Because companies intentionally cripple games and then charge you extra to get the full game. THAT is why. When you pay for HBO, HBO doesn't leave out certain shows that you have to pay extra for or only show you 3/4 of an episode and you have to pay extra for the rest of the episode. When you buy a car, they don't sell you the car and then say "oh, well you have to pay another $5,000 if you want a FUEL tank. What? You want to be able to turn it on? Well that's another $4,500 for the ignition!" That kind of garbage is the problem with DLC.
Seriously, nothing pisses me off more than reading a textbook that someone wrote in / highlighted in. It's rather distracting from trying to actually read what's in the book.
The comment about cutting down on weight for real majors is pretty spot on too.......I'd love to have had some wimpy English major or some such where I didn't have colossal books to lug around all the time.
I've owned a car with ABS and one without. I prefer the one without. I had an accident with the car with ABS (which got it totaled) due to poor braking - no accidents in the car without ABS and I've had it for 8 years.
Clearly, you can't ban people transporting children
I'd recommend just banning children.....saves people countless money, crime will decease dramatically, you can save all the costs of education as well, not to mention how frakking annoying they are............ban children and it's a win all around!
I've read up on many (not all, so I can't say for ALL) of those tests and they all have one flaw to rig the test to show that cell phones are "bad" - they do NOT let the driver say "hang on" or put the phone down for any reason. I rarely talk on my phone while I'm driving because I have a manual and it's just too annoying. However, when I do if I get to a tricky bit of road I say "Hang on" and drop the phone in my lap or in few cases where someone cut me off and I had to hit the brakes and swerve, I simply dropped the phone and it landed wherever.
It's not hard to shut up and / or drop the phone when you need to really concentrate on the road. The tests are going out to prove that cell phones are bad (not sure WHY they want that conclusion) and they rig them to show what they want.
Right on. Also, it seems many (if not most) girls / women are unable to differentiate between "in shape" and "thin". Britney Spears was never exactly "thin", but she was (and apparently once again is) in shape. So yes, while she may have a bigger build to her than a lot of girls, guys still find her incredibly attractive because she's in shape. Same goes for Jessica Biel. I think part of it is that (as any guy can tell you) it's a lot easier to just lose weight than it is to work out and have a toned body and girls just take the quick and easy way to "not be fat" without realizing that they're doing it completely wrong.
Exactly. We're all well aware of all the things people do to alter their appearance on a daily basis to look more attractive. If someone is naturally overweight and works out a lot to be thin, that's "altering their appearance". If someone has cosmetic surgery for any reason, it's the same thing. So is makeup, hair coloring, hell anything but the most basic hair styles in general. Specially tailored clothes fall in that category too.
It's stupid to complain about this since the vast majority of people (men and women) do things on a daily basis to make them look better than they naturally do.
My question is why do good developers, that are talented get laid off?
Because they earn more money. This goes double for if they have lots of experience. I know someone who's almost 60 and they kept incompetent people in the department but laid him off (when the last 3 months before he was laid off he was working 14 hour days to make up all the work that wasn't being done by the others in the same department) because he made too much money.
This company WAS run really well by really nice and ethical people......but it seems that once the economy went down and business started to dry up, they decided to throw ethics out the window in order to keep profits up.
Too true. I work at an IT consulting firm and my boss pretty much told me flat out that I'm going to be in some serious shit if I don't start dragging my feet to bill clients more hours. Apparently I'm too productive and don't over bill. I called my boss to ask him a question about a task I was going for a client one day - 10 minute phone call (maybe 6 minutes of it being the task at hand) and he bills the client for an hour for "assisting me". Now I'm just waiting for the economy to pick up so I can get a new job.
So, in your world, no one should be doctors, lawyers (I'm with you on that one), mechanics, engineers, or countless other professions so that they can spend the years required to be a good enough programmer to write and OS that does what they want because narcissistic pricks like you think that you're the only person in the world that matters?
People like you bitch about how MS is so "evil", yet you refuse to put much effort into thing that normal users actually WANT, so a lot of people that don't give a crap what OS they use as long as they can use the programs they want don't use Linux. Pidgin is a great example. I use it for both Windows and Linux and it's a good program. However, users have been wanting video chat for a long time, but because some of the programmers "don't feel the need" for video, nothing ever happens with it.
So if you've got nothing good to say about OSS, keep your trap shut, or you will just reveal your own ignorance of what open source is.
Really? Like you just revealed your inability to read? I love Linux. I've gotten many people to switch to it. However, until the Linux community starts to think about non-nerd features that normal users want, it will never really take off. You don't realize that most users, even nerds, really couldn't give a crap what filesystem they use as long as the OS does what they want. If you only want to write for yourself, fine - but don't bitch that people use closed source software instead. You're like one of those socially retarded art freaks with no talent who just randomly throws paint around and then gets mad that no one likes it. If you want people to like it, you have to consider what they want.
