For what it's worth I pretty much only buy games on Steam these days, but this plan just sucks. It's both mostly useless and a slap in the face to people who have been asking for a family account option for years now. You know, like Netflix does, or iTunes.
Depends on the situation really. If I know I'm going to be slapped upside the head by my wife shortly after starting a game then I'm going to be effectively locked out while she's in a game.
Which I would hate to do, because it's pretty dickish to give someone a game and then have it cut out halfway through because I started to play a completely different game. I hope it at least gives you a warning when you start your game that someone else is using your library and that you're going to screw them over if you start playing.
Having the "family sharing" plan lock you out of your entire Steam library while a family member plays a game from your list is not family sharing. This is basically just a way to give your account to someone without having to give them your password. Also, they get to keep their achievements, whoop de doo.
I'm extremely disappointed. I was hoping for a real family sharing option, so I could play Portal in my mancave while my wife plays Gone Home up in the living room, but that's not what this is. It's almost completely useless to me. If Netflix can allow my family to stream multiple movies at once, why cant Steam allow them to play multiple games at once?
Maybe I should just make a new steam account for every game I buy? That way I can have one master account with my friends list, and everything I buy with the account will be a gift for the actual game account. That would let me actually lend games out and maybe even resell them. It would be a bit of a pain to manage, but seems better than this solution where letting someone borrow a game locks you out of every other game you own.
It's still noise to the wifi card unless it is specifically built to filter out that extra carrier somehow. Theoretically it is possible, but no consumer card is going to support it today. It's kind of like talking to someone and then having a guy with an air horn 10 feet away start blowing it constantly. With proper processing you could pick the conversation back out of the noise, but it's not something your average person is going to be able to do.
That's why you treat it like the phone company. If you're worried about car companies abusing their monopoly position (which is difficult as there are multiple car companies, but fine) then just make the law such that they're required to sell the same products at wholesale prices to anybody who is licensed as a dealer.
How in the world are they going to push out significant amounts of power on bands with extremely strict transmission limits? It's going to take you all year to charge a AA battery from a 4000mW omnidirectional transmitter that's 10 meters away. Not to mention utterly destroying wifi and bluetooth signals for several hundred feet.
Yep, that was some fancy talking that did absolutely nothing to address the problem, exactly the sort of thinking you get from Libertarian institutes.
The solution presented is "Don't have commons, designate an owner for everything, and make them responsible for it." Basically, mass private ownership of everything, even the environment. You would have an air baron whom is in charge of the atmosphere and whom you have to pay to use it. Because he owns it, he would want it to be clean as possible and wouldn't allow people to pollute it without paying him. But that doesn't work because it assumes the owner is deeply concerned with long term sustainability instead of short term profits--a proven falsehood when examining corporate behavior today, plus it arbitrarily gives enormous amounts of power to individuals. If you're going to do that, you might will probably want elect them, and if you're electing them, you're basically talking about a government and suddenly it's socialism writ large. If you don't elect them, then you're back to water barons, which is a monumental failure from a socioeconomic perspective.
There are lots of problems the free market cannot solve, just like there are lots of problems collective rule cannot solve. That's why it is important to choose the right solution for every problem. People who think there is only one true path will end up with lots of bad and inefficient solutions that often just make the problems worse.
Maybe they thought it would stand a better chance of passing in the Texas legislature if it seemed a little bit corrupt. They seem to prefer the laws that way down there.
Why do we need laws to protect the middlemen? If it would be more efficient for dealers to sell directly to the public, why do we need some third party in the way?
Don't try to tell me that it will cost jobs either. You still need just as many salesmen, mechanics, etc... The only people out of a job are the dealership owners, and I think they'll be able to do something with their millions of dollars. If you're worried about competition, then just make the law that car manufacturers are required to sell to independent dealers at wholesale prices, not that car dealers are absolutely barred from direct sales. If independent dealers are being undercut by direct sales, well, that's not really a problem. If the car company starts jacking up prices in areas without independent dealers, then that's a self correcting problem because dealers can spring up and eat their lunch, plus existing antitrust laws can be applied if the companies play too many games with prices.
These laws are pure protectionism for big campaign doners, and effectively raise the price of every car sold in the state just to line the pockets of dealership owners. They're a disgrace and should be repealed immediately.
