That is a lot of money. What could they possibly be spending it on because it certainly isn't firefox. I mean... it is a nice browser... but.... 314 million?
Too often these things just look like dick measuring contests. A childish waste of time. I don't really care if the chinese have the fastest machine so long as our systems are able to keep up with our needs.
On top of that, update your bad review to point out that the fucking hotel had the gall to try and censor reviews with a fucking bullshit thieving fee.
Seriously? Give us bad reviews and we'll steal your money? What a bunch of fucking assholes.
I've dealt with people that have this mentality before. Otherwise nice people. But they have this blank space when it comes to some things. Fucking incredible.
Give them nice living room form factors, a good TV friendly GUI, make sure there are HDMI out plugs in the back, and have them come with some controllers.
But there is no reason the OS can't be windows or linux or macos.
We don't need console OS's. They're stupid. Their only questionable purpose at this point is as a form of DRM because they're so locked down. And that isn't in the consumer's interest.
Furthermore, the value to the console makers or the game developers is also dubious. Sony and Microsoft often lose money on consoles for YEARS after launch and only start breaking even towards the end of the console generation. That same capital investment could easily make a lot more money somewhere else. Why bother with it?
I understand why MS made the xbox. They wanted to keep some control over games and not lose it to nintendo or sony or something. But they could have done that more easily through PCs.
PCs are better then consoles. They just are. Always have been. The hardware is superior. End of story. There is no reason to keep making consoles. Just pump out some PCs that LOOK like consoles to keep the couch dwelling gamers happy and move on.
By this logic, computers couldn't do anything. Since there are conditions in which the machine must do a thing and not do a thing. And they are generally pretty reliable once properly set up to not do certain things they've been programmed to not do.
What this argument is saying is that despite the fact that computers are known to be reliable in many situations we can't rely upon them to do this specific thing.
Because.... ?
Now am I fan of using robots to kill people? No. I'd rather prefer not to have that happen for moral reasons. I think people must take responsibility for each kill. And yes, a big bomb dropped from high up doesn't give you the same feeling as looking down the sniper scope and popping someone in the face. But at least there is someone there pulling the bomb release trigger.
In regards to killer robots, I think they're reasonable as smart mines. That is, area denial weapons. You feed in some parameters about where their kill zone begins and ends, feed in some Identify/friend/foe protocols, then mark the zone off with some "area patrolled by killer robots beyond this point" signs.
I find that reasonable.
If I am in a military compound in potentially hostile territory and my base is guarded by killer robots... and you attack my base... Eat shit and die mother fucker.:D
But I wouldn't use them aggressively against ground targets. I think they're also reasonable as dog fighters if we can get that working properly. A small fast moving enemy jet in contested air space is a combatant. I think air supremacy drones are reasonable as well. If you enter that air space with a plane like that and you don't squawk the right codes... then what do you expect is going to happen? Best case someone is going to fire an AA missile at you which might end you right there. The drones are potentially worse because they'll shadow you to get a very solid lock on your position and then fire a missile that will maintain a wireless link to the drone to get updated targeting information and hopefully not get spoofed by EW or chaff.
This was your argument: "" Backing a kickstarter is not the same as buying a product. Maybe the people that pre-ordered the game would have a claim for a re-fund. They do have the option to ask for a refund on their site, so I'm hoping for people who genuinely feel they wouldn't be able to enjoy the game now will get a refund of the pre-order price. I actually don't expect there to be many backers at all that would request this, the main game is still right on track. Most of the negativity you see won't be from backers at all.""
I addressed that backing a kickstarter still involved a promise between producer and backer thus rendering the objection moot.
As to legal options, that has nothing to do with ethics and I just ignored it because it was irrelevant.
If the law said I could rape your left eye ball for fun would that be ethical, moral, or "good" behavior? Obviously not. The law is not the supreme arbiter of righteousness. To the contrary, we shape the law to fit our understanding of justice. And with new things like fucking crowd funding, you can hardly rely upon legal precedence to make any sense. Unless you're a moron.
