Monopoly is such a scare word, ESPECIALLY on the internet. If something better comes along people will eventually tend towards that. People are scared of Google? What do you expect? Google is simply phenomenal at what it does. If something better comes along, then people will use that, like they did when people switched to Google in the first place. Myspace died because Facebook was better. Facebook will probably eventually die out, too. It works, it works well, and people will continue to use it as long as it works well.
So you're upset by a company censoring itself or changing content because they were upset that a sponsor/advertiser might not like content they're showing...?
There's nothing insightful about your post if you look at the actual issue. Google is one advertiser out of many potential others. A big one, perhaps the biggest, to be sure, but so what? TVTropes has no right in any sense of the word to operate the way it does, now, with an advertiser that may be cautious about what content they're connected to. Unless you're upset about when many of Glenn Beck's sponsors began dropping advertising during his show. Does that upset you?
The fact that you are upset about the trucks with cameras shows how utterly paranoid and alarmist you are. Par for the course for PopeRatzo, nothing more to see here...
Re:Glad I play games just to have fun
on
Diablo 3 Hands-On
·
· Score: 1
Out of concern of people quitting, yes. It was certainly a self-interested move.
Blizzard changed RealID out of player concerns out of concern of their own bottom line, as that particular action was the worst thing Blizzard has done yet. They were pretty much forced to back off because of the backlash.
Blizzard's DRM is far more strict and RESTRICTIVE than Valve's/Steam's DRM.
PR from the company? Are you serious? I've never even played Starcraft 1!
Why do you assume everyone paid for the tool?
Some people use trainers just to mess around after completing the campaign. What, you seriously never used a GameShark during the console days...? Are you kids really that young?
Re:Not sure I'll buy it.
on
Diablo 3 Hands-On
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Many people will do so particularly after completing the single player by themselves, for fun. Additionally, trainers are not bots.
Re:Not sure I'll buy it.
on
Diablo 3 Hands-On
·
· Score: 0, Redundant
The achievement system being linked to single player is part of the inherent design of Blizzard's online-based DRM.
It does seem to be shaping up well, but Blizzard's attitude towards gamers and their heavy-handed use (and, I'd say, abuse) of the legal system makes me really not want to support them. The DRM is absolutely horrible. I know some Blizz fanboys will come in here to burn me at the stake just for criticizing the DRM alone, but I am a brave, if not stupid, man.
Compare Blizzard and Valve. Oh, sure, Steam is DRM in a sense too, but the system also adds value by Steam's nature. Blizzard treats players with contempt by removing true LAN play and bans people for using trainers on single player--and no, fanboys, trainers can do more than the game's own cheat system, and the whole achievement argument is bunk when you realize that Blizz's DRM is the reason online achievements is even tied to single player play in the fashion in it.
Even compare how the two companies communicate to gamers. Companies like Valve understand the player base; companies like Blizzard/Activision do not, and they are not made up of gamers. Remember the RealID fiasco on the WoW forums?
Buying Diablo III is just going to set a horrible precedent and tell the company that we'll still pay for all this bullshit.
Who cares about achievements? Achievements are cosmetic at best, and nobody really cares about them. Why are you supporting what a company tells you you can do with your software? Oh, ACHIEVEMENTS, IS IT? Well guess what, it was Blizzard's own choice to require that you have an account with them and check in every 30 days. You've drank the fanboy kool aid.
The real reason is that Blizzard wants money from rebuyers.
Arrggh, I usually try to avoid that error, but in all seriousness that phrase has taken on an idiomatic meaning to mean the opposite of what is statement; it was probably born out of sarcasm.
"Nobody claims these things except people who don't like him."
Where did I say people claim it? They ACT like it, on some level. Sure, saying Obama is the messiah is an exaggeration, but the reverence people have shown him, especially unwarranted, is kind of scary and people aren't being as skeptical of him as they were Bush, which is a bad thing.
"The whole point is to get people to watch Mythbusters who don't normally watch the show. Then they might see that science doesn't have to be boring and develop an interest in it."
Not that many people, particularly the kids this is aimed at, are going to watch Mythbusters on TV just to see the president. You can watch the news and do that. The hidden idea here is that Obama is special enough that his opinion should inform ours.
Anytime a political figure uses their power to support any particular value, it is political because they are lending prestige of office to forward a cause as opposed to being against it. Imagine if Obama stuck his neck out for partial-birth abortion? The only difference here is the number of people that oppose science is extremely low. Nowhere did my statement imply that if a politician supports something, it says anything about the "other" party.
