They were allowed to borrow the family car on weekends. Then one night Dad saw them drag racing and trenching yards in the family car. Now they are not allowed to borrow the family car.
This is just them whining that they can't go to work now (if they had a job, that is) or the library to study (The 4 Ds on the report card suggest that wasn't likely to happen anyway).
Perhaps one day, when they are behaving responsibly and have built up trust again, they might occasionally be allowed to borrow the car again, but they will be checked up on and it won't be this year.
Of course, I'm betting that if something fakes a screen locker in Windows, the user will obediently enter their user/pass to unlock it anyway. They won't press ctrl-alt-del unless instructed to by the lock screen.
Really, the law hasn't caught up to this sort of thing. It's not really illegal, nor is it particularly legal. Part of the problem is that it would cost a lot to hash it out and there's just not enough money involved unless it becomes a class action. But as a general principle, if someone pays you for something, you're not allowed to take it back unilaterally.
I have been speaking more of the moral/ethical position of it (which is all we have given the ambiguity of the law).
Meanwhile, I have never seen a EULA that actually had anything to say about this situation . I doubt it could be claimed that this was clearly pointed out to the people who bought the game at any time, before or after the sale.
Case in point, the paper that convinced everyone austerity was the answer was found to have a math error that flipped the results. Everyone knows it but austerity marches on because the top economists say what their masters want them to say.
That's why I say the sale price approaches the cost of production. It does not start right at it and stay there forever more.
As for copyright laws and mini-monopolies, those are factors that damage the health of the market.
In another message, I looked at Far Cry 3 and assuming recovery of development price over the 10 million sold and a development cost of 60 million, that would come out to $6 ea. Note that it was never $6 each or even close (even a used copy runs twice that now after they have already paid off all development costs). Because they don't know they will sell 10 million, I would expect a higher price at first and for the market to support that based on novelty. However, after that honeymoon period, a healthy market would exert considerable downward pressure on the price.
Simply, we don't have efficient healthy markets in the U.S.
They are so empowered in the same sense that I am empowered to take my neighbor's stereo. That is, I could do it if I had no ethics and the police probably wouldn't even send someone to look in to it.
We may have to disagree on that one. It tends to be the conspicuous consumers that get hit first. The 30% isn't usually comfortable enough to consume too conspicuously.
I'm not saying that anyone would have a walk in the park during an uprising (not even those with the picthforks). But note that I was primarily calling out yet another temporarily embarrassed millionaire in his own mind.
Over time, naturally. You do know how converging works, yes?
Consider Far Cry 3. Shipped 10 million copies, so that's $6 each for the development costs + $0.03 for the digital copy. That suggests the price to converge on is $6.03. Do you believe that has happened?
Yes, but the news only reports on it if it is sports related. No Wall Street gate for example, even though the cheating is bigger, more blatant, more clearly deliberate, and does far more harm to the public.
There's also the brain dead employers that are just sure their dollar store will be swamped with customers because they have a sale of pool floaties scheduled and so all employees are to report on time or be fired. Naturally, they don't report themselves, they plan to phone it in.
A ban protects all of those people from artificially adverse consequences of behaving reasonably.
I never said it's a great thing for the peasants when it gets to that point. I said that when things get to that point, for better opr worse, the pitchforks come out.
But note that the Wikipedia list isn't the whole story. Sometimes the revolt isn't so much defeated as it is placated after it gets going. Sometimes, the well off align with the poor against the wealthy (for example, the American Revolution)
If you are in the same boat as most others here, you mis-understand your place. Do you need an income to keep going or could you just up and quit tomorrow without worry?
I see you fell for the propaganda. You accepted a bogus definition of "Middle Class". If you need a paycheck to pay your bills, you are working class.
While many here are in a working class job that pays well, it is still working class.
There is nothing wrong with working class, but why would you align your politics to support those who could just stop doing anything right now and still never worry about income at the expense of yourself and your peers?
Entirely irrelevant. A healthy market will nevertheless push the sale cost towards the marginal cost of production. It will never reach it, but it will definitely approach it.
Slashdot Mirror
They were allowed to borrow the family car on weekends. Then one night Dad saw them drag racing and trenching yards in the family car. Now they are not allowed to borrow the family car.
This is just them whining that they can't go to work now (if they had a job, that is) or the library to study (The 4 Ds on the report card suggest that wasn't likely to happen anyway).
Perhaps one day, when they are behaving responsibly and have built up trust again, they might occasionally be allowed to borrow the car again, but they will be checked up on and it won't be this year.
And as a direct result, Adams lost the next election and 2 of the 4 (the most egregious ones) were expired the very next year.
