Suing someone for infesting your computer with hidden irremovable DRM without explicitly saying so hardly sounds frivolous.
I'm usually not a proponent of lawsuits, but in this case, they deserve it. I hope they get to pay a large amount in damages. If you want to hurt your customer, it should come with a hefty price tag.
Doing this not only punishes EA, it punishes the studios that EA oversees, manages and works with. For example, I don't think the RA3 devs had ANYTHING to do with the SecuROM crap, yet by not buying their games you essentially cut off their fundings.
Yes, and that's a good thing. That may make other studios think twice before signing a publishing agreement with EA. The ones that already did so only have themselves to blame if they go down for it.
If the studio disappears because of it, we'll all be crying because yet another good PC developer will have bitten the dust.
No, I'd be happy, since it would show that partnering with EA is commercial suicide.
I, for one, don't want to miss out on some of their games; I just won't buy them on the PC.
By buying any of their games, your support their actions, regardless of platform. I find your (and others') support of their actions appalling.
Sucks, I know, but I think lawsuits will hurt them more than any sort of boycotting will
Class-action lawsuits may be good, but a multi-pronged attack will be much better. Both hit EA and its partnering studios where it hurts the most. I hope some of them bite the dust.
So either you have explicitly allowed EA to do whatever they asked you in the EULA when you have entered that contract or you are a criminal, illegally copying a protected work.
Or EA "forgot" to mention the hidden irremovable software that is secretly installed along with the game. It has happened before, and it will likely happen again. I can't see why you are so sure that EA would never do anything wrong.
Yes it is, at least in the US. There, everything is about fighting, conquering, destroying, etc. Listen to what the companies say, and you will hear it.
if I break a disk and I like the film, I get a new one
You are exactly the kind of customer that all big movie and music companies would like every customer to be. DRM is a way to make that happen. That way, they can make customers pay for the same content multiple times, growing their profits by leaps and bounds. While you pay through your nose, they laugh all the way to the bank.
Unfortunately this will probably just mean that a ton of consumers will be SOL when they implement new encryption schemes on BluRay that aren't supported by some existing players.
Good! Maybe then the consumers can start to understand why DRM sucks, especially systems where their decryption keys can be disabled after the purchase. It's unfortunate that they'll have to learn this the hard way, but there is not much we can do about that.
it's not the US that likes pre-emptive strikes, its a small group of people at the top, the neocons in that particular case, who are leading a lot of really dumb people to war. Most people in the country, and in fact even most religious fundamentalists, have no fault in the wars Bush started. So don't blame us for what our government does.
No? Someone elected Bush to become president, not only once, but twice. Of course, I'm aware of the fundamental flaws of the US electoral system (which e.g. in the right circumstances allows someone to become president with just 25.1% voter support), so all the blame cannot rest with the voters. But still, a significant number fo voters must vote for a candidate for him or her to become the president, and all of those who voted for Bush are to blame, especially those who voted for his second term. They saw what he did, and apparently they liked it.
It's precisely BECAUSE they don't have our weapons systems that we have no reason to attack them: they pose little threat.
But since you have your weapon systems, you are a big threat. Or at least you will be if Sarah Palin ever becomes president of the United States. Then I suggest the EU unite and launch a preemptive all-out attack on the United States.
The US likes preemptive strikes against religious fundamentalists, so why can't we?
I know that, please read my post again. I see the "Information wants to be free" expression as a way of saying that information is hard or even impossible to lock up once it is out in the open. It does not mean that information literally has any desires.
That appeared to be talking about the physical costs to getting information out.
I see the Information wants to be free as an observation that information spreads easily, and that once something is out, you can't lock it up again, just like you can't put a genie back into a bottle.
A good example of this is the Streisand Effect, in which some entity tries to force the removal of some piece of information from the internet, but since the attempt makes people perceive the information as valuable, large numbers make sure that they get a copy themselves. Poster cases for this effect is the attempt by certain movie companies to remove a HD-DVD encryption key from the internet. The attempt seriously backfired, making the encryption key one of the most well-known large numbers on the internet.
If you just want to block it, you can turn it off altogether without NoScript. NoScript gives the ability to enable Javascript on a site-by-site basis, which means that you probably want to enable Javascript for some sites. Then a speed increase is hardly as useless as you make it sound.
