FTA: "[The EFF] added that the Blizzard could get away with using The Warden because information about it was buried in licence agreements that few people read."
Didn't read the license agreement? Sorry, but that's not Blizzard's problem. It would be nice if Blizzard had made it more obvious that they would be doing this.
But you know what? Tough titties, you agreed to it.
That said, it's good that people are drawing attention to this -- maybe next time around, Blizzard will be faced with losing revenue should they try to implement the same kind of solution.
What MMORPGs need to do is implement better server-side analysis to identify cheaters. Difficult? Yes. Expensive? Yes. But probably less difficult and less expensive that losing craploads of clients, and hiring craploads of lawyers. Then they won't need to have the invasion clause in the license for their games.
Spread the word, and maybe we won't have to deal with this next time.
"We can put away our fears of Big Brother for the moment."
I would disagree. We should never put away our fears of Big Brother. What we consider innocuous today would have been considered outrageous breaches of privacy a couple decades ago. Incremental intrusions on our privacy are hard to stop, and saying that we can let one go because it seems harmless is exactly how that happens.
In terms of security, we have to work from the assumption that people will use the software in question... so how do we mitigate damage / prevent infection?
The popularity of IM shows that it's an application not likely to go away... so how do we make it safer?
FTA: "The numerosity and substantiality of the disclosures reflects the pervasive extent and sustained degree as to which IBM disclosed methods, concepts, and in many places, literal code, from Unix-derived technologies in order to enhance the ability of Linux to be used as a scalable and reliable operating system for business and as an alternative to proprietary Unix systems such as those licensed by SCO and others." -- attributed to SCO
Commenting on a disclosure in big words doesn't make the complaint any more valid. I mean, sure, I've a propensity to bloviate without regard to efficient communications strategies and verbal deployments utilizing synergistic vocabularistic qualities to increase comprehension.
But, why can't they say "IBM broke our contract by using our proprietary ideas to make their software work as well as ours. They did it so much that it was obviously intentional and illegal." (note: I am not accepting this as fact)
"(I'm fairly certain everyone who doesn't live under a rock knows what Viagra is, and I'm also pretty certain i don't need it... 3 times each and every commercial break after 8pm.)"
Wow, three times each commercial break? By the time the second commercial break rolled around, I think I would need Viagra... and some Cialis... and possibly a paramedic.
One reason Google may want to stay away from this is that they are more of an advertising agent than anything else. If the provide competing content, what regular network will want to provide advertising space for Google's clients to use?
It would be like ABC reselling ad space to NBC, for NBC to sell to their clients.
Better for Google to just deliver the content produced by the other networks... or to just deliver the advertising to those networks.
No surprises here. Google has been slowly but surely horizontally expanding into other types of directed advertising. Print (magazines). Radio. And soon, video content.
Print media is the only place I see this not fitting in with Google's business plan, unless it's used as just a way to offer its advertisers a complete advertising package.
What I see:
If any content can be delivered via the internet, Google will find a way to place targeted ads alongside that content. Whether Google uses existing content delivery systems (e.g., banner ads), or develops their own (e.g., GoogleDRV), they will continue to horizontally expand in targeted advertising.
Not a bad thing, IMO, since it provides revenues for publishers, who will (hopefully) keep their product free or low-price (well, to the consumer, anyway).
So what areas are still relatively untapped by Google? Internet radio? DRV, for now? How about regular television -- can't targeted advertising be delivered via Cable?
Google will continue to offer new services, innovative or not, that have the potential of increasing both ad-views and responses.
"Let me ask you something, what *doesn't* constitute a "fully automated" worm? "
Any worm that requires the user to click on a link on order for the worm to propagate. The scary thing about this class of worms is that it installs a rootkit without activity from a user, so the only rate-limiting step in the infection cycle would appear to be buddy lists. So, you're on someone's buddy list... you get infected without taking any action. Then, boom, all your buddies are belong to them. &c.
Educated users know better than to click just any link they see -- we depend on that to limit propagation. But it doesn't apply here.
