But you do have people who honestly believe in their strawmen and other deceitful arguments. A key characteristic of trolls is that they are disingenuous. They post to incite people, not to make a point. But as Poe's law tells us, there are people who really believe this shit. There are people who sincerely believe that copyright is theft, that marijuana is evil, that Obama is a muslim, that gay marriage will destroy society. None of these things can be supported without obviously incorrect reasoning, but people believe them by the millions. Are they really trolls?
Nor should they. Swearing is ok. Violence is not. Teaching a kid that physical violence is an appropriate response to language you don't like is a bad lesson.
Personally, I wish my experience matched with the article. My GF's daughter is a damn wiener who gasps every time someone says crap. That's fucking annoying.
I can go down to the library and borrow a book for 0 dollars. By your logic this must be the utmost value proposition in entertainment. 0 dollars per hour, you can't get any better than that. Yet people continue to spend money on books they can keep forever. Why is that? Figure that out and you'll understand why Steam isn't acceptable to many of us.
There's psychological value in owning a game that's worth a lot more than $1.30. I'm simply going to be happier playing my game, as opposed to one that's been lent to me, even for free.
Public libraries work for a lot of people. They have no problem getting a book, reading it, and never touching it again. Other people buy books and hang on to them, spending thousands of dollars amassing a private library that they can refer to whenever they need. Steam may be a good option for the first group, but it will never fly with the second.
Because that's providing all the wrong incentives. If you financially reward those who put DRM on their games, you'll just keep getting DRMd games. Simply refusing to buy punishes those who put DRM on their games at essentially no cost to yourself, since there are always other ways to entertain yourself.
I don't particularly care that the publisher demands DRM. That publisher, and any developers they sign, do not get my money. If you're a developer and you want my money, don't sign with a publisher that requires DRM. It's that simple.
Even as much as I love classic arcade games, I haven't seen the movie. Everything I've read about the movie casts it as over-edited to the point of being fictionalized. Here's just one such review.
Yes, theft is wrong whether it's legal or not. Such as the theft a capitalist commits when he does not return to the worker the full value of his work. Since we let that slide, is it too much to ask for a little help in maintaining a population of educated, civilized workers for the capitalist to exploit? Why do the rich object to funding the society that made them rich?
Billionaires only exist because the people let them. They can either graciously return a very small fraction of what they have taken in a gesture towards keeping those they've exploited well fed and educated, or they can be the first against the wall when the revolution comes. Their choice.
Civilization is expensive. Since the benefits of civilization accrue disproportionately to the rich, they should bear a disproportionate amount of the cost. If you don't like it, we don't have to have civilization. But I don't think you're going to like the alternative.
But there it's called AMBE, not Codec. Codec2 is a bad name for a codec for the same reasons that Variable2 is a bad name for a variable. If this is supposed to supplant AMBE, why not AMBE2 or S(uper)AMBE?
In proportion as our inward life fails, we go more constantly and desperately to the post-office. You may depend on it, that the poor fellow who walks away with the greatest number of letters, proud of his extensive correspondence, has not heard from himself this long while.
Henry David Thoreau, Life Without Principle (1863)
Right and wrong are independent of legality. Defrauding someone is wrong, whether it's legal or not. Copying something is ok, whether it's legal or not.
Slashdot Mirror
But you do have people who honestly believe in their strawmen and other deceitful arguments. A key characteristic of trolls is that they are disingenuous. They post to incite people, not to make a point. But as Poe's law tells us, there are people who really believe this shit. There are people who sincerely believe that copyright is theft, that marijuana is evil, that Obama is a muslim, that gay marriage will destroy society. None of these things can be supported without obviously incorrect reasoning, but people believe them by the millions. Are they really trolls?
If you don't have a firewall to enforce the rules, how do you keep applications from opening ports?
SELinux.
tcpwrappers
Layers are good, but desktop firewalls are the wrong solution. Instead of blocking ports, just don't open them in the first place.
i don't tell her "THAT IS A BAD WORD", i tell her that saying those kinds of things to people "isn't nice".
