What kind I wonder? The term has been diluted to meaninglessness by systematic abuse.
- Guy who sent nude pictures to their girlfriend before they were 18? - Guy who called a coworker a stupid cunt? - Guy who downloaded bad drawings from the Internet? - Guy who downloaded bad pictures from the Internet? - Guy who flashed children? - Guy who raped children?
Yeah, such as a snowball's chance in hell of solving any drug problems.
Imprisoning a million people for non-violent offences and turning them into hardened criminals isn't exactly the greatest crime-fighting strategy ever devised. Especially when it costs 55,000 USD per person per year. But then why bother trying to improve recividism rates when, with privatised prisons, you have a financial incentive to keep as many people in prison as possible?
They have a pitch-perfect strategy: - Sell games at full price for a while. Massive profit from day-one customers. - Sell at a drastically reduced price. Massive profit from thrifty customers. - Hold seasonal sales with huge publicity, attracting even more customers, making even more money. - Repeat forever.
You just have to "disable" the games on the old machine and download them again on the new machine.
That's misleading. You can download games to multiple machines without restriction, there's no bullshit like managing activations. One of Steam's selling points is the ability to log in from any machine and play your games.
In the scenario above he wouldn't even have to download them again. You can simply copy and paste games between machines, or even between accounts if they both have the relevant game attached to them.
You can only manage that kind of effort temporarily. Soon your work goes into the shitter, despite feeling that you're getting more done. And you need an equivalently long recovery period just to get back on track afterward.
Being asked to do it for an indeterminate amount of time isn't a good sign.
How can you fit that many fallacies into a single paragraph? With strenuous effort I might be able to approach your level of trolling, but I fear I could never reach it.
There's nothing to dispute. The dig on its textures was because the N64 had perspective-correct texture mapping with trilinear filtering, and the PS1 was stuck with affine nearest-neighbour.
No. The PSX wasn't the fastest of its generation. Hell, it couldn't even do perspective-correct texture mapping. But it had a lot of storage and it was easy to program for.
To be honest, I find it hard to imagine that they won't succeed in making Mr. Hotz's life very... expensive indeed.
Tee hee. Corporations can ruin your life on a whim at a negligable cost, with no consequences, and it doesn't even matter if they're in the right morally, legally, or factually.
Actually now that I think about it, it's not very funny...
Remember in university when you learned that argument from lack of imagination was a fallacy?
Remember in highschool when you learned that there was more than one side to an issue, and that issues generally aren't black and white even when you fully agree?
Remember in primary school when you learned other people had different preferences and sensibilities, that they didn't like everything you liked?
That would be true in an idealised fantasy world where everyone had infinite time, were lawyers, and were aware of the potential problems with EULAs. Back here on Earth...
EULAs aren't upfront. Nobody reads them and nobody expects them to be read. People couldn't understand them if they tried. They're created with that fact in mind:
EULAs aren't specific. They are to a lawyer, but for the people reading them the text is incomprehensible obfuscated gibberish. Clearly they don't give a shit about agreement since it's physically impossible for most people to agree:
Consent requires comprehension. Perhaps you've heard of statuatory rape, a law that employs this principle. Contracts are also supposed to require mutual understanding because the entire concept is logically incoherant otherwise.
But of course that wouldn't be convenient in consumer electronics. So it's ignored, leaving us with a nonsensical system that bears no relevance to reality whatsoever. We pretend to agree and they pretend we agreed. And everyone knows it's bullshit.
Except for the law of course. "Legally binding" loses meaning as a defence when the law itself loses relevance. A law which completely fails to take into account how society operates is a law that should not exist.
Therefore, EULAs are hokum, people are dumbasses, companies are shitheads and the law is morally wrong. Merry Christmas!
Happened to me a few times as well. Genuine retail copy on my shelf, real disc in a real CD drive - base explodes. I got bitten by Operation Flashpoint's over-zealous FADE DRM as well.
There's no such thing as infinite smallness. I said that to highlight the absurdity of thinking that the number goes on infinitely while at the same time thinking it eventually ends. The entire point of an infinity is that it doesn't end. There is no space by definition.
You've dealt with such numbers many times without any problems. For example, in primary school when you learned about fractions:
2/3 + 1/3 = 1.
Or in decimal:
0.666... + 0.333... = 1
If you now find yourself wanting the revise the curriculum, you have a problem understanding the notion of infinity.:)
if you want to argue infinite repeating decimals, than yes, 0.9999... is approaching 1.
That's what the expression "0.999..." literally means. There is no argument: if you consider it a finitely long number you're not even talking about the same thing.
It's limit as we approach an infinite number of decimal points would essentially make it equal to 1.
"Essentially." This is interesting. Exactly how close does 0.999... get if it never reaches it?
It gets infinitely close. The difference is infinitely small. In other words... they're equal.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, do they? You better concede your own point as well, since apparently it's become recursive.
After all, you've turned an observation of rhetorical sleaze into yet another instrument of rhetorical sleaze. Well done.
REGISTERED SEX OFFENDER
What kind I wonder? The term has been diluted to meaninglessness by systematic abuse.
- Guy who sent nude pictures to their girlfriend before they were 18?
- Guy who called a coworker a stupid cunt?
- Guy who downloaded bad drawings from the Internet?
- Guy who downloaded bad pictures from the Internet?
- Guy who flashed children?
- Guy who raped children?
It's sad what we threw away in the War on Drugs
Yeah, such as a snowball's chance in hell of solving any drug problems.
