Most states have passed anti-gay, one-man/one-woman marriage laws.
Isn't this something that was passed by a Democratic Republic? I don't think the politicians that voted asked each individual person in their constituency how to voted.
Of course they care what the/. crowd thinks. Not to be egotistical, but we're developers, tech support, geeks, advisors, managers and more. If the tech crowd is against your tech product what hope do you have?!! MS has glided along on being one of the first major tech companies, which make them a lot of money. Now they're old news in a daily changing industry that's despritley trying to stay relevant... and failing
Hey! I said there were 6 users. Why are you selling them short?
In all seriousness it doesn't matter what we post here, the market is deciding WM8 fate. A few cheap jabs here aren't going to make a difference as a whole. Besides Linux and Mac users have been putting up with the same cheap jabs for years now.
MS has been doing this exact same thing to every other company for quite some time. Although two wrongs don't make a right, I think this is a case of Google trying to educate MS in civility. If MS takes the lesson that working with others is better than suing or extorting them into the ground when the try to innovate, then it'll work in everyone's favor.
I think Google is just dishing out a little of my MS has been for years. I'm sure the end result will be Google will allow MS to use YouTube, but I still find it a little funny that finally someone can jerk MS around for being dicks for the last 20 some years.
In Civil court that would be enough to rule in the prosecution's favor
Obviously it's not enough.
Besides behind NAT and spoofed or masked IPs it's very clear there's no way you could tie a IP address to anyone person or be able to reliably say it wasn't someone faking an IP that just happened to coincide with one that was assigned to the defendant. That's before we even get to even with WEP or WPA or WPA2 there's still a good chance that a router could have been hacked from the street.
If you believe otherwise, you don't know what you're talking about and should leave the discussion to the big boys.
but you're pretty much caught red handed at this point making the settlement a lot more attractive.
You can't possibly be serious. 34 people were just lumped together and you're saying they're guilty and should just lay down and take it up the rear. I'd say there's a very good chance Voltage Pictures LLC just picked a bunch of random IPs out of a bag and said, "If you pay the piper we'll let you off with a warning. Otherwise we can't guarantee you we won't come in the middle of the night for your house, parents, wife, husband, children and family pet."
There are still fees and paper work, and penalties for not doing the paper work, which normal "IANAL" people don't know about and thus require a lawyer for. I'm pretty sure just about anyone who showed up to court without a lawyer to defend themselves and didn't know what they were doing would be laughed at by a Judge and quickly found at fault. Despite what you see on TV, Judge Judy isn't real court and not how the real ones operate.
h4rr4 is pretty well spot on, you could defend yourself and lose, hire a lawyer and possibly win, but still owe a fortune, or settle out of court for significantly less than what you'd pay a lawyer or pay if you lost.
The court system wasn't setup to be some corps personal income stream, which seems to be a lot of what it's doing these days.
Politicians have to say stupid things to appease the stupid people that elect them. Defence Distributed has created a shrode of fear around 3D printers, so naturally people are now fearful of what can be done with them. Regardless of what good 3D printers could do, from his point on the majority of the ignorant masses will only believe they're for printing guns. Politicians unfortunately are going to be required to address those peoples.
I work in the Federal Government. Although I would like to make that switch, it's just not going to happen. Although a number of departments are making the switch to Linux based OSs so I guess it could be possible in a few years.
Ah... I switch to LibreOffice because of the Ribbon interface and Ubuntu because of problems with Vista and that's "averse to change"?
How much more of a change can you get than going from Windows to Linux or MS office to LibreOffice.
I'm an early adopter and will switch to the latest and greatest with every sip of coffee. I'm quite happy to buy into new tech and things that are better because of changes, but not when the changes are purely because a large organization decided that's just the way it's going to be with no otherwise good reason.
Office 2010 - not a whole lot different from 2007, but a lot more popular now that people are familiar with the Ribbon
I'm sorry, but no. Just because people are complaining vocally anymore about something originally done five years ago and another screw-up that took place three years ago doesn't mean things are ok now.
