Maybe, but they don't give a damn how many copies they sell. What they care about is profit. There's going to be very little of that at $6 a copy. Hell, server infrastructure and digital distribution will eat up most of that. And that's before you try to amortize the cost of development.
Man, you didn't read ANYTHING, did you? Your entire post seems to be conjecture to support your own pre-conceived notions.
1) Having to increase server capacity to support non-paying "customers" is not a bonus.
2) Terrible reviews due to connectivity issues caused by piracy is not good advertising.
3) This has nothing to do with a serial code - the pirates couldn't log into the servers, but they would still communicate, resulting in a sort of DDoS.
4) "Most crackers will not write a keygen for an online game specifically because it costs the developers money when they do so." Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!
5) Yes, you should believe only 6,000 people are in the tournament. Pirates can't join, because they can't log into the servers.
Come on now, when have draconian punishments ever stopped people from committing crimes, let alone making mistakes?
There should be punishments for messing up, and worse punishments for intentionally doing bad things, but you're kidding yourself if you think that the threat of jail time would stop this from happening.
Obama's administration has claimed that companies who wrongly cooperated with the government in the warrantless wiretapping program should not be open to lawsuits.
While I, and many others, may not agree with that stance, it does not mean that he's going to let the NSA do whatever the hell they want.
At least, not necessarily. We'll see if anything comes of this.
If you want to be taken seriously, avoid descriptions like "a shadow world sitting in a higher dimension." It's a meaningless analogy that only serves to make your field sound like pseudoscience BS.
Learn COBOL, and you always will. My dad is a COBOL programmer for the NY state government. According to him, around 95% of their COBOL programmers are within 10 years of retirement. The youngin's (as he calls them) are in their mid to late forties.
If you know COBOL, you are absolutely guaranteed a job there.
True, but does rationalizing necessarily equate to committing the crime?
If you say "I committed a crime, but it's ok because..." then yes, that does equate to committing a crime. It takes some amazing mental acrobatics to get around that.
As to the rest of your post, people always pretend like they buy more music because of piracy. I used to use that excuse myself. And that's precisely why I know it's untrue. The ability to get something for free decreases your willingness to pay for it. Simple as that.
If indie artists want you to experience their music for free, they'll let you. Taking it against their will, and then acting like they should thank you for it is just absurd.
If you want to *legally* expose yourself to music outside the mainstream, might I suggest listening to independent radio, on air or online? Try KEXP.
So let's say that 1 in 100 downloads is a lost sale. Should the RIAA be forbidden from recouping those losses simply because they can't prove any particular download resulted in a lost sale?
If I fire a hundred bullets down a crowded street, not every one is going to harm someone. And I certainly shouldn't face 100 counts of murder, the way the RIAA seems to think I should. But that doesn't mean I should be free and clear either.
I don't understand what the end game is for slashdotters. Do you really believe that people shouldn't have to pay for music, movies, video games, software, etc...?
I also started buying more music when Amazon launched their service, and encouraged a lot of my friends to use them over iTunes. But the fact is, people DO pirate music they would have paid for. Even now, with Amazon, that's still true. And that IS a damage.
However much we want to pretend that the pirates are blameless and the RIAA is the only one at fault, it's simply untrue.
Most of the people I know who download music either 1. would never buy it in store, so that's not money they lost
According to who? The person who pirated the music? I've got news for you. People rationalize their actions. All the time.
If tomorrow it suddenly became physically impossible to listen to music without paying for it, would these friends of yours all sit in silence for the rest of their lives? No. They'd buy some music. Not nearly as much as they're willing to take for free, but some.
The damages the RIAA sues for are obscenely inflated, but to claim that piracy does zero damage to them is simply dishonest. Maybe your friends aren't willing to be honest about it, but I'm man enough to admit that I have pirated music which I would have paid for otherwise. And I am 100% certain that I'm not alone.
Since when does everything a government does belong in the public domain? While the national security card is over played by most administrations (the previous one, in particular), it IS a valid reason to keep things secret.
It's an unambiguous acronym that is commonly mentioned in news articles in the form of "Microsoft (MSFT) announced today...". When you read it often enough, it can stick, though companies with short names like Apple (AAPL) and Google (GOOG) don't get abbreviated.
Even shorter acronyms are of course possible (e.g. MS), but the mere fact they exist doesn't mean people will always use them (think US vs USA... both in common use, neither is really better than the other).
It's not clear yet whether or not the third stage, which would propel it to orbit, fired.
It seems like the first two stages are all the North Koreans really wanted to show off, anyway. The first two stages are all they need to threaten a large radius in Asia.
Except your sentence is completely, and obviously false, whereas the statement that "choosing not to mess with your own customers is rare" is at least arguably true.
How does some weirdo drawing Lisa Simpson naked harm my kids any more than it does me?
No one is arguing that actual child molesters shouldn't be punished, but passing laws against even depicting such things is not just nonsense; it's dangerous.
It would destroy their economy to do so... Reminds me of a quote about the definition of allies being two nations with hands so deep in each other's pockets that they cannot fight.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe, but they don't give a damn how many copies they sell. What they care about is profit. There's going to be very little of that at $6 a copy. Hell, server infrastructure and digital distribution will eat up most of that. And that's before you try to amortize the cost of development.
Man, you didn't read ANYTHING, did you? Your entire post seems to be conjecture to support your own pre-conceived notions.
1) Having to increase server capacity to support non-paying "customers" is not a bonus.
