Even with 100% trusted players it is useless. I run a server for my family (so basically, if they don't act right, I can walk over and slap them and then take their computer away, 100% trusted), and we very quickly realized bukkit is a MUST.
You can already get a minecraft server for $5 per month. I pay $5 per month for a 5-slot server for my family; if we were paying per person, it would be $25 per month. If I were playing with 4 friends and didn't want to pay the $5 myself, we could all chip in $1. Why would people pay more for a server they get less control over? I also help admin another server, 150 slots, and the owner pays for it himself. There are hundreds of minecraft servers out there paid for by other people that will let you play, unlimited hours, for free.
So if you are accused of committing such crime, it could be seen as reasonable preventive action to prevent you from being alone with child. Any child.
No, that could not be seen as reasonable at all. It is done, sure. But the only way I see it is as a pedophile-witch hunt, "forget human rights, think of the children!" bullshit reaction.
Robbing a store is illegal, period. So if the man were accused of robbing a store, would it be a reasonable reaction to no longer allow him to be alone with a child? Would it be a reasonable reaction to no longer allow the man to go to stores alone?
Clearly this shows people want what they are making, but they are simply taking it because they can.
I disagree, I think it clearly shows that people want what they are making, but don't want to pay the price it is sold at, do not like the distribution method, and/or don't like the drm which prevents them from playing it in the way they wish to play.
In a world where drm-free games sell and Steam sells many games that are easily pirated, obviously people are not pirating "just because they can."
Oh also, reviews can not show you how YOU will feel about the game, it only shows you how the reviewer feels about the game. Every person feels differently about every game. With movies, previews are a little more valid (though can still be different than the rest of the movie, and/or show only the good parts of an otherwise shitty movie) because you are interacting with the preview in the same way you would interact with a movie. But with games, watching trailers, reading previews/reviews, etc. are completely different than playing, so they do not show you at all what the game will be like (especially when a lot of trailers contain only fmv from the game).
A few examples I have experienced: Every other old-school Sonic fan, even those that I know generally share my game tastes, reviews Sonic Generations as wonderful, but I hate it. The Spore demo was wonderful, but the game itself was boring. The Mass Effect 3 trailers I see look quite different than the game looks for me, and I've got all the settings on high.
No, you can't. You can play a few of the most popular recent games, maybe. Usually with a broken controller. A lot of the time they just have a video disc running on the consoles, showing trailers of recent games. You can't point to any game on the shelf and ask to play it anymore.
And anyway that only works for console games, where the consoles are pretty much all the same. Just because a game runs on a store demo pc (if they even let you play pc games in stores, which they don't), and just because your pc fits the requirements, does not mean a game will run on your pc or look as good as it does on a different pc.
Going to the movies is pointless when I can watch movies in hd at home on my huge tv. The only reason for going to the movies for me is to see 3D stuff, since I don't have a 3D tv, and when I do that it is always a movie I have seen in 2D first.
I'm a lot more likely to troll a friend than I am a stranger.
In Halo 2, I use to always shoot my brother in the foot until he was near death. One time I didn't realize he was already near death, I shot him in the foot and he died. Now every time we play a shooting game together he says "Don't shoot me in the foot!"...So I shoot him other places.
I'm approaching 30 too, and I don't remember games ever being $20 - $30. Granted, I didn't start seeing prices until the Genesis/SNES, so maybe the Atari 2600 and NES games my parents bought me were cheaper, but prices have been $40 - $60 for as long as I've seen them. So considering inflation, with games still being $40 - $60, game prices have actually gone down despite the fact that production costs have risen (which explains why they try to make money via DLC and such).
