Google is evil. RMS was right.
on
OK Go Goes HTML5
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Google. You're turning evil. In fact, over the last year you've turned way more evil than I could ever have anticipated. What with Chromebooks turning Chrome into a 'proprietary apps' platform, when those apps, save for their 'Chrome packaging' should have been normal webapps for any browser... and now this.
I'm out.
Note:. This didn't even work in Chromium. CHROMIUM!!! I had to get 'Google Chrome' for it to work.
Don't you hate it when that blasted RMS eventually keeps turning out right all the time...:(
I think you're missing my point. (and from the offensive / defensive tone in your reply I see you've misunderstood the intended tone in mine and I've offended you and for that I apologise and state it was not my intention).
I'm not saying that what you stated as common sense is 100% wrong. I'm just saying that it's not as black and white. Especially in a generic and abstract context. (to quote me as offtopic because I didn't have the "poisoned rabbit" or "bar fight" specifics is a bit silly. I replied to what you wrote, not the context I was magically expected to be fully aware of. There might as well have been serial killers using the bunny as bait, for all I know.)
But, more importantly, and to point out the irony, if you state these things are a 'surefire study' (i.e. no need to perform them as we're pretty sure what the result is probably gonna be -- from common sense, no less) then I believe you've missed the point of what TFA was all about; there's no such thing as a surefire study. And that's why we need to check seemingly obvious things; because invariably a lot of our intuitions turn out to be wrong when put 'under the microscope'.
As a post-scriptum, in my experience from many hospitals in many countries, they're all the same everywhere. Never trust doctors (too much, anyway). Always question their management and keep them on their toes. I'm a doctor and I know. "Trust" me.:p
I've witnessed hacked hotmail accounts sending spam to their contacts regarding chinese electronics shops for years now.
Maybe Gmail just cares enough to point out it's a problem.
I could dissect most of your 'common sense' examples and find flaws. But let's not do that. Let's go for what the parent post 'actually' meant. That a lot (yes, not all) of what's considered 'good practice' based on 'common sense' invariably turns out to be wrong when scrutinized. And then, oddly enough, the new findings are then pronounced as common sense and self-evident all along. Until *they* are proven wrong in turn, etc.
A classic case of this has been beta agonists in heart failure. The heart isn't managing to pump blood? Give it drugs that enhance contractility. It's common sense.
Until they found out that, while output improves, mortality rates skyrocket.
So they tried the opposite. Decrease contractility with beta-blockers, so that the struggling heart works less. After all, a candle that burns less bright, lasts longer. It's common sense.
Until they found out that, this too, causes more problems than it solves.
Now they're trying to figure out whether *not interfering* with contractility at all is the best you can do. After all, you shouldn't mess with an already compromised organ.
It's common sense.
Or what about shielding your baby from bugs? Common sense, right? Well, it was, until studies showed that this actually compromises the development of their immune system and leads to susceptibilities and allergies. So now you get parents calling round the neighbours to stick their thumb in the baby's mouth, to maximize their exposure at an early age and build a proper immune system. Of course, there's little evidence for this at the moment, but why not? It's common sense, right?
No, I agree with the parent post. I like it best the way they said it in Freakonomics: "Common sense is little short of common nonsense."
It is always biased and largely based on individual experiences. While some of these experiences may be useful, and to some extent universal (e.g. wash hands after trash), I would argue a lot less of the things we think is common sense is actually correct.
Actually, I changed my mind. I'll dissect your 'common sense' nuggets after all:
1) Consuming hard food has been shown to prevent plaque buildup. In fact, this is the primary method used in dogs.
2) Studies have shown that people in larger cars have an inflated idea of safety and tend to be involved in more accidents. There's common sense unexamined producing obvious harm for you. Furthermore, the families of people in the larger vehicle tend to grieve for longer, as the victims are more likely to survive with a disability rather than die.
3) As a physician myself, I completely contradict this. It's human nature, go figure, but people tend to not care when some damage has already been done.
