Not likely that they'll get jail time unless the leak was intentional or they sold the data. They could easily lose whatever security clearance they have though, and there could be sanctions against their company prohibiting them from bidding on government contracts for some period of time.
Or else are quite young. Pg 429-430 detail mandatory counseling to get the elderly to kill themselves. Other places tell of how the handicapped will be denied treatment, as will people with chronic illnesses. This program is only good as long as you are young and healthy. After that, they come for you.
As to nano-diamonds, they are indeed 'easily' creatable synthetically.
I'm not sure if you're lying or just stupid, but I figure I'd better post something here to refute your claim before others jump on the bandwagon to start bashing something based on your ridiculous claims. This is a post that explains why you are wrong. I'm just reposting it here, and I suspect the author (Beau7890) won't mind:
Regarding the most serious fear-mongering allegation you're attempting to spread to the gullible, the lie you repeated in your above comment that says under the public health plan, doctors may write an end of life order against your wishes, I just can't allow that to go unrefuted.
Section 1233 involves making a living will of the kind you already make upon admittance to a hospital for surgery. It specifies the patient's wishes while in the case something should happen that renders the patient unable to communicate.
Here is the full portion of the subsection (from pages 429 and 430) your article misrepresents. I have highlighted the relevant subsection that refutes your lie:
(5)(A) For purposes of this section, the term âorder regarding life sustaining treatmentâ(TM) means, with respect to an individual, an actionable medical order relating to the treatment of that individual thatâ"
(i) is signed and dated by a physician (as defined in subsection (r)(1)) or another health care professional (as specified by the Secretary and who is acting within the scope of the professionalâ(TM)s authority under State law in signing such an order, including a nurse practitioner or physician assistant) and is in a form that permits it to stay with the individual and be followed by health care professionalsand providers across the continuum of care;
(ii) effectively communicates the individualâ(TM)s preferences regarding life sustaining treatment, including an indication of the treatment and care desired by the individual;
(iii) is uniquely identifiable and standardized within a given locality, region, or State (as identified by the Secretary); and
(iv) may incorporate any advance directive (as defined in section 1866(f)(3)) if executed by the individual.
Just to repeat, if anyone missed it:
The law will state that any order regarding life-sustaining treatment is required to communicate the patient's preferences regarding treatment and care desired.
Anyone who believes the kind of shocking false assertions contained in this submission from pc25 and other opponents of affordable healthcare might begin to notice a distinct pattern of lies and misrepresentations that are continually spread by the opponents of the bill, and that are easily debunked by careful reading of the bill.
You could say the same about QR codes, but there's obviously still value in having certain information directly encoded on a package or object. Not everything needs a URL to a website or web service does it? Sometimes you just want the info. The Google Streets example was a pretty good one. They can encode information about a location, and the cameras can read it. That may or may not include a link to a website. Not everything needs one. For relatively big-ticket items where the cost isn't a factor and for uses that aren't directly product-related, this could be a useful solution.
No, this is gonna be for advertising. Imagine you're taking some casual pictures of some friends in a night out in town. You just snap the shots, come home, and whoa - the entire out-of-focus background is laden with Coca~Cola, McDonald's, Ford and whatnot logos and other texts.
Wha? How exactly would that happen unless you're using some ad-driven application sponsored by Coca-Cola McDonald's and Ford that alters your image to highlight their products?
The beauty of it is that they could combine it with existing light-based advertising displays. Every LED in the matrix displays at Times Square could easily have this bokode applied so that even if somebody's taking a picture of a competitor's matrix display making yours out of focus - yours will still stand out.
( I sure -hope- this won't actually be the case, but you know them wiley advertising people. )
I don't think anyone is going to be altering your images in any way. Unless you deliberately use software to read these images and perform certain types of operations based on that information, then you'll still just have a regular old picture.