The relevant portion of your argument was addressed repeatedly, halfwit.
Your pathetic lack of reading comprehension makes having a discussion of this nature literally impossible. You're just too fucking stupid. Its like trying to play catch with a blind man. The most I can do is hit you with the ball which you'll never catch.
They didn't provide the service they promised despite being able to do so easily.
Refunds are reasonable as the quid pro quo was not satisfied.
Here you say "they weren't selling something so they have no obligation"... so they clearly could just spend all the money on booze and whores. Right? Obviously not... which renders your point void.
Here again you might say "but it really was hard to release an offline mode version" even though if you go through what the online component does it is quite clearly extranious. And even if you said it wasn't, which it is, then you could as a last ditch option release the server code.
They clearly can do that immediately.
So you're obviously wrong... because logic.
Here you're going to demonstrate your pathetic grasp of logic and rhetoric by simply contradicting me again... not realizing that you actually have to present a fucking counter argument to rebut ANYTHING I have said.
Lets see if you do that.
If you don't... you will have outright conceded to the superiority of my argument or at the very least admitted you're far too ignorant to even have even a basic rational discussion about a fucking video game.
As to what has ever stopped people from arguing on the internet.
Has being right ever stopped an idiot from disagreeing with me?
Nope.
Has declaring an argument over when it is clearly over ever stopped an idiot from carrying on like it isn't over?
Nope.
Is the point of saying "end of discussion" to make an idiot stop arguing?
Nope.
What then is the point of saying that? To signal to anyone able to do the logic that I have finished the proof of my argument and it is logically complete and immune to any rational attack.
Is my argument immune to irrational attack? Nothing is immune to the illogical but physics. Argue with physics and physics is very happy to crush you into a singularity or whatever else is handy at the moment.
I lack those godlike powers of retribution. All I can do is call people retards for not grasping simple concepts... possibly bear bait them like the simple creatures they are for my amusement... and hope at some level in their pathetic little souls they grasp that all their sad protestations are transparent and meaningless.
Your silly claim about how little I know is a double edged sword as it invalidates your own opinion as well.
So... congrats... your argument that my opinion is worthless also renders your opinion worthless.
And unfortunately, because your opinion of my opinion is still your opinion... you just invalidated your entire argument.
You basically went back in time and killed your grandfather creating a time space paradox where in your argument exists, kills itself, then ceases to exist... then because it doesn't exist, can exist... and then it kills itself again.
Okay, lets say I have a charity... and as part of the charity, I say that I am going to do something. Then when I get the money, I don't do it.
Logic is not your friend here. They said they were going to do something with money. When they got it, they didn't do it even though they could do so very easily.
Refunds are reasonable in this situation.
Those that care should be able to get a refund.
Those that don't obviously won't. If not many people care then the money won't matter. If lots care then maybe the dev might reconsider their treachery.
The only difference is that the high capital investors got a contract that lets them put the dev's balls in a vice and squeeze until they pop if the devs fuck them.
The fans... the people that just wanted the game to get made and didn't even want a profit had no such contract.
My point is that instead of respecting the fans and honoring their commitments... they fucked them because they could.
Which gets back to what I said about kickstarter and indiGoGo etc... their contracts need to be changed such that projects deliver on the promise, declare a failure, or refund the money.
Crowd funding doesn't work if you don't treat your backers like your boss. Simply fucking someone because you can is at best unethical. At worst... http://youtu.be/ZnZ2XdqGZWU?t=...
They could very easily offer a light version of the server as well as a setting to have it look to the local host for server updates rather then their server.
Neither of these things would take more then an afternoon to configure. I could do as much with my own programs so I don't see why they couldn't offer the same thing. It isn't rocket science.
If they don't want to give away the mini server code... fine. Fix offline mode.
