I think I would just start using the phrases they claim to "own" much more often. Maybe even in court, if it makes it that far, ending everything with one of their phrases.
I have done the same thing, but ended up buying the games later because I liked them. Others I passed on completely. For example, I bought Hearts of Iron 2 after downloading it. Buying games from that publisher gives benefits, like getting access to beta patches and tech support (they will not do tech support without a serial key).
The problem with this analogy is that games, once made, aren't really scarce. If I consume a beer, it's gone. No one else gets it. If I make a copy of Warcraft 99999 Extreme Edition, I deprive no one else of a copy. My hard drive can fit at least a few hundred copies of certain games (eg Diablo II), and my ISP cap would let me download many hundreds of games per month. This is a different problem from the music industry, because in the music industry you can still make money by providing live shows and the like, even if you never sell an album. In fact, for them, piracy may even help them make more money on concerts.
Games have no such outlet; I don't want to go watch a live performance of a game. What I think is needed is for the game industry to find other forms of revenue that realize this situation. MMO games are very easy to fit into this model: give the game away, but charge for access. Other online games might charge for multiplayer to generate revenue. Store copies can still charge more, because there are always people that will pay for those, so the game company can make a profit there. I am also more inclined to pay smaller developers for more innovative or niche games than I am willing to pay for Generic FPS 900 from MegaGameCorp. Maybe they can do the whole Radiohead "name your own price" thing. Apart from changes in the revenue model, I have a feeling that the whole draconian DRM problem will only get worse.
Whats far more likely is a brain-dead local authority tries to dust them off and apply them and SCOTUS tosses them out. You and I may not always like the outcome of SCOTUS decisions but they do tend to serve the Framers' intent of keeping legislators and their more ridiculous laws in check.
Yeah, like, maybe 200 years ago. Certainly not in this century or the last have they done much of keeping things in check. Things like the changes to eminent domain that they magically puffed into existence, because we all know taking land and giving it to business interests is for "the public good."
Or how about that case of the farmer who did not want to comply with legislation that regulated what amount of wheat he could grow? That law was billed as being supported under "interstate commerce," and then applied to this farmer who grew his own crops for his own use in his own state, because his mere existence in that industry has some sort of effect on the rest of the industry. Yeah, sure, that's a time cherished constitutional principle there.
Or how about the, how shall we say it, lack of any declaration of war since WWII? You know, that kinda makes every war after that somewhat illegal under the Constitution, but I don't see the Justices complaining, or even Congress complaining. Let's not even talk about the various illegal wiretapping schemes they have, or the drug laws. (If alcohol took an amendment to ban, why doesn't weed?)
Who funded the Taliban? Where does Osama Bin laden come from? Where does the money for fundamentalist madrasas come from?
For a brief period, Osama and co were funded by the US in an attempt to kill as many Soviets as possible, in addition to the usual suspects (eg Saudi). IIRC, the Pakistani intelligence also helped the Taliban gain power. Other than those brief anomalies, your point mostly stands.
You can get some great movies with dialog alone. I had to watch one old movie for a class in high school, and I forget its title, but it was basically a jury talking about whether a man is innocent or not. It was black and white, with no effects that people of my generation have come to expect in movies. It had no action of any sort, just talking and the tension that comes from their arguments. It was, however, an awesome film. Better than most movies nowadays.
That's kind of his point: most people have never heard of Asimov, let alone read any of his stories. The only real sci-fi they have seen is in the vein of Star Wars. As this movie would come out later than Star Wars, they would then think they ripped it off of Lucas.
The farming by hand industry was huge back in the day. It employed massive amounts of people. We should bail that out and bring people to work. Or, better yet, we should have the unemployed build holes in the desert -- image the jumpstart to our economy!
Depending on where you drive, you can actually be stopped and searched for this sort of thing, even without probable cause of any kind. They did that to me and my family on a trip to DC from Virginia, and if we had had any guns, they would have been found quite easily. In any case, this does little to address the existance of armed societies that are less dangerous than the US, and equally, or more, armed.
