They said they're considering it. Not that it's coming. The idea could wind up being dismissed altogether, for all you know.
Starcraft 2- 3 Separate boxes to buy
If each of those games is a quality, full-length campaign (and from the info we got from the con, it sounds like that could well be the case), what the hell is the problem with that?
WotLK- Paid character appearance enhancements
...in IN-GAME GOLD. Not real money. Seriously, do you actually pay attention to these Blizzard games, or just hear little bits and pieces, and then get pissed about it?
If you invoke UAC under an unprivileged account (not even power user) then you may get a password...
You mean you do get a password. That's what I was talking about. I can't honestly say I payed attention to how it worked under an admin account, since I was trying to set things up to be "proper" (and then I promptly turned UAC off, after it annoyed me enough). When you do that, you get a password prompt.
UAC and sudo have something in common: they require a password if you have one set on your administrative account, and don't require one if you don't. Bizarre, indeed!
No, because they aren't going to protect our civil liberties either. If they were, however... absolutely yes. Our civil liberties are far more important than some petty disagreement over religion.
Er... perhaps my memory is faulty, but a brute-force attack on that cipher would take longer than our lifetimes (assuming the technology stays stagnant, for simplicity's sake). Pretty sure that's a safe enough bet.
Fair enough. Perpetual copyright is not the answer, and I didn't really see that part. I just figured you were arguing for the abolition of copyright, which is a safe assumption for the vast majority of posts here.
Since art is so easily copied, either artists who's works can be easily copied should work out a better revenue model, say a performance based one or get a real job.
Utterly irrelevant. A common argument by those who wish to abolish copyright, but completely irrelevant. The artist has the right to pursue whatever revenue model he sees fit, free from the interference of others. If his revenue model is poor, then he'll starve, or change it: no one guarantees the right to have a successful business model. We do guarantee the right to pursue a business model unfettered, though.
it bears mention that artists made a living long before copyright existed. The argument that copyright is necessary for a natural right to be implemented is thus bogus.
Making a living is not what I speak of. The artist has the right to attempt his business model free of interference. Many artists choose to attempt to sell copies of their work, and they must be protected from any interference.
it does not follow that this exclusivity period must be eternal.
I never said it must be eternal, merely that it must exist. Where to fix the length is another matter altogether.
the straw-man argument that the public-good view of copyright leads to artists being unable to sell their goods and services (and thus unable to live off of their work) is simply a bogeyman, and false on its face.
Your rebuttal is, itself, a bogeyman. I made no such argument. I merely said that artists must be able to attempt to sell their work in a manner of their choosing, no more. I don't care if artists are able to make a living under all systems equally well, as my views on copyright stem not from the financial motivation, but the right of the artist to pursue business as he sees fit.
Frack the public good, and economic analysis thereof. This is how it breaks down:
Any man has a natural right to attempt to sell his goods/services, without the interference of others.
Since art is so easily copied, the right of an artist to attempt to sell copies of his work, free from interference, must be protected by law.
Since it directly follows from a basic natural right, copyright is a natural right, or at the least, necessary to implement a natural right.
Fair enough, but what I was getting at is that convergent devices tend to cripple their individual functions to cram it all into one package. Unless someone makes a convergent device that is as good at its various functions as a (well-made) dedicated device is, convergence will never succeed.
I would attribute that more to stupidity of buyers than anything else. For not much more money, you can get a regular iPod, which holds a ton more music. The Nano is a rip-off.
but eventually, we'll all have one convergent device.
No, we won't. One simple reason why: no one is going to put an actual hard drive in a phone. An MP3 player without an actual hard drive sucks. Therefore, any phone that tries to be an MP3 player will suck at it.
Hey, I'm just saying what most of us are thinking.
If you think most of Blizzard's fans even care, you really don't have a grasp of the big picture. You are not saying what most of us are thinking in the least.
Slashdot Mirror
+5 for epic BSG reference, but you left out "there are many copies". -1 for that. ;)
You wouldn't call Stanley Kubrick repetitive because all his characters go nuts.
Uh... yeah, actually, you would.
Wait... you liked Nemesis, but not Insurrection? Nemesis was shit! Insurrection was at least decent, Nemesis had no redeeming qualities whatsoever.
in fact it's naive to think that any problem will get fixed
I wholeheartedly agree. Why would they fix it, when they received perfectly good lobbyist money to break it in the first place?
Is it wrong for me to hope that the same thing happens to Obama so that when either of them win...
No, it isn't.
they remember the idiocy that is the DMCA and reform it?
It is naive of you to hope for this part, though. Good luck with that.