Replacing barcodes and QR codes with this for everything would be absurd. However, there are many uses where a technology such as this would be a huge benefit. I don't understand the ridiculous overreactions people are having here. If the return isn't worth the cost for certain uses, then obviously it won't be implemented for those uses (at least not for long). In other cases, it will be used and could offer capabilities we haven't even thought of yet. Kind of like the inventors of the personal computer probably didn't foresee us having this discussion on a forum such as this.
but still stupidly expensive next to the near nothingness of a standard barcode.
its lunacy
That depends entirely on the application though. For uses that would require vastly larger amounts of data than a barcode or even QR code can convey, the bokode could be well worth the cost. It just depends on the return you're going to get from it. I think the case for putting them on cereal boxes is probably not a good one, but the example of using them on storefronts and buildings to allow information to be conveyed to services like Google would be a fantastic use for them.
I have the same gfx an o/c 4850, yet I fail at some to reach 60FPS.
Obviously you are some kind of super wizard class hacker.:)
There is something very wrong with your system then. WTF game are you talking about that pegs your CPU like that? I've never had that problem, even with my previous Radeon 1950X/C2D e8400 setup.
If all you are interested in is gaming performance, and you don't have a system that can take advantage of DX10, then stick with XP. I'm running Win7 x64 because I needed the 64-bit and extra RAM support to run multiple VMs for testing and development work. I skipped Vista altogether after trying it out and finding it to be sluggish and annoying. Win7 is definitely not sluggish, even on my older hardware, and they took care of most of the annoyances too.
After running it since late April now, I'm quite pleased with it. I think it can finally be called a good OS for modern hardware. XP is still good as long as you're sticking with 32-bit.
I'm running Win 7 RC1 too. So far the only game I've had problems with is Mechwarrior 3. MW4 and its expansions are working fine. The issue with MW3 seems to be a problem with the drivers for my Radeon 4870 rather than a Win7 problem. Something about how they removed support for some DirectX z-buffer feature that MW3 used, which causes major problems. MW3 was difficult to get to even install.
Other than that I haven't had any problems, everything else so far has just worked. Quick list off the top of my head of games I've got running:
MW4 + Expansions
Sins of a Solar Empire
Team Fortress 2
Left 4 Dead
Unreal Tournament 3
Portal
Mirror's Edge
Sword of the Stars
Defense Grid
Penny Arcade Adventures 1 & 2
Burnout Paradise
Call of Duty: World at War
Call of Juarez: Bound in Blood
Prototype
Puzzle Kingdoms
I've got demos of several other games running too, so basically no problems here. All my hardware was detected when I installed Win7, so aside from updating to newer versions, everything has pretty much worked right out of the box.
Re:How many soldiers die if 187 F-22s aren't enoug
on
F-22 Raptor Cancelled
·
· Score: 1
We've done the research for now. We have successfully built the aircraft necessary for a modern air-to-air war, should one arise. We have not done the research for the next necessary aircraft--you know, the one to compete with whatever sixth-generation fighter craft the Russians or the Chinese start selling to the highest builder. In addition, manufacturing experience stops being relevant almost embarrassingly quickly. We do not need more F-22s for combat purposes--but to stop building them means to repurpose the lines necessary to manufacture them should we need them in the future. This is never a good idea without a replacement in mind--hell, we haven't stopped building F/A-18s just because the F-35 is nearing rollout, have we?
And the idea that air superiority is somehow unimportant is laughable. If you don't have air superiority, you don't have anything in a conventional war--and while we are not currently in a conventional war, to write off the idea that one may not occur is a joke. Powers that matter--that is to say, not the dirt merchants we're foolishly picking a fight with right now--do not fight from camels, and they are the opposition that we much always keep an eye on.
We're so far ahead of everyone else in the research and dev, as well as actual equipment that it's not going to be an issue for a very long time. I'm not saying we don't need to have air superiority for a conventional war. I'm saying that air superiority is not even remotely a problem for us with the countries that are on our enemies list. We could easily have air superiority over any of them even without the F22s. And if needed, we've got 187 of them as well. The "powers that matter" all have nukes and we're not going to be in a conventional war with them. Russia isn't building anything that could challenge an F22, and probably won't for a very long time. China and India are the only ones that have the resources to do so, but there's no indication that they are building anything that could challenge it either.
