The business model is not under dispute; the (apparent) lack of transparency in selling the product _is_. Consider:
Game A (one-time extra charge for unlockable content): "Buy this game! It's awesome! You will have fun! Comes with extra stuff!"
Game B (carries extra charge per owner for unlockable content): "Buy this game! It's awesome! You will have fun! Comes with extra stuff!"
In both cases, the first purchaser expects to be able to sell the entire game, including the extra content, based on how the game is packaged. At no time is the first-time purchaser made aware of the fact that game B will have lower resale value than game A (for otherwise-identical games) - and *that* is the issue here - the expectation that a purchase is fully transferable. If game B's packaging had a small asterisked footnote - something like 'per-owner charge applies for extra stuff' then at least the first-time purchaser is informed about what is being purchased
In your used movie analogy, unless the DVD specifically mentions ON THE OUTSIDE of the case that special features cost extra for each owner of the physical disc, then I expect most people would presume that the special features do not cost extra - and the same should be true of games. Without that notice on the external packaging of the product, the first-time purchaser is being (some would argue deliberately) misled.
There's a world of difference between 16:9 and 16:10. Which is not say 4:3 is not preferred for some applications. Sadly, try purchasing a recent 16:10 or 4:3 non-Apple laptop.
A single vote has no effect on the government, just as a single dollar has no effect on a corporation. How is one more susceptible to being removed than the other?
For greater accuracy, replace your second assertion with "Other corporations are acting to bring the legislation to the notice of the voting citizenry". Then your third assertion is not needed at all.
I'm guessing more (and perhaps bigger) boats go to the US than AU from China. Economies of scale and all that. Plus US customers are typically engaged in a race to the bottom where price is concerned (although Apple products seem to be excluded from this, at least w.r.t other vendors).
Ah, I was waiting for the ad hominem. You have successfully shown you have run out of ways to answer the wrong question. I suggest you re-read every message in this thread, and try to figure out how that happened.
If she's that paranoid, she'll learn how, or find someone to do it for her. Good thing she has an android where this sort of thing is out in the open, and she has the option of changing her software!
That's all very exciting, but a) I bought my modem from MicroCenter and qesturylink knows nothing about the WIFI side of it, and b) centuryqwest knows nothing about the WIFI side of it. So again, perhaps you can answer my question: why does your upstream ISP's router KNOW or CARE about the __WIFI__ side of your modem? And if said modem has a single ethernet port connected to , and *that* whatever has a WIFI radio, how does the ISP's router KNOW or CARE about that WIFI interface's MAC address?
You say "ISP needs to know your device's MAC to ensure people don't fuck with shit". That is not under dispute, but you seem to be conflating the WIFI interface with the ISP's connection to your modem, which are (unless you have a WISP, and somehow are communicating with said WISP _and_ local devices over the same radio) completely separate.
ISP <---------> [ISP-side (DSL or cable connection) modem WIFI] <--------> local devices (laptop, etc).
Please, tell me HOW or WHY your ISP should care about the WIFI interface there? You can't, can you? Do you even understand the question?
Yes, that's fine, but why is your modem sending it's WIFI-side MAC upstream to the router, and not the router-side MAC? Does the device not have two interfaces? What am I missing here? My shitty whatever-the-hell-it-is-brand wifi DSL modem has a WIFI interface and a DSL interface with two different MACs. Pretty damn sure that centuryqwestlink doesn't know (or care) about the WIFI side.
Slashdot Mirror
The business model is not under dispute; the (apparent) lack of transparency in selling the product _is_. Consider:
Game A (one-time extra charge for unlockable content): "Buy this game! It's awesome! You will have fun! Comes with extra stuff!"
Game B (carries extra charge per owner for unlockable content): "Buy this game! It's awesome! You will have fun! Comes with extra stuff!"
In both cases, the first purchaser expects to be able to sell the entire game, including the extra content, based on how the game is packaged. At no time is the first-time purchaser made aware of the fact that game B will have lower resale value than game A (for otherwise-identical games) - and *that* is the issue here - the expectation that a purchase is fully transferable. If game B's packaging had a small asterisked footnote - something like 'per-owner charge applies for extra stuff' then at least the first-time purchaser is informed about what is being purchased
In your used movie analogy, unless the DVD specifically mentions ON THE OUTSIDE of the case that special features cost extra for each owner of the physical disc, then I expect most people would presume that the special features do not cost extra - and the same should be true of games. Without that notice on the external packaging of the product, the first-time purchaser is being (some would argue deliberately) misled.