"Researchers say the stage is set for a worm writer to use an unpatched buffer overflow in an IM app to unleash a worm that is capable of infecting millions or users without the use of malicious URLs that require a click."
FTA "'We've already seen documentation for some serious code-execution vulnerabilities in IM applications. If you put it all together, you'll see we're not that far away from an automated IM attack where infections don't require the user to click on anything,' Wells said."
User education won't help if propagation occurs without any action by them.
" Less than two weeks ago we heard about Wikipedia having some major quality issues [slashdot.org], and now we're talking about distributing it in print fashion to poor and developing nations?
Shouldn't the content be corrected & verified before we start putting out hard copies of the data, which will be interpreted as "the truth" by whomever learns from these tomes? "
Why would we want to do that? Obviously, this is a scheme to make sure the developing world does not educate its children well.
Sabotage the future job competition and all that...
"Anticompetitive practice legislation was designed to punish cartels who raised prices artificially, not ones which forced them down"
Actually legislation was enacted to prevent anticompetitive business practices in general. This can include collusion to raise prices or keep them high (like the airline industry (1982, Braniff Airlines & American Airlines), or collusion to lower prices, when the effect of lowering the prices is to drive a competitor out of business. In the long run, such collusion is bad for consumers.
Re:Why is Vivendi/Blizzard worthy of Slashdot?
on
Blizzcon Writeup
·
· Score: 1
"
Honestly, what does it take for them to be labeled as worthless assholes?"
Conventional Wisdom says that as long as their games are fun, people will find reasons to not dislike the company.
Well, yes. You CHOSE to read the post. You CHOSE to read the article (maybe).
The fact of the matter is that raising issues (complaining, if you will) is a great way of fostering debate about topics.
There's a literary device called sarcasm that apparently you have no grasp of. Maybe you should go back and learn to read critically. You think my point is ridiculous? Good, so do I -- just like your point was ridiculous. Maybe you missed the obvious step of wondering why I had written that -- to point out the inanity of your little PS.
Or do you take the Onion literally? Or Swift's "A Modest Proposal?"
On of your points originally (which was OT, btw) was that if you CHOOSE to do something, you're a crybaby if you complain about it. My point was that (1) his experience differed from his expectations (thus his commentary about having to do more work than anticipated) and (2) that bringing up negative aspects to an expereince is valuable discourse.
You seem to feel that since the author of the blog chose to do more than a half-ass job of writing and administering the blog, he shouldn't be allowed to point out that it was more work than he thought it would be. Note that the tone of TFA is a positive one, and that he plans on continuing...
Critical reasoning skills. Learn them. Use them. Learn what sarcasm is used for (sorry I didn't enclose it in sarcasm tags so your little mind could understand it). Learn about other literary devices, and how they are used... and then maybe you won't come across as an utter moron.
PS. I notice a ton of flamebaits and trolls in your profile... maybe you should go back to fark.com where that kind of BS is appreciated.
You're right... but limiting the WS to MLB teams serves to perpetuate this model. I compare it to football (soccer) in that regard.
The US national team can compete respectably on the wordwide level because a lot of the players get experience playing in Serie A, or the Premiership, or the Bundeslige, or other major league.
MLS teams will not be able to compete against teams from these same leagues until MLS teams play against teams of that caliber... which happens as friendlies.
In baseball, I'd like to see MLB teams play against teams from the DR, or Japan, or Korea. As friendly matches, and maybe minus a few starters who wouldn't want to risk injury (like when Man U comes to the US to play against MLS teams).
What is wrong with discussing misperceptions about something? What is wrong with bring up a potentially interesting topic?
"PS, you don't get to whine about something you choose to do. That makes you a crybaby (and deservedly so)."
Then stop complaining about TFA and the GP to this post. And stop complaining about any single thing that happens, since you CHOOSE to not commit suicide.
If you'd read TFA, you'd see that he wasn't complaining. He was making a point or two.
What's the point of a blog, typically? To have other people read what you have to say.
In that case, wouldn't it be ideal to maximize the amount of people reading what you have to say?
And, in that case, wouldn't it be necessary to take actions that help? Such as responding to comments, blog administration, etc?
