Obviously the notion that they can't provide the IP information for security reasons is bogus.
But could we not look at this decision as a win because it may set a vital precedent for similar cases in the future? The government has ruled it cannot be forced to give out IP information on people accused of wrong-doing on the Internet. By this logic, neither should ISPs or people who run a website be forced to surrender their logs at request.
Surely the government wouldn't take privileges unto itself that it would not give to its citizens, right?
Just one thing:
Classic Explorer view. Please.
You can have the fancy-smancy new interface with bouncing icons and transparent windows and everything you want so it looks like OS X... but for those of us who work with the GUI on a daily basis, give us the option of falling back to the classic Explorer interface. Because, as much as I despise the DRM, bloat and kludginess of the UAC, the awful interface is the number one reason I don't upgrade.
Thanks.
I want a DRM Bill of Rights, an agreement between Publishers and End-Users about what their DRM software can and cannot do. It needs to be palatable to both the Publishers -who want to protect their copyright and investment in the software- and to the users, who want to be able to use software they paid for not only today but in the future.
1) Right of Free Use: If you limit number of installations, the publisher MUST provide a "revoke" tool.
What it entails for the publisher:
The Publisher is allowed to limit the software's installation to one or more computers based on their hardware configuration and registered online ("Activation"). They must provide a free stand-alone tool, preferably on the same distribution medium, that the User can use to de-authorize previously activated computers. The total number of Activations and De-activations must be unlimited in number, but can be limited as to number of uses in a particular time period.
How It Would Work:
When you install a game, the software must be activated online as is the standard practice today. However, what this Right provides is a method for the User to de-activate an installation so the software can be transferred to another computer, either due to hardware failure, upgrade or resale. This tool needs to be provided free to the user, preferably on the CD/DVD with the game (or downloaded if the game is purchased through digital distribution) and must be stand-alone. De-activation would require proof of ownership (the CD in the drive and the CD-key should be enough), and would display a list of all computers authorized to run that software. The User could then select the computers to be de-activated. Note that this tool does NOT have to be run on the Authorized computer, or require the Authorized software to be installed. In order to prevent misuse of this tool, the Publisher can allow only a certain amount of Authorizations/DeAuthorizations per day/week/month, but cannot limit the TOTAL amount of de-Authorizations.
2) Right of Activation: If the publisher requires Activation, they must provide some assurance of method to bypass this should the method of Activation no longer be available.
What it entails for the Publisher:
The Publisher is allowed to require the User to Activate their software through the method of their choice. But if that method should no longer be available (be it due to technical or financial reasons), they must ensure that the user can continue to use the software they paid for even though the Activation service is no longer running. This assurance can take many forms; a legal promise to release a patch should the Activation Servers be taken down and a waiving of rights to take legal action of any third-party who rights software to allow the same, or a universal "key" that is held in escrow, to be released only should the Activation servers go down, that allows installation and use of the Software without Activation.
How It Would Work:
Basically, the Publisher needs to provide the User with a "back-door" that can bypass the Activation requirement should they chose to no longer allow Activations, either because it is costing them too much money or they are no longer in business. The best way for the User is if the Publisher has a patch or some sort of universal serial number that allows the User to bypass Activation; this patch/key is held in escrow until the Activation Servers go down and is then released to the general public. Of course, this may dramatically compromise the usefulness of the DRM, so other methods can be used, for example: providing source-code and funds that can be released to pay a programming team to successfully develop a patch after the fact. Alternately (but least palatable to the User) the Publisher can simply promise to release code and not prosecute should a third-party (e.g., a "cracker") want to develop some method to bypass the Activation (but, note, they must provide enough code to make this a possibility)
Maybe if company agree to this sort of thing then worries about DRM wouldn't be such a problem.
---
1) Right of Free Use: If you limit number of installations, the publisher MUST provide a "revoke" tool.
What it entails for the publisher:
The Publisher is allowed to limit the software's installation to one or more computers based on their hardware configuration and registered online ("Activation"). They must provide a free stand-alone tool, preferably on the same distribution medium, that the User can use to de-authorize previously activated computers. The total number of Activations and De-activations must be unlimited in number, but can be limited as to number of uses in a particular time period.
How It Would Work:
When you install a game, the software must be activated online as is the standard practice today. However, what this Right provides is a method for the User to de-activate an installation so the software can be transferred to another computer, either due to hardware failure, upgrade or resale. This tool needs to be provided free to the user, preferably on the CD/DVD with the game (or downloaded if the game is purchased through digital distribution) and must be stand-alone. De-activation would require proof of ownership (the CD in the drive and the CD-key should be enough), and would display a list of all computers authorized to run that software. The User could then select the computers to be de-activated. Note that this tool does NOT have to be run on the Authorized computer, or require the Authorized software to be installed. In order to prevent misuse of this tool, the Publisher can allow only a certain amount of Authorizations/ DeAuthorizations per day/week/month, but cannot limit the TOTAL amount of de-Authorizations.
