What cheaters like you clearly do not understand is that cheating in nearly all circumstances damages the online community in some way
Quite presumptuous of you, don't you think? Honestly, what makes you think I'm a cheater? Hint: I'm not and I don't purport to support this kid's actions.
Epic would be wise to seek an injunction against the kid to force the video offline and prevent him from releasing similar videos in the future, and drop this lawsuit until they're ready to monetize the game, then sue for damages if the behavior continues despite the injunction. You know, when there are actual provable damages and they have a chance of being awarded something.
That's neat, I was not aware of ATF. However, since I'm not sure whether you're commenting on PSP as well, or just TrustZone, I'll elaborate on my prior post.
PSP (now ASP, actually -- wasn't aware of the name change) makes use of TrustZone.
The Platform Security Processor (PSP) is built in on all Family 16h + systems (basically anything post-2013), and controls the main x86 core startup. PSP firmware is cryptographically signed with a strong key similar to the Intel ME. If the PSP firmware is not present, or if the AMD signing key is not present, the x86 cores will not be released from reset, rendering the system inoperable.
The PSP is an ARM core with TrustZone technology, built onto the main CPU die. As such, it has the ability to hide its own program code, scratch RAM, and any data it may have taken and stored from the lesser-privileged x86 system RAM (kernel encryption keys, login data, browsing history, keystrokes, who knows!). To make matters worse, the PSP theoretically has access to the entire system memory space (AMD either will not or cannot deny this, and it would seem to be required to allow the DRM “features” to work as intended), which means that it has at minimum MMIO-based access to the network controllers and any other PCI/PCIe peripherals installed on the system.
So, as I said, PSP (neigh ASP) is AMD's version of Intel's ME and is based on ARM TrustZone. It's literally an ARM core with TrustZone that manages the boot process and provides various out-of-band features separate from the x86 cores.
You are correct, though, that TrustZone is something completely different; but AMD's PSP (ASP) relies on TrustZone. I did misunderstand how much of that functionality came from TrustZone so, thank you for the additional info.
Oh, you see, I wasn't claiming that upmods were proof of anything; so, when you said you were "merely saying that you should know better than to try to claim that upmods are proof of quality", I assumed you replied to the wrong post. One gains insight from experience, I have experience with the actual game in question. However, as I am sure you will agree, even legitimate insight does not ensure a quality post, thus I was still not speaking to the quality of my post but, merely, as to why it might have been moderated Insightful. Follow?
Of course it's not, you were wrong so you want to drop it. This is what happens when you (not you specifically; the three of you here who feel the need to constantly come at me) decide to take what you think is an easy shot before you've take then time to actually process what I've written.
Honestly, if I didn't set my own work schedule, I wouldn't have time to deal with you all; but you're entertaining and, thus, worth my time. Much cheaper than going to the movies.
Sad, really, that you've taken this direction, though. I used to respect you.
Was the cheat for PvP or PvE mode? Why, it was for PvP mode, of course! Nobody cares about other players cheating in their single-player or co-op games, bro; a PvE cheat wouldn't have made news and certainly wouldn't harm the company in any way unless they were offering real-world prizes for certain achievements, which they're not.
We're talking about a cheat that gives one player an advantage over others in PvP, thus PvE, which is solo or co-op and not against other players, is completely irrelevant.
That is an accurate assessment. In most states, if you've stolen less than $1000 ($500 in some, other limits in others), you're only charged with a misdemeanor and, while you may serve up to a year for that, you usually won't for stealing small items. The fines typically don't exceed the value of the stolen merchandise by much, either.
I learned this while working retail, when I asked my loss prevention manager why he didn't go after the guy he had just watched steal something. He told me that $20 item represented just a small portion of $900 in documented (photographically and on video) items that man had stolen and he was very close to a felony charge; he would bust him then.
Even at that, though, at $20 a pop, $1000 is 50 movies and there are dozens of places to steal them from. You can build quite a collection without reaching felony levels at any one retailer; and they don't share details on who's stealing, for the most part, so it's exceedingly unlikely they'll team up to push for felony charges based on the total stolen from all of them.
Not that I'm advocating stealing from retails establishments, of course.
Hah! Well, I was half joking and half serious. While comparing a copyright law to the act of killing millions of Jews is a bit of a stretch (the point I was trying to highlight with the joke), problems you're currently dealing with are always worse than problems you've already dealt with (the point I was trying to highlight with the bit about the broken leg and stubbed toe, which supported the joke). Once both problems have been dealt with, the severity of the events comes back into play.
Of course Hitler is the worse of the two, but one also must consider that, until last January, the DMCA was actively defending Hitler's work. Being a current problem and defending one of the worst past problems we've dealt with? It's pretty hard to not put it near the top of the list of current atrocities when you look at it from all angles. Hell, when it's dead and gone (hopefully that will happen), it won't be far behind Hitler himself on the the list of past atrocities, ordered by severity.
