The trend is that the average age of gamers is now in the 30s.
Citation needed. I'm also in my 30s, but that's no foundation for assuming most gamers are. Given that more people are using computers than ever before, I would question this unless backed up with some hard numbers.
You're still using a product that somebody else produced. The DRM presents issues, you download the cracked copy - given that you've paid for it, I can certainly understand that. But to return it (possibly incurring extra overhead beyond the lost sale) and yet still keep the cracked copy... how is that any different than just downloading it in the first place, and not bothering to go through the pretense of paying for it?
I was wondering the same. Having never heard of xing, I went to its web site and learned that it's a "global network of professionals" that boasts "over 8 million members".
Xing membership is a fraction of facebook, linkedin, et al. I would have to assume that it's going to be easier to "fingerprint" users of Xing when they have such a relatively small userbase. TFA doesn't say that their method works anywhere else either (though they imply that it could...); further they specify it only works for people in groups. This reduces the population of 8 million down to 1.7 million by itself. How many of those belong to just 1 or 2 groups, in which you might expect to find a high degree of overlap?
There's nothing anti-anything up there. There's no opinion.
I think *you* need to *read* the summary again without bias.
It's pretty subtle, but there's no denying it's there. Consider this phrasing which conveys the exact same facts:
Windows 7 RC systems will begin issuing warnings of pending expiration on February 15th. As originally stated by Microsoft at [this link] back in March 2009, expired RC installations will cease normal operations as of March 1. Beginning from point, they will shut down at irregular intervals.
Whenever I use Windows, it always seems to shut itself down frequently when I'm in the middle of working on something. There's Blue Screens, automagic updates, and random freezes. So, what's different about this? It isn't going to change the uptime very much.
Just a stab in the dark here, but I think we're talking about versions newer than Win98/Win Me.
I think that computer illiterates will get more so - and that this isn't necessarily bad. As devices get "smarter" and stay more out of the way, there will be less need to learn about esoteric things such as how to "install" a program or even launching a program.
Think of the damage done if noobs were simply given apples or more locked down ipod/phone/pad like devices. It would all but kill the nerd/hacker community in a matter of years. There would be no Linus if he were raised in such an environment. Or really any famous computer nerd you can think of. All tech stuff would come from the direct efforts of university taught students. Which would horribly cripple the pool of talent out there. That is a pretty scary thought.
I don't think I agree with this - there are always going to be people who are dissatisfied or simply curious and trying to push the envelope. The Torvalds of the world will do that no matter what obstacles are put in their way -- perhaps even because of those obstacles. And the ones not so stubborn... well, perhaps it's not the right field for them anyway --- the comp sci industry has been getting quite watered down in recent years due to an influx of people who are in the industry for the money and not the nature of the work.
Hm, I see - looks like I'm wrong, in that this would be statutory damages? From the copyright law itself:
Plaintiffs who can show willful infringement may be entitled to damages up to $150,000 per work. Defendants who can show that they were "not aware and had no reason to believe" they were infringing copyright may have the damages reduced to $200 per work.
his is not a criminal case. The payment is not a fine to discourage crime, it's a payment to cover the damages.
IANAL, but I thought 54k was the amount that the judge decided on after the $1.x million in punitive damages awarded by the jury. This doesn't sound like the 54k is for actual damages at all, but rather is constrained (to some degree) to have some basis in those potential actual damages; but as such remains as punitive damages.
Assuming this is so, the point of punitive awards is specifically to discourage the offending behavior (even if not criminal), isn't it?
Apple fans want computers easy to use! Actually CHOOSE what software your computer will run is too much skill-intensive.