2) Right of Activation: If the publisher requires Activation, they must provide some assurance of method to bypass this should the method of Activation no longer be available.
What it entails for the Publisher:
The Publisher is allowed to require the User to Activate their software through the method of their choice. But if that method should no longer be available (be it due to technical or financial reasons), they must ensure that the user can continue to use the software they paid for even though the Activation service is no longer running. This assurance can take many forms; a legal promise to release a patch should the Activation Servers be taken down and a waiving of rights to take legal action of any third-party who rights software to allow the same, or a universal "key" that is held in escrow, to be released only should the Activation servers go down, that allows installation and use of the Software without Activation.
How It Would Work:
Basically, the Publisher needs to provide the User with a "back-door" that can bypass the Activation requirement should they chose to no longer allow Activations, either because it is costing them too much money or they are no longer in business. The best way for the User is if the Publisher has a patch or some sort of universal serial number that allows the User to bypass Activation; this patch/key is held in escrow until the Activation Servers go down and is then released to the general public. Of course, this may dramatically compromise the usefulness of the DRM, so other methods can be used, for example: providing source-code and funds that can be released to pay a programming team to successfully develop a patch after the fact. Alternately (but least palatable to the User) the Publisher can simply promise to release code and not prosecute should a third-party (e.g., a "cracker") want to develop some method to bypass the Activation (but, note, they must provide enough code to make this a possibility)
3) Right to Privacy: Any data-collection from these activation services will be opt-out (except as what is required for activation), will not be matched to any personally identifiable information
1) Right of Free Use: If you limit number of installations, the publisher MUST provide a "revoke" tool.
What it entails for the publisher:
The Publisher is allowed to limit the software's installation to one or more computers based on their hardware configuration and registered online ("Activation"). They must provide a free stand-alone tool, preferably on the same distribution medium, that the User can use to de-authorize previously activated computers. The total number of Activations and De-activations must be unlimited in number, but can be limited as to number of uses in a particular time period.
How It Would Work:
When you install a game, the software must be activated online as is the standard practice today. However, what this Right provides is a method for the User to de-activate an installation so the software can be transferred to another computer, either due to hardware failure, upgrade or resale. This tool needs to be provided free to the user, preferably on the CD/DVD with the game (or downloaded if the game is purchased through digital distribution) and must be stand-alone. De-activation would require proof of ownership (the CD in the drive and the CD-key should be enough), and would display a list of all computers authorized to run that software. The User could then select the computers to be de-activated. Note that this tool does NOT have to be run on the Authorized computer, or require the Authorized software to be installed. In order to prevent misuse of this tool, the Publisher can allow only a certain amount of Authorizations/ DeAuthorizations per day/week/month, but cannot limit the TOTAL amount of de-Authorizations.
2) Right of Activation: If the publisher requires Activation, they must provide some assurance of method to bypass this should the method of Activation no longer be available.
What it entails for the Publisher:
The Publisher is allowed to require the User to Activate their software through the method of their choice. But if that method should no longer be available (be it due to technical or financial reasons), they must ensure that the user can continue to use the software they paid for even though the Activation service is no longer running. This assurance can take many forms; a legal promise to release a patch should the Activation Servers be taken down and a waiving of rights to take legal action of any third-party who rights software to allow the same, or a universal "key" that is held in escrow, to be released only should the Activation servers go down, that allows installation and use of the Software without Activation.
How It Would Work:
Basically, the Publisher needs to provide the User with a "back-door" that can bypass the Activation requirement should they chose to no longer allow Activations, either because it is costing them too much money or they are no longer in business. The best way for the User is if the Publisher has a patch or some sort of universal serial number that allows the User to bypass Activation; this patch/key is held in escrow until the Activation Servers go down and is then released to the general public. Of course, this may dramatically compromise the usefulness of the DRM, so other methods can be used, for example: providing source-code and funds that can be released to pay a programming team to successfully develop a patch after the fact. Alternately (but least palatable to the User) the Publisher can simply promise to release code and not prosecute should a third-party (e.g., a "cracker") want to develop some method to bypass the Activation (but, note, they must provide enough code to make this a possibility)
3) Right to Privacy: Any data-collection from these activation services will be opt-out (except as what is required for activation), will not be matched to any personally identifiable information and it absolutely, positively will not be shared
Think of it this way: The world had been using the "/" character since the beginning in file path lists. Microsoft for some inexplicable reason decided to use "\". WHY?!
Useless trivia time (and probably old news to most people here)
Why did Microsoft use the "\" for a path-separator instead of "/" like Unix?
Because when Microsoft wrote (bought/stole) MS DOS 1.0, they wrote it for IBM. IBM already was using the "/" character as the switch for their utilities (not surprising, since the "/" was a commonly used switch character in CP/M, and MS DOS was a CP/M clone) so it couldn't also be used as a path separator. Of course, at the time it really didn't matter since MS DOS v1.0 didn't support directories. But they did have write into their shell that "/" was the switch character.
