I use a Debian-based distro (Libranet), and my problems have been few and far between. They're non-existant now, thanks to the Libranet-safe repository.
Yeah, and you chose to ignore my central point: that the used game market provides a valuable service to consumers that video game companies wouldn't on their own. In your original post, you painted a rosey picture of the download-only business model, where game companies would make older games available for years at a reduced price, just like the used games market does. I gave you a reasonably detailed explanation as to why that wasn't gonna happen, and you latched on to my first sentence and acted like an ass, again.
You keep saying that you're smarter than me. Besides the patently obvious fact that you have no fucking clue how smart I am, The fact that I'm not the one who chose to name myself after something that comes out of a person's ass brings your assertion that you are smarter than anyone into question.
Gee, I'll try and treat you with more respect, Mr. Diarrhea.
Greatest Hits games cost more than $15, smart guy, and they sure-as-shittin' don't come out only 1 year after the initial release. Besides, the Greatest Hits releases don't have a long production run. I would be shocked if they made ANY greatest hits titles for more than a year, and then they're gone.
What's left beyond that...collections maybe? There's a several-year gap between initial offering of the game and the off chance it winds up slapped on a collection among a dozen others. Your original scenario suggested a system where the games would be available at gradually diminishing prices over the span of a few years. That doesn't happen. They are sold for $50 for a few months-2 years (depending on how popular they are), they quit making them entirely or they are sold for $25 for a couple months, and then like 10 years later, it might wind up on a collection. The used game market makes those same games available a lot longer, for a lot less money.
Don't you think that the game company would drop prices on their older games to satisfy the kids who can't afford games because they're too lazy to get jobs?
Yeah, because video game companies are totally different from every other software company somehow, right? Because we all know how Microsoft cuts the price of their older operating system when the new one comes out. Right?
Of course at the moment they've only just announced that their console can maybe swing 60fps at about 800x600 or less. Hello, Sony, the early 90's called, they want their framerates back.
Of course, that framerate and resolution is already twice what 95% of all televisions in the US is capable of doing...
Download Libranet Classic 2.7 (or pay for the 2.8, like I did). It will install easily, and well. You will need to get yourself a 2.6 kernel to get your (I'm guessing) integrated ethernet card to work though, but I think the 2.4.21 kernel supports it too (and that comes with Libranet 2.8.1).
Moral of the story: when you're done, you will have a pretty much stock Debian system, with a nifty tool (admin menu) to boot. for either free ("Classic") or about $50 (2.8.1 - much nicer and should support all of your hardware out of the box).
P.S.
I'd wager the reason you can't compile anymore is because the original kernel compile was done with gcc3.2, and after the upgrade you're now using gcc3.3. Look it up on the Libranet support database, they have the fix for it posted.
Actually, with each passing year Asia Carrera is doing fewer and fewer movies and has been moving to writing scripts. She's also a bit of a computer geek and has her own site that if I'm not mistaken she maintanes.
most "poor people" are not poor because of something innate about themselves...such as, retardation, physical or mental. Most people who don't make a lot of money, do so because of bad choices they made. In some cases, it may have been too much partying at a young age, and not enough attention to thinking about the future (such as working on education, or some technical skills such as plumbing or carpentry...). In other cases, it may have simply been due to laziness.
With that in mind, might I suggest you ask your parents if they were poor because they didn't pay enough attention to the future, or because they were lazy and see what they say to you. I mean, it must be their fault, right? Since it's a lifestyle choice and all:
For most people, being poor is a lifestyle choice. Some people couldn't care less about having nice clothes, eating good food, or any of the other thngs enjoyed by people who maintain a decent job. For those, they are willing to live a certain way to not have to work (or only work a little)...
And my assertion stands: If your folks were working and were still poor, I'll bet they worked their asses off. There are precious few low-wage jobs that don't work you like a dog. And if you are in one of those difficult, long-hours, shit paying jobs and trying to raise a family, you can be sure that you don't have 2 nickles to rub together, let alone money to go buy a bunch of books. Frankly, the working poor often have it worse than the unemployed.
