I think what you will usually see as you work your way through the different layers of IT, is that IT workers on the lower rungs, especially help desk, have to deal with all of the irritating IT requests. The guys towards the top usually don't have to deal with end users, because whatever comes to them is filtered on the lower levels. I'm not saying that there aren't incompetent IT workers, just that you should realize that a lot of IT requests are mind-numbingly stupid.
If you want to keep the features you could just stay with your current firmware. It is optional to upgrade, not a forced decision. Also it begs the question of why you want to keep the functionality. If you were going to use it for the cell computing power or just messing around you could always use the old firmware and upgrade when you want to use the playstation network functionality. If you want to keep both features there is a good chance the reason why you would want to do so is to pirate games. Could someone explain to me why there is any legitimacy in this suit?
No, it is not optional to upgrade — at least not in the usual sense of the word. If you upgrade, you lose the ability to run Linux. If you don't upgrade, you lose the ability to play games. That's more like an ultimatum than a traditional optional install.
> If you want to keep both features there is a good chance the reason why you would want to do so is to pirate games
There is no known way to pirate games on the ps3. Geohot's hack only allows access to the hypervisor. There are several security measures in place that would still prevent people from playing copied games.
The problem is that Sony would have to patch vulnerabilities like that and keep maintaining the OtherOS compatibility.
For a service that's useless to like 99% of PS3 owners, it's understandable they no longer want to maintain it. And frankly I don't really care for it, so long as I'm not paying a monthly fee.
> The problem is that Sony would have to patch vulnerabilities like that and keep maintaining the OtherOS compatibility.
You don't understand the problems. There really isn't a good way to patch the vulnerability found. That still doesn't mean I'm not pissed sony removed otheros.
> And frankly I don't really care for it,
Good for you? This discussion is for those who do care.
> Good for you? This discussion is for those who do care.
Thanks.
For those who need OtherOS, you are undoubtedly in the very small minority with special undoubtedly non-gaming or game-purchase-inducing activities.
Therefore the needs of this minority aren't going to be put in front of the needs of those who purchased a PS3 to play games with. If they divert resources to fixing the OtherOS somehow, that detracts from their resources to provide for the game-playing movie-playing users of the PS3.
In other words, if you purchased a PS3 for the OtherOS functionality, why should you expect to also have the cutting edge system updates targeted at people who bought the PS3 for games? You do have a choice to not upgrade and continue using your OtherOS, and for many people who do use OtherOS this is a viable option. For example if you have a cluster of these for scientific research or whatever, you're not going to complain about it not playing some new game.
I think it's one thing if Sony secretly patched your PS3 and removed the OtherOS, but they explicitly ask you if you want to upgrade. You can either choose to upgrade to the new stuff they are providing gratis (after all they are not obligated to provide updates are they?) or maintain the system exactly as you had purchased it, which contain the EXACT functionalities it had when you purchased it (including the ability to play games released at the time you purchased it).
The main Bing search works, if what your saying is correct then since MSNBC's search is just a modified version of Bing, Bing would also need to have the problem for there to be no fault on MSNBC's end.
That seems reasonable, though if MSNBC did tracking of people clicking through and their success rate it could still be true. I have no idea if that is common practice or not though.
When I try out wikileaks I get the message "We are unable to display search results at this time. Please accept our apologies for the inconvenience and try your request again." It doesn't describe what effect the error has though. It seems to just display results inside MSNBC and not results on the web at large.
Just think about it this way. How many people using msnbc will actually make the query that will match the regex "/^wikileaks$/i". If they were truly trying to prevent people from accessing information about it they would have done a better regex.
"It seems pretty obvious to me that their search dept is trying to stop people from finding the story. Either that or their search is broken in a truly bad way--given that those words should stem to the same query, it's suggestive to say the least."
It really doesn't. I'm going to take a big guess here and say that the good people over at MSNBC are not that inept.
My guess is they're not doing regexes. Someone in charge probably said "Stop people from searching for wikileaks" and they added that term to a hacked-together blocklist ASAP. Either that or they added it to a special list of queries that get extra processing (topic summary for the top of results, perhaps) which was crashing, and deployed without checking the results. Either way, it looks like their search is working now although the error persists, which suggests things over at MSNBC are much in flux. :)
Redditors/Wikileaks is making a big stink about it, but it really isn't about being righteous. Its about making a big stink.
Every army fighting a war against an insurgency makes mistakes like this. If you are saying that the rules of engagement are flawed it might be eye-opening to realize the reduction of military casualties by having a more aggressive set of rules. The only solution in my mind is to not go to war from the beginning and to end it as soon as possible with the best means possible.
If I remember correctly the deal is still being reviewed before it actually happens (but it will be soon). The wikipedia article also says the current owners are Vivendi and GE still.