I got use to the ribbon, but I still hate it and it is still way less productive than the file menu. I switched to LibreOffice for all my home stuff, and later switched to Ubuntu, because of the ribbon and how badly MS Vista was. I only use MS office when I have to deal with work stuff. One of the small differences between 2007 and 2010 was the replacement of the circular windows button with the green "file" tab, making it closer to the older style file menu and slightly more usable, it still sucks donkey nuts. It takes way too long to load, options are literally hidden in the interface, sometimes not in the main interface at all and are unintuitive when they are there.
Drugs are banned so there are no drugs on the street, right?
In replay to
if guns were banned, there would have been no guns to steal and kill his mother with. so gun laws would have stopped it.
That implies that because laws banning drugs aren't 100% effective then there the's no point in making laws to restrict gun use. Therefore Thruen has made a valid argument. I think you need to look up straw-man arguments, because you made one then accused someone else of doing it.
The way I see this going is at some point someone will print a gun. There will be a defect and the gun will blow up in their hands. Then there will be reason to ban plastic guns. Then because all 3D printers are "used" for is printing guns they'll be the next thing to get banned.
I say "used" because since using 3D printers to print guns has become such a high profile story most of the ignorant population will just assume that's all 3D printers are for. Kind of like how Torrents are "only" used for piracy. Public perception is the dangerous part of this whole thing, no one's hearing about the great things you can do with 3D printers (printing organ replacements, confections, home prototyping) all they're hearing about is how a nut case group of people think that 3D printing is a great way to distribute lethal weapons to the masses. All it'll take is one "terrorist" to print a gun and kill someone, then 3D printed guns along with 3D printers will be part of the war on terror and outlawed for everyone.
It's not their responsibility. I'm just saying if they make a "pirated" version (A.K.A a demo) available and it plays like crap, but people don't know the "pirated" version (A.K.A a demo) is different from the actual game and people don't buy the game because of the crappy "pirated" version (A.K.A a demo), then the developers have really just cut off their noses to spite their faces by making their actual game look like crap.
The problem is that doesn't exist. In the simplest logic, yes piracy should hurt a companies bottom line. In practice, people pirate for a ton of different reasons, one being they don't have the money to pay, so they wouldn't have been customers in the first place and don't impact the bottom line.
Another is try before you buy, which really can go either way. Someone who might have bought the game gets it for free and thinks it's crap and are happy they didn't waste their money, which negatively impacting the bottom line and are the people I think most intrusive DRM's are aimed at. Then there's the try and buy that buy the game because they could try it first, positively impacting the bottom line.
Then there are those that never would have heard of the game had they not been able to download it, that may or may not buy. They wouldn't have hurt the bottom line had they never heard of the game, but impact it positively if they buy it after downloading.
Too many variables to really say either way what impact piracy has. Some people (many authors recently Neil Gaiman as an example) look at it as a form of free advertising and have been able to use torrents to spread their latest work and have made a lot doing so. We hear very little from major developers how piracy could actually be helping their bottom lines and they focus specifically on the group that tries their games and decides not to waste money on stuff they don't like, while completely neglecting the groups that try and do buy or never would have heard of the game in the first place.
I dunno, to me it sound like they're severely exaggerating the piracy issues in the "pirated" version beyond what would happen in the real world to try and make a point that's just not there. Based on what I've read the game is literally unplayable after a certain point regardless of how big an empire you build. If that was the case in the real world Blizzard, EA and Ubisoft would have been out of business long ago. Instead, at least in EA and Ubisoft's case recently, they're screwing over paying customers and still making money hand over fist.
I haven't played this game yet, but if I downloaded the "pirated" version knowing it was a demo of sorts, by reading this/. article or having a short "you've downloaded the torrent demo. It's the full game, but blah blah blah" and I liked the "pirated" version, I'd buy the full game. If I downloaded the "pirated" version and there was no disclaimer, I'd assume the game was broken. No way I'd give up money for that.