Well, big budget movies often suck, especially in comparison to some low budget indie films. And low budget indie films now have the technology available to do most of the same things the big budget movies are doing. The same is true of games. People aren't paying because it's good, they are paying because the big budget movies/games have a lot of money to pump into advertising, so people have "buy/see shitty big budget movie/game!" blasted at them all day and meanwhile don't know the great indie film/game even exists. Such games and movies - the ones that suck and survive purely on using money the companies already have to overshadowing the better competition - should not survive, because if the people that make good stuff get paid, more good stuff will be made. If they don't, we will end up in a world where only shitty entertainment exists. This already happened with American TV.
they're always taking money from people's bank accounts without consent and then shipping them a game regardless of whether or not the person actually wanted the game
While they don't do that, what a lot of them do is make it impossible for a person to figure out if they actually want the game without buying it non-refundably. You can't find out if the game is worth its price, sucks, etc. without playing it. And often the only way to play it without handing over your money is to pirate.
While I don't feel I am entitled to games for free, I feel I am entitled to make informed decisions about where my money goes, and to purchase a game if - and only if - I feel it is worth my money. A developer is not entitled to my money because they released pretty videos to the internet, or because their company (which may or may not mean the same people worked on this game) has released a good game in the past.
1) The difference between intelligence and knowledge; Intelligent people can learn and think, knowledgeable people have memorized things.
2) I was just replying to your example of "jumping down the throat of an 75-year-old emeritus professor because they made a syntax error using WikiPedia's reference system".
Your comment betrays the problem of higher education. The motive in sharing knowledge is to stop ignorance. If knowledge was not hoarded, it would not require all of that hard work you listed to become an expert. What is the motive in hoarding knowledge to yourself? Sure you can then refuse to give it out unless people pay, so then you may have money, but you are surrounded by ignorance, and when you die your money means nothing. Do you enjoy living like that? Do you want future generations to live like that?
So you can convince him to switch to a DVD boot of Linux before he logs into his bank account, but you can't convince him to use different passwords? And wait, they use a DVD boot of Linux on their android phones? You do know Android is Linux based, right? Or where you not answering my question at all?
Most other countries realize that putting resources toward this sort of thing, when they could instead be put toward stopping crimes that actually hurt people, is rather silly.
Also in most other countries the media outlets realize that piracy is free, world-wide publicity and that if customers want them to evolve they should evolve rather than make laws to keep their aging ways alive.
One flood or fire at your house and those books will be gone. Wikipedia is backed up in countless places and can always be transferred to a new form of storage technology.
If he can't read and understand the rules of wikipedia, if he can not learn new things, if he can not ask a colleague that CAN follow the wikipedia rules for help, then I am seriously going to doubt his ability to read about, understand, learn new things about, and interact with colleagues to keep up with the new developments in his field of expertise.
Wikipedia isn't randomly generated. A minefield map by people that have walked through the minefield isn't as good as a map by the people that placed the mines, but it is better than nothing.
Uh, encyclopedias aren't always written by "experts" either (depending on your definition of expert). Some will take any freelancer that seems to know what they're talking about - and with all the easily checkable errors in encyclopedias, we know the editors aren't experts at the subjects nor at fact checking.
And I'd take a crowd with real life experience over a guy that has a paper saying he sat through some classes any day. You often have no way of knowing where this "expert" learned what he knows, and if his teacher was correct. Very often the knowledge that is taught to "experts" is found to be wrong.
The reason I have seen higher education refusing to let anyone use Wikipedia as a reference is because education is suppose to teach you how to think, not help you recite facts. Reading Wikipedia requires little thought, but going to the citations, deducing which are reputable and which aren't, etc. makes you think.
If you're so much smarter than everyone on Wikipedia, or if you know experts that are smarter, go fix it/get them to go fix it. Stop trying to hoard the wisdom, instead share it with the crowds.
Watching CP does not mean you will molest your own child any more than watching adult porn means you will rape your adult offspring. Social services should put their resources toward helping children that are actually being harmed rather than on the pedophile witch hunt.
Slashdot Mirror
Even with 100% trusted players it is useless. I run a server for my family (so basically, if they don't act right, I can walk over and slap them and then take their computer away, 100% trusted), and we very quickly realized bukkit is a MUST.
