Steam is not the first method of downloading games. It might be one of the first to do so in the background, but there are plenty of examples of people using web servers to distribute their games, even commercial paid-for ones.
Dunno why Vivendi would be scared of Steam in particular, considering it is awful tripe. Maybe they're more afraid that Valve has enough money to self-publish? Publishing is a lot more than just distribution.
Unfortunately, being on pager duty prevents me from having a second job, unless it was an online job. Finding those has proven highly difficult. I'd sure dig the extra $$ if I could find a way though.
It's a question of how it's harvested. Embryonic stem cells come from the harvesting of fetal tissue, usually from abortions. So it's a little different than organ donation, for example.
Sure, but given that abortions will always happen, is it more ethical to just toss the cells, or to use them for study/medicine?
But in the end, it's all a moot point, since the most promising results have come from adult and umbilical stem cells. So exploring fetal stem cells is just a waste of time, anyway.
Exploring something which is not entirely known is not necessarily a waste of time. We could find that fetal stem cells are better for certain treatments, or find a way to use them to better all stem cell related treatments. Who knows? But, since the material will always be available, why not use it?
Surely you understand that there are serious ethical considerations for many people regarding the harvesting of embryonic stem cells? And that those considerations have nothing to do with religion?
How is it unethical to use what is already dead-never-gonna-grow-into-life tissue? I don't think it is, but then I am not religious. I'm seeing very religious people saying it is unethical. To me, there's a very distinct connection between the two.
Wasn't he the first one to block federal funding as well?
FWIW, throwing out "facts" like this is kind of silly -- this is a President who has yet to veto anything. One is left to wonder if he has the will to make any sort of decision, really.
Bush says he wants to encourage people to use them, but he banned federal dollars going to this cutting-edge research.
Now, I'm not a fan of federal funding of things like this -- not in the least -- but I recognize that there are some medical technologies (ones that aren't profitable for years perhaps decades after research is started) that we wouldn't have today were it not for federal funding to get it started.
I'd support Bush's decision to block funding if it were for the right reasons. Religious concerns are the wrong reasons to do anything in government. If he did it to be fiscally conservative, it would have been a totally different story.
Yeah, I know video isn't perfect, but damn. If I could find this video I'd love to post it. It clearly shows a guy walking away from the police, about 8 of them, and the guy was clearly not a threat. The video was taken from behind all of them. The general consensus by all that witnessed it (lots) was that it was unjustified. Damn I wish I could find it.:)
That's not the situation I'm thinking of. The particular situation I'm thinking of is when the police shot a man who was walking away from them, not threatening them. Walking, facing away, didn't turn around or anything. How is that not murder? (Someone videotaped it happening, but I can't find the video at the moment)
Why is it, then, that when a police officer murders someone, in the line of duty, and it turns out they shouldn't have (and perhaps shouldn't have even been raiding that building or whatever), they're not guilty of murder?
You could then say that if someone in the office spilled a drink on the board, fried it knocking out 911, that they were now subject to murder charges.
Of course, my counter argument would be that if 911 was so important, why didn't the government protect it better? Come on, putting it all in one office? Unmanned?
Maybe, but the targets are often in China or Korea (at least, they should be, judging from my spam investigations), and the costs involved would probably not end up being enough to come all the way to the US to file suit. But, they may be enough to keep some smaller spammers from wanting to stay in the game.
Not to mention it just gives the attackers more information to ask the attackees. They just have to create sites that ask for SSNs and ZIPs and stuff, on top of everything else. With that additional information the attackers'll have an even easier time stealing! Way to go ING:)
The global warming people indicate that carbon dioxide is a major problem and is coming from factories and the like. Could they not cap off the factory chimnies or whatever (I honestly don't know) and at least try to do something useful with it?
It'd probably be difficult, at first, to convince people not to conver their entire plot of land in to something, digging deep. But, ultimately, a society that doesn't require competition for resources buying crap they don't need, and instead spends its time on producing creative things (movies, plays, books).. sounds good to me.:)
The list goes on. The prices you want to pay are out there, readily available, already. The only difference is that you have to wait a few days to get the package in the mail.
(not to shill too much more for DDD, but they have free shipping, too)
The USENET and movie examples are somewhat different however, in that with both you have the washed and unwashed masses together in one "room" (heh). With BitTorrent there are no rooms, every BitTorrent installation is independant, so one person throwing up a BT of their home videos (porn, likely) doesn't detract from someone else using it to grab ISOs.
On the other point, I guess I haven't had to search for torrents before. If it's something that the server operators would benefit from having a torrent, it's something announced somewhere big like Slashdot. Otherwise you're just downloading the whole file from them anyways, typically.
Worse yet, due to the assyemtry, if you let BitTorrent use that full 384Kbps upstream, all other Internet use will be abysmally slow. So you're best off capping it at half that, or so.
A good compromise would be for the cable companies to uncap inter-customer connections, and keep the cap on for anything that goes to the Internet. Probably too expensive tho.
Yeah, I used to have "click to play" on my machine but I forget why I removed it. The flashblock or other extension just sucks (it loads the flash, and then stops it), and prefbar isn't stopping flash any more either.
If I weren't a Homestar Runner junky I'd probably remove it entirely.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm looking forward to a MMOG that doesn't even have an "autorun" or "autoattack". I think I'd have a lot more fun if it were more interactive.
Steam is not the first method of downloading games. It might be one of the first to do so in the background, but there are plenty of examples of people using web servers to distribute their games, even commercial paid-for ones.
Dunno why Vivendi would be scared of Steam in particular, considering it is awful tripe. Maybe they're more afraid that Valve has enough money to self-publish? Publishing is a lot more than just distribution.
?? Community friendly? Have you tried Steam yet? It's about the most unfriendly app I've seen.
