In their original announcement they said they'd be back up with a solution for existing customers to still be able to download their previously purchased games. That should have been enough to satisfy everybody who's complaining about this as some kind of offense to their customers.
What part of "in the age of internet and digital downloads, the middleman, publisher, is the problem" did you not understand? He is not talking about 10-15 years ago, he is talking about today!
Do you work for Valve or something? Your comments all seem to be astroturfing.
This is called "prejudice". In most circles it's considered a negative thing.
Actually, considering that he stated his perfectly valid reasons for that, it is not called "prejudice", but a "decision based on problems with Steam he cannot accept."
Why? You clearly have access to the Internet. Product activation is completely invisible and automatic.
So what happens when the activation server goes down, or it's taken down permanently and you want to play an old game?
Sure, one day in the hypothetical future Valve's servers could disappear, leaving you unable to play your games any more. This is no different from non-DRM-encumbered games you own on physical media, which could stop working at any time due to loss of or damage to the CDs.
On the contrary. With physical media I can take backups, and I will at least be personally responsible for whatever happens.
You claim that the other guy is prejudiced. You are the prejudiced one here.
Good thing he provides video, such as the soldiers killing journalists/children, plus laughing about it ("Look a dead kid. Shouldn't have come into the middle of a warzone brat.").
What video was that? If you are referring to the Collateral Murder video, their first reaction was actually "oh no!", followed later by a comment saying that it's the other guy's fault for bringing kids into a war zone (clearly an attempt to recover from the initial shock and move on).
The character limit doesn't make it useless. It makes it different. And the good thing about this is that you have to make your summaries really brief, making it easier for other people to quickly browse through new stuff.
I don't really care about the top 100. I only care about what's interesting to me. Since I follow people I find to post interesting and useful stuff, Twitter is interesting and useful to me. I don't understand why you would point to the top 100 if you don't think they are interesting. It's your own fault if you follow anything and everything instead of just the stuff that interests you:)
Actually, what happened was that Opera asked the EU to look into Microsoft's anti-competitive practices. After an evaluation, the EC initiated anti-monopoly proceedings against Microsoft. The EC, not Opera. Opera does not have the power to initiate antitrust proceedings against anyone.
The browser selection screen was Microsoft's own idea.
So it seems that the claim about Opera filing lawsuits is bogus. Just more FUD. And Mozilla, Google, and numerous other companies joined the complaint, but these clueless morons only whine about Opera. Pure hypocrisy.
Some people will abuse anything. You might as well be annoyed with the internet as a whole!
I don't actually notice anyone annoying me at Twitter. I only follow people I'm interested in reading stuff from. And I don't give a crap about everything else.
So what you are saying is that since most of the traffic online is porn, everyone is a porn dog, and everyone lookas at porn all the time? The internet can't possibly used by some for useful stuff, because the porn shows that it's all porn?
Twitter is what you use it for. If you subscribe to people who have interesting things to say, you will receive interesting stuff. You seem to think that Twitter just randomly throws stuff at you. It doesn't. You control your own information flow, so if you are unable to get anything useful out of it, you are the one with a problem.
I'm sure he also produces useful research that is actually correct. But his "skeptical" stuff doesn't seem to hold up very well beyond the peer review.
Going against the grain is not really a problem. Not doing proper science is. As long as Lindzen at least produces research that it's possible to verify (or falsify), he's good.
What about people who aren't skeptics, but are damned tired of the whole thing being hijacked as a way to sell people on junk ideas.
What about them? Just because someone uses the facts for something you don't like, that doesn't justify rejecting those facts. That's a huge fallacy. Are you saying that this is what you are doing?
Lindzen is actively publishing. Unfortunately for him, his research falls apart on closer scrutiny. He might be skeptical, but his research has failed to support his skeptical position.
On the other hand, skeptics like Richard Lindzen are actively publishing... Their research might not hold up to closer scrutiny, but somehow it gets through peer review. Odd, then, if peer review is so biased and dismissive.
Here's a hypothetical, a climate scientist who's an openly devout Christian finds data that sheds doubt on human caused global warming will be rejected because someone's afraid of looking foolish.
Well you already have a right-wing scientist with close ties to the oil industry, Richard Lindzen, who still gets his "skeptical" papers reviewed (except they fail on closer scrutiny)...
This is precisely what the global warming skeptics say is happening with the global warming alarmist community. ie. scientists review each others' papers, in a 'co-operative' manner as it were.
Oh, right. That must be why skeptics like Richard Lindzen are getting their "skeptical" research published (and accepted through peer review). Riiiight.
