allowed to) be played *offline* here, just so there's no confusion.
1) Many people have had their key compromised, one way or another -- usually through keygens. I suspect it has happened to me in the past (not quite sure since the software was a bit buggy), and I keep reading over and over on Slashdot and other forums that legit customers are having problems with keys that come pre-used or get used afterward and banned.
2) With the password system, if the key *and* password are leaked, or goes past the limit of allowed simultaneous copies, the customer doesn't have an excuse anymore. Time to buy another copy or reduce the number of copies online.
We're not talking about cracked copies here. We're talking about legitimate or unaltered copies. It's pointless to talk about the cracked copies as they won't be activated online.
I appreciate the back and forth here as defending my idea can make it stronger. Please continue the analysis as all good systems should have done to them.
Well, yes I did take into account keygens. What I didn't specify was what happens *before* the initial activation. I was trying to keep it simple here, because I'm trying to cost the game company less money, not more by needing to roll out expensive special software or hardware to stores. But you still bring up a good point.
I'd address that by allowing the customer who had a legit copy but a pre-used key to be able to call up the company and fax (or scan and e-mail) the receipt. That key could then be reinitialized or a new key could be given out. Sure, it'll take a phone call, but only for the initial setup. With the password system I described, a company should be more willing to do this, as they now have your contact information and a more airtight usage tracking method.
Dear Game Industry,
If you are going to require that my copy of your game must phone home to be activated AND phone home every N days, even though that excludes extended periods of offline play, please let me suggest a way to ensure that my legitimate key will not be used by someone else either inadvertently or through piracy.
I propose hashing my key with a password of *my* choosing, and you storing it upon activation. When someone else tries to play with my legitimate key, you'll know it's not me, and thus you won't simply ban that key. If legitimate key/password hashes started phoning in simultaneously from around the world, then at least you'd have a better case for banning that key from further play.
Do not, under any circumstances, have the game software locally store my password. (And don't store it in the clear on *your* servers.) I don't want some unknown (but plausible) trojan/hacker stealing it from the disk (I prefer them to have to work for it). When time comes for reauthentication, just have the software ask again for my password.
Perhaps with this new authentication scheme, you'll find that you won't need my copy to reauthenticate so often, if at all past the initial contact. No one's going to be able to reuse my key (gotten from a keygen or other means) online unless I give out my password. Obviously, this won't cut down on cracked copies that don't phone home, but it will cut down on the resources you need for authentication and the frustration level for your paying customers.
Sincerely,
statemachine
Open spaces are for companies that don't want to spend money.
Just one with two six-sided dice, OK?
Hey, we can start playing right now. We'll roll the dice 100 times and you send me $5 for every 7, and I'll send you *$10* for every 12!
Rolling dice -- I expect to get back some value between 1 and 6 randomly (usefull)
That only holds true for one die. Just don't go to a craps table and expect random results. Expect 7 most of the time.
...hasn't shown us he's capable of change.
Bah, that type of day, you know?
How's this: the "warez scene" that grows around the underground trading of software is like the "drug scene" that grows around the underground traffic of illegal drugs.
I see the picture you're trying to paint, but it has the wrong focus. Tony Kvaric was not just some impressionable young member, he is the co-founder of Fairlight. To correctly expand your analogy about the "drug scene," it would be as if Pablo Escobar of the Medellin Cartel had come to the USA and become a Democratic Party leader.
I'm all for people changing, but Tony Kvaric hasn't admitted anything yet. Without that, he's a huge hypocrite because he hasn't shown us he's incapable of change.
Fwoomp! Red herring!
The decision references scientists and research. Or do you think they make it up out of thin air?
And did you even bother to read the New Scientist link?
Next you'll be calling the Republican majority Supreme Court a bunch of "activist judges."