Of course, when Microsoft added directory support to MS DOS 2.0, they needed to add a path separator. Since they wanted to maintain backwards compatibility with the old IBM utilities, using the "/" character was already being used. So they decided to go with the next best thing: the "\" character.
So, like many Microsoft idiosyncrasies, this one too can be blamed on maintaining backwards compatibility. In any event, most versions of DOS will allow you to use the UNIX path separator "/" ; it will just interpret it as a "\".
Please don't tell me you just compared Apple to oranges...
Re:The MSX was undoubtedly a computer
on
Consoles M.I.A.
·
· Score: 0
So it wasn't a console, then. There's nothing about ROM-based media that keeps them from being used in computers. I'm pretty sure there were other computers that accepted cartridges, but my knowledge of obsolete non-x86 computers is a bit rusty so I can't name any.
I don't think you all grasp the cunningness of Microsoft's new strategy. It's well known that Microsoft's biggest competitor is... Microsoft themselves. Convincing people to upgrade to their latest-and-greates product has always been an uphill struggle for Microsoft. Microsoft has such a stranglehold on the market that no new product -not even their own- can break that iron grip.
But with Vista, the marketing geniuses at Microsoft have come up with a plan to finally break that viselike grip. If the problem is that Microsoft's marketshare is too big, then there's only one thing to do: convince consumers to stop buying Microsoft products. Only then will Microsoft have a fair chance at breaking into the market that Microsoft now controls.
This isn't the first time Microsoft has utilized this strategy; they tested the waters with WindowsME. However, Microsoft hedged their bets back then with the concurrent release of Windows2000. But WinME proved their tactics had merit; they created such a despicable product that consumers flocked to WindowsXP.
Now, with the imminent release of Vista, Microsoft is betting the entire company; there is no "backup" product to save the day in case the strategy flops, as was Windows2000. Microsoft has put all its eggs in the basket with Vista, and they have worked hard to make sure Vista is something nobody wants. It has only the minimum of improvments while at the same time necessitating obscenely high hardware requirements to make use of those features. Microsoft is also -as this latest development shows- injected their new flagship OS with as many painful ways to restrict the consumer in how he uses the software he has paid for. So not only is it a product nobody needs, not only is it a product nobody wants, but it is also a product that doesn't do anything well. Vista is sure to flop, costing Microsoft billions of dolllars and a significant percentage of their marketshare. Microsoft has even gotten their games division involved; all future Microsoft games will be Vista (DirectX 10) only; when Vista inevitably flops, so will all those games.
And then, when Microsoft is shattered by its own incompetance, that's when Microsoft will swoop in for the kill.*
Devious and cunning. Who says Microsoft doesn't innovate?
I know a lot of people here have argued that advertising in games makes the game feel more realistic, but even if it does, it still spoils my enjoyment of the game. I'll agree that to create a faithful depiction of "real life", the game should have advertising; after all, you can't walk 100' (30.48m for you metric folk:-) in the real world without bumping into some sort of advertising.
But every time I see advertising in a game, it pulls me out of the experience because I know that billboard/spray-on/conveniently-placed logo/whatever was purposely placed their by marketing executives. The thought that crosses through my head is not "Oh, an ad! Just like in real life!" but instead, "I'm being advertised to". I am immediately reminded that I am not racing in the Indy500/fighting terrorists/whatever, but instead am playing a game. It completely spoils the atmosphere and mood. It doesn't make things feel more realistic because the real world -the marketing shills- forcibly drag me out of the fantasy of the game.
Worse, because games only have a limited number of advertising pieces, they re-use those over and over again. Drive down the highway in real-life and you'll see a tremendous variety of billboards advertising dozens or hundreds of different products. In a game, you'll see the same twenty products repeated over and over again. And you won't have competing products, either; if a designer puts in a Pepsi machine in the game as product placement, then you sure as heck aren't going to see a Coca Cola machine stuck right next to it. The ad execs limit you to their own fantasy world where the only choice of products is the one they give you (that is to say, no choice at all). How does this make games anymore real, again?
I suppose if all you are interested in is the challenge of a game, then maybe advertising won't bother you much. But I'm more interested in story, character, and atmosphere than twitch gaming, else I'd still be playing PacMan. Advertising does not aid in any of this.
I have the same problem with product placement in movies and television (so much so that I can't watch either, anymore, though I don't consider that much of a loss). But so far games have remained (largely) advertising free and, because of this, have remained enjoyable pasttimes to me. Put in ads, and you're less likely to get my money.
The last time this idea was brought up on Slashdot, somebody posted an interesting article on the subject. Sadly, I don't remember the URL but it did ask one thing which I thought was worth repeating: rather than accept that games such take on ads to nominally become "more realistic", why aren't we striving to make our real-lfe world more like games in this regard, e.g., bereft of the advertising we all despise?
Seriously, wouldn't it need drivers to hook into the OS to access the network stack, at least for anything beyond Telnet and Remote Desktop (which, according to the article, sends "a packet... every time a user presses a key"). Using the keyboard with webbrowsing or downloading seems safe, as far as I can understand (which, admittedly, may not be all that far:-) And if don't use Telnet or RD and use a bog-standard keyboard driver on Linux and you should be safe, right?
