Wow, you're a complete jerkoff. If you are so hardlined on separating the "workers" from the "capitalist industry" you've clearly missed the point. "We buy your products" is no better than "I produce your products", to which you would reply "workers in the factories produce those products", to which I would reply make your own damned factory if its so easy. In fact, manage a factory. Oh, thats right, most people can't and if you didn't get the rewards of doing a difficult job nobody would want to. I mean, my God, its almost like capitalism is a system that requires producers and consumers and most of the time people are both. People complain of low wages and not getting the profit for everything they create, but at the same time starting a business is risky and most people wouldn't and don't do it. When people do and are successful suddenly they owe everything to you? No, fuck off, you're both dependent on each other. Turns out the people running businesses are a lot rarer than the people who can work in them, and therefore make a lot of money. When a worker stops working or can't do the job, he can be replaced fairly easily. If he can't, he usually gets paid more. Are you shocked? I'm not, it makes total sense.
You've heard the phrase the rich get richer? Well how come that doesn't apply to lottery winners? Is it maybe because they don't do the right things with their money? Its so easy to say people are rich because they have money, but yet when people are handed large sacks of money they end up losing it all, helping nobody, providing no products, and just consuming. What good does that do for anybody? None. But go ahead, continue to think the rich owe their existence to the "working class". Yes, they do need people to work for them, but if they weren't employing the working class, the working class would be out somewhere sucking their toes, barely surviving on scraps.
I'm more surprised that not only did we make a guy out of printed Liberty Coins, but then we forbade him from doing it. If he's 99% pure silver as the OP suggests, maybe its a health thing? Is silver bad when it gets inside of you?
You are limiting the use of your network because of shadows in your own imagination. Grow up, are you really worried that traffic being forwarded from one port to your xbox/ps3 is going to lead to you being hacked? You're much more likely to get infected just by browsing the internet than opening a port and forwarding it to your console. Yet you choose to call everybody stupid for using their network as it is intended. I hate people like you. What known exploit would anybody use to hack in to a 360 or PS3 through some port then get to something else useful on your network from there? You're an ignorant piece of shit trying to act like your superior because you are crazy. You're like the guy with the bomb shelter and a years supply of canned goods telling all of his neighbors they'll be sorry. Meanwhile we will all live our lives free of stupid fears of what could happen on a network if we dare to use it.
The right to free speech, the right to free association, the right to not have onerous complicated tangling laws over the transmission of money, the right to willfully do what you want with what you earned or were given.
If we get rid of money for political influence because nobody should have more political influence than anybody else just because of money, what does that leave for elections? Can't give money, maybe I can volunteer if I support a candidate. But why should people with more free time have more political influence than busy people? Ok, you can also spread the word, again the time thing, but also the number of friends you have and how well you speak, why should that affect your political influence? Are you implying ugly, awkward people should have less political influence than beautiful, captivating women asking for petition signatures? Don't be so obsessed with money, sometimes dealing with people is sticky and sometimes they won't do what you want. That doesn't mean you need to get your government out to force them in to the box of what you think is right.
Fuck man, I hate the people in this country. Its the fucking cigarette ban issue all over again. People decided they had a right to go to places they don't own and tell other people that they can't allow smokers there because it might damage their health. Well, if you who object to the smoking (campaign contributions) are unwilling to make the "sacrifice" of not going to the diner (not vote for the guy taking them, vote for a third party) or are not a sizable enough portion of the population where that changes things, then you have no right to dictate the situation.
Your complaints about Sony are largely unappreciated, and unimportant. Its like when comic book nerds show up to blast the latest Marvel movie. Nobody gives a shit because we're watching an action flick, not some comics we didn't read. Completely irrelevant to the market at large, and yet here you are saying Sony should just pack it in, its the "honorable thing to do". No, it isn't. The fact that they provide people with the things they want, and they are still in business pretty much proves that they are doing more good than bad unless they have a secret plot we have yet to uncover where they are the cause of fat women or something.
Have you ever played PC games online? Are you aware that PCs aren't locked down at all and a lot of people still play a lot of fun multiplayer games on them? Stop bitching about potential hackers. Its not that big of a deal. In reality, a good banhammer will go a long way.
Your bank has port 80 and port 443 open on their servers (at least!) and there is actually a reason to hack something like that. Yet anybody who opens any ports is stupid? Tell me, which one are you, overly cautious, stupid or both? At this point it sounds like both.
