And if there was nothing wrong with it, why does the school say it won't start using the snooping feature again without "express written notification to all students and families"?
Yes, indeed. Why are they running if they have nothing to hide?
In other words, the question's been less and less ambiguous as to whether DRM actually hurts sales and drives people to piracy. It's been obvious to *me*, but I could see how a reasonable person might think otherwise.
We might be at the point where a reasonable person can no longer lay the blame anywhere but at the feet of outrageous DRM.
No-one doubts that DRM causes people to not buy a game. What is not so clear is whether DRM then drives people to subsequently pirate the game they're not buying. I would argue that it's 100% their decision.
The really funny thing is, of course, it won't hurt the pirates at all.
Yeah, I'm a little confused about this as well. Making the process more painful is a pervasive side-effect of DRM, but the main purpose has always been to stop copying. How does this new DRM help Ubisoft? Are there any benefits to them at all?
Just out of curiosity, without science how might you go about deciding for yourself what is true or untrue?
Well, generally, I look at what other people say, and I perform a complex series of checks and comparisons, the first of which is whether they are joking or not!
Seriously, I need to include more *wink*s in my ironic rants. It's getting hard enough to distinguish the crackpots and even the more obvious jokers these days...
It's a little more scary than a lawyer making a flashy argument to distract the jury. It kinda confirms (one of) my worst fears about the human race, namely that it sees the laws of reality as something political, right up into the echelons of power.
Not to mention, there's a reason why they (used to) call it "global warming" and not "local warming".
Scientists seem to think they have the right to dictate to us what we know, based on petty things like research and knowledge. We are capable of free thought! We can decide for ourselves what is true and what isn't without them shoving it down our throats.
Am I supposed to positively associate the casual reference to shills and astroturfers on/. with free thought? Because right now, considering the number of people who claim their existence without a shred of evidence, it's having the opposite effect.
It looks interesting, but I would hardly call it "kicking Google's ass". It's got some minor enhancements and some cute effects, but on the face of it, nothing that would make me want to switch from google maps. It doesn't actually seem to address any shortcomings of google maps, rather it focuses on making the whole thing look better and more interesting.
Currently, I use google maps only as a tool for finding quickly and easily where to go, and so far, it has been more than adequate. Perhaps if I were more interested in browsing streets for browsing's sake, then this might actually excite me.
Anyway, I have to share one sentiment: "Huzzah for competition!"
Woosh! You really have a simple world view going on there!
So narrow, I see more than one solution to child porn. I should just latch on to one potential solution, ignore the plentiful downsides, and accuse anyone else of being narrow-minded, just like you!
It's not about propping up. It is about giving third world countries the same opportunity to develop that we had.
Wait, I could have sworn you were providing a serious solution to child porn, not just grinding an axe about IP. After all, an enlightened and broad-minded being, you wouldn't mindlessly change the subject with the sole purpose of vilifying governments and IP holders, would you?
You really dont get it: Human Trafficking and the closely related child porn originate in developing countries... to use your simple world view: That is its home.
Uh huh. Exactly when did I give you the impression that I thought child porn had a home? Oh wait, you didn't just assume that, because I disagree with you, that I believe in every "simple-minded" chiche in the book? Because that would be hilariously ironic for you, Mr Broad-minded himself to make such a cliched and simple-minded assumption.
(Wow, you really are getting pwned today, huh?)
Any policy to help the third world develop is an Anti-child porn stance.
That's a half-truth. We have fuck all evidence that this particular measure will have any significant impact on child porn, much less that it has a more significant impact than the approaches we have already been using, much less that the economic hit is worth what little impact your plan will have on child porn. Actually, "half-truth" was a little generous.
And yes, relinquishing IP, allowing them to piggyback off our achievements, while certainly admirable, is propping them up. They have no right to benefit from our experiences.
What your really saying is: "Governments should reject the wealth of positives about these treaties for our companies.
