Considering private interests will get a functional orbiting satellite for nix that was paid for by taxpayers, I don't think that is the case at all.
Not that there is anything wrong with the plan if they are just going to junk the thing anyway. It's a great idea even. But beacon of hope for free-market enterprise it is not.
You are reading way more into my comment then I intended, my point is we lose either way. Having said that, I don't think your economic theory of congressional incentives adds up... By keeping the poor poor, there is less incentive for the Man to steal to from them? What?
The first argument is more misandrist then feminist. I do believe the second argument has some merit, but the balance of power thing is about who has the money, not who has the penis.
Sorry, I guess I miss read you. I took he may as well have been a socialist for all the liberties we gave up to imply that a true capitalist would never undermine our liberties. If that's not what you meant then the statement is at least a bit of a non-sequitur.
I also didn't mean to paint the progressive ideology as a good thing in comparison to the conservative - maybe a bit of latent bias there (mine or yours, who knows?). The damage both sides are doing is truly frightening.
Howard... a socialist? The man privatised everything in sight!
The conservative right want to take your freedoms just as much as the progressive left - often more so. The only difference is ideology. The progressives want to make decisions for your own good, the conservatives just want to sell you out to big business.
I take your point, but assuming that there must be a conclusive theory of consciousness is begging the question of whether consciousness is scientifically valid in the first place.
Consciousness is a useful philosophical concept, but there is little reason to resort to unsubstantiated metaphysical explanations for the existence of the mind, when there is plenty of evidence of a practical biochemical explanation.
What's sad is that Christians have something you will never have. Christians have something to look forward to. They do not fear death and instead, welcome it. They know what life is all about and never spend a moment wondering what is next or what the point is. Their only concern is how to be the best human being possible to ensure a pleasureable eternity after death. They look forward to meeting friends and family and feel their presense throughout life. Their only fear is that they may not be good enough to enter paradise so they spend their lives trying to do good things for their fellow man and being honorable, honest people throughout their life. Material possessions mean nothing more than what they can be used for to better the lives of others, although the Bible is full of stories about people who did great things with nothing.
Oh come on! That's what it says in the marketing material, but in truth most Christians do fear death. They live lives full of guilt, uncertainty and self-hatred and direct that outwardly in an effort to make everybody else feel as shitty as they do.
On the other hand no matter how much money you make how successful you are in life, you will die and that will be the end of it for you. You will go through life wondering what the point of it all is and why it's all worth it. When you lose loved ones, they are gone forever and you know that you will never be able to spend time with them again. No matter how hard you work, how many possessions you acquire, or accomplishments you achieve, you will end up being a bloated, rotting carcus, just like everyone else, and nothing more. The final chapter of your life involves is about compost.
Again, a load of evangelical crap. As an enlightened rational actor in society, you realise that your legacy is what you do with your time, so you try to make the world a better place for the next generation. Yeah, when you are die that's it, but at least you can die happy knowing you did your best, unafraid of the judgement of Gods.
They may be thinking about detecting pot smokers in a crowd by doing a spectro analysis of the smoke. In my day we did the same thing... with our eyes.
Even in Windows land, it is the GUI that is optional. The shell is always there - you can poke at it through a GUI like some terminally obese person with a dialling wand, or you can just use it directly.
Server 2008 doesn't even install a GUI by default.
Anonymous can mean nearly anything. In this case, we are talking about a group of people responsible for high-profile cracking in the name of Anonymous.
There might have been better alternatives, but it's a valid short-hand qualifier for the subject.
Every library I've been to just put the kids books in their own section, they don't install barriers. You often see curious children browsing the "adult" section. *I* certainly did when I was a child.
This reasoning is flawed, because there is another, much easier way to avoid Busybox litigation: put the source code on your web site. That's all it takes. They could keep their kernel sources, and just put up the Busybox source, and they would achieve the same thing
Not an option if you have infringed on Busybox and got caught. SFLC will not grant you a license to distribute busybox until you have released ALL your code.