4) There's a number of plants deadly to animals and beneficial to humans. Medicine relies on this. That's not to say you should strive to eat all plants known to kill animals in uncontrolled amounts. But it *is* to say that relying on this as common sense and not studying the properties of these plants would have held back medicine by centuries.
5) Manure as fertilizer, anyone?
6) Best to hit someone you don't know, than someone who knows you and where you live.
7) Yeah. Ok. Fine. You can have this one:p
Honestly, if I had a dime every time a doctor in hospital tried to justify their opinion by saying "it's common sense" only to be proven wrong seconds later...
Ever since I've started reading the Discussion pages for each article, I realised there is actually BETTER information there than the article itself.
Even if 'camping' occurs (I was under the impression there was a rule on this -- 3 consecutive reversals or something?), the discussion usually reflects this and the information is therefore available for the user to judge themselves.
Having said that, on the whole discussion pages I've seen have been entirely reasonable and reflected reasonable decisions rather than just camping. I would like to think that if an esteemed academic offered their opinion and justification for an edit (naturally, with clear citations), that it would be very difficult for some moronic 12-year-old camper to delete that without good cause. At the very least, other users would reverse the "camper's" reversals beyond the 3-reversal-limit, in defence of the esteemed professor's edit.
Unless I'm way off base here on how wikipedia works. I wouldn't know, I've only done minor edits myself.
Actually, Thomas Edison is probably the worst example you could pick. Reportedly the man was a sociopath. For all his genius and cunning, he still:
electrocuted animals with AC current and invented and popularized the electric chair just to make a marketing point of AC being unsafe, so he would promote a DC current as the standard (arguably a less safe form of electricity) for common use.
He manipulated or outright cheated the patent system out of other people's inventions; the most famous one being the lightbulb.
Relied on (what I would call 'Apple-like') marketing rather than facts to manipulate public opinion, intimidate, and promote a lot of his ideas, sidelining significantly better opponents and inventions / discoveries.
His antics among others, severely limited the work of a *true* genius of the time, Nikolai Tesla, purely for monetary and personal gratification, setting science back by years http://goo.gl/vguj5
Shrewd business man? Yes. Ambitious? Skilled inventor and scientist? Yes. Hardworking? Yes... but also a sociopath nonetheless.
Playing devil's advocate here, but the Bible was never meant to be 'truly god's word' in the sense that you imply. There are no claims that it was dictated by God in any way (except perhaps the ten commandments); it's a collection of human semi-historical accounts of perceived events -- and if you think of it as such, then the reason for the existence of a standard variation between editions becomes clearer and unavoidable (let alone if you consider the number of groups that may have intentionally rephrased passages of the book to fit their own agendas.)
If you were serious about the 'truly god's word' comment though, (rather than just lighthearted trolling), then you were probably thinking of the Q'uran (or possibly the Mormon bible). Same principles apply though, to the extent that people (like you) or even some so-called christians can't tell the difference between the two and treat it in the way you described, the distinction then becomes of an academic nature. But that's not the bible's 'fault', so to speak, or any other book for that matter, religious or not, that is repeatedly quoted and misquoted out of context, in order to justify personal agendas.
I think they're oversimplifying the "only a few people pirated first and bought later" argument.
