But what does SourceSac get out of the deal? Is the publicity for essentially releasing a 0-day really going to earn them that much money? Despite their brilliance in discovering such a flaw, I'm not sure anyone would want to associate themselves with this company for security. With friends like this....
I'm pretty confident that there will be more budgeting for this sort of thing in the future though. If you look at the costs of a military operation, it's huge. There's a lot of money which can be saved by switching to robots. Not so for other areas such as manufacturing. When you can move your manufacturing to a 3rd world country and have $2 per day workers, there isn't much money to be saved by introducing a robot into the process. Inevitably, the global military R&D budget will continue to eclipse all other robotics research spending. Unless some other unforeseen robotics application which can save boatloads of money is realized, I think it's just a matter of simple economics that the future control of robots will be by the military industry.
No choice but to listen to those with the data publishing the reports. Does it suck? Yes. But oftentimes that's how studies with empirical data works--especially if it cost a lot of money to acquire that data. We're not talking about a repeatable experiment here to be verified in another lab. And for some reason, we're not demanding they open the sequencing data on the cancer gene [slashdot.org] we just accepted that story and we trusted those scientists. But suddenly it's about climate change therefor you're now all more qualified experts than those with the data. Why is that? What is it about climate change that suddenly everyone and their dog can tell you how wrong the scientists are?
If you'd like to horde your data for commercial purposes, that's fine. But if you want to receive power over the public through influence (such as through legislature or global climate treaties) then you must open the data up to debate. If you don't want to do it, then just keep quiet and admit that noone can rely on your conclusions.
Hopefully in future cases, however, the judges will see that filtering is not feasible from a technical standpoint. It doesn't matter if you're found not responsible and must filter, or guilty and are forced offline. Both result in the same outcome. So why should someone found not responsible for a problem be forced to walk the plank?
This hearkens back to the Betamax vs Universal case (yes I know this is a Dutch case). The burden is on the RIAAs of the world to prove infringement and then deal with it (and in a legal manner as well).
Sony will have to make 'reasonable accommodations' which are not an 'undue financial burden.' In my humble opinion, providing access for the disabled is not only the right thing to do but it will generate more profit for Sony."
I thought it was supposed to be a given that Sony's would introduce any feature to a game for it to make more profit without changing its business model? Somehow, I don't think that Sony is going to profit from adding handicapped-accessible features to a game, because that seems to be the one base that Sony has covered.
Exactly, game publishers need to realize that the game software is actually perishable. Demand for the product decreases because of newer game releases and console generations become obsolete, so the price decreases. Used game resellers are simply matching the market. Publishers should slowly cut new game prices to match the used market prices and buyers will purchase the new game for slightly more than a (perfectly good) used game.
Just to be clear, I think the guy in this article is guilty, and should lose his appeals because the article states that the police DID get a warrant for the GPS device! But the court went overboard by concluding that a warrant is not necessary. IANAL, but it looks like we've already been down this legal road before. From the article:
Officers do not need to get warrants beforehand because GPS tracking does not involve a search or a seizure, Judge Paul Lundsten wrote for the unanimous three-judge panel based in Madison.
The Supreme Court held that conversations are protected by the Fourth Amendment, and that the use of electronic devices to capture conversations thus constituted a "search."
In the early wiretapping and eavesdropping cases, there was much discussion of whether an interception without a physical invasion of property constituted a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment... Forty years later, by the time of Berger v. New York,6 the United States
Supreme Court had abandoned property law concepts and determined that the requirements of the fourth Amendment should be applied to any statutory scheme purporting to authorize the search of wire communications".
So just because it's not a physical search doesn't mean it's not a search. It's just a search for a location. So back to more from the article:
Even though the device followed Sveum's car to private places, an officer tracking Sveum could have seen when his car entered or exited a garage, Lundsten reasoned. Attaching the device was not a violation, he wrote, because Sveum's driveway is a public place.
In the decision the Supreme Court sided with Katz, holding that the Fourth Amendment protects his right to privacy, wherever he may be. Justice Stewart wrote, "No less than an individual in a business office, in a friend's apartment, or in a taxicab, a person in a telephone booth may rely upon the protection of the Fourth Amendment."
So if you have an expectation to privacy in a telephone booth, I'm guessing that also applies to being out on the road in your car.
WTF do they think a newspaper is for? The minute you try to "democratize" is, politicians and PR types will try to game the system to make sure that only stories beneficial to them will get published.