The issue here is control. If the game requires their systems to function then I do not have control of my game. It remains their game. The beauty of an offline game is that 100 percent of the relevant code is operating on my system. Their systems go down and I am not impacted. I am off the internet for some reason and it does not effect the game.
Offline mode is not a minor issue. People are asking for refunds for a reason.
Kickstarter, IndiGoGo, etc terms need to be adjusted so that organizations that raise money through them are held to their promises on pain of reversal of funds.
I am okay with projects failing. That is one thing. It is quite another for them to make promises that are easily kept and then betrayed when all the checks have cleared.
You got all excited about this new funding opportunity. The ability to get funded directly by your customers rather then going through the big scary publishers.
And it could have worked except you crapped all over your customers the instant it became possible. You told them what they wanted to hear until the checks cleared... and then you betrayed them.
Again and again.
All these crowd funding systems need to have some sort of refund clause built into them.
We're very happy to fund you guys... but if you intentionally fuck us over then you deserve to have the money pulled.
Obviously you can't afford that happening. You already spent it. I get that. That is in fact the fucking point. You make your commitments and you damn well follow through. Alternatively, just bail on the whole project and never get funded again. Either way, this sort of behavior needs to be a third rail. It needs to mean financial ruin or career suicide.
The first rule of crowd funding is DO NOT fuck over your sponsors.
The second rule of crowd funding is DO NOT fuck over your sponsors.
Ah yes... Their excitement at receiving any kind of abuse is well noted.
People that don't want to be trolled do their best to not feed the trolls. The feminists however go out of their way to instigate the process and then methodically feed the trolls as best they can.
In all likelihood they would be disappointed if they didn't get death threats. They appear to thrive on abuse as much as trolls thrive on negative attention.
Interstate commerce clause on communications networks allowing small operators to run their own cable to someone's door with ONLY vital regulation and AT COST taxes.
That is, they should only have to deal with regulation that is actually needed. Basic common sense stuff that is obvious. Short of that... none.
As to the taxes, they should only have to pay their share of REASONABLE expenses the cities go through to provide them conduit/pole space for their cables. Those expenses must not exceed costs and those costs cannot be taken to absurd extents.
It is a plant that is easily cultivated at any latitude up to 25 degrees. It is also readily cultivated in green houses if you really want to push it.
We will never run out of chocolate.
In a free market, what will happen is that prices of chocolate will go up which will both discourage consumption while increasing the rewards for production.
The system self corrects. Econ 101.
What might be in danger is the Mars business model. That might be in for a bumpy road. But chocolate itself? Absolutely fine.
It really is hard to think of an idea less likely to be seriously considered then this one. Why do people make suggestions like this?... You waste everyone's time with this crap.
These trains only make sense for super dense cities that have heavy commutes from suburbs.
For any other application they're either impractical or too expensive.
Over a few hundred miles, airplanes win out if only because they're more flexible and require less infrastructure per mile.
And under 20 miles conventional mass transit is sufficient.
And between 20 and 200~300 miles the expense of magnetic levitation trains is only justified if the traffic is heavy enough that conventional mass transit is overwhelmed.
Systems like this make sense for Tokyo and perhaps New York City. But with the exception of those sorts of cities and in that application it has no utility given current technology.
What is more, from an urban planning perspective, building such a train to accommodate this application would be counter productive. Such population densities are not desirable unless they are literally unavoidable. Since they are avoidable they should be avoided. No nation needs to pack people in that tightly. Not even the japanese.
Slashdot Mirror
That is a lot of money. What could they possibly be spending it on because it certainly isn't firefox. I mean... it is a nice browser... but.... 314 million?
I'm a little flabbergasted by these numbers.
People have to ruin it. Company tries to do a nice thing and match online prices... and jackasses start creating bullcrap listings.
Neither Amazon nor Ebay really should be listed. Keep it to sites like NewEgg, etc.
This should be fun to watch.
*gets more popcorn*
Too often these things just look like dick measuring contests. A childish waste of time. I don't really care if the chinese have the fastest machine so long as our systems are able to keep up with our needs.
yep.
