The only company I could believe shutting down the DRM when they die is Valve's Steam, and I'm still fairly skeptical of that.
Luckily I'm not a big fan of the crud being churned out by Big Content these days, and quite happy with independent publishers who dare to stray from clickity-click click FPS type games. Though I do enjoy a good run of Halo from time to time:-)
So yeah, I hoard my old Microprose DOS games, and some really old EA titles for the Commodore 64, and share them with others when I can.
I stand corrected; there are worse systems than ours.
I agree with your point about a more moderate president, but feel that this is insufficient prize in consideration of the cost: our politics necessarily create a two party system.
Further so much has changed since the days of the constitution. The president is no longer just a diplomat believing himself unworthy to address Congress in person to deliver the State of the Union (Jefferson), each president has more power than the last.
We are transforming from a Republic into a Democracy.
They say "let us manage your rights, you can trust us." I say "let me manage my rights, you can trust me."
The difference is, I've never helped someone pirate a game I bought, and I don't buy games with DRM (aside from dumb shit like cd keys/anything that is replay vulnerable)
They screw over honest players time and time again.
Until the free (pirated) version is harder to make work than the expensive broken version, I'm not buying.
Or rather I'm buying from competitors and skipping Spore because it is, as noted below, a shallow, tedious clickfest.
I hate half baked games nerfed to appeal to the IQ of 60
To stop piracy they crack down on BT through various means. The purpose of this DRM is to destroy resale value and make people need expensive reactivations/buy new copies if anything goes wrong/so they can shut down the servers and switch to a new model any time they want.
This is similar to how child porn is used to justify measures that do nothing to prevent the people who make it, but seem to have an awful lot to do with curtailing protest against the gvmt.
Easy. You make enough people happy that the protesters can be comfortably ignored. Deactivation isn't enough for me, but it's no longer renting the same way it was. Add in a promise to completely disable all drm if/when they shut down the servers and I think you could get most people onboard.
Not me, but enough of the mainline gamers for it to matter.
Of course! We'd see it on...the...new...*trails off*
Joking aside, people disappear all the time, I seriously doubt the gvmt is behind anywhere close to 1% of those.
But I do wonder how many people who were too vocal about something had a "car crash" a few months later, after the limelight had faded, and the body wasn't found.
Disclaimer: My claim is that this is possible, not that it is occurring.
But we're not fighting all terrorists now are we? Just a certain group of them.
But I digress. My argument isn't about moral right or whether there is/any/ danger. I simply am pointing out that people have a tendency to ignore the fact that as a US citizen you are more likely to die in a car crash than an act of terrorism or war.
Do I support fighting terrorism? Of course. I don't like murderers. But I also support upholding liberty and making cars safer, fighting AIDS and other diseases and many other problems in America and in the world. Not to mention that I support fighting all of those who massacre innocents whatever their religion or nationality, not just those in countries with oil.
Consider where Al Quaeda got its weapons and training. Consider where they get their funding. Winning the war on terror isn't as simple as "killing all the a-rabs", and fighting heroin pushers isn't as simple as outlawing all the drugs, and fighting child porn isn't as simple as making anonymity illegal and destroying privacy.
You can't take my argument, try to infer [incorrectly] positions I hold from it, then attack those. If you want to argue that people in America are more likely to be killed by terrorism than by a vehicle crash, heart disease, suicide, or the other top causes of death than do so.
I don't have any statistics about secret arrests. Do YOU have access to top secret military date and want to post it on/.?
I didn't say it was more/likely/ (I wouldn't venture a guess on which is more likely), I said I was more/scared/ of it. Isn't fear, rational and otherwise, what this article is about?
I wouldn't so much mind being killed by a terrorist compared to being taken to Minitrue and tortured and broken.
On a more rational (than my last post) note, how is it a defect to be more easily afraid? Fear is a GOOD thing when one is facing a real threat; it causes one to take actions to defend oneself (such as increasing military spending or reaching for a rock, as the case may be)
You could just as reasonably argue that liberals irrationally shrug off threats that are dangerous to them, and that they are incorrect, or make a more fair argument that people who hold extremist beliefs fair to accurately gauge risk.
Even if it is the liberals who are right and conservatives who are wrong here I hardly think you can call this a "disease", more a different worldview.
I'm a lot more scared of being abducted and held without trial by my own government than dying in a tiny terrorist attack; this is no more or less rational than someone with the opposite fears, and both are less rational than someone who is afraid of cars because of the risk of death.