What the hell are they if they aren't conservative? They sure as hell ain't liberals. You would get shot for suggesting so down in the Texas legislature.
This smells like one of those "They can't be conservative, I consider myself conservative and I don't believe in anything they stand for" situations, where maybe you should consider that your own beliefs may have drifted from what the current ideal is.
This is a real "no true Scotsman" argument, and comes up a lot with Libertarians who are only starting to become disillusioned. They join for total freedom and sane money policy, then discover that the candidates are mostly tax dodging fatcats who couldn't care less about the people, or think that completely unrestrained corporations will cause the long discredited trickle down economics to finally happen.
The free market has no solution to the tragedy of the commons.
Yep, socialist just like Obamacare, that thing that makes you buy a corporate product just so taxpayers don't end up footing the bill when you go to the hospital unexpectedly. Practically communist it is.
The idea that there is anything at all socialist about it is laughable. It's the most corporate healthcare proposal ever devised, which isn't a surprise since it was devised by Republicans. All of the parts that were even vaguely socialist (single payer system for example) were quickly excised because they were a threat to the profit margins of drug makers, insurance companies, and other healthcare services. Most of the real cost saving opportunities were lost because the healthcare industry has a lot of lobbyists and a strong desire not to stop the gravy train.
Why not get one of those cases that integrates an air filter on the front? Cleaning the filter seems easier than cleaning all of the heatsinks and fans.
To be fair though, KSP rockets are firecrackers compared to real life launch vehicles. One point of comparision is the "big" SRBs. The KSP ones produce about 2% of the total thrust of the old Shuttle SRBs. If you look at the total thrust of KSP's big Mainsail engines vs. the Apollo program's F-1 engines the differences are even bigger. KSP engines are more efficient in terms of lbs. of thrust per lb of propellant though.
Play around with Kerbal Space Program and you realize just how big the gulf is between suborbital and orbital flights. Getting enough boom to get yourself up to 100km is trivial. You really appreciate the difference in design when you're doing it yourself and seeing just how much more boom it takes to achieve orbit.
Didn't Netflix spend years working closely with the Post Office to refine their DVD mailing business down to an art? It's not like the Post Office volunteered to put all of that extra effort into it.
I'm more like 2% of the disks won't play for me, although sometimes they are kind of dirty and I give them a quick wash with water and a soft cloth. I've had a couple that were outright cracked, but Netflix is really good about shipping replacements when you ask. It also depends on your player. Some players are better at handling marginal disks than others, thinks like DVD burners tend to be much more capable of dealing with iffy disks than cheapo standalone players.
A web board that you get full control of the interface on would also be sufficient. It kills me that there has yet to be a web forum that is as feature complete as your average usenet reader from 1996. Some things frequently missed include threaded view, collapsing previously read comments, selective quoting, inline quoting, squelching, reply-by-email, rule based highlighting, spam filtering, sort by date/author/subject/etc... It's like being permanently trapped in that crappy newsreader that your ISP tossed on the floppy as an afterthought except the interface rearragnes itself and features appear/disappear when you change groups. Where is the web forum that simply lets me hit spacebar to read the next unread post?
Few people will argue that uncontrolled spam/trolls wasn't a major factor in the Usenet dying the first time. It's just too big and too easy to abuse, there need to be some sort of checks and balances to keep the bad actors at bay. Once a community grows beyond a fairly small size moderation is no longer a luxury, it's necessary to prevent the noise level from rising too high and drowing out all of the productive discussions.
"Fully distributed" is pretty much gone. No ISP runs Usenet servers anymore, there are just a small handful of them left, mostly catering to warez and porn distributors.
I miss the Usenet too, but its job has been replaced by web forums almost entirely. I hate that you're now at the mercy of whatever the forum software has feature wise, with the Usenet you picked the reader that worked best for you and got the same interface on every discussion. Most forum software outside of Slashcode can't even thread a discussion anymore, it's pathetic. I wish it would come back and someone would figure out a way to properly moderate it so the whole system doesn't get choked up with spam and trolls again.
Slashdot Mirror
For what it's worth I pretty much only buy games on Steam these days, but this plan just sucks. It's both mostly useless and a slap in the face to people who have been asking for a family account option for years now. You know, like Netflix does, or iTunes.