This from someone who's kicked in a lot of money for beta's and less than stellar Linux releases (Minecraft, Humblebundles, Steam, extra donations to kickstarter's to be on beta tester list). If the game is available and I try it and like it, I will buy it. If the game is crap, "pirated" or not, it's off my list. There are many other things to spend money on before wasting it on crap games.
Kudos to these guys for trying something "new", but I think they, as with all developers, need to lighten up on the "piracy is killing our business". If you're not making money because piracy is hurting your bottom line so much, don't make games. It's obviously not a viable industry. Instead we constantly read about awesome new game selling millions of copies and turning huge profits and then hear the developer screaming about how piracy is running their business. I'm inclined to believe it's a bunch of horse shit. It also makes me believe when a developer of a less than awesome game starts screaming piracy, they're full of it too and are just on the "We'd make so much more money if it wasn't for piracy" bandwagon despite the fact that their game was just crap.
Couldn't agree more. The quote they used in the attack on Justin Trudeau was actually taken from a CTV interview/documentary that aired, I think, more than 10 years ago. They basically cut out everything before and everything after the quote to make it look like that's what Justin Trudeau was saying, when in fact he was describing someone else's point of view. I honestly don't care either way who's in charge (Liberals, NDP, or Conservatives), but I expect them to be honest and upfront. This ad was extremely deceitful and underhanded, as all attack ads are. But more importantly what it says to me is the Cons are so fearful that JT will give the Liberals the upper hand in the next election. So much so that we're going to have to spend the next two years watching these ads so they can condition the public to hate him. The Cons think the ads worked for the last two Liberal leaders (Stéphane Dion and Michael Ignatieff), but the fact is, no one liked them anyway. They were just two more old white guys with the same beliefs as the last 100 old white guys to come through. I personally couldn't see them as being any better or worse than Harper.
Slashdot Mirror
Most states have passed anti-gay, one-man/one-woman marriage laws.
Isn't this something that was passed by a Democratic Republic? I don't think the politicians that voted asked each individual person in their constituency how to voted.
Of course they care what the /. crowd thinks. Not to be egotistical, but we're developers, tech support, geeks, advisors, managers and more. If the tech crowd is against your tech product what hope do you have?!! MS has glided along on being one of the first major tech companies, which make them a lot of money. Now they're old news in a daily changing industry that's despritley trying to stay relevant... and failing
Hey! I said there were 6 users. Why are you selling them short?
In all seriousness it doesn't matter what we post here, the market is deciding WM8 fate. A few cheap jabs here aren't going to make a difference as a whole. Besides Linux and Mac users have been putting up with the same cheap jabs for years now.
Let it slide and enjoy the ride.
You don't really have a sense of humor, do you?
It could.
MS has been doing this exact same thing to every other company for quite some time. Although two wrongs don't make a right, I think this is a case of Google trying to educate MS in civility. If MS takes the lesson that working with others is better than suing or extorting them into the ground when the try to innovate, then it'll work in everyone's favor.
So all 6 WM8 customers are happy. Good on them.
I think Google is just dishing out a little of my MS has been for years. I'm sure the end result will be Google will allow MS to use YouTube, but I still find it a little funny that finally someone can jerk MS around for being dicks for the last 20 some years.
In Civil court that would be enough to rule in the prosecution's favor
Obviously it's not enough.
Besides behind NAT and spoofed or masked IPs it's very clear there's no way you could tie a IP address to anyone person or be able to reliably say it wasn't someone faking an IP that just happened to coincide with one that was assigned to the defendant. That's before we even get to even with WEP or WPA or WPA2 there's still a good chance that a router could have been hacked from the street.
If you believe otherwise, you don't know what you're talking about and should leave the discussion to the big boys.
but you're pretty much caught red handed at this point making the settlement a lot more attractive.
You can't possibly be serious. 34 people were just lumped together and you're saying they're guilty and should just lay down and take it up the rear. I'd say there's a very good chance Voltage Pictures LLC just picked a bunch of random IPs out of a bag and said, "If you pay the piper we'll let you off with a warning. Otherwise we can't guarantee you we won't come in the middle of the night for your house, parents, wife, husband, children and family pet."