It's time to take a realistic look at the world and realize that those "dirt merchants" are the ones that are killing thousands of our troops, and we need to start putting our money towards capabilities that will correct that problem rather than continuing to build hideously expensive weapons systems that will likely never see any real use.
Re:How many soldiers die if 187 F-22s aren't enoug
on
F-22 Raptor Cancelled
·
· Score: 1
That would be a great plan. If we wouldn't have our air force crushed due to insufficient numbers then have our industry pounded into the ground by an uncontested enemy air force.
But yes, we should aim for the lowest common denominator in defense spending because it is only soldiers lives and the citizenries safety at stake.
If you're concerned for our soldiers, then spend this money on something that will actually help protect them in the kinds of wars we're actually having to fight now, and that we'll likely be fighting more of in the future. You know, the ones where we're losing thousands of soldiers. These planes are not going to help with those. We'll probably never see an F22 over Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, or anywhere else that doesn't have a threat in the air. That accounts for pretty much everywhere we're likely to have a problem with in the foreseeable future. Everyone else has nukes and it's a whole different ballgame.
Re:How many soldiers die if 187 F-22s aren't enoug
on
F-22 Raptor Cancelled
·
· Score: 1
Because research takes a very long time.
Because design takes a very long time.
Because manufacturing takes a very long time.
Because shakedown and bug testing take a very long time.
Because the best strategy to avoid somebody picking a fight with their second-best military is to openly possess the best one.
And since we've already done the research, design and have plenty of experience in manufacturing these, along with additional insights from the shakedown and testing of the 187 that we do have, we'll be in very good position to get a very large jump on anyone else. In the meantime, we're not likely to face the sort of conflict where we'd need more than a handful of these planes, so the money would be better spent on practically anything else. Spend it on something that will help our troops who are out there fighting wars that these planes are absolutely useless for. Spend it on anything that does some good rather than on building more of a plane that we really don't need more of and that will just sit around sucking up more money in maintenance. We've got a lot of problems to deal with in the world. Air superiority is not high on that list.
You've got the same problem here that you have in Hollywood though. It's extremely hard to prove anything, and it's easy for them to deny it. How do you find out what actually happened?
People do pay for games right now, even those that they play once and those that won't be available for their multi-Cell watchphone in 15 years
They certainly do. However, asking people to be venture capitalists for a game project requires a little more in return than just asking them to buy a complete, well tested game that other people have played, reviewed, and said they got something out of. Most venture capitalists would be asking for at least a share of the project's rights (including related trademarks, merchandising, etc), AND its profits.
As soon as you start cutting gamers in on the profits (or revenues or whatever measure you like), that's when the Hollywood accounting starts. Not sure how you'd really deal with that effectively.
right now there's probably a sudden rush of books about Michael Jackson, but in ten years those new books will probably be forgotten.
Really? The crappy books will be forgotten soon. But the good and excellent books will be read for hundreds of years. People still read books by Shakespeare, Tolstoy and Dickens, hundreds of years later.
Why bother protecting them for 60+ years beyond that?
Book revenues don't drop to zero after 10 years, they still decent money for decades unless they are highly mediocre to begin with.
And works as great as anything written in the last few decades were written even before we decided to extend copyright practically into perpetuity. I don't see that we've really gained anything, except the ability of a relative few to milk those rare works whose longevity exceeds a handful of years forevermore. Meanwhile, all benefit to the public domain has been essentially eliminated. The public gets the shaft so that a relative few can get very very rich. Why does this not surprise me?
4. The economic/utilitarian protection model used by the US is designed to maximize the profitability of the creator and of society by making it possible to collect large sums of money for largely successful works. The length of copyright is meant to match the period of profitability for the "best" works (but not that tiny pool of eternal works). With the addition of "second generation" profits for the estate during the 1830s, that profit model extended to serve social purposes. It has now reached the limits of that system.
Maybe current law does this, but the copyright clause of the Constitution is not designed to maximize the profitability of the work, it specifically states that it is intended to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. Making it possible to make money from these works is the mechanism, but it was hardly intended to maximize those profits. The intention was to grow the public domain, not to enrich the creators. It was a bargain. One that was long ago abandoned by the industry, which is why the public has no incentive to respect copyright law anymore. It now serves primarily as corporate welfare.
