Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Enemy Territory: QUAKE Wars Update

A new update to badman's Beta Blog on the Enemy Territory: QUAKE Wars Website discusses the recent client update and some PunkBuster issues. The update offers troubleshooting tips for participants in beta testing who are having PunkBuster difficulties, and promises a fix for a problem that causes PunkBuster to crash the 64-bit edition of Windows XP. There is also word that Public Beta 2 for the game is forthcoming, and will feature a new map.

View
66 Replies. 4 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 ] Older >

66. No subject Jul 12, 2007, 14:31 theyarecomingforyou
 
Given that your and theyarecummingforyou's posts are simply incorrect drivel
Real mature. Honestly, you have a serious problem and should seek professional help. I would not be a good member of society if I did not try to help people like yourself when they are clearly in need. I do hope that whatever the problem is someone is able to help you as you could pose a danger to yourself or the rest of society. I suggest you contact your nearest medical facility immediately.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Founder of the "I Hate Smiley Fitz" society

Remember: Riley has autism. He has trouble communicating, and in an overstimulating
environment, he can get frightened and run away, leaving his parents frantic. - Auburn
 
Avatar 22891
 
SteamID: theyarecomingforyou
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
65. Re: No subject Jul 12, 2007, 10:34 JD
 
Charming. What I said is still correct, you just dismiss it (using your usual my-OPINION-is-universal-truth) as an argument here.
hahahahahaha What you wrote is NOT correct even though YOU just dismiss it using your usual my-OPINION-is-universal-truth argument. Next you'll be calling me black, pot.

Yeah, because an unloaded file on disk is way more likely to be the sinner here as opposed to an executed program in memory.
A file on disk gets read into memory when viewed though, fool, and when it does a memory scanner like Punkbuster reads and records it regardless of the contents.

The fact that a file is there does not mean I am using it - it needs to be in memory. Scanning for signatures (virtual hooks, whatever) there is far more efficient.
The point is that even if the file is not read from the disk by Punkbuster if the contents of that file happen to be loaded in the PC's RAM, it will still get read by Punkbuster since it is scanning and reading all RAM.

I realize the teleporter is a stretched example, but it would be a valid one in that situation.
It's not valid because you stated that the EULA in that example contains a "hidden" term. Punkbuster's EULA does NOT, and that makes all the difference in the world.

I would argue the PB case is somewhere in the middle, towards the "illegal/non-valid" side.
You are wrong. EULA's similar to Punkbuster's have been recognized by U.S. courts to be valid contracts. Vivendi/Blizzard's EULA from the lawsuit over BnetD is one. It is much more likely that Punkbuster's EULA is valid than not.

I was merely pointing out the fact that just because a EULA states something does not automatically make it okay.
If you actually left it at that, I wouldn't disagree, but you have been arguing that the Punkbuster EULA wouldn't adequately protect the company against the broadly invasive activities it authorizes, and my point is that on its surface it does. You may not like its invasive activities but your notion that it doesn't actually perform them or that the EULA doesn't specify and cover them is wrong. As I wrote below, a court might overturn the EULA, but it wouldn't be because the software performed some hidden function not described in the EULA.

When did I say this?
That has been an opposing argument in this same thread.

I am sure you think that is the only program that is invasive
Of course it is NOT the only one. It is simply one which is not worth the risk of running just to play a damn game.

Do you ever make normal posts?
Given that your and theyarecummingforyou's posts are simply incorrect drivel, no, I do not make posts that you two consider "normal."

This comment was edited on Jul 12, 10:38.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
64. Re: No subject Jul 12, 2007, 09:57 toon
 
hahahahaha Except for everything I refuted which was basically everything. Continue reading for more.
Charming. What I said is still correct, you just dismiss it (using your usual my-OPINION-is-universal-truth) as an argument here.
What you fail to realize is that the Punkbuster software simply cannot make that distinction and still function as a comprehensive cheating solution.
Yeah, because an unloaded file on disk is way more likely to be the sinner here as opposed to an executed program in memory.
That is exactly what Punkbuster's developers would argue in court or elsewhere to support its EULA, and it is an effective argument.
The fact that a file is there does not mean I am using it - it needs to be in memory. Scanning for signatures (virtual hooks, whatever) there is far more efficient.
What you are arguing is simply the potentially unconscionable nature of EULA's, and that has little or nothing to do with their contents.
o.O Okay, so it applies to all EULA's (which is correct), but it is completely irrelevant to its content that make up the EULA in the first place.
Your examples are simply outrageous hyperbole, and are not an appropriate comparison to this case or any EULA's for that matter. There is nothing overtly or blatantly hidden in this case.
That is in the eye of the beholder. You seem to think there is only 2 states in the world - the right world (your world), and everything else. I realize the teleporter is a stretched example, but it would be a valid one in that situation. Now, somewhere on the other side there is a EULA stating "When you buy this game you own it". Fine, noone can refute this. SOMEWHERE in between these 2 extremeties, a blurry line divides them. I would argue the PB case is somewhere in the middle, towards the "illegal/non-valid" side. But unlike you, I am not frenetically screaming valid valid valid (or invalid, in my case).

