None of this is any of our business. Whether those people are happy or unhappy working there, the only things that might legitimately concern those of us without AMZN-stock, is: "are they there voluntarily?"
Until you can no longer legally quit your job for some reason, your not leaving is proof, the job-conditions are Ok.
Nothing to see here, move along.
Yeah. Stop complaining about your missing fingers and limbs, you socialist bastards. If you don't like the fact that the machine in the factory has no safety features and regularly maims the workers you are free to work somewhere else.
So this is a quibble over the definition of "fit" and whether it means physically fit or more generally fit? Fine. We'll call it survival-of-the-most-able-to-reach-reproducing-age-in-good-health-and-pass-on-genes. Or SOTMATRRAIGHAPOG, for those who like acronyms. That rolls off the tongue much better.
Since I can't seem to find the actual study other than behind a paywall, did they happen to try an experiment with one child and 3 adults? Were those results similar to one child and 3 robots? Are children influenced more by robots or by figures (whether they be robotic or not) whom they believe have more authority and better judgement than them?
Nintendo is certainly within their legal rights to do this, but I don't get the point of it as a business strategy.
Is the idea that if people can't get the ROMs anywhere they'll just play new games on the newer consoles? Those are completely different market segments. I don't see how that idea would work at all.
Is the idea that they're losing NES/SNES classic sales because people are getting the ROMs instead? That's the same kind of argument the MPAA/RIAA uses that never seems to work out in the real world.
It just seems like they're spending more money on litigation than they'll ever get back in sales from this. Just because you have the legal right to do something doesn't mean it's smart to do it.
Enforced by whom? The only people with the actual ability to stop people from doing what you're worried about are the very people you're worried will secretly do those things.
In practical terms, whoever proclaims ownership of the moon (or part of it) and defends the claim (possibly involving violence) owns the moon (or the part the claimed to own). Since there is no value in making a claim or way to defend a claim at the moment, nobody owns the moon.
Interesting. What makes the people in corporations so angelic and the people in public service so demonic? They are both people, no?
I hear about biased moderators that will censor a conservative man for posting in the wrong part of a forum or video sharing site. Moderators are corporate employees, no? Is censoring innocent conservative men the right thing for a corporation to do? Or, am I mistaken on the reports of mods being biased and censoring innocent conservative men?
People in blood diamond mines are corporate employees. They go where the CEO tells them to, and get funds to do so only with the permission of shareholders. If shareholders don't like what the blood diamond mines are doing then they can withhold funds. With "angelic" representatives in corporations funding the blood diamond mines, and an "angelic" private employee like the CEO in charge, the corporation must be full of angelic people. Angelic people don't abuse innocent brown people in far off places. Therefore what I see in the news is a lie.
I hear that Uber's CEO just appointed a diversity advocate to head their corporate diversity program. I'm guessing that Uber employees will get more diverse now. That's a good thing, no? Because corporate diversity is a good thing. Public investment is bad, private investment is good. Uber is investing in diversity, therefore diversity is good.
In other words, you are a colossal idiot.
Pro tip: don't use arguments I can just copy/paste and flip for the same effect unless your point was that myopic arguments on either side are equally stupid.
Hmm. That rifle is being held awfully steady to put the pinpoint of light on something long enough for it to burn through. Either that rifleman has an exceptionally steady hand or there is some very cool steadying technology being used to keep the beam in one location once initially set.
Or it's all a hoax/fabrication. Occams' Razor and all that.
Be careful what you ask for. If everyone needed to be paid for their data, what would happen to user product reviews like those found on Amazon? Will companies really want to continue a feature that benefits users if they have to pay the users to include it?
Your data and metadata are practically worthless on their own. It only becomes worth anything when it is put together with equivalent data from a large portion of other people, analyzed to gleam some sort of truth (accurately, which is not easy), and acted upon. And even then, the profit is not worth enough to bother actually paying any significant amount for. At best, you could put a "potential estimated value" around your data, but who would actually pay for it?
Don't get me wrong, I understand people's privacy concerns and desire to not have their actions used in ways they disagree with that they never anticipated. But thinking anyone will ever actually pay you for this data is the pipe dream of someone who doesn't understand the economics of the situation.
As movies are art, this goes for many movies as well. If I see or feel anything the makers of the movies did not intend, does not make my feelings and ideas about the movie false, just different.
Don't let George Lucas hear you say that. From a 2004 interview in response to "Why not release both the originals and special editions on DVD?"