I was referring to the claim that "When no one cared about JS performance, the Open Source crowd was king." As in, the past. But in the past, too, Opera was the performance leader. It's true that FOSS isn't lagging behind anymore, though. Actual competition rocks.
First, I think it is a misconception that belief comes without evidence or reason. To the contrary, people believe in what makes sense to them, although one's reasoning or evidence may be faulty.
Faulty evidence and reason is as bad as no evidence or reason. Maybe worse, because you think you can actually justify false beliefs with evidence and reason.
If I am convinced by the evidence for God--and to be sure it is reason not credulity that frames my beliefs--then absolute morality is just a logical conclusion based upon my God hypothesis.
The problem, of course, is that there is no evidence for God.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes they did. They locked you out of downloads you had paid for.
They lied. Simple as that.
What part of "in the age of internet and digital downloads, the middleman, publisher, is the problem" did you not understand? He is not talking about 10-15 years ago, he is talking about today! Do you work for Valve or something? Your comments all seem to be astroturfing.
Actually, considering that he stated his perfectly valid reasons for that, it is not called "prejudice", but a "decision based on problems with Steam he cannot accept."
So what happens when the activation server goes down, or it's taken down permanently and you want to play an old game?
On the contrary. With physical media I can take backups, and I will at least be personally responsible for whatever happens.
You claim that the other guy is prejudiced. You are the prejudiced one here.
What video was that? If you are referring to the Collateral Murder video, their first reaction was actually "oh no!", followed later by a comment saying that it's the other guy's fault for bringing kids into a war zone (clearly an attempt to recover from the initial shock and move on).
I don't really care about the top 100. I only care about what's interesting to me. Since I follow people I find to post interesting and useful stuff, Twitter is interesting and useful to me. I don't understand why you would point to the top 100 if you don't think they are interesting. It's your own fault if you follow anything and everything instead of just the stuff that interests you :)
The browser selection screen was Microsoft's own idea.
So it seems that the claim about Opera filing lawsuits is bogus. Just more FUD. And Mozilla, Google, and numerous other companies joined the complaint, but these clueless morons only whine about Opera. Pure hypocrisy.
Do you mean on Twitter or in general?
I don't actually notice anyone annoying me at Twitter. I only follow people I'm interested in reading stuff from. And I don't give a crap about everything else.
So what you are saying is that since most of the traffic online is porn, everyone is a porn dog, and everyone lookas at porn all the time? The internet can't possibly used by some for useful stuff, because the porn shows that it's all porn?
Follow people who have interesting things to say. Share interesting stuff you find.
Twitter is what you use it for. If you subscribe to people who have interesting things to say, you will receive interesting stuff. You seem to think that Twitter just randomly throws stuff at you. It doesn't. You control your own information flow, so if you are unable to get anything useful out of it, you are the one with a problem.
It isn't. And Twitter isn't RSS either. It's something different, and has its uses.
What lawsuits did Opera file in the past, exactly?
I'm sure he also produces useful research that is actually correct. But his "skeptical" stuff doesn't seem to hold up very well beyond the peer review.
That's not necessarily true. Do other scientists get everything they write through peer review? I doubt it.
What do you mean? Denier?
Going against the grain is not really a problem. Not doing proper science is. As long as Lindzen at least produces research that it's possible to verify (or falsify), he's good.
What about them? Just because someone uses the facts for something you don't like, that doesn't justify rejecting those facts. That's a huge fallacy. Are you saying that this is what you are doing?
Lindzen is actively publishing. Unfortunately for him, his research falls apart on closer scrutiny. He might be skeptical, but his research has failed to support his skeptical position.
On the other hand, skeptics like Richard Lindzen are actively publishing... Their research might not hold up to closer scrutiny, but somehow it gets through peer review. Odd, then, if peer review is so biased and dismissive.
Well you already have a right-wing scientist with close ties to the oil industry, Richard Lindzen, who still gets his "skeptical" papers reviewed (except they fail on closer scrutiny)...
Oh, right. That must be why skeptics like Richard Lindzen are getting their "skeptical" research published (and accepted through peer review). Riiiight.
I was referring to the claim that "When no one cared about JS performance, the Open Source crowd was king." As in, the past. But in the past, too, Opera was the performance leader. It's true that FOSS isn't lagging behind anymore, though. Actual competition rocks.
So because it contains dangerous-sounding materials (or things that may be dangerous under certain circumstances), it's automatically dangerous? Wow.
Faulty evidence and reason is as bad as no evidence or reason. Maybe worse, because you think you can actually justify false beliefs with evidence and reason.
The problem, of course, is that there is no evidence for God.