Much like our brand-new fucked up Medicare prescription drugs package (which will pay for your prescriptions if it costs $300/month, but not in-between), there's a big ass hole in this country the working poor often finds themselves in, that keeps them poor. On a welfare program, you might just maybe have some healthcare, foodstamps, help with the rent, money for school, etc. But once you get a job - even a minimum wage job, all that stuff stops. And why shouldn't it, right? I mean, you're making money now, aren't you? True, you're making money, just not enough to pay for rent, food, healthcare, and school. If you don't mind living in a dump (like you had a choice), you've got just enough money to pay for rent and food. As long as you never quit working, and never get sick, you just might be able to keep a roof over your head.
Not everyone in this country has the opportunity to pull themselves out of that hole, no matter how much they want to. And I've never met someone stuck in that rut who didn't want something more for themselves and/or their family. Someone who claims to come from poverty ought to know how hard it is, and not bitch about 1-2% of your income going to make that hole a little less deep. This whole "let's rely on charity alone to help the poor" mentality is b.s.; it's a scapegoat for greed.
believe it or not, people who grow up poor have a much harder time getting their way out of poverty than people who grow up rich. We don't all come into this world with the same advantages.
If you're like most Americans, you probably weren't born to wealthy parents. Comfortable, perhaps, but not wealthy. Now, if you were born 100 years ago, the chances of you being able to read by adulthood would be slim. More likely, your parents not being wealthy would have meant that you would be pulled from school (if you ever went at all) and put to work in a factory for a pittance. Why? to support your family, who couldn't afford to give you an education.
Fortunately, laws against child labor and for required education means that you have a very good chance of being able to read by the time you're out of highschool, no matter how poor your family may be. But if you were from a very poor family, what do you suppose the chances are that you would be able to read a book that your school didn't have?
You can deride the poor as "lazy" all you want, but the fact remains that there's no room for laziness in some of the worst-paying jobs out there, and many of the people who work in those tough, low wage jobs work more hours a week than you ever will, and still barely afford to put food on the table, let alone have some spare money to spend on broadening their horizons by buying a book. It's easy from your perspective to blame all the poor's problems on themselves, when you don't have those problems to worry about.
Oh? You know what a scientific theory is? Please, do me the favor telling me what the word "theory" means in a scientific context.
By the way, I noticed you didn't answer my question. Let me ask it again:
Do you accept the biblical account of the creation as written in the bible as being an accurate (or if you prefer, "more accurate than mainstream scientific explanations") description of the manner that the universe and animal life came about?
Nice, me pointing out that minorities - who are by and large poorer and more discriminated against and therefore more likely (relatively speaking) to be in the kind of desperate situation that may lead to violence makes me racist.
You took the essence of what I said and turned it on its head. I say your alarmist bullshit blathering about things I didn't say makes you a jackass, and I freely admit to having a strong prejudice against jackasses. As for you taking exception to my characterization of the state of Vermont being more affluent per capita than NYC or DC...I'll get back to you.
let me ask you something, since you've just characterized the theory of evolution ridiculous (and bold the word "theory," no doubt implying an integral uncertainty and making it painfully apparent that you don't know what that word means in a scientific context):
Do you accept the biblical account of the creation as written in the bible as being an accurate (or if you prefer, "more accurate than mainstream scientific explanations") description of the manner that the universe and animal life came about?
If so, please explain how you intend to point out the flaw in logic of burgburgburg assuming someone who calls into question the validity of the Big Bang is a creationist.
right, the fact that Vermont - an affluent, low population state which (compared to NYC or DC) is damn near poor & minority free has its gun laws to thank for its low crime rate.
How else could you possibly explain it? What, with such restrictive gun laws in the island police-states of NYC and DC, where noone can cross a city or state border to get their weapons and all criminals use registered firearms to commit their crimes. Where the poor, uneducated, and discriminated-against are a myth, and noone lives in the kind of financial or drug-induced desperation that might cause a person to use violence to get what they want.
that wouldn't be as much fun as you think: Darl is a blunt liar. What made the HP interview amusing was it was an interview with a vague, market-speak obsessed liar.
Slashdot Mirror
Um, what?