Indeed, there's a big difference between "this fucking shitty piece of crap can suck my dick" and "suck my dick you fucking shitty piece of crap"
Nor should they. Swearing is ok. Violence is not. Teaching a kid that physical violence is an appropriate response to language you don't like is a bad lesson.
Personally, I wish my experience matched with the article. My GF's daughter is a damn wiener who gasps every time someone says crap. That's fucking annoying.
They are just using Blu-Ray as a front for that, as it's the biggest consumer disc currently.
Is it? Even the biggest, most spectacular, high def Blu-ray sold less than half of its DVD equivalent.
I can go down to the library and borrow a book for 0 dollars. By your logic this must be the utmost value proposition in entertainment. 0 dollars per hour, you can't get any better than that. Yet people continue to spend money on books they can keep forever. Why is that? Figure that out and you'll understand why Steam isn't acceptable to many of us.
There's psychological value in owning a game that's worth a lot more than $1.30. I'm simply going to be happier playing my game, as opposed to one that's been lent to me, even for free.
Public libraries work for a lot of people. They have no problem getting a book, reading it, and never touching it again. Other people buy books and hang on to them, spending thousands of dollars amassing a private library that they can refer to whenever they need. Steam may be a good option for the first group, but it will never fly with the second.
In all seriousness, I'm very happy with FreeCiv.
Have you played SMAC?
That explains why people post to Twitter. Why do people read it?
How does the amount you pay in sales taxes on a purchased item, like a TV, become disproportionate?
As a percentage of discretionary income, that's how.
Because that's providing all the wrong incentives. If you financially reward those who put DRM on their games, you'll just keep getting DRMd games. Simply refusing to buy punishes those who put DRM on their games at essentially no cost to yourself, since there are always other ways to entertain yourself.
I don't particularly care that the publisher demands DRM. That publisher, and any developers they sign, do not get my money. If you're a developer and you want my money, don't sign with a publisher that requires DRM. It's that simple.
I didn't see anything in the review related to DRM. That's an essential subject for any game review these days.
It means you should keep your eye out for double rainbows.
Even as much as I love classic arcade games, I haven't seen the movie. Everything I've read about the movie casts it as over-edited to the point of being fictionalized. Here's just one such review.
Isn't that what he said? The rich have voted for themselves to acquire and keep more and more of the poor's money.
Yes, theft is wrong whether it's legal or not. Such as the theft a capitalist commits when he does not return to the worker the full value of his work. Since we let that slide, is it too much to ask for a little help in maintaining a population of educated, civilized workers for the capitalist to exploit? Why do the rich object to funding the society that made them rich?
Billionaires only exist because the people let them. They can either graciously return a very small fraction of what they have taken in a gesture towards keeping those they've exploited well fed and educated, or they can be the first against the wall when the revolution comes. Their choice.
Civilization is expensive. Since the benefits of civilization accrue disproportionately to the rich, they should bear a disproportionate amount of the cost. If you don't like it, we don't have to have civilization. But I don't think you're going to like the alternative.
But there it's called AMBE, not Codec. Codec2 is a bad name for a codec for the same reasons that Variable2 is a bad name for a variable. If this is supposed to supplant AMBE, why not AMBE2 or S(uper)AMBE?
Do you have any idea how much energy it takes to keep a tank of barracuda alive?!
And the other 10% is tweaked graphics on the same games from 1987.
Leahy said in a statement. "Protecting intellectual property is not uniquely a Democratic or Republican priority -- it is a bipartisan priority."
In other words, if you believe in Copyright reform, you have no choices at the polls.
In proportion as our inward life fails, we go more constantly and desperately to the post-office. You may depend on it, that the poor fellow who walks away with the greatest number of letters, proud of his extensive correspondence, has not heard from himself this long while.
Henry David Thoreau, Life Without Principle (1863)
Right and wrong are independent of legality. Defrauding someone is wrong, whether it's legal or not. Copying something is ok, whether it's legal or not.