I know this is extremely late, but I was out of town:)
You are talking about "taking responsibility", I am talking about "having responsibility". Now let me start off by saying that the concept that anyone has a responsibility to do anything is completely subjective. That said, almost all people believe that certain people have certain responsibilities in certain situations.
For example, most people believe that a man *has* a responsibility to support his children. They can choose to "take responsibility" or not, but most people would say that he *has* the responsibility, whether he "takes it" or not. A man who didn't "take responsibility" for supporting his children would be said to be "neglecting his responsibilities", and therefore would be forced to pay child support.
Free will has everything to do taking responsibility, but it has nothing to do with having responsibility. The choices a man makes only tell whether a man has lived up to his responsibilities, not whether he ever had them.
Now I don't happen to believe that an artist, author, or writer has a moral responsibility to his patrons, but some people do. Either way, it is definitely not the artist/author/writer's choice whether to have a moral responsibility. Certainly he has a belief about whether he has one or not, as does every observer, but that's not a choice.
In short, a game developer can't choose whether or not to have a responsibility. The very fact that he's a game developer means he either has or doesn't have (depending on your beliefs) that responsibility. (Obviously he can choose not to be a game developer, but then it's no longer a game developer making that choice).
They do if they choose to have one. Period. End of story.
I'm sorry but I don't think this answer makes much sense. A responsibility is something that one has whether they like it or not. One can choose whether or not to take up a responsibility (by choosing to not become an artist/author/writer/etc, assuming those positions actually carry a responsibility), but the person has the responsibility regardless.
What you're talking about is typically called a "decision", not a "responsibility".
Apologies accepted. I didn't mean to come off as harsh, I know that everyone, including not-so-bright intellectual snobs, are free to express their opinions here.
You're still making assumptions about me. I don't read much Science Fiction and I've never read any Asimov, so don't disregard my comments by attributing them to my supposed anger that you don't like the same writers I do. The fact is I was simply turned off by what I took as a condescending attitue.
You're right, you never said you'd outgrown SF. But you did imply that anyone who loves or admires Asimov or his work does so, not for the genuine and justified reasons that you admire your favorite writers, but because of some hero-worship that you've outgrown.
"But none of them are the great thinkers so many of their fans seem to think they are."
How could anyone consider that anything other than a direct insult to all those SF fans? Get over yourself.
By that "logic," this binary pulsar didn't exist until we discovered it. Did the act of our discovery cause its existence?
Well some might argue so, but ignoring the philosophical debate... that conclusion (that the binary pulsar didn't exist until we discovered it) doesn't at all follow from my assertion that the binary pulsar is one-of-a-kind.
The binary pulsar is one-of-a-kind precisely because it has been discovered. The "kind" being "binary pulsars which have been discovered", this binary pulsar being the only "one" of that kind. That logic leaves room for binary pulsars of the other "kind", namely those which have not been discovered.
I don't see how you derive "this binary pulsar didn't exist until we discovered it" from that, and that derivation seems to be the only flawed logic here. Either your logic is flawed or you completely missed the point of my post: that this binary pulsar has a characteristic that no other binary pulsar has, making it one of a kind.
Wow, did you guys even bother to read his post? He says very clearly: "It's their right to be raging assholes, it's my right never to buy their product because of it".
And yet you both felt it necessary to lecture him about the fact that it's their right?
It's encrypted. From the article, which is on the Steam website (I think they'd know): "Over the coming days, those who have selected the pre-loading option will have encrypted Half-Life 2 files delivered to their PC"
LOL. No, it is not the full game. If it was the full game, then they'd release it right now! They're still working on the full game. I guarantee the executable isn't even included in this encrypted package.
I feel for you man... but your problem is that you consider the ability to play Doom3 (or whatever game) a right rather than a privelege. They make they game, so they can do whatever the hell they want with it, including making you dip your balls in peanutbutter and have your dog lick it off before playing the game.
If you don't like it, play a different game. If there aren't any games that have licensing schemes that suit you, you're SOL. It's as simple as that.
Actually you're confused about the definitions of "trojan" and "virus".
Everyone knows that a trojan is called so because it uses a similar attack-tactic to that use by the Greek's in the Trojan War. But you're confused about exactly which tactic that is.
A "trojan" is not called so because it purports to be something that it's not to gain entry, as the Trojan Horse did. There are inumerable viruses that pretend to be something else, they aren't trojans. A "trojan" is called so because of what it does once inside... it let's the attackers in. A "trojan" is a computer program that, once inside, allows access (almost always via the network) to intruders.
