You play with your girlfriend all the time? I mean _all_ the time? While she's asleep, on the toilet, reading a book, talking to her mother, doing her ironing?
Me, I somehow find the time to check my email occasionally..
So you believe it's unreasonable to present credentials when you bought it with a credit card? How about when you are purchasing liquor? Writing a check? Do you consider yourself to be treated like a criminal in such situations?
No, yes and yes.
The level of risk around credit card use fully justifies the security measures involved, which benefit both the customer and the service provider.
I've had to present credentials to buy alcohol twice, ever. Writing a cheque, I sign it. That is my credential. My bank can check that signature if they like.
Unreasonable is indeed different to inconvenient. Online sign-up (when I'd be doing it for online gameplay anyway) is not particularly inconvenient. It is unreasonable.
This is a simple step to prevent casual piracy. It IS the norm for software to require registration and/or activation.
This will not prevent piracy.
Whether it's the norm or not doesn't make it reasonable. The big games publishers are becoming increasingly unreasonable and they're seriously damaging the PC gaming market as a result.
it's the norm for a wide range of software packages
Agreed.
and it is not unreasonable.
Disagreed.
Why is it reasonable for a company to treat its customers as potential criminals (by forcing them to prove purchase) when the people that didn't buy it wont have that inconvenience?
It's pretty fucking unreasonable.
Reasonable is asking you to log onto the matching servers for online play. Reasonable is even an invisible check for the physical DVD, but that is unnecessary.
Online activation will not prevent distribution of illicit copies. Online activation will not help a single legitimate customer. Online activation is not 'reasonable'.
(It is sufficiently painless that it wont stop many people buying the game, but that doesn't make it reasonable).
Yes, you will have trouble installing this on the non-existent computers that have no way to connect to the Internet
My girlfriend has no internet access at home. She owns a modern PC.
Blizzard wont be selling a game designed for single-player offline gaming to her, because of an arbitrary and irrelevant constraint mandated by people that quite clearly hate their (potential) customers.
Yet again, the cracked copy (which will become available) will be easier to install and use.
No, getting hold of it with no internet access wouldn't be straightforward, but cracking/sharing games predates the world wide web..
Oh well, I'll loan her my copy of Total Annihilation - it was a better game that Starcraft anyway.
students complained they couldn't scribble notes in the margins, easily highlight passages
Good. It's a book. Stop defacing it.
Bloody vandals.
Nothing worse than buying a second-hand textbook and finding out the fuckwit that owned it before you has destroyed it through inept, irrelevant and inaccurate highlighting and notes.
And no, buying new isn't an option when you're a student with all your income going on accommodation, food and condoms.
I've heard those arguments. My personal view is that women have the right to defend themselves against parasitic organisms that put their hosts at physical and financial risk.
I simply don't believe that the right to attack someone else's religious beliefs is particularly important
I think the right to attack someone else's religious beliefs is only slightly less important than the importance of doing so.
some people need religion to get through their day
Oddly, I'm fine with people relying on an imaginary friend to get through the day. I'm fine with them getting together with fellow idiots and getting through the day together.
It's when they try and impose their arcane and obscure belief on me that I get agitated. It's when they brainwash children into believing the same myths that I get frustrated. It's when they attempt to use their beliefs as justification for abusing others that I get angry.
So yeah, I'm going to challenge, and any attempt to impose Sharia law on my country will be met with a physical response.
I guess I'm just an immature nitpicking intolerant middle-aged man.
Okay, so how about a Muslim cartoonist starts drawing cartoons of injured soldiers in Afghanistan? What about if your son or brother got injured or killed over there? Are you *REALLY* supposed to sit back and not take offence at it?
Whether I take offence or not, they're welcome to go for it. In fact, the thing more likely to make me take offence is your labelling the cartoonist as 'Muslim'. If the cartoon makes me laugh, who gives a shit what religion he is.
If the cartoon doesn't make me laugh, who gives a shit about the cartoon, let alone the cartoonist.
Even if (unlikely as it is) the cartoon offends me, I'll just stop looking at it. Oops, did I just ignore the harmless thing that just doesn't fucking matter?
What, am I meant to froth at the mouth, go to my local cult den, whip up a frenzy and beseech my fellow frothers to hunt down and kill a cartoonist? I think that would be a little excessive.
I'm saying "be aware of the consequences of your actions before you do them."
For the record, do you feel those consequences are an appropriate course of action for the offended person to take?
This is your opportunity to support or declaim the killing of people that choose to draw pictures of someone that's been dead for centuries. Go for it. Put your neck on the line.
Hell, possession of a letter from your MP is a criminal offence - it gives you the address of the Palace of Westminster, which is quite useful for terrorism purposes.