Most people didn't have a phone and thus couldn't
call emergency services. Many had no electricity.
There was no cure for polio. Cancer was an absolute death
sentance. Blacks rode the back of the bus and got lynched.
Women couldn't vote.
In other words, let's not use nostalgia as a tool to advance
reform.
Such a tactic would fit in all too well with the paleoconservative
and populist
movement that's threatening to give "new" direction to the Republican
party. That movement already advocates a laissez-faire attitude towards
certain things, based on the idea that it's "the way things were meant
to be". They conveniently leave out that returning to the hands-off
approach is objectively anti-labor and racist.
Did you even read TFA before posting that? It doesn't attempt to use nostalgia to advance anything. While I agree that using nostalgia as an argument resonates with a lot of people (particularly older voters), I don't see how it applies in this case.
the use of the word draconian is too draconian too. can't you shills come up with a better word?
Ok, how about you offer a better suggestion to describe a law that results in a ~$2 million fine for downloading about 2 CDs worth of music, as well as many other unjust results.
None of your points show anything about people disrespecting copyright. The fact of the matter is that whether copyright was a 42-year copyright (as Macaulay advocated) or 100+ years doesn't make any difference to pirates' actual behavior. In many cases, I see pirates complaining about the existence of Intellectual Property in any form - i.e. they want free filesharing, with a copyright length of 0 minutes.
That's what's known as a backlash. It's what happens when something becomes so onerous that people just want it gone. Those who've actually thought things through completely don't advocate that generally (although there are some who believe an alternate system could work).
The problem is that the media industry lobby (globally, not just the American media lobby) has gotten laws passed to completely cut out any benefit to the public. That goes counter to the intentions of the copyright clause in the US Constitution, even if they believe they still haven't crossed the line technically (forever minus a day is a limit, right?)
Copyright has always been a bargain between the public and the creators. Now that they've managed to swindle the public out of their side, they've lost the respect that a just law usually receives. Exactly as McCauley predicted.
There are plenty of good games out there. Just avoid the big flashy triple-A titles. Not sure what you mean by getting "a Steam version" rather than CD version. Yes, it will require Steam in order to play it, so that I can understand you having a problem with. But for me it's a trade-off.
I've got dozens of games that I've purchased over the years, but I rarely bother to dig them out and reinstall them. Some I've lost the CDKeys for (since they came on some scrap of paper that they stuck in the box or something), and others I just don't want to bother with tracking down all the patches and such, and then having to install a crack anyway just so I don't have to keep the stupid CD in the drive just to play it. Easier to just download a copy with all the patches and cracks ready to go. Steam gives me the convenience of having everything in one place, patched up and ready to go. I don't pay full price for anything either, so it all balances out for me in the end.
However I've seen the prices drop much less often and much slower than they used to. Not sure why this is. Game distributors putting the clamp down on resellers? It seems like $19.95 is the new rock bottom price too, few games seem to drop even further to $9.95 like they used to.
Steam has sales all the time that put games at sub-$20 prices. Not necessarily games that came out this year, or AAA titles, but there are tons of games that get offered at lower prices like that. Just have to keep an eye on their sales.
In other words, they get to charge such high prices because users can sell the game later and recoup some of the loss.
Which completely explains why digitally distributed games are so much cheaper. You can't reseller them, and the publisher doesn't have to pay for packaging, shipping, etc.
No, no wait. Digitally distributed games cost the exact same fucking amount.
Who pays full price for digitally distributed games? Digital distribution services like Steam have sales constantly. The only people who would pay full price are the same people that pay $60 for a game on release day. They just don't care. I know that I can't resell those games, so there's really no way in hell I'm going to pay full price unless I just think the game is fantastic and I want to show my appreciation for it financially. Kind of like tipping the developers really.
They push used games because that's their business. They buy and sell used games. They don't have much interest in selling new games, as they don't make as much from that. There are a hundred other outlets that sell new games, so customers can buy from those if they want to buy it new. I don't see this as abuse. I see it as the market operating as it should. I think Gamestop could use more competition, but I think that's happening mostly online. Publishers could easily get in on it as well, but they tend to prefer to try to get more draconian laws passed to further screw up the market.
