That's intentional. The whole DLC bit is meant to distract you from what's going on here: you're buying something but not actually buying it. Typically, when you give someone money in exchange for something, you've bought it. It's yours. You own it. You can sell it. The producer made it and profited off of it once, and is not entitled to profit off of it the next time: they already got paid.
But oh wait, THESE ones and zeroes don't come burned into a plastic disc, they get to you via a wire. And... uh... that's different somehow, so you don't actually own it and can't sell it if it's absolute crap. But of course, you still have to pay for it. Totally different!
There are three things wrong with it.
1: It's ridiculous, consumers are meant to think they're buying something, and most do. Pretending they're not actually buying something becuase it's DLC? Absurd.
2. It's greedy. I'm fine with just licensing a game and not being able to sell it. But there better be a fucking discount. If I'm not actually buying it, I shouldn't be paying $60 as if I AM.
3. If a game is terrible, I ought to be able to recoup some of my money on it. Good games I'll keep around. If a game is so terrible that people are selling it back in the first week, then that is a shitty game and whoever made it deserves fewer sales.
It's always struck me as odd how people can be so vigilant about 1984 but not a brave new world. I don't understand people who spend all their time worrying about big government, but think big business is a good thing. Same goals: taking your rights and your money. Same people even. Business becoming the government is okay, but somehow government regulating business is evil socialism.
I was about to ask about this. We can get crude oil out from thousands of feet underground and run it across the country, but we can't suck up water in pipes and bring it down to drought areas?
I'll state explicitly that I'm completely ignorant in this area. That was not a hypothetical question, I know nothing about the scale, cost, or mechanics involved here. Just seems odd that we can do one but not the other. I'm guessing that economics are the main barrier here? Farmers in droughted areas wouldn't be able to afford the prices that would need to be charged to send it all that way?
Funny how neat packaging of issues isn't usually true.
Not really. Few people are saying 100% of people who are pro-life are Christian, or vice versa. Are you suggesting that most pro-lifers aren't imposing their religious beliefs on others? Because THAT is wrong.
And the atheist mob will do it to you if you're religious at all?
Make witty jests at you online and talk about religious people smugly? Yes, but that's not the same category as death threats, beatings, and imprisonment.
But there IS a point to it. The content IS THE SAME. I read Shakespeare at my own pace, I got -some- things out of it. Whenever I saw Shakespeare plays acted out, I couldn't understand a single sentence.
Anyway, lighten up. It works as literature no matter what Shakespeare intended.
Untested hypotheses that turn out to be wrong often set research back months or years, wasting time testing them. Taking one man's word as law without testing it, if it were wrong, that could cause a huge amount of wasted time.
It would suck if we didn't get teleporters within our lifetimes just because Einstein was a little off and no one bothered to check it.
There's two things science classes must do though, and they must do them both. One is teach scientific thinking. And they do actually do that reasonably well in my experience.
They MUST ALSO teach scientific facts though. Suggesting they skip teaching evolution and climate change doesn't make sense. They're scientific findings. They're truths. Learning them is an essential part of understanding science. Evolution is fundamental knowledge in biology. As Dobzhansky wrote "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution."
Trying to justify avoiding the necessary fight is absurd. You can't just teach the scientific method and call it a day. That would be like saying "Grammar, spelling and writing are enough. We don't need to actually teach kids literature like Shakespeare or To Kill a Mockingbird."
It may be basic memorization, but I'd be lost as a biologist if I didn't have some dim recollection of things I memorized back in college, and I wouldn't have been able to get through those courses without things I memorized in high school and grade school. You can't figure out or look up on wikipedia every scientific fact, students must memorize some key basic concepts.
Re:Part of a money conflict within the King family
on
A Copyright Nightmare
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Judging from what I've seen, the masses don't know how to change their default browser and have not heard of Bing. If they use Bing, they probably don't realize it. If they use google, they won't know enough to switch permanently.
Because it's America, where even an Anonymous race-baiting Cracker such as your own fine self can get elected to Federal office.
When I voted for Senator Anonymous, I did not realize that he or she was anti-semitic. I really liked his or her actions against scientology and corporate corruption, there wasn't a lot of information out there about their personal beliefs.
Little appreciated here on Slashdot is the fact that SOPA was as unpopular on the right side of the spectrum as it was on the left.
