Clever, but it just means that they've lost a segment of the market; the segment that plays a game in pirated form before buying it. Good luck winning that audience back at the expense of trying to make people who will NEVER pay feel bad.
Normally I'd agree, but for an $8 game it's more a clever joke that makes me curious about the studio and its other offerings.
So certainly they will want to try it before they buy it. But if they like it and their friends like it, they will likely buy it if they can afford it.
Just like how only people who truly need it will take welfare. It has nothing to do with the fact that many people feel that they deserve to get "free" stuff just for being born.
Spoken like a person who has never known the shame of needing a little help just to make ends meet. I don't know if that really describes you, but if you believe most people getting living or food assistance are just entitled moochers, you are mistaken.
I tend to think of it as a Slashdot community filled with raging Gods
I guess you still qualify as new here. If you pay more attention you'll see that's nonsense.
We can communicate instantly to any point in the world. We can see what happens in New York, Beijing, and Sydney in real time. We can fly, traveling faster than sound itself. We create and manipulate life on a chromosomal level. We discern the rotation, size and composition of planets in distant galaxies. We can obliterate this planet on a whim.
We are the gods of our ancestors; petty, jealous gods with power rivaled only by each other. All that we lack is the faith of our ancestors, faith in their gods, faith in ourselves and one another. Faith is a tool all atheists should embrace, because without it, we are nothing.
Supanatural is hilarious. It's like a Venture Brothers take on the show Supernatural (and the like), but with female leads. It's a little rough around the edges, but I would absolutely tune in to that every week.
FWIW, it's produced by comedian Kristen Schaal, of 30 Rock, The Daily Show, Bob's Burgers. If you like any of those shows, you should give it a shot.
That might be because you were arguing for a bill that would limit our rights in the story about a bill that is going to limit our rights.
If you want universal background checks to pass and CISPA, not to pass, you are being logically inconsistent with respect to citizen's constitutional rights.
Please explain how applying background checks, already in place for brick-and-mortar weapon sales, to online and gunshow weapon sales limits your constitutional rights. I have yet to hear a rational, fact-based explanation to this assertion.
If it's anonymity you want, there's software for that. Anonymity online hasn't ever been guaranteed unless you take some steps to ensure that.
There's a vast difference between anonymity not being guaranteed and having every detail CCed directly to TPTB. There's also something to be said for NOT fetishizing security, particularly for people wrestling with personal shame.
in fact, the non-"anal probe"* companies will object to this variant.
Your mistake is in thinking that there *are* any of those
It isn't that they don't exist, it's that they aren't large and powerful enough to be heard (since they care more about quality of goods and services than naked profit). Time to activate the phone tree...
How is getting targeted ads going to "end the Internet as we know it"? Stop exaggerating.
Some people can't do healthy legal things publicly without risk of serious real world repercussions, from demotion and firing to risk of death. The internet has been a place where people can feed the parts of themselves that could ruin them (or others) otherwise. Repression and shame are killers.
They could do what Romney did as governor of Massachusetts and opt to not take a paycheck at all. Even obama is returning 5% of his 400,000 salary. Now if only he would cancel some of his million dollar vacations...
I find it interesting that you chose to capitalize the name of one man and not the other. I also find it interesting that you pick on the only man holding elected office now who has made a token gesture (insufficient as it is) and not the hundreds who have made no gesture at all. Let's give (a little) credit where credit is due and stop muddying the waters.
Although I certainly take your point, ethics begin with the individual. "I was following orders" isn't a better excuse today than it was 70 years ago. No person is forced to do anything. Our bloody history is a testament to the failure of ethical and moral fortitude of the military at all levels.
I agree, but observing my siblings I've come to the conclusion that all parents are, to one degree or another, overprotective parents. It's instinctive, and understandable. I would never have encouraged the kids to go to the dark corners of the interwebs either, but when I knew they were I felt it was my responsibility as the "cool uncle" to be okay with it and help them understand some things about appropriateness (there's a time and a place), irony, trolling, and stupid people.
To me, it's just more evidence that no "nuclear" family is an island. All people have blind spots, and what kids need more than anything else is more exposure, context, and role models.