Him appearing on a TV show with a message kids are supposed to listen to implies that he's a special man with special authority to tell people whether or not to like science. Obviously, kids should, but adults and authority figures telling kids science is cool is probably a lot less effective than persuading them it is so, and why Obama versus, say, Richard Dawkins or Steven Hawking or some other famous scientist?
Anytime a political figure is being used to express support (or coming out against) something, it is inherently political, even if most or all people agree with the President's mission.
Here I disagree not at all with the message but the view that the president is something that we should look up to and take his word seriously.
What makes you think kids are going to watch Mythbusters to see Obama? Most of them could care less about the man.
I understand there's sort of a holy aura around the president, where he's viewed as some sort of quasi-deity because he's not George W. Bush, but come on. People that are watching Mythbusters are already interested in science and that sort of thing, why is bringing politics into the show going to influence people to like science?
As far as I can see, you have a love of authority that you think kids do, and you think that the love of authority will somehow transfer to their love of science, if Obama praises scientific achievement on the show. I think both ideas are questionable.
You're kind of (not completely, but kind of) treating the commons/public domain thing as a strawman, but isn't rejecting or at least severely downplaying individual innovation and creations a central part of communism?
Well, if people are disagreeing with Obama, then there's something wrong... i'm not sure i have a problem with this if the democrats are in charge. The Republican party does not have the people's good at heart, the democrats do. So you have to take that into consideration and wonder if there are good reasons for these sorts of things.
What are you talking about? You don't understand why moral propositions aren't empirically testable (indeed, they are values and not facts) and science is basically the "technology" of philosophy. Philosophy has everything to do with science, and if you don't know why, then that's because you're extremely ignorant, particularly about epistemology.
Slashdot Mirror
Fucking Repugs... oh, wait, that's a D.
Obama isn't going to veto this if it passes. Just so you know.
We ought to abolish Google and let new search engines pop up, and when one of those dominates, we rinse and repeat the process.
Monopoly is such a scare word, ESPECIALLY on the internet. If something better comes along people will eventually tend towards that. People are scared of Google? What do you expect? Google is simply phenomenal at what it does. If something better comes along, then people will use that, like they did when people switched to Google in the first place. Myspace died because Facebook was better. Facebook will probably eventually die out, too. It works, it works well, and people will continue to use it as long as it works well.
So you're upset by a company censoring itself or changing content because they were upset that a sponsor/advertiser might not like content they're showing...?
There's nothing insightful about your post if you look at the actual issue. Google is one advertiser out of many potential others. A big one, perhaps the biggest, to be sure, but so what? TVTropes has no right in any sense of the word to operate the way it does, now, with an advertiser that may be cautious about what content they're connected to. Unless you're upset about when many of Glenn Beck's sponsors began dropping advertising during his show. Does that upset you?
The fact that you are upset about the trucks with cameras shows how utterly paranoid and alarmist you are. Par for the course for PopeRatzo, nothing more to see here...
Out of concern of people quitting, yes. It was certainly a self-interested move.
Oh, and two words: LAN play.
Blizzard changed RealID out of player concerns out of concern of their own bottom line, as that particular action was the worst thing Blizzard has done yet. They were pretty much forced to back off because of the backlash.
Blizzard's DRM is far more strict and RESTRICTIVE than Valve's/Steam's DRM.
PR from the company? Are you serious? I've never even played Starcraft 1!
Why do you assume everyone paid for the tool?
Some people use trainers just to mess around after completing the campaign. What, you seriously never used a GameShark during the console days...? Are you kids really that young?
Many people will do so particularly after completing the single player by themselves, for fun. Additionally, trainers are not bots.
The achievement system being linked to single player is part of the inherent design of Blizzard's online-based DRM.
It does seem to be shaping up well, but Blizzard's attitude towards gamers and their heavy-handed use (and, I'd say, abuse) of the legal system makes me really not want to support them. The DRM is absolutely horrible. I know some Blizz fanboys will come in here to burn me at the stake just for criticizing the DRM alone, but I am a brave, if not stupid, man.
Compare Blizzard and Valve. Oh, sure, Steam is DRM in a sense too, but the system also adds value by Steam's nature. Blizzard treats players with contempt by removing true LAN play and bans people for using trainers on single player--and no, fanboys, trainers can do more than the game's own cheat system, and the whole achievement argument is bunk when you realize that Blizz's DRM is the reason online achievements is even tied to single player play in the fashion in it.