Depends on the situation really. If I know I'm going to be slapped upside the head by my wife shortly after starting a game then I'm going to be effectively locked out while she's in a game.
Please enjoy this turd sandwich, remember, I didn't have to give it to you.
Which I would hate to do, because it's pretty dickish to give someone a game and then have it cut out halfway through because I started to play a completely different game. I hope it at least gives you a warning when you start your game that someone else is using your library and that you're going to screw them over if you start playing.
Having the "family sharing" plan lock you out of your entire Steam library while a family member plays a game from your list is not family sharing. This is basically just a way to give your account to someone without having to give them your password. Also, they get to keep their achievements, whoop de doo.
I'm extremely disappointed. I was hoping for a real family sharing option, so I could play Portal in my mancave while my wife plays Gone Home up in the living room, but that's not what this is. It's almost completely useless to me. If Netflix can allow my family to stream multiple movies at once, why cant Steam allow them to play multiple games at once?
Maybe I should just make a new steam account for every game I buy? That way I can have one master account with my friends list, and everything I buy with the account will be a gift for the actual game account. That would let me actually lend games out and maybe even resell them. It would be a bit of a pain to manage, but seems better than this solution where letting someone borrow a game locks you out of every other game you own.
Isn't this just anarchy? Why shouldn't I be allowed to murder who I want? Stop taking away my freedom, commies!
It's still noise to the wifi card unless it is specifically built to filter out that extra carrier somehow. Theoretically it is possible, but no consumer card is going to support it today. It's kind of like talking to someone and then having a guy with an air horn 10 feet away start blowing it constantly. With proper processing you could pick the conversation back out of the noise, but it's not something your average person is going to be able to do.
That's why you treat it like the phone company. If you're worried about car companies abusing their monopoly position (which is difficult as there are multiple car companies, but fine) then just make the law such that they're required to sell the same products at wholesale prices to anybody who is licensed as a dealer.
Sorry, I mean 100mW. The 4000mW figure is for point to point links, and wouldn't apply here.
How in the world are they going to push out significant amounts of power on bands with extremely strict transmission limits? It's going to take you all year to charge a AA battery from a 4000mW omnidirectional transmitter that's 10 meters away. Not to mention utterly destroying wifi and bluetooth signals for several hundred feet.
Yep, that was some fancy talking that did absolutely nothing to address the problem, exactly the sort of thinking you get from Libertarian institutes.
The solution presented is "Don't have commons, designate an owner for everything, and make them responsible for it." Basically, mass private ownership of everything, even the environment. You would have an air baron whom is in charge of the atmosphere and whom you have to pay to use it. Because he owns it, he would want it to be clean as possible and wouldn't allow people to pollute it without paying him. But that doesn't work because it assumes the owner is deeply concerned with long term sustainability instead of short term profits--a proven falsehood when examining corporate behavior today, plus it arbitrarily gives enormous amounts of power to individuals. If you're going to do that, you might will probably want elect them, and if you're electing them, you're basically talking about a government and suddenly it's socialism writ large. If you don't elect them, then you're back to water barons, which is a monumental failure from a socioeconomic perspective.
There are lots of problems the free market cannot solve, just like there are lots of problems collective rule cannot solve. That's why it is important to choose the right solution for every problem. People who think there is only one true path will end up with lots of bad and inefficient solutions that often just make the problems worse.
Maybe they thought it would stand a better chance of passing in the Texas legislature if it seemed a little bit corrupt. They seem to prefer the laws that way down there.
Why do we need laws to protect the middlemen? If it would be more efficient for dealers to sell directly to the public, why do we need some third party in the way?
Don't try to tell me that it will cost jobs either. You still need just as many salesmen, mechanics, etc... The only people out of a job are the dealership owners, and I think they'll be able to do something with their millions of dollars. If you're worried about competition, then just make the law that car manufacturers are required to sell to independent dealers at wholesale prices, not that car dealers are absolutely barred from direct sales. If independent dealers are being undercut by direct sales, well, that's not really a problem. If the car company starts jacking up prices in areas without independent dealers, then that's a self correcting problem because dealers can spring up and eat their lunch, plus existing antitrust laws can be applied if the companies play too many games with prices.
These laws are pure protectionism for big campaign doners, and effectively raise the price of every car sold in the state just to line the pockets of dealership owners. They're a disgrace and should be repealed immediately.
