I don't know much about the site in question, but having scanned the first page of the thread two things are obvious - it's widely known that the moderators don't tolerate discussion of ad blocking (and the first reply was a very reasonable "you should speak to the mods about this not raise it in the forum" kind of reply), and the site offers two models, a paid subscription service that disables all ads and a free, ad-supported service, so it seems it's already clear to the core users why the ads are there, and there's even a legitimate alternative for users who don't want ads but would like to support the site in other ways.
On your point about "reasonable discussion", maybe it went the way of exaggerating a simple website policy to the status of a criminal law. Nobody claimed it was a crime, it's merely a policy that such things aren't discussed openly (if anything, that line from the terms suggests to me that ad blocking is implicitly tolerated so long as you don't openly talk about it, there's no mention of not ad blocking, just not promoting ad blocking - no doubt because the advertisers might be alarmed if they saw such talk in the forums).
As for who the customers are, follow the money - the advertisers are the ones paying for the user views, the advertisers and users who pay a subscription are the customers.
Google learned this lesson back when every other search provider were doing banner ads, and this is one reason why Google has leapfrogged ahead of the pack and stayed ahead so long. Text ads are fine. Ads which require 5 megabyte.swf files are just plain unacceptable.
The sweet irony here, of course, is that DoubleClick are one of the worst offenders and are actually owned by Google, now.
That's fine, so long as you also realise the site owner can make whatever arbitrary rulings he wants about what people do on his forums - no matter how dumb they are, no matter if we can all predict the mass exodus of users.
That's why this kind of aim, while great in theory, usually falls down in practice - the second you run into something you want to destroy and they won't let you, the whole experience feels forced. It's still neat that you can shoot some stuff, but it just feels even more jarring when you find the bits you can't shoot. Fully destructible environments would probably work best in a pure multiplayer game, where you don't need to zone off specific areas and force the player through some predefined tunnel run.
Like the equally dumb AI which states the second one pixel of your gun peeks around a corner two hundred feet from the enemy position, all five of them instantly know you are there and open up on you.
Cover's not just about stopping bullets, it's also about leaving the enemy guessing where you are - admittedly a crate that the enemy can shoot through is almost as bad as standing in the open, but that "almost" could be the difference between a flesh wound and a headshot...
For me, I always felt twitch play should be a lesser consideration to learning the maps and which weapons to use in which situations, of course reactions should still play some part, I just don't think they should be so disproportionate. I dislike the fact that, on a PC, the main delimiter in whether I win or lose is my reaction time and that, no matter how much experience or tactical knowledge of the game I have, I can still be outgunned by a 14 year old hyped up on red bull and cheetos, which for me reduces the game to the level of "here's some randomly flashing lights on the screen, click them as fast as possible" - sometimes I'll get lucky and click before everyone else, but it doesn't feel like an accomplishment. Consoles take the edge off that, when it takes actual effort to volte face to deal with an enemy unexpectedly on your flank, you learn to anticipate and plan your movements, which for me plays as a slightly different game. YMMV, of course, and having said all that I still enjoy firing up TF2 for a manic frag fest once in a while.
It sounds horrible - even picturing doing that in real life sounds like a recipe for disaster, without having to have a further input device separating your thoughts and actions.
I'm sure those same kids still have to admit to potential employers that they've been in the juvenile system anyway. For every one who has a flag that says "potential trouble maker" there will likely be one with an "adjusted well to rehabilitation" flag - for that group this might actually help them in seeking employment after juvenile.
As with any system like this, it would need to act as an indicator only, the final arbitration would still have to come from a human being. All this does is give them some more data to play around with - in the example you highlight it would be pretty obvious pretty quickly to any reasonably competent teacher that the data is wrong and the roles reversed. The biggest issue we have is finding reasonably competent people to put in charge of what to do with the data. If only there was a computer program to do that.
That already happens, except a Judge makes the decision instead of a computer. In fact, it will still happen this way, the computer will be just another tool he uses to make his decision.
That only works at source, and it breaks down there because so many parents seemingly don't know or care how to do it. By the time they enter a juvenile program, there will already be a subset who will respond well to nurture, education and opportunity, and a subset who will rail against it or use it to game the system. Accepting that as the case, I guess the idea here is to ensure that the right approach is used with each subset as effectively as possible... and yes, it'll likely still screw up a lot because humans are not entirely predictable.
Is it censorship to stop me from painting my slogan on the side of your car? Or your house?
Yes, yes it is. That doesn't mean it's wrong, and by extrapolation that doesn't mean the vast majority of censorship that happens on a daily basis is wrong, quite a lot of it is perfectly acceptable within the culture in which it exists. Here in the west, for instance, we're happy to prevent minors seeing 18 rated movies or buying pornography - that's one form of censorship which is generally seen as beneficial to society, others might be the use of racial slurs, or sexual harrasment. On a technical definition, both censorship, but most people are happy for them to be censored.
