"If there's some kind of bold feature list that says "free downloadable content" on the game's cover, then GameSpot and other sellers need to take a marker or sticker and block it out, because otherwise it's false advertising."
But Gamestop isn't making the claim - the game company is.
Better yet would be that since games are able to be sold and re-sold, any claim that appears on the cover regarding free add-ons, should apply to the first purchaser or the hundredth. If a game company wants to charge for add-ons, then the problem goes away.
But of course the real reason they're including one-time codes is because they want to kill the second-hand market. Shame on them.
I jumped on board the good ship MSE too and the first release was great - low resources, by all accounts v. good performance and silent, background updates to the definitions.
Then Microsoft updated the client and now I get messages from Windows Update (which I have set to notify without downloading) sometimes twice a day, bugging me to install the updated definitions for MSE. Can't turn it off, and although some people seem to be having a problem, Microsoft doesn't seem to care since we're in the minority. I had to hide Windows Update notices just to get rid of the nagging. Not ideal, really and I'm thinking of jumping ship back to Avast! which I liked and which didn't mess things up for me like this.
>They already have your data and you already agreed to allow them to redistribute it, just because you delete your account doesn't mean they have to delete your data.
Well, the cancellation page says:
"WARNING: Cancelling your MySpace account will permanently remove all of your profile information from MySpace, including your photos, comments, blog entries, videos, and your personal network of friends. This information cannot be restored. You may re-register your current email address after cancelling, but you will need to rebuild your personal network from scratch. "
Which seems to suggest that they will delete your data - assuming you're prepared to believe anything spewing from the many fetid mouths of the Murdochian Empire.
Please tell us which site this was. I have parents who are interested in the whole genealogy thing and would like to be able to warn them to steer clear of any scam sites.
>First comes government cheese. Then comes government health care. Now comes government internet connections. Next comes government monitoring and censorship of said inter[net.]
I *know*... it's ridiculous!
All those things should be the preserve of private corporations!
Don't forget to mention that only people who have a weak case use inflamatory language to bolster their argument that viewed in the cold light of day would barely arouse any sympathy.
And that's why the copyright cartels will never submit to your proposed reasonableness.
I was with you up until your solution for the 'distributors'.
These people are generally one and the same as the 'downloaders' with the vast majority of non-commercial copyright infringement.
If on the other hand you changed "big penalties" to, I dunno, 5x cost, maybe you'd have a solution worth talking about.
Of course however reasonable the penalties were - assuming the impossible were to happen and your solution was operational - the copyright cartels would lobby to make them higher and higher, and want more draconian laws enacted. It's the nature of copyright and the people who are in the business of making money through using it's monopoly to restrict distribution that they are draconian: the illusion of 'property' is a strong one and goes against the nature of the medium which is inherently copyable and distributable. They want strict property laws because they believe they own the copyrighted material in much the same way as they own their trousers or their TV, and that means that every infringement (lawful or otherwise) is viewed as intolerable - it violates their control.
They stand against your solution as vehemently as they would if you proposed the abolishment of copyright: it would diminish them as masters of their own 'property' and they could only see it as a defeat.
This is the same Murdoch who instigated a price war in the tabloid newspapers in the UK sometime in the 80's. He did it to kill the competition and used his money from other parts of his business (movies, etc) to do it. He drove the price of the Sun tabloid down so that it was making a continual loss in a way that the other tabloids couldn't hope to match (because they weren't so diversified as Fox/News Corp.).
He has no problem with loss leaders and there is no position that this man might take, or view that he might espouse, that you should consider to be either honest or trustworthy, IMO.
The score was mostly TOTO; Eno (and a few others) did the Prophecy Theme, but that's all.
The worst of the problems affecting the Lynch version - that he took his name off - was the studio interference: his first major film with a proper budget and he was young and didn't stand up to them. They screwed with his artistic vision and the result was a waste of his talent.