I think you're oversimplifying. I would buy more games if they were cheaper. Only the most outstandingly good game would ever get me to pay $60 up front, and frankly a game like that comes along only every couple of years or so. For the rest, I wait until they come down in price to about the $30 range. That said, I do buy games when they do an early sale on them, like they do on Steam pretty much every week.
Another benefit of lower initial prices for games that have a prominent multiplayer component would be that it can help jumpstart the online player base. That's critical if the game is going to have any kind of longevity. If there's not a lot of people on for the first couple months, then the game will die off much quicker. If there is a strong online base, then that can generate a lot more sales over the longer term as well, since people want to play online in games that have a healthy online community.
Slashdot Mirror
Not likely that they'll get jail time unless the leak was intentional or they sold the data. They could easily lose whatever security clearance they have though, and there could be sanctions against their company prohibiting them from bidding on government contracts for some period of time.
Or else are quite young. Pg 429-430 detail mandatory counseling to get the elderly to kill themselves. Other places tell of how the handicapped will be denied treatment, as will people with chronic illnesses. This program is only good as long as you are young and healthy. After that, they come for you. As to nano-diamonds, they are indeed 'easily' creatable synthetically.
I'm not sure if you're lying or just stupid, but I figure I'd better post something here to refute your claim before others jump on the bandwagon to start bashing something based on your ridiculous claims. This is a post that explains why you are wrong. I'm just reposting it here, and I suspect the author (Beau7890) won't mind:
Regarding the most serious fear-mongering allegation you're attempting to spread to the gullible, the lie you repeated in your above comment that says under the public health plan, doctors may write an end of life order against your wishes, I just can't allow that to go unrefuted.
Section 1233 involves making a living will of the kind you already make upon admittance to a hospital for surgery. It specifies the patient's wishes while in the case something should happen that renders the patient unable to communicate.
Here is the full portion of the subsection (from pages 429 and 430) your article misrepresents. I have highlighted the relevant subsection that refutes your lie:
(5)(A) For purposes of this section, the term âorder regarding life sustaining treatmentâ(TM) means, with respect to an individual, an actionable medical order relating to the treatment of that individual thatâ"
(i) is signed and dated by a physician (as defined in subsection (r)(1)) or another health care professional (as specified by the Secretary and who is acting within the scope of the professionalâ(TM)s authority under State law in signing such an order, including a nurse practitioner or physician assistant) and is in a form that permits it to stay with the individual and be followed by health care professionalsand providers across the continuum of care;
(ii) effectively communicates the individualâ(TM)s preferences regarding life sustaining treatment, including an indication of the treatment and care desired by the individual;
(iii) is uniquely identifiable and standardized within a given locality, region, or State (as identified by the Secretary); and
(iv) may incorporate any advance directive (as defined in section 1866(f)(3)) if executed by the individual.
Just to repeat, if anyone missed it:
The law will state that any order regarding life-sustaining treatment is required to communicate the patient's preferences regarding treatment and care desired.
Anyone who believes the kind of shocking false assertions contained in this submission from pc25 and other opponents of affordable healthcare might begin to notice a distinct pattern of lies and misrepresentations that are continually spread by the opponents of the bill, and that are easily debunked by careful reading of the bill.
You could say the same about QR codes, but there's obviously still value in having certain information directly encoded on a package or object. Not everything needs a URL to a website or web service does it? Sometimes you just want the info. The Google Streets example was a pretty good one. They can encode information about a location, and the cameras can read it. That may or may not include a link to a website. Not everything needs one. For relatively big-ticket items where the cost isn't a factor and for uses that aren't directly product-related, this could be a useful solution.
No, this is gonna be for advertising. Imagine you're taking some casual pictures of some friends in a night out in town. You just snap the shots, come home, and whoa - the entire out-of-focus background is laden with Coca~Cola, McDonald's, Ford and whatnot logos and other texts.
