The dirty ugly truth is that YOU sir or madam are an elitist.
Maybe. Not sure what difference that makes to this being a poor example.
I still think it's a bad example. Perhaps it's an example that makes sense to poor kids who've never bought a car, but they're hardly the people who need to be convinced that a used market is beneficial.
The people you want to convince are "elitists" like me. Well, maybe not exactly like me. I think that a used games market is pretty harmless and find the article makes a compelling argument that it's actually beneficial. But that's because the article makes a compelling argument that's targeted towards the people it wants to convince. Comparing it to the used car market suggests to me that the poster hasn't really thought this through.
Given that I find it not convincing, how convincing do you think it would be to someone not on the side of the used games market? Are they going to think "Gosh! I'd never thought of it like that", or are they going to think what I do?
For all practical purposes, no. It's legally possible and happens from time to time but this is so rare as to be an insignificant part of the market.
Can I not purchase a car for $200?
New? Nope. Used, yes, you can. But I'm not quite sure even then whether most dealers would offer you anything for a trade-in.
What happens when I purchase two or three brand new games, do they magically cost less than $140-$210 just because they are games?
Do people, for whom $70 represents a considerable investment, often do this?
Try thinking, next time, before posting retarded shit.
Things you disagree with != "retarded shit". Grow up.
My point is, quite simply, that the entire car infrastructure is set up with the expectation that people are going to sell used cars, and will pretty much all the time, invest 100% of that used value into increasing the amount they spend on the car. The car manufacturer gets a good chunk of that money. This is not how the games industry is set up.
Perhaps they should set themselves up that way, but they don't, because they believe this would make less money. Perhaps they're right. Perhaps not. The fact that this works with the car industry doesn't automatically mean the same thing will apply to the video games industry. Suggesting that this is inevitable is horribly naive.
I thought it was illustrated with a poor example. Perhaps you think it's good to illustrate good points with bad examples, but I think it tends to detract from the argument rather than contribute, and if I find myself agreeing with people I like them to agree with solid arguments.
Because the point I'm making is that comparing one marketplace with a completely different marketplace with completely different goods and a completely different price and selling structure is a poor argument for making comparisons.
When you last bought a game, what sort of finance did you get? Did you consider the fact that you could get a better, nicer game on the same purchase plan and so change your mind about the game that you wanted to purchase? People do this with cars. The manufacturers know that if people can get a trade-in they'll spend the extra money on a more expensive car. Perhaps this is true with games, but when something is less than a one-hundredth of the price, it's not really the same thing.
What, you don't think $70 for renting a game that's simple enough for your grandmother to play (although she might not like chain mail bikinis) is extremely high cost?
It's just over a day's work at minimum wage, so no. It's quite affordable with or without trading in. Few people can buy a brand new car without saving up for quite some time, and hardly anybody could buy a house without an old one to sell. Based on the article, it seems most people buy games without a trade-in. The entire infrastructure of housing and cars assumes that you will trade in.
As for value for money - that's something you consider before you make the purchase, surely. But it's irrelevant. I'm not defending the games industry. Simply pointing out that comparing it with a market that works completely differently is a poor argument.
I'm in a similar position. I spend a lot of time working away from home. I have a portable media player that I can plug into a television, and a large number of files in a DRM free format, mostly illegally acquired. Works great for me.
If I could download them for a fee, then I might, but I want the same level of flexibility otherwise the service is useless to me.
The only downloadable media option I've seen was the "triple play" offer on certain blu-rays. This seemed to be completely worthless. I'm genuinely curious as to whether anyone found this option worthwhile.
A torrent has a single use. It can *only* be used to download that material. It's the key component that changes a content neutral bitorrent client into a file sharing service.
The same can indeed be said for links and embedded video. This is different though. The judge is not saying they don't facilitate copyright infringement. That's something to be argued. simply that they do not in themselves infringe copyright.
Subtle differences.
Also I'm not totally sure I agree with the judge in the first place.
In practice though, Direct3D will usually support the functionality as soon as its available. MS works pretty closely with the 3D graphics hardware companies since good D3D support is in everyone's interests.
Grossly offensive is distinct from offensive. It's not just something that will offend. It's something that's calculated to be as offensive as possible. Something that will obviously offend just about anyone. There's plenty of case law to establish whether something should be considered offensive or grossly offensive.
