I have yet to get the demo to work for the "bait and switch" attack. I'm running IE7 on Vista... Anyone had success getting the demo to work? Scratch that... As I was typing this a dialog prompted me my Google cookie info. OK... this "vulnerability" took over a minute to accomplish and my browser kept navigating back and forth between 2 different sites. It was pretty obvious that something malicious was going on and I hardly doubt that this will be leashed onto many unsuspecting web users. This is one hole that is far stretched... err... fetched.
I absolutely love the God of War franchise; however, God of War 2 feels rushed as I have found several bugs. Also the level of complexity with the puzzles in #2 is less than impressive. The graphics are much better; unfortunately, the controls are just as sluggish as they were in #1. My hopes for #3 are: very reactive controls, more complicated puzzles (e.g. Myst) and a bit more time in QA.
In addition, there are legitimate reasons to use a key which is not your own. You could have legally purchased the software but no longer have box or manuals (do you even get any manuals?) and you may not even have the disc - it could have been destroyed. You are still the legal licensor, under the "licensee" way of thinking. You are still entitled to run the software, but lack the means to do so without generating another key. Microsoft, however, prevents you from using the software for which you have paid. So, you might consider generating a key so that you can use the product. If Microsoft then chooses to invalidate someone else's copy of Windows, how is that my fault?
Let me re-apply this logic to another scenario:
In addition, there are legitimate reasons to use a key which is not your own. You could have legally purchased the car but no longer have title or manuals (do you even get any manuals?) and you may not even have the car - it could have been destroyed. You are still the legal licensor, under the "licensee" way of thinking. You are still entitled to run the car, but lack the means to do so without generating another key. Porsche, however, prevents you from using the car for which you have paid. So, you might consider generating a key so that you can use the car. If Porsche then chooses to invalidate someone else's car, how is that my fault?
I understand that my analogy is not perfect, but is intended to stimulate the mind. The biggest issue I have with this logic is: How can the company that provided you with the product, verify that you, in fact, purchased it? If we decide to throw away our discs, licenses and receipts, what right do we have to our product (legally)? The police would laugh all the way to the precinct, with me in cuffs, as I explain to them that this is in fact my car, but I lost the title...
I did a quick lookup into online contract law in CA and found that historically there must be a definition of how the contract was made (clicked on a button) and how it was recorded (in transactional logs). They should be able to produce these, if not I doubt any court would enforce it. On the other hand, if they can, it will most likely be enforceable. It seems that Canada has very loose regulations about contracts as they are considered "private" affairs. Conversely, in the US they are governed with strict diction.
Slashdot Mirror
I have yet to get the demo to work for the "bait and switch" attack. I'm running IE7 on Vista... Anyone had success getting the demo to work? Scratch that... As I was typing this a dialog prompted me my Google cookie info. OK... this "vulnerability" took over a minute to accomplish and my browser kept navigating back and forth between 2 different sites. It was pretty obvious that something malicious was going on and I hardly doubt that this will be leashed onto many unsuspecting web users. This is one hole that is far stretched... err... fetched.
I absolutely love the God of War franchise; however, God of War 2 feels rushed as I have found several bugs. Also the level of complexity with the puzzles in #2 is less than impressive. The graphics are much better; unfortunately, the controls are just as sluggish as they were in #1. My hopes for #3 are: very reactive controls, more complicated puzzles (e.g. Myst) and a bit more time in QA.
In addition, there are legitimate reasons to use a key which is not your own. You could have legally purchased the car but no longer have title or manuals (do you even get any manuals?) and you may not even have the car - it could have been destroyed. You are still the legal licensor, under the "licensee" way of thinking. You are still entitled to run the car, but lack the means to do so without generating another key. Porsche, however, prevents you from using the car for which you have paid. So, you might consider generating a key so that you can use the car. If Porsche then chooses to invalidate someone else's car, how is that my fault?
I understand that my analogy is not perfect, but is intended to stimulate the mind. The biggest issue I have with this logic is: How can the company that provided you with the product, verify that you, in fact, purchased it? If we decide to throw away our discs, licenses and receipts, what right do we have to our product (legally)? The police would laugh all the way to the precinct, with me in cuffs, as I explain to them that this is in fact my car, but I lost the title...
I did a quick lookup into online contract law in CA and found that historically there must be a definition of how the contract was made (clicked on a button) and how it was recorded (in transactional logs). They should be able to produce these, if not I doubt any court would enforce it. On the other hand, if they can, it will most likely be enforceable. It seems that Canada has very loose regulations about contracts as they are considered "private" affairs. Conversely, in the US they are governed with strict diction.