Wha? How exactly would that happen unless you're using some ad-driven application sponsored by Coca-Cola McDonald's and Ford that alters your image to highlight their products?
The beauty of it is that they could combine it with existing light-based advertising displays. Every LED in the matrix displays at Times Square could easily have this bokode applied so that even if somebody's taking a picture of a competitor's matrix display making yours out of focus - yours will still stand out.
( I sure -hope- this won't actually be the case, but you know them wiley advertising people. )
I don't think anyone is going to be altering your images in any way. Unless you deliberately use software to read these images and perform certain types of operations based on that information, then you'll still just have a regular old picture.
Replacing barcodes and QR codes with this for everything would be absurd. However, there are many uses where a technology such as this would be a huge benefit. I don't understand the ridiculous overreactions people are having here. If the return isn't worth the cost for certain uses, then obviously it won't be implemented for those uses (at least not for long). In other cases, it will be used and could offer capabilities we haven't even thought of yet. Kind of like the inventors of the personal computer probably didn't foresee us having this discussion on a forum such as this.
but still stupidly expensive next to the near nothingness of a standard barcode.
its lunacy
That depends entirely on the application though. For uses that would require vastly larger amounts of data than a barcode or even QR code can convey, the bokode could be well worth the cost. It just depends on the return you're going to get from it. I think the case for putting them on cereal boxes is probably not a good one, but the example of using them on storefronts and buildings to allow information to be conveyed to services like Google would be a fantastic use for them.
I have the same gfx an o/c 4850, yet I fail at some to reach 60FPS. Obviously you are some kind of super wizard class hacker. :)
There is something very wrong with your system then. WTF game are you talking about that pegs your CPU like that? I've never had that problem, even with my previous Radeon 1950X/C2D e8400 setup.
After running it since late April now, I'm quite pleased with it. I think it can finally be called a good OS for modern hardware. XP is still good as long as you're sticking with 32-bit.
Specs:
Other than that I haven't had any problems, everything else so far has just worked. Quick list off the top of my head of games I've got running:
I've got demos of several other games running too, so basically no problems here. All my hardware was detected when I installed Win7, so aside from updating to newer versions, everything has pretty much worked right out of the box.
We've done the research for now. We have successfully built the aircraft necessary for a modern air-to-air war, should one arise. We have not done the research for the next necessary aircraft--you know, the one to compete with whatever sixth-generation fighter craft the Russians or the Chinese start selling to the highest builder. In addition, manufacturing experience stops being relevant almost embarrassingly quickly. We do not need more F-22s for combat purposes--but to stop building them means to repurpose the lines necessary to manufacture them should we need them in the future. This is never a good idea without a replacement in mind--hell, we haven't stopped building F/A-18s just because the F-35 is nearing rollout, have we?
And the idea that air superiority is somehow unimportant is laughable. If you don't have air superiority, you don't have anything in a conventional war--and while we are not currently in a conventional war, to write off the idea that one may not occur is a joke. Powers that matter--that is to say, not the dirt merchants we're foolishly picking a fight with right now--do not fight from camels, and they are the opposition that we much always keep an eye on.
We're so far ahead of everyone else in the research and dev, as well as actual equipment that it's not going to be an issue for a very long time. I'm not saying we don't need to have air superiority for a conventional war. I'm saying that air superiority is not even remotely a problem for us with the countries that are on our enemies list. We could easily have air superiority over any of them even without the F22s. And if needed, we've got 187 of them as well. The "powers that matter" all have nukes and we're not going to be in a conventional war with them. Russia isn't building anything that could challenge an F22, and probably won't for a very long time. China and India are the only ones that have the resources to do so, but there's no indication that they are building anything that could challenge it either.
It's time to take a realistic look at the world and realize that those "dirt merchants" are the ones that are killing thousands of our troops, and we need to start putting our money towards capabilities that will correct that problem rather than continuing to build hideously expensive weapons systems that will likely never see any real use.
That would be a great plan. If we wouldn't have our air force crushed due to insufficient numbers then have our industry pounded into the ground by an uncontested enemy air force.
But yes, we should aim for the lowest common denominator in defense spending because it is only soldiers lives and the citizenries safety at stake.