The teleporterexample was just there to illustrate what may seem blissfully obvious to people that work in the relevant field - in may not be hidden with intent, but to some ignorant reader it may as well have been.

Finally, one key fact you are overlooking here is that given the protected and proprietary nature of Punkbuster, there is essentially no way for the user to know definitely if and when Punkbuster reads and trasmits information which he might object to despite the broad stipulation in the EULA. Therefore he simply does not know for sure and therefore cannot prove that the product exceeds his expectations of invasiveness despite the broad authorization of the EULA. That is why the only real way for the user to protect himself is to not use Punkbuster in the first place.
Wow, really? It is so great we have people like you here to explain these advanced things.

Look, I wasn't making a case that people can sue Punkbuster right after they install it. In fact, I'd very much recommend against it because they would surely lose because they have no evidence. I was merely pointing out the fact that just because a EULA states something does not automatically make it okay.

The bottom line is that your main argument that Punkbuster is not invasive because its developer would be sued if it were is bullshit.
When did I say this? I have never said Punkbuster is not invasive. I am sure you think that is the only program that is invasive, with your automatic updates, genuine advantage tools and obfuscated code littered all over the place. Personally I am very much a FOSS guy and use windows only when I need it to play some game that wine/cedega does not support.

@JD - Every topic I see you post in ends us with you ranting on in a confrontational manner; every post seems to be trying to provoke a response. Do you ever make normal posts?
Amen.

You take the term forum-troll to new heights.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
63. ... Jul 12, 2007, 06:39 theyarecomingforyou
 
@JD - Every topic I see you post in ends us with you ranting on in a confrontational manner; every post seems to be trying to provoke a response. Do you ever make normal posts?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Founder of the "I Hate Smiley Fitz" society

Remember: Riley has autism. He has trouble communicating, and in an overstimulating
environment, he can get frightened and run away, leaving his parents frantic. - Auburn
 
Avatar 22891
 
SteamID: theyarecomingforyou
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
62. Re: No subject Jul 11, 2007, 09:32 JD
 
I got nothing wrong. Everything I said is true.
hahahahaha Except for everything I refuted which was basically everything. Continue reading for more.

Scanning for textfiles you have no bussiness looking, EULA-agreed or not, is most likely not legal.
What you fail to realize is that the Punkbuster software simply cannot make that distinction and still function as a comprehensive cheating solution. That is no doubt why its EULA is so broad. It simply scans memory and disk and can't disguish between what is game related and what isn't. Trying to do so would simply open the door to allow cheating tools to disguise themselves. That is exactly what Punkbuster's developers would argue in court or elsewhere to support its EULA, and it is an effective argument. Punkbuster is invasive by nature, but it is upfront about it in the EULA. Although it does not specifically describe in detail all of the ways that is invasive to my satisfaction, it does sufficiently make a good faith effort by legal standards to do so.

it wouldn't take a very good lawyer to describe how a 14 year old MINOR (or 20 year old, whatever) with little-to-no computerskills couldn't be expected to realize the repercussion of agreeing to this.
What you are arguing is simply the potentially unconscionable nature of EULA's, and that has little or nothing to do with their contents. There is nothing specific to Punkbuster's EULA that makes it more unconscionable than any other EULA. Some courts have found some EULA's to be unconscionable, but in the cases I am familiar with, it had much more to do with how they were presented to the user than their specific terms.

In it, I have "hidden" a message saying I get their house.
Your examples are simply outrageous hyperbole, and are not an appropriate comparison to this case or any EULA's for that matter. There is nothing overtly or blatantly hidden in this case.