Diablo 3- Paid Downloadable Content
They said they're considering it. Not that it's coming. The idea could wind up being dismissed altogether, for all you know.
Starcraft 2- 3 Separate boxes to buy
If each of those games is a quality, full-length campaign (and from the info we got from the con, it sounds like that could well be the case), what the hell is the problem with that?
WotLK- Paid character appearance enhancements
...in IN-GAME GOLD. Not real money. Seriously, do you actually pay attention to these Blizzard games, or just hear little bits and pieces, and then get pissed about it?
Because, if you're building a new PC and want to put Windows on it, there's no reason not to. Especially once you turn off UAC.
If you invoke UAC under an unprivileged account (not even power user) then you may get a password...
You mean you do get a password. That's what I was talking about. I can't honestly say I payed attention to how it worked under an admin account, since I was trying to set things up to be "proper" (and then I promptly turned UAC off, after it annoyed me enough). When you do that, you get a password prompt.
UAC is graphical sudo without a password.
UAC and sudo have something in common: they require a password if you have one set on your administrative account, and don't require one if you don't. Bizarre, indeed!
No, because they aren't going to protect our civil liberties either. If they were, however... absolutely yes. Our civil liberties are far more important than some petty disagreement over religion.
Er... perhaps my memory is faulty, but a brute-force attack on that cipher would take longer than our lifetimes (assuming the technology stays stagnant, for simplicity's sake). Pretty sure that's a safe enough bet.
...and by 21 almost everyone has had a sexual experience.
...
...
...well, shit.
Fair enough. Perpetual copyright is not the answer, and I didn't really see that part. I just figured you were arguing for the abolition of copyright, which is a safe assumption for the vast majority of posts here.
Since art is so easily copied, either artists who's works can be easily copied should work out a better revenue model, say a performance based one or get a real job.
Utterly irrelevant. A common argument by those who wish to abolish copyright, but completely irrelevant. The artist has the right to pursue whatever revenue model he sees fit, free from the interference of others. If his revenue model is poor, then he'll starve, or change it: no one guarantees the right to have a successful business model. We do guarantee the right to pursue a business model unfettered, though.
it bears mention that artists made a living long before copyright existed. The argument that copyright is necessary for a natural right to be implemented is thus bogus.
Making a living is not what I speak of. The artist has the right to attempt his business model free of interference. Many artists choose to attempt to sell copies of their work, and they must be protected from any interference.
it does not follow that this exclusivity period must be eternal.
I never said it must be eternal, merely that it must exist. Where to fix the length is another matter altogether.
the straw-man argument that the public-good view of copyright leads to artists being unable to sell their goods and services (and thus unable to live off of their work) is simply a bogeyman, and false on its face.
Your rebuttal is, itself, a bogeyman. I made no such argument. I merely said that artists must be able to attempt to sell their work in a manner of their choosing, no more. I don't care if artists are able to make a living under all systems equally well, as my views on copyright stem not from the financial motivation, but the right of the artist to pursue business as he sees fit.
Copyright is as much about keeping control of how your work is used for the duration copyright...
Fair enough, but it isn't her work. She has no rights to it.
Frack the public good, and economic analysis thereof. This is how it breaks down:
Any man has a natural right to attempt to sell his goods/services, without the interference of others.
Since art is so easily copied, the right of an artist to attempt to sell copies of his work, free from interference, must be protected by law.
Since it directly follows from a basic natural right, copyright is a natural right, or at the least, necessary to implement a natural right.
You're looking at this through the European perspective -- as if the creator's monopoly on their work is a natural right.
Yeah, of course. That's because it is.
Fair enough, but what I was getting at is that convergent devices tend to cripple their individual functions to cram it all into one package. Unless someone makes a convergent device that is as good at its various functions as a (well-made) dedicated device is, convergence will never succeed.
I would attribute that more to stupidity of buyers than anything else. For not much more money, you can get a regular iPod, which holds a ton more music. The Nano is a rip-off.
but eventually, we'll all have one convergent device.
No, we won't. One simple reason why: no one is going to put an actual hard drive in a phone. An MP3 player without an actual hard drive sucks. Therefore, any phone that tries to be an MP3 player will suck at it.
Hey, I'm just saying what most of us are thinking.
If you think most of Blizzard's fans even care, you really don't have a grasp of the big picture. You are not saying what most of us are thinking in the least.
The Horde aren't evil, but the undead and blood elves are.
And the fact that you call WoW story based...
There's plenty of story in WoW if you actually pay attention, you know.
Fuckin'. Awesome.
I knew a low-level understanding of computing must be useful for something! ;)