Or far out of line with the things they concern themselves with in their daily lives. Between the two options, I'm voting for the latter. For the vast majority of computer users, the computer is a means to an end - not an end in itself. The more convenient that means is, and the more unobtrusive into their daily lives, the better. (I rather envy that, actually)
I not only disagree, I hope every single computer illiterate ends up with such a locked down device (from apple or elsewhere). First, it meets their needs. Second, and far more importantly, if all software has to come through an approval and QA process their systems will likely never join a botnet army. Today, joining such an army is as simply as clicking to see the bunnies. Under an approved-software-only model, that can no longer happen. The choices that computer illiterates have today harm not only themselves, but the Internet as a whole.
If people want a choice, they should GET a choice - use the app store, or don't. Instead, Apple's making the choice for you. And that's no choice at all.
For example, the choice to not buy such a device if this does not appeal them? Good thing that Apple's taken away that choice, or surely the iPhone would have failed and the iPad would follow in its footsteps.
Arg. I had written up a rather lengthy reply to this buy my internet connection died last night and I lost it. So to summarize in brief:
SOME of the participants disguised themselves as natives. Not all, and not terribly well.
Disregarding that: even if all of them wore masterful disguises, they still put themselves in real physical danger for their actions. (Though I am curious how much was mob mentality akin to the looting in CA, and how much was trying to make a difference.)
If anything you've further proved my point by highlighting an example wherein people - disguised or not - put themselves at considerable risk and earned the title of "heroes" for it. That's a far cry from running a script in the comfort of your dorm room or parents' basement, namely in that the risk to yourself is minuscule for the latter.
And finally, no matter how you look at it, Scientology is not an oppressive governmental regime -- it's run by bunch of crackheads with delusions of grandeur; and most of the adherents are of similar mind. There's no statement to be made by denial of service other than that it was the cause of the moment.
Just don't play their games *at all* if you wish to make a statement.
Why would "not playing their games at all" be a more effective statement than pirating their games?
It's pretty simple.
If the game is not pirated, and it is not sold, then they have nobody to shift the blame to -- and will *have* to make adjustments to remain a viable gaming option. If thje game is pirated and is not sold well, then they can and will always blame piracy.
Not to mention that just like current methods, a patch will invalidate much of the work done -- but unlike current methods, that patch will mean having to start from the beginning again (if ubisoft is smart).
I've seen this trend coming for a long time, but wondered who would be the first to implement it. This is the only way to effectively slow down (if not stop) piracy. It is a great business decision. As we have seen time and again, the number of people who claims they will refuse to buy X in protest is only a fraction of those who actually do so.
In spite of that... it's a sad day. We *will* see this mechanism become commonplace over the next several years, far beyond Ubisoft. While it's good for the gaming industry, it is very bad for their legitimate paying customers.
I am the poster of the message you are referring to and I am lesbian myself. Don't worry. It's not meant to be an insult to LGBTIQ persons. Within Anonymous, everything and everyon...
So... wait, you're saying that you should control what they think, what they say, what they believe? Hmmm...
Me, I don't support oppression no matter who is doing it. And I see a lot more oppression in targeting a single group of people for persecution than I do in having delusional future plans about world domination.
Are implying that running a script which presents little to no risk to yourself (How many participated? How many caught?) is somehow heroic? If every one of them said "Hey, this is who I am, this is where I live, and I am doing this to oppress this bogus religion", *that* would have been a lot closer to heroism.
Actually, I shoudl rephrase my other-direction bias, because this is not specific to a corporation: "So, if you smack somebody on the back of the head for being a jerk you'll probably get less time than aggressively disrupting the services that someone has paid for and has a right to?"
So, if you beat up somebody, you'll probably get less jail time than refreshing a website several times using a script?
You would not compare beating up somebody to DoSing a web site, so why would you compare the punishments? The reality is that there are two "serious" restrictive punishments available: jail and death. Comparing crimes on the basis of their jail sentence is disingenuous at best (particularly when you go out of your way to minimize the crime you feel is undon't agree with;), when there is no comparison to be made between the two crimes in the first place.