What the hell are they if they aren't conservative? They sure as hell ain't liberals. You would get shot for suggesting so down in the Texas legislature.
This smells like one of those "They can't be conservative, I consider myself conservative and I don't believe in anything they stand for" situations, where maybe you should consider that your own beliefs may have drifted from what the current ideal is.
This is a real "no true Scotsman" argument, and comes up a lot with Libertarians who are only starting to become disillusioned. They join for total freedom and sane money policy, then discover that the candidates are mostly tax dodging fatcats who couldn't care less about the people, or think that completely unrestrained corporations will cause the long discredited trickle down economics to finally happen.
The free market has no solution to the tragedy of the commons.
Yep, socialist just like Obamacare, that thing that makes you buy a corporate product just so taxpayers don't end up footing the bill when you go to the hospital unexpectedly. Practically communist it is.
The idea that there is anything at all socialist about it is laughable. It's the most corporate healthcare proposal ever devised, which isn't a surprise since it was devised by Republicans. All of the parts that were even vaguely socialist (single payer system for example) were quickly excised because they were a threat to the profit margins of drug makers, insurance companies, and other healthcare services. Most of the real cost saving opportunities were lost because the healthcare industry has a lot of lobbyists and a strong desire not to stop the gravy train.
I'm guessing the premise of the TV show is:
1. Power goes out
2. People light candles
3. Civilization burns down?
Why not get one of those cases that integrates an air filter on the front? Cleaning the filter seems easier than cleaning all of the heatsinks and fans.
You have spinning HDDs in there don't you? A lot of this effort into getting the quietest fan is lost when the HDD is noisy.
To be fair though, KSP rockets are firecrackers compared to real life launch vehicles. One point of comparision is the "big" SRBs. The KSP ones produce about 2% of the total thrust of the old Shuttle SRBs. If you look at the total thrust of KSP's big Mainsail engines vs. the Apollo program's F-1 engines the differences are even bigger. KSP engines are more efficient in terms of lbs. of thrust per lb of propellant though.
Play around with Kerbal Space Program and you realize just how big the gulf is between suborbital and orbital flights. Getting enough boom to get yourself up to 100km is trivial. You really appreciate the difference in design when you're doing it yourself and seeing just how much more boom it takes to achieve orbit.
Didn't Netflix spend years working closely with the Post Office to refine their DVD mailing business down to an art? It's not like the Post Office volunteered to put all of that extra effort into it.
I'm more like 2% of the disks won't play for me, although sometimes they are kind of dirty and I give them a quick wash with water and a soft cloth. I've had a couple that were outright cracked, but Netflix is really good about shipping replacements when you ask. It also depends on your player. Some players are better at handling marginal disks than others, thinks like DVD burners tend to be much more capable of dealing with iffy disks than cheapo standalone players.
A web board that you get full control of the interface on would also be sufficient. It kills me that there has yet to be a web forum that is as feature complete as your average usenet reader from 1996. Some things frequently missed include threaded view, collapsing previously read comments, selective quoting, inline quoting, squelching, reply-by-email, rule based highlighting, spam filtering, sort by date/author/subject/etc... It's like being permanently trapped in that crappy newsreader that your ISP tossed on the floppy as an afterthought except the interface rearragnes itself and features appear/disappear when you change groups. Where is the web forum that simply lets me hit spacebar to read the next unread post?
Few people will argue that uncontrolled spam/trolls wasn't a major factor in the Usenet dying the first time. It's just too big and too easy to abuse, there need to be some sort of checks and balances to keep the bad actors at bay. Once a community grows beyond a fairly small size moderation is no longer a luxury, it's necessary to prevent the noise level from rising too high and drowing out all of the productive discussions.
"Fully distributed" is pretty much gone. No ISP runs Usenet servers anymore, there are just a small handful of them left, mostly catering to warez and porn distributors.
I miss the Usenet too, but its job has been replaced by web forums almost entirely. I hate that you're now at the mercy of whatever the forum software has feature wise, with the Usenet you picked the reader that worked best for you and got the same interface on every discussion. Most forum software outside of Slashcode can't even thread a discussion anymore, it's pathetic. I wish it would come back and someone would figure out a way to properly moderate it so the whole system doesn't get choked up with spam and trolls again.