Newspapers across the country are losing money and are at risk of going out of business. The "undemocratic" process may lead to financial ruin, and the alternative may be that there will be no newspapers. Then the only print news remaining will be the political and PR types, who spin things with their press releases, which sounds like the exact opposite of what you want here.
The trick is to provide a happy medium, where the press publishes news that doesn't disgust its own readers so much that they unsubscribe. Letting a few readers preview stories is hardly democracy, and it puts a check and balance against the radical editors that are putting its own employer out of business.
Additionally, make a copy of them threatening you if you leave. If this employer will not vouch for you in future references, their threats would prove your value that you're so important and such a good employee that they didn't want you to leave. That ought to be a good reference, along with the above suggestion that you document that you did in fact leave on proper terms with a 3-week notice.
Not only will it dramatically change the nature of the Internet, it'll do so with no benefit at all. Most spammers send their mail with botnets. The people paying won't be the spammers, but the people who's machines have been infected.
It could also be argued that those who don't maintain their machine properly enough to allow it to become infected by a botnet deserve to pay for some of the cleanup costs of the damage (spam, DDOS, ect.).
But I'm certainly not that vindicitive, so another solution would be to require email postage to be prepaid. A small account cap for individuals would limit the cost, and also make their machines less desirable as targets for botnets if the spammers can only send a few hundred emails before depleting the account and getting cutoff until the next billing cycle.
Not only is it a problem of breaking the law, but there's the problem of "cleaning gone wrong". What if the cleaning program fouls a hospital's computers? Or fouls up some other important infrastructure. Do you want to be the guy standing next to the enter key in that event?
So let me get this straight -- there's an important computer out there which is infected with a botnet worm, which in turn is spamming us and launching DDOS attacks, yet it's still performing some important function despite the infection. The administrators can't be bothered to get rid of the worm, but they can track down the agency that tried to fix it for them to demand payment for damages?
Unfortunately this sounds like the computer equivalent of the bad guys using hostages as human shields.
Well, it definitely sounds like there needs to be a change in tort law, where an authorized botnet fixer (government or otherwise) would be held harmless for damages caused while trying to fix it. Jaywalkers can't complain if they get hit by a vehicle. Owners of infected computers shouldn't complain either. Blame the botnet creator or distributor, or yourself for not managing your computer correctly. But don't blame someone for trying to fix the problem when you can't do it yourself.
Do you care about the idiot behind you hitting your car? I mean, in most parts of the word, at least third party insurance is required, and rear-ending is usually considered a "closed case" when it comes to investigation.
Sure, it's required, but if you have to drive in some of the "urban" areas to get to work, you'll find out that many of the "local" drivers have absolutely no insurance. Of course, my insurance covers me regardless of the status of the other driver, but yes I do care about the other guy hitting me because their poor driving still has an impact (pun intended) on my insurance premium and my deductible.
I think overall you're right that this safety feature won't help the good drivers who care enough to purchase it. However, if this feature becomes mandatory to control those uninsured bad drivers out there on the road, then it'll do some good for both my well-being and my wallet.
Is there anyone out there that see an actual point to any of this(besides wasting craploads of our money?) at all? Even NK wouldn't be stupid enough to launch at us thanks to Mutually Assured Destruction(MAD) because with today's tracking tech ANY country that launches at one of the big boys, be it USA,China,Russia,etc will have serious death rained down on them from above
Yes, there are terrorist groups who would gladly get themselves killed to instigate a war. I'm convinced the recent attacks in Mumbai were an attempt to provoke an India-Pakistan war over the Kashmir region (which still may yet happen). Imagine if instead of the terrorists taking over a luxury hotel, that they take over a nuclear launch silo with the capability to get it off the ground?
I think we need to realize that with the proliferation of nuclear technology that there's going to be more and more groups or nations that will join the nuclear club. A missile defense shield ensures that a small and radical group can't simply take control of one missile and inflict millions of deaths and trillions of dollars in economic damages.
Instead, they'd need to become a big and powerful nation, with millions of people prosperous enough to support a coordinated ICBM attack to penetrate a missile defense shield. But then, of course, that would give them enough of a stake on a global scale to where the principles of Mutually Assured Destruction start to work.
The President of the United States doesn't have direct control over the price of oil or gasoline. In case you were wondering, the US is a capitalistic economy, which means the market dictates prices, not a communism (at least not yet) where the government controls the economy. The most the President can attempt to do (single-handedly) is talk certain key figures into giving away their product for less if he wants to lower prices.
