It sounds to me like the retailer would not only be out of luck on the consoles, but would still owe people their games.
If I received a Vita in the mail from a retailer, this being the Holiday season, my first assumption would be that someone gave me a Vita, not that the retailer sent it to me accidentally. At that point, I'd probably buy some games for it and start using it. If the retailer then demanded it back, not only have I spent money buying games for it, I now have to spend the extra time packaging it to return it (and possibly the money, too). I don't owe them that inconvenience just because they sent me the wrong thing, and furthermore, they still owe me a game.
Most people get into programming in their childhood do it because they want to make games. Why did it take a research study to figure this out that writing games is less dry and dull than dumping someone into Java's cargo cult boilerplate class definitions and telling them to write hello world?
I would venture to say that making games is a good way to teach adults how to program, too.
BUT OMG ASTROTURF DEMOCRATS LIE REPUBLICANS TELL THE TRUTH BLARGH
You know what? We did vote for it. Let's see how it turns out rather than making wild predictions. If it fails, we own it. If it doesn't fail, we own it. The people paying you seem to be willing to pay any price in blood or money to make sure the Democrats fail. Why are they trying so hard to get rid of the law before it has a chance to work? Why not let it do its thing, and then when fire and brimstone rain from the sky, they can blame the Democrats and re-elect George Bush.
BUT OMG ASTROTURF DEMOCRATS LIE REPUBLICANS TELL THE TRUTH BLARGH
You know what? We did vote for it. Let's see how it turns out rather than making wild predictions. If it fails, we own it. If it doesn't fail, we own it. The people paying you seem to be willing to pay any price in blood or money to make sure the Democrats fail. Why are they trying so hard to get rid of the law before it has a chance to work? Why not let it do its thing, and then when fire and brimstone rain from the sky, they can blame the Democrats and re-elect George Bush.
their attitudes are closed-but-identifying-as-open
Sounds like the Minecraft modding community. Want to run a server with a bunch of mods? God forbid you automate your mod setup in some way; no, you have to make your players click stupid fucking linkbucks links and set the mods up themselves (which is delightfully error-prone) so the mod authors can make their hundredth of a cent per click. FSM forbid they just set up a donate link. Drudging through linkbucks and complicated manual setups are about respect, which apparently only works one way.
That's true. Although, since the extremes are anarchy and communism, I don't think that we're in much danger of being pushed over the edge by having a government agency that makes sure products are safe.
Actually, I'm not parroting anything. Given that the state sites work, it's pretty fucking obvious that the fact that the federal site doesn't work isn't due to a fundamental problem with the ACA. No one told me to say that. On the other hand, what the parent post was saying is the same bullshit that's been coming out of Fox News for the past couple of weeks.
I don't need my opinions handed down from on high, because they don't require mental gymnastics to justify them.
It's interesting. Depending on which comment I'm reading that's accusing me of parroting lies by the democrats, the rollout in NY is doing both good and bad.
Also, with your states are doing great attitude, you almost sound like a Tea Partier talking about how states and localities can do things better than the Feds. States Rights!
Canada's medical system works because they leave it up to the provinces to implement it. I'd be all about a federal mandate that the states provide single payer health care. I'm sure I fit right in with the Tea Party in that respect, huh?
Healthcare.gov needs to work only in the republican-controlled states where they implemented no state website at all. In other words, if you live in a state where you have to use the national site, the republicans in your state already failed you in a bigger way than the democrats in the federal government, because they produced *absolutely nothing at all*.
When a large, unresponsive company leaves an annoying bug in place without any response or explanation and it's impossible to reach their technical support about getting it fixed, often times the best way to get someone at the company to acknowledge it is to report it on tech news.
The only government interference here would be to make such agreements illegal, punishing companies that tried to limit the competition between them for the best employees.
Anti-poaching laws, if they exist, sound to me like government interference meant to reduce worker salaries by artificially limiting competition for workers. Or is government interference only bad when it protects individuals from large companies?
This website was completely in the Democrats' hands. However, the only reason the national exchange is even necessary is because the Republican governments of some states refused to build their own exchanges the way they were supposed to. These kind of specifics work better on a state level, and Republicans of all people ought to understand that, if they were really trying to govern conscientiously according to their viewpoints rather than just sabotage Obama in every way they can.
So every person living in a state where they have to access the badly implemented national exchange site is living under a Republican government that completely failed to implement any site at all. In other words, under this Democratic failure is an even bigger Republican one.
In the long term, putting megatons of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is far more damaging than nuclear. At least with nuclear power, the accidents are localized. If we fuck up our atmosphere with too much CO2, the consequences will be global.
Slashdot Mirror
What if they (reasonably) believed it was a gift from someone else and have already purchased games for it?
It sounds to me like the retailer would not only be out of luck on the consoles, but would still owe people their games.