Finally, one key fact you are overlooking here is that given the protected and proprietary nature of Punkbuster, there is essentially no way for the user to know definitely if and when Punkbuster reads and trasmits information which he might object to despite the broad stipulation in the EULA. Therefore he simply does not know for sure and therefore cannot prove that the product exceeds his expectations of invasiveness despite the broad authorization of the EULA. That is why the only real way for the user to protect himself is to not use Punkbuster in the first place.

The bottom line is that your main argument that Punkbuster is not invasive because its developer would be sued if it were is bullshit. Even though Punkbuster's developer protects it and doesn't disclose specifically how its software works, the EULA clearly demonstrates that it is invasive, and its lawyers justifiably believe that its EULA supports its broadly invasive activities.

This comment was edited on Jul 11, 11:44.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
61. Re: No subject Jul 11, 2007, 06:50 toon
 
I addressed what you got wrong.
I got nothing wrong. Everything I said is true.
Your example was essentially nothing but illegal activities, and I refuted it.
Adultery is not illegal (atleast not in any sane place of the world). Scanning for textfiles you have no bussiness looking, EULA-agreed or not, is most likely not legal. Simply taking these highly personal things could be enough. I say most likely because the end-user is the weaker part in this case, and it wouldn't take a very good lawyer to describe how a 14 year old MINOR (or 20 year old, whatever) with little-to-no computerskills couldn't be expected to realize the repercussion of agreeing to this.

For me, a long time developer, it might (and should) be perfectly clear what all this means, and I might indeed lose in the court, but the wast majority wouldn't. Most people haven't even heard about Linux or Ajax or registers. It may seem strange, but that is because the level of knowledge is so different.

For an example outside the IT-world where things might not be so obvious to people like me and you, imagine I made a teleporter. To use it, you had to agree to an EULA which had more words from quantumn-mechanics definitions than the oxford-english dictionary. Everybody is psyched, so they agree, whatever. In it, I have "hidden" a message saying I get their house.

There is nothing illegal here, I could claim it was a fair trade, but no court in the world would let me take all those peoples houses if they refised, because they couldn't be expected to understand what the fuck they signed up for.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
60. Re: No subject Jul 10, 2007, 19:33 JD
 
Uh, why do you comment things that fit your argument but conviniently ommit other valid points?
I addressed what you got wrong. There is no need for me to repeat what you got right since you already wrote it. However, in this case you really didn't get anything right, but arguing over your use of the phrase "overly invasive" would simply be an argument over semantics.

I said what you are saying myself, and immediately extended the example to non-illegal activities!
Your example was essentially nothing but illegal activities, and I refuted it. The part about "scanning all the text-files on your computer for VISA numbers" is a moot one because the EULA already authorizes the reading of all files. It simply makes no distinction of the contents read, and as a technical and practical matter the Punkbuster software couldn't make that distinction. Sure, if someone from Even Balance were caught trying to sell harvested credit card numbers, that would certainly be a crime, but the EULA does authorize any of the user's files to be read regardless of the contents, and I am sure that is what Punkbuster does.

My points still stand
No, they don't. First, the Punkbuster EULA contains no authorization of illegal activities. The invasive activities it authorizes are very broad, but it does disclose and describe them in broad terms. Second, the Punkbuster EULA cannot be "overly invasive" simply because its invasive nature is disclosed and described as being very broad.

you even somewhat admit it yourself, saying "for a number of reasons)
I didn't spell out those reasons for brevity's sake, but your notion of "overly invasive" is NOT among them.

This comment was edited on Jul 10, 22:43.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
59. Re: No subject Jul 10, 2007, 15:01 toon
 
They are NOT correct. While a court may certainly find a EULA to be invalid for a number of reasons, on its face there is nothing in the Punkbuster EULA that states the software will perform illegal activities. It is simply a very broad authorization by the user to let the complete contents of his PC be read and captured. The EULA openly admits PB's activities are invasive, BUT they are authorized by the user so it's not illegal.
Uh, why do you comment things that fit your argument but conviniently ommit other valid points?

First, I state "overly invasive and/or illegal". Second, I said what you are saying myself, and immediately extended the example to non-illegal activities! My points still stand (you even somewhat admit it yourself, saying "for a number of reasons).

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
58. Re: No subject Jul 10, 2007, 14:42 JD
 
DarkCntry: Please don't bother
He won't bother because his bluff has been called.

