Actually reading posts before you reply is generally a plus.
I did, Mr Snarkypants. Which bit do you think I missed?
Pirate copies will always have the DRM stripped or in some other fashion disabled, meaning that you're not actually doing anything other than pissing off the customer base, seeing as pirates won't ever actually see the DRM when they're installing it.
So why would a free game be any different? Either you can protect your game with it - whether people are paying for them or not - or it doesn't work in which case you shouldn't use it.
Free games, as in commercial games released for download for a certain period of time free are a great reason to use DRM. You aren't stuck making it free permanently or selling it at all points so if you want to do an anniversary give away you can do so somewhat legitimately.
But you said DRM didn't work and is evil! Now you're saying there's a "great reason" to use it!
But since DRM doesn't work, it's kind of limited in its effect.
Hmmm.
For the record I'm not a fan of DRM generally but I do like steam. I was sceptical when it first came out but I like it. One thing that is worth noting is the fact that on Steam I still have all the Half-Life games. I had copies of these on CD from when it first came out but have since lost them/had them scratched beyond use/lent them out and not had them returned (in fact I accidentally inherited two more copies of HL1 but have lost those too). I bought them on Steam in (I think) 2002 and still have access to them. Rather than the company going down and taking my access to the games with it Steam has actually extended my access to the games beyond what I, with my destructive tendencies, would otherwise have. Which is obviously evil of them. How dare they!
But my main point was that without DRM Steam just wouldn't work, or at least it's unlikely they could provide the quality of service that they do now.
Yes, it's not ideal. No DRM at all would be ideal but that is idealistic and unrealistic. Valve know this. Their customers know this. I know this. Yet still I and millions of others continue to use Steam because it provides us what we want.
I mean that as a compliment. Don't go all "grammar nazi" on me and tell me I'm insulting you - I know what I mean even if I didn't actually say what I mean.
With the possible exception of free games, there's never a legitimate reason to do it.
Huh? Only free games should have DRM? How does that make sense?
Perhaps you've got a good reason as to why people who pay ought to have to put up with it when pirates don't.
So that they can verify that I have actually paid for it so that they can provide me with a good service that they don't provide to pirates and would be unable, financially, to provide if everyone was using their service without paying.
Well it does help. I didn't realise Texas was quite that big.
Re:let alone finess in manipulation what is on the
on
The Mouse Vanishes
·
· Score: 1
It would depend on the motion you are doing. I can't draw with a mouse as well as I can with a Wacom tablet but I can't use complex, fiddly menu systems with a tablet as well as I can with a mouse. It's a tool for a job.
Every time there is a discussion about something like this on Slashdot - be it about mouse-less mouses, touch-screens or anything counter to the standard keyboard, mouse & monitor combo - everyone is quick to say "try doing that 8 hours a day" or "it's been proven to not be as good as a normal mouse". The fact is that everyone has different requirements. Whatever it may be, even if doesn't replace the keyboard and mouse that the 99% of people use it may still be the perfect solution for some people. As a musician a mouse is great for adjusting dial settings or keying in rhythms but it's impossible to click three buttons at once - but who would want to use a touchscreen all day every day, they're, like, totally useless, right?
My point being that this device would probably be good for, say, people that use a computer intermittently, such as receptionist type jobs. Rather than picking up the mouse, finding the cursor, clicking and putting it down again it might make sense just to wave your hand around in the right place... Maybe not but hopefully you get my point!
I'm not so sure that incorporating a motion that we do repeatedly and involuntarily into a device such as this is really a good idea.
Imagine writing a sentence, getting half way through, glancing to the start of it to check what I'd written, blinking involuntarily and not noticing (thereby placing my cursor at the beginning of the sentence) and then continuing to type. It's bad enough when you accidentally touch the touchpad on a laptop with your thumb while typing...
That will probably take care of itself when some of those 8-year-olds grow up and go into politics...if any of them can manage to live a normal life after seeing Goatse that is.
