You didn't address the GP's point at all. Even with your no CD patch, you still need a CD to install the game if you get a new system, your system is hosed, etc. Steam removes this requirement.
Since Windows 95, and still today in Windows XP, removing a CD or floppy from the drive before Windows is finished with it will result in the system hanging at best, and BSOD at worst.
That's laughably false. Just to humor you, I popped in a floppy, had the system read it, and ejected while it was reading. What did Windows do? "Please insert a disk into drive A:" Now it's time for a CD. "Please insert a disk into drive E:" Writing to a floppy gets a Windows dialog of the classic 'Drive not ready, abort/retry/fail'.
Unless you call a dialog box "the system hanging", you're simply lying.
Well let's take a look at what you did say: "this development bolsters the claim that we do not need embroynic steam cells for the type of treatments and remedies that would help so many people."
You didn't add the caveat, "have suitability for a specific purpose - treating spinal cord injuries", until this post. I hope you can see how your original post can be misread to say "We don't need embryonic stem cells." Good day.
Because Adult Stem Cells have the potential to supply pretty much everything we want Embreyonic Stem Cells to supply
I simply don't know the issues well enough. What I do know is that there are about 100 comments in this topic that are contrary to what you state above. Since 100 (or 1,000,000) comments do not make something correct, maybe more research is needed. As I understand, we have not been studying ESC as long as ASC, and perhaps this is the reason that ASC appears to be far ahead of ESC at this time. Again, I do not see why we cannot study both methods. If the issue was as clear cut as you make it, this controversy wouldn't exist.
Just that the estimated 60 million people who find it morally apprensible to abort babies to harvest cells don't have to pay for it too.
Why don't the rest of us get to say what our tax money is spent on? I don't support Iraq, so why doesn't Bush make it so I don't have to pay for it, either? How about the death penalty? I don't support that, so please refund my taxes for all those executions. Ha!
Taxes aren't about what you or I want. It's about what is good for the whole. No matter what comes of it, researching embryonic stem cells will provide a benefit to society and should be federally funded.
Snippy, snide, child-like comments aside, this development bolsters the claim that we do not need embroynic steam cells for the type of treatments and remedies that would help so many people.
It does? Assuming it's even true, I don't think it says anything about the potential effectiveness of embryonic stem cells. Since we are not aware of what embryonic stem cells are and are not capable of doing, I think it's a little premature to say that "we do not need" them based on this information.
GP used the word 'similar'. They did not say that the debate is 'exactly like' the ban on using corpses. We have different words for a reason: they have different meanings. Please try and understand the language used before you accuse the GP of not understanding the issues.
Why is that odd? Most programming languages demand exact syntax or else there is no meaning. Natural languages are much more tolerant, and there is no need for exact syntax. In the absence of an exact syntax requirement, most people, including nerds, are lazy.
the engine can be tuned for maximum efficiency without need for fancy add-ons like turbo chargers which are needed to improve diesel's otherwise sluggish acceleration.
A lot of constant-rpm diesels (trains, generators, etc.) still have turbochargers. It allows for cleaner combustion (less NOx) and higher efficiency.
if I do anything to put pressure on the CPU, I'll get dropped frames
Have you tried adjusting the process priority in the Task Manager? It would make your computer less usable during capture, but might prevent dropped frames. That assumes that the frame drop is coming from context switches as Windows switches processes.
I think it is you that fails to understand that simply because something is easier does not mean it is inherently different.
In terms of copyright law, you're right, it is no different. What I'm saying is that most of the current copyright law, and all of the historic copyright law, is based around objects that are not as easy to duplicate as digital items, and that the current law is not adequate for digital items. That doesn't necessarily mean it needs to be tightened, just reworked to accomodate the technologies now present. The DMCA was supposed to be the reworking of the law, but as we all know it was horribly balanced towards content creators. IMO, what we need are 'nutrition information' laws for items distributed under a copyright license. There should be a standard format box outlining your rights, what you can/can't do, what copy protection mechanisms are in use, etc. There also needs to be some sort of recourse for the consumer. As it stands now, the creators can trample our rights and there's pretty much nothing we can do about it. Meanwhile, one minor infraction by a consumer, and it's a $25,000 lawsuit from the creators.