As of this moment, it's fully free-to-play. Whether they choose to monetize it at some point in the future (the game's FAQ seems to indicate that they do) is immaterial; if the video is still up (and the courts agree that it's infringing) when they decide to monetize, then it will become an issue.
I'm familiar with the game and, thus, have some insight that you appear to lack. That is why my comment was modded Insightful.
What damage? It's a free game, they can't claim monetary losses, as there were no potential monetary gains. The court doesn't really recognize any other form of damages when dealing with a business.
Hitler was eventually stopped. Once the DMCA is stopped, Hitler will be the worse of the two; however, the DMCA is an ongoing problem, and those are always worse than the problems of the past.
Imagine you break your leg. Your leg heals and you can walk fine, no after effects or ongoing damage as a result of the break, you forget about it and you move on. Then, you stub your toe. That stubbed toe is worse than your broken leg, because the broken leg is a problem of the past and your stubbed toe is an ongoing problem. When your toe stops hurting, your broken leg was the worse injury, but in the moment when you're dealing with the stubbed toe and not the broken leg, you're less likely to see it that way.
That's not to say that what Hitler did wasn't atrocious and horrible, but it is in the past and dealt with and done.
Yes the court has to decide whether a code is fact or not
Wait... here, you said the courts have already decided. Which is it?
however, the ProCD decision specifically says that it doesn't matter if facts can or cannot be copyrighted, the defendant still has to adhere to the contract
Well, if the point is irrelevant, I suppose the courts don't have to decide it, then. Right? Like, it would be a complete and total waste of their time (sort of like this conversation), no? Yet I bet we'll see the courts deciding just that.
Your best move is to do as I've suggested and drop it. Let the court make its ruling on the matter and I might admit to you that I was wrong if they rule the way you predict they will. Let me actually be wrong, though, before expecting me to admit it.
Indeed, within minutes. However, he was first and wasn't doing so with the express intent of proving some asinine point like you are. Beyond that, I'm pretty sure I admitted it to you when I pointed out that someone else had already corrected me. If I wasn't wrong, I could not have been corrected, no?
Indeed. Another posted corrected me and I thanked him for correcting me. Because that's what I do when someone shows me that I was wrong. I just never thank you because you never show me that... Also, I've cited a handful of other cases in this conversation, just not in this thread.
Slashdot Mirror
Quite presumptuous of you, don't you think? Honestly, what makes you think I'm a cheater? Hint: I'm not and I don't purport to support this kid's actions.
Epic would be wise to seek an injunction against the kid to force the video offline and prevent him from releasing similar videos in the future, and drop this lawsuit until they're ready to monetize the game, then sue for damages if the behavior continues despite the injunction. You know, when there are actual provable damages and they have a chance of being awarded something.
I didn't say their suit wasn't valid or warranted, I said they'll have a hard time proving damages. I agree with everything you said.
PSP (now ASP, actually -- wasn't aware of the name change) makes use of TrustZone.
The Platform Security Processor (PSP) is built in on all Family 16h + systems (basically anything post-2013), and controls the main x86 core startup. PSP firmware is cryptographically signed with a strong key similar to the Intel ME. If the PSP firmware is not present, or if the AMD signing key is not present, the x86 cores will not be released from reset, rendering the system inoperable.
The PSP is an ARM core with TrustZone technology, built onto the main CPU die. As such, it has the ability to hide its own program code, scratch RAM, and any data it may have taken and stored from the lesser-privileged x86 system RAM (kernel encryption keys, login data, browsing history, keystrokes, who knows!). To make matters worse, the PSP theoretically has access to the entire system memory space (AMD either will not or cannot deny this, and it would seem to be required to allow the DRM “features” to work as intended), which means that it has at minimum MMIO-based access to the network controllers and any other PCI/PCIe peripherals installed on the system.
So, as I said, PSP (neigh ASP) is AMD's version of Intel's ME and is based on ARM TrustZone. It's literally an ARM core with TrustZone that manages the boot process and provides various out-of-band features separate from the x86 cores.
You are correct, though, that TrustZone is something completely different; but AMD's PSP (ASP) relies on TrustZone. I did misunderstand how much of that functionality came from TrustZone so, thank you for the additional info.
ARM does, indeed, have their own version. In fact, AMD's PSP is based on ARM TrustZone; without it, AMD probably souldn't have theirs.
You do the same, my friend.;)
Oh, you see, I wasn't claiming that upmods were proof of anything; so, when you said you were "merely saying that you should know better than to try to claim that upmods are proof of quality", I assumed you replied to the wrong post. One gains insight from experience, I have experience with the actual game in question. However, as I am sure you will agree, even legitimate insight does not ensure a quality post, thus I was still not speaking to the quality of my post but, merely, as to why it might have been moderated Insightful. Follow?
Of course it's not, you were wrong so you want to drop it. This is what happens when you (not you specifically; the three of you here who feel the need to constantly come at me) decide to take what you think is an easy shot before you've take then time to actually process what I've written.
Honestly, if I didn't set my own work schedule, I wouldn't have time to deal with you all; but you're entertaining and, thus, worth my time. Much cheaper than going to the movies.