The same would apply if the bias was in the other direction: "So, if you smack somebody on the back of the head for being a jerk you'll probably get less time than disrupting services of a multi-million dollar corporation?" Phrased that way it sounds pretty logical - but the comparison is still invalid.
The two crimes are not comparable; it makes no sense to compare the punishments.
That's a bit misleading -- as this is how to completely remove it from the distribution. You could also just add a google search provider in the standard way; or even shortcut keyword to google search which you can type into the address bar.
While this is a serious problem, do you think it helpful to have one-off issues reported by individual users via twitter in your documentation? It seems to cloud the issue with things that could be related to specific individuals, with no real evidence that it's related to the upgrade. Might it not be better to stick only to confirmed issues (more than one user reporting it as a new problem) that are introduced?
Slashdot Mirror
Citation needed. I'm also in my 30s, but that's no foundation for assuming most gamers are. Given that more people are using computers than ever before, I would question this unless backed up with some hard numbers.
You're still using a product that somebody else produced. The DRM presents issues, you download the cracked copy - given that you've paid for it, I can certainly understand that. But to return it (possibly incurring extra overhead beyond the lost sale) and yet still keep the cracked copy... how is that any different than just downloading it in the first place, and not bothering to go through the pretense of paying for it?
No fees is sanity? Shouldn't the RIAA have to pay for bringing what seems to be an essentially frivolous lawsuit?
Indeed. With a "victory" like this, they'll never need to actually win.
"Electrical Bicycles Surging" ... come on, it's so easy... you've let me down, slashdot.
Xing membership is a fraction of facebook, linkedin, et al. I would have to assume that it's going to be easier to "fingerprint" users of Xing when they have such a relatively small userbase. TFA doesn't say that their method works anywhere else either (though they imply that it could...); further they specify it only works for people in groups. This reduces the population of 8 million down to 1.7 million by itself. How many of those belong to just 1 or 2 groups, in which you might expect to find a high degree of overlap?
There's nothing anti-anything up there. There's no opinion.
I think *you* need to *read* the summary again without bias.
It's pretty subtle, but there's no denying it's there. Consider this phrasing which conveys the exact same facts:
Windows 7 RC systems will begin issuing warnings of pending expiration on February 15th. As originally stated by Microsoft at [this link] back in March 2009, expired RC installations will cease normal operations as of March 1. Beginning from point, they will shut down at irregular intervals.
Whenever I use Windows, it always seems to shut itself down frequently when I'm in the middle of working on something. There's Blue Screens, automagic updates, and random freezes. So, what's different about this? It isn't going to change the uptime very much.
Just a stab in the dark here, but I think we're talking about versions newer than Win98/Win Me.
What model? I recall reading somewhere that it appears in a "games and more" category on Samsung, which is an admittedly bad place to put it...
Think of the damage done if noobs were simply given apples or more locked down ipod/phone/pad like devices. It would all but kill the nerd/hacker community in a matter of years. There would be no Linus if he were raised in such an environment. Or really any famous computer nerd you can think of. All tech stuff would come from the direct efforts of university taught students. Which would horribly cripple the pool of talent out there. That is a pretty scary thought.
I don't think I agree with this - there are always going to be people who are dissatisfied or simply curious and trying to push the envelope. The Torvalds of the world will do that no matter what obstacles are put in their way -- perhaps even because of those obstacles. And the ones not so stubborn... well, perhaps it's not the right field for them anyway --- the comp sci industry has been getting quite watered down in recent years due to an influx of people who are in the industry for the money and not the nature of the work.
Plaintiffs who can show willful infringement may be entitled to damages up to $150,000 per work. Defendants who can show that they were "not aware and had no reason to believe" they were infringing copyright may have the damages reduced to $200 per work.
his is not a criminal case. The payment is not a fine to discourage crime, it's a payment to cover the damages.
IANAL, but I thought 54k was the amount that the judge decided on after the $1.x million in punitive damages awarded by the jury. This doesn't sound like the 54k is for actual damages at all, but rather is constrained (to some degree) to have some basis in those potential actual damages; but as such remains as punitive damages.