Unfortunately, being on pager duty prevents me from having a second job, unless it was an online job. Finding those has proven highly difficult. I'd sure dig the extra $$ if I could find a way though.
It's a question of how it's harvested. Embryonic stem cells come from the harvesting of fetal tissue, usually from abortions. So it's a little different than organ donation, for example.
Sure, but given that abortions will always happen, is it more ethical to just toss the cells, or to use them for study/medicine?
But in the end, it's all a moot point, since the most promising results have come from adult and umbilical stem cells. So exploring fetal stem cells is just a waste of time, anyway.
Exploring something which is not entirely known is not necessarily a waste of time. We could find that fetal stem cells are better for certain treatments, or find a way to use them to better all stem cell related treatments. Who knows? But, since the material will always be available, why not use it?
Surely you understand that there are serious ethical considerations for many people regarding the harvesting of embryonic stem cells? And that those considerations have nothing to do with religion?
How is it unethical to use what is already dead-never-gonna-grow-into-life tissue? I don't think it is, but then I am not religious. I'm seeing very religious people saying it is unethical. To me, there's a very distinct connection between the two.
Wasn't he the first one to block federal funding as well?
FWIW, throwing out "facts" like this is kind of silly -- this is a President who has yet to veto anything. One is left to wonder if he has the will to make any sort of decision, really.
Bush says he wants to encourage people to use them, but he banned federal dollars going to this cutting-edge research.
Now, I'm not a fan of federal funding of things like this -- not in the least -- but I recognize that there are some medical technologies (ones that aren't profitable for years perhaps decades after research is started) that we wouldn't have today were it not for federal funding to get it started.
I'd support Bush's decision to block funding if it were for the right reasons. Religious concerns are the wrong reasons to do anything in government. If he did it to be fiscally conservative, it would have been a totally different story.
Yeah, I know video isn't perfect, but damn. If I could find this video I'd love to post it. It clearly shows a guy walking away from the police, about 8 of them, and the guy was clearly not a threat. The video was taken from behind all of them. The general consensus by all that witnessed it (lots) was that it was unjustified. Damn I wish I could find it. :)
"Because if you don't, we have this nice x800 card over here which should take care of that problem!"
;)
It's not exactly an unselfish act.
That's not the situation I'm thinking of. The particular situation I'm thinking of is when the police shot a man who was walking away from them, not threatening them. Walking, facing away, didn't turn around or anything. How is that not murder? (Someone videotaped it happening, but I can't find the video at the moment)
Why is it, then, that when a police officer murders someone, in the line of duty, and it turns out they shouldn't have (and perhaps shouldn't have even been raiding that building or whatever), they're not guilty of murder?
Hopefully not murder.
You could then say that if someone in the office spilled a drink on the board, fried it knocking out 911, that they were now subject to murder charges.
Of course, my counter argument would be that if 911 was so important, why didn't the government protect it better? Come on, putting it all in one office? Unmanned?
Maybe, but the targets are often in China or Korea (at least, they should be, judging from my spam investigations), and the costs involved would probably not end up being enough to come all the way to the US to file suit. But, they may be enough to keep some smaller spammers from wanting to stay in the game.
Wishful thinking all around, though.
I've seen this book in stores and I'm curious, why is the cover of a german shepard? Instead of, oh I dunno, maybe, a big cat?
Not to mention it just gives the attackers more information to ask the attackees. They just have to create sites that ask for SSNs and ZIPs and stuff, on top of everything else. With that additional information the attackers'll have an even easier time stealing! Way to go ING :)
The global warming people indicate that carbon dioxide is a major problem and is coming from factories and the like. Could they not cap off the factory chimnies or whatever (I honestly don't know) and at least try to do something useful with it?
It'd probably be difficult, at first, to convince people not to conver their entire plot of land in to something, digging deep. But, ultimately, a society that doesn't require competition for resources buying crap they don't need, and instead spends its time on producing creative things (movies, plays, books) .. sounds good to me. :)
Hear, hear. My foe list (comprised of freeipod, gmail, etc spams) is getting pretty large.
2-5 dollars you say? No commercials you say?
How about 14 episodes of Firefly for $35.96 = $2.56/episode?
21 episodes of Stargate SG-1 for $45.76 = $2.17/episode
26 episodse of Star Trek: TNG for $102.00 = $3.92/episode
The list goes on. The prices you want to pay are out there, readily available, already. The only difference is that you have to wait a few days to get the package in the mail.
(not to shill too much more for DDD, but they have free shipping, too)
The USENET and movie examples are somewhat different however, in that with both you have the washed and unwashed masses together in one "room" (heh). With BitTorrent there are no rooms, every BitTorrent installation is independant, so one person throwing up a BT of their home videos (porn, likely) doesn't detract from someone else using it to grab ISOs.
On the other point, I guess I haven't had to search for torrents before. If it's something that the server operators would benefit from having a torrent, it's something announced somewhere big like Slashdot. Otherwise you're just downloading the whole file from them anyways, typically.
Not quite +5. He thinks that this will, somehow, ruin BitTorrent? Maybe +3 Reactionary?
Worse yet, due to the assyemtry, if you let BitTorrent use that full 384Kbps upstream, all other Internet use will be abysmally slow. So you're best off capping it at half that, or so.
A good compromise would be for the cable companies to uncap inter-customer connections, and keep the cap on for anything that goes to the Internet. Probably too expensive tho.
Yeah, I used to have "click to play" on my machine but I forget why I removed it. The flashblock or other extension just sucks (it loads the flash, and then stops it), and prefbar isn't stopping flash any more either.
If I weren't a Homestar Runner junky I'd probably remove it entirely.
"And yes, the box DOES state that you have to have a working account on their Steam network."
This is a lie. It says you have to have an Internet connection.