You can already get a minecraft server for $5 per month. I pay $5 per month for a 5-slot server for my family; if we were paying per person, it would be $25 per month. If I were playing with 4 friends and didn't want to pay the $5 myself, we could all chip in $1. Why would people pay more for a server they get less control over? I also help admin another server, 150 slots, and the owner pays for it himself. There are hundreds of minecraft servers out there paid for by other people that will let you play, unlimited hours, for free.
Posted like a truly arrogant person who can't read and follow instructions about something with low usability.
There's a few diamonds in the rough, but I guess we have different definitions of shitty entertainment.
So if you are accused of committing such crime, it could be seen as reasonable preventive action to prevent you from being alone with child. Any child.
No, that could not be seen as reasonable at all. It is done, sure. But the only way I see it is as a pedophile-witch hunt, "forget human rights, think of the children!" bullshit reaction.
Robbing a store is illegal, period. So if the man were accused of robbing a store, would it be a reasonable reaction to no longer allow him to be alone with a child? Would it be a reasonable reaction to no longer allow the man to go to stores alone?
Clearly this shows people want what they are making, but they are simply taking it because they can.
I disagree, I think it clearly shows that people want what they are making, but don't want to pay the price it is sold at, do not like the distribution method, and/or don't like the drm which prevents them from playing it in the way they wish to play.
In a world where drm-free games sell and Steam sells many games that are easily pirated, obviously people are not pirating "just because they can."
Oh also, reviews can not show you how YOU will feel about the game, it only shows you how the reviewer feels about the game. Every person feels differently about every game.
With movies, previews are a little more valid (though can still be different than the rest of the movie, and/or show only the good parts of an otherwise shitty movie) because you are interacting with the preview in the same way you would interact with a movie. But with games, watching trailers, reading previews/reviews, etc. are completely different than playing, so they do not show you at all what the game will be like (especially when a lot of trailers contain only fmv from the game).
A few examples I have experienced: Every other old-school Sonic fan, even those that I know generally share my game tastes, reviews Sonic Generations as wonderful, but I hate it. The Spore demo was wonderful, but the game itself was boring. The Mass Effect 3 trailers I see look quite different than the game looks for me, and I've got all the settings on high.
No, you can't. You can play a few of the most popular recent games, maybe. Usually with a broken controller. A lot of the time they just have a video disc running on the consoles, showing trailers of recent games. You can't point to any game on the shelf and ask to play it anymore.
And anyway that only works for console games, where the consoles are pretty much all the same. Just because a game runs on a store demo pc (if they even let you play pc games in stores, which they don't), and just because your pc fits the requirements, does not mean a game will run on your pc or look as good as it does on a different pc.
Going to the movies is pointless when I can watch movies in hd at home on my huge tv. The only reason for going to the movies for me is to see 3D stuff, since I don't have a 3D tv, and when I do that it is always a movie I have seen in 2D first.
I'm a lot more likely to troll a friend than I am a stranger.
...So I shoot him other places.
In Halo 2, I use to always shoot my brother in the foot until he was near death. One time I didn't realize he was already near death, I shot him in the foot and he died. Now every time we play a shooting game together he says "Don't shoot me in the foot!"
Food can come out of the ground for free, you know. The knowledge of how to make this happen is free on the internet.
I'm approaching 30 too, and I don't remember games ever being $20 - $30. Granted, I didn't start seeing prices until the Genesis/SNES, so maybe the Atari 2600 and NES games my parents bought me were cheaper, but prices have been $40 - $60 for as long as I've seen them. So considering inflation, with games still being $40 - $60, game prices have actually gone down despite the fact that production costs have risen (which explains why they try to make money via DLC and such).