This is totally a case of extortion.
There are still fees and paper work, and penalties for not doing the paper work, which normal "IANAL" people don't know about and thus require a lawyer for. I'm pretty sure just about anyone who showed up to court without a lawyer to defend themselves and didn't know what they were doing would be laughed at by a Judge and quickly found at fault. Despite what you see on TV, Judge Judy isn't real court and not how the real ones operate.
h4rr4 is pretty well spot on, you could defend yourself and lose, hire a lawyer and possibly win, but still owe a fortune, or settle out of court for significantly less than what you'd pay a lawyer or pay if you lost.
The court system wasn't setup to be some corps personal income stream, which seems to be a lot of what it's doing these days.
Windows Classic
a politician is proportionately evil to the amount of time they've spent in office
This I agree with.
Politicians have to say stupid things to appease the stupid people that elect them. Defence Distributed has created a shrode of fear around 3D printers, so naturally people are now fearful of what can be done with them. Regardless of what good 3D printers could do, from his point on the majority of the ignorant masses will only believe they're for printing guns. Politicians unfortunately are going to be required to address those peoples.
I work in the Federal Government. Although I would like to make that switch, it's just not going to happen. Although a number of departments are making the switch to Linux based OSs so I guess it could be possible in a few years.
A fangirl?
Ah... I switch to LibreOffice because of the Ribbon interface and Ubuntu because of problems with Vista and that's "averse to change"?
How much more of a change can you get than going from Windows to Linux or MS office to LibreOffice.
I'm an early adopter and will switch to the latest and greatest with every sip of coffee. I'm quite happy to buy into new tech and things that are better because of changes, but not when the changes are purely because a large organization decided that's just the way it's going to be with no otherwise good reason.
Office 2010 - not a whole lot different from 2007, but a lot more popular now that people are familiar with the Ribbon
I'm sorry, but no. Just because people are complaining vocally anymore about something originally done five years ago and another screw-up that took place three years ago doesn't mean things are ok now.
I got use to the ribbon, but I still hate it and it is still way less productive than the file menu. I switched to LibreOffice for all my home stuff, and later switched to Ubuntu, because of the ribbon and how badly MS Vista was. I only use MS office when I have to deal with work stuff. One of the small differences between 2007 and 2010 was the replacement of the circular windows button with the green "file" tab, making it closer to the older style file menu and slightly more usable, it still sucks donkey nuts. It takes way too long to load, options are literally hidden in the interface, sometimes not in the main interface at all and are unintuitive when they are there.
Drugs are banned so there are no drugs on the street, right?
In replay to
if guns were banned, there would have been no guns to steal and kill his mother with. so gun laws would have stopped it.
That implies that because laws banning drugs aren't 100% effective then there the's no point in making laws to restrict gun use. Therefore Thruen has made a valid argument. I think you need to look up straw-man arguments, because you made one then accused someone else of doing it.
You're ignorance is showing.
The way I see this going is at some point someone will print a gun. There will be a defect and the gun will blow up in their hands. Then there will be reason to ban plastic guns. Then because all 3D printers are "used" for is printing guns they'll be the next thing to get banned.
I say "used" because since using 3D printers to print guns has become such a high profile story most of the ignorant population will just assume that's all 3D printers are for. Kind of like how Torrents are "only" used for piracy. Public perception is the dangerous part of this whole thing, no one's hearing about the great things you can do with 3D printers (printing organ replacements, confections, home prototyping) all they're hearing about is how a nut case group of people think that 3D printing is a great way to distribute lethal weapons to the masses. All it'll take is one "terrorist" to print a gun and kill someone, then 3D printed guns along with 3D printers will be part of the war on terror and outlawed for everyone.
