If you read the third paragraph, one could easily come away thinking that George Bush was a dictator.
Dictators are not alien to democracies, nor must they necessarily refuse to leave office. Many elected presidents in many countries around the world have assumed dictatorial powers at various times, for both good and ill.
I think there should be sanctions for this kind of behavior. If anything can be traced back to one party (and there should be an honest effort to do so, after all the fate of the country is decided by the vote) that party should receive a deduction from the vote total as they have already proven they're not trustworthy.
That might be fair to the political parties, but in addition to being an egregious overstep of constitutional authority, the federal government changing citizen's votes would violate the most basic principles of democracy.
Pretty soon these people who fear discourse are going to be in power, and we want hear anything but their truth.
As opposed to the people who fear discourse who've run the country the last 8 years, or the other camp running in this election, who also fear discourse.
If running an underhanded campaign amounts to tyranny, than elections are simply your chance to pick your tyrant.
Implying that your side is immune is the height of not only partisanship, but naivete.
if you were talking about Australia or Canada, where they have large sparsely populated wilderness and rural communities then that might be a fair excuse. (Canada actually has cheaper broadband than the U.S. in spite of this.)
95% of the population of Canada lives within 200 miles of the US border.
If you factor the entire landmass of Canada, yes, it's very sparsely populated, but there's not a lot of need for telecom infrastructure over most of it.
Did anyone *REALLY* think that the Apple store would all the sale of software that would cut into sales *AT* the Apple store?
Fools.
Apple controls the iPhone.
They do whatever they want.
As has been mentioned, we're referring to competing with software that Apple gives away, as in gratis. There is no competition for any revenue stream of Apple's.
I would, agree if the DLC is question hadn't already been written and added to the original disc for the initial release, then made available for an extra sum later. Quite often with DLC on the 360 you download a 300k "key" which unlocks content that was shipped with the original game, and held in abeyance until the consumer ponies up more cash. I'm not saying this is the case with Forza 2; I really don't know. But the trend to post-charge for content shipped with the game is infuriating.
That particular model, I agree, is heinous and unconscionable, however I haven't found that to be that case in any console game I've purchased, nor would I knowingly purchase a game where that were the case.
Every game for which I've purchased dlc has had content packs that required tens to hundreds of megabytes of download space. Far more than any "unlock key" would require. While I'm sure that something like you're describing happens, it's hardly the norm.
You'd have a hard time persuading me that the extra maps in Rainbow Six Vegas 2 were already on my disc when they came out months after the game was released, were never offered as a purchase for money and required me to spend 20 minutes downloading.
Or maybe keep the constitution and move the importance of the office of President to the majority of Americans as relatively little to do with their day to day lives.
What part of that sentence makes any sense at all?
Whomever modded this "redundant" needs a lesson in semantics.
Is the poster wrong? Yes.
Is the poster an idiot? Probably.
The simple fact is, there is no "terrible analogy" mod, so don't pretend there is.
Since the poster at least had the grace and integrity to post under their username, there's no reason to think is a blatant troll, and if it were, there's a "troll" modifier for that.
... it is reasonable to suggest that it is less likely to be used to support a drug empire.
I think a reasonable person could make an intelligent case that selling pirated DVDs is the less ethical of the two crimes.
After all, millions of dollars were invested and hundreds of people worked long hours, potentially far from their homes, to earn a paycheck by making that movie, and buying or downloading that pirated DVD devalues their efforts and potentially removes a source of future income for them. (I mean future movies in the works, not royalties).
Whereas having a drug empire means doing the work of producing and supplying a product that people buy willingly, that is directly harmful only to themselves.
Also, I would think that the DRUGS would provide the income for the drug empire. You don't need to sell bogus DVDs to make a profit on cocaine.
I forsaw this years ago when I first heard about DLC. This is an unethical attempt to rob their customers by nickel and diming them for content that is already on their disc but cannot be used due to this shit.
I disagree. Downloadable content is a great idea, assuming a full game is shipped in the first place.
For example, take Forza Motorsport 2. It would be hard to argue that they sold an incomplete game. It has a dozen or more distinct tracks, each with several variations, as well as hundreds of cars.
Every few months they release a new car pack with 10-12 new cars for ~$5. I'm happy to pay for them, because I get new content that revitalizes an already awesome game.
It would be another story if they sold a $60 game with 10 cars and made you pay for the rest, but to suggest that game publishers and developers can't charge money for new content is ridiculous.
I know. If you can point out where I claimed otherwise, I'll gladly apologize for my error.
In fact, the trend has been for states to move to a "Castle law" system, in which it is acceptable to use force (deadly or otherwise) to defend your person or property.
That is the trend, yes. That trend doesn't extend to Wisconsin or several other states. This will shock you, but many laws can vary quite considerably from state to state.