Of course, I'm betting that if something fakes a screen locker in Windows, the user will obediently enter their user/pass to unlock it anyway. They won't press ctrl-alt-del unless instructed to by the lock screen.
True, but the giant disk is just disk. A hit here or there won't degrade it much. The expensive precision part is much smaller.
Hang out at the club with Bill Gates do you? Is it true Barack tends to slice?
Retirement isn't quite the same as being born to it, though honestly, many people can't retire either.
Really, the law hasn't caught up to this sort of thing. It's not really illegal, nor is it particularly legal. Part of the problem is that it would cost a lot to hash it out and there's just not enough money involved unless it becomes a class action. But as a general principle, if someone pays you for something, you're not allowed to take it back unilaterally.
I have been speaking more of the moral/ethical position of it (which is all we have given the ambiguity of the law).
Meanwhile, I have never seen a EULA that actually had anything to say about this situation . I doubt it could be claimed that this was clearly pointed out to the people who bought the game at any time, before or after the sale.
Case in point, the paper that convinced everyone austerity was the answer was found to have a math error that flipped the results. Everyone knows it but austerity marches on because the top economists say what their masters want them to say.
That's why I say the sale price approaches the cost of production. It does not start right at it and stay there forever more.
As for copyright laws and mini-monopolies, those are factors that damage the health of the market.
In another message, I looked at Far Cry 3 and assuming recovery of development price over the 10 million sold and a development cost of 60 million, that would come out to $6 ea. Note that it was never $6 each or even close (even a used copy runs twice that now after they have already paid off all development costs). Because they don't know they will sell 10 million, I would expect a higher price at first and for the market to support that based on novelty. However, after that honeymoon period, a healthy market would exert considerable downward pressure on the price.
Simply, we don't have efficient healthy markets in the U.S.
Which is why I'm not offering you one :-)
They are so empowered in the same sense that I am empowered to take my neighbor's stereo. That is, I could do it if I had no ethics and the police probably wouldn't even send someone to look in to it.
I take it you have no counter argument so you have resorted to a childish ad-hominem?
That's an entirely in-apt analogy unless you believe Ubisoft is a government agency empowered to confiscate goods imported w/o paying an import duty.
We may have to disagree on that one. It tends to be the conspicuous consumers that get hit first. The 30% isn't usually comfortable enough to consume too conspicuously.
I'm not saying that anyone would have a walk in the park during an uprising (not even those with the picthforks). But note that I was primarily calling out yet another temporarily embarrassed millionaire in his own mind.
Over time, naturally. You do know how converging works, yes?
Consider Far Cry 3. Shipped 10 million copies, so that's $6 each for the development costs + $0.03 for the digital copy. That suggests the price to converge on is $6.03. Do you believe that has happened?
I'm fairly certain the NSA abuses couldn't have escaped his notice. The DEA is out of the bag now, let's see what happens...
Yes, but the news only reports on it if it is sports related. No Wall Street gate for example, even though the cheating is bigger, more blatant, more clearly deliberate, and does far more harm to the public.
Because there are much more profitable patented drugs now.
They have already been well paid to maintain those lines in the form of tax breaks, and grants of big wads of cash and monopoly.
Also, he ripped off people richer than himself. Had he stuck to raiding retirement funds, he would still be a free man.
There's also the brain dead employers that are just sure their dollar store will be swamped with customers because they have a sale of pool floaties scheduled and so all employees are to report on time or be fired. Naturally, they don't report themselves, they plan to phone it in.
A ban protects all of those people from artificially adverse consequences of behaving reasonably.
I never said it's a great thing for the peasants when it gets to that point. I said that when things get to that point, for better opr worse, the pitchforks come out.
But note that the Wikipedia list isn't the whole story. Sometimes the revolt isn't so much defeated as it is placated after it gets going. Sometimes, the well off align with the poor against the wealthy (for example, the American Revolution)
If you have 77K you are not all that likely to pick up the rest to be a millionaire. Sorry, it's just not all that likely.
If you are in the same boat as most others here, you mis-understand your place. Do you need an income to keep going or could you just up and quit tomorrow without worry?
I see you fell for the propaganda. You accepted a bogus definition of "Middle Class". If you need a paycheck to pay your bills, you are working class.
While many here are in a working class job that pays well, it is still working class.
There is nothing wrong with working class, but why would you align your politics to support those who could just stop doing anything right now and still never worry about income at the expense of yourself and your peers?
Entirely irrelevant. A healthy market will nevertheless push the sale cost towards the marginal cost of production. It will never reach it, but it will definitely approach it.