You shouldn't limit contributions. It really infringes on people's rights. I really think we just need to hold on for a little bit until all the people not using the internet are dead then all the money in the world doesn't matter. We have the awesome power of the web to blast messages out on all kinds of free websites, and starting your own is pretty inexpensive. Campaign costs will drop dramatically in the next decade. You can't just write laws and magically everything is all better. You have to improve the culture.
Right now there may be a good reasno to claim corporations have too much influence over the government. However, at some point a government hostile to industry may actually opress businesses and there are completely valid reasons that a corporation or industry organization of some kind (funded by corporations) should be able to lobby their government. The problem, as usual, is the voters. They're the ultimate check and balance, they just never seem to fucking do their jobs.
Its just you. Learn how to build a machine and keep drivers up to date. Seriously, of all the computers I've built in the past 3 years (7) with all kinds of different CPUs (AMD and Intel), GPUs (AMD and nVidia), types of memory, with four different flavors of windows (XP, XP Pro, 7, 7 Pro) I almost never run in to bugs that prevent me from playing a game. I find it hard to believe that there are so many widespread issues you encounter on PCs unless you're doing something wrong. In addition to those 7 PCs which are my friends', I also have purchased two laptops and not encountered any problems with games beyond the simple hardware limitations of some of the more advanced games. But even that, SC2 runs on a $400 laptop I picked up at walmart while on vacation on low settings.
Are you really claiming that anybody that, say, runs a web server from home is stupid? Or FTP? Or SSH? Why not allow inbound connections on XBOX_PORT be forwarded to the XBox? I think you're just overly cautious or overly stupid or both.
What do you mean developers only have a 2 - 5 year lifespan? Do you mean with one company or until they burn out? I'm only 24 and I've been a developer in the corporate realm for the past 6 years with no intention of stopping, but I am averaging about 3 years per company with some overlap.
I'm a little insulted you just compared COD to any Blizzard game. The reason Blizzard doesn't release very frequently is because they truly are artists. SC2 didn't need to come out before it did. I will take highly polished games once every decade rather than a bucket full of shit every year that is exactly the same as before just different geometry and lighting. 2.5 years? Fuck that, it should come out not when they think they can sell the most, but when they think people will still be playing over a decade later.
Bnet 2.0 pretty much soured me off it trying to get a really idiotic issue resolved (the name you enter in the dialog is permanent and unchangable - this was fixed a month later with an announcement of paid name changes
What the hell is wrong with you? That is not nickle and diming. Usually when I create an account I can't change my login. Thats pretty much standard. Can you randomly change your account information on, say, slashdot? (I'm not sure if you can or not, I'm just asking) The reason they give you one free name change (which you didn't mention) and charge for others is so that you don't keep changing your account name. Duh. If I can just change my name all the time it becomes easy to harass people, easy to disguise who you are and what you do, and generally serves no purpose. Why do you need to change your name so damn bad that this one thing soured you on Bnet 2? They aren't charging to raise money, they're charging to allow people who really want a name change to be able to do it without making it so you can't even track people in the ladder.
Just let me get this straight. Are you saying Skype will prop up windows, or windows will prop up Skype? Because I'm pretty sure Skype is not a monopoly nor does it need to be propped up. That is the crux of my argument. I don't think its the same thing as IE. It may have its potential for abuse if Skype doesn't interoperate with other VOIP applications, but that is completely different than bundling a browser with windows so there is no need for another browser, and hinges on Skype reaching the point of a monopoly, not Windows.
I think the difference between the way I'm looking at it and the way you are looking at it is I see Skype going windows only as a ploy to raise Windows sales (if they do this). If Windows is the monopoly, then using something else to boost sales of something you allegedly have a monopoly on is a different beast than using a monopoly to push another product. I don't bleieve there is anything wrong with using one product to encourage others to purchase another unless the company has a monopoly on the first product. Skype is not a monopoly, therefore this is fine. It may be unpleasant, but I don't like not being able to get a McRib right now either.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, you're a complete jerkoff. If you are so hardlined on separating the "workers" from the "capitalist industry" you've clearly missed the point. "We buy your products" is no better than "I produce your products", to which you would reply "workers in the factories produce those products", to which I would reply make your own damned factory if its so easy. In fact, manage a factory. Oh, thats right, most people can't and if you didn't get the rewards of doing a difficult job nobody would want to. I mean, my God, its almost like capitalism is a system that requires producers and consumers and most of the time people are both. People complain of low wages and not getting the profit for everything they create, but at the same time starting a business is risky and most people wouldn't and don't do it. When people do and are successful suddenly they owe everything to you? No, fuck off, you're both dependent on each other. Turns out the people running businesses are a lot rarer than the people who can work in them, and therefore make a lot of money. When a worker stops working or can't do the job, he can be replaced fairly easily. If he can't, he usually gets paid more. Are you shocked? I'm not, it makes total sense.