You have to wonder if McCain will make it thru his term(s). I say that if McCain is elected, there's a 50-50 chance that he'll die in office and she'll be next prez.
It would probably work by simply shutting down websites, like how the RIAA tries to do takedowns on sites that it doesn't like. Only it would have the enforcement of an actual government entity like the FEC. If you remember, back when the Fairness Doctrine was in place, there was relatively little political content. Most radio and TV shows simply couldn't afford to give some crackpot equal time, so they avoided political controversy entirely. After Fairness Doctrine was abolished, there was explosion in content.
You may disagree with the content, but that's how freedom of speech works. Also, I'm sure the incumbent politicians would like to re-enact the Fairness Doctrine, including Republicans, because there's plenty of influential conservative political pundits that don't like the Republican incumbents either. So the Fairness Doctrine would pretty much work by politicians getting the FEC to shut down all websites that they don't like.
So you could rename the Fairness Doctrine the Incumbent Political Protection Act of 20XX.
I read their website for about 15 minutes before I couldn't stomach it anymore. At some point you just have to shake your head in disgust and ignore wackos like this. There's no sense arguing with them because they apparently live their lives in a giant conspiracy, where obvious things like gravity and airplanes and satellites aren't real, and they instead believe in compounded excuses and explanations, of which noone can see or test for.
So I wouldn't get irritated or angry or anything at these guys. Instead, just realize that 1% of any population is somewhat insane, and move on with the reality.
It's a legal "grey area" known as "tag applied for".
Want to be anonymous going someplace for the day? just get a random piece of cardboard, write a date about 3 weeks from now, and replace your plate with it.
My friend tried this a few years back when his temporary tag got destroyed by a really bad rainstorm. He posted all the same information as on his temp tag on the cardboard. I rode with him as a passenger to see what would happen. We got pulled over by a group of 5 cop cars after 10 minutes, like we were some sort of terrorists. They let us go because everything was legit, but have no illusions that you will certainly attract MORE scrutiny, and LESS anonymity.
Although I don't think that nuclear power plants are a viable targets with the right security, I don't see how building more plants will endanger us from terrorist attacks. If terrorists are or will be capable of attacking a nuclear power plant, they already have available targets. One of them already would have had a terrorist-induced event, or one of them will be affected, unless we eliminate all existing power plants (which isn't going to happen). Adding more "targets" doesn't increase the number of attackers.
If you don't like the bundle Don't buy the bundle.
You can't force someone to accept the terms of a license simply thru purchase. If you could, then I would sell iPhones for $1 which also include my special new license that entitles me to half of your yearly salary.
Your "too bad you bought it" doesn't hold up. If it did, then does that mean that once we make the purchase we can copy and redistribute it? Or decompile and alter it? If you say "too bad you bought it", then I've got my own theory that says "too bad you sold it to me".
Well, it turns out that the situation isn't so lawless, because there's something called a software license. Once again, you can't force someone to accept a license, especially if you haven't even been given the opportunity to read the license yet. The license says that you don't have to accept it, but if you do then you can't do things such as modify the software or copy it and distribute it to others for free. But the people in bed with M$ are hoping that you won't decline the software license, because there's usually a part in it which says that you're entitled to a refund if you don't agree.
I applaud the people in these articles for standing up for their rights. It's not stupid socialist law, it's simply using the software license against M$. They're hoping you won't take them up on that part of the deal, and will blindly accept the Microsoft Tax even if you don't want it.
On an ontopic note, I wonder if this new expansion will get me interested in playing again. Probably not - I kind of ground myself out of MMORPGs. I've found that, if I'm forced to grind, I like portable games much better. I can grab the DS or PSP and grind for 10 minutes during lunch break or some downtime at home, but I can't manage the several hour commitment that an MMORPG requires.
Did you play WoW? One of the big parts to its success is that there's minimal grinding as you level. Especially now after some recent changes, it's very possible to obtain max level by simply doing quests alone. Grinding is unnecessary. I think that WoW is unquestionably one of the fastest MMORPGs to get to max level. And you can go solo and you aren't forced to group outside of dungeons. WoW has succeeded because it's a lot more playable than the alternatives.
Are you talking about a leveling grind, or a max level grind for rep/gear/money/badges/honor/arena points?