On top of that, update your bad review to point out that the fucking hotel had the gall to try and censor reviews with a fucking bullshit thieving fee.
Seriously? Give us bad reviews and we'll steal your money? What a bunch of fucking assholes.
I've dealt with people that have this mentality before. Otherwise nice people. But they have this blank space when it comes to some things. Fucking incredible.
What we should have instead are gaming PCs.
Give them nice living room form factors, a good TV friendly GUI, make sure there are HDMI out plugs in the back, and have them come with some controllers.
But there is no reason the OS can't be windows or linux or macos.
We don't need console OS's. They're stupid. Their only questionable purpose at this point is as a form of DRM because they're so locked down. And that isn't in the consumer's interest.
Furthermore, the value to the console makers or the game developers is also dubious. Sony and Microsoft often lose money on consoles for YEARS after launch and only start breaking even towards the end of the console generation. That same capital investment could easily make a lot more money somewhere else. Why bother with it?
I understand why MS made the xbox. They wanted to keep some control over games and not lose it to nintendo or sony or something. But they could have done that more easily through PCs.
PCs are better then consoles. They just are. Always have been. The hardware is superior. End of story. There is no reason to keep making consoles. Just pump out some PCs that LOOK like consoles to keep the couch dwelling gamers happy and move on.
By this logic, computers couldn't do anything. Since there are conditions in which the machine must do a thing and not do a thing. And they are generally pretty reliable once properly set up to not do certain things they've been programmed to not do.
What this argument is saying is that despite the fact that computers are known to be reliable in many situations we can't rely upon them to do this specific thing.
Because.... ?
Now am I fan of using robots to kill people? No. I'd rather prefer not to have that happen for moral reasons. I think people must take responsibility for each kill. And yes, a big bomb dropped from high up doesn't give you the same feeling as looking down the sniper scope and popping someone in the face. But at least there is someone there pulling the bomb release trigger.
In regards to killer robots, I think they're reasonable as smart mines. That is, area denial weapons. You feed in some parameters about where their kill zone begins and ends, feed in some Identify/friend/foe protocols, then mark the zone off with some "area patrolled by killer robots beyond this point" signs.
I find that reasonable.
If I am in a military compound in potentially hostile territory and my base is guarded by killer robots... and you attack my base... Eat shit and die mother fucker. :D
But I wouldn't use them aggressively against ground targets. I think they're also reasonable as dog fighters if we can get that working properly. A small fast moving enemy jet in contested air space is a combatant. I think air supremacy drones are reasonable as well. If you enter that air space with a plane like that and you don't squawk the right codes... then what do you expect is going to happen? Best case someone is going to fire an AA missile at you which might end you right there. The drones are potentially worse because they'll shadow you to get a very solid lock on your position and then fire a missile that will maintain a wireless link to the drone to get updated targeting information and hopefully not get spoofed by EW or chaff.
Prices are so distorted at this point it is almost impossible to tell what anything costs.
Wrong.
This was your argument:
""
Backing a kickstarter is not the same as buying a product.
Maybe the people that pre-ordered the game would have a claim for a re-fund.
They do have the option to ask for a refund on their site, so I'm hoping for people who genuinely feel they wouldn't be able to enjoy the game now will get a refund of the pre-order price.
I actually don't expect there to be many backers at all that would request this, the main game is still right on track.
Most of the negativity you see won't be from backers at all.""
I addressed that backing a kickstarter still involved a promise between producer and backer thus rendering the objection moot.
As to legal options, that has nothing to do with ethics and I just ignored it because it was irrelevant.
If the law said I could rape your left eye ball for fun would that be ethical, moral, or "good" behavior? Obviously not. The law is not the supreme arbiter of righteousness. To the contrary, we shape the law to fit our understanding of justice. And with new things like fucking crowd funding, you can hardly rely upon legal precedence to make any sense. Unless you're a moron.
The relevant portion of your argument was addressed repeatedly, halfwit.