But one can also argue that this is balanced out by the mass creation of content afforded by these same technologies. Yes, infringement has exploded. However, so has invention.
So, because there's more content now, that means pirating is okay? Odd logic. Look I'm not arguing that CD-Rs should be banned or anything like that. I'm merely saying that content creators should have the right to distribute their content as they see fit, as long as the consumer is fully informed. Also, the "we can change this agreement at any time" clause cannot be used, and should be illegal to begin with.
Your ability to play Half-Life 2 exists solely at the discretion of Valve Studios even after you have paid them $50 for a "copy".
My legal ability, yes. If anything like this were to happen, I would have no qualms cracking the shit out of the thing.
Furthermore, I knew that was a possibility before I made the purchase. So long as consumers are made aware of the pitfalls of these systems before purchase, I have no problems with them. I don't mean EULAs, either. There needs to be clear language warning the consumer that the rules have changed. People who are paranoid about Valve locking them out should simply not buy or play the game.
The people really hurt here are the consumers that bought HL2 not knowing about the restrictions. Consumer awareness is the key here. If everything is in the open, consumers will be able to make an informed decision. Hopefully a middle ground could be found where content creators are pleased with the protections they have, and consumers are pleased with the freedoms they have.
why should the content providers have any right in either of those two cases to tell me i shouldn't be able to watch something i legally purchased?
That's just it. You purchased a licence for the product. That licence has conditions. If content providers want these conditions, they need to be upfront and not hidden in legalese, and there cannot be any "we can change this at any time" clauses (which should be illegal to begin with).
and i see no reason we should be willing to give up those rights.
While I understand where you're coming from, I really don't think I have the right to tell a content creator that they can't protect their works from unauthorized copying. If that's how they want to distribute their work, why should I complain, as long as I have all the facts before I make a purchase?
We've been dealing with piracy and fair-use issues in this country for two-hundred years.
*sigh* Yes, with physical items. The problem is that software does make it different. Why you fail to understand that, I really can't say.
Have we really dealt with piracy on the scale of music/dvd/software piracy in the past 200 years?
The only difference is that now the software, music, and movie industries are becoming more effective at convincing you that they're somehow doing you a favor by fucking you.
As I said to sibling, I really don't know what you're talking about. I paid $50 for a game. $50 is the market rate for a game these days, and the product has worked flawlessly. I fail to see where I've been 'fucked'. It sounds like a lot of people here are railing against a system they've never used.
That can't be done with software either. You're basing your entire argument on packaging and presentation. Why should software code be safeguarded any more closely than a storyline or the knowledge in a book?
I think there's still a distinction, but analogies suck and I shouldn't have brought it in to begin with. In any case, the core question we're talking about is this: Should content providers be able to dictate how you can access their content? My opinion: Yes, unequivocally, as long as there is transparency.
We don't have that transparency right now. Most people don't know about Macrovision, CSS, Safeloc, etc., etc. So long as you understand what the rules were going into the game, and that those rules do not change, I don't have a problem with anything that content providers choose to do. First, we need to make illegal clauses like "We reserve the right to change this agreement at any time."
Yes, I understand fair use, etc. The problem is that the current system allows widespread copyright infringment. There has to be a middle ground that consumers and content providers can find.
Only in the minds of you, trolls, and lawyers.
Possibly, but you should keep in mind that the opinion of lawyers does have a real effect on what happens in this country.
and you as a consumer are not receiving a fair trade for your dollar?
That's the problem with dollars. What one means to me may not be what one means to you. I was and am happy that I paid for Half Life 2, through Steam. I know that my money went to the content creators, and I consider it a fair trade. I would use Steam again to buy products from Valve.
You'd rather just give software companies a blank slate to dictate to you exactly how they're going to milk you for every penny you're worth in exchange for some fancy advertising, pretty packaging, and a malfunctional product?