The special edition, that’s the one I wanted out there. The other movie, it’s on VHS, if anybody wants it.... I’m not going to spend the, we’re talking millions of dollars here, the money and the time to refurbish that, because to me, it doesn’t really exist anymore. It’s like this is the movie I wanted it to be, and I’m sorry you saw half a completed film and fell in love with it. But I want it to be the way I want it to be. I’m the one who has to take responsibility for it. I’m the one who has to have everybody throw rocks at me all the time, so at least if they’re going to throw rocks at me, they’re going to throw rocks at me for something I love rather than something I think is not very good, or at least something I think is not finished.
Some artists really don't like it when you see something they did not explicitly intend.
Why does this conjure up images of hordes of inhumanely fast robots swarming cities and taking out citizens and soldiers with ease
Because science fiction about AI that was somewhat useful in some cases but didn't quite solve as many problems as was hoped and yet didn't go out of control doesn't sell nearly as well.
How long until there forms an upperclass completely immune to revolution or the conscience of its human military?
As soon as someone figures out an absolutely foolproof way to identify "upperclass" to an AI. Military history is a millennia old arms race. New weapons are inevitably met with counters to those weapons. If someone makes an autonomous weapon that only targets certain things, someone else will figure out what it's been targeting and do their best to confuse it.
There are dangers to autonomous weapons, but try to stick to more likely problems lest the lack of difference between legitimate concerns and outlandish theoretical possibilities becomes a tool others can use against your cause.
What they are saying is not that gaming leads to addiction but rather some addicable people make gaming their addiction.
This is unquestionably true.
You can say the same thing about cleaning your ears with a Q-tip or sucking on a lollypop.
True. But at least nobody would be crazy enough to make a business model that is solely profitable based on 1 in 5,000 sealed Q-tip boxes containing a gold-hued Q-tip...
Unless it's something like HIV which attacks the immune system directly, in a few months the host will have already killed the virus off and developed immunity to it. And if it's like HIV, people are going to notice its existence pretty fast.
It seems to me that the biological expertise and knowledge required to make a planet- or country-devastating biological weapon isn't yet the sort of thing a small group of individuals could carry out successfully. Now, something developed by a country or organization that can be used as a terror weapon that causes hundreds to thousands of horrifying deaths but doesn't spread far is another matter. I'd actually be surprised if those don't already exist. The scary part about those is the threshold to access their methods of creation becoming lower and lower.
If the cure for your disease is "just stop doing it", then is it really a health condition? Humans have agency. We decide what we do.
If humans were good at that then politics, laws, and government would be unnecessary and would not exist. We humans are surprisingly generally bad as individuals at making important decisions in a lot of situations. And decisions made by one very often end up affecting others. One who chooses to imbibe alcohol in excess is far more likely to make rash decisions towards others while inebriated.
Perhaps we should change society so that we have two classes of individuals: people who are victims of their own choices (because they can’t control them), and people who control their choices and are therefore treated as full citizens.
The problem is you usually don't figure out which category you might fall into until it's far too late to change it. Most people seem to want to lend a hand to help the people who want out but can't figure out how. You seem to want to treat them as subhuman. I find that abhorrent and similar in motivation to the worst parts of humanity from recorded history.
With all that being said, do I think gaming addiction is a major world problem? No. I'll agree that it *can* be a disorder, but there are certainly more serious mental health issues worth devoting resources to over this one.
Has the study been replicated? Have the conclusions been replicated?
I'm replying because this was addressed quite well even in an introductory psychology course I took (I took others, but this particular example was brought up in the introductory course), and I'm surprised nobody made this same reply yet. ebrandsberg hinted at it, but did not go into detail.
The Stanford Prison Experiment is usually brought up partially because the subject and conclusion were interesting. But moreso because the methodology of the experiment is considered to have been highly unethical. It is usually brought up alongside the Tuskegee medical experiments, Nazi hypothermia experiments in concentration camps, and the Milgram Experiment to illustrate that experiments that are allowed to cause permanent physical or psychological harm to their subjects are considered unethical even if (such as in the case of the hypothermia experiments) the results lead to saving lives or to significant breakthroughs in our understanding of the subject.
This study has never been replicated because to even attempt it again would be unethical since it was unethical in the first place. Therefore it's always been interesting but impossible to really draw any concrete conclusions from the experiment. It wouldn't really change much in psychology for it to be falsified other than for anyone who foolishly took the original results and tried to use them as a basis for further hypotheses.
Oh man, I loved Freelancer. Probably my favorite space combat game. I'd love to find a game like it that runs on Linux.
