I doubt that. It might not be AS lucrative, but it is still there. How much money do strange retro projects get on Kickstarter? Poke around on Steam and notice how many non-exploitive games are coming out, especially those built on "old school" premises? Sure, we're not talking about as large as console "flashy" games (most modern console games make me think of Michael Bay movies), but it doesn't have to be gargantuan to be profitable.
There are still plenty of big names catering to people like me. CD Projekt RED comes to mind (Witcher franchise), as does Bethesda (for now, at least, who knows with TES online), and Obsidian. Blizzard was a good guy up until really recently (like the last year). Valve is always good, ignoring their love of hats (though TF2 has one of the best free business models, though). On the publisher front Take-Two has generally stayed good guys, as have, again, Bethesda (Zenimax).
On the PC front, at least, things are as dire. I'm not a console gamer, but there is still some hope floating around out there too. Sure, big triple A titles, published by the big two (EA and Activision) generally suck. But there are tons of other games floating around that aren't out to completely exploit me.
Sadly these games still make a ton of money. When you have a market that large, you REALLY have to piss off your customers to make any difference. Further I think most people who play consoles grew up with them exclusively, so never really question things. I don't really know the problem, I'm older, and I've always been mainly a PC gamer so I have a hard time seeing things the way a lot of people do. That isn't an elitist statement, my background is just different.
Weapons can be purchased or cert points can be used.
For a RIDICULOUS amount of cert points. I still haven't really saved up enough certs to fully arm a character, much less upgrade my vehicles. You don't have to spend real money, but if you want to be competitive in under 6 months, you need to. That said, the default weapons aren't bad, and are generally pretty usable. Though if you're a VS Infiltrator you're really going to need a bolt action rifle, and upgrading AA in Max's is pretty much mandatory. I did play several months from launch, and didn't really feel the need to spend real money until I started to get serious about it.
Now, microtransactions in a full retail game? Fuck that. I wont buy it even to give it a chance.
Agreed. The only one I don't mind is Guild Wars 2, since microtransactions are covering server costs and their constant content updates, and don't increase power at all. I've thrown Arenanet a few bucks just because I want to support them, since I like what they are doing, and want them to keep doing it. In GW2, its optional, which is the most important thing for any game with microtransactions. The second I feel like I have to buy something, or the second I get out-competed by someone for anything other than skill, I quit.
I generally give money to F2P games I like, and don't play the ones that try to force it one me.
I'm really sad about TFA, since I've been trying to care about SimCity 5. Always on doesn't bug me as much as it does some, but the fact that they are going to make it like The Sims... that is probably a deal breaker. If ever a game had an annoying business model, it is The Sims.
Damn you Maxis. You were one of the best studios, and now you're pretty much dead.
Just give it up and accept that you're no longer a part of the lucrative video game market you once were when you were a kid.
Despite the fact that I now have a disposable income? When I was a kid I had to beg for game cartridges, and I might have, if I was lucky, gotten one for Xmas and one on my birthday. For the PC I generally only got them from the bargain bin, or used from places like EB (before they were bought by Gamestop). I remember saving like hell for Blizzard and Interplay titles, then beg the remainder from my parents.
Now I might buy a $60 game a month (I generally don't, since there isn't that many good games coming out each month), it isn't that big of a deal. I don't even want to know what I spend on cheap games at GoG and Steam. I can spend money now, I couldn't as a kid. I don't have as much time for bullshit, but I have more money to reward good developers and publishers with. I'm not alone in this, most of the people I know in my age group still play games, tons of them, and now have money. Further, they control the purchases of their children now.
(Good to see your buying into the propaganda though)
Did I? I said I don't like the RIAA, or their practices several times. I've even said it more than once in this very topic. They over-reach, and they have truly immoral, and unethical, business practices. I hate the fact that they have insinuated themselves into our government, and have forced some very ugly laws on us. Further, I agree, the problem is overblown, and often the actions they take to "fix' it bites off their own nose to spite their faces.
This propaganda that I've bought is some pretty self-defeating stuff, it seems. They should fire someone.
That said; yes the problem is blown out of proportion. This doesn't mean there isn't one, though. Also, the **AAs being borderline evil doesn't excuse the actions of lazy, entitled, pirates who would rather freely download than buy content. Two wrongs don't make a right. As my views have evolved; in college I thought piracy was my god-given right, and there wasn't even a slight ethical consideration to my actions, but now it has shrunk a fair bit. You don't have the right to media. There is no reason you would, just because it is available, doesn't make it an ethical thing. Media is completely optional, you don't need it to survive, it doesn't matter in the slightest, so why should you be obligated to get it for free, ignoring the costs required to actually produce it? If you "need" it, to the point of throwing out ethics or morality, you have deeper problems, and probably need some perspective.