You cannot expect someone to play the game and then rush to buy it on the same day. The usual scenario is that they'll play the game, and when they think of their friend who would appreciate it as a gift, they'll buy it for them. Also, purchases tend to occur a year or so down the line, when the gamer says "I enjoyed that game, I wanna play it again", and this time they think, "hey, I did enjoy that game, I'll go shell out the bucks and get it properly this time round"
To the gamer, this often also has the added advantage that the initial price may have gone down significantly (such as this promotonial opportunity now). Obviously, to the developer this is a disadvantage, because they are not getting the larger income when they need it the most, and they get a potentially cheaper, delayed purchase... but it's still a purchase opportunity created through the initial piracy, which is better than nothing, and I'd imagine many gamers, pirates or not, wait for sales periods before they buy anyway. Obviously I'm not advocating piracy, but the 'nobody pirated first then bought it' statistic is oversimplified to say the least (I won't get into the 'how do they know' argument)
Disclaimer: I bought the Machinarium game for a friend after having played the demo (awesome game btw). Saw it on Steam, but went to their website directly to buy. Also I have now bought most, if not all, of my favourite games which I 'pirated' back when I was young pennyless and stupid (a bit of a moot point, since some of those companies have gone bankrupt by now though:| ).
As an aside, what changed my attitude towards casual piracy was my exposure to linux and foss software. Seeing all the well meant effort to create communities based on freedom, really drove home the distinction between 'free' and 'pirated', and helped me see how wrong the latter was when viewed outside my comfort zone of convenient excuses. It also helped me see the game companies as more than just abstract capitalist money-eating entities, but actual people, just like these enthusiastic foss programmers, who are trying to make ends meet by giving us a game we love at the same time. Ever since I've switched to linux, not only have I stopped pirating and I buy the things that I need (admittedly, other than games, I don't need to buy much anymore these days with so much good foss available -- which I suppose is also a contributing factor to why one might be more inclined to buy the few things one needs), but I've also donated to hundreds of worthy projects who I felt deserved my support as well (some of which I didn't even get something really tangible immediately in return, like the durian.open.movie.project, first example that springs to mind).
When I was an unexperienced driver at 18 years-old, and had never owned a car, I bought one with the first manual transmission I'd ever touched. The first day was nearly a disaster, stalling repeatedly, lurching and shaking about, and requiring multiple attempts get moving from stops on hills. Simply driving was inefficient and slow (despite the car being a pretty nice old sports car), and required all of my attention. But I got used to it -- so much so that the next four cars I bought also had manual transmissions, and one was a newer, nicer version of that same car. Like the free and open source software mentioned here, manual transmissions take a bit of practice, but they are cheaper and can be at least as efficient (more mpg than older automatics, less maintenance), and being more in control is nice. A one-day test is a nice start, but that is nothing to make a decision on.
A car analogy! Thank God! Suddenly it all makes sense to me!
The Medicine statistic on 0% unemployment is full of bullshit. That's only because the university has an OBLIGATION to supply a foundation job after graduation, and the deaneries sort this out. This foundation job is GUARANTEED by the deanery to all UK university graduates. As soon as the foundation period of 2 years is over, however, and the candidate starts applying to jobs on his own shoulders, unemployment in doctors starts rising dramatically, at least in terms of the kind of jobs and specialties that they were seeking. 0% unemployment in medicine is a criminal marketing point if you ask me, especially after the MMC / MTAS fiasco which resulted in the HIGHEST unemployment rate in doctors in the last few decades!
The REAL problem with games on linux is that the 'omg OpenSource' discussion kicks in whenever games on linux are mentioned, and a google search on games for linux floods you with stuff like nexuiz and frozen bubble or how to run games on linux using wine. Meanwhile, companies like LGP who, perhaps lack a strong marketing department, end up on row 24 of a google search, buried under a bunch of links which don't interest most serious gamers who are just trying to look for nice games to play on their machine.
Confound that with the fact that linux works via repositories, and there isn't a provision (in fact, there's efforts to default against it) for looking up commercial stuff like this from the repositories, and you get the idea. I consider myself a staunch linux supporter, who advocates that proper gaming would be a turning point for linux, and this is *still* the first time I've ever even heard of LGP today! I buy games for windows all the time, I would (and now will) definitely buy them for linux, once I know they exist!
(... and before the pedants react, no, looking whether a *specific* game runs on linux somehow, isn't good enough, and definitely not the solution to the exposure problem.)
[...] So I did the natural thing. I installed it on the prettiest employee's desktop and within a week [...] there were official requests to install it on every desktop [...]
