<3 learning, apparently my city's desire is to learn, according to a recent news item. The schools are teaching ignorance so it makes sense!
... gonna make me get all transcendentalist in the middle of coding...
You know how people have the supposed ability to think in the best interests of each other? Like you can think, hm what would my wife want for her birthday. Well city council does that too, honest. "What would be best for the city?" So in effect we are the creators of a city's desires but those desires differ in nature and form from those of a human?
People keep saying cities aren't alive... but they have all the characteristics of life! It's not single-human life, but thank god - I don't want my city sleeping around! Er... well... I guess it's okay, I just don't want to know about it... ignorance is bliss!
No, wanting is not limited to organisms with brains. Plants want water, and they have no brains. Water wants water(you know, surface tension thing, water clings to other water), and it's not even an organism!
Cities, corporations, and other collectives also have desires too, which we should all be very wary of, as they're generally worse than AIs.
Yeah, that's one bit of law I'm glad I'm not right on:D Wouldn't the judges be the rich ones?;)
So let me see... "We can prove that you might have deprived this company of money(minus shipping and handling, unless you were going to buy it online of course), but any other possible losses due to other people who might have purchased the game instead acquiring it for free as well must be dismissed - for lack of certainty!" ahaha awesome!
Hm, I hope that the potential damages are properly reviewable by the defense. Like it'd be nice to be able to say "I distributed the file, but only for an hour, so there's no way I managed to send out 2 million full copies, man..." I know that normally judges have some leeway in sentencing, so there's probably some method for this...
I really like law... if only we had better lawmakers...
but on the other hand I do occasionally then buy it, if it was any good. I am a programmer, after all, I have to have some sympathy... but not for back-asswards models trying to "convince" players to pay for something. It will just be cracked. There's only one way to stop that, which is by making your game impossible to crack. And that's pretty much impossible unless you have a game server - in which case you're going to want to go subscription model to pay for the bandwidth anyway.
oh yeah, and I really was saying that David Perry is an idiot. I'm into games for the immersion: if it makes me think about the real world and how broke I am, I'm not going to play it.
Woot, is that a legal definition? If so, I'm about to make a ton of money - people keep implementing ideas before I can get to them, definitely depriving me of sepculated or potential profit!;)
Very cool point though. I hope it is rigidly defined as a lesser offense - it definitely should be.
Just to be argumentative (again I guess), couldn't the person also say they weren't willing to pay the full price but might've paid say $5, thereby reducing the potential profit loss to $5? But since nobody offers the game for $5, the potential profit loss is actually zero, since they're not willing to pay the price..
:P No, I don't get it. If people are going to buy the product, they're going to buy the product. If they're not, and they still want to play it, they're going to pirate it. Why don't these companies just give it up and accept what we're willing to give them? I still think a donation model is the best way to charge for games, honestly. Think more people would pay if you gave it away for free and just ASK for some cash. Plus more people will play, meaning a greater mindshare, meaning more customers (mindshare is cool!)
Hi:) when you take something that someone doesn't want you to have, it's stealing! Doesn't matter what wikipedia (LOL you quoted wikipedia!) or any other reference will tell you. Stealing is stealing. It doesn't matter what the law says, that's just the technical definition. People don't really care or even know the same things about technical definitions, as you can see expressed rampantly throughout this misinformed discussion.
And as for there being no such thing as intellectual property, let's look at what wiktionary has to say about morons:
moron (plural morons) - A person who makes uncool, unfunny, uninteresting, or irrelevant (see lame) attempts to impress others and draw attention to himself, especially in a flawed attempt to act like someone else.
Good job telling me that the law is truth and there's no such thing as reality. You've done well in your attempts to draw attention, friend moron! Congrats.;)
Hehe. The author of this article is one David Perry... here are the games he's produced:
http://games.ign.com/objects/025/025191.html
All derivative crap, except Earthworm Jim. Which they made a sequel of. So they even made THAT derivative crap.
None of his games were selling (because they're all derivative crap, and people like originals, novelty HELLO), so he made Earthworm Jim 2. Oh man, this cracks me up:D Yes, he should make free games - because nobody should ever have to pay for such drivel!
His statement is debatable anyway. As if legal definitions matter to the populace? But the lawyers aren't going to try to say you stole their software in court. They're going to say you violated their license or whatever else they want. If they're calling it 'stealing,' that's for the populace so they understand ("violated my license!" sounds too abstract). But in the court, they do have options, as is quite reasonable. Yarr.