That said, I do have a list of circumstances where I have no problem with piracy (and take issue with the government and **AAs having one). Sampling is one, even if it would prevent a sale with full experience of the product. Format or time switching is another. Copying things that were produced outside of what I consider a fair time span are okay (around 30 years, sounds good). Pirating things where the original creator gets nothing from my money, from either death or corporate wrangling, is fine. Pirating things that are no longer available for legitimate sale, is also fine.
All of these are criminal, and I think that that is wrong.
Thees days, all I have to do is fart in tune - record it - copyright it, and suddenly I am a member of this holier-than-thou elitist group of people that has power over the masses because I have a talented anus.
I'm guessing you don't do anything creative, then. Creativity takes work, money, and tons of time. Yes, you can fart in tune, but no one cares, no one wants it. If anyone can do it, by the way, then it isn't elitist. Its the opposite. I'm just an average joe, with a creative hobby (photography), and I'm sitting on a large pool of copyrights. I can monetize them if I wanted to, I can claim my rights. Perhaps I will someday. Then I guess I magically become the bad guy, because I don't want to give away something that took skills that took years to hone, took a very large investment of my money (no creative pursuit is cheap, or easy), and took a very pretty significant amount of effort to produce. Have you actually looked into the investment behind most forms of art?
Yes, we shouldn't sacrifice our rights to protect these people. But neither should we throw them under the bus. Oddly, creators are also considered "the people". We shouldn't throw artists under the bus to support a bunch of self-entitled, unethical, freeloaders, either.
Until we are the little drones they want us to be, and the internet becomes another form of TV.(just for consumption)
I really doubt this will happen. And any moves towards it should be fought. But if, in the end, it happens, I don't care. I can live without their content, I don't need it. I don't have the right to have it for free, but they also don't have the right to my money. The day the internet dies, is the day I spend all my recreational money at pubs, museums, and local
Don't worry though they're trying to make buying stuff second hand illegal too.
Then screw 'em. I'm old enough where cultural relevance doesn't matter anymore, so I don't really need to see the newest big media. I've already completely given up on theaters, and live music in big arenas, since they are generally horrible experiences and cost way too much since you're pretty much locked in a venue, and forced to live at the whim of concessions (woo, $10 pissy beer! $6 for a handful of popcorn!). I've stopped watching TV, since the ad content pretty much ruins the experience. I don't watch most popular movies, because I can't stand them anymore (why is everything like a damn Michael Bay movie, too much damn action, and no reason to give a shit. Too much style and no substance whatsoever).
Content producers need me. I don't need them. People have lived happy lives for millennia without big media, and they can do so again.
"Reportedly" doesn't really mean that much. From your link:
The agreement between the five ISPs is supposedly the work of "several powerful players" led by the Obama administration including New York Governor Andrew Cuomo (D). The White House reportedly is also heavily leveraging the threat of legislation to coerce the ISPs into sticking to the policing scheme.
Which is pretty vague. Following that leads to a site which doesn't really appear very credible, and also doesn't provide any actually corroboration of its premise.
I'm not saying that it isn't true. It very well might be. But I'm going to remain skeptical until there is actual, substantive, proof. Just because something fits with my belief system doesn't make it true. Just because I want something to be true, doesn't make it so.
That said, I still find this scheme to be boneheaded. But... I really can't think of anything else. Both the sharers, and the copyright holders are in the wrong here. What the hell is the solution, that is fair to both parties (i.e. makes both equally miserable)?
If the government did do something, people would complain. If it does nothing, people complain.
This is actually a bit better than blackmail lawsuits, at least. Its a shitty solution to a problem without any good solutions. How would you address online copyright infringement in a way that doesn't screw the people, or screw the rights holders?
How many people just don't bother with the content anymore, and don't bother switching to a legal alternative either?
Thats what would happen in my household. When Hulu took a crap, my mainstream media consumption pretty much flatlined. I can live without TV, movies, or RIAA music. And if I really want it I'll get it second hand for a deep discount.
Except that this, for once, has nothing to do with politics. Nothing to do with the dreaded Obama, or the potentially equally dreaded Romney, nothing in the slightest. It has nothing to do with socialism or fascism (or whatever meaningless term people assign to people who disagree with them). It is purely a deal between two businesses, which is perfectly fine and legal. The government has played no role.
Don't misconstrue this statement as me agreeing with this scheme. Construe this as me being absolutely sick of childish politics.