(Or just use a telnet or remote client that is progmatically de-jittered)
Think about it for a moment. During any time in U.S. history can you think of any other president about which such comments have been raised?
Yes. President Wilson
He's mostly remembered in history as the president who brought America into World War 1 (and who unsucessfully tried to create a lasting peace with the creation of the League of Nations), but what is often overlooked is his attack on civil liberties at home. His presidency makes George W Bush's look positively tame.
With the use of the Sedition Act (created back in 1798 but never used), the new Espionage Act (1917) and the Alien Act (1918), Wilson pretty much went to war and destroyed the left wing in the United States. Ill-defined laws, it permitted arrest for things as simple as speaking against the war effort or membership in the communist party. Newspapers were heavily censored, mail routinely opened and read. Wilson and his administration encouraged a climate of fear, and suggested people spy and report on any unpatriotic neighbors.
In fairness, at the time America was quite a different country than it is today; there was a huge influx of immigrants and a tremendous upsurge in radical groups and new ideas, a good number of which advocated overthrow of the US government. America was also at war with Germany, at a time when about 40% of the country was of German descent. There was true fear that the country was threatened by forces within. However, the steps Wilson took were far more drastic than were needed.
Unfortunately, this part of American history is largely forgotten, which is a shame because it has a lot of parallels to today. But I guess it's like they say: those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.
At least at my local grocer, the system displays a "Please wait for cashier" message after you scan in a bulk item (apples, candy, whatever), at which point the attendant is supposed to come and visually verify that is what is on the scale matches up with the barcode.
In actuality what happens is that the system beeps "Please wait for the cashier", and the attendant just pushes a button without verifying just to keep the line moving.
But yeah, the designers did TRY to take things like that into consideration
It was only a short-lived publication and, truthfully, it's reviews were often half-baked, but IE was the gaming magazine I remember with the most fondness. Interactive Entertainment's claim to fame was that it was a magazine-on-a-CD, back in the era when CD-ROMs were still new and exciting. That's right, the entire magazine was on the CD-ROM. And it wasn't just a dry collection of written reviews and demos; the reviews were read by a talented collection of voice actors. The reviews themselves were chirpy and upbeat, quite often lacking much in the way of true information but obviously written by people who loved computer gaming. The magazine also featured a number of "interactive interviews" and a lot of video-clips of in-game footage (this in an era when it was common to only show screenshots from the cinematic sequences). As a further bonus, most of the issues also came with a complete version of a game (several years old, of course, but not all dogs; thanks to IE, I got the complete Magic Candle series).
Ultimately, the high cost of producing each issue, coupled with a low subscription rate and an inability to attract any advertisers meant IEs days were numbered; they got bought out by Strategic Review. The magic was gone; within a few issues, IE became little more than a run-of-the-mill demo-disk and shortly thereafter the publication disappeared entirely.
Nonetheless, Interactive Entertainment still ranks up there as one of my favorite magazines; it was fun, irreverant, topical and entertaining. I still have a blast re-reading (listening?) to their reviews of 10 year old games. I wish more magazines captured their flair.
What can I say, I was a stupid user at one point too.
My first home computer was a Apple ][c, which came with a 5.25" drive built in. At the time, I was only marginally interested in how computer's worked, so I didn't bother keeping up with all the new technology. So when I was first offered a 3.5" disk, I really had no idea what to do with it. Obviously this was one of those new fangled "hard disks" (it obviously wasn't very floppy). But it fit fairly well into the 5.25" drive, especially after I jiggled it around a bit.
Of course, the drive wouldn't read the disk, so after a few unsatisfying reboots, I decided to yank the disk (I wasn't too surprised that the Apple ][c didn't support hard drives; it was a fairly old PC)
Unbeknownst to me, my "jigglings" got the metal latch of the 3.5" floppy caught on the inner mechanisms of the drive. I had to call my more computer-savy cousin to help me repair my PC.
Of course, now *I* fix *his* computers (and much more frequently too; I guess he wasn't too savy after all). But he never lets me forget that ONE mistake he fixed for me.
Contrarily, I've heard quite the opposite; that, in fact, human CO2 production is often undercounted and it in fact dwarfs the carbon dioxide spewed out by volcanoes.
For instance, http://www.fs.fed.us/gpnf/press/2001/pr284.htm "Volcanologists estimate an annual global output of 200 million tons of volcanic CO2 per year... By comparison, human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation produce 130 times more CO2 than all the world's volcanoes put together"
or
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volg as.html "Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 1998) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2.]. Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year)!"
(just a couple of sources after a brief search on google)
I don't know how accurate those sources are, so take it all with a grain of salt. Just don't blindly accept the axiom that volcanoes out perform humans in CO2 generation; it may not be true.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, Bill Gates isn't doing anything right now... ;-)
I kid, I kid.