Huh. Weird. I guess you're talking to a bunch of people who know what piracy is already. But you know better than to call it 'piracy' to someone who hasn't heard of it before, right?
Also just always beware of the subconscious messages such a word produces.:/
They're just trying to convince their customers that this is a good thing, by whining apparently. Generally if revenue is up, it's not believable to say "OH CRAP WE'RE DYING!"
How do you figure that information doesn't want to be free? That doesn't make sense. Information is free to start with, people love sharing information, and reliably locking information up is next to impossible.
Furthermore, ignorance is actually quite liberating.;)
I like your point... in the way I like when a sexy model tells me her greatest wish is for world peace. There's a war going on in our languages, like it or not. You can choose to fight or allow yourself to be called a pirate. Or worse, a MAN! lol.
Personally I like the pirate bay's approach... we'll just change the meaning of pirate instead!
SecuROM:D so ez to crack like all the others... Rootkit? No, we obviously replace any rootkits with our own stealthy version when redistributing your content:P game development companies... LOL!
Pulling out my real wallet to improve my virtual character is not on my list of roleplaying actions, I'm afraid.
Did you RTFA? That's what this is all about.
But you're wrong, because people don't want to whip out their credit card mid game. Well maybe rich people like whipping out their credit card... the rest of us won't pay $8 for a virtual costume.
Fortunately this author makes games no person I can understand would want to play anyway(http://games.ign.com/objects/025/025191.html to see), so hey, maybe he's onto something. Obviously they're too stupid to have heard of pirating, or they'd be playing better games.
People will still pay for your game if it is good and they will still pirate it because they don't have money in the first place.
Speaking of pirating, ingame content costing money is no more secure than a well-implemented serial code, and can be considerably less secure. Consider, for instance, that some games have serial code validation THROUGHOUT THE GAME, using different methods to verify your code. Talk about a pissoff for a hacker. THAT'S how you make your code secure - make it too much of time sink for the pirates to hack. You gotta remember step one of piracy is still cracking the game... cracking micropay is no different than cracking any other security scheme, and just like all the others, it won't work.
Why? There's this thing, maybe you've heard it. "Information wants to be free." If you free information, it promises continual rewards in terms of both LOVE(from the people you give it away to for free) and MONEY(from the virus you implanted with it).
If you really want to make more money off your games, try setting up game conferences, selling retail items, letting the game be modded and setting up an advertised modding site... you have options that don't pissing off your customer with DRM that requires them to be online or suspended disbelief(IE whipping out the real wallet, a very noticeable thing for most of us) in the middle of your game.
I've never heard of Steam having DRM. Doesn't make sense, since steam is a method to download content.
The funniest thing about Steam is, I tried to use it... and ended up with a game that didn't work! Then I went and checked isohunt... oh yeah, there is halflife2... oh look, this version works! Maybe valve should take some coding lessons from the blackhats - or, possibly something else (like they noticed I stole halflife1 and still had it on the pc, hahaha) was going on. They really got owned on that issue though... I've heard several people say they had the same problem:/
"Those who pay for games will pay for it, and those who refuse to will continue to pirate."
Really that's all that needs to be said in response to the main point of this article.
But micropay actually rocks. Not for games, though, lol... what a bad idea... obviously he's crying wolf. But it's good for the rest of us, because micropay methods are especially useful for unknown artists, and they need improvement. So maybe he can stumble past the blocks for us like a good human;)
... but we'll still patch his games so we don't have to pay for that sword except with in-game currency. GG. Binary's EZ, son, when will u LERN?
You're not wrong. Take a look at David Perry's history:
http://games.ign.com/objects/025/025191.html
Except for Earthworm Jim, which was a massive hit, imo all those games are derivative crap not worth publishing or paying for. They're the kind of thing you see on the storeshelf and think, "wouldn't I rather just watch the movie, which is cheaper anyway?"
People are still buying and playing games. Certain games are very difficult to crack, or impossible(like subscription model is pretty hard, lol). Others you get single player, but can't play online because you can't authenticate.
The more a game is pirated, the more it is sold. Nothing worthwhile to see here, just greed. Keep in mind David's company IS called "SHINY games." Shiny means "pretty" and implies "worthless." So I suspect David Perry will probably think his model of forcing people to buy things ingame will actually work - not because it's a good idea, but because anyone who buys his games apparently has no taste anyway, so can't be expected to know about suspended disbelief...