Pentax is hugely backwards compatible. I have glass sitting around that is over 30 years old that works flawlessly on my modern SLR. The only problem is some of the newer lenses, made for crop sensors, aren't really usable on film bodies without severe vignetting (though not always, some labeled for ASP-C are actually have a 35mm image circle). Also, all however many years of class all have stabilization, thanks to in body IS (why is also why I picked Olympus for my mirrorless).
Back in the film days there were several companies making class for other big brands. Also most screw mount lenses were pretty universal (m39 for pretty much all rangefinder/Leica type cameras, and m42 for pretty much everything else. Bayonet mounts is where things went downhill for compatibility. Now the only real "open" platform out there is Micro 4/3s, but even that isn't terribly open since its only Olympus and Panasonic.
I wouldn't call it lock in, though, since there are actual physical limitations, such as flange distance, and contacts (what features do you want to ship to the lens, or keep in body?). Some of it is obviously lock in, but thats putting it a bit strong.
The hypocrisy there is just staggering. But thanks for letting me know what is the most important thing in the world.
Live without food for a month. Good luck.
And what hypocrisy? That things should be labeled? That labeling a negative quantity isn't as useful as labeling a positive one? Perhpas your using a nonstandard definition of hypocrisy. Perhaps you should share it.
Why would I scorn humanity like I do an internet bullshitter when large groups of people (like CA prop 37) give me reason to cheer?
So restricting information is a good thing? Is this only true in food labeling, or should we restrict all information that would allow consumers to make choices (intelligent or not)?
What do you think it says about your proposed law if you need to lie in order to promote it?
Or, you know, I could have been mistaken? Oh no, there must be malice, really? Your view of humanity must be a bit depressing.
I'm not going to apologize, since you accuse me of lying. I was wrong, I got it confused for the movement to supress labeling things as having GMO, as opposed to the opposite. Actually, rereading my post, I wasn't wrong. We're not allowed to have a label saying "this product contains GMO ingredients".
Food should have comprehensive labels. Instead of allowing companies to say that they don't use certain practices, companies that do should be forced to label their products. It is food, which, last I checked, is pretty much the most important thing in the world. I still get mad every time I buy milk from BGH free cows, and have to read the ridiculous disclaimer put on their just to protect certain large diary groups.
Did I ever say that they didn't commit felonies, or were convicted of them?
I just see no evidence whatsoever that they "ruined" people's lives, innocent or not. Obviously this doesn't make them good guys. I am not defending Microsoft. Hell, they are STILL doing things I find morally dubious, and quite possibly illegal. This hasn't ruined my life though. Inconvenienced, yes, Ruined, no.
As for farms (where the hell did that come from?), perhaps it did, perhaps not. Small businesses in general have been dying, and not only because subsidies. Money concentrates. This happens in every industry, someone gets an edge, gets rich, and buys everyone else, and then gets richer. This happened in the 1920-30s as well, without any help from the government.
Is there a law against putting a "contains no GMO" label food if it provably doesn't?
Yes. Which I find bizarre. I don't actually think that transgenic GMO is bad for you, mind, it might be in the long term, but I doubt it. I'm more concerned with actually allowing consumer choice. If people don't want it, that is fine, even if it is potentially stupid and misguided.
My only actually concern with GMO is enviromental, and ecological. We already see weeds and pests developing resistance, and further there is proof that GMO plants can cross pollinate with wild varieties. Between these two, I see possible scenarios that are somewhat like our over use of antibiotics in medicine. In the long term, we might just developing better weeds and pests.
Yeah sure, MS does bad things. But in the grand scheme of things it doesn't really compare to the things Bill Gates is actually throwing money at. I'd much rather the money go to bigger problems than just crushing a silly software company.
Also... whose life has been ruined by Microsoft? This smells like hyperbole. Yes, they have some rather nasty business practices, but saying that someone life has been actually "ruined" is a bit much. I wasn't aware that Balmer had death squads.
I live in AZ. I HATE things that try to be smart with DST. For awhile, I had to throw out atomic clock syncing alarm clocks yearly, the second that everything decided I should magically wake up an hour late or early because the rest of the US decided on a stupid time system that makes no sense.
That said, I love my phone. Its smart enough to track time, but also smart enough not to make default assumptions.
And if they aren't worth my money... I don't care. I don't need your content. Mostly I don't care about it, it is a distraction, nothing more. Perhaps a pleasurable one, but no more pleasurable than my hobbies, books, or friends. Something will fill the gap, we lived for hundred of thousands of years without your blog, and we can live a couple hundred thousand more without it again.
Adapt or die. And the second you try to exploit me, is the second where I shop giving a shit about exploiting you.
I will ad block, and if they die ask me for actual money. If I don't pay, it tells you what I think your worth. There is no right to profit.