"Where else holds a World Series for a game only played in one country?"
Your point is valid (I think it's your point)... don't call it a World Series if only American and Canadian teams get to compete.
But, then again, don't call it a World's Fair if it's only held in one city/country.
And, of course, baseball isn't played in Japan, in Korea, in the Dominican Republic, in Venezuela, in Cuba, etc.
The fact of the matter is that "World Series" is a legacy name, that was created when baseball was really only played in North America... as such, it really was a world series. I think they should open it up to other leagues now, or stop calling it the WS.
"Blogging is hard? Compared to what? Watching TV? Digging ditches, cleaning septic tanks, plumbing, and about a million other jobs are much harder than merely posting trivial and useless opinions on fluff topics."
RTFA, please.
See, blogging in the author's case is a hobby. Not a job, not a necessity. And his point is that it was more involved, and took more time, than he expected. It wasn't just a matter of posting some commentary every day -- he had to administrate the blog, deal with the comments, etc.
Plenty of/.ers have useless hobbies that they sink tons of hours into (WoW comes to mind:). And plenty of blogs have information that is neither trivial nor useless, and is not about a fluff topic.
Baseball might be a fluff topic... but then again, so are many of the topics that get discussed on/. You think that the latest Mars Rover news is anything but fluff to the majority of/. readers?
"I think it is deceptive to present something as the "classic Hollywood masterpiece" as some stations do and then show a version which has been edited for content (other than swear words and nudity in the case of the networks"
I agree, except it's still deceptive to edit for swear words and nudity, and present it as the original movie.
Slashdot Mirror
FTA: "[The EFF] added that the Blizzard could get away with using The Warden because information about it was buried in licence agreements that few people read."
Didn't read the license agreement? Sorry, but that's not Blizzard's problem. It would be nice if Blizzard had made it more obvious that they would be doing this.
But you know what? Tough titties, you agreed to it.
That said, it's good that people are drawing attention to this -- maybe next time around, Blizzard will be faced with losing revenue should they try to implement the same kind of solution.
What MMORPGs need to do is implement better server-side analysis to identify cheaters. Difficult? Yes. Expensive? Yes. But probably less difficult and less expensive that losing craploads of clients, and hiring craploads of lawyers. Then they won't need to have the invasion clause in the license for their games.
Spread the word, and maybe we won't have to deal with this next time.
"We can put away our fears of Big Brother for the moment."
I would disagree. We should never put away our fears of Big Brother. What we consider innocuous today would have been considered outrageous breaches of privacy a couple decades ago. Incremental intrusions on our privacy are hard to stop, and saying that we can let one go because it seems harmless is exactly how that happens.
'What is the best to protect your privacy with regard to location with a cell?'
Leave it at home.
Leave it at smoeone else's home.
Ahh, but then they are no longer users, no?
In terms of security, we have to work from the assumption that people will use the software in question... so how do we mitigate damage / prevent infection?
The popularity of IM shows that it's an application not likely to go away... so how do we make it safer?
FTA: "The numerosity and substantiality of the disclosures reflects the pervasive extent and sustained degree as to which IBM disclosed methods, concepts, and in many places, literal code, from Unix-derived technologies in order to enhance the ability of Linux to be used as a scalable and reliable operating system for business and as an alternative to proprietary Unix systems such as those licensed by SCO and others." -- attributed to SCO
Commenting on a disclosure in big words doesn't make the complaint any more valid. I mean, sure, I've a propensity to bloviate without regard to efficient communications strategies and verbal deployments utilizing synergistic vocabularistic qualities to increase comprehension.
But, why can't they say "IBM broke our contract by using our proprietary ideas to make their software work as well as ours. They did it so much that it was obviously intentional and illegal." (note: I am not accepting this as fact)
"(I'm fairly certain everyone who doesn't live under a rock knows what Viagra is, and I'm also pretty certain i don't need it... 3 times each and every commercial break after 8pm.)"
Wow, three times each commercial break? By the time the second commercial break rolled around, I think I would need Viagra... and some Cialis... and possibly a paramedic.