The law is utterly fucked, and the Conservative MP that pretends to represent my consitituency appears to believe that this is just tickety boo.
6 (forward) gears isn't that many - it's the minimum I'd expect in a new car these days.
Needing all 6 to stay at 2k revs from 10-60 is terrible too. Your fuel consumption at 90 is going to be horrible, where a better set of gear ratios could've kept you close to 2k revs at that speed.
My car is four years old, is cheap and nasty, and does 70 in 6th gear at 1500rpm. I get rather nice fuel economy at that speed, and even at 90 I'm doing well.
Five digit sums for remote access, per year? Hell, it'll cost half of that just for the security software licences, let alone administration overheads, hardware, networks... Corporate data exchange is not cheap, it's not easy and it's not something you throw together in a hurry for a bank relationship.
Most banks offer corporate customers the ability to manage their own accounts. This includes web or fat client deployment, download of files/reports (including transaction histories and balances) and submission of payment mandates.
Use the interfaces already provided, and shop around for the cheapest bank. Nobody offering the interface you want at the price you want? Deal with it.
Or start your own bank. You too can put up with the horrendous regulatory framework, the stunning liabilities resulting from membership of various payment schemes and the complexity of managing multiple payment mechanisms for multiple customers in a timely and (above all) accurate manner at lower cost than all of your competitors.
After all, you think everybody else is clearly doing it wrong. Go for it, show us how to be better.
No, jeko didn't call you a cunt, I did. I did like his response though.
Incidentally, your other post hardly provides adequate rebuttal of his arguments, and still does not justify declaiming his entire post as nonsense.
You do on the whole in this thread appear to support the actions of the police in this case, and feel that Apple having undue influence with law enforcement is acceptable and maybe even desirable. Many people disagree with you, and your refusal to engage in civilised debate does you no favours.
So for clarity, my own personal view, is that you're an astroturfing ignorant cunt.
Moral of your story? Don't rent property to illegal drug abusers.
Another moral of your story? Negotiate a bonus that doesn't rely to renting property to illegal drug abusers.
I find it comical that you're pissed off that 10 people being caught breaking the law has cost you money, instead of, I don't know, being pissed off that they broke the law, or that the law is shite, or that the legal system is so fucked up that someone basically has to negotiate and drop 10 other people in the shit or they'll get utterly fucked over themselves.
Moral of this story? Shut your own fucking mouth, you selfish arrogant fool.
How would you feel if someone stole something your car and the police were too busy because a child went missing and your case is small time? You would complain because you have rights.
Actually, he seems pissed off because someone stole rather more than his car, and the police were too busy because they're investigating the loss of a single handheld telephone that's already been given back.
Me, I can understand where he's coming from - he has a strong emotional argument, even though logically your comments on division of labour are obviously valid.
Just because you think the police should not be involved doesn't mean that Apple doesn't have any more or less rights than you.
Except that his entire point is that Apple clearly have far greater rights than he does.
Just to call you a cunt, a slight exaggeration on his part is hardly justification for utterly ignoring the main thrust of his argument and pretending that it's nonsense.
Apple employee loses a phone in a bar. Apple gets the phone back. Police get a warrant and raid someone's house to investigate what is at best a minor crime, in which nobody has lost anything physical and the only people to have lost anything at all are the twats stupid enough to leave secrets lying around in public.
Meanwhile, the police are claiming they're under resourced, and serious crimes are not being given adequate attention.
Now had you highlighted the complexities of law enforcement funding, the allocation of policing resources to specific crime areas and the potential economic impacts of the loss of trade secrets then you may have had a valid rebuttal of his arguments.
I'm using 1920x1200 on a 17" widescreen, I love the pixel density and my graphics card copes perfectly with it.
I haven't had to deal with less than 1200 pixels vertically for over a decade, and for programming, web browsing and a dozen other uses, losing 10% of your screen height sucks big hairy grey donkeys.
Slashdot Mirror
My n900 can stream live to the Internet, via a web server that persists the stream. I guess AT&T and Walmart don't sell Nokia phones..
Because Google would never comply with EU law would they.
Oh.
Pictures of murder victims are legal
Yet videos of people being beheaded can lead to criminal prosecution: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4289892.stm
Possession may be legal, but sharing them with someone appears to be a prosecutable breach of the peace - there are other examples.
You play with your girlfriend all the time? I mean _all_ the time? While she's asleep, on the toilet, reading a book, talking to her mother, doing her ironing?
Me, I somehow find the time to check my email occasionally..
Well, this is true. I'm still mystified that she doesn't have 'net access at home. She's happy with having it at work!