Are Apple censoring? Yes, in fact by their very own definition they are (objecting to it because of its content). Is that a bad thing? Well that's a slightly grey area, I'd probably come down on the side of no, since his works are still available through lots of other channels, even on the iPhone (via the web) - if he had a message which was of specific import to iPhone users and they were censoring him on the device most likely to get the message across, that would be different.
All that being true, ask yourself why Apple didn't say "We're not publishing your App because we don't like it" and instead said "We're not publishing your app because it carries objectionable material".
Don't they have the option to charge for Apps to cover the expense? And they're not even censoring the guy's work, since it's available from lots of places online using either the built in Safari browser, or the newly added Opera Mini App, so it's doubly baffling that they'd cast themselves in this light, as censors of a Pulitzer Prize winner's work, especially as they seem to like their image of being different and not conforming.
Perhaps they are the only publisher of apps etc for the iPad, but they are hardly the only publisher. Walled Garden not withstanding, you are railing against the fact the you have no choice, but you have other choices of application platform. Why do you care so much about Apple's attitudes.
It's possible he likes some aspects of the iPhone but not others. That doesn't mean his only choice is live with the bits he doesn't like or buy a different device. It's been demonstrated time and again that companies will bend to the demands of potential customers if there are enough of them asking for the same thing, or to existing customers if there are enough of them complaining about the same thing, so to say either live with this and don't complain or buy something else isn't in anyone's interests (not even Apple's eventually, since I'm sure they'd rather hear people's opinions, good or bad, than have zero feedback to build upon).
It also seems to be a massively double standard if they then go on to approve a browser App which gives you access to the entire internet, including this guy's own web site.
I would argue (and no, IANAL but I did take a degree in it, albeit quite a while ago) that being able to install updates from the manufacturer is an integral function of the device, since (and here I'm speaking from my 360 experience, as I don't own a PS3, but can't imagine it's any different) it's not possible to use the device for online play without accepting said updates. The ability to play online is a core feature of the console, without that it's not fit for purpose, which means you have to accept the update, or else Sony would have to allow people to play online without updating to get around this.
To give a more direct example, imagine being sold a SatNav with no maps on the basis that the maps are offered as a download from the manufaturer, you download and install the maps and they brick the device - you definitely have a claim against the retailer, even though your actions in agreeing to download the maps caused the breakage, because without agreeing to that you'd have a device totally unfit for purpose. While the PS3 is a multi-function device and they've only removed one of its purposes, the principle still stands.
I know others will say it and not mean it, but if Sony does not fix this I will *never* buy any Sony product (of any kind) again.
I'm one of those who has determined not to buy Sony again - the PS3 has come closest to swaying me, but all in all it's not been too difficult (even avoiding Blu-Ray despite being into movies in a big way). I know one man alone won't make a difference to the way Sony treat their customers, and I don't pretend I'm about to start any kind of revolution, but what I can be sure of is that they won't be screwing me over. That's good enough for my peace of mind.
Well check the state of your local consumer laws. In the EU they can't refuse to deal with you in this way, as much as they'd like to, because the contract was between you and them, not you and the manufacturer. It's their problem how to get the money back from the manufacturer. If at all possible, make your complaint in writing, be firm but not agressive, most companies will pay out because it's not worth the hassle, although they'll certainly try and fob you off initially.
Glad I never bought one, I just don't trust Sony enough.
Funny, since the Sony ROOTKIT fiasco I have felt the same way about Sony.
Ditto, I desperately wanted to own a PS3 but I didn't feel (despite the calls at the time of "they've changed, they've changed") that they were trustworthy for a number of reasons, culminating in rootkits. They obviously care nothing for their customers, and it appears from this latest news that they care nothing for their retailers or EU law, either - I wonder, do they now feel they're too big to fail?
As for the box pictures, that makes little difference. As a customer you would only have to demonstrate that you could reasonably be expected to know about the feature - considering the amount of press the console got on the web before launch, with every single function and feature dissected and analysed, you'd have to have been living under a rock to not know about Other OS. I certainly was aware of it before the console launched (it was one of the key things that almost swayed me to buy one).
Well in this case the law would be at odds with the EULA, since it's one of those rare things, a law which enhances consumer rights, by enshrining a few hundred years of contract law. The only question is, will it cost Sony less to fight this in the courts and end up paying out anyway, or to buy enough politicians to revise the law.