If I received a Vita in the mail from a retailer, this being the Holiday season, my first assumption would be that someone gave me a Vita, not that the retailer sent it to me accidentally. At that point, I'd probably buy some games for it and start using it. If the retailer then demanded it back, not only have I spent money buying games for it, I now have to spend the extra time packaging it to return it (and possibly the money, too). I don't owe them that inconvenience just because they sent me the wrong thing, and furthermore, they still owe me a game.
Most people get into programming in their childhood do it because they want to make games. Why did it take a research study to figure this out that writing games is less dry and dull than dumping someone into Java's cargo cult boilerplate class definitions and telling them to write hello world?
I would venture to say that making games is a good way to teach adults how to program, too.
I saw people making this exact argument over and over right here on slashdot. They aren't strawmen.
...now that the site works, does that mean that the law isn't flawed? Or are the people who made that argument just going to backtrack now?
You know what? We did vote for it. Let's see how it turns out rather than making wild predictions. If it fails, we own it. If it doesn't fail, we own it. The people paying you seem to be willing to pay any price in blood or money to make sure the Democrats fail. Why are they trying so hard to get rid of the law before it has a chance to work? Why not let it do its thing, and then when fire and brimstone rain from the sky, they can blame the Democrats and re-elect George Bush.
You know what? We did vote for it. Let's see how it turns out rather than making wild predictions. If it fails, we own it. If it doesn't fail, we own it. The people paying you seem to be willing to pay any price in blood or money to make sure the Democrats fail. Why are they trying so hard to get rid of the law before it has a chance to work? Why not let it do its thing, and then when fire and brimstone rain from the sky, they can blame the Democrats and re-elect George Bush.
Socialism has always resulted in a lower standard of living for the people it's purported to help
citation needed
their attitudes are closed-but-identifying-as-open
Sounds like the Minecraft modding community. Want to run a server with a bunch of mods? God forbid you automate your mod setup in some way; no, you have to make your players click stupid fucking linkbucks links and set the mods up themselves (which is delightfully error-prone) so the mod authors can make their hundredth of a cent per click. FSM forbid they just set up a donate link. Drudging through linkbucks and complicated manual setups are about respect, which apparently only works one way.
OpenGameArt.org can help you with that!
That's true. Although, since the extremes are anarchy and communism, I don't think that we're in much danger of being pushed over the edge by having a government agency that makes sure products are safe.
Actually, I'm not parroting anything. Given that the state sites work, it's pretty fucking obvious that the fact that the federal site doesn't work isn't due to a fundamental problem with the ACA. No one told me to say that. On the other hand, what the parent post was saying is the same bullshit that's been coming out of Fox News for the past couple of weeks.
I don't need my opinions handed down from on high, because they don't require mental gymnastics to justify them.
It's interesting. Depending on which comment I'm reading that's accusing me of parroting lies by the democrats, the rollout in NY is doing both good and bad.
Also, with your states are doing great attitude, you almost sound like a Tea Partier talking about how states and localities can do things better than the Feds. States Rights!
Canada's medical system works because they leave it up to the provinces to implement it. I'd be all about a federal mandate that the states provide single payer health care. I'm sure I fit right in with the Tea Party in that respect, huh?
Healthcare.gov needs to work only in the republican-controlled states where they implemented no state website at all. In other words, if you live in a state where you have to use the national site, the republicans in your state already failed you in a bigger way than the democrats in the federal government, because they produced *absolutely nothing at all*.
I have to say, this is one dumbass conspiracy theory I wish had a grain of truth to it.
I agree. While we're at it, let's dock pay from the house republicans for shutting down the government.
The fact that the state websites seem to be working very well would seem to contradict your parroting of republican talking points.
wat
I hate driving in traffic. If I could just sit there and let a computer do it for me while I surf the web or something, I'd be a lot happier.
> "Google doesn't want you as a customer if supporting your old browser costs more than the revenue you bring in"?
FTFY
When a large, unresponsive company leaves an annoying bug in place without any response or explanation and it's impossible to reach their technical support about getting it fixed, often times the best way to get someone at the company to acknowledge it is to report it on tech news.
I would be okay with that.
Anti-poaching laws, if they exist, sound to me like government interference meant to reduce worker salaries by artificially limiting competition for workers. Or is government interference only bad when it protects individuals from large companies?
Yes and no.
This website was completely in the Democrats' hands. However, the only reason the national exchange is even necessary is because the Republican governments of some states refused to build their own exchanges the way they were supposed to. These kind of specifics work better on a state level, and Republicans of all people ought to understand that, if they were really trying to govern conscientiously according to their viewpoints rather than just sabotage Obama in every way they can.
So every person living in a state where they have to access the badly implemented national exchange site is living under a Republican government that completely failed to implement any site at all. In other words, under this Democratic failure is an even bigger Republican one.
In the long term, putting megatons of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is far more damaging than nuclear. At least with nuclear power, the accidents are localized. If we fuck up our atmosphere with too much CO2, the consequences will be global.