I actually think slashdot and reddit (often accused of having a left-leaning bias) demonstrated restraint and were clear that this was not a partisan issue. That this was congressmen and women bought by the MPAA/RIAA against everyone else.
I know we disagree on many things, and it's tempting to believe that the other side is deluded. But it would have taken remarkable self-delusion for any liberal informed in the slightest to think this was a conservative movement. PIPA was sponsored by democrat Sen. Patrick Leahy. It was known from the beginning that Obama would probably sign it. The AFL-CIO was in favor of SOPA for some fucking reason. I don't recall reading any serious posts about "Aw, these fucking republicans trying to censor the internet."
Right and left both united to overcome censorship and special interests run amok. I don't think either side was really accusing the other side of being in favor of it. Please, lets not degenerate into declaring this a partisan victory now, and lets not start saying "See! Our side told your side so!"
If you want to nuke a castle you don't lob a stink bomb at it.
Kind of an odd choice for comparison. Is a stink bomb an option in the newest Civ or something? Because I can't think of any other situation where one would want to "nuke a castle."
Not to excuse it, but that's not the biggest double standard in the thing, I think the fact that GoDaddy helped write the bill and was conveniently exempted from the penalties their competitors would face under the bill. To me that sounds like a literal double standard with much bigger consequences.
At the very least, this is probably a case of "Here's a bill for like 5 things you hate, alright twist my arm, I'll drop one of them to get the four I really wanted, that's reasonable right?"
Slashdot Mirror
I really don't see the problem, myself.
That's intentional. The whole DLC bit is meant to distract you from what's going on here: you're buying something but not actually buying it. Typically, when you give someone money in exchange for something, you've bought it. It's yours. You own it. You can sell it. The producer made it and profited off of it once, and is not entitled to profit off of it the next time: they already got paid.
But oh wait, THESE ones and zeroes don't come burned into a plastic disc, they get to you via a wire. And... uh... that's different somehow, so you don't actually own it and can't sell it if it's absolute crap. But of course, you still have to pay for it. Totally different!
There are three things wrong with it.
1: It's ridiculous, consumers are meant to think they're buying something, and most do. Pretending they're not actually buying something becuase it's DLC? Absurd.
2. It's greedy. I'm fine with just licensing a game and not being able to sell it. But there better be a fucking discount. If I'm not actually buying it, I shouldn't be paying $60 as if I AM.
3. If a game is terrible, I ought to be able to recoup some of my money on it. Good games I'll keep around. If a game is so terrible that people are selling it back in the first week, then that is a shitty game and whoever made it deserves fewer sales.
It's always struck me as odd how people can be so vigilant about 1984 but not a brave new world. I don't understand people who spend all their time worrying about big government, but think big business is a good thing. Same goals: taking your rights and your money. Same people even. Business becoming the government is okay, but somehow government regulating business is evil socialism.
but drain an aquifer and you really fuck up the environment and piss off any locals trying to grow food.
In the Arctic circle?
I was about to ask about this. We can get crude oil out from thousands of feet underground and run it across the country, but we can't suck up water in pipes and bring it down to drought areas?
I'll state explicitly that I'm completely ignorant in this area. That was not a hypothetical question, I know nothing about the scale, cost, or mechanics involved here. Just seems odd that we can do one but not the other. I'm guessing that economics are the main barrier here? Farmers in droughted areas wouldn't be able to afford the prices that would need to be charged to send it all that way?
I don't even need to read the article to recognize the flaw in your thinking.
Wait, you mean we're SUPPOSED to be doing that?
All these years... I've been doing it all wrong...
Funny how neat packaging of issues isn't usually true.
Not really. Few people are saying 100% of people who are pro-life are Christian, or vice versa. Are you suggesting that most pro-lifers aren't imposing their religious beliefs on others? Because THAT is wrong.
Well, he IS British, and those brits DO go crazy over soccer. So I wouldn't be so sure he's NEVER thrown a molotov cocktail.
And the atheist mob will do it to you if you're religious at all?
Make witty jests at you online and talk about religious people smugly? Yes, but that's not the same category as death threats, beatings, and imprisonment.
If you're lucky. He got beaten and imprisoned. Many religious nutters like to burn people alive and/or rape them.