There are also some with less gun violence than the US per capita that have even less stringent laws concerning guns (eg Switzerland, which is about on par with France in gun deaths. It's close to half the US per capita rate. Israel is about half of the French rates). Even in the US, some of the most deadly places also have strict gun control laws, such as Washington, D.C. had before a supreme court ruling. I bet that having vs not having guns did not cut down on crime at all in DC, and did not make anything worse. I tend to feel that it is part of our culture to be more violent than in, say, Germany or France.
Time for another insightful discussion on the gender gap in tech. There will be no flames, no attacks, and no blaming. Just quiet, reflective discussion.
What? I still go to the original brothel and see the original prostitutes. Sure, they may not be as lively (or even alive) as before, but I refuse to upgrade! I have used them since mammoths roamed the earth, and I am one loyal customer.
(though from what I understand from TFA, it's mainly consumption of content they're referring to).
That is the exact reason that I use the Web so often: content of any kind. I read a lot of things, and follow a few topics just out of the need to not ruminate on things. Message boards, chatrooms, etc. all help me communicate at some level after a period of very intense depression (such as now, where I just had to drop a semester), where the anxiety is killer.
Judging from my own experiences as someone who has suffered from depression for roughly half of my life (and someone who has attempted to end it), I would have to say that depression is the cause, and heavy internet use is the symptom. It's an escape mechanism. Instead of constantly thinking of death, you can get on the Web and try to distract yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
Wait....you consider those guys insightful? I weep for our future.....
Then they should have been so kind as to allow people to set up dedicated servers.
I think I would just start using the phrases they claim to "own" much more often. Maybe even in court, if it makes it that far, ending everything with one of their phrases.
I have done the same thing, but ended up buying the games later because I liked them. Others I passed on completely. For example, I bought Hearts of Iron 2 after downloading it. Buying games from that publisher gives benefits, like getting access to beta patches and tech support (they will not do tech support without a serial key).
The problem with this analogy is that games, once made, aren't really scarce. If I consume a beer, it's gone. No one else gets it. If I make a copy of Warcraft 99999 Extreme Edition, I deprive no one else of a copy. My hard drive can fit at least a few hundred copies of certain games (eg Diablo II), and my ISP cap would let me download many hundreds of games per month. This is a different problem from the music industry, because in the music industry you can still make money by providing live shows and the like, even if you never sell an album. In fact, for them, piracy may even help them make more money on concerts.
Games have no such outlet; I don't want to go watch a live performance of a game. What I think is needed is for the game industry to find other forms of revenue that realize this situation. MMO games are very easy to fit into this model: give the game away, but charge for access. Other online games might charge for multiplayer to generate revenue. Store copies can still charge more, because there are always people that will pay for those, so the game company can make a profit there. I am also more inclined to pay smaller developers for more innovative or niche games than I am willing to pay for Generic FPS 900 from MegaGameCorp. Maybe they can do the whole Radiohead "name your own price" thing. Apart from changes in the revenue model, I have a feeling that the whole draconian DRM problem will only get worse.
With Chrome and Safari, you can already use YouTube without Flash in most cases. Just signup for the HTML 5 beta, and off you go!
Whats far more likely is a brain-dead local authority tries to dust them off and apply them and SCOTUS tosses them out. You and I may not always like the outcome of SCOTUS decisions but they do tend to serve the Framers' intent of keeping legislators and their more ridiculous laws in check.
Yeah, like, maybe 200 years ago. Certainly not in this century or the last have they done much of keeping things in check. Things like the changes to eminent domain that they magically puffed into existence, because we all know taking land and giving it to business interests is for "the public good."
Or how about that case of the farmer who did not want to comply with legislation that regulated what amount of wheat he could grow? That law was billed as being supported under "interstate commerce," and then applied to this farmer who grew his own crops for his own use in his own state, because his mere existence in that industry has some sort of effect on the rest of the industry. Yeah, sure, that's a time cherished constitutional principle there.