Obviously the notion that they can't provide the IP information for security reasons is bogus. But could we not look at this decision as a win because it may set a vital precedent for similar cases in the future? The government has ruled it cannot be forced to give out IP information on people accused of wrong-doing on the Internet. By this logic, neither should ISPs or people who run a website be forced to surrender their logs at request. Surely the government wouldn't take privileges unto itself that it would not give to its citizens, right?
Just one thing: Classic Explorer view. Please. You can have the fancy-smancy new interface with bouncing icons and transparent windows and everything you want so it looks like OS X... but for those of us who work with the GUI on a daily basis, give us the option of falling back to the classic Explorer interface. Because, as much as I despise the DRM, bloat and kludginess of the UAC, the awful interface is the number one reason I don't upgrade. Thanks.
1) Right of Free Use: If you limit number of installations, the publisher MUST provide a "revoke" tool.
What it entails for the publisher:
The Publisher is allowed to limit the software's installation to one or more computers based on their hardware configuration and registered online ("Activation"). They must provide a free stand-alone tool, preferably on the same distribution medium, that the User can use to de-authorize previously activated computers. The total number of Activations and De-activations must be unlimited in number, but can be limited as to number of uses in a particular time period.
How It Would Work:
When you install a game, the software must be activated online as is the standard practice today. However, what this Right provides is a method for the User to de-activate an installation so the software can be transferred to another computer, either due to hardware failure, upgrade or resale. This tool needs to be provided free to the user, preferably on the CD/DVD with the game (or downloaded if the game is purchased through digital distribution) and must be stand-alone. De-activation would require proof of ownership (the CD in the drive and the CD-key should be enough), and would display a list of all computers authorized to run that software. The User could then select the computers to be de-activated. Note that this tool does NOT have to be run on the Authorized computer, or require the Authorized software to be installed. In order to prevent misuse of this tool, the Publisher can allow only a certain amount of Authorizations/DeAuthorizations per day/week/month, but cannot limit the TOTAL amount of de-Authorizations.
2) Right of Activation: If the publisher requires Activation, they must provide some assurance of method to bypass this should the method of Activation no longer be available.
What it entails for the Publisher:
The Publisher is allowed to require the User to Activate their software through the method of their choice. But if that method should no longer be available (be it due to technical or financial reasons), they must ensure that the user can continue to use the software they paid for even though the Activation service is no longer running. This assurance can take many forms; a legal promise to release a patch should the Activation Servers be taken down and a waiving of rights to take legal action of any third-party who rights software to allow the same, or a universal "key" that is held in escrow, to be released only should the Activation servers go down, that allows installation and use of the Software without Activation.
How It Would Work:
Basically, the Publisher needs to provide the User with a "back-door" that can bypass the Activation requirement should they chose to no longer allow Activations, either because it is costing them too much money or they are no longer in business. The best way for the User is if the Publisher has a patch or some sort of universal serial number that allows the User to bypass Activation; this patch/key is held in escrow until the Activation Servers go down and is then released to the general public. Of course, this may dramatically compromise the usefulness of the DRM, so other methods can be used, for example: providing source-code and funds that can be released to pay a programming team to successfully develop a patch after the fact. Alternately (but least palatable to the User) the Publisher can simply promise to release code and not prosecute should a third-party (e.g., a "cracker") want to develop some method to bypass the Activation (but, note, they must provide enough code to make this a possibility)
3) Right to P
Saw this on USENET (yes it still there)
Maybe if company agree to this sort of thing then worries about DRM wouldn't be such a problem.
---
1) Right of Free Use: If you limit number of installations, the publisher MUST provide a "revoke" tool.
What it entails for the publisher:
The Publisher is allowed to limit the software's installation to one or more computers based on their hardware configuration and registered online ("Activation"). They must provide a free stand-alone tool, preferably on the same distribution medium, that the User can use to de-authorize previously activated computers. The total number of Activations and De-activations must be unlimited in number, but can be limited as to number of uses in a particular time period.
How It Would Work:
When you install a game, the software must be activated online as is the standard practice today. However, what this Right provides is a method for the User to de-activate an installation so the software can be transferred to another computer, either due to hardware failure, upgrade or resale. This tool needs to be provided free to the user, preferably on the CD/DVD with the game (or downloaded if the game is purchased through digital distribution) and must be stand-alone. De-activation would require proof of ownership (the CD in the drive and the CD-key should be enough), and would display a list of all computers authorized to run that software. The User could then select the computers to be de-activated. Note that this tool does NOT have to be run on the Authorized computer, or require the Authorized software to be installed. In order to prevent misuse of this tool, the Publisher can allow only a certain amount of Authorizations/ DeAuthorizations per day/week/month, but cannot limit the TOTAL amount of de-Authorizations.
2) Right of Activation: If the publisher requires Activation, they must provide some assurance of method to bypass this should the method of Activation no longer be available.
What it entails for the Publisher:
The Publisher is allowed to require the User to Activate their software through the method of their choice. But if that method should no longer be available (be it due to technical or financial reasons), they must ensure that the user can continue to use the software they paid for even though the Activation service is no longer running. This assurance can take many forms; a legal promise to release a patch should the Activation Servers be taken down and a waiving of rights to take legal action of any third-party who rights software to allow the same, or a universal "key" that is held in escrow, to be released only should the Activation servers go down, that allows installation and use of the Software without Activation.