Your type always troll that OSS only ever plays catch up to windows, and yet here you complaining that linux isn't catching up in an area which it has absolutely no control over
Linux DOES have the ability to control it, it's just that most of the programmers are like you and WANT it to be something "normal" people don't use because you like being an elitist prick. LUK and WINE are examples of this - but the number of people working on those projects are only a tiny portion of OSS programmers. LUK is the one real shot Linux has at really going mainstream because it allows for true software compatibility. You whined earlier that "well games are made for Windows!" - guess what, most software for every program is written for Windows. That won't change until you start giving companies a REASON to code for Linux and they won't do that until you give users a REASON to use Linux (such as not having to just say "oh well, guess my 200 games are going to be coasters now that I have Linux").
Linux has a lot of stuff going for it, but it'll be like Will Hunting wasting it's potential as long as people like you are running the show.
Sorry, but I disagree. Why? Because OSS doesn't always provide what people want since it's made by nerds coding software that THEY want, not what the users want. For example. I'm a gamer (among other things) so I need Windows. If I pirated it (I don't, but this is hypothetical), it wouldn't be "slowing the progress of Linux" because, as great as Linux is, it's not good for gaming. Yes, I've run games in Wine, but until everything runs fine and it's easier to install games than it is for Kanye to piss people off, Linux will never be a gaming OS. That will probably never happen because most of the people writing Linux aren't gamers.
I've had my laptop Linux only for awhile, but my desktop never will be because the people writing code for Linux (generally speaking) couldn't give a rats ass about what I want in an OS. So, as much as I like OSS and think it will gain a much bigger market share over the next decade (due to smart phones and netbooks getting people used to it), I don't think OSS will ever "win" because it's not focused on the users desires, only the coders desires.
Sorry, but your anecdote about Google and takedown requests amused me. Google spent tons of money to buy YouTube, the once they had it, started removing most of the video that people watched. What was the point in buying it if they were going to just start killing off the business?
The only time I really go to YouTube anymore is for music videos......which it's fairly common for YouTube to take down. Eventually, I'll stop going to YouTube. I'm sure in some royally frakked up DMCA / RIAA / MPAA business sense that's a "viable model", but I don't see how removing incentives for people to use your product helps your business.
One of the dominate uses of the internet is viewing porn (not going into any potential copyright on said porn). Does that mean that the internet should be banned under existing obscenity laws?
How much is the average cable subscription in the US - with adverts - again?
Depends on your provider and how many channels you want. For the equivalent number of channels you list for the BBC (possibly more) it would cost around $20 or so. However, it's OPTIONAL. You can use an antenna to watch publicly broadcast programs for free. So, according to things I've read on here, there are other non-BBC channels, yet even if you never watch a BBC channel, you're forced to pay the BBC if you want to watch tv. I guess we know where the RIAA / MPAA learned their tactics from.
Fine then, explain the amazing strategy of baseball to me beyond "don't his the ball towards someone who can catch it" and "run fast so you make it safely to base".
If you can, then I'll admit I was wrong. However, I think this is simply the hubris of someone who doesn't like being mocked for their mindless hobby. Oh, and I'll mock NASCAR even more than I mock sports, just so you know (and I'm a huge car fan).
If you don't disagree, you wouldn't have bitched that my "intelligence-fueled anti-sports diatribe seems diminished by [my] atrocious spelling". You'd simply have said "I think you mean quit, not quite". You insulted the idea behind my post, not just the fact that I had ONE typo (which does not qualify in the slightest as atrocious spelling).
Ok, I'll give you that there's some strategy in football, but there's no strategy in any other sport other than "hit the ball" and "get the ball in the hole".
As for why everyone thinks they're mutually exclusive? Look at the people who are on sports teams. Remember high school and how the football players were seniors and still had problems with basic addition and reading? Yea, that's why everyone thinks they're mutually exclusive.
Slashdot Mirror
Because companies intentionally cripple games and then charge you extra to get the full game. THAT is why. When you pay for HBO, HBO doesn't leave out certain shows that you have to pay extra for or only show you 3/4 of an episode and you have to pay extra for the rest of the episode. When you buy a car, they don't sell you the car and then say "oh, well you have to pay another $5,000 if you want a FUEL tank. What? You want to be able to turn it on? Well that's another $4,500 for the ignition!" That kind of garbage is the problem with DLC.
A novel or two at a time (per class) is nothing compared to what science majors have when it comes to books.