AND, FF doesn't do, or is by itself incapable of, doing much of what IE can in Intranet environs for businesses' internal apps (especially those that use ActiveX controls, or even some functions of.NET via say, ASP.NET).
I thought ASP.NET ran entirely on the server side, producing HTML/JS/CSS just like any other server-side language. So how is it possible that features of ASP.NET on the server can impact the usability in Firefox?
I can either go through config files to enable other repositories
Not necessarily. New repos can also be added by installing a package. Download the repository package in your web browser and open it, which causes the software installer to open and install it (after you type your password or the root password). Then you can just use the package manager with the new repository.
Microsoft, in particular, has never shown much interest in patent litigation
They may not have actually brought cases against anyone, but they have surely used patents to threaten competitors. And doing that is not something I consider a defensive stance. Voicing threats of patent litigation is an offensive action, regardless of whether you execute your threats or not.
there are plenty of open source projects on Freshmeat that only run on linux/BSD, or even SourceForge for that matter (which also hosts Windows-only open source projects).
There is a big difference between code that technically requires a certain platform and code that is legally required to stay on one platform. Nothing else than technical reasons keeps the code from being ported in the former case, while in the latter case you cannot do it, technically possible or not, because it isn't allowed by the license.
Except I have had instances where my MacBook Pro has been almost non-functional after coming out of a weekend-long sleep. The screen was flickering severely, and everything on the screen had a shade of violet added to their normal colors. In additions, some other things did not work correctly, e.g. IIRC I had to hold the power button to turn the system off.
I like my MacBook Pro, but the "It Just Works" claim is not always true.
Slashdot Mirror
Frivolous lawsuits are bad, mmmkay?
Suing someone for infesting your computer with hidden irremovable DRM without explicitly saying so hardly sounds frivolous.
I'm usually not a proponent of lawsuits, but in this case, they deserve it. I hope they get to pay a large amount in damages. If you want to hurt your customer, it should come with a hefty price tag.
And this BS of suing companies is only going to bite us all in the ass with increased costs
Only if you continue to buy their games.
Doing this not only punishes EA, it punishes the studios that EA oversees, manages and works with. For example, I don't think the RA3 devs had ANYTHING to do with the SecuROM crap, yet by not buying their games you essentially cut off their fundings.
Yes, and that's a good thing. That may make other studios think twice before signing a publishing agreement with EA. The ones that already did so only have themselves to blame if they go down for it.
If the studio disappears because of it, we'll all be crying because yet another good PC developer will have bitten the dust.
No, I'd be happy, since it would show that partnering with EA is commercial suicide.
I, for one, don't want to miss out on some of their games; I just won't buy them on the PC.
By buying any of their games, your support their actions, regardless of platform. I find your (and others') support of their actions appalling.
Sucks, I know, but I think lawsuits will hurt them more than any sort of boycotting will
Class-action lawsuits may be good, but a multi-pronged attack will be much better. Both hit EA and its partnering studios where it hurts the most. I hope some of them bite the dust.
If my country was full of wild eyed lunatics who kept running across the border and blowing up bystanders
You mean like fundamentalist Christians blowing up abortion clinics?
So either you have explicitly allowed EA to do whatever they asked you in the EULA when you have entered that contract or you are a criminal, illegally copying a protected work.
Or EA "forgot" to mention the hidden irremovable software that is secretly installed along with the game. It has happened before, and it will likely happen again. I can't see why you are so sure that EA would never do anything wrong.
It's not a fight, no us vs them
Yes it is, at least in the US. There, everything is about fighting, conquering, destroying, etc. Listen to what the companies say, and you will hear it.
or something similar
I can recommend Puppet.
Is the only alternative to write shell script to ssh into every machine and do the install?
What's the problem? Such a script can be written in five minutes.
if I break a disk and I like the film, I get a new one
You are exactly the kind of customer that all big movie and music companies would like every customer to be. DRM is a way to make that happen. That way, they can make customers pay for the same content multiple times, growing their profits by leaps and bounds. While you pay through your nose, they laugh all the way to the bank.
Unfortunately this will probably just mean that a ton of consumers will be SOL when they implement new encryption schemes on BluRay that aren't supported by some existing players.