What makes you think it's an anti-war protest? He's wearing a stars & stripes doo-rag and is carrying a "GO USA" sign, and everyone around him is sporting flag-stuff also. It's not conclusive evidence, but your typical anti-war protestors don't sport a bunch of pro-USA gear.
There's also my admittedly prejudiced observation that he appears to be what people unfortunately term "white trash", and "white trash" is typically pro-war.
It's not like Slashdot Games gets a ton of good stories. As in any news reporting medium, when you lack lots of good stories, you get some filler.
So unless you're claiming that they're overlooking important stories by paying attention to unimportant ones, then I say who cares? Just read the title and realize you don't want to read that article.
I'm not basing "if you install it then you agree" on some obscure notion of how contracts work, it's explicit in the license itself. Look at this excerpt from the XP Pro EULA "YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS EULA BY INSTALLING, COPYING, OR OTHERWISE USING THE PRODUCT. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE, DO NOT INSTALL OR USE THE PRODUCT; YOU MAY RETURN IT TO YOUR PLACE OF PURCHASE FOR A FULL REFUND."
It's clear, plain, and simple. There IS a legal connection between installing the software and agreeing to the contract. And your commend about amending the agreement is ludicrous. Of course you can modify a contract before signing it, but OBVIOUSLY both parties need to agree to the modification. If you don't send a letter to MS saying you're changing the agreement, or if you do and they don't reply to you, then you're SOL. In your example about the accepting a job, the person doing the hiring agrees to any modifications about the contract.
This is really plain and simple, and you sound like a smart guy, so I don't believe you can't grasp this. Instead I think you're just continuing to argue this point to avoid admitting what you said was wrong. So please stop coming up with examples that have nothing to do with the argument at hand.
I wish someone else would back one of us up on this point so he can stop coming up with meaningless examples and I can stop having to shoot them down;)
Why are you brining laws into this? Who said there was a law against using software? I never claimed claimed that EULAs have anything to do with some particular law, only that THE LAW states that when you enter in an agreement, you are bound by that agreement.
You are saying that you can continue to use that software without agreeing to its EULA, and that therefore you wouldn't be bound by its terms. You're 100% wrong. In the eyes of the law, the very use of the software implies agreement with the EULA and thefore you are bound by its terms. You can't just say "Oh, I'm going to continue to use this but I don't really agree with the EULA, so..."
And no, I didn't reply to your post without having read it. But I had no way of knowing that by reading it I was entering into a contract, so that's a ridiculous example (as I've already pointed out). That's not the case with software. When you install it, you're prompted very clearly with the EULA. You then can agree with it or not.... but if you install, then you are agreeing. If your post had given a link, and said "Click here, and you agree to do this or that"... then perhaps your example would be worth something.
Do you know anything about the law, or are you completely talking out of your ass? I wager it's the latter. The only way to decline to accept the EULA is to not buy the product, or to return it. When install the product, you are effectively signing a contract. Your statement boils down to "You can decline the contract after you signed it". Sorry, but you're wrong. If you disagree with this, then that's fine, you can have your own interpretation of the law... but the fact is your interpretation is wrong and a court will go by their interpretation, not yours, when deciding your punishment.
And your PS is a sad attempt at making a point, because I never engaged in any clear action that is evidence I agreed to your contract.
The very act of buying the product and installing it is entering in an agreement... specifically the EULA. You can't just say "I decline this" and not be legally bound to follow it.
I don't think he's saying that MS is at fault. I think it's completely obvious to anyone who has bothered to think about it for a second that the OP is completely at fault, and is liable for the charges. All he's saying is that any decent corporation would check and see that in fact the person hasn't used their service in the last month and refund him his money, thereby keeping on good terms with the person and possibly providing him with services in the future.
What we should all remember is that this is MS we're talking about. They don't care about the consumer, and in fact they'd like to charge us for using all their products per-second. So the OP should either get used to it, or not engage in any more contractual agreements with MS.
Slashdot Mirror
I know this is extremely late, but I was out of town :)
You are talking about "taking responsibility", I am talking about "having responsibility". Now let me start off by saying that the concept that anyone has a responsibility to do anything is completely subjective. That said, almost all people believe that certain people have certain responsibilities in certain situations.
For example, most people believe that a man *has* a responsibility to support his children. They can choose to "take responsibility" or not, but most people would say that he *has* the responsibility, whether he "takes it" or not. A man who didn't "take responsibility" for supporting his children would be said to be "neglecting his responsibilities", and therefore would be forced to pay child support.