Indeed, regardless of whether Sony make a loss or not, they sold the product at a premium price because it could do X, Y, Z over and above the competition. If they then remove X after people have paid for it, they should compensate users.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know much about the site in question, but having scanned the first page of the thread two things are obvious - it's widely known that the moderators don't tolerate discussion of ad blocking (and the first reply was a very reasonable "you should speak to the mods about this not raise it in the forum" kind of reply), and the site offers two models, a paid subscription service that disables all ads and a free, ad-supported service, so it seems it's already clear to the core users why the ads are there, and there's even a legitimate alternative for users who don't want ads but would like to support the site in other ways.
On your point about "reasonable discussion", maybe it went the way of exaggerating a simple website policy to the status of a criminal law. Nobody claimed it was a crime, it's merely a policy that such things aren't discussed openly (if anything, that line from the terms suggests to me that ad blocking is implicitly tolerated so long as you don't openly talk about it, there's no mention of not ad blocking, just not promoting ad blocking - no doubt because the advertisers might be alarmed if they saw such talk in the forums).
As for who the customers are, follow the money - the advertisers are the ones paying for the user views, the advertisers and users who pay a subscription are the customers.
Google learned this lesson back when every other search provider were doing banner ads, and this is one reason why Google has leapfrogged ahead of the pack and stayed ahead so long. Text ads are fine. Ads which require 5 megabyte .swf files are just plain unacceptable.
The sweet irony here, of course, is that DoubleClick are one of the worst offenders and are actually owned by Google, now.
You joke, but I'd be surprised if TV stations didn't have strict rules about programmes not telling viewers to channel surf while the adverts are on.
That's fine, so long as you also realise the site owner can make whatever arbitrary rulings he wants about what people do on his forums - no matter how dumb they are, no matter if we can all predict the mass exodus of users.
That's why this kind of aim, while great in theory, usually falls down in practice - the second you run into something you want to destroy and they won't let you, the whole experience feels forced. It's still neat that you can shoot some stuff, but it just feels even more jarring when you find the bits you can't shoot. Fully destructible environments would probably work best in a pure multiplayer game, where you don't need to zone off specific areas and force the player through some predefined tunnel run.
Like the equally dumb AI which states the second one pixel of your gun peeks around a corner two hundred feet from the enemy position, all five of them instantly know you are there and open up on you.
Cover's not just about stopping bullets, it's also about leaving the enemy guessing where you are - admittedly a crate that the enemy can shoot through is almost as bad as standing in the open, but that "almost" could be the difference between a flesh wound and a headshot...
For me, I always felt twitch play should be a lesser consideration to learning the maps and which weapons to use in which situations, of course reactions should still play some part, I just don't think they should be so disproportionate. I dislike the fact that, on a PC, the main delimiter in whether I win or lose is my reaction time and that, no matter how much experience or tactical knowledge of the game I have, I can still be outgunned by a 14 year old hyped up on red bull and cheetos, which for me reduces the game to the level of "here's some randomly flashing lights on the screen, click them as fast as possible" - sometimes I'll get lucky and click before everyone else, but it doesn't feel like an accomplishment. Consoles take the edge off that, when it takes actual effort to volte face to deal with an enemy unexpectedly on your flank, you learn to anticipate and plan your movements, which for me plays as a slightly different game. YMMV, of course, and having said all that I still enjoy firing up TF2 for a manic frag fest once in a while.
It sounds horrible - even picturing doing that in real life sounds like a recipe for disaster, without having to have a further input device separating your thoughts and actions.
I'm sure those same kids still have to admit to potential employers that they've been in the juvenile system anyway. For every one who has a flag that says "potential trouble maker" there will likely be one with an "adjusted well to rehabilitation" flag - for that group this might actually help them in seeking employment after juvenile.
So their back in the business of helping a goverment keep a count on undesirables. Ring any bells?
Yeah, you just triggered the Godwin alarm.
As with any system like this, it would need to act as an indicator only, the final arbitration would still have to come from a human being. All this does is give them some more data to play around with - in the example you highlight it would be pretty obvious pretty quickly to any reasonably competent teacher that the data is wrong and the roles reversed. The biggest issue we have is finding reasonably competent people to put in charge of what to do with the data. If only there was a computer program to do that.
That already happens, except a Judge makes the decision instead of a computer. In fact, it will still happen this way, the computer will be just another tool he uses to make his decision.
That only works at source, and it breaks down there because so many parents seemingly don't know or care how to do it. By the time they enter a juvenile program, there will already be a subset who will respond well to nurture, education and opportunity, and a subset who will rail against it or use it to game the system. Accepting that as the case, I guess the idea here is to ensure that the right approach is used with each subset as effectively as possible... and yes, it'll likely still screw up a lot because humans are not entirely predictable.
Is it censorship to stop me from painting my slogan on the side of your car? Or your house?