Assuming this is so, the point of punitive awards is specifically to discourage the offending behavior (even if not criminal), isn't it?
Apple fans want computers easy to use! Actually CHOOSE what software your computer will run is too much skill-intensive.
Or far out of line with the things they concern themselves with in their daily lives. Between the two options, I'm voting for the latter. For the vast majority of computer users, the computer is a means to an end - not an end in itself. The more convenient that means is, and the more unobtrusive into their daily lives, the better. (I rather envy that, actually)
So... bring 'em on, I say.
If people want a choice, they should GET a choice - use the app store, or don't. Instead, Apple's making the choice for you. And that's no choice at all.
For example, the choice to not buy such a device if this does not appeal them? Good thing that Apple's taken away that choice, or surely the iPhone would have failed and the iPad would follow in its footsteps.
Oh, wait.
Why would "not playing their games at all" be a more effective statement than pirating their games?
It's pretty simple. If the game is not pirated, and it is not sold, then they have nobody to shift the blame to -- and will *have* to make adjustments to remain a viable gaming option. If thje game is pirated and is not sold well, then they can and will always blame piracy.
I've seen this trend coming for a long time, but wondered who would be the first to implement it. This is the only way to effectively slow down (if not stop) piracy. It is a great business decision. As we have seen time and again, the number of people who claims they will refuse to buy X in protest is only a fraction of those who actually do so.
In spite of that... it's a sad day. We *will* see this mechanism become commonplace over the next several years, far beyond Ubisoft. While it's good for the gaming industry, it is very bad for their legitimate paying customers.
I am the poster of the message you are referring to and I am lesbian myself. Don't worry. It's not meant to be an insult to LGBTIQ persons. Within Anonymous, everything and everyon...
And that makes it sooooo much better ;)
Me, I don't support oppression no matter who is doing it. And I see a lot more oppression in targeting a single group of people for persecution than I do in having delusional future plans about world domination.
Are implying that running a script which presents little to no risk to yourself (How many participated? How many caught?) is somehow heroic? If every one of them said "Hey, this is who I am, this is where I live, and I am doing this to oppress this bogus religion", *that* would have been a lot closer to heroism.
Actually, I shoudl rephrase my other-direction bias, because this is not specific to a corporation: "So, if you smack somebody on the back of the head for being a jerk you'll probably get less time than aggressively disrupting the services that someone has paid for and has a right to?"
So, if you beat up somebody, you'll probably get less jail time than refreshing a website several times using a script?
You would not compare beating up somebody to DoSing a web site, so why would you compare the punishments? The reality is that there are two "serious" restrictive punishments available: jail and death. Comparing crimes on the basis of their jail sentence is disingenuous at best (particularly when you go out of your way to minimize the crime you feel is undon't agree with ;), when there is no comparison to be made between the two crimes in the first place.
The same would apply if the bias was in the other direction: "So, if you smack somebody on the back of the head for being a jerk you'll probably get less time than disrupting services of a multi-million dollar corporation?" Phrased that way it sounds pretty logical - but the comparison is still invalid.
The two crimes are not comparable; it makes no sense to compare the punishments.
That's a bit misleading -- as this is how to completely remove it from the distribution. You could also just add a google search provider in the standard way; or even shortcut keyword to google search which you can type into the address bar.
While this is a serious problem, do you think it helpful to have one-off issues reported by individual users via twitter in your documentation? It seems to cloud the issue with things that could be related to specific individuals, with no real evidence that it's related to the upgrade. Might it not be better to stick only to confirmed issues (more than one user reporting it as a new problem) that are introduced?
Wrong. Beeing in prison is about BOTH of it. And in addition, it's also about receiving training on how to fit into a mainly non-criminal society.
Precisely. And what better training for fitting into mainstream society than D&D?