So you're saying Apple won't be the best until they charge $400 for a 1TB hard drive? Good to know.
"Not taking credit for" != "I was not the original author". You win this week's doublespeak award!
Business travel + expense account == who cares that I'm paying for two hours of crummy TV?
Sounds like your problem is not so much with the dogs as it is with the owners.
Curious, how do you handle being around service animals then? Or is it just non-service dogs that aggravate your allergies?
I for one would rather die then work; that would leave me the time I'm alive to really enjoy myself.
There's a world of difference between 16:9 and 16:10. Which is not say 4:3 is not preferred for some applications. Sadly, try purchasing a recent 16:10 or 4:3 non-Apple laptop.
A single vote has no effect on the government, just as a single dollar has no effect on a corporation. How is one more susceptible to being removed than the other?
And before someone jumps on "aliterate", look the word up in Webster's first.
What about "dodn't" ? ;)
Then that should be "manufactures' themes", since there are several manufacturers, each with their own themes ;)
For greater accuracy, replace your second assertion with "Other corporations are acting to bring the legislation to the notice of the voting citizenry". Then your third assertion is not needed at all.
it was back to normal.
How does this qualify as destructive?
You must be a whole ton of fun at parties.
Neither my nor my wife's phones have CIQ installed; please explain how we're worse off for it.
I'm guessing more (and perhaps bigger) boats go to the US than AU from China. Economies of scale and all that. Plus US customers are typically engaged in a race to the bottom where price is concerned (although Apple products seem to be excluded from this, at least w.r.t other vendors).
I am a programmer so I know a bit about this stuff?
By that logic, so does a cow.
And every few years we have a new "killer virus" scare
Coincidentally right around the time funding for the CDC is about to be cut.
1.
I have used sterilized kitchen knives to lance the infection
Remind me never to eat at your house ;), and
2.
because it's easier than teaching people to soak infected fingers in hot salt water
I think you typoed "more profitable". Simple mistake to make, the keys are right next to each other.
Holy shit you're fucking stupid.
Ah, I was waiting for the ad hominem. You have successfully shown you have run out of ways to answer the wrong question. I suggest you re-read every message in this thread, and try to figure out how that happened.
If she's that paranoid, she'll learn how, or find someone to do it for her. Good thing she has an android where this sort of thing is out in the open, and she has the option of changing her software!
That's all very exciting, but a) I bought my modem from MicroCenter and qesturylink knows nothing about the WIFI side of it, and b) centuryqwest knows nothing about the WIFI side of it. So again, perhaps you can answer my question: why does your upstream ISP's router KNOW or CARE about the __WIFI__ side of your modem? And if said modem has a single ethernet port connected to , and *that* whatever has a WIFI radio, how does the ISP's router KNOW or CARE about that WIFI interface's MAC address?
You say "ISP needs to know your device's MAC to ensure people don't fuck with shit". That is not under dispute, but you seem to be conflating the WIFI interface with the ISP's connection to your modem, which are (unless you have a WISP, and somehow are communicating with said WISP _and_ local devices over the same radio) completely separate.
ISP <---------> [ISP-side (DSL or cable connection) modem WIFI] <--------> local devices (laptop, etc).
Please, tell me HOW or WHY your ISP should care about the WIFI interface there? You can't, can you? Do you even understand the question?
*its* godsdammit. The internet has ruined me :(
Yes, that's fine, but why is your modem sending it's WIFI-side MAC upstream to the router, and not the router-side MAC? Does the device not have two interfaces? What am I missing here? My shitty whatever-the-hell-it-is-brand wifi DSL modem has a WIFI interface and a DSL interface with two different MACs. Pretty damn sure that centuryqwestlink doesn't know (or care) about the WIFI side.
What is your modem doing sending its WIFI MAC to the upstream DSL/ Cable router in the first place?