Hahahah! Ah, it's times like this I wish there was a 'like' button on slashdot! So true!:D
and support / promote open projects which don't get as much money thrown into the marketing department as certain commercial projects
(link back to recently covered story onthe durian open movie project)
I wouldn't think twice sending that patient to another doctor.
If they're dumb enough to demand an unnecessarily high-risk procedure, I'd advise them against it and offer the alternatives, and if they still wanted it, I'd explain why I wouldn't feel comfortable offering it to them.
I agree, the shitty doctor who is willing to perform it may cause more harm. But, the patient is bent to be massacred in one way or another anyway, and at least I won't be the one who gets his ass dragged to court trying to defend myself on why I performed a procedure that goes against all clinical and ethical guidelines and clearly fails the Bolam principle.
Most people here are essentially saying something along the lines of "I won't be buying the game, as a form of protest".
Am I the only one that thinks that this is completely naive, not to mention ineffective as a form of protest? Ubisoft (or any other manufacturer) has no idea how many sales have been lost due to DRM as opposed to, say, low demand for the game itself, due to overall quality, targeted audience, current economic climate, recend trends in gaming memes, etc.
If you want to give Ubisoft some numbers to work with, then for every game you feel the need to inform them the reason for not buying was in fact their shitty DRM, send them a letter / email -- labour the point that you were really excited about the game and would have bought it otherwise, but now they blew it for this game, and any potential sequels that they may have released, since the connecting link is now broken.
If they received a lot of those, then maybe they'd start counting. Otherwise, with no clear indication as to 'why' people aren't buying the game, they'll turn to the more convenient suspects, like 'those damn pirates', 'not enough marketing', 'we should have used more explosions/cussing', 'there was no hot chick with big boobs on the cover' etc. DRM protesters would be the last thing on the list to explain low sales IMO.
Otherwise your protest has just gone to waste. Nobody even knew you were protesting to begin with.
Slashdot Mirror
Google. You're turning evil. In fact, over the last year you've turned way more evil than I could ever have anticipated. What with Chromebooks turning Chrome into a 'proprietary apps' platform, when those apps, save for their 'Chrome packaging' should have been normal webapps for any browser ... and now this.
I'm out.
Note:. This didn't even work in Chromium. CHROMIUM!!! I had to get 'Google Chrome' for it to work.
Don't you hate it when that blasted RMS eventually keeps turning out right all the time ... :(
I think you're missing my point. (and from the offensive / defensive tone in your reply I see you've misunderstood the intended tone in mine and I've offended you and for that I apologise and state it was not my intention).
I'm not saying that what you stated as common sense is 100% wrong. I'm just saying that it's not as black and white. Especially in a generic and abstract context. (to quote me as offtopic because I didn't have the "poisoned rabbit" or "bar fight" specifics is a bit silly. I replied to what you wrote, not the context I was magically expected to be fully aware of. There might as well have been serial killers using the bunny as bait, for all I know.)
But, more importantly, and to point out the irony, if you state these things are a 'surefire study' (i.e. no need to perform them as we're pretty sure what the result is probably gonna be -- from common sense, no less) then I believe you've missed the point of what TFA was all about; there's no such thing as a surefire study. And that's why we need to check seemingly obvious things; because invariably a lot of our intuitions turn out to be wrong when put 'under the microscope'.
As a post-scriptum, in my experience from many hospitals in many countries, they're all the same everywhere. Never trust doctors (too much, anyway). Always question their management and keep them on their toes. I'm a doctor and I know. "Trust" me. :p
I've witnessed hacked hotmail accounts sending spam to their contacts regarding chinese electronics shops for years now. Maybe Gmail just cares enough to point out it's a problem.