Actually we'll just patch the game to let you get the swords for in-game money. We think you'll find it's a better game for not disrupting your suspended disbelief.
He's put a nail in his coffin if he thinks he can rely on this. It's an insecure solution that will only turn people off more.
Micropay for items ingame is slightly harder to patch than disabling serial protection, if properly implemented. But not by very much, and we're really good at it, thanks, pretty much the computer does all the hard work now.
People don't want to whip out their credit card in midgame and use it to buy a +3 sword of shiny metal bits. At least I don't.
Try donations instead. You might be surprised, if your content is any good. If it's not, you may as well piss of your users with DRM (as if that worked), because they're not going to like the game once they start playing anyway.
Keep selling games. Stop whining about people sharing with each other. Or, if you like whining so much, maybe do some polls and find out what the REAL reason people don't want to give you money for your work is.
You like watching David Perry? Oh. You watched him make Earthworm Jim, then, I guess? That was pretty impressive, that character really entered society. Let's see what he did after that... OH! It was all derivative crud. Maybe you should stop following game developers around and thinking their shit smells good, and get a clue.
Creating unlicensed copies by itself doesn't deprive anyone of profit. Only if you get into redistribution is there a legal issue.
But when you use bittorrent/etc I guess you're automatically redistributing;)
What if someone else is already providing that file for free? They could've just gotten the file from the other guy anyway, so there's no way you're actually depriving anyone of a profit.
ya ya, roll your eyes at me... the jury will be more convinced, I assure you... *keeps updown-loading*
Now see here. There is profit to be had in free distribution, and it doesn't come from people paying $1 extra for a sword. That's just ugly. What you need to do instead is as simple as south park,
1) distribute a worm with the game 2) ??? oooh so many options 3) PROFIT!
This sounds like a really bad idea, to me. And their references are HORRIBLE. Who has honestly ever heard of Nexon? But no mention of the massive failure Project Entropy, not Midthievia, not Second Life(hehe, understandable that one..)
Let's look at the first game to try this: nominally called midievia, is better known by the name 'Midthievia', because the code is ROM (which is licensed to say you can't charge for it), then they turned around and charged users for items in world.
Hm, for some reason this reminds me of GPL3's extra protections. Maybe fascism has its place o.O in licensing, that is...
Quite a detailed exploration into fish growing legs. Google refused to tell me about fish with hip bones (hm) but let me find that more rigorous explanation. Here's a snip:
"That is the fish not only developed their legs while still being in water but they also developed the capacity of breathing air while still in water. This seems incredible: as Clack wrote, "why, after millions of years of successfully breathing underwater, did some fish begin turning to the air for their oxygen?""
After that, they go on to explain that the water was hot and the plants were growing, so somehow the fish were running out of oxygen in the water. Huh? Plants make oxygen, last time I checked. Sure, warm water has less oxygen... but the water was cooling down, not warming up.
This happens a lot in evolution science... How did eyes evolve? You can say, "Well, basically we think they were just these little patches that could detect light or darkness to help the fish navigate to the proper depth..." OR, you could say, "DNA has all the building blocks prepared already, and when the clock hit zero, the fish grew legs, right on schedule, according to the program of the designers." And that one answer solves all the questions. More evidence for evolution? Maybe so, but the evidence for intelligent design is more convincing, in my opinion.
Yet to be challenged in court... yikes. Scary. To think that pointing out the weak points in a theory could be legislated against! But... it probably can be... sounds like a possible great loss for science, though, which is supposed to be about breaking old models with newer, better ones. But you can't break the evolution model. There's nothing to break.
"It just looks too complex" is not really what I'm saying. It doesn't explain how things really happened, it just gathers evidence to support itself. It's like having a theory of gravity that just says, "Oh, we fall down! Look at all these people falling down!" but doesn't tell you when or why or how far or how much or how fast. Which is why I quibble over evolution being science at all. If you can't prove or disprove it, you have to take it on faith. I'm not against that for accurate models - we'd never get anywhere without SOME faith - but evolution is a model with so many points glossed over and ignored that I just can't put any faith into it anymore. Especially with the overwhelming evidence to suggest we're living in a simulation.
