Sony Reader Lives on with Rowling!

[anamardoll]

Are we getting HP bashing off our chests? Is this a safe place?

I think the books -- the ones I've read anyway -- could be better edited. I'm not a fan of world-building or character-building for world/character-building's sake, I like my details to be very much in service to the overarching narrative -- which is, I grant, an UTTERLY SUBJECTIVE bar.

Then again, I feel that most books I read should've and could've been cut down to 300 pages at most. I'm quite ruthless when it comes to my law of narrative conservation.

I also "get" that a lot of HP fans wanted more and more details as the series progressed and Rowling had to chose between satisfying people like me or people like them. In all seriousness, she probably made the best choice for her, and I respect her for it.

Having said THAT, I reserve the right to feel that the books are a little bloated.

As for "getting kids reading", I don't really care one way or another. It's a logical fallacy to assume that the children who were hooked on HP wouldn't have been hooked by something else if Rowling had never existed.

Oh, and if we're taking a poll, I can't stand "bottom-quoting". Seems like not worth even leaving the quote in the post in those cases, since it's not providing context or clarity, at least not for me. But eh, whatever.

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by EatingPie

MobileRead has remained generally free of the "I Hate Sony!" silliness, but it does crop up now and then. Alas, let's really look at these complaints one at a time; let's give the devil his due.

The rootkit was 6 years ago, and Sony did not write it, First4Internet did. Sony actually removed it from their CDs due to customer complaints (it appeared on approximately 6 CDs!). And now all Sony music on iTunes is DRM-free. Very devilish of them!

Yes, the rootkit fiasco was 6 years ago, but it was still something they did, and while they may have not developed it, they still chose to implement it. It caused a lot of problems for people who were doing nothing illegal. It allowed malware to easily hide itself from the system. The tools that Sony released to remove the also opened the users up to more vulnerabilities. Not to mention the hardware issues people had after the rootkits messed with their system.

In addition, your facts are slightly skewed. Sony used two separate rootkits, Media Max and Extended Copy Protection (XCP). Neither were directly developed by Sony (Media Max by SunnComm, and XCP by First 4 Internet). Also, It was not merely 6 albums, but rather 102 in total (52 used XCP and 50 used MediaMax).

Originally Posted by EatingPie

Sony removed Linux from the PS3 because it was seldom utilized, and it allowed them to lower costs (the number one complaint about the PS3!). BTW, Apple removed support for "Classic" when they went Intel... and that raised no stink at all. I do wish Sony left Linux on the PS3, but I also am glad the PS3 became cheaper.

It was seldom used by the general public, but it did have plenty of people who did use it. Governments and universities would buy hundreds, or even thousands, of them at a time strictly for installing linux on them and using them for parallel processing (was a cheaper way of building supercomputers). The removal of Linux support did very little to change the cost of the PS3. By the time it was dropped, the PS3 had already dropped to the current price points. I can understand them not adding the support to the Slim PS3s, but they still sold the older style specifically for running Linux to universities after they stopped making them for the general public. Those units sold at higher prices, and bore the cost of Sony's PS3 Linux work (which, mostly had stopped shortly after the PS3 had launched in 2006). What pissed most people off was that Sony was removing advertised features. Everyone who had bought one of those educational PS3s last year, found themselves with zero support. Any issues that existed in firmware would not be fixed, unless they chose to no longer have linux running (which was the point for those systems marketed as such). Hell, even the people who had the older systems and just merely tinkered with Linux on it faced the same choice, they could either no longer use the PSN, newer games, and even some of their existing games or no longer use linux. If people, without access to the source were able to go in break the protection Sony put in place and re-enable OtherOS in a matter of weeks after Sony removed it, there obviously couldn't have been much work for Sony to do to simply keep it that would have effected cost at all.

Originally Posted by EatingPie

And, alas, you end with blaming the victim for the crime. Sony was hacked. They did not "fail to protect user data," they were broken in to by malicious hackers. Sony did not invite the hackers in, or even allow the hackers in. They had security in place, the hackers override that security and stole the data. Oh Sony, you are so positively evil for being hacked!!