You've heard the phrase the rich get richer? Well how come that doesn't apply to lottery winners? Is it maybe because they don't do the right things with their money? Its so easy to say people are rich because they have money, but yet when people are handed large sacks of money they end up losing it all, helping nobody, providing no products, and just consuming. What good does that do for anybody? None. But go ahead, continue to think the rich owe their existence to the "working class". Yes, they do need people to work for them, but if they weren't employing the working class, the working class would be out somewhere sucking their toes, barely surviving on scraps.
I'm more surprised that not only did we make a guy out of printed Liberty Coins, but then we forbade him from doing it. If he's 99% pure silver as the OP suggests, maybe its a health thing? Is silver bad when it gets inside of you?
You are limiting the use of your network because of shadows in your own imagination. Grow up, are you really worried that traffic being forwarded from one port to your xbox/ps3 is going to lead to you being hacked? You're much more likely to get infected just by browsing the internet than opening a port and forwarding it to your console. Yet you choose to call everybody stupid for using their network as it is intended. I hate people like you. What known exploit would anybody use to hack in to a 360 or PS3 through some port then get to something else useful on your network from there? You're an ignorant piece of shit trying to act like your superior because you are crazy. You're like the guy with the bomb shelter and a years supply of canned goods telling all of his neighbors they'll be sorry. Meanwhile we will all live our lives free of stupid fears of what could happen on a network if we dare to use it.
Well, can't they work just the same on a custom firmware playstation as they would on a PC?
The right to free speech, the right to free association, the right to not have onerous complicated tangling laws over the transmission of money, the right to willfully do what you want with what you earned or were given.
If we get rid of money for political influence because nobody should have more political influence than anybody else just because of money, what does that leave for elections? Can't give money, maybe I can volunteer if I support a candidate. But why should people with more free time have more political influence than busy people? Ok, you can also spread the word, again the time thing, but also the number of friends you have and how well you speak, why should that affect your political influence? Are you implying ugly, awkward people should have less political influence than beautiful, captivating women asking for petition signatures? Don't be so obsessed with money, sometimes dealing with people is sticky and sometimes they won't do what you want. That doesn't mean you need to get your government out to force them in to the box of what you think is right.
Fuck man, I hate the people in this country. Its the fucking cigarette ban issue all over again. People decided they had a right to go to places they don't own and tell other people that they can't allow smokers there because it might damage their health. Well, if you who object to the smoking (campaign contributions) are unwilling to make the "sacrifice" of not going to the diner (not vote for the guy taking them, vote for a third party) or are not a sizable enough portion of the population where that changes things, then you have no right to dictate the situation.
Your complaints about Sony are largely unappreciated, and unimportant. Its like when comic book nerds show up to blast the latest Marvel movie. Nobody gives a shit because we're watching an action flick, not some comics we didn't read. Completely irrelevant to the market at large, and yet here you are saying Sony should just pack it in, its the "honorable thing to do". No, it isn't. The fact that they provide people with the things they want, and they are still in business pretty much proves that they are doing more good than bad unless they have a secret plot we have yet to uncover where they are the cause of fat women or something.
Have you ever played PC games online? Are you aware that PCs aren't locked down at all and a lot of people still play a lot of fun multiplayer games on them? Stop bitching about potential hackers. Its not that big of a deal. In reality, a good banhammer will go a long way.
Sounds like google with their Gmail space quota.
I've seen you posting on slashdot long enough that you should know without a doubt that Comcast is not a common carrier.
Gee, the thing that gets around intentional blocking also gets around accidental blocking? I'm shocked!
a few stupid people that open up their firewall
Your bank has port 80 and port 443 open on their servers (at least!) and there is actually a reason to hack something like that. Yet anybody who opens any ports is stupid? Tell me, which one are you, overly cautious, stupid or both? At this point it sounds like both.
So the solution is common carrier status for ISPs, not limiting campaign contributions.