Even compare how the two companies communicate to gamers. Companies like Valve understand the player base; companies like Blizzard/Activision do not, and they are not made up of gamers. Remember the RealID fiasco on the WoW forums?
Buying Diablo III is just going to set a horrible precedent and tell the company that we'll still pay for all this bullshit.
Doesn't matter at all, the fact is is that blizzard deliberately set up such a system with their DRM.
Who cares about achievements? Achievements are cosmetic at best, and nobody really cares about them. Why are you supporting what a company tells you you can do with your software? Oh, ACHIEVEMENTS, IS IT? Well guess what, it was Blizzard's own choice to require that you have an account with them and check in every 30 days. You've drank the fanboy kool aid.
The real reason is that Blizzard wants money from rebuyers.
"Could care less"
Arrggh, I usually try to avoid that error, but in all seriousness that phrase has taken on an idiomatic meaning to mean the opposite of what is statement; it was probably born out of sarcasm.
"Nobody claims these things except people who don't like him."
Where did I say people claim it? They ACT like it, on some level. Sure, saying Obama is the messiah is an exaggeration, but the reverence people have shown him, especially unwarranted, is kind of scary and people aren't being as skeptical of him as they were Bush, which is a bad thing.
"The whole point is to get people to watch Mythbusters who don't normally watch the show. Then they might see that science doesn't have to be boring and develop an interest in it."
Not that many people, particularly the kids this is aimed at, are going to watch Mythbusters on TV just to see the president. You can watch the news and do that. The hidden idea here is that Obama is special enough that his opinion should inform ours.
Anytime a political figure uses their power to support any particular value, it is political because they are lending prestige of office to forward a cause as opposed to being against it. Imagine if Obama stuck his neck out for partial-birth abortion? The only difference here is the number of people that oppose science is extremely low. Nowhere did my statement imply that if a politician supports something, it says anything about the "other" party.
Him appearing on a TV show with a message kids are supposed to listen to implies that he's a special man with special authority to tell people whether or not to like science. Obviously, kids should, but adults and authority figures telling kids science is cool is probably a lot less effective than persuading them it is so, and why Obama versus, say, Richard Dawkins or Steven Hawking or some other famous scientist?
Anytime a political figure is being used to express support (or coming out against) something, it is inherently political, even if most or all people agree with the President's mission.
Here I disagree not at all with the message but the view that the president is something that we should look up to and take his word seriously.
What makes you think kids are going to watch Mythbusters to see Obama? Most of them could care less about the man.
I understand there's sort of a holy aura around the president, where he's viewed as some sort of quasi-deity because he's not George W. Bush, but come on. People that are watching Mythbusters are already interested in science and that sort of thing, why is bringing politics into the show going to influence people to like science?
As far as I can see, you have a love of authority that you think kids do, and you think that the love of authority will somehow transfer to their love of science, if Obama praises scientific achievement on the show. I think both ideas are questionable.
You're kind of (not completely, but kind of) treating the commons/public domain thing as a strawman, but isn't rejecting or at least severely downplaying individual innovation and creations a central part of communism?
Well, if people are disagreeing with Obama, then there's something wrong... i'm not sure i have a problem with this if the democrats are in charge. The Republican party does not have the people's good at heart, the democrats do. So you have to take that into consideration and wonder if there are good reasons for these sorts of things.
Funny how things wound down almost overnight when Obama was elected.
Don't forget the moveon.org shenanigans here:
http://www.mediaite.com/online/moveon-org-removes-general-betray-us-ad-in-response-to-petraeus-appointment/
No, but a lot of them stopped talking about it.
Mod parent up
Social text wasn't really a social science journal, it was a post-structuralist mumbo jumbo journal.
What are you talking about? You don't understand why moral propositions aren't empirically testable (indeed, they are values and not facts) and science is basically the "technology" of philosophy. Philosophy has everything to do with science, and if you don't know why, then that's because you're extremely ignorant, particularly about epistemology.
I just told someone earlier today (we are in Nebraska) that it's every Nebraskan's dream to one day leave Nebraska. Someday I will ascend. Someday.
Then people like me, people that dislike people like you and the controlling dominant political structure, will vote for people like BasilMarceaux.com