No idea if all of these work on Linux (some, like X2 and X3 definitely do), but other games similar to the Freelancer genre:
X2 (I know it's old, but it was still quite good if you could get over the terrible voice acting) X3 (in its many forms. Just stay away from X: Reunion) Rebel Galaxy (simplified combat and trading, but pretty fun) Independence War 1 and 2 (these are really old, but classic - you can find them on Good Old Games) Endless Sky (top-down only and somewhat simple, but it's free!)
It's a pretty stale genre unfortunately. There are some games in the genre in early access right now that could end up being good, but I'd pass on them all at the moment.
You know, there are some things I really like about early access, crowdfunding, and other forms of "funding before game development is done". It's given us game concepts that never would have seen the light of day before and some real gems have actually seen things through to the end (Subnautica comes to mind). But it's also given us a huge list of abandonware, "this says early access, but it's been early access for years, so don't be surprised if it never gets finished", and games that completely dropped large parts of their early game mechanics to focus on others later in early access. From a developer/publisher's point of view it makes sense. Why spend a lot of time and money finishing something when it will earn you maybe 5% more on top of what you've already had paid to you?
The part that surprises me is how easy it is to try to defend and rationalize the abandonware aspect of early access. I've seen so many "I would have given this thumbs down, but I see so much potential" early access reviews on Steam that I just ignore any review like that and focus on the ones that treat the game as it currently exists. If the early access is fun and complete enough, I'll buy it. Factorio is a good example. It's still early access, but it's fun as hell to play around with and you can even win if you want.
I guess my point is, if you feel that Star Citizen is truly fun as it stands, that's good. But don't throw money at it hoping that it will make the developers eventually create the game you always hoped they would. You're going to end up disappointed, defensive, and over-rationalizing your decision to others if you approach these things with that attitude.
Or Heroes of the Storm vs DOTA 2 vs League of Legends. Seriously, it's all the same game. Made all the more confusing by the fact that the original DOTA was Defense of the Ancients - a mod (for lack of a better term) for Warcraft 3 (a Blizzard game). And yet Heroes of the Storm (made by Blizzard/Activision) is actually the most recent of that list of copycats and the least likely to be able to claim copyright infringement in that case.
Not that it matters. I suspect the ruling will be that general game mechanics are not protected by copyright law. There are far too many existing games with a lot of similarities to each other for this lawsuit to have any sort of historic precedent.
I remember doing something similar with the Quake third party level editor Qoole. I wasn't sure what to make, so I went with what I knew - my house. Of course, after completing it it quickly became apparent that a level based on an average house is very quick and not very fun. So I scaled the entire house up and made the level about being a tiny person fighting tiny enemies in huge rooms.
It was a fun project, and it gave me a newfound respect for good level design and how hard it is to get all the details (not to mention lighting... oh god, the lighting) so right. Of course, from the perspective of my sisters it looked like I was just doing violent things in our house in a video game. But I was a pretty peaceful and generally happy youth, so they just shrugged and moved on.
The game in question doesn't bother me (and doesn't interest me - seriously, did they just use the Source engine and the models from CS:Source?), but if it's in violation of Steam's already established rules then that is a problem.
When vandals destroy something you like, do you blame the people who provided the nice thing for not being proactive enough to stop determined, technically proficient vandals, or do you blame the vandals?
Well, first, you hardly had to be technically proficient to spam the FCC comments form. It was pretty much built to make spamming it as easy as possible. Second, if the nice thing were a public comment box for a controversial issue, yes, I would entirely blame the people who put it up for thinking it would in any way be useful or indicative of public opinion. For all that people rail about misuse of tax funds for frivolous uses in the US, somehow this doesn't qualify?
Please tell me, sir, how you propose that the FCC validate the identity of every commenter, and why anonymous comments should never be allowed in response to a government request for comments.
If the comments are meant to be anonymous, why require a name on the form? If they aren't anonymous, why even bother with such easily fake-able forms?
Slashdot Mirror
None of this is any of our business. Whether those people are happy or unhappy working there, the only things that might legitimately concern those of us without AMZN-stock, is: "are they there voluntarily?"
Until you can no longer legally quit your job for some reason, your not leaving is proof, the job-conditions are Ok.
Nothing to see here, move along.
Yeah. Stop complaining about your missing fingers and limbs, you socialist bastards. If you don't like the fact that the machine in the factory has no safety features and regularly maims the workers you are free to work somewhere else.
That IS what you were trying to say, right?