Further, you almost run into the RIAA fallacy. If no one paid, people would still make content. People always make content, it is what we do. I post reams of shit online (art, text, etc...) and will never get paid a cent for it. So do millions of other people. Sure, the volume will go down, but whose to say that the shit/quality ratio won't improve?
(and they shouldn't, as anyone with real intelligence already knows)
Adblock. I love it. If illegal, I'll still use it.
That said, your cheap way of trying to be an authority via implied ad hominem is rather silly. I am intelligent, and I fucking hate ads. I think ads are pretty much absolute scum, and rather insulting (as a person of real intelligence I don't think anyone could find them otherwise).
But then again, you have a small point, since thanks to ads I no longer watch TV, or go to sports. The few magazines I read are completely ad free (they cost more, but who cares?). Sadly, I have "real intelligence" when a large enough to be profitable portion of the words population don't. Sadly these are only the ads I can avoid, sometimes I wish people would go Edward Abbey on billboards, and destroy them all. I have no choice about them, and receive no benefit from them.
As for internet ads, I don't give a shit. I'm not here to make you money. And if you can't produce content worth my time or money, then you deserve to die. No loss to me, I've got books, hobbies, and friends. I'm only looking out for me, which any rational person would do. If your service can't service, then surely it didn't deserve to. Not my problem.
You're talking about about gardening, not farming.
I grew up on a farm and we always saved at least some portion of each year's crop to plant the following year; you're pissing your money away otherwise. I can introduce you to any number of grain, bean or vegetable farmers who will tell you they do the same
Internet, video games, and the rise of cable TV in every home?
I'm not agreeing with the OP. I think he is pretty much totally wrong. But, the internet, video games, and cable TV are mostly ubiquitous in the developed world, while the obesity epidemic isn't. This sort of points to it not being an actual problem. Its like the video games and gun violence debate, which completely ignores the fact that the US isn't the world.
I'm guessing it is a more complex and deeper problem, but our stupid love of sugar is probably to blame. Not just HFCS, which may or not be bad (haven't seen anything conclusive either way), but the fact that it is almost impossible to buy food that isn't overly sweet or sweetened anymore. As a person without a sweet tooth, this makes shopping hell.
Further the quality of our food has declined. When was the last time you had a good tomato; one that isn't pasty, sweet, bland, and completely lacking in acidity? Or sweet corn? It was never sugar sweet, but now it is. They used to be my favorite produce, but now I can't eat them. Hell, buying meat is a PitA now, since all of our birds have gotten flabby, while all of our pork has so little fat that it is almost impossible to cook. Unless your willing to pay out the ass, our food sucks.
Well, I also have friends who eat a meal a day at fast food restaurants, and very few of my friends in my age group (early to mid-30s) can actually cook. Not cooking (i.e. being aware of ingredients), and eating shit, are probably our number one cause of obesity. That and we all sit in offices, on our asses, all day. Hell, I try to eat well, and exercise, and the only reason I'm not obese is because my metabolism is better than most. And even so, I went from 6'4" and 160-70 pounds, to 200 once I hit 30, which is a bit high.
Next time you go buy a loaf of bread, ask yourself if Monsanto had it's hand in any of the ingredients. In fact, why don't you ask that about EVERYTHING you eat!
Because we're legally not allowed to know if we have GMO in our foods.... Because it helps consumer choice.
Ahem.
This would be funny, if when this was a story here awhile back, most people supporting limited choice as a means of increasing choice.
That might be it, I keep AA down a notch since it is the the feature with highest requirements for the smallest effect. I honestly can't tell the difference (in game) between all the new alphabet soup AAs and the bog-standard AA. I've come to the conclusion that they are largely a marketing thing. Though most of the time I can use whatever FXAA DMAA PPAA WTFBBQAA they have. And generally autodetect throws me into max, at least for the games I play. Perhaps I've saved as well because I don't just do "max", I turn off things that I find annoying (Bloom. Oh lord. And in some games post processing, since I hate glowing textures, GW2 is the worst with this).
But I figure, at max settings, with 6x AA, with bloom, or any other horrible lighting effects (not for performance, just because they are hideous), turned off, running at 30-40fps is just fine. Granted, I'm not a big FPS guy, or a competitive gamer, so FPS for me is just aesthetics. I don't care if it is above 30 in most games, and as long as it is around 60 in FPS I'm fine. Anything above 60 is a bit silly on a 60Hz monitor.
Slashdot Mirror
I doubt that. It might not be AS lucrative, but it is still there. How much money do strange retro projects get on Kickstarter? Poke around on Steam and notice how many non-exploitive games are coming out, especially those built on "old school" premises? Sure, we're not talking about as large as console "flashy" games (most modern console games make me think of Michael Bay movies), but it doesn't have to be gargantuan to be profitable.