Seriously, nothing pisses me off more than reading a textbook that someone wrote in / highlighted in. It's rather distracting from trying to actually read what's in the book.
The comment about cutting down on weight for real majors is pretty spot on too.......I'd love to have had some wimpy English major or some such where I didn't have colossal books to lug around all the time.
I've owned a car with ABS and one without. I prefer the one without. I had an accident with the car with ABS (which got it totaled) due to poor braking - no accidents in the car without ABS and I've had it for 8 years.
Actually, Mazda has that in the 2010 Mazda 3 - it's got a joystick surrounded with buttons for "menu" and "enter" and such for doing the GPS.
Sometimes you "freedom" people come across as real dicks.
Maybe, but you freedom hating people always come across as dicks.
Clearly, you can't ban people transporting children
I'd recommend just banning children.....saves people countless money, crime will decease dramatically, you can save all the costs of education as well, not to mention how frakking annoying they are............ban children and it's a win all around!
I've read up on many (not all, so I can't say for ALL) of those tests and they all have one flaw to rig the test to show that cell phones are "bad" - they do NOT let the driver say "hang on" or put the phone down for any reason. I rarely talk on my phone while I'm driving because I have a manual and it's just too annoying. However, when I do if I get to a tricky bit of road I say "Hang on" and drop the phone in my lap or in few cases where someone cut me off and I had to hit the brakes and swerve, I simply dropped the phone and it landed wherever.
It's not hard to shut up and / or drop the phone when you need to really concentrate on the road. The tests are going out to prove that cell phones are bad (not sure WHY they want that conclusion) and they rig them to show what they want.
Right on. Also, it seems many (if not most) girls / women are unable to differentiate between "in shape" and "thin". Britney Spears was never exactly "thin", but she was (and apparently once again is) in shape. So yes, while she may have a bigger build to her than a lot of girls, guys still find her incredibly attractive because she's in shape. Same goes for Jessica Biel. I think part of it is that (as any guy can tell you) it's a lot easier to just lose weight than it is to work out and have a toned body and girls just take the quick and easy way to "not be fat" without realizing that they're doing it completely wrong.
Exactly. We're all well aware of all the things people do to alter their appearance on a daily basis to look more attractive. If someone is naturally overweight and works out a lot to be thin, that's "altering their appearance". If someone has cosmetic surgery for any reason, it's the same thing. So is makeup, hair coloring, hell anything but the most basic hair styles in general. Specially tailored clothes fall in that category too.
It's stupid to complain about this since the vast majority of people (men and women) do things on a daily basis to make them look better than they naturally do.
My question is why do good developers, that are talented get laid off?
Because they earn more money. This goes double for if they have lots of experience. I know someone who's almost 60 and they kept incompetent people in the department but laid him off (when the last 3 months before he was laid off he was working 14 hour days to make up all the work that wasn't being done by the others in the same department) because he made too much money.
This company WAS run really well by really nice and ethical people......but it seems that once the economy went down and business started to dry up, they decided to throw ethics out the window in order to keep profits up.
Too true. I work at an IT consulting firm and my boss pretty much told me flat out that I'm going to be in some serious shit if I don't start dragging my feet to bill clients more hours. Apparently I'm too productive and don't over bill. I called my boss to ask him a question about a task I was going for a client one day - 10 minute phone call (maybe 6 minutes of it being the task at hand) and he bills the client for an hour for "assisting me". Now I'm just waiting for the economy to pick up so I can get a new job.
So, in your world, no one should be doctors, lawyers (I'm with you on that one), mechanics, engineers, or countless other professions so that they can spend the years required to be a good enough programmer to write and OS that does what they want because narcissistic pricks like you think that you're the only person in the world that matters?
People like you bitch about how MS is so "evil", yet you refuse to put much effort into thing that normal users actually WANT, so a lot of people that don't give a crap what OS they use as long as they can use the programs they want don't use Linux. Pidgin is a great example. I use it for both Windows and Linux and it's a good program. However, users have been wanting video chat for a long time, but because some of the programmers "don't feel the need" for video, nothing ever happens with it.
So if you've got nothing good to say about OSS, keep your trap shut, or you will just reveal your own ignorance of what open source is.
Really? Like you just revealed your inability to read? I love Linux. I've gotten many people to switch to it. However, until the Linux community starts to think about non-nerd features that normal users want, it will never really take off. You don't realize that most users, even nerds, really couldn't give a crap what filesystem they use as long as the OS does what they want. If you only want to write for yourself, fine - but don't bitch that people use closed source software instead. You're like one of those socially retarded art freaks with no talent who just randomly throws paint around and then gets mad that no one likes it. If you want people to like it, you have to consider what they want.