But there IS a point to it. The content IS THE SAME. I read Shakespeare at my own pace, I got -some- things out of it. Whenever I saw Shakespeare plays acted out, I couldn't understand a single sentence.
Anyway, lighten up. It works as literature no matter what Shakespeare intended.
So he was not trying to nominate activist judges who would take away our rights to abortion and privacy?
Your guy's guys supported public domain. Do you want a medal?
I'll give it to you even though you're wrong. It's the thought that counts.
Untested hypotheses that turn out to be wrong often set research back months or years, wasting time testing them. Taking one man's word as law without testing it, if it were wrong, that could cause a huge amount of wasted time.
It would suck if we didn't get teleporters within our lifetimes just because Einstein was a little off and no one bothered to check it.
I'd be skeptical of their place in a religion class too. Show me where in genesis it says "THIS IS 100% LITERALLY WHAT HAPPENED!"
There's two things science classes must do though, and they must do them both. One is teach scientific thinking. And they do actually do that reasonably well in my experience.
They MUST ALSO teach scientific facts though. Suggesting they skip teaching evolution and climate change doesn't make sense. They're scientific findings. They're truths. Learning them is an essential part of understanding science. Evolution is fundamental knowledge in biology. As Dobzhansky wrote "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution."
Trying to justify avoiding the necessary fight is absurd. You can't just teach the scientific method and call it a day. That would be like saying "Grammar, spelling and writing are enough. We don't need to actually teach kids literature like Shakespeare or To Kill a Mockingbird."
It may be basic memorization, but I'd be lost as a biologist if I didn't have some dim recollection of things I memorized back in college, and I wouldn't have been able to get through those courses without things I memorized in high school and grade school. You can't figure out or look up on wikipedia every scientific fact, students must memorize some key basic concepts.
I'll mod it how I damn well please.
Which is "not at all" now that you've posted.
I'm going to take your word that was in the speech, since it would cost me $10 to look it up.
I fear is likely to only be interpreted as an attempt to manipulate the Senate to further a particular agenda
If the voters see THAT as manipulating the senate and not the massive lobbying efforts, then this is a hopeless battle anyway.
Judging from what I've seen, the masses don't know how to change their default browser and have not heard of Bing. If they use Bing, they probably don't realize it. If they use google, they won't know enough to switch permanently.
While what you say is true, most politicians know that in general, people are uninformed at best.
Which is why informing them en masse like this could be effective.
Because it's America, where even an Anonymous race-baiting Cracker such as your own fine self can get elected to Federal office.
When I voted for Senator Anonymous, I did not realize that he or she was anti-semitic. I really liked his or her actions against scientology and corporate corruption, there wasn't a lot of information out there about their personal beliefs.
Little appreciated here on Slashdot is the fact that SOPA was as unpopular on the right side of the spectrum as it was on the left.
I actually think slashdot and reddit (often accused of having a left-leaning bias) demonstrated restraint and were clear that this was not a partisan issue. That this was congressmen and women bought by the MPAA/RIAA against everyone else.
I know we disagree on many things, and it's tempting to believe that the other side is deluded. But it would have taken remarkable self-delusion for any liberal informed in the slightest to think this was a conservative movement. PIPA was sponsored by democrat Sen. Patrick Leahy. It was known from the beginning that Obama would probably sign it. The AFL-CIO was in favor of SOPA for some fucking reason. I don't recall reading any serious posts about "Aw, these fucking republicans trying to censor the internet."
Right and left both united to overcome censorship and special interests run amok. I don't think either side was really accusing the other side of being in favor of it. Please, lets not degenerate into declaring this a partisan victory now, and lets not start saying "See! Our side told your side so!"
If you want to nuke a castle you don't lob a stink bomb at it.
Kind of an odd choice for comparison. Is a stink bomb an option in the newest Civ or something? Because I can't think of any other situation where one would want to "nuke a castle."
How did you let him past that double standard?!
Not to excuse it, but that's not the biggest double standard in the thing, I think the fact that GoDaddy helped write the bill and was conveniently exempted from the penalties their competitors would face under the bill. To me that sounds like a literal double standard with much bigger consequences.
At the very least, this is probably a case of "Here's a bill for like 5 things you hate, alright twist my arm, I'll drop one of them to get the four I really wanted, that's reasonable right?"