On the other hand, "someone made us" has just one (rather gaping) hole: well then, who made the thing that made us?! But I wouldn't recommend teaching it in schools (you may note that I never did... I just quibbled...) because proposing intelligent design essentially robs us of any exploration of evolution, without providing an alternate model with questions which we can explore. ("Who made us?" is not a valid question:P)
Hmmm... I think you bring up a really good point there. But what exactly is 'evolution'? Well best not to go into it huh lol, but that's my problem. There's a lot of evidence that evolution exists and happens, but it gets extrapolated to mean something that it doesn't (the two big things are 1) how does life evolve? It isn't survival of the fittest. and 2) if evolution occurs sequentially, why do we see everything looking and acting so similarly? Like... fish with hip bones? Didn't we come from fish? So shouldn't the hip bones come AFTER fish?... big questions left unanswered...)
Intelligent design on the other hand, is a great explanation, but doesn't say anything. I mean sure it says there's a creator, but it doesn't tell us anything useful about the world that we can test or check. Evolution similarly has nothing testable... and if you think about it, either model has 'life exists!' as its evidence, so the evidence is not stronger for either side?
Personally I find it useful to believe in a creator above us - makes life a little easier to live. The only neg thing about religion is of course, obeying someone! haha
And as far as the fish hipbones go, my idea is that our creator made DNA and stocked it with instructions on how to build whatever we would need. Obviously that doesn't explain where our creator came from, but given that we are capable of simulating most of a human brain now, I think the evidence is strongly against us being the top-level universe, the first creation.
Why do scientists have such a problem allowing intelligent design? Because it's politically motivated? Regardless, our children should at least know the problems with evolution, instead of having their teachers gloss over the flaws in an attempt to convey just enough information for the students to get an A. And yes, I think they should also be introduced to the heretical evidence for creation.
Slashdot Mirror
<3 learning, apparently my city's desire is to learn, according to a recent news item. The schools are teaching ignorance so it makes sense!
...
... gonna make me get all transcendentalist in the middle of coding
You know how people have the supposed ability to think in the best interests of each other? Like you can think, hm what would my wife want for her birthday. Well city council does that too, honest. "What would be best for the city?" So in effect we are the creators of a city's desires but those desires differ in nature and form from those of a human?
People keep saying cities aren't alive... but they have all the characteristics of life! It's not single-human life, but thank god - I don't want my city sleeping around! Er... well... I guess it's okay, I just don't want to know about it... ignorance is bliss!
No, wanting is not limited to organisms with brains. Plants want water, and they have no brains. Water wants water(you know, surface tension thing, water clings to other water), and it's not even an organism!
:D
Cities, corporations, and other collectives also have desires too, which we should all be very wary of, as they're generally worse than AIs.
Congratulations on 56 years of ignorance
Yeah, that's one bit of law I'm glad I'm not right on :D Wouldn't the judges be the rich ones? ;)
So let me see... "We can prove that you might have deprived this company of money(minus shipping and handling, unless you were going to buy it online of course), but any other possible losses due to other people who might have purchased the game instead acquiring it for free as well must be dismissed - for lack of certainty!" ahaha awesome!
Hm, I hope that the potential damages are properly reviewable by the defense. Like it'd be nice to be able to say "I distributed the file, but only for an hour, so there's no way I managed to send out 2 million full copies, man..." I know that normally judges have some leeway in sentencing, so there's probably some method for this...
I really like law... if only we had better lawmakers...
LOL you're so right...
but on the other hand I do occasionally then buy it, if it was any good. I am a programmer, after all, I have to have some sympathy... but not for back-asswards models trying to "convince" players to pay for something. It will just be cracked. There's only one way to stop that, which is by making your game impossible to crack. And that's pretty much impossible unless you have a game server - in which case you're going to want to go subscription model to pay for the bandwidth anyway.
oh yeah, and I really was saying that David Perry is an idiot. I'm into games for the immersion: if it makes me think about the real world and how broke I am, I'm not going to play it.
Woot, is that a legal definition? If so, I'm about to make a ton of money - people keep implementing ideas before I can get to them, definitely depriving me of sepculated or potential profit! ;)
Very cool point though. I hope it is rigidly defined as a lesser offense - it definitely should be.
Just to be argumentative (again I guess), couldn't the person also say they weren't willing to pay the full price but might've paid say $5, thereby reducing the potential profit loss to $5? But since nobody offers the game for $5, the potential profit loss is actually zero, since they're not willing to pay the price..