We'll see if it hits Cable or other providers.
One reason Google may want to stay away from this is that they are more of an advertising agent than anything else. If the provide competing content, what regular network will want to provide advertising space for Google's clients to use?
It would be like ABC reselling ad space to NBC, for NBC to sell to their clients.
Better for Google to just deliver the content produced by the other networks... or to just deliver the advertising to those networks.
No surprises here. Google has been slowly but surely horizontally expanding into other types of directed advertising. Print (magazines). Radio. And soon, video content.
Print media is the only place I see this not fitting in with Google's business plan, unless it's used as just a way to offer its advertisers a complete advertising package.
What I see:
If any content can be delivered via the internet, Google will find a way to place targeted ads alongside that content. Whether Google uses existing content delivery systems (e.g., banner ads), or develops their own (e.g., GoogleDRV), they will continue to horizontally expand in targeted advertising.
Not a bad thing, IMO, since it provides revenues for publishers, who will (hopefully) keep their product free or low-price (well, to the consumer, anyway).
So what areas are still relatively untapped by Google? Internet radio? DRV, for now? How about regular television -- can't targeted advertising be delivered via Cable?
Google will continue to offer new services, innovative or not, that have the potential of increasing both ad-views and responses.
"Let me ask you something, what *doesn't* constitute a "fully automated" worm? "
Any worm that requires the user to click on a link on order for the worm to propagate. The scary thing about this class of worms is that it installs a rootkit without activity from a user, so the only rate-limiting step in the infection cycle would appear to be buddy lists. So, you're on someone's buddy list... you get infected without taking any action. Then, boom, all your buddies are belong to them. &c.
Educated users know better than to click just any link they see -- we depend on that to limit propagation. But it doesn't apply here.
From the summary:
"Researchers say the stage is set for a worm writer to use an unpatched buffer overflow in an IM app to unleash a worm that is capable of infecting millions or users without the use of malicious URLs that require a click."
FTA "'We've already seen documentation for some serious code-execution vulnerabilities in IM applications. If you put it all together, you'll see we're not that far away from an automated IM attack where infections don't require the user to click on anything,' Wells said."
User education won't help if propagation occurs without any action by them.
" Less than two weeks ago we heard about Wikipedia having some major quality issues [slashdot.org], and now we're talking about distributing it in print fashion to poor and developing nations?
Shouldn't the content be corrected & verified before we start putting out hard copies of the data, which will be interpreted as "the truth" by whomever learns from these tomes? "
Why would we want to do that? Obviously, this is a scheme to make sure the developing world does not educate its children well.
Sabotage the future job competition and all that...
"Anticompetitive practice legislation was designed to punish cartels who raised prices artificially, not ones which forced them down"
Actually legislation was enacted to prevent anticompetitive business practices in general. This can include collusion to raise prices or keep them high (like the airline industry (1982, Braniff Airlines & American Airlines), or collusion to lower prices, when the effect of lowering the prices is to drive a competitor out of business. In the long run, such collusion is bad for consumers.
" Honestly, what does it take for them to be labeled as worthless assholes?"
Conventional Wisdom says that as long as their games are fun, people will find reasons to not dislike the company.
Sure, but my point is that if you want to discuss the topic, go ahead. If you don't think it's worth discussing, simply don't bother.
No one is forced to participate in any thread.
Well, yes. You CHOSE to read the post. You CHOSE to read the article (maybe).
The fact of the matter is that raising issues (complaining, if you will) is a great way of fostering debate about topics.
There's a literary device called sarcasm that apparently you have no grasp of. Maybe you should go back and learn to read critically. You think my point is ridiculous? Good, so do I -- just like your point was ridiculous. Maybe you missed the obvious step of wondering why I had written that -- to point out the inanity of your little PS.
Or do you take the Onion literally? Or Swift's "A Modest Proposal?"
On of your points originally (which was OT, btw) was that if you CHOOSE to do something, you're a crybaby if you complain about it. My point was that (1) his experience differed from his expectations (thus his commentary about having to do more work than anticipated) and (2) that bringing up negative aspects to an expereince is valuable discourse.