That's a very narrow and broadly uninteresting definition of capitalization. We are talking about technology that underpins the distros that form the bulk of internet infrastructure. That kind of capitalization overshadows the success of _any_ given retail outlet.
"nobody thought about capitalizing on the power of repositories..." - I don't see how you can make that case. The very foundation of a distribution is it's package manager/repository system - it's power is central to system administration in a way that makes Apple's app store look like a crude bolt-on accessory. Debian have gone as far as to make the package manager more important then the very kernel the stack runs on. If that isn't real and considered capitalization I don't know what the hell you are on about.
I understand the pressure that publishers are under, and I can understand that they see profit made by GameStop and want a piece - the simple truth is that they just haven't earned a dime of it.
IT'S YOUR BUSINESS MODEL, STUPID! GameStop can only abuse the industry on such a massive scale because of the prices YOU set. And if you offered an online service for users to trade used licenses, not only could you make a bit off the second hand market but you would put GameStop out of business overnight.
Exploiting your customer base and breaking games is NOT acceptable collateral damage.
Firstly, most DLC is payed for outright, I should be able to sell my access to it. Secondly, I'd define "bonus" DLC as payed-for with the original purchase, but even if you disagree with this definition and consider it a true bonus, the First Sale doctrine still applies.
Just what is so magical about DLC that makes people think the normal rules do not apply?
You might want to think about re-aligning those priorities of yours. The precedent being established here is a big step backwards for consumer rights. It's cut from the same all-information-is-profit-and-all-your-information-belongs-to-us cloth as SOPA and ACTA.
Video games aren't generally purchased with resale value in mind.
Oh Buddy, you couldn't be more wrong. Why do you think publishers have this twist in their panties about second-hand sales in the first place? For millions of gamers pawning off old games to by new ones is standard practice, and it's why GameStop and friends make more money on sales then the publishers do.
Slashdot Mirror
I wouldn't call doing more then the scientifically calculated minimum required to prevent your health deteriorating inefficient exercise.
Yeah, let's all pat ourselves on the back for what a humane job we are doing exploiting these people.
Or buy up all the good studios and put them out of business.
Considering private interests will get a functional orbiting satellite for nix that was paid for by taxpayers, I don't think that is the case at all.
Not that there is anything wrong with the plan if they are just going to junk the thing anyway. It's a great idea even. But beacon of hope for free-market enterprise it is not.
You are reading way more into my comment then I intended, my point is we lose either way. Having said that, I don't think your economic theory of congressional incentives adds up... By keeping the poor poor, there is less incentive for the Man to steal to from them? What?
Hit a nerve there did he? lol
The first argument is more misandrist then feminist. I do believe the second argument has some merit, but the balance of power thing is about who has the money, not who has the penis.
Sorry, I guess I miss read you. I took he may as well have been a socialist for all the liberties we gave up to imply that a true capitalist would never undermine our liberties. If that's not what you meant then the statement is at least a bit of a non-sequitur.
I also didn't mean to paint the progressive ideology as a good thing in comparison to the conservative - maybe a bit of latent bias there (mine or yours, who knows?). The damage both sides are doing is truly frightening.
Howard... a socialist? The man privatised everything in sight!
The conservative right want to take your freedoms just as much as the progressive left - often more so. The only difference is ideology. The progressives want to make decisions for your own good, the conservatives just want to sell you out to big business.
Oh boy, that is exactly what I was thinking. You are free to say whatever you like, but if somebody "owns" it you better pay or shut the hell up.
I take your point, but assuming that there must be a conclusive theory of consciousness is begging the question of whether consciousness is scientifically valid in the first place.
Consciousness is a useful philosophical concept, but there is little reason to resort to unsubstantiated metaphysical explanations for the existence of the mind, when there is plenty of evidence of a practical biochemical explanation.
I suspect that organized religion is too hierarchical to be considered memetic.
What's sad is that Christians have something you will never have. Christians have something to look forward to. They do not fear death and instead, welcome it. They know what life is all about and never spend a moment wondering what is next or what the point is. Their only concern is how to be the best human being possible to ensure a pleasureable eternity after death. They look forward to meeting friends and family and feel their presense throughout life. Their only fear is that they may not be good enough to enter paradise so they spend their lives trying to do good things for their fellow man and being honorable, honest people throughout their life. Material possessions mean nothing more than what they can be used for to better the lives of others, although the Bible is full of stories about people who did great things with nothing.