There are still plenty of big names catering to people like me. CD Projekt RED comes to mind (Witcher franchise), as does Bethesda (for now, at least, who knows with TES online), and Obsidian. Blizzard was a good guy up until really recently (like the last year). Valve is always good, ignoring their love of hats (though TF2 has one of the best free business models, though). On the publisher front Take-Two has generally stayed good guys, as have, again, Bethesda (Zenimax).
On the PC front, at least, things are as dire. I'm not a console gamer, but there is still some hope floating around out there too. Sure, big triple A titles, published by the big two (EA and Activision) generally suck. But there are tons of other games floating around that aren't out to completely exploit me.
Sadly these games still make a ton of money. When you have a market that large, you REALLY have to piss off your customers to make any difference. Further I think most people who play consoles grew up with them exclusively, so never really question things. I don't really know the problem, I'm older, and I've always been mainly a PC gamer so I have a hard time seeing things the way a lot of people do. That isn't an elitist statement, my background is just different.
Weapons can be purchased or cert points can be used.
For a RIDICULOUS amount of cert points. I still haven't really saved up enough certs to fully arm a character, much less upgrade my vehicles. You don't have to spend real money, but if you want to be competitive in under 6 months, you need to. That said, the default weapons aren't bad, and are generally pretty usable. Though if you're a VS Infiltrator you're really going to need a bolt action rifle, and upgrading AA in Max's is pretty much mandatory. I did play several months from launch, and didn't really feel the need to spend real money until I started to get serious about it.
Now, microtransactions in a full retail game? Fuck that. I wont buy it even to give it a chance.
Agreed. The only one I don't mind is Guild Wars 2, since microtransactions are covering server costs and their constant content updates, and don't increase power at all. I've thrown Arenanet a few bucks just because I want to support them, since I like what they are doing, and want them to keep doing it. In GW2, its optional, which is the most important thing for any game with microtransactions. The second I feel like I have to buy something, or the second I get out-competed by someone for anything other than skill, I quit.
I generally give money to F2P games I like, and don't play the ones that try to force it one me.
I'm really sad about TFA, since I've been trying to care about SimCity 5. Always on doesn't bug me as much as it does some, but the fact that they are going to make it like The Sims... that is probably a deal breaker. If ever a game had an annoying business model, it is The Sims.
Damn you Maxis. You were one of the best studios, and now you're pretty much dead.
Just give it up and accept that you're no longer a part of the lucrative video game market you once were when you were a kid.
Despite the fact that I now have a disposable income? When I was a kid I had to beg for game cartridges, and I might have, if I was lucky, gotten one for Xmas and one on my birthday. For the PC I generally only got them from the bargain bin, or used from places like EB (before they were bought by Gamestop). I remember saving like hell for Blizzard and Interplay titles, then beg the remainder from my parents.
Now I might buy a $60 game a month (I generally don't, since there isn't that many good games coming out each month), it isn't that big of a deal. I don't even want to know what I spend on cheap games at GoG and Steam. I can spend money now, I couldn't as a kid. I don't have as much time for bullshit, but I have more money to reward good developers and publishers with. I'm not alone in this, most of the people I know in my age group still play games, tons of them, and now have money. Further, they control the purchases of their children now.
I'd say I'm still very much part of the market.
(Good to see your buying into the propaganda though)
Did I? I said I don't like the RIAA, or their practices several times. I've even said it more than once in this very topic. They over-reach, and they have truly immoral, and unethical, business practices. I hate the fact that they have insinuated themselves into our government, and have forced some very ugly laws on us. Further, I agree, the problem is overblown, and often the actions they take to "fix' it bites off their own nose to spite their faces.
This propaganda that I've bought is some pretty self-defeating stuff, it seems. They should fire someone.
That said; yes the problem is blown out of proportion. This doesn't mean there isn't one, though. Also, the **AAs being borderline evil doesn't excuse the actions of lazy, entitled, pirates who would rather freely download than buy content. Two wrongs don't make a right. As my views have evolved; in college I thought piracy was my god-given right, and there wasn't even a slight ethical consideration to my actions, but now it has shrunk a fair bit. You don't have the right to media. There is no reason you would, just because it is available, doesn't make it an ethical thing. Media is completely optional, you don't need it to survive, it doesn't matter in the slightest, so why should you be obligated to get it for free, ignoring the costs required to actually produce it? If you "need" it, to the point of throwing out ethics or morality, you have deeper problems, and probably need some perspective.