So this is a quibble over the definition of "fit" and whether it means physically fit or more generally fit? Fine. We'll call it survival-of-the-most-able-to-reach-reproducing-age-in-good-health-and-pass-on-genes. Or SOTMATRRAIGHAPOG, for those who like acronyms. That rolls off the tongue much better.
In any major sporting event ... there is an established set of credentials to display.
You mean like FIFA? Be careful what you ask for. The solution may become worse than the original problem.
And don't forget that the certification authority has to be at least as reputable as the media organizations it certifies. That's not a small task.
To be fair, these kinds of mods will (and do) still exist. Just don't attempt to sell them and not expect to run into the same legal troubles.
Since I can't seem to find the actual study other than behind a paywall, did they happen to try an experiment with one child and 3 adults? Were those results similar to one child and 3 robots? Are children influenced more by robots or by figures (whether they be robotic or not) whom they believe have more authority and better judgement than them?
Nintendo is certainly within their legal rights to do this, but I don't get the point of it as a business strategy.
Is the idea that if people can't get the ROMs anywhere they'll just play new games on the newer consoles? Those are completely different market segments. I don't see how that idea would work at all.
Is the idea that they're losing NES/SNES classic sales because people are getting the ROMs instead? That's the same kind of argument the MPAA/RIAA uses that never seems to work out in the real world.
It just seems like they're spending more money on litigation than they'll ever get back in sales from this. Just because you have the legal right to do something doesn't mean it's smart to do it.
Enforced by whom? The only people with the actual ability to stop people from doing what you're worried about are the very people you're worried will secretly do those things.
In practical terms, whoever proclaims ownership of the moon (or part of it) and defends the claim (possibly involving violence) owns the moon (or the part the claimed to own). Since there is no value in making a claim or way to defend a claim at the moment, nobody owns the moon.
Wow, you're bad at this...
Interesting. What makes the people in corporations so angelic and the people in public service so demonic? They are both people, no?
I hear about biased moderators that will censor a conservative man for posting in the wrong part of a forum or video sharing site. Moderators are corporate employees, no? Is censoring innocent conservative men the right thing for a corporation to do? Or, am I mistaken on the reports of mods being biased and censoring innocent conservative men?
People in blood diamond mines are corporate employees. They go where the CEO tells them to, and get funds to do so only with the permission of shareholders. If shareholders don't like what the blood diamond mines are doing then they can withhold funds. With "angelic" representatives in corporations funding the blood diamond mines, and an "angelic" private employee like the CEO in charge, the corporation must be full of angelic people. Angelic people don't abuse innocent brown people in far off places. Therefore what I see in the news is a lie.
I hear that Uber's CEO just appointed a diversity advocate to head their corporate diversity program. I'm guessing that Uber employees will get more diverse now. That's a good thing, no? Because corporate diversity is a good thing. Public investment is bad, private investment is good. Uber is investing in diversity, therefore diversity is good.
In other words, you are a colossal idiot.
Pro tip: don't use arguments I can just copy/paste and flip for the same effect unless your point was that myopic arguments on either side are equally stupid.
Hmm. That rifle is being held awfully steady to put the pinpoint of light on something long enough for it to burn through. Either that rifleman has an exceptionally steady hand or there is some very cool steadying technology being used to keep the beam in one location once initially set.
Or it's all a hoax/fabrication. Occams' Razor and all that.
Be careful what you ask for. If everyone needed to be paid for their data, what would happen to user product reviews like those found on Amazon? Will companies really want to continue a feature that benefits users if they have to pay the users to include it?
Your data and metadata are practically worthless on their own. It only becomes worth anything when it is put together with equivalent data from a large portion of other people, analyzed to gleam some sort of truth (accurately, which is not easy), and acted upon. And even then, the profit is not worth enough to bother actually paying any significant amount for. At best, you could put a "potential estimated value" around your data, but who would actually pay for it?
Don't get me wrong, I understand people's privacy concerns and desire to not have their actions used in ways they disagree with that they never anticipated. But thinking anyone will ever actually pay you for this data is the pipe dream of someone who doesn't understand the economics of the situation.
As movies are art, this goes for many movies as well. If I see or feel anything the makers of the movies did not intend, does not make my feelings and ideas about the movie false, just different.
Don't let George Lucas hear you say that. From a 2004 interview in response to "Why not release both the originals and special editions on DVD?"