I'm actually glad Sony is helping with Pottermore. They have extensive experience with online RPGs, having designed some of the best. I am also hopeful that this means the ePUB books, and if they have DRM, that it will be Adobe ,which is the most-supported DRM (Sony, Nook, Kobo, etc.) out there right now.

-Pie

Sony was hacked (multiple times by multiple parties), yes, however, the hack could have been prevented if standard security practices had been in place. They had older databases where credit card info wasn't encrypted, they also had plenty of other information on hand for each user that would enable identity theft even if the particular database it was in had credit card numbers encrypted. Things like email addresses, names, addresses, birthdates, etc were all unencrypted. Not only that, but forensics of the Sony networks showed out of date software with known security issues, etc. Plus improperly configured firewalls. It wasn't just PSN that was hacked, but their websites, servers for SoE, Qriocity, etc. Sony was the victim, but at the same time, they do share some responsibility. If you leave a bunch of money and other sought after items sitting out in the open in your car, are you entirely blameless because someone broke out a window and stole it? You could have put it in the trunk, covered it up, put it out of sight, etc.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by elcreative

Blame JSWolf

No, the blame lies with you and your top posting. I've explained to you that top posting is harder to read and yet you care nothing for everyone else who uses MR.

[HarryT]

You're absolutely right, Jon!

Originally Posted by JSWolf

No, the blame lies with you and your top posting. I've explained to you that top posting is harder to read and yet you care nothing for everyone else who uses MR.

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

I think the books -- the ones I've read anyway -- could be better edited. I'm not a fan of world-building or character-building for world/character-building's sake, I like my details to be very much in service to the overarching narrative -- which is, I grant, an UTTERLY SUBJECTIVE bar.

Then again, I feel that most books I read should've and could've been cut down to 300 pages at most. I'm quite ruthless when it comes to my law of narrative conservation.

Which books did you read though? In my experience she sprinkled parts of plot points for later stuff early on. What seem like minor details end up being building blocks for something big later on.

Originally Posted by anamardoll

I also "get" that a lot of HP fans wanted more and more details as the series progressed and Rowling had to chose between satisfying people like me or people like them. In all seriousness, she probably made the best choice for her, and I respect her for it.

Having said THAT, I reserve the right to feel that the books are a little bloated.

However, how much of it was plotted out before the series got popular? She worked on it for 5 years before the first book was released, and had a very good idea of what exactly she wanted at that point, for the entire series.

Originally Posted by anamardoll

Oh, and if we're taking a poll, I can't stand "bottom-quoting". Seems like not worth even leaving the quote in the post in those cases, since it's not providing context or clarity, at least not for me. But eh, whatever.

Yeah, I prefer quites on top, I think it makes following the flow of conversation easier, but there are a couple people here who refuse to do that. It has been brought up before. You're not alone.

[elcreative]

Actually sweetie, I quite often top quote except where you're around... finally got a solution... you used to interest/amuse sometimes, now a pain... I'll do what you threatened to do to me and then I can feel happier about browsing MR again... bye

Originally Posted by JSWolf

No, the blame lies with you and your top posting. I've explained to you that top posting is harder to read and yet you care nothing for everyone else who uses MR.

[OtterBooks]

Originally Posted by cfrizz

Oh please, do get off of your high horse. So long as they are reading fluff or not, that is the most important point. I think it's great that a series of books have been able to get & keep kids attention and interested in reading. It is a habit that will last a lifetime, which will give them time to mature their reading material as well. But whatever they read, they should enjoy reading material that they like. Not what some people like you with their noses in the air expect them to like.

Do tell, what would you replace HP books with?

*rides up on high horse, wearing top hat and monocle* cloppity cloppity..

What you read is more important than how much. For some kids Rowling may indeed be a gateway to a fondness for quality fiction, but considering the popular trends in fiction that followed, I suspect it only engendered the habit of reading crap. Potter readers moved on to Twilight, then Confessions of a Shopaholic.