Me, I use my phone when I'm at her house :)
So you believe it's unreasonable to present credentials when you bought it with a credit card? How about when you are purchasing liquor? Writing a check? Do you consider yourself to be treated like a criminal in such situations?
No, yes and yes.
The level of risk around credit card use fully justifies the security measures involved, which benefit both the customer and the service provider.
I've had to present credentials to buy alcohol twice, ever. Writing a cheque, I sign it. That is my credential. My bank can check that signature if they like.
Unreasonable is indeed different to inconvenient. Online sign-up (when I'd be doing it for online gameplay anyway) is not particularly inconvenient. It is unreasonable.
This is a simple step to prevent casual piracy. It IS the norm for software to require registration and/or activation.
This will not prevent piracy.
Whether it's the norm or not doesn't make it reasonable. The big games publishers are becoming increasingly unreasonable and they're seriously damaging the PC gaming market as a result.
There is zero DRM at play here.
Being unable to play the game without online sign-up _is_ DRM.
You are a retarded idiot. And you're incredibly stupid.
Oh, the irony.
it's the norm for a wide range of software packages
Agreed.
and it is not unreasonable.
Disagreed.
Why is it reasonable for a company to treat its customers as potential criminals (by forcing them to prove purchase) when the people that didn't buy it wont have that inconvenience?
It's pretty fucking unreasonable.
Reasonable is asking you to log onto the matching servers for online play. Reasonable is even an invisible check for the physical DVD, but that is unnecessary.
Online activation will not prevent distribution of illicit copies. Online activation will not help a single legitimate customer. Online activation is not 'reasonable'.
(It is sufficiently painless that it wont stop many people buying the game, but that doesn't make it reasonable).
Yes, you will have trouble installing this on the non-existent computers that have no way to connect to the Internet
My girlfriend has no internet access at home. She owns a modern PC.
Blizzard wont be selling a game designed for single-player offline gaming to her, because of an arbitrary and irrelevant constraint mandated by people that quite clearly hate their (potential) customers.
Yet again, the cracked copy (which will become available) will be easier to install and use.
No, getting hold of it with no internet access wouldn't be straightforward, but cracking/sharing games predates the world wide web..
Oh well, I'll loan her my copy of Total Annihilation - it was a better game that Starcraft anyway.
students complained they couldn't scribble notes in the margins, easily highlight passages
Good. It's a book. Stop defacing it.
Bloody vandals.
Nothing worse than buying a second-hand textbook and finding out the fuckwit that owned it before you has destroyed it through inept, irrelevant and inaccurate highlighting and notes.
And no, buying new isn't an option when you're a student with all your income going on accommodation, food and condoms.
I've heard those arguments. My personal view is that women have the right to defend themselves against parasitic organisms that put their hosts at physical and financial risk.
I simply don't believe that the right to attack someone else's religious beliefs is particularly important
I think the right to attack someone else's religious beliefs is only slightly less important than the importance of doing so.
some people need religion to get through their day
Oddly, I'm fine with people relying on an imaginary friend to get through the day. I'm fine with them getting together with fellow idiots and getting through the day together.
It's when they try and impose their arcane and obscure belief on me that I get agitated. It's when they brainwash children into believing the same myths that I get frustrated. It's when they attempt to use their beliefs as justification for abusing others that I get angry.
So yeah, I'm going to challenge, and any attempt to impose Sharia law on my country will be met with a physical response.
I guess I'm just an immature nitpicking intolerant middle-aged man.
Okay, so how about a Muslim cartoonist starts drawing cartoons of injured soldiers in Afghanistan? What about if your son or brother got injured or killed over there? Are you *REALLY* supposed to sit back and not take offence at it?
Whether I take offence or not, they're welcome to go for it. In fact, the thing more likely to make me take offence is your labelling the cartoonist as 'Muslim'. If the cartoon makes me laugh, who gives a shit what religion he is.
If the cartoon doesn't make me laugh, who gives a shit about the cartoon, let alone the cartoonist.
Even if (unlikely as it is) the cartoon offends me, I'll just stop looking at it. Oops, did I just ignore the harmless thing that just doesn't fucking matter?
What, am I meant to froth at the mouth, go to my local cult den, whip up a frenzy and beseech my fellow frothers to hunt down and kill a cartoonist? I think that would be a little excessive.
Do you disagree?
I'm saying "be aware of the consequences of your actions before you do them."
For the record, do you feel those consequences are an appropriate course of action for the offended person to take?
This is your opportunity to support or declaim the killing of people that choose to draw pictures of someone that's been dead for centuries. Go for it. Put your neck on the line.
They did.
So, this Allah bloke. Anybody seen him?
Ever?
Fucking magic fairies shouldn't prevent drawing pictures of the people that made up the stories about them.
