Yeah, but the almost-universal experience of Win2k and WinXP users does. Sorry, but Windows just doesn't throw up BSODs all the time any more. Sometimes? Yes. Frequently? Hell no.
Er... how is that proof of the parent's point in the least? Playing a game you already own is perfectly legit. And who cares if you can still buy Loom? He already owns a copy, why should he go out and buy it again?
(How it got that high a score I'll never know, but since almost all the Sqeenix games on the list got good scores it's fairly safe to say that the reviewers are biased in favor of Squeenix.)
Or the simply think S-E makes good games. Shocking thought, I know.
but there is a HUGE difference between the two parties.
No. They're both a pack of greedy, self-serving, power-hungry assholes. There are exceptions in both parties, of course, but if you think that either party is so much better than the other you are seriously deluding yourself.
For example, it can't tell you why you should be alive. There's no logical reason to life or to die.
Not so. I can quite rationally justify why I should continue living. Given: I enjoy life a great deal, on average. If I die, what awaits me is either oblivion (at best), or eternal torment (since I'm not religious, I doubt I'll be making it into any god's paradise). Thus, to live is a better option than to die. Rational thinking handles a lot more situations than people give it credit for.
Since when is downloading illegal? According to you, I should be a criminal for *gasp* DOWNLOADING the latest Kubuntu iso.
You should have known exactly what he meant. It was perfectly clear, but you chose to ignore it. I'll spell it out for you, though: downloading copyrighted material without the permission of the copyright holder is illegal. Obviously downloading in and of itself is not illegal.
Did we hold a shotgun to EMI/Sony/... and steal their works?
Did we hold a shotgun to the artists and steal their efforts?
Yeah, actually, you did. The fact that the RIAA's legal tactics are morally reprehensible does not justify infringing their copyright. Both sides are equally wrong here.
Well, actually, yeah, everyone should utilize their reason rather than their emotions. Have you ever noticed just how damn many bad decisions get made when people get emotional, and stop thinking?
It's not hard to get worked up over stuff like that.
Maybe, but getting personally attached to events that didn't personally affect you is retarded. Not that you can't disapprove, just don't be stupid enough to get emotionally involved in things that aren't really affecting you.
Broken, by definition, means not working like it's supposed to. If the site's authors don't intend to support $browser, then it is not broken if the site doesn't support $browser.
Is too easy to create many "citations" and put then on article to say "Hey, this is true because have citations!", I can say "my citation is from is the holy bible!":)
All that shows is that citations alone do not constitute proof. It says nothing about whether citations are required. And they are, I might add: if nothing else, you should be citing your own work, and explaining how you got your results. Just announcing the results without any justification, expecting the reader to figure out the proof on their own, is madness.
If it still does not work because your college's website uses some ActiveX or otherwise proprietary-nonstandard crap, rephrase your original comment as "my college's website is broken".
Using tools you find despicable is not broken. Learn the difference.
I haven't seen slashdot.org load as "Slashdot: social networking site reviews for nerds", which is what this article would be better classified as.
That's bull. This has exactly zero to do with Facebook, if you pay attention. This is about a cool game getting shut down by an overzealous trademark holder... in other words, exactly sort of thing/. likes to discuss.
Software is destined to fall to zero cost eventually, simply because it can.
Pure bull. Software is never going to hit 0 cost, because you will never find competent programmers making all software out of the kindness of their hearts. Some software may hit 0 cost. Not all.
Trying to find out what next big operation terrorists are planning against us ought to be everybody's interest, and perhaps it would be if most Democrat weren't afflicted with Bush Derangement Syndrome.
Or, y'know, those of us who believe in due process. We don't throw our principles out when dealing with our enemies... otherwise they mean nothing.
...Halo, etc. These newer games through out puzzles and storyline...
Are you serious? Have you played that many modern games? They absolutely do not throw out storyline. Many games today have great stories, including Halo, one of the examples you cited. And as for puzzles, there are plenty of puzzle games people enjoy. What about Portal? What about the Zelda games, which are 75% puzzle-solving?
I ran a D&D campaign recently with a younger crowd. I created it myself, and naturally incorporated a plethora of puzzles, riddles, and number games in it. But whenever the players got to these things, they'd often resort to just trying to fight their way through whatever mechanical obstacle stopped them.
I'm guessing (no offense to your DMing skills intended, as I wasn't there), that they found your puzzles boring. I've been in several D&D campaigns, and have yet to run across one puzzle or riddle that was at all fun, much less more fun than just chopping monsters to bits. And that's not because I don't like puzzles, it's because my DMs didn't come up with good puzzles.
Yes, let's get into arguments about what free is. Cause it's not like one could successfully argue (depending on one's precise definition of free) that GPL, BSD, $0, any of that, is/is not free. Come on, man, get off your high horse.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but the almost-universal experience of Win2k and WinXP users does. Sorry, but Windows just doesn't throw up BSODs all the time any more. Sometimes? Yes. Frequently? Hell no.
No, she's an anime character!
Er... how is that proof of the parent's point in the least? Playing a game you already own is perfectly legit. And who cares if you can still buy Loom? He already owns a copy, why should he go out and buy it again?
(How it got that high a score I'll never know, but since almost all the Sqeenix games on the list got good scores it's fairly safe to say that the reviewers are biased in favor of Squeenix.)