Your pathetic lack of reading comprehension makes having a discussion of this nature literally impossible. You're just too fucking stupid. Its like trying to play catch with a blind man. The most I can do is hit you with the ball which you'll never catch.
Actually that isn't how it works. A logical rebuttal can be offered.
But if you want to run away like a coward then I'll be very happy to golf clap you into the sunset, twit.
contradiction is not a counter argument.
They made promises in return for the money.
They got the money
They didn't provide the service they promised despite being able to do so easily.
Refunds are reasonable as the quid pro quo was not satisfied.
Here you say "they weren't selling something so they have no obligation"... so they clearly could just spend all the money on booze and whores. Right? Obviously not... which renders your point void.
Here again you might say "but it really was hard to release an offline mode version" even though if you go through what the online component does it is quite clearly extranious. And even if you said it wasn't, which it is, then you could as a last ditch option release the server code.
They clearly can do that immediately.
So you're obviously wrong... because logic.
Here you're going to demonstrate your pathetic grasp of logic and rhetoric by simply contradicting me again... not realizing that you actually have to present a fucking counter argument to rebut ANYTHING I have said.
Lets see if you do that.
If you don't... you will have outright conceded to the superiority of my argument or at the very least admitted you're far too ignorant to even have even a basic rational discussion about a fucking video game.
Let us see which way you jump, grasshopper.
As to what has ever stopped people from arguing on the internet.
Has being right ever stopped an idiot from disagreeing with me?
Nope.
Has declaring an argument over when it is clearly over ever stopped an idiot from carrying on like it isn't over?
Nope.
Is the point of saying "end of discussion" to make an idiot stop arguing?
Nope.
What then is the point of saying that? To signal to anyone able to do the logic that I have finished the proof of my argument and it is logically complete and immune to any rational attack.
Is my argument immune to irrational attack? Nothing is immune to the illogical but physics. Argue with physics and physics is very happy to crush you into a singularity or whatever else is handy at the moment.
I lack those godlike powers of retribution. All I can do is call people retards for not grasping simple concepts... possibly bear bait them like the simple creatures they are for my amusement... and hope at some level in their pathetic little souls they grasp that all their sad protestations are transparent and meaningless.
I know enough to know it would be easy.
Your silly claim about how little I know is a double edged sword as it invalidates your own opinion as well.
So... congrats... your argument that my opinion is worthless also renders your opinion worthless.
And unfortunately, because your opinion of my opinion is still your opinion... you just invalidated your entire argument.
You basically went back in time and killed your grandfather creating a time space paradox where in your argument exists, kills itself, then ceases to exist... then because it doesn't exist, can exist... and then it kills itself again.
Make an argument that is less stupid please.
Don't make threats. Do it.
Okay, lets say I have a charity... and as part of the charity, I say that I am going to do something. Then when I get the money, I don't do it.
Logic is not your friend here. They said they were going to do something with money. When they got it, they didn't do it even though they could do so very easily.
Refunds are reasonable in this situation.
Those that care should be able to get a refund.
Those that don't obviously won't. If not many people care then the money won't matter. If lots care then maybe the dev might reconsider their treachery.
The only difference is that the high capital investors got a contract that lets them put the dev's balls in a vice and squeeze until they pop if the devs fuck them.
The fans... the people that just wanted the game to get made and didn't even want a profit had no such contract.
My point is that instead of respecting the fans and honoring their commitments... they fucked them because they could.
Which gets back to what I said about kickstarter and indiGoGo etc... their contracts need to be changed such that projects deliver on the promise, declare a failure, or refund the money.
Crowd funding doesn't work if you don't treat your backers like your boss. Simply fucking someone because you can is at best unethical. At worst...
http://youtu.be/ZnZ2XdqGZWU?t=...
Were they promised this feature when they paid into the kickstarter?
Yes.
Is it being offered now despite funding being provided and it being easy to make good on the promise?
No.
