I don't have my HL2 box in front of me, but I'm guessing it says somewhere on the outside "By using this software you agree to the license contained within" or something like that. If that does exist on the box, then "average joe" has no right to complain. If you can't read the license in the box, then don't buy the product if you don't think you'd agree with it in the first place. What is so hard about that?
Is there anyone dumb enough to think that a game purchased at the local Best Buy or wherever is actually "their software"? If you don't know what you are possibly buying, DON'T BUY IT. This goes for everything, not just software.
Saying "pseudo professional" gives too much IMO. Michael won't ever post in the forums since he is free to spout his bullshit on the front page. The rest of us non-editors are left with correcting him in the forums, risking possible retribution via the slashdot user bitchslap script or mod point denials.
You didn't "buy" the software, you bought a license to run the bits on a CD (or in the case of HL2, 5 CDs) as well as the service that Steam provides. You're free to do whatever you want with those CDs: Use them at coasters, throw them at kids, grind them up and put the powder in your coffee. This is true with HL2, MS Windows, Adobe Photoshop, and most other software out there. Whether the game was downloaded or bought on CD isn't really important.
Isn't one of the "benefits" of subscribing is that subscribers can catch dupes, typos, or just plain misinformation regarding articles before it gets posted to the "lite" site? And yet there are still dupes and typos, and not all the writeups always match the article they are posting to.
Huh? Your question doesn't make any sense. Them asking for money or not doesn't impact my life. As another replier stated, this is a techie site runned by techies, and yet it is not runned very well. Why would I want to pay to get a subscription just so I can see dupes or typos earlier, and still get basically the same set of problems others run into (503 errors, etc)? Apart from adding a few new sections, Slashdot hasn't changed (read: improved) in the past few years. It's a dying site in my opinion, and I would like to see it return to the older days of coolness (and I've been here since around 1998).
If the first draft isn't due out until next year, perhaps Slashdot could qualify "soon" in the headline of this article.
I think "soon" for Slashdot means "by the time we fix all the various problems with Slashcode, implement basic spellchecking for the editors, and train ourselves to look for dupes before publishing them to the front page."
So what if it is? My point is that the average political and social leanings of a particular region shouldn't automatically lower the reliability of research coming out of an institution from said region. If the research coming out of Berkeley is BS because of the analysis of data, then attack that, not because some of the researchers may have long hair and listen to Phish or whatever. Have Bob Jones University or some similarly "opposite" institution chew on the same data and hear what they have to say.
But what if it's true? What if the source is biased?
It's certainly possible, though if you want to discredit the source you should probably display some data to do so. The "Berkley is full of liberal Lefties!" line some may say isn't really reliable, so the ad hominem retort is valid.
Any possible fraud should be investigated, no matter how numerically insignificant. (For the record, I dispise both Bush and Kerry, so I'm not on the "Kerry Really Won!" bandwagon).
Well...typically your Indian Reservations vote overwhelmingly Democratic, support of welfare, etc. So that would have them be on the Left now wouldn't it?
But your original point was regarding how claims were being made based on putting facts aside due to religious beliefs. If anything that is "Right-ist" mentality.
I get this feeling, not from you, but in general, that it's OK to blame anything on the Right you want, global warming on Mars, two-headed cows, etc. But if you are going to bring blame onto the Left, you need some MLA formated citations and be prepared to defend your thesis.
That means you are listenting to the Right too much. There's plenty of baseless rhetoric done in many camps trying to cast blame to others. Besides, you were replying to an obvious joke and perhaps you took it a little bit too seriously.
It'll depend quite a bit on how they leverage the client base, though, with things like directory services. It's one thing to set up a Linux/Samba share on a corporate network, it's another thing to support the upcoming NextGen hyper-DRM'ed Longhorn crap that will be pushed hard at the workstation level, thereby making it hard(er) to adopt *nix.
Uh, what "Penguin Horde"? I dig linux and all, but there still isn't a huge "threat" yet to Microsoft right now. Look around at the industry rags, Linux to MS is still at nusciance level, not threat level (yet).
Well the Republicans (supposedly) favor smaller government. Bush has been in office for 4 years now with a numeric party majority Republican backing in the house and senate. Is the government bigger or smaller today than when he started? My general point was hinting down the line that whether "some issue" has idealogical support on Side A or Side B, perhaps the government shouldn't be involved with it to begin with. For example, whether the politicans are arguing for or against teaching Creationism in public schools, either way I "lose" because I don't think the (federal) government should be funding schools to begin with. That's what I generally mean by "they are all the same". Our government does much more than it should, and both sides have a lot of their share of pork in the budget. Are there divides? Of course, but given enough vote trading and special interest pandering lots of crap gets voted on and passed. For things like copyrights, both sides favor varying level of IP laws, it is simply a matter of who is scratching whom's back. Personally I think IP laws are way too heavily biased towards big media, yet neither the Reps nor Dems are going to come out and "stick up for the common man".
Slashdot Mirror
I don't have my HL2 box in front of me, but I'm guessing it says somewhere on the outside "By using this software you agree to the license contained within" or something like that. If that does exist on the box, then "average joe" has no right to complain. If you can't read the license in the box, then don't buy the product if you don't think you'd agree with it in the first place. What is so hard about that?
Is there anyone dumb enough to think that a game purchased at the local Best Buy or wherever is actually "their software"? If you don't know what you are possibly buying, DON'T BUY IT. This goes for everything, not just software.