Imprisoning a million people for non-violent offences and turning them into hardened criminals isn't exactly the greatest crime-fighting strategy ever devised. Especially when it costs 55,000 USD per person per year. But then why bother trying to improve recividism rates when, with privatised prisons, you have a financial incentive to keep as many people in prison as possible?
Overdue? Sounds like gambler's fallacy to me.
At some point developers will start to do the math and see that they can drastically increase profits by going low price on digital only.
Some of them have. Namely Valve.
They have a pitch-perfect strategy:
- Sell games at full price for a while. Massive profit from day-one customers.
- Sell at a drastically reduced price. Massive profit from thrifty customers.
- Hold seasonal sales with huge publicity, attracting even more customers, making even more money.
- Repeat forever.
You just have to "disable" the games on the old machine and download them again on the new machine.
That's misleading. You can download games to multiple machines without restriction, there's no bullshit like managing activations. One of Steam's selling points is the ability to log in from any machine and play your games.
In the scenario above he wouldn't even have to download them again. You can simply copy and paste games between machines, or even between accounts if they both have the relevant game attached to them.
Demand the ridiculous, then 'compromise' down to your real demands. They look a lot better that way.
Usually the other way around. Foreshortening is a bitch.
The Xenos is a modified Radeon X1?00. The RSX is also known as the Geforce 7800GS.
It would be ridiculously expensive to actually design whole new architectures for these things.
You might find this article interesting.
No.
You can only manage that kind of effort temporarily. Soon your work goes into the shitter, despite feeling that you're getting more done. And you need an equivalently long recovery period just to get back on track afterward.
Being asked to do it for an indeterminate amount of time isn't a good sign.
How can you fit that many fallacies into a single paragraph? With strenuous effort I might be able to approach your level of trolling, but I fear I could never reach it.
Bravo, sir.
What are you taking about.
"The PSX wasn't the fastest of its generation."
There's nothing to dispute. The dig on its textures was because the N64 had perspective-correct texture mapping with trilinear filtering, and the PS1 was stuck with affine nearest-neighbour.
Power doesn't mean graphics. Computational power and available storage limit everything in a game.
No. The PSX wasn't the fastest of its generation. Hell, it couldn't even do perspective-correct texture mapping. But it had a lot of storage and it was easy to program for.
To be honest, I find it hard to imagine that they won't succeed in making Mr. Hotz's life very... expensive indeed.
Tee hee. Corporations can ruin your life on a whim at a negligable cost, with no consequences, and it doesn't even matter if they're in the right morally, legally, or factually.
Actually now that I think about it, it's not very funny...
They only have as much control as you give them. A cracked executable works with Steam just as well as a retail game.
How is this so-called "traitorware" an issue?
Remember in university when you learned that argument from lack of imagination was a fallacy?
Remember in highschool when you learned that there was more than one side to an issue, and that issues generally aren't black and white even when you fully agree?
Remember in primary school when you learned other people had different preferences and sensibilities, that they didn't like everything you liked?
Combine them and *bam!*, understanding!
That would be true in an idealised fantasy world where everyone had infinite time, were lawyers, and were aware of the potential problems with EULAs. Back here on Earth...
EULAs aren't upfront. Nobody reads them and nobody expects them to be read. People couldn't understand them if they tried. They're created with that fact in mind:
EULAs aren't specific. They are to a lawyer, but for the people reading them the text is incomprehensible obfuscated gibberish. Clearly they don't give a shit about agreement since it's physically impossible for most people to agree:
Consent requires comprehension. Perhaps you've heard of statuatory rape, a law that employs this principle. Contracts are also supposed to require mutual understanding because the entire concept is logically incoherant otherwise.
But of course that wouldn't be convenient in consumer electronics. So it's ignored, leaving us with a nonsensical system that bears no relevance to reality whatsoever. We pretend to agree and they pretend we agreed. And everyone knows it's bullshit.
Except for the law of course. "Legally binding" loses meaning as a defence when the law itself loses relevance. A law which completely fails to take into account how society operates is a law that should not exist.
Therefore, EULAs are hokum, people are dumbasses, companies are shitheads and the law is morally wrong. Merry Christmas!
Happened to me a few times as well. Genuine retail copy on my shelf, real disc in a real CD drive - base explodes. I got bitten by Operation Flashpoint's over-zealous FADE DRM as well.
synthetic pop-idols
Is there any other kind?
The reason you noticed that is the reason they're making it. Brand recognition.
There's no such thing as infinite smallness. I said that to highlight the absurdity of thinking that the number goes on infinitely while at the same time thinking it eventually ends. The entire point of an infinity is that it doesn't end. There is no space by definition.
You've dealt with such numbers many times without any problems. For example, in primary school when you learned about fractions:
2/3 + 1/3 = 1.
Or in decimal:
0.666... + 0.333... = 1
If you now find yourself wanting the revise the curriculum, you have a problem understanding the notion of infinity. :)
The idea of "closeness" doesn't apply in an infinite series. The number doesn't end.
It's an abstract logical construct with no analogue in reality. Do you honestly expect an intuitive answer?
And did you just seriously say you don't care what the numbers say in a mathematics discussion? Damn son, talk about overvaluing your instincts.
if you want to argue infinite repeating decimals, than yes, 0.9999... is approaching 1.
That's what the expression "0.999..." literally means. There is no argument: if you consider it a finitely long number you're not even talking about the same thing.
It's limit as we approach an infinite number of decimal points would essentially make it equal to 1.
"Essentially." This is interesting. Exactly how close does 0.999... get if it never reaches it?
It gets infinitely close. The difference is infinitely small. In other words... they're equal.