... which in turn greatly affects our economy, and in turn, us. Weakening IP weakens cultural and artistic growth, not just in abroad trade, but also at home. Allowing people overseas to trade in our IP allows people at home to trade in that IP at home. The net effect: it hurts us.
Again, I want to stress (in case Mr Broad-minded makes a knee-jerk reaction) that this does not mean we should not share some of our IP, but like any international aid, there should be limits to how much we are prepared to sacrifice our own growth to help the growth of others.
Bravo, you effectively supporting the continuation of child exploitation, including pornography.
And so ends Mr Broad-minded's lesson in how to be broad-minded.
Censorship on the internet has nothing to do with stopping [insert favorite bogyman here]. For example: If Governments of the world really really cared about Child porn, there is no way in hell they would subscribe to TRIPS, GATS and other trade agreements that push so fervently for expansion of intellectual property (IP) rights worldwide. The majority of Child porn comes from poor developing countries - called "Source Country" exploitation. Many research and commissions inquires have overwhelmingly [References below] found these trade agreements severely disadvantage developing countries. Basically it guarantees keeping poor countries poor by denying them the same abilities to develop as the first world countries once enjoyed (refs below).
Right, because:
a) The only way for us to stop child porn is to economically prop up every country in need, at our great, great expense, and b) Governments should reject the wealth of positives about these treaties in the vain, completely unfounded hope that it will inspires child pornographers to pack up and go home.
I mean, it's like saying if governments cared about child porn, then they would kill all the children.
Yep. Thanks pirates. Really, really appreciate it.
Oh and hey, why don't you just point the finger at microsoft, deflect all the blame, huh? Yeah, I'm sure they're going to listen to all their loyal customers.
Look, I'm sorry, but I'm just getting sick of this piracy thing. Neither side seems to be man enough to admit their part in this sorry state of affairs.
It sounds more like you're sick of advertising. Period.
Nobody, except the most clueless of rock-dwelling hermits, will think that 3D television projects a 3-dimensional environment into their living room, and thus pinning a deceptive advertising charge would be difficult to impossible.
No. I would imagine that "blocking" TPB would amount to blocking direct access, as a token effort. Perfectly workable in implementation, completely useless in effect.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, indeed. Why are they running if they have nothing to hide?
Come on, how am I a troll? Just because I don't kiss up to your greedy and selfish ways, I'm a troll?
No-one doubts that DRM causes people to not buy a game. What is not so clear is whether DRM then drives people to subsequently pirate the game they're not buying. I would argue that it's 100% their decision.
Yeah, I'm a little confused about this as well. Making the process more painful is a pervasive side-effect of DRM, but the main purpose has always been to stop copying. How does this new DRM help Ubisoft? Are there any benefits to them at all?
Why would a donkey be more offensive than a rear end?
... not as thieving scumbags, and Settlers VII will be remembered as a holy text, not forgotten as a completely meaningless piece of entertainment.
If you want to put pirates on a pedestal, go right ahead. Just remember that they are just as responsible as the game corporations for DRM.
Come on people! These fat jokes have to stop!
Well, generally, I look at what other people say, and I perform a complex series of checks and comparisons, the first of which is whether they are joking or not!
Seriously, I need to include more *wink*s in my ironic rants. It's getting hard enough to distinguish the crackpots and even the more obvious jokers these days...
It's a little more scary than a lawyer making a flashy argument to distract the jury. It kinda confirms (one of) my worst fears about the human race, namely that it sees the laws of reality as something political, right up into the echelons of power.
Not to mention, there's a reason why they (used to) call it "global warming" and not "local warming".
Scientists seem to think they have the right to dictate to us what we know, based on petty things like research and knowledge. We are capable of free thought! We can decide for ourselves what is true and what isn't without them shoving it down our throats.
I for one applaud Utah for showing some backbone.
Hey, but at least they're now the only ones allowed to do it!
(Yes, I know everything that was wrong with that statement.)
