Apr 3rd 2009 3:28AM @Thander
A 30% increase in speed, combined with a 20% decrease in damage, doesn't add up to a +10% increase in damage. Perhaps my math is off, but :
130% * 80% ~= 104%
Still, a 4% increase in damage is an increase :)
Apr 5th 2008 2:23PM Idea #4: Glad to see that the editor is a slayer fan ^_^
Jan 14th 2008 11:57PM Wasn't it immune to cc? If so, then its pretty obvious why they removed the ability to tame it. If not, then yeah, stupid.
Oct 5th 2007 12:28PM As a horde on a PVP server, can you insta-cast and kill them?
May 31st 2007 11:03AM Theres just no arguing with some people.
I, for one, would rather that my programs NOT be riddled with spyware. Given the two alternatives, how can you argue otherwise? Anyone who has installed Kazaa knows that the same EULA that allows you to download things for free also allows Kazaa to install literal spyware onto your computer. We aren't talking about the tame im-gonna-let-blizzard-know-my-processor type of spyware, but rather the heres-some-ads-on-startup-imma-log-your-keystrokes-sorry-cant-uninstall-me type of spyware. The fact that they are completely "protected" by their EULA is disgusting.
I'm not saying that Blizzard is the worst offender out there, thats far from the truth (although who knows what information they are REALLY getting?), I just don't think that ANY form of spying that I cannot opt out of and that is only legally possible because of a clause in the EULA is wrong.
May 30th 2007 12:52PM Personally, I think its an outrage. The TOS (or the EULA, not sure which) say that Blizzard is allowed to monitor the running processes on your computer. This is so that Blizzard can make sure you are not running any botting programs or trying to reverse engineer WoW. The downside of this is that Blizzard is being sent a snapshot of what you are doing on your computer, which I for one am against. The fact that a EULA can protect spyware seems like a gross misapplication of the DMCA.
Interestingly enough, one of the "fair" uses of monitoring your processes, ie to make reverse engineering not possible, is a muddy legal issue. From the EFF web page on EULAs (http://www.eff.org/wp/eula.php):
"Some EULA terms harm people who want to customize their technology, as well as inventors who want to create new products that work with the technology they've bought. "Reverse-engineering," which is often forbidden in EULAs, is a term for taking a machine or piece of software apart in order to see how it works. This kind of tinkering is explicitly permitted by federal law – it is considered a "fair use" of a copyrighted item. Courts have held that the fair use provisions of the US Copyright Act allow for reverse-engineering of software when the purpose is to create a non-infringing inter operable program".
Personally, I am disgusted with the way that Blizzard, and more importantly Vivendi, handle the legal rights of their customers.
May 29th 2007 7:20PM Logging MAC addresses is not a panacea, they can be spoofed just as easily as IPs can change. Unfortunately, the problem cannot be solved purely by technological means; unless, of course, they require that you install video surveillance in your house and they monitor you that way. I'm actually surprised that Blizzard hasn't started implementing this "security solution", as they already think its ok to monitor what you do on your computer in order to "protect" their product.
May 24th 2007 11:28PM Great article Matthew, I love to see any attention given to my favorite topics, addons. Specifically, I was wondering if you were involved in any addon writing and if we would get to see any articles on that topic?
May 20th 2007 1:07AM Online banks, and many other sites, don't store your password anywhere. It would be a HUGE security risk to do so. Rather, they store a hash of your password. Which means that there is no way for them to access it, other than to erase it completely or set it to something else. They cant see what your password is. Michel, I dont know what enterprise you manage, but I would suggest you dont store user passwords ANYWHERE in cleartext. Thats a security nightmare just waiting to happen.
Dec 19th 2006 6:17PM Hmmm, interesting that they are overflowing on a 16 bit width, when most modern day compilers treat ints as 32 bits wide . . . that would suggest that they either explicitly set the honor as a 16 bit value (unlikely) or it is some other problem with the code, completely unrelated to overflow. Interesting bug.