That said, I do have a list of circumstances where I have no problem with piracy (and take issue with the government and **AAs having one). Sampling is one, even if it would prevent a sale with full experience of the product. Format or time switching is another. Copying things that were produced outside of what I consider a fair time span are okay (around 30 years, sounds good). Pirating things where the original creator gets nothing from my money, from either death or corporate wrangling, is fine. Pirating things that are no longer available for legitimate sale, is also fine.
All of these are criminal, and I think that that is wrong.
Thees days, all I have to do is fart in tune - record it - copyright it, and suddenly I am a member of this holier-than-thou elitist group of people that has power over the masses because I have a talented anus.
I'm guessing you don't do anything creative, then. Creativity takes work, money, and tons of time. Yes, you can fart in tune, but no one cares, no one wants it. If anyone can do it, by the way, then it isn't elitist. Its the opposite. I'm just an average joe, with a creative hobby (photography), and I'm sitting on a large pool of copyrights. I can monetize them if I wanted to, I can claim my rights. Perhaps I will someday. Then I guess I magically become the bad guy, because I don't want to give away something that took skills that took years to hone, took a very large investment of my money (no creative pursuit is cheap, or easy), and took a very pretty significant amount of effort to produce. Have you actually looked into the investment behind most forms of art?
Yes, we shouldn't sacrifice our rights to protect these people. But neither should we throw them under the bus. Oddly, creators are also considered "the people". We shouldn't throw artists under the bus to support a bunch of self-entitled, unethical, freeloaders, either.
Until we are the little drones they want us to be, and the internet becomes another form of TV.(just for consumption)
I really doubt this will happen. And any moves towards it should be fought. But if, in the end, it happens, I don't care. I can live without their content, I don't need it. I don't have the right to have it for free, but they also don't have the right to my money. The day the internet dies, is the day I spend all my recreational money at pubs, museums, and local
Don't worry though they're trying to make buying stuff second hand illegal too.
Then screw 'em. I'm old enough where cultural relevance doesn't matter anymore, so I don't really need to see the newest big media. I've already completely given up on theaters, and live music in big arenas, since they are generally horrible experiences and cost way too much since you're pretty much locked in a venue, and forced to live at the whim of concessions (woo, $10 pissy beer! $6 for a handful of popcorn!). I've stopped watching TV, since the ad content pretty much ruins the experience. I don't watch most popular movies, because I can't stand them anymore (why is everything like a damn Michael Bay movie, too much damn action, and no reason to give a shit. Too much style and no substance whatsoever).
Content producers need me. I don't need them. People have lived happy lives for millennia without big media, and they can do so again.
"Reportedly" doesn't really mean that much. From your link:
The agreement between the five ISPs is supposedly the work of "several powerful players" led by the Obama administration including New York Governor Andrew Cuomo (D). The White House reportedly is also heavily leveraging the threat of legislation to coerce the ISPs into sticking to the policing scheme.
Which is pretty vague. Following that leads to a site which doesn't really appear very credible, and also doesn't provide any actually corroboration of its premise.
I'm not saying that it isn't true. It very well might be. But I'm going to remain skeptical until there is actual, substantive, proof. Just because something fits with my belief system doesn't make it true. Just because I want something to be true, doesn't make it so.
That said, I still find this scheme to be boneheaded. But... I really can't think of anything else. Both the sharers, and the copyright holders are in the wrong here. What the hell is the solution, that is fair to both parties (i.e. makes both equally miserable)?
If the government did do something, people would complain. If it does nothing, people complain.
This is actually a bit better than blackmail lawsuits, at least. Its a shitty solution to a problem without any good solutions. How would you address online copyright infringement in a way that doesn't screw the people, or screw the rights holders?
How many people just don't bother with the content anymore, and don't bother switching to a legal alternative either?
Thats what would happen in my household. When Hulu took a crap, my mainstream media consumption pretty much flatlined. I can live without TV, movies, or RIAA music. And if I really want it I'll get it second hand for a deep discount.
Except that this, for once, has nothing to do with politics. Nothing to do with the dreaded Obama, or the potentially equally dreaded Romney, nothing in the slightest. It has nothing to do with socialism or fascism (or whatever meaningless term people assign to people who disagree with them). It is purely a deal between two businesses, which is perfectly fine and legal. The government has played no role.
Don't misconstrue this statement as me agreeing with this scheme. Construe this as me being absolutely sick of childish politics.
Pentax is hugely backwards compatible. I have glass sitting around that is over 30 years old that works flawlessly on my modern SLR. The only problem is some of the newer lenses, made for crop sensors, aren't really usable on film bodies without severe vignetting (though not always, some labeled for ASP-C are actually have a 35mm image circle). Also, all however many years of class all have stabilization, thanks to in body IS (why is also why I picked Olympus for my mirrorless).