You seem to feel that since the author of the blog chose to do more than a half-ass job of writing and administering the blog, he shouldn't be allowed to point out that it was more work than he thought it would be. Note that the tone of TFA is a positive one, and that he plans on continuing...
Critical reasoning skills. Learn them. Use them. Learn what sarcasm is used for (sorry I didn't enclose it in sarcasm tags so your little mind could understand it). Learn about other literary devices, and how they are used... and then maybe you won't come across as an utter moron.
PS. I notice a ton of flamebaits and trolls in your profile... maybe you should go back to fark.com where that kind of BS is appreciated.
You're right... but limiting the WS to MLB teams serves to perpetuate this model. I compare it to football (soccer) in that regard.
The US national team can compete respectably on the wordwide level because a lot of the players get experience playing in Serie A, or the Premiership, or the Bundeslige, or other major league.
MLS teams will not be able to compete against teams from these same leagues until MLS teams play against teams of that caliber... which happens as friendlies.
In baseball, I'd like to see MLB teams play against teams from the DR, or Japan, or Korea. As friendly matches, and maybe minus a few starters who wouldn't want to risk injury (like when Man U comes to the US to play against MLS teams).
What is wrong with discussing misperceptions about something? What is wrong with bring up a potentially interesting topic?
"PS, you don't get to whine about something you choose to do. That makes you a crybaby (and deservedly so)."
Then stop complaining about TFA and the GP to this post. And stop complaining about any single thing that happens, since you CHOOSE to not commit suicide.
If you'd read TFA, you'd see that he wasn't complaining. He was making a point or two.
What's the point of a blog, typically? To have other people read what you have to say.
In that case, wouldn't it be ideal to maximize the amount of people reading what you have to say?
And, in that case, wouldn't it be necessary to take actions that help? Such as responding to comments, blog administration, etc?
"It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue."
Scarier words have never been written into a game. Never thought that text games would give my nephews nightmares... boy was I mistaken.
"Where else holds a World Series for a game only played in one country?"
Your point is valid (I think it's your point)... don't call it a World Series if only American and Canadian teams get to compete.
But, then again, don't call it a World's Fair if it's only held in one city/country.
And, of course, baseball isn't played in Japan, in Korea, in the Dominican Republic, in Venezuela, in Cuba, etc.
The fact of the matter is that "World Series" is a legacy name, that was created when baseball was really only played in North America... as such, it really was a world series. I think they should open it up to other leagues now, or stop calling it the WS.
"Blogging is hard? Compared to what? Watching TV? Digging ditches, cleaning septic tanks, plumbing, and about a million other jobs are much harder than merely posting trivial and useless opinions on fluff topics."
/.ers have useless hobbies that they sink tons of hours into (WoW comes to mind :). And plenty of blogs have information that is neither trivial nor useless, and is not about a fluff topic.
/. You think that the latest Mars Rover news is anything but fluff to the majority of /. readers?
RTFA, please.
See, blogging in the author's case is a hobby. Not a job, not a necessity. And his point is that it was more involved, and took more time, than he expected. It wasn't just a matter of posting some commentary every day -- he had to administrate the blog, deal with the comments, etc.
Plenty of
Baseball might be a fluff topic... but then again, so are many of the topics that get discussed on
"I would have thought the emphasis would have been on laid ..."
No, no, it was a double-blind study... Everyone knows that it's not getting laid that makes you go blind.
I myself participated in the follow-up, which was a double-hairy palm study.
"I think it is deceptive to present something as the "classic Hollywood masterpiece" as some stations do and then show a version which has been edited for content (other than swear words and nudity in the case of the networks"
I agree, except it's still deceptive to edit for swear words and nudity, and present it as the original movie.
It was just a joke... there was a very vitriolic thread about IDEs on Wednesday evening.
"(next thing you know, they'll be posting articles here about how the Xbox 360 is powered by DEAD KITTENS...)"
So, if they ship with a couple discs of pr0n, the 360 will be self-powering? Sweet!
But how do you hide your purchase of a server farm?