If a company sells you a product saying it will do something and it doesn't do it, do you have a right to a refund?
Yes.
End of discussion.
They could very easily offer a light version of the server as well as a setting to have it look to the local host for server updates rather then their server.
Neither of these things would take more then an afternoon to configure. I could do as much with my own programs so I don't see why they couldn't offer the same thing. It isn't rocket science.
If they don't want to give away the mini server code... fine. Fix offline mode.
The issue here is control. If the game requires their systems to function then I do not have control of my game. It remains their game. The beauty of an offline game is that 100 percent of the relevant code is operating on my system. Their systems go down and I am not impacted. I am off the internet for some reason and it does not effect the game.
Offline mode is not a minor issue. People are asking for refunds for a reason.
Kickstarter, IndiGoGo, etc terms need to be adjusted so that organizations that raise money through them are held to their promises on pain of reversal of funds.
I am okay with projects failing. That is one thing. It is quite another for them to make promises that are easily kept and then betrayed when all the checks have cleared.
You got all excited about this new funding opportunity. The ability to get funded directly by your customers rather then going through the big scary publishers.
And it could have worked except you crapped all over your customers the instant it became possible. You told them what they wanted to hear until the checks cleared... and then you betrayed them.
Again and again.
All these crowd funding systems need to have some sort of refund clause built into them.
We're very happy to fund you guys... but if you intentionally fuck us over then you deserve to have the money pulled.
Obviously you can't afford that happening. You already spent it. I get that. That is in fact the fucking point. You make your commitments and you damn well follow through. Alternatively, just bail on the whole project and never get funded again. Either way, this sort of behavior needs to be a third rail. It needs to mean financial ruin or career suicide.
The first rule of crowd funding is DO NOT fuck over your sponsors.
The second rule of crowd funding is DO NOT fuck over your sponsors.
Ah yes... Their excitement at receiving any kind of abuse is well noted.
People that don't want to be trolled do their best to not feed the trolls. The feminists however go out of their way to instigate the process and then methodically feed the trolls as best they can.
In all likelihood they would be disappointed if they didn't get death threats. They appear to thrive on abuse as much as trolls thrive on negative attention.
... and music... and media of all kinds. And then admit that what you've really been doing all along is just censorship.
Interstate commerce clause on communications networks allowing small operators to run their own cable to someone's door with ONLY vital regulation and AT COST taxes.
That is, they should only have to deal with regulation that is actually needed. Basic common sense stuff that is obvious. Short of that... none.
As to the taxes, they should only have to pay their share of REASONABLE expenses the cities go through to provide them conduit/pole space for their cables. Those expenses must not exceed costs and those costs cannot be taken to absurd extents.
It is a plant that is easily cultivated at any latitude up to 25 degrees. It is also readily cultivated in green houses if you really want to push it.
We will never run out of chocolate.
In a free market, what will happen is that prices of chocolate will go up which will both discourage consumption while increasing the rewards for production.
The system self corrects. Econ 101.
What might be in danger is the Mars business model. That might be in for a bumpy road. But chocolate itself? Absolutely fine.
It really is hard to think of an idea less likely to be seriously considered then this one. Why do people make suggestions like this?... You waste everyone's time with this crap.
These trains only make sense for super dense cities that have heavy commutes from suburbs.
For any other application they're either impractical or too expensive.
Over a few hundred miles, airplanes win out if only because they're more flexible and require less infrastructure per mile.
And under 20 miles conventional mass transit is sufficient.
And between 20 and 200~300 miles the expense of magnetic levitation trains is only justified if the traffic is heavy enough that conventional mass transit is overwhelmed.
Systems like this make sense for Tokyo and perhaps New York City. But with the exception of those sorts of cities and in that application it has no utility given current technology.
What is more, from an urban planning perspective, building such a train to accommodate this application would be counter productive. Such population densities are not desirable unless they are literally unavoidable. Since they are avoidable they should be avoided. No nation needs to pack people in that tightly. Not even the japanese.