I would replace HP with the likes of Peter S. Beagle, Michael Ende, Shirley Jackson, Philip Pullman, Madeleine L'Engle, and others. There are even many contemporary superiors like Darren Shan, M.T. Anderson, Rick Yancey. I'm not talking about dry classics, here, but a world of delightful, inspired young adult literature that engages the reader with artful prose and substance, in addition to providing entertainment. But that stuff requires parents or teachers who themselves appreciate good fiction, and are capable of offering guidance.

I don't think Potter is bad. It's just not very good, and there's enough very good, even great fiction out there that there's no excuse for fluff.

Then again, I'm just some random jerk being contrary for the sake of it.

Also top posting is evil.

[anamardoll]

Hellmark, it may well be that the earlier "fluff" (as I saw it) was foreshadowing, but that's a pet peeve of mine in series books -- in general, I like my foreshadowing to be largely confined to the current book, with maybe some "next book setup".

(I've even written a blog post about how much I dislike series that start with a Big Ol' Tangled Mess O' Details and the rest of the series is cleaning that mess up little by little. Not that I'm saying the HP series does that, just talking about narrative conservation in general.)

Again, this is all terribly personal and subjective. But, yeah, even if all the bloated details from the early books came into play later in the later books, it wouldn't make me like the bloated details more.

I love Pullman. Don't much care for L'Engle, though. If she'd gone on even a little bit more about virgins and angel/demon/human slash fic in the Noah's Ark book I would have been sick. Way too fetishized, imho. Harry Potter, for all it's OMG EDITOR STAT! ness at least treated teen sexuality with a degree of sensitivity and didn't sound like a Moral Guardian reminding me every three pages that IF SOMEONE TOUCHES YOUR NAUGHTY BITS, YOU CAN NEVER RIDE A UNICORN AGAIN. Noted, L'Engle. Move on. Seriously.

[OtterBooks]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

IF SOMEONE TOUCHES YOUR NAUGHTY BITS, YOU CAN NEVER RIDE A UNICORN AGAIN.

But that's true. I mean duh. Girls gotta know the facts of life.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by OtterBooks

But that's true. I mean duh. Girls gotta know the facts of life.

Heh. Still doesn't excuse repeating it every flippin' page.

[EatingPie]

You have fuller info on the rootkit, and kudos for that! Doesn't change the fact that (a) Sony removed the rootkit(s) after customer complaints, and (b) all Sony music on iTunes is DRM-free. No credit for that; they are still "the devil."

On Linux, this is the only stated info, direct from the class action lawsuit: "Sony publicly stated the removal of the feature was for security reasons, however, the lawsuit says the company was more concerned with potential piracy. "

It was also purely optional to update the firmware that disabled the feature. Universities running Linux could easily avoid this (since they didn't care about gaming features). Though if you update by accident, you're SOL.

Take it or leave it, I didn't want them to remove it, I thought it was a bad idea. *shrug*

There, I top-quoted, just to be trendy!

Originally Posted by Hellmark

Sony was hacked (multiple times by multiple parties), yes, however, the hack could have been prevented if standard security practices had been in place.

According to Sony, the CC#s were obfuscated/encrypted (citation below). I also think this "standard security practices" citation is invalid. It's undefined, and open-ended. What "standard security practices"? No matter what you cite, there are always other, more secure standards. Sony -- Nintendo, PBS, Arizona, etc. -- actually used "standard security practices" but not enough to stop the hackers. So this is just an internet-ism that's poorly defined, and can never be satisfied but sounds great in an argument. (One person I talked to got to the point where Sony should have used dongles on all servers!)

They had older databases where credit card info wasn't encrypted, they also had plenty of other information on hand for each user that would enable identity theft even if the particular database it was in had credit card numbers encrypted. Things like email addresses, names, addresses, birthdates, etc were all unencrypted.

Nope. Sony stated the info was encrypted.

http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/security...data-40092628/

Not only that, but forensics of the Sony networks showed out of date software with known security issues, etc.

Nope.

Consolewars did forensics and showed that Apache servers were all up-to-date at the time of the hack.

Plus improperly configured firewalls. It wasn't just PSN that was hacked, but their websites, servers for SoE, Qriocity, etc.