You can't get used to it because you are constantly changing between the two. If this is an implant it will be permanent and their brain will adapt to it. There have been experiments where people have worn lenses which make them see everything upside down and have gotten used to it - so much so that when they take them off everything seems upside down to them.
Sure it might not be ideal but it's better than not being able to see at all.
but why go criticising others for calling it a tax when it evidently is one?
Because, as I said before, it confuses the discussion, as happened above.
Spad said "The BBC doesn't receive taxpayer pounds". His point being that they don't receive government-acquired funds. This is true.
You responded with "Incorrect: the BBC is primarily funded by a tax on the use of television sets." Yes, if you want to be pedantic (and this is Slashdot so I guess I should expect nothing less) then you can refer to it as a tax but then we lose the distinction between license fees and government taxes which results in pointless arguments over semantics like this one and confusion (especially amongst non-brits) over whether the BBC is a government-funded entity which receives [government] tax. A lot of people seem to think that it is when it isn't.
I don't see how this can possibly confuse the discussion
Because when people say "tax payer pounds" it implies pounds acquired by the government via income tax (or other means). The BBC does not receive these pounds. It receives "license payer pounds". They are acquired in a similar way but they come from a different source.
One is a TV service provided by a TV broadcasting company that is looking to improve its services by using funds provided specifically for improving (or at least maintaining) its service by people that use the service. Some people (me included for a long time) do not use their services and do not pay for them.
The other is a mandatory payment to government by all members of the public ostensibly for the maintenance and improvement of public services and society as a whole.
Yes you can argue that they are both "taxes" but that really is not the point. Even if you do argue that, your point is still invalid. A better analogy would be if the BBC were only broadcasting HD TV...which they're not.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually reading posts before you reply is generally a plus.
I did, Mr Snarkypants. Which bit do you think I missed?
Pirate copies will always have the DRM stripped or in some other fashion disabled, meaning that you're not actually doing anything other than pissing off the customer base, seeing as pirates won't ever actually see the DRM when they're installing it.
So why would a free game be any different? Either you can protect your game with it - whether people are paying for them or not - or it doesn't work in which case you shouldn't use it.
Free games, as in commercial games released for download for a certain period of time free are a great reason to use DRM. You aren't stuck making it free permanently or selling it at all points so if you want to do an anniversary give away you can do so somewhat legitimately.
But you said DRM didn't work and is evil! Now you're saying there's a "great reason" to use it!
But since DRM doesn't work, it's kind of limited in its effect.
Hmmm.
For the record I'm not a fan of DRM generally but I do like steam. I was sceptical when it first came out but I like it. One thing that is worth noting is the fact that on Steam I still have all the Half-Life games. I had copies of these on CD from when it first came out but have since lost them/had them scratched beyond use/lent them out and not had them returned (in fact I accidentally inherited two more copies of HL1 but have lost those too). I bought them on Steam in (I think) 2002 and still have access to them. Rather than the company going down and taking my access to the games with it Steam has actually extended my access to the games beyond what I, with my destructive tendencies, would otherwise have. Which is obviously evil of them. How dare they!
But my main point was that without DRM Steam just wouldn't work, or at least it's unlikely they could provide the quality of service that they do now.
Yes, it's not ideal. No DRM at all would be ideal but that is idealistic and unrealistic. Valve know this. Their customers know this. I know this. Yet still I and millions of others continue to use Steam because it provides us what we want.
You are a buffoon. A complete idiot.
I mean that as a compliment. Don't go all "grammar nazi" on me and tell me I'm insulting you - I know what I mean even if I didn't actually say what I mean.
With the possible exception of free games, there's never a legitimate reason to do it.
Huh? Only free games should have DRM? How does that make sense?
Perhaps you've got a good reason as to why people who pay ought to have to put up with it when pirates don't.
So that they can verify that I have actually paid for it so that they can provide me with a good service that they don't provide to pirates and would be unable, financially, to provide if everyone was using their service without paying.
Why is that evil?
so why doesn't Steam let you do this?
Because they would probably lose a chunk of their profits.