Except that
- there is no murder
- killing someone over an imagined slight is murder
Any theological basis for killing someone else is inherently flawed, whatever the imagined crime. Humans have a right to live, religion violates that.
Shit, someone build a time machine, go back a few centuries and convince Mohamed's mother to have an abortion..
Note, I'm not saying that we should not respect the Islamic faith
Then allow me: The Islamic faith is based on lies, is bigoted, is sexist, is flawed and promotes ignorance.
Disrespect it. Disrespect those that preach it. Particularly disrespect those that use violence to promote or defend it.
Possession of an atlas is a criminal offence.
Hell, possession of a letter from your MP is a criminal offence - it gives you the address of the Palace of Westminster, which is quite useful for terrorism purposes.
The law is utterly fucked, and the Conservative MP that pretends to represent my consitituency appears to believe that this is just tickety boo.
6 (forward) gears isn't that many - it's the minimum I'd expect in a new car these days.
Needing all 6 to stay at 2k revs from 10-60 is terrible too. Your fuel consumption at 90 is going to be horrible, where a better set of gear ratios could've kept you close to 2k revs at that speed.
My car is four years old, is cheap and nasty, and does 70 in 6th gear at 1500rpm. I get rather nice fuel economy at that speed, and even at 90 I'm doing well.
Five digit sums for remote access, per year? Hell, it'll cost half of that just for the security software licences, let alone administration overheads, hardware, networks... Corporate data exchange is not cheap, it's not easy and it's not something you throw together in a hurry for a bank relationship.
Most banks offer corporate customers the ability to manage their own accounts. This includes web or fat client deployment, download of files/reports (including transaction histories and balances) and submission of payment mandates.
Use the interfaces already provided, and shop around for the cheapest bank. Nobody offering the interface you want at the price you want? Deal with it.
Or start your own bank. You too can put up with the horrendous regulatory framework, the stunning liabilities resulting from membership of various payment schemes and the complexity of managing multiple payment mechanisms for multiple customers in a timely and (above all) accurate manner at lower cost than all of your competitors.
After all, you think everybody else is clearly doing it wrong. Go for it, show us how to be better.
No, jeko didn't call you a cunt, I did. I did like his response though.
Incidentally, your other post hardly provides adequate rebuttal of his arguments, and still does not justify declaiming his entire post as nonsense.
You do on the whole in this thread appear to support the actions of the police in this case, and feel that Apple having undue influence with law enforcement is acceptable and maybe even desirable. Many people disagree with you, and your refusal to engage in civilised debate does you no favours.
So for clarity, my own personal view, is that you're an astroturfing ignorant cunt.
Mods, yes, this is flamebait. Shrug.
Moral of your story? Don't rent property to illegal drug abusers.
Another moral of your story? Negotiate a bonus that doesn't rely to renting property to illegal drug abusers.
I find it comical that you're pissed off that 10 people being caught breaking the law has cost you money, instead of, I don't know, being pissed off that they broke the law, or that the law is shite, or that the legal system is so fucked up that someone basically has to negotiate and drop 10 other people in the shit or they'll get utterly fucked over themselves.
Moral of this story? Shut your own fucking mouth, you selfish arrogant fool.
How would you feel if someone stole something your car and the police were too busy because a child went missing and your case is small time? You would complain because you have rights.
Actually, he seems pissed off because someone stole rather more than his car, and the police were too busy because they're investigating the loss of a single handheld telephone that's already been given back.
Me, I can understand where he's coming from - he has a strong emotional argument, even though logically your comments on division of labour are obviously valid.
Just because you think the police should not be involved doesn't mean that Apple doesn't have any more or less rights than you.
Except that his entire point is that Apple clearly have far greater rights than he does.
Just to call you a cunt, a slight exaggeration on his part is hardly justification for utterly ignoring the main thrust of his argument and pretending that it's nonsense.
Apple employee loses a phone in a bar. Apple gets the phone back. Police get a warrant and raid someone's house to investigate what is at best a minor crime, in which nobody has lost anything physical and the only people to have lost anything at all are the twats stupid enough to leave secrets lying around in public.
Meanwhile, the police are claiming they're under resourced, and serious crimes are not being given adequate attention.
Now had you highlighted the complexities of law enforcement funding, the allocation of policing resources to specific crime areas and the potential economic impacts of the loss of trade secrets then you may have had a valid rebuttal of his arguments.
As it is, well.. jeko called you out nicely.
I'm using 1920x1200 on a 17" widescreen, I love the pixel density and my graphics card copes perfectly with it.
I haven't had to deal with less than 1200 pixels vertically for over a decade, and for programming, web browsing and a dozen other uses, losing 10% of your screen height sucks big hairy grey donkeys.