If you're concerned for our soldiers, then spend this money on something that will actually help protect them in the kinds of wars we're actually having to fight now, and that we'll likely be fighting more of in the future. You know, the ones where we're losing thousands of soldiers. These planes are not going to help with those. We'll probably never see an F22 over Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, or anywhere else that doesn't have a threat in the air. That accounts for pretty much everywhere we're likely to have a problem with in the foreseeable future. Everyone else has nukes and it's a whole different ballgame.
Because research takes a very long time.
Because design takes a very long time.
Because manufacturing takes a very long time.
Because shakedown and bug testing take a very long time.
Because the best strategy to avoid somebody picking a fight with their second-best military is to openly possess the best one.
And since we've already done the research, design and have plenty of experience in manufacturing these, along with additional insights from the shakedown and testing of the 187 that we do have, we'll be in very good position to get a very large jump on anyone else. In the meantime, we're not likely to face the sort of conflict where we'd need more than a handful of these planes, so the money would be better spent on practically anything else. Spend it on something that will help our troops who are out there fighting wars that these planes are absolutely useless for. Spend it on anything that does some good rather than on building more of a plane that we really don't need more of and that will just sit around sucking up more money in maintenance. We've got a lot of problems to deal with in the world. Air superiority is not high on that list.
You've got the same problem here that you have in Hollywood though. It's extremely hard to prove anything, and it's easy for them to deny it. How do you find out what actually happened?
They certainly do. However, asking people to be venture capitalists for a game project requires a little more in return than just asking them to buy a complete, well tested game that other people have played, reviewed, and said they got something out of. Most venture capitalists would be asking for at least a share of the project's rights (including related trademarks, merchandising, etc), AND its profits.
As soon as you start cutting gamers in on the profits (or revenues or whatever measure you like), that's when the Hollywood accounting starts. Not sure how you'd really deal with that effectively.
Really? The crappy books will be forgotten soon. But the good and excellent books will be read for hundreds of years. People still read books by Shakespeare, Tolstoy and Dickens, hundreds of years later.
Book revenues don't drop to zero after 10 years, they still decent money for decades unless they are highly mediocre to begin with.
And works as great as anything written in the last few decades were written even before we decided to extend copyright practically into perpetuity. I don't see that we've really gained anything, except the ability of a relative few to milk those rare works whose longevity exceeds a handful of years forevermore. Meanwhile, all benefit to the public domain has been essentially eliminated. The public gets the shaft so that a relative few can get very very rich. Why does this not surprise me?
4. The economic/utilitarian protection model used by the US is designed to maximize the profitability of the creator and of society by making it possible to collect large sums of money for largely successful works. The length of copyright is meant to match the period of profitability for the "best" works (but not that tiny pool of eternal works). With the addition of "second generation" profits for the estate during the 1830s, that profit model extended to serve social purposes. It has now reached the limits of that system.
Maybe current law does this, but the copyright clause of the Constitution is not designed to maximize the profitability of the work, it specifically states that it is intended to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. Making it possible to make money from these works is the mechanism, but it was hardly intended to maximize those profits. The intention was to grow the public domain, not to enrich the creators. It was a bargain. One that was long ago abandoned by the industry, which is why the public has no incentive to respect copyright law anymore. It now serves primarily as corporate welfare.
Most people didn't have a phone and thus couldn't call emergency services. Many had no electricity. There was no cure for polio. Cancer was an absolute death sentance. Blacks rode the back of the bus and got lynched. Women couldn't vote.
In other words, let's not use nostalgia as a tool to advance reform.
Such a tactic would fit in all too well with the paleoconservative and populist movement that's threatening to give "new" direction to the Republican party. That movement already advocates a laissez-faire attitude towards certain things, based on the idea that it's "the way things were meant to be". They conveniently leave out that returning to the hands-off approach is objectively anti-labor and racist.
Did you even read TFA before posting that? It doesn't attempt to use nostalgia to advance anything. While I agree that using nostalgia as an argument resonates with a lot of people (particularly older voters), I don't see how it applies in this case.
the use of the word draconian is too draconian too. can't you shills come up with a better word?
