You fail to see any significant difference? Well, for one thing, people don't usually have perfect memories, aren't usually able of picking out who said what in a large crowd (as some technology is able to do), and aren't typically everywhere at once (as government cameras are). How is that not a "significant difference"? With ordinary citizens, at least everything isn't centralized. Not to mention the government is wasting taxpayer dollars to do this, and that ordinary citizens probably won't tell the government about everything they hear (assuming they even remember).
That's why we need to recognize basic human nature, take a look at history, and clearly see that giving these powers to people who already have quite a bit of power probably isn't a good idea.
I'd say the difference between what is described in this comment and what is described in your scenario (a hearing aid) is obvious. I don't believe the government should be spying on its own citizens (even in public), and I don't believe they should be wasting their resources on nonsense.
I wish people would stop equating random people accidentally overhearing your conversation with cameras picking up everything they see and hear. I'd say they're not the same at all. No one needs all this information, and I don't believe they should have it.
I'm not a modern gamer. Also, your use of the word "entitled" is, unsurprisingly, incorrect. I would be "entitled" if I were to say, "Blizzard can't make these decisions! They will do whatever I ask them to." But I didn't. Here's what I did: I criticized their decision and warned others not to buy it. That's it.
The way the developers intend the game to be played doesn't matter!?
If you actually read my comment, you'd see that I was referring to the way a player chooses to play his or her game. It's theirs, and they can play with it however they please.
They made the game and can do whatever they want, and you have a bank account and can spend it however you want. Grow up.
"Grow up" has nothing to do with the issue (it's just a personal attack that means nothing). Your comment, however, contains straw men.
A good primary and secondary education is necessary for an increasing proportion of jobs, including almost all professional or high-paying jobs.
If someone shows that they know what they're doing, I cannot imagine primary and secondary education being strictly necessary.
It is also an opportunity to try different sports and hobbies
They can try those whenever they please. They needn't be locked in a building with others their own age in order to do that. Such an environment feels artificial and restrictive to begin with.
for many children, to get their only real meal of the day.
I suspect most aren't allergic to peanuts, though. Too bad for the ones that are.
While I recognise that there is some inconvenience involved in not eating peanuts I do not believe that the interest of the other children in eating peanuts during school hours is sufficient to outweight the child's interest in a school education.
Really? To me, the issue is about freedom.
I think the larger point here, though, is that we need to recognise that this is a measure dealing with schoolchildren, not adults.
This is for the children, after all. Such a thing is irrelevant to me.
I can't imagine that anyone would consider that to be unreasonable.
I do. I have a problem with banning things because a minority might get hurt by them/abuse them. Especially in situations where people are more or less forced to be there (such as in school). Honestly, if the problem is that severe, perhaps the parents should consider homeschooling or something.
I take it you prefer the approach of letting those who already have little choice take the hit?
I don't even ride on planes. However, if that means fewer people would be harassed at airports, then yes, I would think that to be a better (though still far from perfect) solution.
My absolute preferred solution, though, is to have no one at all be molested at airports.
I live in a city of 4M. There's ONE airport here. So NO, privatization wouldn't give me any choice.
Well, with the TSA, everyone gets their privacy violated. Everyone. There is absolutely no escape from it that I know of. Of course, as an individual, I wouldn't want a private company that operates like the TSA groping me either, but if the government doesn't force airports to adopt TSA-like policies, then it's likely that fewer people will have their rights violated at airports. Not the best possible outcome, but I think it's at least better than what we have now.
Cockpit doors are no longer unsecured and citizens won't just stand idly by while someone tries to hijack the plane. The TSA is a useless organization that I don't believe should exist even if they weren't completely useless. I'd much rather take the minuscule risk of a terrorist attack than violate everyone's rights at airports.
3) If you don't actually know about peanut product bans in schools, I can only assume that you're either a foreigner from a country that doesn't have very good schools, a forever alone 40 year old virgin, or just mentally challenged.
Well, certainly, I don't think we have very good schools here, but I don't think it's because they don't ban something that some people have a problem with. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if they did. But I don't see what being mentally challenged has to do with not hearing about something.
What? A minority of people have a problem with something!? Ban it immediately! Punish everyone! As long as someone really is getting hurt, this is the most logical decision (especially if it involves children)!
Are you by chance insinuating that the government isn't made up of perfect beings? That's preposterous! No government in history has ever done anything that could be deemed as wrong by anyone!
If you don't like the game don't buy it and don't play it.
There is another option: criticize it and warn others not to buy it, too.
No one owes you anything.
That's a straw man. No one said that they did.
The entitlement people have is amazing.
You cannot get rid of criticism that easily. It is not at all "entitled" to criticize someone else's decision.