I want them to give away a free digital copy of a book with the physical book. This seems to make sense to me - the e-book is essentially about convenience and portability (ability to carry a lot of your collection around in one small-ish device).
I don't know that it work as a business model, though: you buy the physical hard copy. You get a DRMed-up-the-wazoo ebook copy along with it. You put the physical book on the shelf and read the ebook on your device of choice. Or you sell the physical copy, while you read the ebook that you can't transfer because it's locked-down (ostensibly).
People who don't want the ebook buy new and discard the ebook or buy from second-hand book-sellers: people who only wanted the ebook - this will be a smaller section of people buying the book new, because many people will want the physical copy as well as the electronic copy - used for convenience. People who want an ebook must buy the physical hard copy, new - since second hand books won't come with them.
Unfortunately the test isn't fit for purpose. Saying that 'but I MEANT this...' is hardly executing your duties as a competent teacher very well.
Your solution is to ignore the material errors and false assumptions in the 'test' and apply it anyway, because you have nothing better to offer and may be incapable of finding a way of teaching what you intend, that is fit for purpose.
You might as well just say "you need to read all instructions before you start because you might miss something" rather than employ a lesson that fails to teach this clearly and opens up more questions than it addresses, and than complain that the students - the ones with inquiring, exploratory, voracious minds - find a fault in the lesson you're using to teach a particular 'truth'.
Perhaps you believe that 'teacher knows best' and has nothing to learn from their students, in which case you have (so far) failed to learn a very important lesson in life.
>Guy Fawkes [...] was a religious nut who couldn't accept a protestant king and wanted one that met his religious views.
That's an interesting take on the times. As I understand it, the Protestants who were in power persecuted people of other faiths. Since the King was Protestant, so every one of his subjects was meant to be and they were discriminated against until they converted.
That seems like Fawkes was fighting against oppression from religious nuts, to me, and for the freedom to practice the religion of one's own choice.
It doesn't make him so much of an anarchist as a freedom fighter, true, but it hardly makes him a "religious nut" who insisted on imposing his religious viwes on othes.
I think it's that the poorer you are the greater percentage of your income goes on essentials: housing, food for yourself, your family, clothing, transport, etc.
As you become more wealthy, that percentage lowers, or you have to become greatly excessive in your consumption, gold-plated quails eggs on toast made from wheat rolled between the thighs of supermodels for breakfast every morning, etc. At any rate, it's unessential and so taxing someone to whom a penny has greater value (to them) the same as someone who would wipe their arse with $1000 bills, is seen as an unfair form of taxation.
When I go to an actual newspaper's website, I click FAR fewer links than 50% of those available to me. Does this mean the newspaper is taking a significant share away from itself?
>Mac is still, and long will be the favorite computer of most graphicians/artists.
What are you saying? That people who engage in fantasy, and who have a preference for style over substance prefer Apple products?
That seems a little infalmatory!:O (I am a [graphic] artist).
Photoshop on Windows does everything that it does on a Mac, except that it generally requires less money to do so (on similar or better hardware). There must be a reason other than 'Photoshop'.
Maybe it's the social-psychological aspect that buying something made by Apple has: perceived enhanced status.
Slashdot Mirror
"If there's some kind of bold feature list that says "free downloadable content" on the game's cover, then GameSpot and other sellers need to take a marker or sticker and block it out, because otherwise it's false advertising."
But Gamestop isn't making the claim - the game company is.
Better yet would be that since games are able to be sold and re-sold, any claim that appears on the cover regarding free add-ons, should apply to the first purchaser or the hundredth. If a game company wants to charge for add-ons, then the problem goes away.
But of course the real reason they're including one-time codes is because they want to kill the second-hand market. Shame on them.
>Luckily for them, the source material will always be available for their enjoyment.
Bah, you'll never appreciate Tolkien's work until you've read it in the original Klingon.
I jumped on board the good ship MSE too and the first release was great - low resources, by all accounts v. good performance and silent, background updates to the definitions.