Maybe they would if upload speeds didn't suck so bad.
Pretty weak to be honest.
Just buy an Olympus digital camera. All the quality of a full digital camera with all the phone-call functionality of an iPhone 4!
*runs*
I think he meant Duck Tape.
Is that a problem? The great unwashed masses aren't going to be modding their phones.
Well it does help. I didn't realise Texas was quite that big.
It would depend on the motion you are doing. I can't draw with a mouse as well as I can with a Wacom tablet but I can't use complex, fiddly menu systems with a tablet as well as I can with a mouse. It's a tool for a job.
Every time there is a discussion about something like this on Slashdot - be it about mouse-less mouses, touch-screens or anything counter to the standard keyboard, mouse & monitor combo - everyone is quick to say "try doing that 8 hours a day" or "it's been proven to not be as good as a normal mouse". The fact is that everyone has different requirements. Whatever it may be, even if doesn't replace the keyboard and mouse that the 99% of people use it may still be the perfect solution for some people. As a musician a mouse is great for adjusting dial settings or keying in rhythms but it's impossible to click three buttons at once - but who would want to use a touchscreen all day every day, they're, like, totally useless, right?
My point being that this device would probably be good for, say, people that use a computer intermittently, such as receptionist type jobs. Rather than picking up the mouse, finding the cursor, clicking and putting it down again it might make sense just to wave your hand around in the right place... Maybe not but hopefully you get my point!
Invisible keyboard? I've seen no such thing.
I'm not so sure that incorporating a motion that we do repeatedly and involuntarily into a device such as this is really a good idea.
Imagine writing a sentence, getting half way through, glancing to the start of it to check what I'd written, blinking involuntarily and not noticing (thereby placing my cursor at the beginning of the sentence) and then continuing to type. It's bad enough when you accidentally touch the touchpad on a laptop with your thumb while typing...
Fine for writing text messages or putting search terms into google.
Ever tried writing a novel on one?
That will probably take care of itself when some of those 8-year-olds grow up and go into politics...if any of them can manage to live a normal life after seeing Goatse that is.
It's a Hitch-hikers Guide to the Galaxy quote.
Sorry, misread your comment - I thought you meant vari-focals/bi-focals.
That or a paint designed for undertakers.
You can't get used to it because you are constantly changing between the two. If this is an implant it will be permanent and their brain will adapt to it. There have been experiments where people have worn lenses which make them see everything upside down and have gotten used to it - so much so that when they take them off everything seems upside down to them.
Sure it might not be ideal but it's better than not being able to see at all.
Read the fifth word of the summary.
Right.
but why go criticising others for calling it a tax when it evidently is one?
Because, as I said before, it confuses the discussion, as happened above.
Spad said "The BBC doesn't receive taxpayer pounds". His point being that they don't receive government-acquired funds. This is true.
You responded with "Incorrect: the BBC is primarily funded by a tax on the use of television sets." Yes, if you want to be pedantic (and this is Slashdot so I guess I should expect nothing less) then you can refer to it as a tax but then we lose the distinction between license fees and government taxes which results in pointless arguments over semantics like this one and confusion (especially amongst non-brits) over whether the BBC is a government-funded entity which receives [government] tax. A lot of people seem to think that it is when it isn't.
I don't see how this can possibly confuse the discussion
Because when people say "tax payer pounds" it implies pounds acquired by the government via income tax (or other means). The BBC does not receive these pounds. It receives "license payer pounds". They are acquired in a similar way but they come from a different source.
One is a TV service provided by a TV broadcasting company that is looking to improve its services by using funds provided specifically for improving (or at least maintaining) its service by people that use the service. Some people (me included for a long time) do not use their services and do not pay for them.
The other is a mandatory payment to government by all members of the public ostensibly for the maintenance and improvement of public services and society as a whole.
Yes you can argue that they are both "taxes" but that really is not the point. Even if you do argue that, your point is still invalid. A better analogy would be if the BBC were only broadcasting HD TV...which they're not.
Who owns the BBC? The govt.
Wrong.