I have access to Whole Foods, but I cannot afford to shop there except occasionally (once a month or so). I eat almost exclusively self-cooked food, and I'm a label-reader (and for what it's worth, I'm in the low end of the BMI).
I don't exactly disagree with what you're saying, but the harsh reality is that not everyone has enough money to eat in a healthy balanced way AND only buy the "good" products. Most people, even informed people with access, have to make a choice.
Finally, I'm not an expert on this topic, but from what I understand there is no FDA requirement to list HFCS on ingredients. If the label says "sugar" it's at least as likely to be HFCS as anything else. If I'm mistaken in that, and you have a link handy, I'd love to read it. My google-fu is weak today.
What are you talking about? If I don't like what a corporation is doing, I don't have to do business with them. If I don't like what the feds are doing, tough luck. Which is worse?
Wouldn't a "Blue Drones" show be cheaper, and still fuel business at the public events? Besides, the kids could get a chance at flying live, in special booths on the ground. Fully sublimated, of course.
Yes and no - one of the reforms enacted in the past is that a sitting congress can only alter pay of future congresses, not their own. Presumably, this is designed to keep a sitting congress from voting themselves $1 billion or something similarly outrageous in salary.
They could still refund a portion of their salaries. Most (if not all) wouldn't even have to tighten their belts if they refunded 100% for a year or two, and it would be a major gesture of solidarity.
I mean, they won't, because fuck us, that's why. But they could.
Slashdot Mirror
[...] real money auction houses are a bad idea...
Some of us knew this a long, long time ago. I have to admit, I'm feeling terribly smug right now.
Clever, but it just means that they've lost a segment of the market; the segment that plays a game in pirated form before buying it. Good luck winning that audience back at the expense of trying to make people who will NEVER pay feel bad.
Normally I'd agree, but for an $8 game it's more a clever joke that makes me curious about the studio and its other offerings.
Has the term "cracked" recently been redefined?
Why, are you some pirate hacker?!
So certainly they will want to try it before they buy it. But if they like it and their friends like it, they will likely buy it if they can afford it.
Just like how only people who truly need it will take welfare. It has nothing to do with the fact that many people feel that they deserve to get "free" stuff just for being born.
Spoken like a person who has never known the shame of needing a little help just to make ends meet. I don't know if that really describes you, but if you believe most people getting living or food assistance are just entitled moochers, you are mistaken.
You pirated the article, think of the developers!
Information wants to be paid!
Let's just tax entropy.
I was going to suggest this but then I thought, nah fuck it.
I tend to think of it as a Slashdot community filled with raging Gods
I guess you still qualify as new here. If you pay more attention you'll see that's nonsense.
We can communicate instantly to any point in the world. We can see what happens in New York, Beijing, and Sydney in real time. We can fly, traveling faster than sound itself. We create and manipulate life on a chromosomal level. We discern the rotation, size and composition of planets in distant galaxies. We can obliterate this planet on a whim.
We are the gods of our ancestors; petty, jealous gods with power rivaled only by each other. All that we lack is the faith of our ancestors, faith in their gods, faith in ourselves and one another. Faith is a tool all atheists should embrace, because without it, we are nothing.
Supanatural is hilarious. It's like a Venture Brothers take on the show Supernatural (and the like), but with female leads. It's a little rough around the edges, but I would absolutely tune in to that every week.
FWIW, it's produced by comedian Kristen Schaal, of 30 Rock, The Daily Show, Bob's Burgers. If you like any of those shows, you should give it a shot.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00CBNPHDO
It's crystal skull o'clock.
That might be because you were arguing for a bill that would limit our rights in the story about a bill that is going to limit our rights.
If you want universal background checks to pass and CISPA, not to pass, you are being logically inconsistent with respect to citizen's constitutional rights.
Please explain how applying background checks, already in place for brick-and-mortar weapon sales, to online and gunshow weapon sales limits your constitutional rights. I have yet to hear a rational, fact-based explanation to this assertion.
I'm always surprised the USA isn't full of hairdressers, middle managers and telephone sanitizers.
Isn't it?
If it's anonymity you want, there's software for that. Anonymity online hasn't ever been guaranteed unless you take some steps to ensure that.