:P No, I don't get it. If people are going to buy the product, they're going to buy the product. If they're not, and they still want to play it, they're going to pirate it. Why don't these companies just give it up and accept what we're willing to give them? I still think a donation model is the best way to charge for games, honestly. Think more people would pay if you gave it away for free and just ASK for some cash. Plus more people will play, meaning a greater mindshare, meaning more customers (mindshare is cool!)
Hi :) when you take something that someone doesn't want you to have, it's stealing! Doesn't matter what wikipedia (LOL you quoted wikipedia!) or any other reference will tell you. Stealing is stealing. It doesn't matter what the law says, that's just the technical definition. People don't really care or even know the same things about technical definitions, as you can see expressed rampantly throughout this misinformed discussion.
;)
And as for there being no such thing as intellectual property, let's look at what wiktionary has to say about morons:
moron (plural morons) - A person who makes uncool, unfunny, uninteresting, or irrelevant (see lame) attempts to impress others and draw attention to himself, especially in a flawed attempt to act like someone else.
Good job telling me that the law is truth and there's no such thing as reality. You've done well in your attempts to draw attention, friend moron! Congrats.
Hehe. The author of this article is one David Perry... here are the games he's produced:
:D Yes, he should make free games - because nobody should ever have to pay for such drivel!
http://games.ign.com/objects/025/025191.html
All derivative crap, except Earthworm Jim. Which they made a sequel of. So they even made THAT derivative crap.
None of his games were selling (because they're all derivative crap, and people like originals, novelty HELLO), so he made Earthworm Jim 2. Oh man, this cracks me up
His statement is debatable anyway. As if legal definitions matter to the populace? But the lawyers aren't going to try to say you stole their software in court. They're going to say you violated their license or whatever else they want. If they're calling it 'stealing,' that's for the populace so they understand ("violated my license!" sounds too abstract). But in the court, they do have options, as is quite reasonable. Yarr.
Huh. Weird. I guess you're talking to a bunch of people who know what piracy is already. But you know better than to call it 'piracy' to someone who hasn't heard of it before, right?
:/
Also just always beware of the subconscious messages such a word produces.
They're just trying to convince their customers that this is a good thing, by whining apparently. Generally if revenue is up, it's not believable to say "OH CRAP WE'RE DYING!"
How do you figure that information doesn't want to be free? That doesn't make sense. Information is free to start with, people love sharing information, and reliably locking information up is next to impossible.
;)
Furthermore, ignorance is actually quite liberating.
I like your point. .. in the way I like when a sexy model tells me her greatest wish is for world peace. There's a war going on in our languages, like it or not. You can choose to fight or allow yourself to be called a pirate. Or worse, a MAN! lol.
Personally I like the pirate bay's approach... we'll just change the meaning of pirate instead!
SecuROM :D so ez to crack like all the others... Rootkit? No, we obviously replace any rootkits with our own stealthy version when redistributing your content :P game development companies... LOL!
Pulling out my real wallet to improve my virtual character is not on my list of roleplaying actions, I'm afraid.
Did you RTFA? That's what this is all about.
But you're wrong, because people don't want to whip out their credit card mid game. Well maybe rich people like whipping out their credit card... the rest of us won't pay $8 for a virtual costume.
Fortunately this author makes games no person I can understand would want to play anyway(http://games.ign.com/objects/025/025191.html to see), so hey, maybe he's onto something. Obviously they're too stupid to have heard of pirating, or they'd be playing better games.
People will still pay for your game if it is good and they will still pirate it because they don't have money in the first place.
Speaking of pirating, ingame content costing money is no more secure than a well-implemented serial code, and can be considerably less secure. Consider, for instance, that some games have serial code validation THROUGHOUT THE GAME, using different methods to verify your code. Talk about a pissoff for a hacker. THAT'S how you make your code secure - make it too much of time sink for the pirates to hack. You gotta remember step one of piracy is still cracking the game... cracking micropay is no different than cracking any other security scheme, and just like all the others, it won't work.
Why? There's this thing, maybe you've heard it. "Information wants to be free." If you free information, it promises continual rewards in terms of both LOVE(from the people you give it away to for free) and MONEY(from the virus you implanted with it).
If you really want to make more money off your games, try setting up game conferences, selling retail items, letting the game be modded and setting up an advertised modding site... you have options that don't pissing off your customer with DRM that requires them to be online or suspended disbelief(IE whipping out the real wallet, a very noticeable thing for most of us) in the middle of your game.