Oh come on! That's what it says in the marketing material, but in truth most Christians do fear death. They live lives full of guilt, uncertainty and self-hatred and direct that outwardly in an effort to make everybody else feel as shitty as they do.
On the other hand no matter how much money you make how successful you are in life, you will die and that will be the end of it for you. You will go through life wondering what the point of it all is and why it's all worth it. When you lose loved ones, they are gone forever and you know that you will never be able to spend time with them again. No matter how hard you work, how many possessions you acquire, or accomplishments you achieve, you will end up being a bloated, rotting carcus, just like everyone else, and nothing more. The final chapter of your life involves is about compost.
Again, a load of evangelical crap. As an enlightened rational actor in society, you realise that your legacy is what you do with your time, so you try to make the world a better place for the next generation. Yeah, when you are die that's it, but at least you can die happy knowing you did your best, unafraid of the judgement of Gods.
They may be thinking about detecting pot smokers in a crowd by doing a spectro analysis of the smoke. In my day we did the same thing... with our eyes.
Even in Windows land, it is the GUI that is optional. The shell is always there - you can poke at it through a GUI like some terminally obese person with a dialling wand, or you can just use it directly.
Server 2008 doesn't even install a GUI by default.
Anonymous can mean nearly anything. In this case, we are talking about a group of people responsible for high-profile cracking in the name of Anonymous.
There might have been better alternatives, but it's a valid short-hand qualifier for the subject.
Every library I've been to just put the kids books in their own section, they don't install barriers. You often see curious children browsing the "adult" section. *I* certainly did when I was a child.
This reasoning is flawed, because there is another, much easier way to avoid Busybox litigation: put the source code on your web site. That's all it takes. They could keep their kernel sources, and just put up the Busybox source, and they would achieve the same thing
Not an option if you have infringed on Busybox and got caught. SFLC will not grant you a license to distribute busybox until you have released ALL your code.
That's a very narrow and broadly uninteresting definition of capitalization. We are talking about technology that underpins the distros that form the bulk of internet infrastructure. That kind of capitalization overshadows the success of _any_ given retail outlet.
"nobody thought about capitalizing on the power of repositories..." - I don't see how you can make that case. The very foundation of a distribution is it's package manager/repository system - it's power is central to system administration in a way that makes Apple's app store look like a crude bolt-on accessory. Debian have gone as far as to make the package manager more important then the very kernel the stack runs on. If that isn't real and considered capitalization I don't know what the hell you are on about.
I understand the pressure that publishers are under, and I can understand that they see profit made by GameStop and want a piece - the simple truth is that they just haven't earned a dime of it.
IT'S YOUR BUSINESS MODEL, STUPID! GameStop can only abuse the industry on such a massive scale because of the prices YOU set. And if you offered an online service for users to trade used licenses, not only could you make a bit off the second hand market but you would put GameStop out of business overnight.
Exploiting your customer base and breaking games is NOT acceptable collateral damage.
Firstly, most DLC is payed for outright, I should be able to sell my access to it. Secondly, I'd define "bonus" DLC as payed-for with the original purchase, but even if you disagree with this definition and consider it a true bonus, the First Sale doctrine still applies.
Just what is so magical about DLC that makes people think the normal rules do not apply?
It's just a video game.
You might want to think about re-aligning those priorities of yours. The precedent being established here is a big step backwards for consumer rights. It's cut from the same all-information-is-profit-and-all-your-information-belongs-to-us cloth as SOPA and ACTA.
Video games aren't generally purchased with resale value in mind.
Oh Buddy, you couldn't be more wrong. Why do you think publishers have this twist in their panties about second-hand sales in the first place? For millions of gamers pawning off old games to by new ones is standard practice, and it's why GameStop and friends make more money on sales then the publishers do.
If you could do all that you wouldn't need the RIAA's domains.