There's a vast difference between anonymity not being guaranteed and having every detail CCed directly to TPTB. There's also something to be said for NOT fetishizing security, particularly for people wrestling with personal shame.
in fact, the non-"anal probe"* companies will object to this variant.
Your mistake is in thinking that there *are* any of those
It isn't that they don't exist, it's that they aren't large and powerful enough to be heard (since they care more about quality of goods and services than naked profit). Time to activate the phone tree...
I don't see EA on that list. No anal-probe industry is complete without the kind hand of Electronic Arts.
EA has no interest in sharing private info. They only sell/capitalize on it.
How is getting targeted ads going to "end the Internet as we know it"? Stop exaggerating.
Some people can't do healthy legal things publicly without risk of serious real world repercussions, from demotion and firing to risk of death. The internet has been a place where people can feed the parts of themselves that could ruin them (or others) otherwise. Repression and shame are killers.
Google CEO: If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.
+1, bleak unavoidable future
Although I suppose we might hit singularity first, in which case who gives a fark.
They could do what Romney did as governor of Massachusetts and opt to not take a paycheck at all. Even obama is returning 5% of his 400,000 salary. Now if only he would cancel some of his million dollar vacations...
I find it interesting that you chose to capitalize the name of one man and not the other. I also find it interesting that you pick on the only man holding elected office now who has made a token gesture (insufficient as it is) and not the hundreds who have made no gesture at all. Let's give (a little) credit where credit is due and stop muddying the waters.
Although I certainly take your point, ethics begin with the individual. "I was following orders" isn't a better excuse today than it was 70 years ago. No person is forced to do anything. Our bloody history is a testament to the failure of ethical and moral fortitude of the military at all levels.
I agree, but observing my siblings I've come to the conclusion that all parents are, to one degree or another, overprotective parents. It's instinctive, and understandable. I would never have encouraged the kids to go to the dark corners of the interwebs either, but when I knew they were I felt it was my responsibility as the "cool uncle" to be okay with it and help them understand some things about appropriateness (there's a time and a place), irony, trolling, and stupid people.
To me, it's just more evidence that no "nuclear" family is an island. All people have blind spots, and what kids need more than anything else is more exposure, context, and role models.
I have access to Whole Foods, but I cannot afford to shop there except occasionally (once a month or so). I eat almost exclusively self-cooked food, and I'm a label-reader (and for what it's worth, I'm in the low end of the BMI).
I don't exactly disagree with what you're saying, but the harsh reality is that not everyone has enough money to eat in a healthy balanced way AND only buy the "good" products. Most people, even informed people with access, have to make a choice.
Finally, I'm not an expert on this topic, but from what I understand there is no FDA requirement to list HFCS on ingredients. If the label says "sugar" it's at least as likely to be HFCS as anything else. If I'm mistaken in that, and you have a link handy, I'd love to read it. My google-fu is weak today.
What are you talking about? If I don't like what a corporation is doing, I don't have to do business with them. If I don't like what the feds are doing, tough luck. Which is worse?
I dare you to stop doing business with Monsanto.
Ah. It seems you've missed one of the crazier branches of feminism
Honestly, the operative word is "CRAZY" not "feminism". Please stop confusing the two.
Wouldn't a "Blue Drones" show be cheaper, and still fuel business at the public events? Besides, the kids could get a chance at flying live, in special booths on the ground. Fully sublimated, of course.
Let's let that Ender kid have the first go.
300-odd million Americans and not all of them pay taxes (maybe more than half).
Maybe less than half. The only Americans who don't pay taxes are the ones with tax shelters.
We can probably counter the North Vietnamese threat
The war is over man
What war? It was just a simple police action.
Yes and no - one of the reforms enacted in the past is that a sitting congress can only alter pay of future congresses, not their own. Presumably, this is designed to keep a sitting congress from voting themselves $1 billion or something similarly outrageous in salary.
They could still refund a portion of their salaries. Most (if not all) wouldn't even have to tighten their belts if they refunded 100% for a year or two, and it would be a major gesture of solidarity.
I mean, they won't, because fuck us, that's why. But they could.