Or the simply think S-E makes good games. Shocking thought, I know.
Right, cause anyone who claims to dislike the feature is simply trolling. No one could actually, honestly dislike it!
Fanboy much?
but there is a HUGE difference between the two parties.
No. They're both a pack of greedy, self-serving, power-hungry assholes. There are exceptions in both parties, of course, but if you think that either party is so much better than the other you are seriously deluding yourself.
For example, it can't tell you why you should be alive. There's no logical reason to life or to die.
Not so. I can quite rationally justify why I should continue living. Given: I enjoy life a great deal, on average. If I die, what awaits me is either oblivion (at best), or eternal torment (since I'm not religious, I doubt I'll be making it into any god's paradise). Thus, to live is a better option than to die. Rational thinking handles a lot more situations than people give it credit for.
Since when is downloading illegal? According to you, I should be a criminal for *gasp* DOWNLOADING the latest Kubuntu iso.
You should have known exactly what he meant. It was perfectly clear, but you chose to ignore it. I'll spell it out for you, though: downloading copyrighted material without the permission of the copyright holder is illegal. Obviously downloading in and of itself is not illegal.
Who's the stupid git now?
Did we hold a shotgun to EMI/Sony/... and steal their works?
Did we hold a shotgun to the artists and steal their efforts?
Yeah, actually, you did. The fact that the RIAA's legal tactics are morally reprehensible does not justify infringing their copyright. Both sides are equally wrong here.
Well, actually, yeah, everyone should utilize their reason rather than their emotions. Have you ever noticed just how damn many bad decisions get made when people get emotional, and stop thinking?
So learn to react with logic instead of emotion. Everyone does it to some extent or other, so it isn't like it's impossible.
It's not hard to get worked up over stuff like that.
Maybe, but getting personally attached to events that didn't personally affect you is retarded. Not that you can't disapprove, just don't be stupid enough to get emotionally involved in things that aren't really affecting you.
If a website doesn't support 10-20% of potential visitors, it's broken.
Apparently you don't believe in using the proper meaning for words. I just explained how such a case can not be broken.
If the designers did it on purpose, then their brains are broken.
Quite possibly, but that doesn't make the site broken.
I make fun of both of them. Oh shit, what now!?
I'm in Wisconsin, and everyone where I live calls it soda. Not sure if Wisconsin is just an outlier, though.
Broken, by definition, means not working like it's supposed to. If the site's authors don't intend to support $browser, then it is not broken if the site doesn't support $browser.
Is too easy to create many "citations" and put then on article to say "Hey, this is true because have citations!", I can say "my citation is from is the holy bible!" :)
All that shows is that citations alone do not constitute proof. It says nothing about whether citations are required. And they are, I might add: if nothing else, you should be citing your own work, and explaining how you got your results. Just announcing the results without any justification, expecting the reader to figure out the proof on their own, is madness.
pop can can.
You have betrayed yourself as not really living in the midwest, sir. If you did, you'd say "soda". ;)
If it still does not work because your college's website uses some ActiveX or otherwise proprietary-nonstandard crap, rephrase your original comment as "my college's website is broken".
Using tools you find despicable is not broken. Learn the difference.
I haven't seen slashdot.org load as "Slashdot: social networking site reviews for nerds", which is what this article would be better classified as.
That's bull. This has exactly zero to do with Facebook, if you pay attention. This is about a cool game getting shut down by an overzealous trademark holder... in other words, exactly sort of thing /. likes to discuss.
Software is destined to fall to zero cost eventually, simply because it can.
Pure bull. Software is never going to hit 0 cost, because you will never find competent programmers making all software out of the kindness of their hearts. Some software may hit 0 cost. Not all.
Trying to find out what next big operation terrorists are planning against us ought to be everybody's interest, and perhaps it would be if most Democrat weren't afflicted with Bush Derangement Syndrome.
Or, y'know, those of us who believe in due process. We don't throw our principles out when dealing with our enemies... otherwise they mean nothing.
In general going against the Immunity is saying I hate big companies because they have more money then I do.
Bullshit. It's saying that you support upholding of the law. No one gets to break the law just because someone says it's ok.
Having them fined or jailed will do nothing positive.
No more or less positive than punishing anyone else who breaks the law. They broke the law, so let them be punished.
...Halo, etc. These newer games through out puzzles and storyline...
Are you serious? Have you played that many modern games? They absolutely do not throw out storyline. Many games today have great stories, including Halo, one of the examples you cited. And as for puzzles, there are plenty of puzzle games people enjoy. What about Portal? What about the Zelda games, which are 75% puzzle-solving?
I ran a D&D campaign recently with a younger crowd. I created it myself, and naturally incorporated a plethora of puzzles, riddles, and number games in it. But whenever the players got to these things, they'd often resort to just trying to fight their way through whatever mechanical obstacle stopped them.
I'm guessing (no offense to your DMing skills intended, as I wasn't there), that they found your puzzles boring. I've been in several D&D campaigns, and have yet to run across one puzzle or riddle that was at all fun, much less more fun than just chopping monsters to bits. And that's not because I don't like puzzles, it's because my DMs didn't come up with good puzzles.
Yes, let's get into arguments about what free is. Cause it's not like one could successfully argue (depending on one's precise definition of free) that GPL, BSD, $0, any of that, is/is not free. Come on, man, get off your high horse.