How It Would Work:
Basically, the Publisher needs to provide the User with a "back-door" that can bypass the Activation requirement should they chose to no longer allow Activations, either because it is costing them too much money or they are no longer in business. The best way for the User is if the Publisher has a patch or some sort of universal serial number that allows the User to bypass Activation; this patch/key is held in escrow until the Activation Servers go down and is then released to the general public. Of course, this may dramatically compromise the usefulness of the DRM, so other methods can be used, for example: providing source-code and funds that can be released to pay a programming team to successfully develop a patch after the fact. Alternately (but least palatable to the User) the Publisher can simply promise to release code and not prosecute should a third-party (e.g., a "cracker") want to develop some method to bypass the Activation (but, note, they must provide enough code to make this a possibility)
3) Right to Privacy: Any data-collection from these activation services will be opt-out (except as what is required for activation), will not be matched to any personally identifiable information
Not sure this work be nice if it work
---
1) Right of Free Use: If you limit number of installations, the publisher MUST provide a "revoke" tool.
What it entails for the publisher:
The Publisher is allowed to limit the software's installation to one or more computers based on their hardware configuration and registered online ("Activation"). They must provide a free stand-alone tool, preferably on the same distribution medium, that the User can use to de-authorize previously activated computers. The total number of Activations and De-activations must be unlimited in number, but can be limited as to number of uses in a particular time period.
How It Would Work:
When you install a game, the software must be activated online as is the standard practice today. However, what this Right provides is a method for the User to de-activate an installation so the software can be transferred to another computer, either due to hardware failure, upgrade or resale. This tool needs to be provided free to the user, preferably on the CD/DVD with the game (or downloaded if the game is purchased through digital distribution) and must be stand-alone. De-activation would require proof of ownership (the CD in the drive and the CD-key should be enough), and would display a list of all computers authorized to run that software. The User could then select the computers to be de-activated. Note that this tool does NOT have to be run on the Authorized computer, or require the Authorized software to be installed. In order to prevent misuse of this tool, the Publisher can allow only a certain amount of Authorizations/ DeAuthorizations per day/week/month, but cannot limit the TOTAL amount of de-Authorizations.
2) Right of Activation: If the publisher requires Activation, they must provide some assurance of method to bypass this should the method of Activation no longer be available.
What it entails for the Publisher:
The Publisher is allowed to require the User to Activate their software through the method of their choice. But if that method should no longer be available (be it due to technical or financial reasons), they must ensure that the user can continue to use the software they paid for even though the Activation service is no longer running. This assurance can take many forms; a legal promise to release a patch should the Activation Servers be taken down and a waiving of rights to take legal action of any third-party who rights software to allow the same, or a universal "key" that is held in escrow, to be released only should the Activation servers go down, that allows installation and use of the Software without Activation.
How It Would Work:
Basically, the Publisher needs to provide the User with a "back-door" that can bypass the Activation requirement should they chose to no longer allow Activations, either because it is costing them too much money or they are no longer in business. The best way for the User is if the Publisher has a patch or some sort of universal serial number that allows the User to bypass Activation; this patch/key is held in escrow until the Activation Servers go down and is then released to the general public. Of course, this may dramatically compromise the usefulness of the DRM, so other methods can be used, for example: providing source-code and funds that can be released to pay a programming team to successfully develop a patch after the fact. Alternately (but least palatable to the User) the Publisher can simply promise to release code and not prosecute should a third-party (e.g., a "cracker") want to develop some method to bypass the Activation (but, note, they must provide enough code to make this a possibility)
3) Right to Privacy: Any data-collection from these activation services will be opt-out (except as what is required for activation), will not be matched to any personally identifiable information and it absolutely, positively will not be shared
Useless trivia time (and probably old news to most people here)
Why did Microsoft use the "\" for a path-separator instead of "/" like Unix?
Because when Microsoft wrote (bought/stole) MS DOS 1.0, they wrote it for IBM. IBM already was using the "/" character as the switch for their utilities (not surprising, since the "/" was a commonly used switch character in CP/M, and MS DOS was a CP/M clone) so it couldn't also be used as a path separator. Of course, at the time it really didn't matter since MS DOS v1.0 didn't support directories. But they did have write into their shell that "/" was the switch character.
Of course, when Microsoft added directory support to MS DOS 2.0, they needed to add a path separator. Since they wanted to maintain backwards compatibility with the old IBM utilities, using the "/" character was already being used. So they decided to go with the next best thing: the "\" character.
So, like many Microsoft idiosyncrasies, this one too can be blamed on maintaining backwards compatibility. In any event, most versions of DOS will allow you to use the UNIX path separator "/" ; it will just interpret it as a "\".
Ummm....that was a Saturday Night Live skit. Bell may have *acted* like that, but the never said those words.