Let me see if I can break it down for you:
1) I'm not the guy who said anything about radiation
2) Saturn is smaller than Jupiter
3) Europa is the topic of discussion
4) Uranus is a planet
5) Uranus is not Europa
6) Europa is a moon of Jupiter.
well, it does show evidence of liquid water below the surface...
That's a pretty good indication that life could exist on it.
dude, just quit man, you're digging quite the hole for yourself.
Do your arms get tired from hugging those trees that tightly?
I use a Debian-based distro (Libranet), and my problems have been few and far between. They're non-existant now, thanks to the Libranet-safe repository.
Synaptic is easy to use and is a desktop app.
Yeah, and you chose to ignore my central point: that the used game market provides a valuable service to consumers that video game companies wouldn't on their own. In your original post, you painted a rosey picture of the download-only business model, where game companies would make older games available for years at a reduced price, just like the used games market does. I gave you a reasonably detailed explanation as to why that wasn't gonna happen, and you latched on to my first sentence and acted like an ass, again.
You keep saying that you're smarter than me. Besides the patently obvious fact that you have no fucking clue how smart I am, The fact that I'm not the one who chose to name myself after something that comes out of a person's ass brings your assertion that you are smarter than anyone into question.
I'm smarter than you and I know more than you.
Gee, I'll try and treat you with more respect, Mr. Diarrhea.
Greatest Hits games cost more than $15, smart guy, and they sure-as-shittin' don't come out only 1 year after the initial release. Besides, the Greatest Hits releases don't have a long production run. I would be shocked if they made ANY greatest hits titles for more than a year, and then they're gone.
What's left beyond that...collections maybe? There's a several-year gap between initial offering of the game and the off chance it winds up slapped on a collection among a dozen others. Your original scenario suggested a system where the games would be available at gradually diminishing prices over the span of a few years. That doesn't happen. They are sold for $50 for a few months-2 years (depending on how popular they are), they quit making them entirely or they are sold for $25 for a couple months, and then like 10 years later, it might wind up on a collection. The used game market makes those same games available a lot longer, for a lot less money.
Don't you think that the game company would drop prices on their older games to satisfy the kids who can't afford games because they're too lazy to get jobs?
Yeah, because video game companies are totally different from every other software company somehow, right? Because we all know how Microsoft cuts the price of their older operating system when the new one comes out. Right?
Of course at the moment they've only just announced that their console can maybe swing 60fps at about 800x600 or less. Hello, Sony, the early 90's called, they want their framerates back.
Of course, that framerate and resolution is already twice what 95% of all televisions in the US is capable of doing...
Sweet, welcome to the fold. Are you installing 2.7 or 2.8?
Download Libranet Classic 2.7 (or pay for the 2.8, like I did). It will install easily, and well. You will need to get yourself a 2.6 kernel to get your (I'm guessing) integrated ethernet card to work though, but I think the 2.4.21 kernel supports it too (and that comes with Libranet 2.8.1).
Moral of the story: when you're done, you will have a pretty much stock Debian system, with a nifty tool (admin menu) to boot. for either free ("Classic") or about $50 (2.8.1 - much nicer and should support all of your hardware out of the box).
P.S.
I'd wager the reason you can't compile anymore is because the original kernel compile was done with gcc3.2, and after the upgrade you're now using gcc3.3. Look it up on the Libranet support database, they have the fix for it posted.
I wish that SSX3 had MORE advertising. Maybe they could have paid to get all of the awesome voice talent from Tricky back if they did.
look again
Actually, with each passing year Asia Carrera is doing fewer and fewer movies and has been moving to writing scripts. She's also a bit of a computer geek and has her own site that if I'm not mistaken she maintanes.
Actually, it's yours:
most "poor people" are not poor because of something innate about themselves...such as, retardation, physical or mental. Most people who don't make a lot of money, do so because of bad choices they made. In some cases, it may have been too much partying at a young age, and not enough attention to thinking about the future (such as working on education, or some technical skills such as plumbing or carpentry...). In other cases, it may have simply been due to laziness.
With that in mind, might I suggest you ask your parents if they were poor because they didn't pay enough attention to the future, or because they were lazy and see what they say to you. I mean, it must be their fault, right? Since it's a lifestyle choice and all:
For most people, being poor is a lifestyle choice. Some people couldn't care less about having nice clothes, eating good food, or any of the other thngs enjoyed by people who maintain a decent job. For those, they are willing to live a certain way to not have to work (or only work a little)...