Sad, really, that you've taken this direction, though. I used to respect you.
Was the cheat for PvP or PvE mode? Why, it was for PvP mode, of course! Nobody cares about other players cheating in their single-player or co-op games, bro; a PvE cheat wouldn't have made news and certainly wouldn't harm the company in any way unless they were offering real-world prizes for certain achievements, which they're not.
We're talking about a cheat that gives one player an advantage over others in PvP, thus PvE, which is solo or co-op and not against other players, is completely irrelevant.
That is an accurate assessment. In most states, if you've stolen less than $1000 ($500 in some, other limits in others), you're only charged with a misdemeanor and, while you may serve up to a year for that, you usually won't for stealing small items. The fines typically don't exceed the value of the stolen merchandise by much, either.
I learned this while working retail, when I asked my loss prevention manager why he didn't go after the guy he had just watched steal something. He told me that $20 item represented just a small portion of $900 in documented (photographically and on video) items that man had stolen and he was very close to a felony charge; he would bust him then.
Even at that, though, at $20 a pop, $1000 is 50 movies and there are dozens of places to steal them from. You can build quite a collection without reaching felony levels at any one retailer; and they don't share details on who's stealing, for the most part, so it's exceedingly unlikely they'll team up to push for felony charges based on the total stolen from all of them.
Not that I'm advocating stealing from retails establishments, of course.
Hah! Well, I was half joking and half serious. While comparing a copyright law to the act of killing millions of Jews is a bit of a stretch (the point I was trying to highlight with the joke), problems you're currently dealing with are always worse than problems you've already dealt with (the point I was trying to highlight with the bit about the broken leg and stubbed toe, which supported the joke). Once both problems have been dealt with, the severity of the events comes back into play.
Of course Hitler is the worse of the two, but one also must consider that, until last January, the DMCA was actively defending Hitler's work. Being a current problem and defending one of the worst past problems we've dealt with? It's pretty hard to not put it near the top of the list of current atrocities when you look at it from all angles. Hell, when it's dead and gone (hopefully that will happen), it won't be far behind Hitler himself on the the list of past atrocities, ordered by severity.
I was talking about the moderation of my own post. Did you maybe mean to reply to the guy above me who was actually complaining?
As of this moment, it's fully free-to-play. Whether they choose to monetize it at some point in the future (the game's FAQ seems to indicate that they do) is immaterial; if the video is still up (and the courts agree that it's infringing) when they decide to monetize, then it will become an issue.
I'm familiar with the game and, thus, have some insight that you appear to lack. That is why my comment was modded Insightful.
What damage? It's a free game, they can't claim monetary losses, as there were no potential monetary gains. The court doesn't really recognize any other form of damages when dealing with a business.
Hitler was eventually stopped. Once the DMCA is stopped, Hitler will be the worse of the two; however, the DMCA is an ongoing problem, and those are always worse than the problems of the past.
Imagine you break your leg. Your leg heals and you can walk fine, no after effects or ongoing damage as a result of the break, you forget about it and you move on. Then, you stub your toe. That stubbed toe is worse than your broken leg, because the broken leg is a problem of the past and your stubbed toe is an ongoing problem. When your toe stops hurting, your broken leg was the worse injury, but in the moment when you're dealing with the stubbed toe and not the broken leg, you're less likely to see it that way.
That's not to say that what Hitler did wasn't atrocious and horrible, but it is in the past and dealt with and done.
Isn't that what I did here and here?
Isn't that what I did here and here?
Yes the court has to decide whether a code is fact or not
Wait... here, you said the courts have already decided. Which is it?
however, the ProCD decision specifically says that it doesn't matter if facts can or cannot be copyrighted, the defendant still has to adhere to the contract
Well, if the point is irrelevant, I suppose the courts don't have to decide it, then. Right? Like, it would be a complete and total waste of their time (sort of like this conversation), no? Yet I bet we'll see the courts deciding just that.
Your best move is to do as I've suggested and drop it. Let the court make its ruling on the matter and I might admit to you that I was wrong if they rule the way you predict they will. Let me actually be wrong, though, before expecting me to admit it.
Indeed, within minutes. However, he was first and wasn't doing so with the express intent of proving some asinine point like you are. Beyond that, I'm pretty sure I admitted it to you when I pointed out that someone else had already corrected me. If I wasn't wrong, I could not have been corrected, no?
If the courts have already decided, I guess there won't be a trial, then?
So, they should sue based on that argument, then. But they're not. And you could have had a free bottle of cognac if the courts agreed with you. I buy the good stuff, you missed out.
Well, we'll just have to wait and see, won't we? I guess you don't like cognac?
Indeed.
Indeed, and Distain already pointed that out.
They did not. I was wrong. You must not like cognac.
Indeed. Another posted corrected me and I thanked him for correcting me. Because that's what I do when someone shows me that I was wrong. I just never thank you because you never show me that... Also, I've cited a handful of other cases in this conversation, just not in this thread.