Any time a new patch comes out, the new items can't be seen until the servers come up because they get "data mined" by sending API requests to the servers using random itemids.

Requesting an item id that the realm has not "seen" since coming back online from maintenance/restart will likely result in your client being forcefully disconnected. It's one way Blizzard stop data mining in that fashion.

The whole thing seems to be on a purely honor system, sure the moderators there might be able to prune out all the 'Penis McBoobsfaces' that are going to be showing up over time

Fair point. A more subtle problem with a fake name is if your account gets hacked by a gold seller. Good luck proving who you are if you used a fake name and you can't access the account because the password's changed.

And what if the userbase isn't made up of entirely adults? This is wow we are talking about. I bet their are millions of minors who play.

Since this is Slashdot, I'm 100% sure you didn't read any comments posted prior to yours. Two words: Parental Controls. https://us.battle.net/account/parental-controls/index.html?rhtml=y

Ahh. My bad. I forgot that Telstra opened up their own ADSL2+ hardware for resale at stupidly expensive rates.

Also their unmetered content is great: ... * Steam mirrors ...

Keep in mind that all Steam content servers in Australia are unmetered for Internode customers, not just their own.

Another reason for BigPond: you can't get DSL connected by anyone else, but BigPond miraculously can. Go with them and churn after the first few months. I've seen it happen before.

The correct procedure if that is the case is if the following has happened:

1. You signed up for ISP X

2. Telstra rejects the application

3. You immediately sign up for Telstra Bigpond
4. Telstra accepts the application
5. You contact ISP X and Bigpond and ask for a free transfer
6. If that doesn't happen, contact the ACCC and the TIO

Telstra can't legally prevent you in that case and they'd rather keep it quiet than let the TIO/ACCC know they've been breaching operational separation (i.e. Telstra Wholesale and Telstra Bigpond are not allowed to communicate on different paths than other ISPs and TW).

It's not as if people are forced to stay with BigPond or anything.

It's not as if Bigpond let you get ADSL2+ with another ISP if you're on a RIM or an area that only has Telstra Cable.

In ASP.NET 4.0 it's possible to disable the viewstate on the page level and have all the controls inherit that state. Then you can selectively enable the ones that you want to use viewstate. Ref: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.web.ui.control.viewstatemode(VS.100).aspx

The same amount as the DRM versions.

Great job, UBIsoft. Just as the software industry finally regained some footing in the battle against copying, you go and aim the bazooka at your (and the industry's) foot.

You're supposed to jump first before firing the rocket.

Cracked version of Visual Studio? There's no protection on it anyway. Besides, everyone that downloads it from MSDN has the same key baked into the installer anyway.

To be even fairer, the ISPs and AFACT already have a procedure in place to do this. AFACT agreed to it and choose to blissfully ignore it in favour of asking the ISP to illegally do their dirty work.

AFACT can stop abusing the legal system and fuck off. They have a procedure that allows them to inform an ISP of an infringement via a magistrate, the ISP will happily comply with the request and send the agreed details to the respective law enforcement agency. The fact that AFACT have sent 0 of these requests since they were introduced almost 10 years ago proves they really don't give a shit about the ISP, or due process.

An ISP is NOT a judicial body. Infringement Notices are not legal documents and AFACT is not Law Enforcement.

Next stop, having DVD-Recorders and VCRs removed from the shelves of your local super store.
The funnier next step would be. Sony Vs. Sony. i.e. Sony (The Movie arm) Vs Sony (the tech arm that makes DVD recorders and provides the software to copy DVDs).

All the process provides is a means for AFACT to get the ISP to "make note" of the time/date/IP/User so that if/when the police need the information, the ISP already has the data waiting. AFACT will never get that data directly.

I think they're a great ISP but I can't really understand the policy of not passing infringement notices from AFACT to its customers even if they're not legally required to do so.

iiNet did what any good ISP should do. They forwarded each and every letter to the WA Police for proper consideration. They don't even need to do that.

AFACT already have helped put legislation in place (with the cooperation of the ISPs and the Federal government) to allow a magistrate to request that an ISP retain certain details of the infringement so that when the Police go to investigate the matter, the ISP has retained what they need to answer the Police.

The number of requests made to magistrates since this process was developed in consultation with ISPs and AFACT? Zero. And they're bleating about iiNet not doing enough when they have never followed the process they campaigned for.