This comment was edited on Jul 10, 14:50.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
57. Re: No subject Jul 10, 2007, 14:38 JD
 
Actally, JD, the other people are correct here. If a EULA is regarded as overly invasive and/or illegal, the person that agreed to it will most likely not be held responsible.
They are NOT correct. While a court may certainly find a EULA to be invalid for a number of reasons, on its face there is nothing in the Punkbuster EULA that states the software will perform illegal activities. It is simply a very broad authorization by the user to let the complete contents of his PC be read and captured. The EULA openly admits PB's activities are invasive, BUT they are authorized by the user so it's not illegal.

One of your main complaints about PB is that it is evil because somebody can potentially hijack it to use it to gain access to your PC. Well, that is true for every internet browser, stop using it. That is true for every online game, regardless if you use PB or not, so stop using them! In fact, everything you do that uses the internet has to possibility for someone to gain full access to your computer. So, stop using the internet.
Enahs, the big difference here is that Punkbuster is absolutely 100% certain to be invasive because it is invasive BY DESIGN. That is what the software does. Sure a user of a web browser may become the victim of a trojan or virus due to some unknown exploit in the web browser, but at least the web browser was not designed to do that and its developers work to ensure that such exploits are closed. Plus, due to their popularity exploits in web browsers get publicized so users are fully aware of the specific risks and know how to avoid them. Punkbuster on the other hand is a "black box." Its developers don't want any of its vulnerabilities or inner workings disclosed to the public, and so they aren't. In addition with Punkbuster, its developers designed it to spy on the user. Whether or not a third-party exploits that capability doesn't negate the fact that Punkbuster's developers already use the software to invade the user's PC. Sure using the Internet has some risk, but only a fool would needlessly exacerbate that risk by installing software like Punkbuster on his PC which is invasive by design and says so upfront just to play a damn game.

This comment was edited on Jul 10, 14:45.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
56. Re: No subject Jul 9, 2007, 17:56 sponge
 
True.. but damn if this game doesnt move so quick that often times, i dont have time to look at the radar.. or.. when i see an enemy.. he can be 15ft from me, turn and be 200yds away in the opposite direction byteh time i make my move.

I've been doing some good scrimming, and radars are invaluable on defense.

It seems to me like the devs dont want the turrets to be an integral part of the game, like they were in Tribes.

maybe i just want a real tribes successor.. sigh

Aye, your assesment of turrets seems fair. The goal of the game is to have an infantry based game, where turrets and vehicles and so forth are supplemental, rather than the main actors.

A couple SD guys have expressed interest in helping out with a Tribes mod for the game, along with ZOD from T2 Classic. It wouldn't be a real successor, but if it gets off the ground, it'll be great.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
55. Re: No subject Jul 8, 2007, 19:03 ColoradoHoudini
 
"You're forgetting the major advantage of the Third Eye Camera: portable radar."

True.. but damn if this game doesnt move so quick that often times, i dont have time to look at the radar.. or.. when i see an enemy.. he can be 15ft from me, turn and be 200yds away in the opposite direction byteh time i make my move.

re: turrets:

There doesnt seem to be any place the Strogg can put a turret that as a GDF RL troop, I cant destroy it from a safe distance. The 4-squares it takes up is too much, plus i think it's too damn tall. In the second stage, the two places the Strogg can put a turret leave it wide fucking open.. what happened to the Tribes (and dare i say.. UT XMP) turrets that were small enough to hide and use tactically/smartly?

as a GDF troop, if i place one at the Hilltop spawn, it stands out and is completely noticeable by any Strogg coming off the mountain..or any Strogg on the two rooftops.

It seems to me like the devs dont want the turrets to be an integral part of the game, like they were in Tribes.

maybe i just want a real tribes successor.. sigh

--anyone even remember UT XMP? that game had tons of promise, but ran shitty.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
54. Re: No subject Jul 8, 2007, 15:13 toon
 
Actally, JD, the other people are correct here. If a EULA is regarded as overly invasive and/or illegal, the person that agreed to it will most likely not be held responsible.

For a inane example even you might understand, let's say that the EULA stated that they would be using your computer to sell crack off the web. Even if you agreed, they would be held accountable. This example is by default illegal, but it can also easily be transfered to something like they scanning all the text-files on your computer for VISA numbers. It has no relevance to anti-cheating, and even if they have stated that they can do anything they want (including fucking your wife while you watch, trying to better understand how a cheaters mind work), they would be held accountable, because you, the end user, are defined as the weaker part here.