Bingo. The premise that the right to privacy isn't in the constitution is false.
You shouldn't limit contributions. It really infringes on people's rights. I really think we just need to hold on for a little bit until all the people not using the internet are dead then all the money in the world doesn't matter. We have the awesome power of the web to blast messages out on all kinds of free websites, and starting your own is pretty inexpensive. Campaign costs will drop dramatically in the next decade. You can't just write laws and magically everything is all better. You have to improve the culture.
Right now there may be a good reasno to claim corporations have too much influence over the government. However, at some point a government hostile to industry may actually opress businesses and there are completely valid reasons that a corporation or industry organization of some kind (funded by corporations) should be able to lobby their government. The problem, as usual, is the voters. They're the ultimate check and balance, they just never seem to fucking do their jobs.
No, you just never had anyone build a business powerful enough to flex its muscles on the government.
Its just you. Learn how to build a machine and keep drivers up to date. Seriously, of all the computers I've built in the past 3 years (7) with all kinds of different CPUs (AMD and Intel), GPUs (AMD and nVidia), types of memory, with four different flavors of windows (XP, XP Pro, 7, 7 Pro) I almost never run in to bugs that prevent me from playing a game. I find it hard to believe that there are so many widespread issues you encounter on PCs unless you're doing something wrong. In addition to those 7 PCs which are my friends', I also have purchased two laptops and not encountered any problems with games beyond the simple hardware limitations of some of the more advanced games. But even that, SC2 runs on a $400 laptop I picked up at walmart while on vacation on low settings.
I fucking love Trade Wars. Especially when the SysOp forgets to change the default password for alien corporations.
Are you really claiming that anybody that, say, runs a web server from home is stupid? Or FTP? Or SSH? Why not allow inbound connections on XBOX_PORT be forwarded to the XBox? I think you're just overly cautious or overly stupid or both.
I'm passionate about programming, but not enough to have sex with my mother
I to have this problem. Perhaps would could arrange some sort of swap?
What do you mean developers only have a 2 - 5 year lifespan? Do you mean with one company or until they burn out? I'm only 24 and I've been a developer in the corporate realm for the past 6 years with no intention of stopping, but I am averaging about 3 years per company with some overlap.
Its profit and people are even worried about Microsoft taking fractional cents from them. Where have you been the last 4 years?
I'm a little insulted you just compared COD to any Blizzard game. The reason Blizzard doesn't release very frequently is because they truly are artists. SC2 didn't need to come out before it did. I will take highly polished games once every decade rather than a bucket full of shit every year that is exactly the same as before just different geometry and lighting. 2.5 years? Fuck that, it should come out not when they think they can sell the most, but when they think people will still be playing over a decade later.
Bnet 2.0 pretty much soured me off it trying to get a really idiotic issue resolved (the name you enter in the dialog is permanent and unchangable - this was fixed a month later with an announcement of paid name changes
What the hell is wrong with you? That is not nickle and diming. Usually when I create an account I can't change my login. Thats pretty much standard. Can you randomly change your account information on, say, slashdot? (I'm not sure if you can or not, I'm just asking) The reason they give you one free name change (which you didn't mention) and charge for others is so that you don't keep changing your account name. Duh. If I can just change my name all the time it becomes easy to harass people, easy to disguise who you are and what you do, and generally serves no purpose. Why do you need to change your name so damn bad that this one thing soured you on Bnet 2? They aren't charging to raise money, they're charging to allow people who really want a name change to be able to do it without making it so you can't even track people in the ladder.
Just let me get this straight. Are you saying Skype will prop up windows, or windows will prop up Skype? Because I'm pretty sure Skype is not a monopoly nor does it need to be propped up. That is the crux of my argument. I don't think its the same thing as IE. It may have its potential for abuse if Skype doesn't interoperate with other VOIP applications, but that is completely different than bundling a browser with windows so there is no need for another browser, and hinges on Skype reaching the point of a monopoly, not Windows.
I think the difference between the way I'm looking at it and the way you are looking at it is I see Skype going windows only as a ploy to raise Windows sales (if they do this). If Windows is the monopoly, then using something else to boost sales of something you allegedly have a monopoly on is a different beast than using a monopoly to push another product. I don't bleieve there is anything wrong with using one product to encourage others to purchase another unless the company has a monopoly on the first product. Skype is not a monopoly, therefore this is fine. It may be unpleasant, but I don't like not being able to get a McRib right now either.