Here's the thing: if enough people don't like it and their decision gets criticized enough, Blizzard will likely, of their own volition, change their decision. There is no entitlement involved, so your attack on random people made no sense to begin with. It would only be entitlement if people were holding a gun to Blizzard's head and telling them that they must do as they asked.
Are you actually saying preventing people from playing their game without paying for it is being greedy??
No. I was referring to the real money auction house.
And DRM is absolute garbage in that if it does actually manage to affect the pirates, it will undoubtedly also affect paying customers. In that regard, I would call it greedy and simple-minded. I don't believe there is any defense to DRM.
and like *any* product it's up to the consumer to decide if it's something they want.
Just because you close all the doors to social interaction and make D3 appear to be single player, it doesn't make it a single player game.
Really? Because the solo mode is suspiciously similar to a single-player mode. Supposedly you can even prevent others from interrupting you. And given that past games in the series actually had offline single-player modes, excuses from fans or Blizzard isn't going to make me believe them or like their decision.
I disagree entirely. No matter how many excuses people throw at me, I see a few reasons for this decision: DRM (a nice bonus), greed (real money), and paranoia (punish everyone due to the existence of hackers).
Requiring you to use their servers to play the game equates to hacking protection.
Yeah, so punish everyone. I don't care for their decision about this game, and I never will. I will continue to tell people to steer clear of Diablo 3.
Well, yes. It's probably a profitable decision for Blizzard, but then again, I don't care about that because I advocate against DRM. It has indeed been successful, and I think that's just a shame. I truly hope gamers start caring about the effects of DRM in the future.
2) Don't accept Blizzard's design and don't pay for/play the game.
Done. I'll warn everyone else to stay away from it, too.
There is no 3) I'll pay but complain loudly that this isn't what I paid for.
Nope. It's perfectly possible to complain about games you bought, and your criticism isn't invalid because of it, either. The only downside to this one is that you gave the company your money already.
Slashdot Mirror
You fail to see any significant difference? Well, for one thing, people don't usually have perfect memories, aren't usually able of picking out who said what in a large crowd (as some technology is able to do), and aren't typically everywhere at once (as government cameras are). How is that not a "significant difference"? With ordinary citizens, at least everything isn't centralized. Not to mention the government is wasting taxpayer dollars to do this, and that ordinary citizens probably won't tell the government about everything they hear (assuming they even remember).
That's why we need to recognize basic human nature, take a look at history, and clearly see that giving these powers to people who already have quite a bit of power probably isn't a good idea.
personally, I am ok with a backdoor, provided that there are some proper controls around it, such as:
- The government is entirely composed of perfect beings that would only use the backdoor against actual criminals.
I'd say the difference between what is described in this comment and what is described in your scenario (a hearing aid) is obvious. I don't believe the government should be spying on its own citizens (even in public), and I don't believe they should be wasting their resources on nonsense.
I wish people would stop equating random people accidentally overhearing your conversation with cameras picking up everything they see and hear. I'd say they're not the same at all. No one needs all this information, and I don't believe they should have it.
Here we are, another entitled modern gamer.
I'm not a modern gamer. Also, your use of the word "entitled" is, unsurprisingly, incorrect. I would be "entitled" if I were to say, "Blizzard can't make these decisions! They will do whatever I ask them to." But I didn't. Here's what I did: I criticized their decision and warned others not to buy it. That's it.
The way the developers intend the game to be played doesn't matter!?
If you actually read my comment, you'd see that I was referring to the way a player chooses to play his or her game. It's theirs, and they can play with it however they please.
They made the game and can do whatever they want, and you have a bank account and can spend it however you want. Grow up.
"Grow up" has nothing to do with the issue (it's just a personal attack that means nothing). Your comment, however, contains straw men.
A good primary and secondary education is necessary for an increasing proportion of jobs, including almost all professional or high-paying jobs.
If someone shows that they know what they're doing, I cannot imagine primary and secondary education being strictly necessary.
It is also an opportunity to try different sports and hobbies
They can try those whenever they please. They needn't be locked in a building with others their own age in order to do that. Such an environment feels artificial and restrictive to begin with.
for many children, to get their only real meal of the day.
I suspect most aren't allergic to peanuts, though. Too bad for the ones that are.
While I recognise that there is some inconvenience involved in not eating peanuts I do not believe that the interest of the other children in eating peanuts during school hours is sufficient to outweight the child's interest in a school education.
Really? To me, the issue is about freedom.
I think the larger point here, though, is that we need to recognise that this is a measure dealing with schoolchildren, not adults.
This is for the children, after all. Such a thing is irrelevant to me.
I can't imagine that anyone would consider that to be unreasonable.