And my assertion stands: If your folks were working and were still poor, I'll bet they worked their asses off. There are precious few low-wage jobs that don't work you like a dog. And if you are in one of those difficult, long-hours, shit paying jobs and trying to raise a family, you can be sure that you don't have 2 nickles to rub together, let alone money to go buy a bunch of books. Frankly, the working poor often have it worse than the unemployed.
Much like our brand-new fucked up Medicare prescription drugs package (which will pay for your prescriptions if it costs $300/month, but not in-between), there's a big ass hole in this country the working poor often finds themselves in, that keeps them poor. On a welfare program, you might just maybe have some healthcare, foodstamps, help with the rent, money for school, etc. But once you get a job - even a minimum wage job, all that stuff stops. And why shouldn't it, right? I mean, you're making money now, aren't you? True, you're making money, just not enough to pay for rent, food, healthcare, and school. If you don't mind living in a dump (like you had a choice), you've got just enough money to pay for rent and food. As long as you never quit working, and never get sick, you just might be able to keep a roof over your head.
Not everyone in this country has the opportunity to pull themselves out of that hole, no matter how much they want to. And I've never met someone stuck in that rut who didn't want something more for themselves and/or their family. Someone who claims to come from poverty ought to know how hard it is, and not bitch about 1-2% of your income going to make that hole a little less deep. This whole "let's rely on charity alone to help the poor" mentality is b.s.; it's a scapegoat for greed.
And I suppose your parents were lazy and got what they deserved?
If you're like most Americans, you probably weren't born to wealthy parents. Comfortable, perhaps, but not wealthy. Now, if you were born 100 years ago, the chances of you being able to read by adulthood would be slim. More likely, your parents not being wealthy would have meant that you would be pulled from school (if you ever went at all) and put to work in a factory for a pittance. Why? to support your family, who couldn't afford to give you an education.
Fortunately, laws against child labor and for required education means that you have a very good chance of being able to read by the time you're out of highschool, no matter how poor your family may be. But if you were from a very poor family, what do you suppose the chances are that you would be able to read a book that your school didn't have?
You can deride the poor as "lazy" all you want, but the fact remains that there's no room for laziness in some of the worst-paying jobs out there, and many of the people who work in those tough, low wage jobs work more hours a week than you ever will, and still barely afford to put food on the table, let alone have some spare money to spend on broadening their horizons by buying a book. It's easy from your perspective to blame all the poor's problems on themselves, when you don't have those problems to worry about.
Or he could just be a poor grammarian like I am a poor speller. Hit the nail on the head there, you did.
By the way, I noticed you didn't answer my question. Let me ask it again:
Do you accept the biblical account of the creation as written in the bible as being an accurate (or if you prefer, "more accurate than mainstream scientific explanations") description of the manner that the universe and animal life came about?
You took the essence of what I said and turned it on its head. I say your alarmist bullshit blathering about things I didn't say makes you a jackass, and I freely admit to having a strong prejudice against jackasses. As for you taking exception to my characterization of the state of Vermont being more affluent per capita than NYC or DC...I'll get back to you.
Do you accept the biblical account of the creation as written in the bible as being an accurate (or if you prefer, "more accurate than mainstream scientific explanations") description of the manner that the universe and animal life came about?
If so, please explain how you intend to point out the flaw in logic of burgburgburg assuming someone who calls into question the validity of the Big Bang is a creationist.
what the hell is this "origin theory" you speak of? If it's just some term you pulled out of your ass: well no shit it isn't a scientific theory.
How else could you possibly explain it? What, with such restrictive gun laws in the island police-states of NYC and DC, where noone can cross a city or state border to get their weapons and all criminals use registered firearms to commit their crimes. Where the poor, uneducated, and discriminated-against are a myth, and noone lives in the kind of financial or drug-induced desperation that might cause a person to use violence to get what they want.
Wake up.
that wouldn't be as much fun as you think: Darl is a blunt liar. What made the HP interview amusing was it was an interview with a vague, market-speak obsessed liar.