Saying "pseudo professional" gives too much IMO. Michael won't ever post in the forums since he is free to spout his bullshit on the front page. The rest of us non-editors are left with correcting him in the forums, risking possible retribution via the slashdot user bitchslap script or mod point denials.
You didn't "buy" the software, you bought a license to run the bits on a CD (or in the case of HL2, 5 CDs) as well as the service that Steam provides. You're free to do whatever you want with those CDs: Use them at coasters, throw them at kids, grind them up and put the powder in your coffee. This is true with HL2, MS Windows, Adobe Photoshop, and most other software out there. Whether the game was downloaded or bought on CD isn't really important.
Who mentioned color schemes? Whatever.
Isn't one of the "benefits" of subscribing is that subscribers can catch dupes, typos, or just plain misinformation regarding articles before it gets posted to the "lite" site? And yet there are still dupes and typos, and not all the writeups always match the article they are posting to.
Huh? Your question doesn't make any sense. Them asking for money or not doesn't impact my life. As another replier stated, this is a techie site runned by techies, and yet it is not runned very well. Why would I want to pay to get a subscription just so I can see dupes or typos earlier, and still get basically the same set of problems others run into (503 errors, etc)? Apart from adding a few new sections, Slashdot hasn't changed (read: improved) in the past few years. It's a dying site in my opinion, and I would like to see it return to the older days of coolness (and I've been here since around 1998).
Yes, because expecting just a moderate level of competence from a website that asks for money for subscriptions is too much to ask.
If the first draft isn't due out until next year, perhaps Slashdot could qualify "soon" in the headline of this article.
I think "soon" for Slashdot means "by the time we fix all the various problems with Slashcode, implement basic spellchecking for the editors, and train ourselves to look for dupes before publishing them to the front page."
Just doing a "Delete" puts it in the recycle bin. Duh.
So what if it is? My point is that the average political and social leanings of a particular region shouldn't automatically lower the reliability of research coming out of an institution from said region. If the research coming out of Berkeley is BS because of the analysis of data, then attack that, not because some of the researchers may have long hair and listen to Phish or whatever. Have Bob Jones University or some similarly "opposite" institution chew on the same data and hear what they have to say.
But what if it's true? What if the source is biased?
It's certainly possible, though if you want to discredit the source you should probably display some data to do so. The "Berkley is full of liberal Lefties!" line some may say isn't really reliable, so the ad hominem retort is valid.
Any possible fraud should be investigated, no matter how numerically insignificant. (For the record, I dispise both Bush and Kerry, so I'm not on the "Kerry Really Won!" bandwagon).
It has been a stuanch Democrat state
Huh? I live in Ohio and I can tell you it isn't "staunch" for the Democrats.
There's no guarentee that the editors will pick all the top rated ones, perhaps just the ones of interest to CmdrTaco were picked.
there might not be anyone around in 102,004 AD to have to worry about nuclear waste!
Much earlier than that, I'm predicting a war was beginning in A.D. 2101...
Well...typically your Indian Reservations vote overwhelmingly Democratic, support of welfare, etc. So that would have them be on the Left now wouldn't it?
But your original point was regarding how claims were being made based on putting facts aside due to religious beliefs. If anything that is "Right-ist" mentality.
I get this feeling, not from you, but in general, that it's OK to blame anything on the Right you want, global warming on Mars, two-headed cows, etc. But if you are going to bring blame onto the Left, you need some MLA formated citations and be prepared to defend your thesis.
That means you are listenting to the Right too much. There's plenty of baseless rhetoric done in many camps trying to cast blame to others. Besides, you were replying to an obvious joke and perhaps you took it a little bit too seriously.
It'll depend quite a bit on how they leverage the client base, though, with things like directory services. It's one thing to set up a Linux/Samba share on a corporate network, it's another thing to support the upcoming NextGen hyper-DRM'ed Longhorn crap that will be pushed hard at the workstation level, thereby making it hard(er) to adopt *nix.
It's not fair to paint this sort of ignorance as a religous right thing in the US, because the left is just as ignorant in some places.
What does the "left" have to do with your post?
Uh, what "Penguin Horde"? I dig linux and all, but there still isn't a huge "threat" yet to Microsoft right now. Look around at the industry rags, Linux to MS is still at nusciance level, not threat level (yet).
So, anybody know if the county voted Republican or Democrat?
Hmmmm, geysers of raw sewage... Nope, still sounds like either party.
I was hired to install some fiber in some house in Amityville, NY. I was later accused of giving Satan internet access.
"self-updating windows systems = evil" versus "self-updating linux systems = good"?
First of all, HR 2391 doesn't make it criminal to "skip commercials".
But this is Slashdot, where facts don't matter, it's mindless rhetoric that gets them the page/ad hits.
Well the Republicans (supposedly) favor smaller government. Bush has been in office for 4 years now with a numeric party majority Republican backing in the house and senate. Is the government bigger or smaller today than when he started? My general point was hinting down the line that whether "some issue" has idealogical support on Side A or Side B, perhaps the government shouldn't be involved with it to begin with. For example, whether the politicans are arguing for or against teaching Creationism in public schools, either way I "lose" because I don't think the (federal) government should be funding schools to begin with. That's what I generally mean by "they are all the same". Our government does much more than it should, and both sides have a lot of their share of pork in the budget. Are there divides? Of course, but given enough vote trading and special interest pandering lots of crap gets voted on and passed. For things like copyrights, both sides favor varying level of IP laws, it is simply a matter of who is scratching whom's back. Personally I think IP laws are way too heavily biased towards big media, yet neither the Reps nor Dems are going to come out and "stick up for the common man".