Then Microsoft updated the client and now I get messages from Windows Update (which I have set to notify without downloading) sometimes twice a day, bugging me to install the updated definitions for MSE. Can't turn it off, and although some people seem to be having a problem, Microsoft doesn't seem to care since we're in the minority. I had to hide Windows Update notices just to get rid of the nagging. Not ideal, really and I'm thinking of jumping ship back to Avast! which I liked and which didn't mess things up for me like this.
>They already have your data and you already agreed to allow them to redistribute it, just because you delete your account doesn't mean they have to delete your data.
Well, the cancellation page says:
"WARNING: Cancelling your MySpace account will permanently remove all of your profile information from MySpace, including your photos, comments, blog entries, videos, and your personal network of friends. This information cannot be restored. You may re-register your current email address after cancelling, but you will need to rebuild your personal network from scratch. "
Which seems to suggest that they will delete your data - assuming you're prepared to believe anything spewing from the many fetid mouths of the Murdochian Empire.
Please tell us which site this was. I have parents who are interested in the whole genealogy thing and would like to be able to warn them to steer clear of any scam sites.
>First comes government cheese. Then comes government health care. Now comes government internet connections. Next comes government monitoring and censorship of said inter[net.]
I *know* ... it's ridiculous!
All those things should be the preserve of private corporations!
Don't forget to mention that only people who have a weak case use inflamatory language to bolster their argument that viewed in the cold light of day would barely arouse any sympathy.
And that's why the copyright cartels will never submit to your proposed reasonableness.
I was with you up until your solution for the 'distributors'.
These people are generally one and the same as the 'downloaders' with the vast majority of non-commercial copyright infringement.
If on the other hand you changed "big penalties" to, I dunno, 5x cost, maybe you'd have a solution worth talking about.
Of course however reasonable the penalties were - assuming the impossible were to happen and your solution was operational - the copyright cartels would lobby to make them higher and higher, and want more draconian laws enacted. It's the nature of copyright and the people who are in the business of making money through using it's monopoly to restrict distribution that they are draconian: the illusion of 'property' is a strong one and goes against the nature of the medium which is inherently copyable and distributable. They want strict property laws because they believe they own the copyrighted material in much the same way as they own their trousers or their TV, and that means that every infringement (lawful or otherwise) is viewed as intolerable - it violates their control.
They stand against your solution as vehemently as they would if you proposed the abolishment of copyright: it would diminish them as masters of their own 'property' and they could only see it as a defeat.
Make an eggsample of them?
Yeah ... what's next, the space patio?
(At least the space patio heaters won't contribute to global warming).
>You clearly want a computer. Buy a computer. A tablet is not a computer.
An iPad is not a tablet. It's a consumption-oriented appliance.
And some people might want that. Wait and see, I guess.
>He has a problem with loss leaders. Too bad.
This is the same Murdoch who instigated a price war in the tabloid newspapers in the UK sometime in the 80's. He did it to kill the competition and used his money from other parts of his business (movies, etc) to do it. He drove the price of the Sun tabloid down so that it was making a continual loss in a way that the other tabloids couldn't hope to match (because they weren't so diversified as Fox/News Corp.).
He has no problem with loss leaders and there is no position that this man might take, or view that he might espouse, that you should consider to be either honest or trustworthy, IMO.
>Lets be real here, business are not out to be your friend
Yeah, but it's not good business to become your customer's enemy.
The score was mostly TOTO; Eno (and a few others) did the Prophecy Theme, but that's all.
The worst of the problems affecting the Lynch version - that he took his name off - was the studio interference: his first major film with a proper budget and he was young and didn't stand up to them. They screwed with his artistic vision and the result was a waste of his talent.
I want them to give away a free digital copy of a book with the physical book. This seems to make sense to me - the e-book is essentially about convenience and portability (ability to carry a lot of your collection around in one small-ish device).