2) Terrible reviews due to connectivity issues caused by piracy is not good advertising.
3) This has nothing to do with a serial code - the pirates couldn't log into the servers, but they would still communicate, resulting in a sort of DDoS.
4) "Most crackers will not write a keygen for an online game specifically because it costs the developers money when they do so." Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!
5) Yes, you should believe only 6,000 people are in the tournament. Pirates can't join, because they can't log into the servers.
Yup. A torture victim will tell his torturers anything!
For example, that 2+2=5.
Come on now, when have draconian punishments ever stopped people from committing crimes, let alone making mistakes?
There should be punishments for messing up, and worse punishments for intentionally doing bad things, but you're kidding yourself if you think that the threat of jail time would stop this from happening.
Obama's administration has claimed that companies who wrongly cooperated with the government in the warrantless wiretapping program should not be open to lawsuits.
While I, and many others, may not agree with that stance, it does not mean that he's going to let the NSA do whatever the hell they want.
At least, not necessarily. We'll see if anything comes of this.
If you want to be taken seriously, avoid descriptions like "a shadow world sitting in a higher dimension." It's a meaningless analogy that only serves to make your field sound like pseudoscience BS.
No, but you can roll it in glitter.
Learn COBOL, and you always will. My dad is a COBOL programmer for the NY state government. According to him, around 95% of their COBOL programmers are within 10 years of retirement. The youngin's (as he calls them) are in their mid to late forties.
If you know COBOL, you are absolutely guaranteed a job there.
True, but does rationalizing necessarily equate to committing the crime?
If you say "I committed a crime, but it's ok because..." then yes, that does equate to committing a crime. It takes some amazing mental acrobatics to get around that.
As to the rest of your post, people always pretend like they buy more music because of piracy. I used to use that excuse myself. And that's precisely why I know it's untrue. The ability to get something for free decreases your willingness to pay for it. Simple as that.
If indie artists want you to experience their music for free, they'll let you. Taking it against their will, and then acting like they should thank you for it is just absurd.
If you want to *legally* expose yourself to music outside the mainstream, might I suggest listening to independent radio, on air or online? Try KEXP.
So let's say that 1 in 100 downloads is a lost sale. Should the RIAA be forbidden from recouping those losses simply because they can't prove any particular download resulted in a lost sale?
If I fire a hundred bullets down a crowded street, not every one is going to harm someone. And I certainly shouldn't face 100 counts of murder, the way the RIAA seems to think I should. But that doesn't mean I should be free and clear either.
I don't understand what the end game is for slashdotters. Do you really believe that people shouldn't have to pay for music, movies, video games, software, etc...?
I also started buying more music when Amazon launched their service, and encouraged a lot of my friends to use them over iTunes. But the fact is, people DO pirate music they would have paid for. Even now, with Amazon, that's still true. And that IS a damage.
However much we want to pretend that the pirates are blameless and the RIAA is the only one at fault, it's simply untrue.
1 in 30 isn't all that uncommon in consumer electronics. The RRoD issue is more like 1 in 3.
Most of the people I know who download music either 1. would never buy it in store, so that's not money they lost
According to who? The person who pirated the music? I've got news for you. People rationalize their actions. All the time.
If tomorrow it suddenly became physically impossible to listen to music without paying for it, would these friends of yours all sit in silence for the rest of their lives? No. They'd buy some music. Not nearly as much as they're willing to take for free, but some.
The damages the RIAA sues for are obscenely inflated, but to claim that piracy does zero damage to them is simply dishonest. Maybe your friends aren't willing to be honest about it, but I'm man enough to admit that I have pirated music which I would have paid for otherwise. And I am 100% certain that I'm not alone.
Since when does everything a government does belong in the public domain? While the national security card is over played by most administrations (the previous one, in particular), it IS a valid reason to keep things secret.
Yes, you can save in PowerPoint 2007's format. Or in the old-style PowerPoint format. Or in ODF format. Or as a PDF.
What exactly are you complaining about?
It's an unambiguous acronym that is commonly mentioned in news articles in the form of "Microsoft (MSFT) announced today...". When you read it often enough, it can stick, though companies with short names like Apple (AAPL) and Google (GOOG) don't get abbreviated.
Even shorter acronyms are of course possible (e.g. MS), but the mere fact they exist doesn't mean people will always use them (think US vs USA... both in common use, neither is really better than the other).
We've never had reason to. But if Pakistan's civilian government falls to the Taliban, you can bet your ass we'll be going in.
It's not clear yet whether or not the third stage, which would propel it to orbit, fired.
It seems like the first two stages are all the North Koreans really wanted to show off, anyway. The first two stages are all they need to threaten a large radius in Asia.
Tout votre le base est appartenir a nous?
Right. Because a nationally syndicated newspaper is going to play April Fool's jokes.
Right. Nothing like that would ever happen.
That being said, I wouldn't put this past the Quebecois.
Actually, in a lot of the countries that use DD/MM/YYYY they do say 31 March 2009.
Except your sentence is completely, and obviously false, whereas the statement that "choosing not to mess with your own customers is rare" is at least arguably true.
How does some weirdo drawing Lisa Simpson naked harm my kids any more than it does me?
No one is arguing that actual child molesters shouldn't be punished, but passing laws against even depicting such things is not just nonsense; it's dangerous.
It would destroy their economy to do so... Reminds me of a quote about the definition of allies being two nations with hands so deep in each other's pockets that they cannot fight.
Well, lucky for you, Dyson also thinks global warming is real and human-caused.