The special edition, that’s the one I wanted out there. The other movie, it’s on VHS, if anybody wants it. ... I’m not going to spend the, we’re talking millions of dollars here, the money and the time to refurbish that, because to me, it doesn’t really exist anymore. It’s like this is the movie I wanted it to be, and I’m sorry you saw half a completed film and fell in love with it. But I want it to be the way I want it to be. I’m the one who has to take responsibility for it. I’m the one who has to have everybody throw rocks at me all the time, so at least if they’re going to throw rocks at me, they’re going to throw rocks at me for something I love rather than something I think is not very good, or at least something I think is not finished.
Some artists really don't like it when you see something they did not explicitly intend.
Exactly. Do people who drink coffee live longer? Or do people who live longer drink coffee?
Because it's more sensational, the article seems to have gone with the first hypothesis and run with it for no other reason that I can find.
Why does this conjure up images of hordes of inhumanely fast robots swarming cities and taking out citizens and soldiers with ease
Because science fiction about AI that was somewhat useful in some cases but didn't quite solve as many problems as was hoped and yet didn't go out of control doesn't sell nearly as well.
How long until there forms an upperclass completely immune to revolution or the conscience of its human military?
As soon as someone figures out an absolutely foolproof way to identify "upperclass" to an AI. Military history is a millennia old arms race. New weapons are inevitably met with counters to those weapons. If someone makes an autonomous weapon that only targets certain things, someone else will figure out what it's been targeting and do their best to confuse it.
There are dangers to autonomous weapons, but try to stick to more likely problems lest the lack of difference between legitimate concerns and outlandish theoretical possibilities becomes a tool others can use against your cause.
What they are saying is not that gaming leads to addiction but rather some addicable people make gaming their addiction.
This is unquestionably true.
You can say the same thing about cleaning your ears with a Q-tip or sucking on a lollypop.
True. But at least nobody would be crazy enough to make a business model that is solely profitable based on 1 in 5,000 sealed Q-tip boxes containing a gold-hued Q-tip...
Unless it's something like HIV which attacks the immune system directly, in a few months the host will have already killed the virus off and developed immunity to it. And if it's like HIV, people are going to notice its existence pretty fast.
It seems to me that the biological expertise and knowledge required to make a planet- or country-devastating biological weapon isn't yet the sort of thing a small group of individuals could carry out successfully. Now, something developed by a country or organization that can be used as a terror weapon that causes hundreds to thousands of horrifying deaths but doesn't spread far is another matter. I'd actually be surprised if those don't already exist. The scary part about those is the threshold to access their methods of creation becoming lower and lower.
If the cure for your disease is "just stop doing it", then is it really a health condition? Humans have agency. We decide what we do.
If humans were good at that then politics, laws, and government would be unnecessary and would not exist. We humans are surprisingly generally bad as individuals at making important decisions in a lot of situations. And decisions made by one very often end up affecting others. One who chooses to imbibe alcohol in excess is far more likely to make rash decisions towards others while inebriated.
Perhaps we should change society so that we have two classes of individuals: people who are victims of their own choices (because they can’t control them), and people who control their choices and are therefore treated as full citizens.
The problem is you usually don't figure out which category you might fall into until it's far too late to change it. Most people seem to want to lend a hand to help the people who want out but can't figure out how. You seem to want to treat them as subhuman. I find that abhorrent and similar in motivation to the worst parts of humanity from recorded history.
With all that being said, do I think gaming addiction is a major world problem? No. I'll agree that it *can* be a disorder, but there are certainly more serious mental health issues worth devoting resources to over this one.
Has the study been replicated? Have the conclusions been replicated?
I'm replying because this was addressed quite well even in an introductory psychology course I took (I took others, but this particular example was brought up in the introductory course), and I'm surprised nobody made this same reply yet. ebrandsberg hinted at it, but did not go into detail.
The Stanford Prison Experiment is usually brought up partially because the subject and conclusion were interesting. But moreso because the methodology of the experiment is considered to have been highly unethical. It is usually brought up alongside the Tuskegee medical experiments, Nazi hypothermia experiments in concentration camps, and the Milgram Experiment to illustrate that experiments that are allowed to cause permanent physical or psychological harm to their subjects are considered unethical even if (such as in the case of the hypothermia experiments) the results lead to saving lives or to significant breakthroughs in our understanding of the subject.
This study has never been replicated because to even attempt it again would be unethical since it was unethical in the first place. Therefore it's always been interesting but impossible to really draw any concrete conclusions from the experiment. It wouldn't really change much in psychology for it to be falsified other than for anyone who foolishly took the original results and tried to use them as a basis for further hypotheses.