I've never heard of Steam having DRM. Doesn't make sense, since steam is a method to download content.
:/
The funniest thing about Steam is, I tried to use it... and ended up with a game that didn't work! Then I went and checked isohunt... oh yeah, there is halflife2... oh look, this version works! Maybe valve should take some coding lessons from the blackhats - or, possibly something else (like they noticed I stole halflife1 and still had it on the pc, hahaha) was going on. They really got owned on that issue though... I've heard several people say they had the same problem
"Those who pay for games will pay for it, and those who refuse to will continue to pirate."
;)
Really that's all that needs to be said in response to the main point of this article.
But micropay actually rocks. Not for games, though, lol... what a bad idea... obviously he's crying wolf. But it's good for the rest of us, because micropay methods are especially useful for unknown artists, and they need improvement. So maybe he can stumble past the blocks for us like a good human
... but we'll still patch his games so we don't have to pay for that sword except with in-game currency. GG. Binary's EZ, son, when will u LERN?
no, only idiotic cellphone users, which is who this pricing model will appeal to as well.
You should really be SMS'ing for free, you're very open to DOS attacks.
http://patphelan.net/send-and-recieve-free-sms-with-joopz/
http://www.geckoandfly.com/2006/08/06/send-free-sms-with-gofreesmscom/
http://thinkabdul.com/2006/09/05/sendrecieve-free-sms-from-computer-via-mobile-bluetooth/
http://thinkabdul.com/2007/08/11/cellity-sms-software-for-java-mobiles-send-receive-free-sms-with-more-than-160-characters-save-threaded-sms-history/
There are plenty of options. Screwing your customers is only a good idea if you are good at coming up with new names for your company.
You're not wrong. Take a look at David Perry's history:
http://games.ign.com/objects/025/025191.html
Except for Earthworm Jim, which was a massive hit, imo all those games are derivative crap not worth publishing or paying for. They're the kind of thing you see on the storeshelf and think, "wouldn't I rather just watch the movie, which is cheaper anyway?"
People are still buying and playing games. Certain games are very difficult to crack, or impossible(like subscription model is pretty hard, lol). Others you get single player, but can't play online because you can't authenticate.
The more a game is pirated, the more it is sold. Nothing worthwhile to see here, just greed. Keep in mind David's company IS called "SHINY games." Shiny means "pretty" and implies "worthless." So I suspect David Perry will probably think his model of forcing people to buy things ingame will actually work - not because it's a good idea, but because anyone who buys his games apparently has no taste anyway, so can't be expected to know about suspended disbelief...
Intellectual property theft is still theft, sorry.
EULA's on the other hand are just meant to scare you, and have virtually no legal worth.
Actually we'll just patch the game to let you get the swords for in-game money. We think you'll find it's a better game for not disrupting your suspended disbelief.
-Your Friends
He's put a nail in his coffin if he thinks he can rely on this. It's an insecure solution that will only turn people off more.
Micropay for items ingame is slightly harder to patch than disabling serial protection, if properly implemented. But not by very much, and we're really good at it, thanks, pretty much the computer does all the hard work now.
People don't want to whip out their credit card in midgame and use it to buy a +3 sword of shiny metal bits. At least I don't.
Try donations instead. You might be surprised, if your content is any good. If it's not, you may as well piss of your users with DRM (as if that worked), because they're not going to like the game once they start playing anyway.
Keep selling games. Stop whining about people sharing with each other. Or, if you like whining so much, maybe do some polls and find out what the REAL reason people don't want to give you money for your work is.
You like watching David Perry? Oh. You watched him make Earthworm Jim, then, I guess? That was pretty impressive, that character really entered society. Let's see what he did after that... OH! It was all derivative crud. Maybe you should stop following game developers around and thinking their shit smells good, and get a clue.
Creating unlicensed copies by itself doesn't deprive anyone of profit. Only if you get into redistribution is there a legal issue.
;)
But when you use bittorrent/etc I guess you're automatically redistributing
What if someone else is already providing that file for free? They could've just gotten the file from the other guy anyway, so there's no way you're actually depriving anyone of a profit.
ya ya, roll your eyes at me... the jury will be more convinced, I assure you... *keeps updown-loading*
Now see here. There is profit to be had in free distribution, and it doesn't come from people paying $1 extra for a sword. That's just ugly. What you need to do instead is as simple as south park,
1) distribute a worm with the game
2) ??? oooh so many options
3) PROFIT!