Well, big budget movies often suck, especially in comparison to some low budget indie films. And low budget indie films now have the technology available to do most of the same things the big budget movies are doing. The same is true of games. People aren't paying because it's good, they are paying because the big budget movies/games have a lot of money to pump into advertising, so people have "buy/see shitty big budget movie/game!" blasted at them all day and meanwhile don't know the great indie film/game even exists. Such games and movies - the ones that suck and survive purely on using money the companies already have to overshadowing the better competition - should not survive, because if the people that make good stuff get paid, more good stuff will be made. If they don't, we will end up in a world where only shitty entertainment exists. This already happened with American TV.
they're always taking money from people's bank accounts without consent and then shipping them a game regardless of whether or not the person actually wanted the game
While they don't do that, what a lot of them do is make it impossible for a person to figure out if they actually want the game without buying it non-refundably. You can't find out if the game is worth its price, sucks, etc. without playing it. And often the only way to play it without handing over your money is to pirate.
While I don't feel I am entitled to games for free, I feel I am entitled to make informed decisions about where my money goes, and to purchase a game if - and only if - I feel it is worth my money. A developer is not entitled to my money because they released pretty videos to the internet, or because their company (which may or may not mean the same people worked on this game) has released a good game in the past.
Also, what is the motive behind taking time off your career to post on Slashdot about how much smarter than everyone else you think you are?
1) The difference between intelligence and knowledge; Intelligent people can learn and think, knowledgeable people have memorized things.
2) I was just replying to your example of "jumping down the throat of an 75-year-old emeritus professor because they made a syntax error using WikiPedia's reference system".
Your comment betrays the problem of higher education. The motive in sharing knowledge is to stop ignorance. If knowledge was not hoarded, it would not require all of that hard work you listed to become an expert. What is the motive in hoarding knowledge to yourself? Sure you can then refuse to give it out unless people pay, so then you may have money, but you are surrounded by ignorance, and when you die your money means nothing. Do you enjoy living like that? Do you want future generations to live like that?
So you can convince him to switch to a DVD boot of Linux before he logs into his bank account, but you can't convince him to use different passwords? And wait, they use a DVD boot of Linux on their android phones? You do know Android is Linux based, right? Or where you not answering my question at all?
Most other countries realize that putting resources toward this sort of thing, when they could instead be put toward stopping crimes that actually hurt people, is rather silly.
Also in most other countries the media outlets realize that piracy is free, world-wide publicity and that if customers want them to evolve they should evolve rather than make laws to keep their aging ways alive.
One flood or fire at your house and those books will be gone. Wikipedia is backed up in countless places and can always be transferred to a new form of storage technology.
If he can't read and understand the rules of wikipedia, if he can not learn new things, if he can not ask a colleague that CAN follow the wikipedia rules for help, then I am seriously going to doubt his ability to read about, understand, learn new things about, and interact with colleagues to keep up with the new developments in his field of expertise.
Wikipedia isn't randomly generated. A minefield map by people that have walked through the minefield isn't as good as a map by the people that placed the mines, but it is better than nothing.
Uh, encyclopedias aren't always written by "experts" either (depending on your definition of expert). Some will take any freelancer that seems to know what they're talking about - and with all the easily checkable errors in encyclopedias, we know the editors aren't experts at the subjects nor at fact checking.
And I'd take a crowd with real life experience over a guy that has a paper saying he sat through some classes any day. You often have no way of knowing where this "expert" learned what he knows, and if his teacher was correct. Very often the knowledge that is taught to "experts" is found to be wrong.
The reason I have seen higher education refusing to let anyone use Wikipedia as a reference is because education is suppose to teach you how to think, not help you recite facts. Reading Wikipedia requires little thought, but going to the citations, deducing which are reputable and which aren't, etc. makes you think.
If you're so much smarter than everyone on Wikipedia, or if you know experts that are smarter, go fix it/get them to go fix it. Stop trying to hoard the wisdom, instead share it with the crowds.
Watching CP does not mean you will molest your own child any more than watching adult porn means you will rape your adult offspring. Social services should put their resources toward helping children that are actually being harmed rather than on the pedophile witch hunt.
So if he robbed a store, would the reaction be to ban him from being alone with his child? No; so it isn't simply that watching child porn is illegal.