Or how about the, how shall we say it, lack of any declaration of war since WWII? You know, that kinda makes every war after that somewhat illegal under the Constitution, but I don't see the Justices complaining, or even Congress complaining. Let's not even talk about the various illegal wiretapping schemes they have, or the drug laws. (If alcohol took an amendment to ban, why doesn't weed?)
Who funded the Taliban? Where does Osama Bin laden come from? Where does the money for fundamentalist madrasas come from?
For a brief period, Osama and co were funded by the US in an attempt to kill as many Soviets as possible, in addition to the usual suspects (eg Saudi). IIRC, the Pakistani intelligence also helped the Taliban gain power. Other than those brief anomalies, your point mostly stands.
Sadly, that also happens to burn my eyes out. It needs e-ink or something like it to really be a player.
Thanks! That's what it was: 12 Angry Men.
You can get some great movies with dialog alone. I had to watch one old movie for a class in high school, and I forget its title, but it was basically a jury talking about whether a man is innocent or not. It was black and white, with no effects that people of my generation have come to expect in movies. It had no action of any sort, just talking and the tension that comes from their arguments. It was, however, an awesome film. Better than most movies nowadays.
That's kind of his point: most people have never heard of Asimov, let alone read any of his stories. The only real sci-fi they have seen is in the vein of Star Wars. As this movie would come out later than Star Wars, they would then think they ripped it off of Lucas.
The farming by hand industry was huge back in the day. It employed massive amounts of people. We should bail that out and bring people to work. Or, better yet, we should have the unemployed build holes in the desert -- image the jumpstart to our economy!
Either that, or someone who wants yet more bailout guarantees in the future, when some business inevitably fails.
They may spend more, but Apple uses that money very effectively, far more so than Microsoft.
Depending on where you drive, you can actually be stopped and searched for this sort of thing, even without probable cause of any kind. They did that to me and my family on a trip to DC from Virginia, and if we had had any guns, they would have been found quite easily. In any case, this does little to address the existance of armed societies that are less dangerous than the US, and equally, or more, armed.
There are also some with less gun violence than the US per capita that have even less stringent laws concerning guns (eg Switzerland, which is about on par with France in gun deaths. It's close to half the US per capita rate. Israel is about half of the French rates). Even in the US, some of the most deadly places also have strict gun control laws, such as Washington, D.C. had before a supreme court ruling. I bet that having vs not having guns did not cut down on crime at all in DC, and did not make anything worse. I tend to feel that it is part of our culture to be more violent than in, say, Germany or France.
It is indeed sad. How else am I to meet that cute but nerdy female counterpart who can outcode me in C and be in my guild?
Time for another insightful discussion on the gender gap in tech. There will be no flames, no attacks, and no blaming. Just quiet, reflective discussion.
I have heard that Blizzard may do this for Diablo 3. If that is the case, I will not buy the game.
What? I still go to the original brothel and see the original prostitutes. Sure, they may not be as lively (or even alive) as before, but I refuse to upgrade! I have used them since mammoths roamed the earth, and I am one loyal customer.
But that's the trick to flying! All you have to do is fall at the ground and miss! The, er, knack is in the missing part, but nothing we can't handle.
This is Slashdot, I expected more.
I think expecting more was your first mistake. *drools*
(though from what I understand from TFA, it's mainly consumption of content they're referring to).
That is the exact reason that I use the Web so often: content of any kind. I read a lot of things, and follow a few topics just out of the need to not ruminate on things. Message boards, chatrooms, etc. all help me communicate at some level after a period of very intense depression (such as now, where I just had to drop a semester), where the anxiety is killer.
Judging from my own experiences as someone who has suffered from depression for roughly half of my life (and someone who has attempted to end it), I would have to say that depression is the cause, and heavy internet use is the symptom. It's an escape mechanism. Instead of constantly thinking of death, you can get on the Web and try to distract yourself.