Free will has everything to do taking responsibility, but it has nothing to do with having responsibility. The choices a man makes only tell whether a man has lived up to his responsibilities, not whether he ever had them.
Now I don't happen to believe that an artist, author, or writer has a moral responsibility to his patrons, but some people do. Either way, it is definitely not the artist/author/writer's choice whether to have a moral responsibility. Certainly he has a belief about whether he has one or not, as does every observer, but that's not a choice.
In short, a game developer can't choose whether or not to have a responsibility. The very fact that he's a game developer means he either has or doesn't have (depending on your beliefs) that responsibility. (Obviously he can choose not to be a game developer, but then it's no longer a game developer making that choice).
See what I'm saying?
They do if they choose to have one. Period. End of story.
I'm sorry but I don't think this answer makes much sense. A responsibility is something that one has whether they like it or not. One can choose whether or not to take up a responsibility (by choosing to not become an artist/author/writer/etc, assuming those positions actually carry a responsibility), but the person has the responsibility regardless.
What you're talking about is typically called a "decision", not a "responsibility".
Apologies accepted. I didn't mean to come off as harsh, I know that everyone, including not-so-bright intellectual snobs, are free to express their opinions here.
My apologies as well.
I challenge you to find one opinion I've stated regarding the SF genre.
You're still making assumptions about me. I don't read much Science Fiction and I've never read any Asimov, so don't disregard my comments by attributing them to my supposed anger that you don't like the same writers I do. The fact is I was simply turned off by what I took as a condescending attitue.
You're right, you never said you'd outgrown SF. But you did imply that anyone who loves or admires Asimov or his work does so, not for the genuine and justified reasons that you admire your favorite writers, but because of some hero-worship that you've outgrown.
"But none of them are the great thinkers so many of their fans seem to think they are."
How could anyone consider that anything other than a direct insult to all those SF fans? Get over yourself.
No.. but you should apologize for your condescending attitude, your arrogance, and your idiotic baseless assumptions about me.
Yes, since you've obviously (judging by the level of your intelligence) outgrown Science Fiction, we all should.
Wow, how condescending and arrogant.
"I have outgrown Asimov and consider myself intellectually above the level of his work. It pains me to see others consider his work thoughtful."
Maybe you should put out a book list so that we plebeians can read the right books.
Well some might argue so, but ignoring the philosophical debate... that conclusion (that the binary pulsar didn't exist until we discovered it) doesn't at all follow from my assertion that the binary pulsar is one-of-a-kind.
The binary pulsar is one-of-a-kind precisely because it has been discovered. The "kind" being "binary pulsars which have been discovered", this binary pulsar being the only "one" of that kind. That logic leaves room for binary pulsars of the other "kind", namely those which have not been discovered.
I don't see how you derive "this binary pulsar didn't exist until we discovered it" from that, and that derivation seems to be the only flawed logic here. Either your logic is flawed or you completely missed the point of my post: that this binary pulsar has a characteristic that no other binary pulsar has, making it one of a kind.
Can you name any other such set of pulsars that have been discovered by man? No? Then it seems to me they are one of a kind.
So what?
Is this really considered Slashdot-worthy? This is something that has been done with plenty of other non-multiplayer games.
Wow, did you guys even bother to read his post? He says very clearly: "It's their right to be raging assholes, it's my right never to buy their product because of it".
And yet you both felt it necessary to lecture him about the fact that it's their right?
Learn to read.
How about "This could mean Microsoft will after all make their next generation consoles backward compatible, unlike what was announced in June." in http://games.slashdot.org/games/04/09/14/2257218.
Or "May not be enough for the biggest NES game, but still enough for the true NES classics." in http://games.slashdot.org/games/04/09/13/2227217.s html?tid=207&tid=203&tid=10?
Or "This might be the end of the hacked by Chinese index pages!" in http://it.slashdot.org/it/04/09/15/1731216.shtml?t id=93&tid=158&tid=95&tid=14.
I could go on forever.
Either you're new here, or you felt like nit-picking.
RTFA
It's encrypted. From the article, which is on the Steam website (I think they'd know):
"Over the coming days, those who have selected the pre-loading option will have encrypted Half-Life 2 files delivered to their PC"
LOL. No, it is not the full game. If it was the full game, then they'd release it right now! They're still working on the full game. I guarantee the executable isn't even included in this encrypted package.
I don't believe it. There's no way the thing you can preload is an actual playable game.