It seems to me that much of the current war on * sham is based on irrational fears. It's well known that humans have difficulty understanding on a qualitative level very low and very high probabilities.
So, for example, people might be far more concerned about being killed in a 9/11 repeat (5000 people) rather than in an automobile accident (~20,000 p/yr), despite the latter being far more of a risk to them.
Of course there are reasons to fear the former more than the latter that are reasonable, such as placing more value on how one dies than if (I don't consider this unreasonable; I'd rather be shot by a stranger than my best friend)
Exactly. We can fight them off successfully 9/10 times and they still win. Once they have that patent they can start suing people for inventing their ideas.
This is another reason to donate to the EFF:/
I think Microsoft's products are crap and hate their business model/ethics. I like Apple's prodcuts and hate their business model/ethics.
So? It's a better product at a better price than windows. I don't see any astroturfing. When people ask me to install linux because they're sick of windows and not computer savvy, I give them ubuntu and after about a week they stop bugging me until their hard drive fails a few years later.
Personally I think it will unload a lot of terms on average users they don't understand or care about (who reads a EULA anyway) but the main concern is the message it sends; usually an EULA is a big, half-unenforceable document intended to scare you into not doing anything.
Since any unenforceable provision is simply discarded without affecting the rest of the document, the company can sue you into oblivion any time it wants.
I don't think it's unreasonable of the Mozilla foundation to want this, but I'm somewhat curious why. They've been moving in a rather Idiocracy-like direction lately; this, the SSL sham (at least let me turn it off, or give me a I DON'T CARE IF THIS IS ENCRYPTED button for sites that use gratuitous SSL), and so forth.
Slashdot Mirror
awesome. But given it has linux in the title, I'm not really surprised:-)
Oh did my rental expire? My dad bought the games decades ago and gave them to me. Or was the right of first sale retroactively abolished too.
The only company I could believe shutting down the DRM when they die is Valve's Steam, and I'm still fairly skeptical of that.
Luckily I'm not a big fan of the crud being churned out by Big Content these days, and quite happy with independent publishers who dare to stray from clickity-click click FPS type games. Though I do enjoy a good run of Halo from time to time:-)
So yeah, I hoard my old Microprose DOS games, and some really old EA titles for the Commodore 64, and share them with others when I can.
I stand corrected; there are worse systems than ours.
I agree with your point about a more moderate president, but feel that this is insufficient prize in consideration of the cost: our politics necessarily create a two party system.
Further so much has changed since the days of the constitution. The president is no longer just a diplomat believing himself unworthy to address Congress in person to deliver the State of the Union (Jefferson), each president has more power than the last.
We are transforming from a Republic into a Democracy.
They say "let us manage your rights, you can trust us." I say "let me manage my rights, you can trust me."
The difference is, I've never helped someone pirate a game I bought, and I don't buy games with DRM (aside from dumb shit like cd keys/anything that is replay vulnerable)
They screw over honest players time and time again.
Until the free (pirated) version is harder to make work than the expensive broken version, I'm not buying.
Or rather I'm buying from competitors and skipping Spore because it is, as noted below, a shallow, tedious clickfest.
I hate half baked games nerfed to appeal to the IQ of 60
To stop piracy they crack down on BT through various means. The purpose of this DRM is to destroy resale value and make people need expensive reactivations/buy new copies if anything goes wrong/so they can shut down the servers and switch to a new model any time they want.
This is similar to how child porn is used to justify measures that do nothing to prevent the people who make it, but seem to have an awful lot to do with curtailing protest against the gvmt.
Easy. You make enough people happy that the protesters can be comfortably ignored. Deactivation isn't enough for me, but it's no longer renting the same way it was. Add in a promise to completely disable all drm if/when they shut down the servers and I think you could get most people onboard.
Not me, but enough of the mainline gamers for it to matter.
The insightful is that his name is easy to spell. I strongly disagree with him on pretty much everything short of disapproval of the patriot act.
Of course! We'd see it on...the...new...*trails off*
Joking aside, people disappear all the time, I seriously doubt the gvmt is behind anywhere close to 1% of those.
But I do wonder how many people who were too vocal about something had a "car crash" a few months later, after the limelight had faded, and the body wasn't found.
Disclaimer: My claim is that this is possible, not that it is occurring.
But we're not fighting all terrorists now are we? Just a certain group of them.