Ok, how about you offer a better suggestion to describe a law that results in a ~$2 million fine for downloading about 2 CDs worth of music, as well as many other unjust results.
None of your points show anything about people disrespecting copyright. The fact of the matter is that whether copyright was a 42-year copyright (as Macaulay advocated) or 100+ years doesn't make any difference to pirates' actual behavior. In many cases, I see pirates complaining about the existence of Intellectual Property in any form - i.e. they want free filesharing, with a copyright length of 0 minutes.
That's what's known as a backlash. It's what happens when something becomes so onerous that people just want it gone. Those who've actually thought things through completely don't advocate that generally (although there are some who believe an alternate system could work).
The problem is that the media industry lobby (globally, not just the American media lobby) has gotten laws passed to completely cut out any benefit to the public. That goes counter to the intentions of the copyright clause in the US Constitution, even if they believe they still haven't crossed the line technically (forever minus a day is a limit, right?)
Copyright has always been a bargain between the public and the creators. Now that they've managed to swindle the public out of their side, they've lost the respect that a just law usually receives. Exactly as McCauley predicted.
As long as they are more competent than a collage student it's a plus.
Yeah, I wouldn't want an art major taking my case either...
There are plenty of good games out there. Just avoid the big flashy triple-A titles. Not sure what you mean by getting "a Steam version" rather than CD version. Yes, it will require Steam in order to play it, so that I can understand you having a problem with. But for me it's a trade-off.
I've got dozens of games that I've purchased over the years, but I rarely bother to dig them out and reinstall them. Some I've lost the CDKeys for (since they came on some scrap of paper that they stuck in the box or something), and others I just don't want to bother with tracking down all the patches and such, and then having to install a crack anyway just so I don't have to keep the stupid CD in the drive just to play it. Easier to just download a copy with all the patches and cracks ready to go. Steam gives me the convenience of having everything in one place, patched up and ready to go. I don't pay full price for anything either, so it all balances out for me in the end.
However I've seen the prices drop much less often and much slower than they used to. Not sure why this is. Game distributors putting the clamp down on resellers? It seems like $19.95 is the new rock bottom price too, few games seem to drop even further to $9.95 like they used to.
Steam has sales all the time that put games at sub-$20 prices. Not necessarily games that came out this year, or AAA titles, but there are tons of games that get offered at lower prices like that. Just have to keep an eye on their sales.
In other words, they get to charge such high prices because users can sell the game later and recoup some of the loss.
Which completely explains why digitally distributed games are so much cheaper. You can't reseller them, and the publisher doesn't have to pay for packaging, shipping, etc. No, no wait. Digitally distributed games cost the exact same fucking amount.
Who pays full price for digitally distributed games? Digital distribution services like Steam have sales constantly. The only people who would pay full price are the same people that pay $60 for a game on release day. They just don't care. I know that I can't resell those games, so there's really no way in hell I'm going to pay full price unless I just think the game is fantastic and I want to show my appreciation for it financially. Kind of like tipping the developers really.
They push used games because that's their business. They buy and sell used games. They don't have much interest in selling new games, as they don't make as much from that. There are a hundred other outlets that sell new games, so customers can buy from those if they want to buy it new. I don't see this as abuse. I see it as the market operating as it should. I think Gamestop could use more competition, but I think that's happening mostly online. Publishers could easily get in on it as well, but they tend to prefer to try to get more draconian laws passed to further screw up the market.
I think you're oversimplifying. I would buy more games if they were cheaper. Only the most outstandingly good game would ever get me to pay $60 up front, and frankly a game like that comes along only every couple of years or so. For the rest, I wait until they come down in price to about the $30 range. That said, I do buy games when they do an early sale on them, like they do on Steam pretty much every week.
Another benefit of lower initial prices for games that have a prominent multiplayer component would be that it can help jumpstart the online player base. That's critical if the game is going to have any kind of longevity. If there's not a lot of people on for the first couple months, then the game will die off much quicker. If there is a strong online base, then that can generate a lot more sales over the longer term as well, since people want to play online in games that have a healthy online community.