And the quote actually was:
"We don't care. We don't have to. We're the Phone Company."
On the other hand, they are giving us "an unprecedented level of detail in examining the shuttle".
I'm confused.
Okay, they aren't really sequels, but they are very watchable amateur mashups.
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86ltDTU1R8A
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_sSsJBFvR0
Sorry to be pedantic, but there were six time travellers: one human, five terminators.
Please don't tell me you just compared Apple to oranges...
No need to exclude x86 computers; the IBM PC Jr http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_PCjr ran on an 8088 processor and had a slot for cartridges.
Although I don't know anybody who actually had a cartridge program for the IBM PC Jr. Not that many people admit to owning a PC Jr anyway.
I don't think you all grasp the cunningness of Microsoft's new strategy. It's well known that Microsoft's biggest competitor is... Microsoft themselves. Convincing people to upgrade to their latest-and-greates product has always been an uphill struggle for Microsoft. Microsoft has such a stranglehold on the market that no new product -not even their own- can break that iron grip.
But with Vista, the marketing geniuses at Microsoft have come up with a plan to finally break that viselike grip. If the problem is that Microsoft's marketshare is too big, then there's only one thing to do: convince consumers to stop buying Microsoft products. Only then will Microsoft have a fair chance at breaking into the market that Microsoft now controls.
This isn't the first time Microsoft has utilized this strategy; they tested the waters with WindowsME. However, Microsoft hedged their bets back then with the concurrent release of Windows2000. But WinME proved their tactics had merit; they created such a despicable product that consumers flocked to WindowsXP.
Now, with the imminent release of Vista, Microsoft is betting the entire company; there is no "backup" product to save the day in case the strategy flops, as was Windows2000. Microsoft has put all its eggs in the basket with Vista, and they have worked hard to make sure Vista is something nobody wants. It has only the minimum of improvments while at the same time necessitating obscenely high hardware requirements to make use of those features. Microsoft is also -as this latest development shows- injected their new flagship OS with as many painful ways to restrict the consumer in how he uses the software he has paid for. So not only is it a product nobody needs, not only is it a product nobody wants, but it is also a product that doesn't do anything well. Vista is sure to flop, costing Microsoft billions of dolllars and a significant percentage of their marketshare. Microsoft has even gotten their games division involved; all future Microsoft games will be Vista (DirectX 10) only; when Vista inevitably flops, so will all those games.
And then, when Microsoft is shattered by its own incompetance, that's when Microsoft will swoop in for the kill.*
Devious and cunning. Who says Microsoft doesn't innovate?
* My brain hurts.
I know a lot of people here have argued that advertising in games makes the game feel more realistic, but even if it does, it still spoils my enjoyment of the game. I'll agree that to create a faithful depiction of "real life", the game should have advertising; after all, you can't walk 100' (30.48m for you metric folk :-) in the real world without bumping into some sort of advertising.
But every time I see advertising in a game, it pulls me out of the experience because I know that billboard/spray-on/conveniently-placed logo/whatever was purposely placed their by marketing executives. The thought that crosses through my head is not "Oh, an ad! Just like in real life!" but instead, "I'm being advertised to". I am immediately reminded that I am not racing in the Indy500/fighting terrorists/whatever, but instead am playing a game. It completely spoils the atmosphere and mood. It doesn't make things feel more realistic because the real world -the marketing shills- forcibly drag me out of the fantasy of the game.
Worse, because games only have a limited number of advertising pieces, they re-use those over and over again. Drive down the highway in real-life and you'll see a tremendous variety of billboards advertising dozens or hundreds of different products. In a game, you'll see the same twenty products repeated over and over again. And you won't have competing products, either; if a designer puts in a Pepsi machine in the game as product placement, then you sure as heck aren't going to see a Coca Cola machine stuck right next to it. The ad execs limit you to their own fantasy world where the only choice of products is the one they give you (that is to say, no choice at all). How does this make games anymore real, again?
I suppose if all you are interested in is the challenge of a game, then maybe advertising won't bother you much. But I'm more interested in story, character, and atmosphere than twitch gaming, else I'd still be playing PacMan. Advertising does not aid in any of this.
I have the same problem with product placement in movies and television (so much so that I can't watch either, anymore, though I don't consider that much of a loss). But so far games have remained (largely) advertising free and, because of this, have remained enjoyable pasttimes to me. Put in ads, and you're less likely to get my money.
The last time this idea was brought up on Slashdot, somebody posted an interesting article on the subject. Sadly, I don't remember the URL but it did ask one thing which I thought was worth repeating: rather than accept that games such take on ads to nominally become "more realistic", why aren't we striving to make our real-lfe world more like games in this regard, e.g., bereft of the advertising we all despise?
Seriously, wouldn't it need drivers to hook into the OS to access the network stack, at least for anything beyond Telnet and Remote Desktop (which, according to the article, sends "a packet ... every time a user presses a key"). Using the keyboard with webbrowsing or downloading seems safe, as far as I can understand (which, admittedly, may not be all that far :-) And if don't use Telnet or RD and use a bog-standard keyboard driver on Linux and you should be safe, right?