I made citations. You need one here. Otherwise it's hearsay (which a lot of this has been, btw).

I have not heard about "improperly" configured firewalls. It's absolutely possible, as they were hacked. But if "improperly" means simply "susceptible to the hack" then that's defining terms to meet your requirements. They could have been well configured with a single specific bug that was exploited. At this point, saying "improperly configured" is purely rhetorical.

Sony was the victim, but at the same time, they do share some responsibility. If you leave a bunch of money and other sought after items sitting out in the open in your car, are you entirely blameless because someone broke out a window and stole it? You could have put it in the trunk, covered it up, put it out of sight, etc.

The moral argument here is a slippery slope way beyond this thread.

To put it simply, Sony did not dangle the info in front of hackers. There was no "here's the info!" They were targeted. Then the hackers had to search for the data. There's no "in the front seat vs. in the trunk" here (and in some places, trunks are more dangerous than the front seat because thieves know that is where to search!)

Sony claims the DDOS going on at the time diverted resources and kept them from seeing the PSN break-in. The blame does not lie with Sony. It lies with the hackers. Blaming the victim is bogus, especially given the information at hand.

Sony gets short-shrift on the Internet. LulzSecurity hacked Sony pictures and released the info, but when they hacked Nintendo, they literally claimed they liked the Big-N, and would not release info! Sony will always be the culprit, whether they deserve it or not -- and many times, they do not! They were called "the devil" already in this thread. Point made right there.

-Pie

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by EatingPie

To put it simply, Sony did not dangle the info in front of hackers. There was no "here's the info!" They were targeted. Then the hackers had to search for the data. There's no "in the front seat vs. in the trunk" here (and in some places, trunks are more dangerous than the front seat because thieves know that is where to search!)

I don't know the details, and am not getting into the security-vs-victim-blaming issue. I can say that, if a bank uses a cheap bike lock to chain its doors shut at night, and someone breaks it with a pair of wire-cutters, bank customers have a right to be upset if their accounts are scrambled. Even if they don't immediately lose money, if everyone's account numbers are changed for security purposes later, so all their auto-payments have to be re-set, that nuisance is the bank's fault for not having better locks.

I don't know how much security Sony was using; I know that when your business involves keeping someone else's assets, you've got a responsibility to provide reasonable security for those assets.

I am not geek enough to know if they provided "reasonable security;" if it matters, we have courts to figure out those kinds of issues.

(My thoughts: Sony's made several unethical and just annoying business decisions in the past, and shows no signs of having decided to stop making them. I don't blame people for not wanting to do business with them. Still, they make some excellent hardware, and I also don't blame people for putting up with the lousy ethics in order to get the nifty toys.)

[Ditchleyportrait]

besides the recent k3 crack debacle, it appears to me that there's a higher rate of broken sonys on mobileread.

[anamardoll]

Well, and the fact that the hacked company is a victim of the hacking doesn't mean that they're absolved of all responsibility.

One of the reasons why major companies are more and more moving towards a system of purging customer records over time is that you don't want to make yourself an juicy target for hackers. The mentality should be that hacking is expected and inevitable and therefore you don't keep every shred of data for every customer on hand for all eternity.

(This is -- back to the Rowling issue -- one of the many reasons why I believe DW DRM is dangerous; if the purchaser info is kept for decades to aid in piracy tracking then you're keeping customer information for decades and that information WILL be lost when -- not IF, WHEN -- you are hacked.)

So, again, while I dislike a lot of Sony practices -- and by the way, Sony is not "the devil" and I haven't see anyone claim that they are, so please feel free to tone down the rhetoric, mmkay? -- and while I can agree that, hmm, hacking situation may not have been 100% their fault, I can STILL feel like their normal practice of keeping all that customer data on-hand for so long was a very bad business decision and they deserve flack for not adopting smarter industry practices.

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

Heh. Still doesn't excuse repeating it every flippin' page.

Originally Posted by anamardoll

Heh. Still doesn't excuse repeating it every flippin' page.

You two deserve this:

http://m.youtube.com/?rdm=4n18m1hxx#...0xcg6UaA&gl=US