Slashdot Mirror
But what does SourceSac get out of the deal? Is the publicity for essentially releasing a 0-day really going to earn them that much money? Despite their brilliance in discovering such a flaw, I'm not sure anyone would want to associate themselves with this company for security. With friends like this....
I'm pretty confident that there will be more budgeting for this sort of thing in the future though. If you look at the costs of a military operation, it's huge. There's a lot of money which can be saved by switching to robots. Not so for other areas such as manufacturing. When you can move your manufacturing to a 3rd world country and have $2 per day workers, there isn't much money to be saved by introducing a robot into the process. Inevitably, the global military R&D budget will continue to eclipse all other robotics research spending. Unless some other unforeseen robotics application which can save boatloads of money is realized, I think it's just a matter of simple economics that the future control of robots will be by the military industry.
No choice but to listen to those with the data publishing the reports. Does it suck? Yes. But oftentimes that's how studies with empirical data works--especially if it cost a lot of money to acquire that data. We're not talking about a repeatable experiment here to be verified in another lab. And for some reason, we're not demanding they open the sequencing data on the cancer gene [slashdot.org] we just accepted that story and we trusted those scientists. But suddenly it's about climate change therefor you're now all more qualified experts than those with the data. Why is that? What is it about climate change that suddenly everyone and their dog can tell you how wrong the scientists are?
If you'd like to horde your data for commercial purposes, that's fine. But if you want to receive power over the public through influence (such as through legislature or global climate treaties) then you must open the data up to debate. If you don't want to do it, then just keep quiet and admit that noone can rely on your conclusions.
Hopefully in future cases, however, the judges will see that filtering is not feasible from a technical standpoint. It doesn't matter if you're found not responsible and must filter, or guilty and are forced offline. Both result in the same outcome. So why should someone found not responsible for a problem be forced to walk the plank?
This hearkens back to the Betamax vs Universal case (yes I know this is a Dutch case). The burden is on the RIAAs of the world to prove infringement and then deal with it (and in a legal manner as well).
Sony will have to make 'reasonable accommodations' which are not an 'undue financial burden.' In my humble opinion, providing access for the disabled is not only the right thing to do but it will generate more profit for Sony."
I thought it was supposed to be a given that Sony's would introduce any feature to a game for it to make more profit without changing its business model? Somehow, I don't think that Sony is going to profit from adding handicapped-accessible features to a game, because that seems to be the one base that Sony has covered.
Close, but just let men and women compete equally. head to head, no men's leagues or women's leagues
It was my understanding that women's sports were created because women couldn't compete directly against men due to inherent genetic disadvantages.
When the DNS servers don't work at all, as the article complains, then no.
Exactly, game publishers need to realize that the game software is actually perishable. Demand for the product decreases because of newer game releases and console generations become obsolete, so the price decreases. Used game resellers are simply matching the market. Publishers should slowly cut new game prices to match the used market prices and buyers will purchase the new game for slightly more than a (perfectly good) used game.
Or (Occam's razor) organic compound formation is a very rare process.
Officers do not need to get warrants beforehand because GPS tracking does not involve a search or a seizure, Judge Paul Lundsten wrote for the unanimous three-judge panel based in Madison.
This part of the judge's ruling I think will probably be struck down on appeal. The first thing to look at is Berger v New York -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berger_v._New_York
The Supreme Court held that conversations are protected by the Fourth Amendment, and that the use of electronic devices to capture conversations thus constituted a "search."
So it appears that electronic devices are certainly covered. Also from http://www.monnat.com/Publications/Wiretap.pdf
In the early wiretapping and eavesdropping cases, there was much discussion of whether an interception without a physical invasion of property constituted a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment... Forty years later, by the time of Berger v. New York,6 the United States Supreme Court had abandoned property law concepts and determined that the requirements of the fourth Amendment should be applied to any statutory scheme purporting to authorize the search of wire communications".
So just because it's not a physical search doesn't mean it's not a search. It's just a search for a location. So back to more from the article:
Even though the device followed Sveum's car to private places, an officer tracking Sveum could have seen when his car entered or exited a garage, Lundsten reasoned. Attaching the device was not a violation, he wrote, because Sveum's driveway is a public place.
That part has also been disproven by Katz v. United States, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katz_v._United_States
In the decision the Supreme Court sided with Katz, holding that the Fourth Amendment protects his right to privacy, wherever he may be. Justice Stewart wrote, "No less than an individual in a business office, in a friend's apartment, or in a taxicab, a person in a telephone booth may rely upon the protection of the Fourth Amendment."
