It actually doesn't matter how the building was brought down for the people who are in it -- what matters is that the building is down and they can't get to work/get out of the rubble.
We have this benchmark of "reasonable expectations" for designers of things. Sure, you could whittle endless years away contemplating and preparing for every conceivable eventuality, but we don't expect that of people because that's crazy.
However, we do install security in buildings because we know from experience that every once in a while you'll get a loon trying to blow the building up with a truckbomb or trying to shoot up the lobby. Security isn't perfect, but they perform reasonably in most situations.
We ask our architects to consider disaster resistance in building design because we know that it's plausible that the area may one day be affected by earthquake or some other calamity.
If either security or architects and engineers are found to be negligent of their duties to provide reasonable protections against violent crazy people and/or natural disaster, they are ostracized as seen fit by society. While they didn't cause the earthquake or the explosion, they knew, or should have known, that an earthquake or a violent assault might occur in the building they had designed and/or were assigned to protect.
If they were found to have prepared adequately and still failed, they are generally "let off the hook".
Now, in the case of a highly unpopular, highly publicized DRM scheme, do you think it's reasonable to assume that some out there might be interested in negatively affecting its operation such that people don't buy your game? A lot of people want to gob up the debut. I would say that it is reasonable, and that Ubisoft doesn't get any kind of pass for inability to ward off a DDoS in such a case.
Ubisoft is a big multinational company, publicly traded, with a lot of money. There's no good excuse to let their servers die from either DDoS, non-malicious overload (effectual DDoS), or other standard calamity.
While they didn't cause the earthquake or the explosion, they knew, or should have known, that an earthquake or a violent assault might occur in the building they had designed and/or were assigned to protect.
That is irrelevant to the fact that the idiot with the bomb wasn't doing anyone any favors, which was the point I was trying to make in my original comment. I guess I should have omitted the part about "what's harming the consumers" or changed it to "what's directly harming the consumers" to avoid all these knee-jerk responses from the anti-DRM brigade, which incidentally I consider myself to be a part of.
We have this benchmark of "reasonable expectations" for designers of things. Sure, you could whittle endless years away contemplating and preparing for every conceivable eventuality, but we don't expect that of people because that's crazy.
However, we do install security in buildings because we know from experience that every once in a while you'll get a loon trying to blow the building up with a truckbomb or trying to shoot up the lobby. Security isn't perfect, but they perform reasonably in most situations.
We ask our architects to consider disaster resistance in building design because we know that it's plausible that the area may one day be affected by earthquake or some other calamity.
If either security or architects and engineers are found to be negligent of their duties to provide reasonable protections against violent crazy people and/or natural disaster, they are ostracized as seen fit by society. While they didn't cause the earthquake or the explosion, they knew, or should have known, that an earthquake or a violent assault might occur in the building they had designed and/or were assigned to protect.
If they were found to have prepared adequately and still failed, they are generally "let off the hook".
Now, in the case of a highly unpopular, highly publicized DRM scheme, do you think it's reasonable to assume that some out there might be interested in negatively affecting its operation such that people don't buy your game? A lot of people want to gob up the debut. I would say that it is reasonable, and that Ubisoft doesn't get any kind of pass for inability to ward off a DDoS in such a case.
Ubisoft is a big multinational company, publicly traded, with a lot of money. There's no good excuse to let their servers die from either DDoS, non-malicious overload (effectual DDoS), or other standard calamity.