This isn't getting nearly enough coverage as it should. I managed to catch an article on yahoo news (yeah yeah, laugh it up) about "temporary" 2 hour outages for some people on the east coast.
However, I cannot access the websites of some pretty major companies, such as soundcloud and twitter. If I used twitter, that might be an issue for me. But I know that a lot of people rely on it for their breaking news, and with a lot of other big name company sites down we cannot get up-to-date info.
This is scary bad. The fact that Amazon's web service went down is scary. Big companies rely on AWS for their internet connectivity for things, and if that goes/stays down, it can mean a lot of lost income.
This annoys me. Every time someone does something someone in government doesn't like, they arrest them and THEN go looking for a charge to place. They invariably say that they KNOW they broke a law, but they just don't know what one.
I am of the opinion that unless you KNOW they broke a law, you shouldn't be able to do anything to someone. And if the charge is false (such as rioting, for covering a protest) then let that play out in court or the charge dropped.
It's an abuse of law if you go hunting for 100+ year old laws that haven't been enforced or even LOOKED AT for decades just to punish someone you don't like.
This seems odd to me. I'm glad the "publisher" deigned to get off their high horse to allow the developers to implement some kind of DRM-free version "later", but it shouldn't be their choice.
Sure, most publishers won't like to sell a game that is DRM-free as to them it is another word for "less sales", but the whole point of kickstarter is that it is supposed to bypass the typical publisher model of game sales. Kickstarter projects are funded with the idea being that the money given to the developers is all they would need to provide the promised assets to all the backers. Anything beyond that (sales of the game from then on through a store or marketplace) is a bonus to the developers.
In fact, if they were to not sell a single copy of the game through a store, it should still be a successful product, as the funds paid for the development and research and production of the product for the backers. To come out after and say they needed a publisher feels like a betrayal.
Well, if you want to argue it that way, then even GOG is full of DRM, since you have to log into an account in which you have purchased it. Then once you are verified as an owner (a form of DRM similar to logging into a steam account) then you can download the game files.
Once downloaded, you can copy the files to another computer all you want without it preventing you from doing so because of DRM. If it's simply the act of logging into a system that makes it DRM, then steam is like GOG.
To me, steam is a handy, single place that maintains a list of all digital purchases I have (through them, but I make sure to stick with them so I don't have to have multiple programs/accounts), allows categorization of files, provides a community to discuss it with others via a forum, and allows quick and easy one-click download/install of any one of my games. The fact they have DRM or not is a minor bit to me, what with the other factors stated above bring to the table.
But some people really do love DRM free copies and will fight to the death over it.
Companies like HP seem to think there is an epidemic of customers being scammed by purchasing non-official products. I'd wager that most people who buy a replacement cartridge did so because of cost, which is what the open market is supposed to encourage. If GenericX can make a cheaper print cartridge, why can't HP, which already has the manufacturing and specs figured out?
I always thought that it was THEIR excuse as for why a movie/show was not available in all markets on day 1. "Oh, sorry, but strange international laws and content markets prevent us from showing it to you right now. Wait a month."
As soon as the countries do something about it... "HELP! FORCING US TO RELEASE SOMETHING EVERYWHERE AT ONCE WILL BREAK US!"
I don't see how that can be a similar situation. If your neighbor is telling you that the transaction is completely legal (registration, waiting period, etc) then it is a legal exchange. If the seller lied, it is not the buyers fault for having bought it.
People accessing a server which is specifically designed to distribute illegal goods (child pornography) then there is no expectation that it is a legal exchange.
I really don't see much of a problem with the FBI maintaining the site for long enough to gather user information. Now, TO BE FAIR, I have not read the details (duration of ownership, or details of information gathered) but I'm all in favor of using this as bait to find the people who would view this kind of content.
I see this as the police setting up fake drug dealers to catch the people who purchase illegal drugs.
Automotive News quoted Kowall as saying, “I hope that we never have to use it. That's why the penalties are what they are. The potential for severe injury and death are pretty high. Some of these people are pretty clever. As opposed to waiting for something bad to happen, we're going to be proactive on this and try to keep up with technology.”
Which is why they promptly went on to passing the following laws: Anyone who is caught driving over the legal alcohol limit is sentenced to life in prison. Anyone who texts while driving (or otherwise doesn't stare unblinkingly at the road 100% of the time)is sentenced to prison. Anyone who talks to drivers is sentenced to life in prison. Anyone who doesn't perform a legal lane change is sentenced to life in prison. Anyone who drives even a fraction of an MPH over the legal speed limit is sentenced to life in prison. And lastly... Anyone who buys firearms is sentenced to life in prison.
How about we give up civil liberties and freedoms in direct ratio to how many people die or are injured from having that freedom? Since drunk drivers cause a lot of fatalities, it's ok to occasionally check drivers near/leaving bars to see if they are breaking that specific law.
Since you are more likely to be eaten by a shark than die from a terrorist, it is NOT ok to secretly and without any restriction check on any and ALL communications by people on your own whim.
It means they find out the IP ranges of VPN outlet providers in the UK and block them. Since they can't see where the person on the other end of the tunnel is at, they simply block the exit node on the assumption it is outside the country.
Is it possible to make copyright be an opt-in system, not opt-out? The vast majority of all that content is not going to be monetized or whatever purpose copyright is supposed to serve (seriously).
There may be a small amount that feel they should be entitled to a copyright, and should thus declare ahead of time the copyright (in detail?). And it should be a process that takes effort to go through (registering your twitter account - for example - as a copyright protected item with the copyright office) to prevent people just blanket protecting every last instagram of their lunch.
As long as the product placement is subtle (no, having a future Will Smith have an odd desire to wear "vintage" Nike shoes isn't subtle) and not blatant, I don't care if that is the funding model. Have the characters drink a coke (you don't need the label perfectly 100% turned to the camera, guys, nobody drinks like THAT) if you want. During the conversation in the store, have them throw a Doritoes bag in the cart, ok.