Back in the film days there were several companies making class for other big brands. Also most screw mount lenses were pretty universal (m39 for pretty much all rangefinder/Leica type cameras, and m42 for pretty much everything else. Bayonet mounts is where things went downhill for compatibility. Now the only real "open" platform out there is Micro 4/3s, but even that isn't terribly open since its only Olympus and Panasonic.
I wouldn't call it lock in, though, since there are actual physical limitations, such as flange distance, and contacts (what features do you want to ship to the lens, or keep in body?). Some of it is obviously lock in, but thats putting it a bit strong.
And you'd fly backwards at a rather impressive rate, too.
Damn you, Newton!
The hypocrisy there is just staggering. But thanks for letting me know what is the most important thing in the world.
Live without food for a month. Good luck.
And what hypocrisy? That things should be labeled? That labeling a negative quantity isn't as useful as labeling a positive one? Perhpas your using a nonstandard definition of hypocrisy. Perhaps you should share it.
Why would I scorn humanity like I do an internet bullshitter when large groups of people (like CA prop 37) give me reason to cheer?
So restricting information is a good thing? Is this only true in food labeling, or should we restrict all information that would allow consumers to make choices (intelligent or not)?
What do you think it says about your proposed law if you need to lie in order to promote it?
Or, you know, I could have been mistaken? Oh no, there must be malice, really? Your view of humanity must be a bit depressing.
I'm not going to apologize, since you accuse me of lying. I was wrong, I got it confused for the movement to supress labeling things as having GMO, as opposed to the opposite. Actually, rereading my post, I wasn't wrong. We're not allowed to have a label saying "this product contains GMO ingredients".
Food should have comprehensive labels. Instead of allowing companies to say that they don't use certain practices, companies that do should be forced to label their products. It is food, which, last I checked, is pretty much the most important thing in the world. I still get mad every time I buy milk from BGH free cows, and have to read the ridiculous disclaimer put on their just to protect certain large diary groups.
Did I ever say that they didn't commit felonies, or were convicted of them?
I just see no evidence whatsoever that they "ruined" people's lives, innocent or not. Obviously this doesn't make them good guys. I am not defending Microsoft. Hell, they are STILL doing things I find morally dubious, and quite possibly illegal. This hasn't ruined my life though. Inconvenienced, yes, Ruined, no.
As for farms (where the hell did that come from?), perhaps it did, perhaps not. Small businesses in general have been dying, and not only because subsidies. Money concentrates. This happens in every industry, someone gets an edge, gets rich, and buys everyone else, and then gets richer. This happened in the 1920-30s as well, without any help from the government.
Is there a law against putting a "contains no GMO" label food if it provably doesn't?
Yes. Which I find bizarre. I don't actually think that transgenic GMO is bad for you, mind, it might be in the long term, but I doubt it. I'm more concerned with actually allowing consumer choice. If people don't want it, that is fine, even if it is potentially stupid and misguided.
My only actually concern with GMO is enviromental, and ecological. We already see weeds and pests developing resistance, and further there is proof that GMO plants can cross pollinate with wild varieties. Between these two, I see possible scenarios that are somewhat like our over use of antibiotics in medicine. In the long term, we might just developing better weeds and pests.
Yeah sure, MS does bad things. But in the grand scheme of things it doesn't really compare to the things Bill Gates is actually throwing money at. I'd much rather the money go to bigger problems than just crushing a silly software company.
Also... whose life has been ruined by Microsoft? This smells like hyperbole. Yes, they have some rather nasty business practices, but saying that someone life has been actually "ruined" is a bit much. I wasn't aware that Balmer had death squads.
Perspective. Nerds don't have it.
I live in AZ. I HATE things that try to be smart with DST. For awhile, I had to throw out atomic clock syncing alarm clocks yearly, the second that everything decided I should magically wake up an hour late or early because the rest of the US decided on a stupid time system that makes no sense.
That said, I love my phone. Its smart enough to track time, but also smart enough not to make default assumptions.
And if they aren't worth my money... I don't care. I don't need your content. Mostly I don't care about it, it is a distraction, nothing more. Perhaps a pleasurable one, but no more pleasurable than my hobbies, books, or friends. Something will fill the gap, we lived for hundred of thousands of years without your blog, and we can live a couple hundred thousand more without it again.
Adapt or die. And the second you try to exploit me, is the second where I shop giving a shit about exploiting you.
I will ad block, and if they die ask me for actual money. If I don't pay, it tells you what I think your worth. There is no right to profit.
