Posts by stranger on the road 22 publicly visible posts • joined 4 Jun 2008
I really don't get this, why are they always going after the wrong target? why don't they simply order all ISPs to block the servers that participate in illegal music/movie/software distribution?
P2P is legal and is going to be the future method of distribution movies, software and patches.
any way, I stopped caring sometime ago.
no really, are those marines, gamers as well? can their fingers move smoothly on the keyboard? How about their mouse control?
I got one of non-IT people in the company I work for to try Portal, even though he could type long letters, he had trouble moving around and every time he tried to turn around he ended up looking at the floor or at the ceiling. He is intelligent, but "game control" is a different matter. (getting him not to move his body when the character moves on the screen was tough).
this is where "how much can you put into the license agreement" argument come into play. If the ISP change the license agreement to include data pimping, what can the user do about it?
also if *all* ISPs start adding a bit into the license agreement to cover current or future data pimping, the user will either have to accept and live with data pimping or the user can go offline.
no really, how much *can* they put into the license agreement before the license agreement can be considered illegal?
"The research indicates children and teens who spend more time playing violent video games become more aggressive than peers with less exposure"
I read that as, children who go out more are better at dealing with others then those who are in doors living a _virtual_ life that route around them and that in this virtual life they are the untouchable.
the study is not complete, other factors should have been taken into consideration. I know a number of violent people, none of which can use his mobile phone probably let alone play a game, heck, they actually hate being in doors. Why not include them into this study?
William, I think you misunderstand the argument. We are not defending the gambling sites. We are not happy about the very concept of a state judge, in the USA, having the ability to remove websites from the internet just because those website are illegal in his/her state (note, "his/her state" and not the full USA).
That the the core of the problem, how far can judges reach and for that matter what about other governments? Just because a website is deemed illegal locally, should that website be taking offline even though it is legal in the country it operates from? (note: this case does demonstrate that the US government have a huge authority over domain names, this is really a wake-up call the website operators and other governments)
For that matter, should websites be forced to censor it's customer? Shouldn't the government be the one handling the censorship of it citizens? After all, that is exactly what the government wants, but instead of saying "we will censor our citizens" they are saying "websites should not service out citizens." Both approaches result in the same thing, which is "censorship."
US citizens should realize that they are being censored.
.... "censored" connected to it. So they reached out and made a big mess that will turn around and bite them in the near future.
The way I understand it, KN had to option to censor it's citizens and/or track their credit cards for illegal activities. But filtering/censoring is a taboo word in the USA government dictionary. So they passed an illegal judgment and walked around the "taboo."
Any way, from the judge's point of view, media and software/game companies are preforming an illegal/racist activity by not selling their digital goods to people outside the USA and Canada. Or that is how I understand his point of view. So does that mean that I can sue the media studios and game companies for refusing to sale me their digital goods? How about the fact that they enforce regional locks on their products?
and that is a fact, get over it
if someone track your car plate number they will know which shop you visited, but they will not know what you actually bought. They will know that you went to the liberally but they will have no idea what you searched for. Only the people in the place you visited will know what you did, people outside will have no idea. The same apply to your IP address.
P.S. your account with the shop you visited (or credit card number) is the equivalent to your cookie. It doesn't matter what car/transportation you use, as long as you use the same credit card number, you are in books. But unlike your cookie you can't just delete then replace your credit cards. (are you still with me?)
a state judge can't and shouldn't have the authority to do this. Even if the websites were illegal in his/her state, it doesn't change the fact that it is legal *outside* the said state.
If something is illegal in the USA but legal outside it, the USA should censor it's own people. Forcing its laws on other people should be an illegal act in itself. If China have done the same the the USA would have cried foul, but on the other hand the USA can do it! what gives?
I wander how long it is going to be before someone sue the USA in the WTO.... again!
El Reg, where did the line "Dubious charge of insulting Islam" come from? The article is clearly talking about abuse of authority by some government officials. So why was "insulting Islam" added to the short comment?
Or does the author of the article simply hate Islam?
11. all games that require activation will automatically be de-activated (on the server side) after 12 months of that said activation. (this will help with people who's computers do fail, 5 activation per _year_ should be enough!).
12. all games that require an internet connection to play must be made to use account based activation instead of PC based activation. (this should allow the user to move with his/her game between PCs).
13. digital edition of the games should be sold worldwide and not to selected countries. If there is a localised online shop to the selected country, then it is understandable that user of that country to be forwarded to their localised online shop, but if there is _no_ localised online shop to that country, then the users of that country must be allowed to buy from the any 3rd party online shop (such as steampowered, direct2driver or gamestop).
points 5-8 can't be over emphasized, developers should really remember that honest gamers still exist and that they should be treated as customers and not some criminals.
P.S. set those rules to apply to digital media as well ;-)
Actually, it is easier to pirate Vista then the pirate XP.
That aside, Vista is not worth it unless you are only looking for DX10.x. And I for one am still play games using DX9 even though I have Vista and DX10 capable GPU.
There is a misconcept that Gamers = Pirates... if so, then who is buying enough games to keep game companies in the business? It must be all those good non-gaming people out there who wish to keep game companies in the business, right? If a game doesn't sale well, then the game developer should take a look at their games, and not simply take the easy path and say "it is due to piracy".