But I digress. My argument isn't about moral right or whether there is /any/ danger. I simply am pointing out that people have a tendency to ignore the fact that as a US citizen you are more likely to die in a car crash than an act of terrorism or war.
Do I support fighting terrorism? Of course. I don't like murderers. But I also support upholding liberty and making cars safer, fighting AIDS and other diseases and many other problems in America and in the world. Not to mention that I support fighting all of those who massacre innocents whatever their religion or nationality, not just those in countries with oil.
Consider where Al Quaeda got its weapons and training. Consider where they get their funding. Winning the war on terror isn't as simple as "killing all the a-rabs", and fighting heroin pushers isn't as simple as outlawing all the drugs, and fighting child porn isn't as simple as making anonymity illegal and destroying privacy.
You can't take my argument, try to infer [incorrectly] positions I hold from it, then attack those. If you want to argue that people in America are more likely to be killed by terrorism than by a vehicle crash, heart disease, suicide, or the other top causes of death than do so.
I don't have any statistics about secret arrests. Do YOU have access to top secret military date and want to post it on /.?
I didn't say it was more /likely/ (I wouldn't venture a guess on which is more likely), I said I was more /scared/ of it. Isn't fear, rational and otherwise, what this article is about?
I wouldn't so much mind being killed by a terrorist compared to being taken to Minitrue and tortured and broken.
it's not for protection, and I live alone. I want to drive out to the desert with friends and skeet shoot Molotov cocktails with it.
The original definitions of liberal and conservative are the opposite of their current usage in American politics.
On a more rational (than my last post) note, how is it a defect to be more easily afraid? Fear is a GOOD thing when one is facing a real threat; it causes one to take actions to defend oneself (such as increasing military spending or reaching for a rock, as the case may be)
You could just as reasonably argue that liberals irrationally shrug off threats that are dangerous to them, and that they are incorrect, or make a more fair argument that people who hold extremist beliefs fair to accurately gauge risk.
Even if it is the liberals who are right and conservatives who are wrong here I hardly think you can call this a "disease", more a different worldview.
I'm a lot more scared of being abducted and held without trial by my own government than dying in a tiny terrorist attack; this is no more or less rational than someone with the opposite fears, and both are less rational than someone who is afraid of cars because of the risk of death.
No, MY beliefs are valid, not yours! Yours are silly and smell bad!
Invoke Godwin's law and I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
Unrelated; why is hating gun rights a liberal position? It seems more the sort of thing that conservatives would oppose.
I mean, I'm as liberal as they come but I do like the idea of owning a gun.
It seems to me that much of the current war on * sham is based on irrational fears. It's well known that humans have difficulty understanding on a qualitative level very low and very high probabilities.
So, for example, people might be far more concerned about being killed in a 9/11 repeat (5000 people) rather than in an automobile accident (~20,000 p/yr), despite the latter being far more of a risk to them.
Of course there are reasons to fear the former more than the latter that are reasonable, such as placing more value on how one dies than if (I don't consider this unreasonable; I'd rather be shot by a stranger than my best friend)
Exactly. We can fight them off successfully 9/10 times and they still win. Once they have that patent they can start suing people for inventing their ideas.
This is another reason to donate to the EFF:/
I think Microsoft's products are crap and hate their business model/ethics. I like Apple's prodcuts and hate their business model/ethics.
I'd refute you but saw the "aesthetically pleasing desktop" with windows and decided not to bother.
So? It's a better product at a better price than windows. I don't see any astroturfing. When people ask me to install linux because they're sick of windows and not computer savvy, I give them ubuntu and after about a week they stop bugging me until their hard drive fails a few years later.
Personally I think it will unload a lot of terms on average users they don't understand or care about (who reads a EULA anyway) but the main concern is the message it sends; usually an EULA is a big, half-unenforceable document intended to scare you into not doing anything.
Since any unenforceable provision is simply discarded without affecting the rest of the document, the company can sue you into oblivion any time it wants.
I don't think it's unreasonable of the Mozilla foundation to want this, but I'm somewhat curious why. They've been moving in a rather Idiocracy-like direction lately; this, the SSL sham (at least let me turn it off, or give me a I DON'T CARE IF THIS IS ENCRYPTED button for sites that use gratuitous SSL), and so forth.
If angry letters would have any effect then polite ones would have a better one.
Those only make me sick if it's been awhile since everyone's last shower.
RON PAUL! Apply directly to ballot! RON PAUL! Apply directly to ballot! RON PAUL! Apply directly to ballot!
Now available in lemon!
Ron Paul!