It's really not that ambiguous.
Incidentally - US federal law has some provisions covering grossly offensive language in broadcasts.
Fair point. Especially considering he was threatening to drown the guy. Of course, this is just a threat made by an internet tough guy, so the odds are pretty firmly against him even carrying out the threat.
Still, I guess the point is that such threats can be intimidating, and really, brats like this should at least have a stern talking to so they learn to be a little more considerate when posting online.
This relates to something which happened in a country which has no freedom of speech act.
What relates to a country like this?
Freedom of speech is a protected right in the UK, covered in the Human Rights act. However, we also believe that people have the right not to be harassed, and not to be threatened.
Most people with aspergers I know can handle societal rules if they're spelled out as rules. In the case of Sean Duffy - who I presume you're referring to here - things like "Don't post insulting messages about dead people" for example.
There's a difference between lacking empathy and going out of your way to upset people.
I'm reasonably techologically competent, and I've no idea where to get pirate android apps from. Nor have I ever felt the need to buy an app. For my needs there's always already a perfectly competent free version.
My guess would be two sizes, three colours. Too much choice tends to be counterproductive. A range of colours isn't so much of a problem since most people know which they prefer and there aren't any disadvantages.
Ideally, that would be the case. Practically this isn't going to work in a largely capitalist economy that uses wealth as an inventive, but we can still keep the incentive in place at a reduced level without substantial harm.
She didn't just disobey it. She flagrantly disobeyed it, in full knowledge that the NAACP branch she was secretary of would support her. This is one of those exceptions where disobeying is a good idea.
If these guys have decided to disobey the law in order to challenge it in the courts then that's cool, and I look forward to seeing their well prepared legal battle.
VHS video will still be readable too (if necessary you can buy a used VCR from ebay in 2037).
True, but it's quite a lot just to watch one video for a few minutes of amusement. I doubt the prices for the players are going to go anywhere but up from now.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe. Not sure what difference that makes to this being a poor example.
I still think it's a bad example. Perhaps it's an example that makes sense to poor kids who've never bought a car, but they're hardly the people who need to be convinced that a used market is beneficial.
The people you want to convince are "elitists" like me. Well, maybe not exactly like me. I think that a used games market is pretty harmless and find the article makes a compelling argument that it's actually beneficial. But that's because the article makes a compelling argument that's targeted towards the people it wants to convince. Comparing it to the used car market suggests to me that the poster hasn't really thought this through.
Given that I find it not convincing, how convincing do you think it would be to someone not on the side of the used games market? Are they going to think "Gosh! I'd never thought of it like that", or are they going to think what I do?
Have you bought a game recently?
I bought a Wii fit the other day. Does that count? Bought it brand new, on impulse with the cash in my wallet.
For all practical purposes, no. It's legally possible and happens from time to time but this is so rare as to be an insignificant part of the market.
New? Nope. Used, yes, you can. But I'm not quite sure even then whether most dealers would offer you anything for a trade-in.
Do people, for whom $70 represents a considerable investment, often do this?
Things you disagree with != "retarded shit". Grow up.
My point is, quite simply, that the entire car infrastructure is set up with the expectation that people are going to sell used cars, and will pretty much all the time, invest 100% of that used value into increasing the amount they spend on the car. The car manufacturer gets a good chunk of that money. This is not how the games industry is set up.
Perhaps they should set themselves up that way, but they don't, because they believe this would make less money. Perhaps they're right. Perhaps not. The fact that this works with the car industry doesn't automatically mean the same thing will apply to the video games industry. Suggesting that this is inevitable is horribly naive.
Which is a perfectly valid point.
I thought it was illustrated with a poor example. Perhaps you think it's good to illustrate good points with bad examples, but I think it tends to detract from the argument rather than contribute, and if I find myself agreeing with people I like them to agree with solid arguments.
Because the point I'm making is that comparing one marketplace with a completely different marketplace with completely different goods and a completely different price and selling structure is a poor argument for making comparisons.
When you last bought a game, what sort of finance did you get? Did you consider the fact that you could get a better, nicer game on the same purchase plan and so change your mind about the game that you wanted to purchase? People do this with cars. The manufacturers know that if people can get a trade-in they'll spend the extra money on a more expensive car. Perhaps this is true with games, but when something is less than a one-hundredth of the price, it's not really the same thing.