Your type always troll that OSS only ever plays catch up to windows, and yet here you complaining that linux isn't catching up in an area which it has absolutely no control over
Linux DOES have the ability to control it, it's just that most of the programmers are like you and WANT it to be something "normal" people don't use because you like being an elitist prick. LUK and WINE are examples of this - but the number of people working on those projects are only a tiny portion of OSS programmers. LUK is the one real shot Linux has at really going mainstream because it allows for true software compatibility. You whined earlier that "well games are made for Windows!" - guess what, most software for every program is written for Windows. That won't change until you start giving companies a REASON to code for Linux and they won't do that until you give users a REASON to use Linux (such as not having to just say "oh well, guess my 200 games are going to be coasters now that I have Linux").
Linux has a lot of stuff going for it, but it'll be like Will Hunting wasting it's potential as long as people like you are running the show.
Sorry, but I disagree. Why? Because OSS doesn't always provide what people want since it's made by nerds coding software that THEY want, not what the users want. For example. I'm a gamer (among other things) so I need Windows. If I pirated it (I don't, but this is hypothetical), it wouldn't be "slowing the progress of Linux" because, as great as Linux is, it's not good for gaming. Yes, I've run games in Wine, but until everything runs fine and it's easier to install games than it is for Kanye to piss people off, Linux will never be a gaming OS. That will probably never happen because most of the people writing Linux aren't gamers.
I've had my laptop Linux only for awhile, but my desktop never will be because the people writing code for Linux (generally speaking) couldn't give a rats ass about what I want in an OS. So, as much as I like OSS and think it will gain a much bigger market share over the next decade (due to smart phones and netbooks getting people used to it), I don't think OSS will ever "win" because it's not focused on the users desires, only the coders desires.
Sorry, but your anecdote about Google and takedown requests amused me. Google spent tons of money to buy YouTube, the once they had it, started removing most of the video that people watched. What was the point in buying it if they were going to just start killing off the business?
The only time I really go to YouTube anymore is for music videos......which it's fairly common for YouTube to take down. Eventually, I'll stop going to YouTube. I'm sure in some royally frakked up DMCA / RIAA / MPAA business sense that's a "viable model", but I don't see how removing incentives for people to use your product helps your business.
One of the dominate uses of the internet is viewing porn (not going into any potential copyright on said porn). Does that mean that the internet should be banned under existing obscenity laws?
*crap, I screwed it up (yea yea) it's Ewe, not sheep
Q:What's the difference between a Scotsman and a Rolling Stone?
A:The Rolling Stone says "Hey you, get off of my cloud!" - the Scotsman says "Hey McCloud, get off of my sheep!"
How much is the average cable subscription in the US - with adverts - again?
Depends on your provider and how many channels you want. For the equivalent number of channels you list for the BBC (possibly more) it would cost around $20 or so. However, it's OPTIONAL. You can use an antenna to watch publicly broadcast programs for free. So, according to things I've read on here, there are other non-BBC channels, yet even if you never watch a BBC channel, you're forced to pay the BBC if you want to watch tv. I guess we know where the RIAA / MPAA learned their tactics from.
The FTC is holding hearings on whether or not to continue to allow DRM and EULA's.
http://action.theeca.com/t/2858/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=562
At that site you can write a submission to the FTC about why DRM / EULA's are bad.
I'm pretty excited to see how this turns out!
The FTC is holding hearings on whether or not to continue to allow DRM and EULA's.
http://action.theeca.com/t/2858/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=562
At that site you can write a submission to the FTC about why DRM / EULA's are bad.
I'm pretty excited!
Fine then, explain the amazing strategy of baseball to me beyond "don't his the ball towards someone who can catch it" and "run fast so you make it safely to base".
If you can, then I'll admit I was wrong. However, I think this is simply the hubris of someone who doesn't like being mocked for their mindless hobby. Oh, and I'll mock NASCAR even more than I mock sports, just so you know (and I'm a huge car fan).
If you don't disagree, you wouldn't have bitched that my "intelligence-fueled anti-sports diatribe seems diminished by [my] atrocious spelling". You'd simply have said "I think you mean quit, not quite". You insulted the idea behind my post, not just the fact that I had ONE typo (which does not qualify in the slightest as atrocious spelling).
Ok, I'll give you that there's some strategy in football, but there's no strategy in any other sport other than "hit the ball" and "get the ball in the hole".
As for why everyone thinks they're mutually exclusive? Look at the people who are on sports teams. Remember high school and how the football players were seniors and still had problems with basic addition and reading? Yea, that's why everyone thinks they're mutually exclusive.