This sounds like a really bad idea, to me. And their references are HORRIBLE. Who has honestly ever heard of Nexon? But no mention of the massive failure Project Entropy, not Midthievia, not Second Life(hehe, understandable that one..)
Let's look at the first game to try this: nominally called midievia, is better known by the name 'Midthievia', because the code is ROM (which is licensed to say you can't charge for it), then they turned around and charged users for items in world.
Hm, for some reason this reminds me of GPL3's extra protections. Maybe fascism has its place o.O in licensing, that is...
http://news.softpedia.com/news/How-did-fish-grow-legs-15424.shtml
... it probably can be ... sounds like a possible great loss for science, though, which is supposed to be about breaking old models with newer, better ones. But you can't break the evolution model. There's nothing to break.
:P)
Quite a detailed exploration into fish growing legs. Google refused to tell me about fish with hip bones (hm) but let me find that more rigorous explanation. Here's a snip:
"That is the fish not only developed their legs while still being in water but they also developed the capacity of breathing air while still in water. This seems incredible: as Clack wrote, "why, after millions of years of successfully breathing underwater, did some fish begin turning to the air for their oxygen?""
After that, they go on to explain that the water was hot and the plants were growing, so somehow the fish were running out of oxygen in the water. Huh? Plants make oxygen, last time I checked. Sure, warm water has less oxygen... but the water was cooling down, not warming up.
This happens a lot in evolution science... How did eyes evolve? You can say, "Well, basically we think they were just these little patches that could detect light or darkness to help the fish navigate to the proper depth..." OR, you could say, "DNA has all the building blocks prepared already, and when the clock hit zero, the fish grew legs, right on schedule, according to the program of the designers." And that one answer solves all the questions. More evidence for evolution? Maybe so, but the evidence for intelligent design is more convincing, in my opinion.
Yet to be challenged in court... yikes. Scary. To think that pointing out the weak points in a theory could be legislated against! But
"It just looks too complex" is not really what I'm saying. It doesn't explain how things really happened, it just gathers evidence to support itself. It's like having a theory of gravity that just says, "Oh, we fall down! Look at all these people falling down!" but doesn't tell you when or why or how far or how much or how fast. Which is why I quibble over evolution being science at all. If you can't prove or disprove it, you have to take it on faith. I'm not against that for accurate models - we'd never get anywhere without SOME faith - but evolution is a model with so many points glossed over and ignored that I just can't put any faith into it anymore. Especially with the overwhelming evidence to suggest we're living in a simulation.
On the other hand, "someone made us" has just one (rather gaping) hole: well then, who made the thing that made us?! But I wouldn't recommend teaching it in schools (you may note that I never did... I just quibbled...) because proposing intelligent design essentially robs us of any exploration of evolution, without providing an alternate model with questions which we can explore. ("Who made us?" is not a valid question
Hmmm... I think you bring up a really good point there. But what exactly is 'evolution'? Well best not to go into it huh lol, but that's my problem. There's a lot of evidence that evolution exists and happens, but it gets extrapolated to mean something that it doesn't (the two big things are 1) how does life evolve? It isn't survival of the fittest. and 2) if evolution occurs sequentially, why do we see everything looking and acting so similarly? Like... fish with hip bones? Didn't we come from fish? So shouldn't the hip bones come AFTER fish? ... big questions left unanswered ...)
Intelligent design on the other hand, is a great explanation, but doesn't say anything. I mean sure it says there's a creator, but it doesn't tell us anything useful about the world that we can test or check. Evolution similarly has nothing testable... and if you think about it, either model has 'life exists!' as its evidence, so the evidence is not stronger for either side?
Personally I find it useful to believe in a creator above us - makes life a little easier to live. The only neg thing about religion is of course, obeying someone! haha
And as far as the fish hipbones go, my idea is that our creator made DNA and stocked it with instructions on how to build whatever we would need. Obviously that doesn't explain where our creator came from, but given that we are capable of simulating most of a human brain now, I think the evidence is strongly against us being the top-level universe, the first creation.
Why do scientists have such a problem allowing intelligent design? Because it's politically motivated? Regardless, our children should at least know the problems with evolution, instead of having their teachers gloss over the flaws in an attempt to convey just enough information for the students to get an A. And yes, I think they should also be introduced to the heretical evidence for creation.