Yes, yes it is. That doesn't mean it's wrong, and by extrapolation that doesn't mean the vast majority of censorship that happens on a daily basis is wrong, quite a lot of it is perfectly acceptable within the culture in which it exists. Here in the west, for instance, we're happy to prevent minors seeing 18 rated movies or buying pornography - that's one form of censorship which is generally seen as beneficial to society, others might be the use of racial slurs, or sexual harrasment. On a technical definition, both censorship, but most people are happy for them to be censored.
Are Apple censoring? Yes, in fact by their very own definition they are (objecting to it because of its content). Is that a bad thing? Well that's a slightly grey area, I'd probably come down on the side of no, since his works are still available through lots of other channels, even on the iPhone (via the web) - if he had a message which was of specific import to iPhone users and they were censoring him on the device most likely to get the message across, that would be different.
All that being true, ask yourself why Apple didn't say "We're not publishing your App because we don't like it" and instead said "We're not publishing your app because it carries objectionable material".
Don't they have the option to charge for Apps to cover the expense? And they're not even censoring the guy's work, since it's available from lots of places online using either the built in Safari browser, or the newly added Opera Mini App, so it's doubly baffling that they'd cast themselves in this light, as censors of a Pulitzer Prize winner's work, especially as they seem to like their image of being different and not conforming.
Perhaps they are the only publisher of apps etc for the iPad, but they are hardly the only publisher. Walled Garden not withstanding, you are railing against the fact the you have no choice, but you have other choices of application platform. Why do you care so much about Apple's attitudes.
It's possible he likes some aspects of the iPhone but not others. That doesn't mean his only choice is live with the bits he doesn't like or buy a different device. It's been demonstrated time and again that companies will bend to the demands of potential customers if there are enough of them asking for the same thing, or to existing customers if there are enough of them complaining about the same thing, so to say either live with this and don't complain or buy something else isn't in anyone's interests (not even Apple's eventually, since I'm sure they'd rather hear people's opinions, good or bad, than have zero feedback to build upon).
It also seems to be a massively double standard if they then go on to approve a browser App which gives you access to the entire internet, including this guy's own web site.
I would argue (and no, IANAL but I did take a degree in it, albeit quite a while ago) that being able to install updates from the manufacturer is an integral function of the device, since (and here I'm speaking from my 360 experience, as I don't own a PS3, but can't imagine it's any different) it's not possible to use the device for online play without accepting said updates. The ability to play online is a core feature of the console, without that it's not fit for purpose, which means you have to accept the update, or else Sony would have to allow people to play online without updating to get around this.
To give a more direct example, imagine being sold a SatNav with no maps on the basis that the maps are offered as a download from the manufaturer, you download and install the maps and they brick the device - you definitely have a claim against the retailer, even though your actions in agreeing to download the maps caused the breakage, because without agreeing to that you'd have a device totally unfit for purpose. While the PS3 is a multi-function device and they've only removed one of its purposes, the principle still stands.
I know others will say it and not mean it, but if Sony does not fix this I will *never* buy any Sony product (of any kind) again.
I'm one of those who has determined not to buy Sony again - the PS3 has come closest to swaying me, but all in all it's not been too difficult (even avoiding Blu-Ray despite being into movies in a big way). I know one man alone won't make a difference to the way Sony treat their customers, and I don't pretend I'm about to start any kind of revolution, but what I can be sure of is that they won't be screwing me over. That's good enough for my peace of mind.
Well check the state of your local consumer laws. In the EU they can't refuse to deal with you in this way, as much as they'd like to, because the contract was between you and them, not you and the manufacturer. It's their problem how to get the money back from the manufacturer. If at all possible, make your complaint in writing, be firm but not agressive, most companies will pay out because it's not worth the hassle, although they'll certainly try and fob you off initially.
Glad I never bought one, I just don't trust Sony enough.
Funny, since the Sony ROOTKIT fiasco I have felt the same way about Sony.
Ditto, I desperately wanted to own a PS3 but I didn't feel (despite the calls at the time of "they've changed, they've changed") that they were trustworthy for a number of reasons, culminating in rootkits. They obviously care nothing for their customers, and it appears from this latest news that they care nothing for their retailers or EU law, either - I wonder, do they now feel they're too big to fail?
As for the box pictures, that makes little difference. As a customer you would only have to demonstrate that you could reasonably be expected to know about the feature - considering the amount of press the console got on the web before launch, with every single function and feature dissected and analysed, you'd have to have been living under a rock to not know about Other OS. I certainly was aware of it before the console launched (it was one of the key things that almost swayed me to buy one).
Well in this case the law would be at odds with the EULA, since it's one of those rare things, a law which enhances consumer rights, by enshrining a few hundred years of contract law. The only question is, will it cost Sony less to fight this in the courts and end up paying out anyway, or to buy enough politicians to revise the law.
Indeed, regardless of whether Sony make a loss or not, they sold the product at a premium price because it could do X, Y, Z over and above the competition. If they then remove X after people have paid for it, they should compensate users.