It's not their responsibility. I'm just saying if they make a "pirated" version (A.K.A a demo) available and it plays like crap, but people don't know the "pirated" version (A.K.A a demo) is different from the actual game and people don't buy the game because of the crappy "pirated" version (A.K.A a demo), then the developers have really just cut off their noses to spite their faces by making their actual game look like crap.
That's why I put "pirated" in quotes.
an accurate simulation of piracy
The problem is that doesn't exist. In the simplest logic, yes piracy should hurt a companies bottom line. In practice, people pirate for a ton of different reasons, one being they don't have the money to pay, so they wouldn't have been customers in the first place and don't impact the bottom line.
Another is try before you buy, which really can go either way. Someone who might have bought the game gets it for free and thinks it's crap and are happy they didn't waste their money, which negatively impacting the bottom line and are the people I think most intrusive DRM's are aimed at. Then there's the try and buy that buy the game because they could try it first, positively impacting the bottom line.
Then there are those that never would have heard of the game had they not been able to download it, that may or may not buy. They wouldn't have hurt the bottom line had they never heard of the game, but impact it positively if they buy it after downloading.
Too many variables to really say either way what impact piracy has. Some people (many authors recently Neil Gaiman as an example) look at it as a form of free advertising and have been able to use torrents to spread their latest work and have made a lot doing so. We hear very little from major developers how piracy could actually be helping their bottom lines and they focus specifically on the group that tries their games and decides not to waste money on stuff they don't like, while completely neglecting the groups that try and do buy or never would have heard of the game in the first place.
I dunno, to me it sound like they're severely exaggerating the piracy issues in the "pirated" version beyond what would happen in the real world to try and make a point that's just not there. Based on what I've read the game is literally unplayable after a certain point regardless of how big an empire you build. If that was the case in the real world Blizzard, EA and Ubisoft would have been out of business long ago. Instead, at least in EA and Ubisoft's case recently, they're screwing over paying customers and still making money hand over fist.
I haven't played this game yet, but if I downloaded the "pirated" version knowing it was a demo of sorts, by reading this /. article or having a short "you've downloaded the torrent demo. It's the full game, but blah blah blah" and I liked the "pirated" version, I'd buy the full game. If I downloaded the "pirated" version and there was no disclaimer, I'd assume the game was broken. No way I'd give up money for that.
This from someone who's kicked in a lot of money for beta's and less than stellar Linux releases (Minecraft, Humblebundles, Steam, extra donations to kickstarter's to be on beta tester list). If the game is available and I try it and like it, I will buy it. If the game is crap, "pirated" or not, it's off my list. There are many other things to spend money on before wasting it on crap games.
Kudos to these guys for trying something "new", but I think they, as with all developers, need to lighten up on the "piracy is killing our business". If you're not making money because piracy is hurting your bottom line so much, don't make games. It's obviously not a viable industry. Instead we constantly read about awesome new game selling millions of copies and turning huge profits and then hear the developer screaming about how piracy is running their business. I'm inclined to believe it's a bunch of horse shit. It also makes me believe when a developer of a less than awesome game starts screaming piracy, they're full of it too and are just on the "We'd make so much more money if it wasn't for piracy" bandwagon despite the fact that their game was just crap.
Couldn't agree more. The quote they used in the attack on Justin Trudeau was actually taken from a CTV interview/documentary that aired, I think, more than 10 years ago. They basically cut out everything before and everything after the quote to make it look like that's what Justin Trudeau was saying, when in fact he was describing someone else's point of view. I honestly don't care either way who's in charge (Liberals, NDP, or Conservatives), but I expect them to be honest and upfront. This ad was extremely deceitful and underhanded, as all attack ads are. But more importantly what it says to me is the Cons are so fearful that JT will give the Liberals the upper hand in the next election. So much so that we're going to have to spend the next two years watching these ads so they can condition the public to hate him. The Cons think the ads worked for the last two Liberal leaders (Stéphane Dion and Michael Ignatieff), but the fact is, no one liked them anyway. They were just two more old white guys with the same beliefs as the last 100 old white guys to come through. I personally couldn't see them as being any better or worse than Harper.