I could dissect most of your 'common sense' examples and find flaws. But let's not do that. Let's go for what the parent post 'actually' meant. That a lot (yes, not all) of what's considered 'good practice' based on 'common sense' invariably turns out to be wrong when scrutinized. And then, oddly enough, the new findings are then pronounced as common sense and self-evident all along. Until *they* are proven wrong in turn, etc.
:p
...
A classic case of this has been beta agonists in heart failure. The heart isn't managing to pump blood? Give it drugs that enhance contractility. It's common sense.
Until they found out that, while output improves, mortality rates skyrocket.
So they tried the opposite. Decrease contractility with beta-blockers, so that the struggling heart works less. After all, a candle that burns less bright, lasts longer. It's common sense.
Until they found out that, this too, causes more problems than it solves.
Now they're trying to figure out whether *not interfering* with contractility at all is the best you can do. After all, you shouldn't mess with an already compromised organ.
It's common sense.
Or what about shielding your baby from bugs? Common sense, right? Well, it was, until studies showed that this actually compromises the development of their immune system and leads to susceptibilities and allergies. So now you get parents calling round the neighbours to stick their thumb in the baby's mouth, to maximize their exposure at an early age and build a proper immune system. Of course, there's little evidence for this at the moment, but why not? It's common sense, right?
No, I agree with the parent post. I like it best the way they said it in Freakonomics: "Common sense is little short of common nonsense."
It is always biased and largely based on individual experiences. While some of these experiences may be useful, and to some extent universal (e.g. wash hands after trash), I would argue a lot less of the things we think is common sense is actually correct.
Actually, I changed my mind. I'll dissect your 'common sense' nuggets after all:
1) Consuming hard food has been shown to prevent plaque buildup. In fact, this is the primary method used in dogs.
2) Studies have shown that people in larger cars have an inflated idea of safety and tend to be involved in more accidents. There's common sense unexamined producing obvious harm for you. Furthermore, the families of people in the larger vehicle tend to grieve for longer, as the victims are more likely to survive with a disability rather than die.
3) As a physician myself, I completely contradict this. It's human nature, go figure, but people tend to not care when some damage has already been done.
4) There's a number of plants deadly to animals and beneficial to humans. Medicine relies on this. That's not to say you should strive to eat all plants known to kill animals in uncontrolled amounts. But it *is* to say that relying on this as common sense and not studying the properties of these plants would have held back medicine by centuries.
5) Manure as fertilizer, anyone?
6) Best to hit someone you don't know, than someone who knows you and where you live.
7) Yeah. Ok. Fine. You can have this one
Honestly, if I had a dime every time a doctor in hospital tried to justify their opinion by saying "it's common sense" only to be proven wrong seconds later
Ah. But it lacked MAGIC!
Ever since I've started reading the Discussion pages for each article, I realised there is actually BETTER information there than the article itself.
Even if 'camping' occurs (I was under the impression there was a rule on this -- 3 consecutive reversals or something?), the discussion usually reflects this and the information is therefore available for the user to judge themselves.
Having said that, on the whole discussion pages I've seen have been entirely reasonable and reflected reasonable decisions rather than just camping. I would like to think that if an esteemed academic offered their opinion and justification for an edit (naturally, with clear citations), that it would be very difficult for some moronic 12-year-old camper to delete that without good cause. At the very least, other users would reverse the "camper's" reversals beyond the 3-reversal-limit, in defence of the esteemed professor's edit.
Unless I'm way off base here on how wikipedia works. I wouldn't know, I've only done minor edits myself.
Or, something like Scholarpedia, perhaps?
Shrewd business man? Yes. Ambitious? Skilled inventor and scientist? Yes. Hardworking? Yes ... but also a sociopath nonetheless.
Playing devil's advocate here, but the Bible was never meant to be 'truly god's word' in the sense that you imply. There are no claims that it was dictated by God in any way (except perhaps the ten commandments); it's a collection of human semi-historical accounts of perceived events -- and if you think of it as such, then the reason for the existence of a standard variation between editions becomes clearer and unavoidable (let alone if you consider the number of groups that may have intentionally rephrased passages of the book to fit their own agendas.)