As far as it being illegal to "carry a deadly weapon", please name for me one place in which it is illegal to use a baseball bat or a machete (not to mention a shotgun or other firearm, which are all legal to keep and potentially use in ones home or business in most states in the US) to defend ones person.
All of those things, with the exception of the baseball bat and in most circumstances (and even that would illegal if brandished as a weapon) are illegal to *carry* in Wisconsin. Maybe they use the word differently in Kentucky, but in this context I've never heard to word to mean anything other having on your person in public. None of those things are illegal to have in your home in any state that I know of.
However international law, as was demonstrated by history, regards genocide as a crime against humanity so it's safe to say that yes, Hitler did murder the Jews.
If you are in a jurisdiction where it isn't legal to defend yourself
If you are in that jurisdiction then human rights don't exist anyway...
That's not true. I live in the United States. In my state you may only respond to an attack with a proportional degree of force, you have a duty to retreat before attempting to defend yourself and it's illegal to carry a deadly weapon.
I'm going to go ahead and call bullshit on that one.
I've got the original game and both expansions, and I can install them from the disc and play them without entering any CD key or even being connected to the internet. There is no DRM whatsoever on the game.
However, since I own legitimate copies of them and have registered them with Stardock, I don't even need my discs. I can simply connect to Stardock Central, or Impulse as they call it now and install them on any computer I want. If I were so inclined I could then uninstall impulse and continue to play game forever without it ever hijacking my system, asking for a CD, phoning home or doing anything against my will.
I'll believe you if say it crashes on your system, and I'm sorry to hear that, but you don't need the downloader to install the game or play the game. I've done both without having stardock central installed and game runs perfectly.
Slashdot Mirror
If you read the third paragraph, one could easily come away thinking that George Bush was a dictator.
Dictators are not alien to democracies, nor must they necessarily refuse to leave office. Many elected presidents in many countries around the world have assumed dictatorial powers at various times, for both good and ill.
I think there should be sanctions for this kind of behavior. If anything can be traced back to one party (and there should be an honest effort to do so, after all the fate of the country is decided by the vote) that party should receive a deduction from the vote total as they have already proven they're not trustworthy.
That might be fair to the political parties, but in addition to being an egregious overstep of constitutional authority, the federal government changing citizen's votes would violate the most basic principles of democracy.
Pretty soon these people who fear discourse are going to be in power, and we want hear anything but their truth.
As opposed to the people who fear discourse who've run the country the last 8 years, or the other camp running in this election, who also fear discourse.
If running an underhanded campaign amounts to tyranny, than elections are simply your chance to pick your tyrant.
Implying that your side is immune is the height of not only partisanship, but naivete.
if you were talking about Australia or Canada, where they have large sparsely populated wilderness and rural communities then that might be a fair excuse. (Canada actually has cheaper broadband than the U.S. in spite of this.)
95% of the population of Canada lives within 200 miles of the US border.
If you factor the entire landmass of Canada, yes, it's very sparsely populated, but there's not a lot of need for telecom infrastructure over most of it.
Yes, it's just like that.
I was explaining the situation, not justifying Apple's position.
Did anyone *REALLY* think that the Apple store would all the sale of software that would cut into sales *AT* the Apple store?
Fools.
Apple controls the iPhone. They do whatever they want.
As has been mentioned, we're referring to competing with software that Apple gives away, as in gratis. There is no competition for any revenue stream of Apple's.
CO2 isn't added to beer as in ingredient, it's released by the yeast as byproduct of the fermentation process.
I would, agree if the DLC is question hadn't already been written and added to the original disc for the initial release, then made available for an extra sum later. Quite often with DLC on the 360 you download a 300k "key" which unlocks content that was shipped with the original game, and held in abeyance until the consumer ponies up more cash. I'm not saying this is the case with Forza 2; I really don't know. But the trend to post-charge for content shipped with the game is infuriating.
That particular model, I agree, is heinous and unconscionable, however I haven't found that to be that case in any console game I've purchased, nor would I knowingly purchase a game where that were the case.
Every game for which I've purchased dlc has had content packs that required tens to hundreds of megabytes of download space. Far more than any "unlock key" would require. While I'm sure that something like you're describing happens, it's hardly the norm.
You'd have a hard time persuading me that the extra maps in Rainbow Six Vegas 2 were already on my disc when they came out months after the game was released, were never offered as a purchase for money and required me to spend 20 minutes downloading.
I naively hope that the rule of law wins out in this case. I have no expectation of that, but I hope.
Nowhere does the US constitution establish and intelligence requirement for voting.
What? Were you speaking English there?
Or maybe keep the constitution and move the importance of the office of President to the majority of Americans as relatively little to do with their day to day lives.
What part of that sentence makes any sense at all?
Redundant?!