Good! Maybe then the consumers can start to understand why DRM sucks, especially systems where their decryption keys can be disabled after the purchase. It's unfortunate that they'll have to learn this the hard way, but there is not much we can do about that.
it's not the US that likes pre-emptive strikes, its a small group of people at the top, the neocons in that particular case, who are leading a lot of really dumb people to war. Most people in the country, and in fact even most religious fundamentalists, have no fault in the wars Bush started. So don't blame us for what our government does.
No? Someone elected Bush to become president, not only once, but twice. Of course, I'm aware of the fundamental flaws of the US electoral system (which e.g. in the right circumstances allows someone to become president with just 25.1% voter support), so all the blame cannot rest with the voters. But still, a significant number fo voters must vote for a candidate for him or her to become the president, and all of those who voted for Bush are to blame, especially those who voted for his second term. They saw what he did, and apparently they liked it.
It's precisely BECAUSE they don't have our weapons systems that we have no reason to attack them: they pose little threat.
But since you have your weapon systems, you are a big threat. Or at least you will be if Sarah Palin ever becomes president of the United States. Then I suggest the EU unite and launch a preemptive all-out attack on the United States.
The US likes preemptive strikes against religious fundamentalists, so why can't we?
I know that, please read my post again. I see the "Information wants to be free" expression as a way of saying that information is hard or even impossible to lock up once it is out in the open. It does not mean that information literally has any desires.
That appeared to be talking about the physical costs to getting information out.
I see the Information wants to be free as an observation that information spreads easily, and that once something is out, you can't lock it up again, just like you can't put a genie back into a bottle.
A good example of this is the Streisand Effect, in which some entity tries to force the removal of some piece of information from the internet, but since the attempt makes people perceive the information as valuable, large numbers make sure that they get a copy themselves. Poster cases for this effect is the attempt by certain movie companies to remove a HD-DVD encryption key from the internet. The attempt seriously backfired, making the encryption key one of the most well-known large numbers on the internet.
If you just want to block it, you can turn it off altogether without NoScript. NoScript gives the ability to enable Javascript on a site-by-site basis, which means that you probably want to enable Javascript for some sites. Then a speed increase is hardly as useless as you make it sound.
A name like that gives the association with "Blowing up".
It is entirely intentional. The reason is to make whiners stay away, instead of downloading, trying it and whining about how much it crashes.
Or do you think they named Thunderbird 3 Alpha Shredder by accident?
AND, FF doesn't do, or is by itself incapable of, doing much of what IE can in Intranet environs for businesses' internal apps (especially those that use ActiveX controls, or even some functions of .NET via say, ASP.NET).
I thought ASP.NET ran entirely on the server side, producing HTML/JS/CSS just like any other server-side language. So how is it possible that features of ASP.NET on the server can impact the usability in Firefox?
I can either go through config files to enable other repositories
Not necessarily. New repos can also be added by installing a package. Download the repository package in your web browser and open it, which causes the software installer to open and install it (after you type your password or the root password). Then you can just use the package manager with the new repository.
Don't even understand what you're trying to argue here. Please be more clear.
He is arguing against the package management systems used in many if not most Linux distributions.
Microsoft, in particular, has never shown much interest in patent litigation
They may not have actually brought cases against anyone, but they have surely used patents to threaten competitors. And doing that is not something I consider a defensive stance. Voicing threats of patent litigation is an offensive action, regardless of whether you execute your threats or not.
This does confirm, at least for me, why IronPython and IronRuby happened, but why IronPerl is nowhere in sight.
What is it with the Iron prefix and .NET-connected language implementations?
This is a major reason I will not vote for Obama. He has associated with questionable characters at times.
Don't all politicians do that?
there are plenty of open source projects on Freshmeat that only run on linux/BSD, or even SourceForge for that matter (which also hosts Windows-only open source projects).
There is a big difference between code that technically requires a certain platform and code that is legally required to stay on one platform. Nothing else than technical reasons keeps the code from being ported in the former case, while in the latter case you cannot do it, technically possible or not, because it isn't allowed by the license.
Macs running OS X sleep properly.
Except I have had instances where my MacBook Pro has been almost non-functional after coming out of a weekend-long sleep. The screen was flickering severely, and everything on the screen had a shade of violet added to their normal colors. In additions, some other things did not work correctly, e.g. IIRC I had to hold the power button to turn the system off.
I like my MacBook Pro, but the "It Just Works" claim is not always true.
Theists instead act only in obedience to their God motivated by ultimate personal reward.
Why not fear of the expected punishment?