If you were serious about the 'truly god's word' comment though, (rather than just lighthearted trolling), then you were probably thinking of the Q'uran (or possibly the Mormon bible). Same principles apply though, to the extent that people (like you) or even some so-called christians can't tell the difference between the two and treat it in the way you described, the distinction then becomes of an academic nature. But that's not the bible's 'fault', so to speak, or any other book for that matter, religious or not, that is repeatedly quoted and misquoted out of context, in order to justify personal agendas.
... that's still 210 megawatts short of the 1.21 JIGOWATTS [sic] required for time travel
I think they're oversimplifying the "only a few people pirated first and bought later" argument. You cannot expect someone to play the game and then rush to buy it on the same day. The usual scenario is that they'll play the game, and when they think of their friend who would appreciate it as a gift, they'll buy it for them. Also, purchases tend to occur a year or so down the line, when the gamer says "I enjoyed that game, I wanna play it again", and this time they think, "hey, I did enjoy that game, I'll go shell out the bucks and get it properly this time round"
To the gamer, this often also has the added advantage that the initial price may have gone down significantly (such as this promotonial opportunity now). Obviously, to the developer this is a disadvantage, because they are not getting the larger income when they need it the most, and they get a potentially cheaper, delayed purchase ... but it's still a purchase opportunity created through the initial piracy, which is better than nothing, and I'd imagine many gamers, pirates or not, wait for sales periods before they buy anyway. Obviously I'm not advocating piracy, but the 'nobody pirated first then bought it' statistic is oversimplified to say the least (I won't get into the 'how do they know' argument)
Disclaimer: I bought the Machinarium game for a friend after having played the demo (awesome game btw). Saw it on Steam, but went to their website directly to buy. Also I have now bought most, if not all, of my favourite games which I 'pirated' back when I was young pennyless and stupid (a bit of a moot point, since some of those companies have gone bankrupt by now though :| ).
As an aside, what changed my attitude towards casual piracy was my exposure to linux and foss software. Seeing all the well meant effort to create communities based on freedom, really drove home the distinction between 'free' and 'pirated', and helped me see how wrong the latter was when viewed outside my comfort zone of convenient excuses. It also helped me see the game companies as more than just abstract capitalist money-eating entities, but actual people, just like these enthusiastic foss programmers, who are trying to make ends meet by giving us a game we love at the same time. Ever since I've switched to linux, not only have I stopped pirating and I buy the things that I need (admittedly, other than games, I don't need to buy much anymore these days with so much good foss available -- which I suppose is also a contributing factor to why one might be more inclined to buy the few things one needs), but I've also donated to hundreds of worthy projects who I felt deserved my support as well (some of which I didn't even get something really tangible immediately in return, like the durian.open.movie.project, first example that springs to mind).
http://www.thenoobcomic.com/index.php?pos=378 [obligatory, really]
You misspelt 'dumbasses'. Dumbass.
When I was an unexperienced driver at 18 years-old, and had never owned a car, I bought one with the first manual transmission I'd ever touched. The first day was nearly a disaster, stalling repeatedly, lurching and shaking about, and requiring multiple attempts get moving from stops on hills. Simply driving was inefficient and slow (despite the car being a pretty nice old sports car), and required all of my attention. But I got used to it -- so much so that the next four cars I bought also had manual transmissions, and one was a newer, nicer version of that same car. Like the free and open source software mentioned here, manual transmissions take a bit of practice, but they are cheaper and can be at least as efficient (more mpg than older automatics, less maintenance), and being more in control is nice. A one-day test is a nice start, but that is nothing to make a decision on.
A car analogy! Thank God! Suddenly it all makes sense to me!