I don't know that it work as a business model, though: you buy the physical hard copy. You get a DRMed-up-the-wazoo ebook copy along with it. You put the physical book on the shelf and read the ebook on your device of choice. Or you sell the physical copy, while you read the ebook that you can't transfer because it's locked-down (ostensibly).
People who don't want the ebook buy new and discard the ebook or buy from second-hand book-sellers: people who only wanted the ebook - this will be a smaller section of people buying the book new, because many people will want the physical copy as well as the electronic copy - used for convenience. People who want an ebook must buy the physical hard copy, new - since second hand books won't come with them.
Crappy idea? Unworkable?
Unfortunately the test isn't fit for purpose. Saying that 'but I MEANT this ...' is hardly executing your duties as a competent teacher very well.
Your solution is to ignore the material errors and false assumptions in the 'test' and apply it anyway, because you have nothing better to offer and may be incapable of finding a way of teaching what you intend, that is fit for purpose.
You might as well just say "you need to read all instructions before you start because you might miss something" rather than employ a lesson that fails to teach this clearly and opens up more questions than it addresses, and than complain that the students - the ones with inquiring, exploratory, voracious minds - find a fault in the lesson you're using to teach a particular 'truth'.
Perhaps you believe that 'teacher knows best' and has nothing to learn from their students, in which case you have (so far) failed to learn a very important lesson in life.
Humility is always a good start.
"cartoon child exploitation"
How exactly do you exploit a cartoon child?
If I draw a cartoon child being shot, is this now 'cartoon child murder'?
These lawmakers have allowed their pedo-hysteria to warp their sanity.
>if there were a mountain of gold bars on the moon it would not be economical to go get some.
Why not? All you have to do is get there, ie. the cost of the rocket and fuel, plus training and supplies.
Then once you're up there, all you have to do is throw all the gold back down.
>Guy Fawkes [...] was a religious nut who couldn't accept a protestant king and wanted one that met his religious views.
That's an interesting take on the times. As I understand it, the Protestants who were in power persecuted people of other faiths. Since the King was Protestant, so every one of his subjects was meant to be and they were discriminated against until they converted.
That seems like Fawkes was fighting against oppression from religious nuts, to me, and for the freedom to practice the religion of one's own choice.
It doesn't make him so much of an anarchist as a freedom fighter, true, but it hardly makes him a "religious nut" who insisted on imposing his religious viwes on othes.
I think it's that the poorer you are the greater percentage of your income goes on essentials: housing, food for yourself, your family, clothing, transport, etc.
As you become more wealthy, that percentage lowers, or you have to become greatly excessive in your consumption, gold-plated quails eggs on toast made from wheat rolled between the thighs of supermodels for breakfast every morning, etc. At any rate, it's unessential and so taxing someone to whom a penny has greater value (to them) the same as someone who would wipe their arse with $1000 bills, is seen as an unfair form of taxation.
When I go to an actual newspaper's website, I click FAR fewer links than 50% of those available to me. Does this mean the newspaper is taking a significant share away from itself?
No ... clearly the FA is talking 'bollocks'.
>OTOH Less cables is good as well.
should be "OTOH, fewer cables is also good."
It's "less" where you measure by volume, and "fewer" where you measure by quantity; if you can count 'em, it's "fewer".
[-1 grammar pedant.]
hear hear
BBC iPlayer no longer uses the Kontiki distribution software and hasn't for a long time.
More info: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/22/bbc_cdn_isps_level3/
>Mac is still, and long will be the favorite computer of most graphicians/artists.
What are you saying? That people who engage in fantasy, and who have a preference for style over substance prefer Apple products?
That seems a little infalmatory! :O (I am a [graphic] artist).
Photoshop on Windows does everything that it does on a Mac, except that it generally requires less money to do so (on similar or better hardware). There must be a reason other than 'Photoshop'.
Maybe it's the social-psychological aspect that buying something made by Apple has: perceived enhanced status.