I do. I have a problem with banning things because a minority might get hurt by them/abuse them. Especially in situations where people are more or less forced to be there (such as in school). Honestly, if the problem is that severe, perhaps the parents should consider homeschooling or something.
I take it you prefer the approach of letting those who already have little choice take the hit?
I don't even ride on planes. However, if that means fewer people would be harassed at airports, then yes, I would think that to be a better (though still far from perfect) solution.
My absolute preferred solution, though, is to have no one at all be molested at airports.
I live in a city of 4M. There's ONE airport here. So NO, privatization wouldn't give me any choice.
Well, with the TSA, everyone gets their privacy violated. Everyone. There is absolutely no escape from it that I know of. Of course, as an individual, I wouldn't want a private company that operates like the TSA groping me either, but if the government doesn't force airports to adopt TSA-like policies, then it's likely that fewer people will have their rights violated at airports. Not the best possible outcome, but I think it's at least better than what we have now.
Cockpit doors are no longer unsecured and citizens won't just stand idly by while someone tries to hijack the plane. The TSA is a useless organization that I don't believe should exist even if they weren't completely useless. I'd much rather take the minuscule risk of a terrorist attack than violate everyone's rights at airports.
The better solution is to ban everything to appeal to some people!
3) If you don't actually know about peanut product bans in schools, I can only assume that you're either a foreigner from a country that doesn't have very good schools, a forever alone 40 year old virgin, or just mentally challenged.
Well, certainly, I don't think we have very good schools here, but I don't think it's because they don't ban something that some people have a problem with. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if they did. But I don't see what being mentally challenged has to do with not hearing about something.
What? A minority of people have a problem with something!? Ban it immediately! Punish everyone! As long as someone really is getting hurt, this is the most logical decision (especially if it involves children)!
They are responsible for enforcing the law and creating an effective justice system.
Not when their solutions violate people's privacy or rights.
Are you by chance insinuating that the government isn't made up of perfect beings? That's preposterous! No government in history has ever done anything that could be deemed as wrong by anyone!
just like how they should ban people from leaving towns in wow if they are not in a party.
You can purposefully prevent anyone from playing with you, and you'll never see anyone else. This isn't like WoW at all.
Nor do I care, because I'm against DRM, and against Blizzard's decision.
If you don't like the game don't buy it and don't play it.
There is another option: criticize it and warn others not to buy it, too.
No one owes you anything.
That's a straw man. No one said that they did.
The entitlement people have is amazing.
You cannot get rid of criticism that easily. It is not at all "entitled" to criticize someone else's decision.
Here's the thing: if enough people don't like it and their decision gets criticized enough, Blizzard will likely, of their own volition, change their decision. There is no entitlement involved, so your attack on random people made no sense to begin with. It would only be entitlement if people were holding a gun to Blizzard's head and telling them that they must do as they asked.
Are you actually saying preventing people from playing their game without paying for it is being greedy??
No. I was referring to the real money auction house.
And DRM is absolute garbage in that if it does actually manage to affect the pirates, it will undoubtedly also affect paying customers. In that regard, I would call it greedy and simple-minded. I don't believe there is any defense to DRM.
and like *any* product it's up to the consumer to decide if it's something they want.
I believe everyone commenting here knows this.
If you allow RMAH and a off-line single player mode then you can hack your save games to get unique items.
Very, very, very simple solution: separate online and offline accounts.
Just because you close all the doors to social interaction and make D3 appear to be single player, it doesn't make it a single player game.
Really? Because the solo mode is suspiciously similar to a single-player mode. Supposedly you can even prevent others from interrupting you. And given that past games in the series actually had offline single-player modes, excuses from fans or Blizzard isn't going to make me believe them or like their decision.
It's not DRM.
I disagree entirely. No matter how many excuses people throw at me, I see a few reasons for this decision: DRM (a nice bonus), greed (real money), and paranoia (punish everyone due to the existence of hackers).
Requiring you to use their servers to play the game equates to hacking protection.
Yeah, so punish everyone. I don't care for their decision about this game, and I never will. I will continue to tell people to steer clear of Diablo 3.
Is World of Warcraft DRM based now also?
It's certainly not an MMO.
I dunno about that
Well, yes. It's probably a profitable decision for Blizzard, but then again, I don't care about that because I advocate against DRM. It has indeed been successful, and I think that's just a shame. I truly hope gamers start caring about the effects of DRM in the future.
2) Don't accept Blizzard's design and don't pay for/play the game.
Done. I'll warn everyone else to stay away from it, too.
There is no 3) I'll pay but complain loudly that this isn't what I paid for.
Nope. It's perfectly possible to complain about games you bought, and your criticism isn't invalid because of it, either. The only downside to this one is that you gave the company your money already.
Sounds like single-player.