(Or just use a telnet or remote client that is progmatically de-jittered)
Yes. President Wilson
He's mostly remembered in history as the president who brought America into World War 1 (and who unsucessfully tried to create a lasting peace with the creation of the League of Nations), but what is often overlooked is his attack on civil liberties at home. His presidency makes George W Bush's look positively tame.
With the use of the Sedition Act (created back in 1798 but never used), the new Espionage Act (1917) and the Alien Act (1918), Wilson pretty much went to war and destroyed the left wing in the United States. Ill-defined laws, it permitted arrest for things as simple as speaking against the war effort or membership in the communist party. Newspapers were heavily censored, mail routinely opened and read. Wilson and his administration encouraged a climate of fear, and suggested people spy and report on any unpatriotic neighbors.
In fairness, at the time America was quite a different country than it is today; there was a huge influx of immigrants and a tremendous upsurge in radical groups and new ideas, a good number of which advocated overthrow of the US government. America was also at war with Germany, at a time when about 40% of the country was of German descent. There was true fear that the country was threatened by forces within. However, the steps Wilson took were far more drastic than were needed.
A good introduction to some of this stuff can be found at http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0204f.asp . I learned about it with the more specific cases discussed at http://www.seditionproject.net/ . PBS also has a nice summary of some of it in their documentary about Emma Goldman (a radical and anarchist) at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/goldman/peopleevents/ e_redscare.html
Unfortunately, this part of American history is largely forgotten, which is a shame because it has a lot of parallels to today. But I guess it's like they say: those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.
At least at my local grocer, the system displays a "Please wait for cashier" message after you scan in a bulk item (apples, candy, whatever), at which point the attendant is supposed to come and visually verify that is what is on the scale matches up with the barcode.
In actuality what happens is that the system beeps "Please wait for the cashier", and the attendant just pushes a button without verifying just to keep the line moving.
But yeah, the designers did TRY to take things like that into consideration
It was only a short-lived publication and, truthfully, it's reviews were often half-baked, but IE was the gaming magazine I remember with the most fondness. Interactive Entertainment's claim to fame was that it was a magazine-on-a-CD, back in the era when CD-ROMs were still new and exciting. That's right, the entire magazine was on the CD-ROM. And it wasn't just a dry collection of written reviews and demos; the reviews were read by a talented collection of voice actors. The reviews themselves were chirpy and upbeat, quite often lacking much in the way of true information but obviously written by people who loved computer gaming. The magazine also featured a number of "interactive interviews" and a lot of video-clips of in-game footage (this in an era when it was common to only show screenshots from the cinematic sequences). As a further bonus, most of the issues also came with a complete version of a game (several years old, of course, but not all dogs; thanks to IE, I got the complete Magic Candle series).
Ultimately, the high cost of producing each issue, coupled with a low subscription rate and an inability to attract any advertisers meant IEs days were numbered; they got bought out by Strategic Review. The magic was gone; within a few issues, IE became little more than a run-of-the-mill demo-disk and shortly thereafter the publication disappeared entirely.
Nonetheless, Interactive Entertainment still ranks up there as one of my favorite magazines; it was fun, irreverant, topical and entertaining. I still have a blast re-reading (listening?) to their reviews of 10 year old games. I wish more magazines captured their flair.
What can I say, I was a stupid user at one point too.
My first home computer was a Apple ][c, which came with a 5.25" drive built in. At the time, I was only marginally interested in how computer's worked, so I didn't bother keeping up with all the new technology. So when I was first offered a 3.5" disk, I really had no idea what to do with it. Obviously this was one of those new fangled "hard disks" (it obviously wasn't very floppy). But it fit fairly well into the 5.25" drive, especially after I jiggled it around a bit.
Of course, the drive wouldn't read the disk, so after a few unsatisfying reboots, I decided to yank the disk (I wasn't too surprised that the Apple ][c didn't support hard drives; it was a fairly old PC)
Unbeknownst to me, my "jigglings" got the metal latch of the 3.5" floppy caught on the inner mechanisms of the drive. I had to call my more computer-savy cousin to help me repair my PC.
Of course, now *I* fix *his* computers (and much more frequently too; I guess he wasn't too savy after all). But he never lets me forget that ONE mistake he fixed for me.
Contrarily, I've heard quite the opposite; that, in fact, human CO2 production is often undercounted and it in fact dwarfs the carbon dioxide spewed out by volcanoes.
... By comparison, human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation produce 130 times more CO2 than all the world's volcanoes put together"
g as.html
For instance, http://www.fs.fed.us/gpnf/press/2001/pr284.htm
"Volcanologists estimate an annual global output of 200 million tons of volcanic CO2 per year
or
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/vol
"Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 1998) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2.]. Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year)!"
(just a couple of sources after a brief search on google)
I don't know how accurate those sources are, so take it all with a grain of salt. Just don't blindly accept the axiom that volcanoes out perform humans in CO2 generation; it may not be true.