So if you have an expectation to privacy in a telephone booth, I'm guessing that also applies to being out on the road in your car.
WTF do they think a newspaper is for? The minute you try to "democratize" is, politicians and PR types will try to game the system to make sure that only stories beneficial to them will get published.
Newspapers across the country are losing money and are at risk of going out of business. The "undemocratic" process may lead to financial ruin, and the alternative may be that there will be no newspapers. Then the only print news remaining will be the political and PR types, who spin things with their press releases, which sounds like the exact opposite of what you want here.
The trick is to provide a happy medium, where the press publishes news that doesn't disgust its own readers so much that they unsubscribe. Letting a few readers preview stories is hardly democracy, and it puts a check and balance against the radical editors that are putting its own employer out of business.
Additionally, make a copy of them threatening you if you leave. If this employer will not vouch for you in future references, their threats would prove your value that you're so important and such a good employee that they didn't want you to leave. That ought to be a good reference, along with the above suggestion that you document that you did in fact leave on proper terms with a 3-week notice.
Not only will it dramatically change the nature of the Internet, it'll do so with no benefit at all. Most spammers send their mail with botnets. The people paying won't be the spammers, but the people who's machines have been infected.
It could also be argued that those who don't maintain their machine properly enough to allow it to become infected by a botnet deserve to pay for some of the cleanup costs of the damage (spam, DDOS, ect.).
But I'm certainly not that vindicitive, so another solution would be to require email postage to be prepaid. A small account cap for individuals would limit the cost, and also make their machines less desirable as targets for botnets if the spammers can only send a few hundred emails before depleting the account and getting cutoff until the next billing cycle.
Not only is it a problem of breaking the law, but there's the problem of "cleaning gone wrong". What if the cleaning program fouls a hospital's computers? Or fouls up some other important infrastructure. Do you want to be the guy standing next to the enter key in that event?
So let me get this straight -- there's an important computer out there which is infected with a botnet worm, which in turn is spamming us and launching DDOS attacks, yet it's still performing some important function despite the infection. The administrators can't be bothered to get rid of the worm, but they can track down the agency that tried to fix it for them to demand payment for damages?
Unfortunately this sounds like the computer equivalent of the bad guys using hostages as human shields.
Well, it definitely sounds like there needs to be a change in tort law, where an authorized botnet fixer (government or otherwise) would be held harmless for damages caused while trying to fix it. Jaywalkers can't complain if they get hit by a vehicle. Owners of infected computers shouldn't complain either. Blame the botnet creator or distributor, or yourself for not managing your computer correctly. But don't blame someone for trying to fix the problem when you can't do it yourself.
Do you care about the idiot behind you hitting your car? I mean, in most parts of the word, at least third party insurance is required, and rear-ending is usually considered a "closed case" when it comes to investigation.
Sure, it's required, but if you have to drive in some of the "urban" areas to get to work, you'll find out that many of the "local" drivers have absolutely no insurance. Of course, my insurance covers me regardless of the status of the other driver, but yes I do care about the other guy hitting me because their poor driving still has an impact (pun intended) on my insurance premium and my deductible.
I think overall you're right that this safety feature won't help the good drivers who care enough to purchase it. However, if this feature becomes mandatory to control those uninsured bad drivers out there on the road, then it'll do some good for both my well-being and my wallet.
Is there anyone out there that see an actual point to any of this(besides wasting craploads of our money?) at all? Even NK wouldn't be stupid enough to launch at us thanks to Mutually Assured Destruction(MAD) because with today's tracking tech ANY country that launches at one of the big boys, be it USA,China,Russia,etc will have serious death rained down on them from above
Yes, there are terrorist groups who would gladly get themselves killed to instigate a war. I'm convinced the recent attacks in Mumbai were an attempt to provoke an India-Pakistan war over the Kashmir region (which still may yet happen). Imagine if instead of the terrorists taking over a luxury hotel, that they take over a nuclear launch silo with the capability to get it off the ground?
I think we need to realize that with the proliferation of nuclear technology that there's going to be more and more groups or nations that will join the nuclear club. A missile defense shield ensures that a small and radical group can't simply take control of one missile and inflict millions of deaths and trillions of dollars in economic damages.
Instead, they'd need to become a big and powerful nation, with millions of people prosperous enough to support a coordinated ICBM attack to penetrate a missile defense shield. But then, of course, that would give them enough of a stake on a global scale to where the principles of Mutually Assured Destruction start to work.