It's just over a day's work at minimum wage, so no. It's quite affordable with or without trading in. Few people can buy a brand new car without saving up for quite some time, and hardly anybody could buy a house without an old one to sell. Based on the article, it seems most people buy games without a trade-in. The entire infrastructure of housing and cars assumes that you will trade in.
As for value for money - that's something you consider before you make the purchase, surely. But it's irrelevant. I'm not defending the games industry. Simply pointing out that comparing it with a market that works completely differently is a poor argument.
Cars and houses are a little different though. The extremely high cost means that the market wouldn't be viable without reselling.
The garage sales comparison is fair though.
Edit submission before posting.
When you paste >'s and <'s into a submission they'll be treated as HTML tags
I'm in a similar position. I spend a lot of time working away from home. I have a portable media player that I can plug into a television, and a large number of files in a DRM free format, mostly illegally acquired. Works great for me.
If I could download them for a fee, then I might, but I want the same level of flexibility otherwise the service is useless to me.
The only downloadable media option I've seen was the "triple play" offer on certain blu-rays. This seemed to be completely worthless. I'm genuinely curious as to whether anyone found this option worthwhile.
Yes it does!
A torrent has a single use. It can *only* be used to download that material. It's the key component that changes a content neutral bitorrent client into a file sharing service.
The same can indeed be said for links and embedded video. This is different though. The judge is not saying they don't facilitate copyright infringement. That's something to be argued. simply that they do not in themselves infringe copyright.
Subtle differences.
Also I'm not totally sure I agree with the judge in the first place.
In practice though, Direct3D will usually support the functionality as soon as its available. MS works pretty closely with the 3D graphics hardware companies since good D3D support is in everyone's interests.
Grossly offensive is distinct from offensive. It's not just something that will offend. It's something that's calculated to be as offensive as possible. Something that will obviously offend just about anyone. There's plenty of case law to establish whether something should be considered offensive or grossly offensive.
It's really not that ambiguous.
Incidentally - US federal law has some provisions covering grossly offensive language in broadcasts.
Fair point. Especially considering he was threatening to drown the guy. Of course, this is just a threat made by an internet tough guy, so the odds are pretty firmly against him even carrying out the threat.
Still, I guess the point is that such threats can be intimidating, and really, brats like this should at least have a stern talking to so they learn to be a little more considerate when posting online.
The police have to prove guilt.
They have to prove that you were, in all likelihood, planning to use the tools for a criminal purpose.
This relates to something which happened in a country which has no freedom of speech act.
What relates to a country like this?
Freedom of speech is a protected right in the UK, covered in the Human Rights act. However, we also believe that people have the right not to be harassed, and not to be threatened.
Most people with aspergers I know can handle societal rules if they're spelled out as rules. In the case of Sean Duffy - who I presume you're referring to here - things like "Don't post insulting messages about dead people" for example.
There's a difference between lacking empathy and going out of your way to upset people.
Do you think that most people would agree that my profanity is grossly offensive?
or
to be grossly offensive? These were sent to other twitterers and it's probably these that prompted the arrest.
source: (LiberalConspiracy)
sqrt(60^2-10^2) - radius in miles where you can hear the supersonic boom.
I'm reasonably techologically competent, and I've no idea where to get pirate android apps from. Nor have I ever felt the need to buy an app. For my needs there's always already a perfectly competent free version.
My guess would be two sizes, three colours. Too much choice tends to be counterproductive. A range of colours isn't so much of a problem since most people know which they prefer and there aren't any disadvantages.
Ideally, that would be the case. Practically this isn't going to work in a largely capitalist economy that uses wealth as an inventive, but we can still keep the incentive in place at a reduced level without substantial harm.
She didn't just disobey it. She flagrantly disobeyed it, in full knowledge that the NAACP branch she was secretary of would support her. This is one of those exceptions where disobeying is a good idea.
If these guys have decided to disobey the law in order to challenge it in the courts then that's cool, and I look forward to seeing their well prepared legal battle.
True, but it's quite a lot just to watch one video for a few minutes of amusement. I doubt the prices for the players are going to go anywhere but up from now.
The only person who has anything worth saying regarding packaging and how difficult it is to open is Jerome K Jerome.