I feel for you man... but your problem is that you consider the ability to play Doom3 (or whatever game) a right rather than a privelege. They make they game, so they can do whatever the hell they want with it, including making you dip your balls in peanutbutter and have your dog lick it off before playing the game.
If you don't like it, play a different game. If there aren't any games that have licensing schemes that suit you, you're SOL. It's as simple as that.
Actually you're confused about the definitions of "trojan" and "virus".
Everyone knows that a trojan is called so because it uses a similar attack-tactic to that use by the Greek's in the Trojan War. But you're confused about exactly which tactic that is.
A "trojan" is not called so because it purports to be something that it's not to gain entry, as the Trojan Horse did. There are inumerable viruses that pretend to be something else, they aren't trojans. A "trojan" is called so because of what it does once inside... it let's the attackers in. A "trojan" is a computer program that, once inside, allows access (almost always via the network) to intruders.
What makes you think it's an anti-war protest? He's wearing a stars & stripes doo-rag and is carrying a "GO USA" sign, and everyone around him is sporting flag-stuff also. It's not conclusive evidence, but your typical anti-war protestors don't sport a bunch of pro-USA gear.
There's also my admittedly prejudiced observation that he appears to be what people unfortunately term "white trash", and "white trash" is typically pro-war.
It's not like Slashdot Games gets a ton of good stories. As in any news reporting medium, when you lack lots of good stories, you get some filler.
So unless you're claiming that they're overlooking important stories by paying attention to unimportant ones, then I say who cares? Just read the title and realize you don't want to read that article.
I'm not basing "if you install it then you agree" on some obscure notion of how contracts work, it's explicit in the license itself. Look at this excerpt from the XP Pro EULA
;)
"YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS EULA BY INSTALLING, COPYING, OR OTHERWISE USING THE PRODUCT. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE, DO NOT INSTALL OR USE THE PRODUCT; YOU MAY RETURN IT TO YOUR PLACE OF PURCHASE FOR A FULL REFUND."
It's clear, plain, and simple. There IS a legal connection between installing the software and agreeing to the contract. And your commend about amending the agreement is ludicrous. Of course you can modify a contract before signing it, but OBVIOUSLY both parties need to agree to the modification. If you don't send a letter to MS saying you're changing the agreement, or if you do and they don't reply to you, then you're SOL. In your example about the accepting a job, the person doing the hiring agrees to any modifications about the contract.
This is really plain and simple, and you sound like a smart guy, so I don't believe you can't grasp this. Instead I think you're just continuing to argue this point to avoid admitting what you said was wrong. So please stop coming up with examples that have nothing to do with the argument at hand.
I wish someone else would back one of us up on this point so he can stop coming up with meaningless examples and I can stop having to shoot them down
Why are you brining laws into this? Who said there was a law against using software? I never claimed claimed that EULAs have anything to do with some particular law, only that THE LAW states that when you enter in an agreement, you are bound by that agreement.
You are saying that you can continue to use that software without agreeing to its EULA, and that therefore you wouldn't be bound by its terms. You're 100% wrong. In the eyes of the law, the very use of the software implies agreement with the EULA and thefore you are bound by its terms. You can't just say "Oh, I'm going to continue to use this but I don't really agree with the EULA, so..."
And no, I didn't reply to your post without having read it. But I had no way of knowing that by reading it I was entering into a contract, so that's a ridiculous example (as I've already pointed out). That's not the case with software. When you install it, you're prompted very clearly with the EULA. You then can agree with it or not.... but if you install, then you are agreeing. If your post had given a link, and said "Click here, and you agree to do this or that"... then perhaps your example would be worth something.
Do you know anything about the law, or are you completely talking out of your ass? I wager it's the latter. The only way to decline to accept the EULA is to not buy the product, or to return it. When install the product, you are effectively signing a contract. Your statement boils down to "You can decline the contract after you signed it". Sorry, but you're wrong. If you disagree with this, then that's fine, you can have your own interpretation of the law... but the fact is your interpretation is wrong and a court will go by their interpretation, not yours, when deciding your punishment.
And your PS is a sad attempt at making a point, because I never engaged in any clear action that is evidence I agreed to your contract.
The very act of buying the product and installing it is entering in an agreement... specifically the EULA. You can't just say "I decline this" and not be legally bound to follow it.
What we should all remember is that this is MS we're talking about. They don't care about the consumer, and in fact they'd like to charge us for using all their products per-second. So the OP should either get used to it, or not engage in any more contractual agreements with MS.