EOD.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
53. Re: No subject Jul 8, 2007, 14:04 Beamer
 
I often wonder if people here read other EULAs, since the just about all say the same thing...

And courts aren't terribly fond of them.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
52. Re: No subject Jul 8, 2007, 13:16 sponge
 
He's just a stupid motherfucker...

edit: Not that Assley isn't...

I was a bit unclear, at least Assley's arguments weren't 100% paranoia fueled, while this dick takes it to a whole new level.

This is true, but it is supposed to be that way. That is the point of asymmetrical game play.

The Third Eye Camera can disable a turret in one hit, actually. It's quite useful. And, once you get indoors and are hacking, drop one in one of the doorways, and blow it up if you see people coming in. You can then switch back to hacking pretty easily.

This comment was edited on Jul 8, 13:16.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
51. Re: Gaming Jul 8, 2007, 12:59 Scottish Martial Arts
 
the turrets are too fucking big and stand out so much that as soon as you deploy one, it's blown up.

That's why you position them so that the enemy has to expose themselves to their fire in order to destroy them. If you deploy your turret so its in the line of site of the GDF hill spawn, you can bet it'll be destroyed quickly. Position it intelligently however and you will rack up tons of turret kills before you even have to repair it.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
50. Re: Gaming Jul 8, 2007, 12:56 Scottish Martial Arts
 
the GDF third eye camera blows

You're forgetting the major advantage of the Third Eye Camera: portable radar. It's not as useful as a bomb as its Strogg equivalent, but it is very, very useful as a short range radar on offense, something that the Strogg drone does not have. If you can position it so that it's not readily visible then the Strogg team is unlikely to seek it out and destroy it, as they are with the main radar deployable, and you can therefore keep your radar coverage up.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
49. Re: Gaming Jul 8, 2007, 11:43 Enahs
 
the turrets are too fucking big and stand out so much that as soon as you deploy one, it's blown up........
..
need more places to put the turrets,and they need a smaller placement footprint and to be smaller in size.

I disagree. You can place to Turrets in such a manner as to protect them from the artillery gun (rail howitzer) and rocket artillery (plasma mortar) by clever placement. They fire in a standard parabolic projectile path, and because of this you can place them behind trees and building to protect them from likely placement of enemy equivalent. Also, have a teammate deploy the artillery interceptor (shield generator), as this protects those from the other, the only thing it does not stop is Vampire/Violator.


the Tormentor needs much better controls

Amen.

the GDF third eye camera blows..compared to the strogg drone.
This is true, but it is supposed to be that way. That is the point of asymmetrical game play.

second, you have to be viewing through it the whole time, it really ought to put a small box screen in the corner of your view.

This I agree with. Or instead of that, do not have a time limit on how long it can be placed. Making a time limit on the flying drone makes sense, but removing the time limit on the 3rd eye would give it a lot more potential.

then theres the whole fact that you have deployable radar, anti artillery, anti vehicle, anti personnel turrets, mines, cameras, a drone, classes, fireteams, objectives and a campaign with unlockable features etc.. only to fight at breakneck speeds of a twitchy FPS.. does not compute!

That is why I like playing on servers with at most 16, it is slower paced. Also, even on larger servers when you have well balanced teams (as in, the ability of the player) it is much slower paced.


Live Chat with other BluesNews forum members (beta; GreaseMonkey script;updated 1-14-07):
http://www.ualr.edu/szsullivan/scripts_/BluesChat.user.js

Alternating Logo (GreaseMonkey script):
http://www.ualr.edu/szsullivan/scripts_/BluesNewslogo.user.js
 
Avatar 15513
 
I am free of all prejudice. I hate everyone equally.
- W. C. Fields
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
48. Re: No subject Jul 8, 2007, 11:43 nin
 
So is JD really Riley Piszt in disguise?

As much of an idiot as he is, his arguments aren't ENTIRELY paranoid fueled, just mostly.


He's just a stupid motherfucker...

edit: Not that Assley isn't...


-----------------------------------------------------
http://www.neonbible.com
This comment was edited on Jul 8, 11:44.
 
http://www.nin.com/pub/tension/
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
47. Re: No subject Jul 8, 2007, 10:58 Tango
 
Well said Enahs. Anyone who installs iTunes should immediately open up MSConfig and take off the 8 or so services and startup programs it forces on you.

 
Avatar 18712
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
66 Replies. 4 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 ] Older >


footer

.. .. ..

Blue's News logo