Yeah, but it's pay2win and the griefers are rampant, creating a toxic experience. Looks like a lot of people are abandoning it.
You should be against targeted ads because your privacy is being violated one way or another in order to target you.
But is it a violation of my privacy if I don't really mind data about myself and my actions being used in this way?
Oh man, I loved Freelancer. Probably my favorite space combat game. I'd love to find a game like it that runs on Linux.
No idea if all of these work on Linux (some, like X2 and X3 definitely do), but other games similar to the Freelancer genre:
X2 (I know it's old, but it was still quite good if you could get over the terrible voice acting)
X3 (in its many forms. Just stay away from X: Reunion)
Rebel Galaxy (simplified combat and trading, but pretty fun)
Independence War 1 and 2 (these are really old, but classic - you can find them on Good Old Games)
Endless Sky (top-down only and somewhat simple, but it's free!)
It's a pretty stale genre unfortunately. There are some games in the genre in early access right now that could end up being good, but I'd pass on them all at the moment.
You know, there are some things I really like about early access, crowdfunding, and other forms of "funding before game development is done". It's given us game concepts that never would have seen the light of day before and some real gems have actually seen things through to the end (Subnautica comes to mind). But it's also given us a huge list of abandonware, "this says early access, but it's been early access for years, so don't be surprised if it never gets finished", and games that completely dropped large parts of their early game mechanics to focus on others later in early access. From a developer/publisher's point of view it makes sense. Why spend a lot of time and money finishing something when it will earn you maybe 5% more on top of what you've already had paid to you?
The part that surprises me is how easy it is to try to defend and rationalize the abandonware aspect of early access. I've seen so many "I would have given this thumbs down, but I see so much potential" early access reviews on Steam that I just ignore any review like that and focus on the ones that treat the game as it currently exists. If the early access is fun and complete enough, I'll buy it. Factorio is a good example. It's still early access, but it's fun as hell to play around with and you can even win if you want.
I guess my point is, if you feel that Star Citizen is truly fun as it stands, that's good. But don't throw money at it hoping that it will make the developers eventually create the game you always hoped they would. You're going to end up disappointed, defensive, and over-rationalizing your decision to others if you approach these things with that attitude.
Or Heroes of the Storm vs DOTA 2 vs League of Legends. Seriously, it's all the same game. Made all the more confusing by the fact that the original DOTA was Defense of the Ancients - a mod (for lack of a better term) for Warcraft 3 (a Blizzard game). And yet Heroes of the Storm (made by Blizzard/Activision) is actually the most recent of that list of copycats and the least likely to be able to claim copyright infringement in that case.
Not that it matters. I suspect the ruling will be that general game mechanics are not protected by copyright law. There are far too many existing games with a lot of similarities to each other for this lawsuit to have any sort of historic precedent.
I remember doing something similar with the Quake third party level editor Qoole. I wasn't sure what to make, so I went with what I knew - my house. Of course, after completing it it quickly became apparent that a level based on an average house is very quick and not very fun. So I scaled the entire house up and made the level about being a tiny person fighting tiny enemies in huge rooms.
It was a fun project, and it gave me a newfound respect for good level design and how hard it is to get all the details (not to mention lighting... oh god, the lighting) so right. Of course, from the perspective of my sisters it looked like I was just doing violent things in our house in a video game. But I was a pretty peaceful and generally happy youth, so they just shrugged and moved on.
The game in question doesn't bother me (and doesn't interest me - seriously, did they just use the Source engine and the models from CS:Source?), but if it's in violation of Steam's already established rules then that is a problem.
When vandals destroy something you like, do you blame the people who provided the nice thing for not being proactive enough to stop determined, technically proficient vandals, or do you blame the vandals?
Well, first, you hardly had to be technically proficient to spam the FCC comments form. It was pretty much built to make spamming it as easy as possible. Second, if the nice thing were a public comment box for a controversial issue, yes, I would entirely blame the people who put it up for thinking it would in any way be useful or indicative of public opinion. For all that people rail about misuse of tax funds for frivolous uses in the US, somehow this doesn't qualify?
Please tell me, sir, how you propose that the FCC validate the identity of every commenter, and why anonymous comments should never be allowed in response to a government request for comments.
If the comments are meant to be anonymous, why require a name on the form? If they aren't anonymous, why even bother with such easily fake-able forms?
Every now and then you get a nice little quote when you read TFA. This was my favorite from this one:
The FCC comment process is, in other words, a complete shitshow