While I am at it, getting a noDVD/noActivation patch is not piracy if you have bought the bloody game. If it is then all those who jailbreaked their iPhones should do the time (while we're at, what about locking up those who lend books to others instead telling them buy their own.... even lending a DVD movie to family and friend is a lose of sale to the studio if you think about it!).
[quote]... and if that isn't enough, some nob has already sued us for not giving then cool tools yet.[/quote]
I'm guessing that this is the reason they couldn't just ignore the users for few more days... they were already being _sued_ before the dead line was reached!
any way, people do tend to forget that they are receiving things for free and do in fact start to think that it is their right to have it.
one of the problems we are facing today is that companies can and do hide their practice behind the license agreement. Perhaps the law should restrict how much companies can put in the license agreement to only what the customer is expecting from the company, and anything else should be stated clearly outside the license agreement.
Example: An ISP provide you with internet access. That is what the customer understand, and that should be the limit of the agreement. Anything else like "selling your data to a 3rd party who will analyies your web behavior and server ads to you", shouldn't be part of the license agreement but should be legally required to be placed in the "features" list.
This should also apply to software companies that bundle 3rd party ad serving software that act "outside" their products (including toolbars). The default installation must legally be forced to show those options and by default have the tick boxes un-ticked.
Why did he still have access after being terminated? Let me guess.... the administrator account had the "default password syndrome"?
I know a company that have the administrator password as blank on every desktop, incase the user wanted to "install something". And the server administrator password was the company's name! And this is because the idiots in the IT department didn't want to get off their fat behinds to help the users!.
Regards the 63 months... if it was bank records then I understand... but these were medical records, he could have killed someone indirectly. Give him few more months.
P/H, she must have learned to change the admin password, after firing someone in IT, by now.... hopefully
for real? if so then the guy is _NOT_ guilty, sue the IT department of the company that left it's computers unprotected.
There is a difference between home/private computers being infect and "corporate" computers being infected!. At home the computer is being used by none computer professionals*, at a corporate office they have highly trained _computer_ professionals to look after their computers.
* reminder, yes none computer professionals do exist. If everyone was a computer professional then there will no longer be any need for us.
Devil Bill because he should have shipped Windows with all ports closed by default, and to let the "corporate computer professionals" open the ones they need.
but the similarity, in otherwords, if someone is trying to ship a package marked as "cloth" or "books" yet the dogs can smell DVD's in there, then they will open that package to check what it contains.
note, just my thoughts, don't know in this is how it is done.
good luck
I've just reread the article.... you still need a good notebook to use this device. It will handle your GPU needs _only_, you will still need a decent processor and amount of RAM to play games.
This device is useless for old or small cheap notebooks. It is meant for notebook that have duo/quad core process but comes with a low end GPU. Or comes with a GPU that need to be upgraded to use DX10.1 (like in my case)
well, that is my understanding of the device.
cheers
I've been having the idea of an external GPU since before upgrading to my current notebook. The idea of changing notebooks just to get a better GPU seem to be an over kill. This external GPU can save me a bundle since it will be cheaper then buying a full notebook.
Although I do hope that they will provide a PCMCIA adapter for the connector, otherwise it will be another upgrade for the privilege of being able to upgrade!
P.S. another alternative would be for a virtual GPU that run as a separate virtual machine on the hardware that does support it.
"There are now so many lawful cheap and free music services out there" ok but are you willing to sale to us? oh wait... you are talking about selected countries right!
any way, there is a miss concept here that *ALL* p2p traffic belongs to BitTorrent p2p protocol. You do realise that there are other p2p protocols right? Also not all illegal download are done using p2p, the web can still host files the last time I checked.
@I wish that we could turn off unlawful filesharing for a month
I've asked a few people if they will buy music if they didn't get the option to download them (not via p2p for your information) and the answer was simply "No". They have no extra money to pay for music, so if they can't get it off the net they will not get it, the have better things to do with their money then buy music and the radio is there to play music in the background when they work.
First, the girl was 13 not 16 years old.
Any way, as pointed out by Robert Hill, free speech != shouting "fire" in a dark theater.
Also shouldn't it be that you can say what you want "without" fear? In otherwords, it protect you from the other party and you can/should do it with your real name.
Posting anonymously != free speech
posting anonymously = hiding in fear while accusing others and hiding from responsibility for your action.
just my 2 cents
If you ever make a mistake you will be added into a database that will _never_ forget what you did!. Even if you do grow out of your habits or the people you offended did indeed forgive you, the database will still remember what you did? And now this database is going to be accessed by organisations *other* then law enforcement?
come-on people, will the future parents be more concerned of whether their child made hi/her name into some "database" then the actual teaching their child to know what is right and what is wrong?
Actually it sound more like the parents should be worried about themselves being added into the database if what they teach to their children something that conflict with the governments views!
Parents stopped being parents sometime ago, and now they are just the bill payers in the house and they expect the government to teach and raise their children for them. I think this is what is truly wrong with the west now.
P.S. English is not my first language, so forgive the grammar or ignore my post
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