The Medicine statistic on 0% unemployment is full of bullshit. That's only because the university has an OBLIGATION to supply a foundation job after graduation, and the deaneries sort this out. This foundation job is GUARANTEED by the deanery to all UK university graduates. As soon as the foundation period of 2 years is over, however, and the candidate starts applying to jobs on his own shoulders, unemployment in doctors starts rising dramatically, at least in terms of the kind of jobs and specialties that they were seeking. 0% unemployment in medicine is a criminal marketing point if you ask me, especially after the MMC / MTAS fiasco which resulted in the HIGHEST unemployment rate in doctors in the last few decades!
"...No non-Christians running nonsensical attack ads."
really? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1106924/Theres-probably-God--stop-worrying-enjoy-life-Atheist-group-launches-billboard-campaign.html
The REAL problem with games on linux is that the 'omg OpenSource' discussion kicks in whenever games on linux are mentioned, and a google search on games for linux floods you with stuff like nexuiz and frozen bubble or how to run games on linux using wine. Meanwhile, companies like LGP who, perhaps lack a strong marketing department, end up on row 24 of a google search, buried under a bunch of links which don't interest most serious gamers who are just trying to look for nice games to play on their machine.
Confound that with the fact that linux works via repositories, and there isn't a provision (in fact, there's efforts to default against it) for looking up commercial stuff like this from the repositories, and you get the idea. I consider myself a staunch linux supporter, who advocates that proper gaming would be a turning point for linux, and this is *still* the first time I've ever even heard of LGP today! I buy games for windows all the time, I would (and now will) definitely buy them for linux, once I know they exist!
(... and before the pedants react, no, looking whether a *specific* game runs on linux somehow, isn't good enough, and definitely not the solution to the exposure problem.)
I HATE people who generalise ... it's always fat bald middle-class suburban under-achieving married white people who do that!
[...] So I did the natural thing. I installed it on the prettiest employee's desktop and within a week [...] there were official requests to install it on every desktop [...]
Hahahah! Ah, it's times like this I wish there was a 'like' button on slashdot! So true! :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTmXHvGZiSY
Don't tell me I'm the only one who thought of Blade Runner while looking at the machines used to detect physiological cues in TFA.
and support / promote open projects which don't get as much money thrown into the marketing department as certain commercial projects (link back to recently covered story onthe durian open movie project)
specifically, welcome to the Overton Window way of doing things
It's obvious you're not a doctor ...
I wouldn't think twice sending that patient to another doctor.
If they're dumb enough to demand an unnecessarily high-risk procedure, I'd advise them against it and offer the alternatives, and if they still wanted it, I'd explain why I wouldn't feel comfortable offering it to them. I agree, the shitty doctor who is willing to perform it may cause more harm. But, the patient is bent to be massacred in one way or another anyway, and at least I won't be the one who gets his ass dragged to court trying to defend myself on why I performed a procedure that goes against all clinical and ethical guidelines and clearly fails the Bolam principle.
Most people here are essentially saying something along the lines of "I won't be buying the game, as a form of protest".
Am I the only one that thinks that this is completely naive, not to mention ineffective as a form of protest? Ubisoft (or any other manufacturer) has no idea how many sales have been lost due to DRM as opposed to, say, low demand for the game itself, due to overall quality, targeted audience, current economic climate, recend trends in gaming memes, etc.
If you want to give Ubisoft some numbers to work with, then for every game you feel the need to inform them the reason for not buying was in fact their shitty DRM, send them a letter / email -- labour the point that you were really excited about the game and would have bought it otherwise, but now they blew it for this game, and any potential sequels that they may have released, since the connecting link is now broken.
If they received a lot of those, then maybe they'd start counting. Otherwise, with no clear indication as to 'why' people aren't buying the game, they'll turn to the more convenient suspects, like 'those damn pirates', 'not enough marketing', 'we should have used more explosions/cussing', 'there was no hot chick with big boobs on the cover' etc. DRM protesters would be the last thing on the list to explain low sales IMO.
Otherwise your protest has just gone to waste. Nobody even knew you were protesting to begin with.