So, IM clients, with the varied accounts are hard to keep track of, but social media sites aren't? Facebook is pretty popular these days, but a lot of people also have some combination of MySpace, LinkedIn, and Twitter. Everyone has their favorite, so it's not to difficult to find out that someone will get do the same thing to Facebook that they do to MSN: Download it, friend you, and never log in again.

Is there something so terribly wrong with using your keyboard (and not just the arrow keys, kids) to navigate the start menu? What does MS have against this?

In America, you don't have a right to work, but you do have a right to education (at least, that is the general consensus). By that reasoning, you can be 'just fired', but not 'just expelled'.

Is this what you're looking for?

Considering that ferrets were bred for the job, I'd say you're spot on.

And every city to bring it up has gotten lawyers shoved in their face by the ISP to protect it's monopoly.

Yes, one would have to watch a hell of a lot of TV to reach that limit. I have 6 'users' in my home, all of whom could theoretically be pulling down these movies. Will I hit my cap? Chances are, yes.

OTOH, why should I, someone that is using the bandwidth that I paid for (for completely legitimate reasons, mind), be penalized simply because you use less? You are not subsidizing my use of the internet, you're simply not using all of the internet available to you, and declaring that everyone should be pulled down to your standard, or you are 'losing money'.

Also, are you getting some sort of price break when my usage is capped? I mean, if the point of this is to save you money (in the form of a lack of subsidization), where are those savings?

To put this into perspective, let's consider a hypothetical: You own a gym membership. You use the gym in what is considered a 'standard' manner. Let's say, 1 hour a day, Monday - Friday. I own a gym membership as well. I, however, am a health nut, and devote 4 hours a day to physical fitness, including weekends (when I spend 6 a day). Well, the 'average' user (you) only uses the gym 1 hour a day, and even 99% of the gym members work out no more than 2 hours a day. Well, since it'll only impact a few, the gym decides to implement a policy that allows someone no more than, say, 21 hours per week (7 days a week, 3 hours per day). I mean, I am using up this finite resource (If I'm on a particular weight machine, you can't use it), and I'm using it a lot more than anyone else. Should my usage be capped off, simply because I'm using the service provided to me?

Analogies like this can be created for nearly ANY service industry that offers a flat rate. That is the risk that you, as a company, take when offering a flat rate. The fact that so many companies are trying to back out of it in the tech field now sickens me. Society would be up in arms quite a bit more if it started happening in other industries.

What worries me about all of this is not that the RFIDs can be picked up while driving around. A little consumer education (you are supposed to worry about who you give your SSN to, and you don't just leave your other PII laying around in plain sight usually) in the form of RF-blocking wallet linings will fix that. What I'm worried about is what happens in 5 years, when advances in RF technology (it is the new form of governmental ID, after all. Technology WILL follow suit) allow for hardware that I can hide on my person (antenna down the back of a coat lining, wired to a recorder in my pocket, or hell, dropped in the lining somewhere). At that point, all it takes is one man sitting in a train station or airport. You pull your ID out for scanning, and I harvest it. You may as well walk around with your SSN printed on your shirt.

That analogy doesn't completely apply, as it assumes that the 'landscaping and custodial services' people were to suddenly step beyond the scope of their responsibilities as is traditionally assigned by management. The problem is, most of the time, management's stance is: Information Security is a computer problem, so IT is responsible.

I do wholeheartedly agree, however, with the idea of a separated IT/helpdesk team (call it Computer Support, as part of facilities management) and an 'Information Security' team (as part of Security). That would provide a clear delineation of goals and expectations that we don't see these days.

This is one of the core contentions of Blizzard, that you are 'leasing' their software and not purchasing it. Unfortunately, even though IANAL, I find it hard to disagree with the amicus brief that was filed during the case. Personally I'd love to know what was on the judge's mind to get him to interpret as he did with such a heavy precedent out of his favor.

If you get the game client free with a subscription, without ever buying a game code (the alternate form of payment for a downloaded client), I want to find out what deal you're getting, and get my ~$150 in client purchases back.

Guess that means we need to find whoever makes a slim jim and sue them. Cuz, you know, it is a tool that allows people to violate a law (which is even more important than a contract).

Right.

On the surface, your argument seems valid. The problem lies in the fact that the copyrighted material, that is, the code and art (what the judge called 'literal materials') are not what is protected by Warden (and the judge ruled as such earlier in the case).

What Warden does protect access to is the actual protocol commands being sent back and forth across the wire between the game client and game servers. This protocol content cannot possibly be protected by copyright, as it is a) required in the due use of the copyright work (in this case, the client) much in the same way that copying a program to your RAM is a right you have by copyright law, and b) initiated by the user, and as such is held as IP by the user if it is held by anyone at all.

By this same reasoning, Fiddler's capability to read the content of SSL-encoded HTTP messages that were initiated by the user violates copyright law; it is an exterior client that accesses communicated data that is expressly protected (in this case, in the form of encryption).

If Glider were designed to access game art (which is quite strongly copyrighted), and Warden were designed to stop it from doing so, then Glider subsequently redesigned to circumvent Warden, THEN the statue applies.

And yet, the same people that will laugh and joke into a cell phone during a movie still find a way to argue with that, the most prevalent being 'I paid for my movie, I'm not leaving'. Sure they eventually give up, but that's beside the point.

Admittedly, I only go to a movie theatre 2 or 3 times a year, but that is more a price point issue than anything else. $22 for my wife and I to go see a new movie once, or wait 3 months and spend the same amount to own it forever... the choice is usually pretty clear.

I am reminded of the brouhaha that was generated when Microsoft said they'd no longer support Windows 98. I wonder how much we'll be mourning XP when it's been out of service for 2 years and Win7 is the 'standard'.