Further, you almost run into the RIAA fallacy. If no one paid, people would still make content. People always make content, it is what we do. I post reams of shit online (art, text, etc...) and will never get paid a cent for it. So do millions of other people. Sure, the volume will go down, but whose to say that the shit/quality ratio won't improve?
(and they shouldn't, as anyone with real intelligence already knows)
Adblock. I love it. If illegal, I'll still use it.
That said, your cheap way of trying to be an authority via implied ad hominem is rather silly. I am intelligent, and I fucking hate ads. I think ads are pretty much absolute scum, and rather insulting (as a person of real intelligence I don't think anyone could find them otherwise).
But then again, you have a small point, since thanks to ads I no longer watch TV, or go to sports. The few magazines I read are completely ad free (they cost more, but who cares?). Sadly, I have "real intelligence" when a large enough to be profitable portion of the words population don't. Sadly these are only the ads I can avoid, sometimes I wish people would go Edward Abbey on billboards, and destroy them all. I have no choice about them, and receive no benefit from them.
As for internet ads, I don't give a shit. I'm not here to make you money. And if you can't produce content worth my time or money, then you deserve to die. No loss to me, I've got books, hobbies, and friends. I'm only looking out for me, which any rational person would do. If your service can't service, then surely it didn't deserve to. Not my problem.
You're talking about about gardening, not farming.
I grew up on a farm and we always saved at least some portion of each year's crop to plant the following year; you're pissing your money away otherwise. I can introduce you to any number of grain, bean or vegetable farmers who will tell you they do the same
Reading comprehension fail?
Internet, video games, and the rise of cable TV in every home?
I'm not agreeing with the OP. I think he is pretty much totally wrong. But, the internet, video games, and cable TV are mostly ubiquitous in the developed world, while the obesity epidemic isn't. This sort of points to it not being an actual problem. Its like the video games and gun violence debate, which completely ignores the fact that the US isn't the world.
I'm guessing it is a more complex and deeper problem, but our stupid love of sugar is probably to blame. Not just HFCS, which may or not be bad (haven't seen anything conclusive either way), but the fact that it is almost impossible to buy food that isn't overly sweet or sweetened anymore. As a person without a sweet tooth, this makes shopping hell.
Further the quality of our food has declined. When was the last time you had a good tomato; one that isn't pasty, sweet, bland, and completely lacking in acidity? Or sweet corn? It was never sugar sweet, but now it is. They used to be my favorite produce, but now I can't eat them. Hell, buying meat is a PitA now, since all of our birds have gotten flabby, while all of our pork has so little fat that it is almost impossible to cook. Unless your willing to pay out the ass, our food sucks.
Well, I also have friends who eat a meal a day at fast food restaurants, and very few of my friends in my age group (early to mid-30s) can actually cook. Not cooking (i.e. being aware of ingredients), and eating shit, are probably our number one cause of obesity. That and we all sit in offices, on our asses, all day. Hell, I try to eat well, and exercise, and the only reason I'm not obese is because my metabolism is better than most. And even so, I went from 6'4" and 160-70 pounds, to 200 once I hit 30, which is a bit high.
Hyperbole much?
In the scale of real world evil, Microsoft doesn't even rank. We have famine, disease, and genocide... and Microsoft?
Who really cares? Sure, they do crappy things, but its just silly software? Does anyone actually give a shit, besides /.?
Next time you go buy a loaf of bread, ask yourself if Monsanto had it's hand in any of the ingredients. In fact, why don't you ask that about EVERYTHING you eat!
Because we're legally not allowed to know if we have GMO in our foods.... Because it helps consumer choice.
Ahem.
This would be funny, if when this was a story here awhile back, most people supporting limited choice as a means of increasing choice.
... full AA at 30+ fps
That might be it, I keep AA down a notch since it is the the feature with highest requirements for the smallest effect. I honestly can't tell the difference (in game) between all the new alphabet soup AAs and the bog-standard AA. I've come to the conclusion that they are largely a marketing thing. Though most of the time I can use whatever FXAA DMAA PPAA WTFBBQAA they have. And generally autodetect throws me into max, at least for the games I play. Perhaps I've saved as well because I don't just do "max", I turn off things that I find annoying (Bloom. Oh lord. And in some games post processing, since I hate glowing textures, GW2 is the worst with this).
But I figure, at max settings, with 6x AA, with bloom, or any other horrible lighting effects (not for performance, just because they are hideous), turned off, running at 30-40fps is just fine. Granted, I'm not a big FPS guy, or a competitive gamer, so FPS for me is just aesthetics. I don't care if it is above 30 in most games, and as long as it is around 60 in FPS I'm fine. Anything above 60 is a bit silly on a 60Hz monitor.