Whomever modded this "redundant" needs a lesson in semantics.
Is the poster wrong? Yes.
Is the poster an idiot? Probably.
The simple fact is, there is no "terrible analogy" mod, so don't pretend there is.
Since the poster at least had the grace and integrity to post under their username, there's no reason to think is a blatant troll, and if it were, there's a "troll" modifier for that.
Let's learn some restraint, people.
Well, I know I'll be buying a copy of Windows Churro at full price!
... it is reasonable to suggest that it is less likely to be used to support a drug empire.
I think a reasonable person could make an intelligent case that selling pirated DVDs is the less ethical of the two crimes.
After all, millions of dollars were invested and hundreds of people worked long hours, potentially far from their homes, to earn a paycheck by making that movie, and buying or downloading that pirated DVD devalues their efforts and potentially removes a source of future income for them. (I mean future movies in the works, not royalties).
Whereas having a drug empire means doing the work of producing and supplying a product that people buy willingly, that is directly harmful only to themselves.
Also, I would think that the DRUGS would provide the income for the drug empire. You don't need to sell bogus DVDs to make a profit on cocaine.
I forsaw this years ago when I first heard about DLC. This is an unethical attempt to rob their customers by nickel and diming them for content that is already on their disc but cannot be used due to this shit.
I disagree. Downloadable content is a great idea, assuming a full game is shipped in the first place.
For example, take Forza Motorsport 2. It would be hard to argue that they sold an incomplete game. It has a dozen or more distinct tracks, each with several variations, as well as hundreds of cars.
Every few months they release a new car pack with 10-12 new cars for ~$5. I'm happy to pay for them, because I get new content that revitalizes an already awesome game.
It would be another story if they sold a $60 game with 10 cars and made you pay for the rest, but to suggest that game publishers and developers can't charge money for new content is ridiculous.
I love how they invented a totally new word that really means screw the consumer.
They didn't invent the word, actually, but you're pretty close on the definition.
No, that's Xodo.
Xemu's not really that impressive. He takes his name from the vast collection NES ROMs on his hard drive.
You can lower the bonus points for "funny" posts in your preferences.
Um, what state do YOU live in?
Wisconsin.
Not every state has a "Retreat and defend" law..
I know. If you can point out where I claimed otherwise, I'll gladly apologize for my error.
In fact, the trend has been for states to move to a "Castle law" system, in which it is acceptable to use force (deadly or otherwise) to defend your person or property.
That is the trend, yes. That trend doesn't extend to Wisconsin or several other states. This will shock you, but many laws can vary quite considerably from state to state.
As far as it being illegal to "carry a deadly weapon", please name for me one place in which it is illegal to use a baseball bat or a machete (not to mention a shotgun or other firearm, which are all legal to keep and potentially use in ones home or business in most states in the US) to defend ones person.
All of those things, with the exception of the baseball bat and in most circumstances (and even that would illegal if brandished as a weapon) are illegal to *carry* in Wisconsin. Maybe they use the word differently in Kentucky, but in this context I've never heard to word to mean anything other having on your person in public. None of those things are illegal to have in your home in any state that I know of.
Not by German law under National Socialism, no.
However international law, as was demonstrated by history, regards genocide as a crime against humanity so it's safe to say that yes, Hitler did murder the Jews.
If you are in a jurisdiction where it isn't legal to defend yourself
If you are in that jurisdiction then human rights don't exist anyway...
That's not true. I live in the United States. In my state you may only respond to an attack with a proportional degree of force, you have a duty to retreat before attempting to defend yourself and it's illegal to carry a deadly weapon.
We still have a basic semblance of human rights.
Incorrect. Homicide and murder are not synonyms. That was my point.
Premeditated murder, manslaughter by negligence, and Murder in the name of self defense can warrant totally different outcomes.
Murder is the illegal killing of another human being.
If it's legal for you to defend yourself with deadly force then it is, by definition, not murder.
If you are in a jurisdiction where it isn't legal to defend yourself then the fact that you were defending yourself is irrelevant.
That's odd. I've never had to do that and I've installed the game on at least 3 different computers since I originally purchased it.
I'm going to go ahead and call bullshit on that one.
I've got the original game and both expansions, and I can install them from the disc and play them without entering any CD key or even being connected to the internet. There is no DRM whatsoever on the game.
However, since I own legitimate copies of them and have registered them with Stardock, I don't even need my discs. I can simply connect to Stardock Central, or Impulse as they call it now and install them on any computer I want. If I were so inclined I could then uninstall impulse and continue to play game forever without it ever hijacking my system, asking for a CD, phoning home or doing anything against my will.
I'll believe you if say it crashes on your system, and I'm sorry to hear that, but you don't need the downloader to install the game or play the game. I've done both without having stardock central installed and game runs perfectly.