The President of the United States doesn't have direct control over the price of oil or gasoline. In case you were wondering, the US is a capitalistic economy, which means the market dictates prices, not a communism (at least not yet) where the government controls the economy. The most the President can attempt to do (single-handedly) is talk certain key figures into giving away their product for less if he wants to lower prices.
They called him Bush's insurance policy.
You have to wonder if McCain will make it thru his term(s). I say that if McCain is elected, there's a 50-50 chance that he'll die in office and she'll be next prez.
It would probably work by simply shutting down websites, like how the RIAA tries to do takedowns on sites that it doesn't like. Only it would have the enforcement of an actual government entity like the FEC. If you remember, back when the Fairness Doctrine was in place, there was relatively little political content. Most radio and TV shows simply couldn't afford to give some crackpot equal time, so they avoided political controversy entirely. After Fairness Doctrine was abolished, there was explosion in content.
You may disagree with the content, but that's how freedom of speech works. Also, I'm sure the incumbent politicians would like to re-enact the Fairness Doctrine, including Republicans, because there's plenty of influential conservative political pundits that don't like the Republican incumbents either. So the Fairness Doctrine would pretty much work by politicians getting the FEC to shut down all websites that they don't like.
So you could rename the Fairness Doctrine the Incumbent Political Protection Act of 20XX.
I read their website for about 15 minutes before I couldn't stomach it anymore. At some point you just have to shake your head in disgust and ignore wackos like this. There's no sense arguing with them because they apparently live their lives in a giant conspiracy, where obvious things like gravity and airplanes and satellites aren't real, and they instead believe in compounded excuses and explanations, of which noone can see or test for.
So I wouldn't get irritated or angry or anything at these guys. Instead, just realize that 1% of any population is somewhat insane, and move on with the reality.
It's a legal "grey area" known as "tag applied for".
Want to be anonymous going someplace for the day? just get a random piece of cardboard, write a date about 3 weeks from now, and replace your plate with it.
My friend tried this a few years back when his temporary tag got destroyed by a really bad rainstorm. He posted all the same information as on his temp tag on the cardboard. I rode with him as a passenger to see what would happen. We got pulled over by a group of 5 cop cars after 10 minutes, like we were some sort of terrorists. They let us go because everything was legit, but have no illusions that you will certainly attract MORE scrutiny, and LESS anonymity.
Using technology to compensate for human frailty is asking for trouble.
The Terminator was frail? I always wanted to have vision and optic targeting mechanisms like him. This brings me one step closer, bwahaha!
Although I don't think that nuclear power plants are a viable targets with the right security, I don't see how building more plants will endanger us from terrorist attacks. If terrorists are or will be capable of attacking a nuclear power plant, they already have available targets. One of them already would have had a terrorist-induced event, or one of them will be affected, unless we eliminate all existing power plants (which isn't going to happen). Adding more "targets" doesn't increase the number of attackers.
You can't force someone to accept the terms of a license simply thru purchase. If you could, then I would sell iPhones for $1 which also include my special new license that entitles me to half of your yearly salary.
Your "too bad you bought it" doesn't hold up. If it did, then does that mean that once we make the purchase we can copy and redistribute it? Or decompile and alter it? If you say "too bad you bought it", then I've got my own theory that says "too bad you sold it to me".
Well, it turns out that the situation isn't so lawless, because there's something called a software license. Once again, you can't force someone to accept a license, especially if you haven't even been given the opportunity to read the license yet. The license says that you don't have to accept it, but if you do then you can't do things such as modify the software or copy it and distribute it to others for free. But the people in bed with M$ are hoping that you won't decline the software license, because there's usually a part in it which says that you're entitled to a refund if you don't agree.
I applaud the people in these articles for standing up for their rights. It's not stupid socialist law, it's simply using the software license against M$. They're hoping you won't take them up on that part of the deal, and will blindly accept the Microsoft Tax even if you don't want it.
Did you play WoW? One of the big parts to its success is that there's minimal grinding as you level. Especially now after some recent changes, it's very possible to obtain max level by simply doing quests alone. Grinding is unnecessary. I think that WoW is unquestionably one of the fastest MMORPGs to get to max level. And you can go solo and you aren't forced to group outside of dungeons. WoW has succeeded because it's a lot more playable than the alternatives.
Are you talking about a leveling grind, or a max level grind for rep/gear/money/badges/honor/arena points?