Just so we're clear, we are talking about Apple under Steve Jobs here, right?
Am I supposed to positively associate the casual reference to shills and astroturfers on /. with free thought? Because right now, considering the number of people who claim their existence without a shred of evidence, it's having the opposite effect.
Or, for those who don't need their tech news to be up-to-the-day.
Or week.
It looks interesting, but I would hardly call it "kicking Google's ass". It's got some minor enhancements and some cute effects, but on the face of it, nothing that would make me want to switch from google maps. It doesn't actually seem to address any shortcomings of google maps, rather it focuses on making the whole thing look better and more interesting.
Currently, I use google maps only as a tool for finding quickly and easily where to go, and so far, it has been more than adequate. Perhaps if I were more interested in browsing streets for browsing's sake, then this might actually excite me.
Anyway, I have to share one sentiment: "Huzzah for competition!"
So narrow, I see more than one solution to child porn. I should just latch on to one potential solution, ignore the plentiful downsides, and accuse anyone else of being narrow-minded, just like you!
Wait, I could have sworn you were providing a serious solution to child porn, not just grinding an axe about IP. After all, an enlightened and broad-minded being, you wouldn't mindlessly change the subject with the sole purpose of vilifying governments and IP holders, would you?
Uh huh. Exactly when did I give you the impression that I thought child porn had a home? Oh wait, you didn't just assume that, because I disagree with you, that I believe in every "simple-minded" chiche in the book? Because that would be hilariously ironic for you, Mr Broad-minded himself to make such a cliched and simple-minded assumption.
(Wow, you really are getting pwned today, huh?)
That's a half-truth. We have fuck all evidence that this particular measure will have any significant impact on child porn, much less that it has a more significant impact than the approaches we have already been using, much less that the economic hit is worth what little impact your plan will have on child porn. Actually, "half-truth" was a little generous.
And yes, relinquishing IP, allowing them to piggyback off our achievements, while certainly admirable, is propping them up. They have no right to benefit from our experiences.
... which in turn greatly affects our economy, and in turn, us. Weakening IP weakens cultural and artistic growth, not just in abroad trade, but also at home. Allowing people overseas to trade in our IP allows people at home to trade in that IP at home. The net effect: it hurts us.
Again, I want to stress (in case Mr Broad-minded makes a knee-jerk reaction) that this does not mean we should not share some of our IP, but like any international aid, there should be limits to how much we are prepared to sacrifice our own growth to help the growth of others.
And so ends Mr Broad-minded's lesson in how to be broad-minded.
Your argument makes no sense.
Right, because:
a) The only way for us to stop child porn is to economically prop up every country in need, at our great, great expense, and
b) Governments should reject the wealth of positives about these treaties in the vain, completely unfounded hope that it will inspires child pornographers to pack up and go home.
I mean, it's like saying if governments cared about child porn, then they would kill all the children.
Not a fan of linux then, huh?
OK, that was a blatant troll. ;-)
Yep. Thanks pirates. Really, really appreciate it.
Oh and hey, why don't you just point the finger at microsoft, deflect all the blame, huh? Yeah, I'm sure they're going to listen to all their loyal customers.
Look, I'm sorry, but I'm just getting sick of this piracy thing. Neither side seems to be man enough to admit their part in this sorry state of affairs.
I think that falls under items 2) and 4).
I'm a little too young to remember SC2, but I see from the wikipedia page that it's GPL. Awesome.
It sounds more like you're sick of advertising. Period.
Nobody, except the most clueless of rock-dwelling hermits, will think that 3D television projects a 3-dimensional environment into their living room, and thus pinning a deceptive advertising charge would be difficult to impossible.
No. I would imagine that "blocking" TPB would amount to blocking direct access, as a token effort. Perfectly workable in implementation, completely useless in effect.
That logic is good enough for the moderators to mod the OP +4 informative.
Someone better warn the republican party!