They're only 'milking me' for the pennies I choose to give them. The moment that the system infringes on my ability to use their products, I'll cease to use their products. I didn't get any packaging with the game, and as for malfunctional product, I've had 0 problems with Steam or Half Life 2, so I really don't know what you're talking about.
Because it turns out that copyright is just about impossible to enforce for digital items, which is why all these crazy systems (Steam, Safeloc, CSS, etc.) have been created.
Semantically, yes that's what I said. What I meant was "Shut the fuck up, asshole."
Seriously, it works with absolutely no problems for me, and it's fun to play. What's your fucking problem? Not all of us are afraid of using money for goods and services.
Slashdot Mirror
We ignore the degrees they put down, unless it's for the pm spot where a MBA from anywhere will work.
What makes you think the MBA teaches them how to PM any more than a CS degree teaches you how to code? MBAs are still just a piece of paper.
You didn't address the GP's point at all. Even with your no CD patch, you still need a CD to install the game if you get a new system, your system is hosed, etc. Steam removes this requirement.
ObOpenSourceAnswer: Yes. Write it yourself. :)
This is why idealists tend to be young. They aren't old enough to have had to compromise.
More accurately, they aren't old enough to realize that the world is fucked up, so shut up and deal with it. Yay cynicism.
Since Windows 95, and still today in Windows XP, removing a CD or floppy from the drive before Windows is finished with it will result in the system hanging at best, and BSOD at worst.
That's laughably false. Just to humor you, I popped in a floppy, had the system read it, and ejected while it was reading. What did Windows do? "Please insert a disk into drive A:" Now it's time for a CD. "Please insert a disk into drive E:" Writing to a floppy gets a Windows dialog of the classic 'Drive not ready, abort/retry/fail'.
Unless you call a dialog box "the system hanging", you're simply lying.
and I never said it did.
Well let's take a look at what you did say: "this development bolsters the claim that we do not need embroynic steam cells for the type of treatments and remedies that would help so many people."
You didn't add the caveat, "have suitability for a specific purpose - treating spinal cord injuries", until this post. I hope you can see how your original post can be misread to say "We don't need embryonic stem cells." Good day.
Sorry. I attempted to have a discussion on the issues, and you appear to be incapable of it. Good day.
This proves that embroynic stem cells are not the only stem cells with research value
True, but this discovery has no effect on the research value, if any, of embryonic stem cells.
Because Adult Stem Cells have the potential to supply pretty much everything we want Embreyonic Stem Cells to supply
I simply don't know the issues well enough. What I do know is that there are about 100 comments in this topic that are contrary to what you state above. Since 100 (or 1,000,000) comments do not make something correct, maybe more research is needed. As I understand, we have not been studying ESC as long as ASC, and perhaps this is the reason that ASC appears to be far ahead of ESC at this time. Again, I do not see why we cannot study both methods. If the issue was as clear cut as you make it, this controversy wouldn't exist.
Just that the estimated 60 million people who find it morally apprensible to abort babies to harvest cells don't have to pay for it too.
Why don't the rest of us get to say what our tax money is spent on? I don't support Iraq, so why doesn't Bush make it so I don't have to pay for it, either? How about the death penalty? I don't support that, so please refund my taxes for all those executions. Ha!
Taxes aren't about what you or I want. It's about what is good for the whole. No matter what comes of it, researching embryonic stem cells will provide a benefit to society and should be federally funded.
Snippy, snide, child-like comments aside, this development bolsters the claim that we do not need embroynic steam cells for the type of treatments and remedies that would help so many people.
It does? Assuming it's even true, I don't think it says anything about the potential effectiveness of embryonic stem cells. Since we are not aware of what embryonic stem cells are and are not capable of doing, I think it's a little premature to say that "we do not need" them based on this information.
You haven't provided any argument against this: Why can't we study both?
GP used the word 'similar'. They did not say that the debate is 'exactly like' the ban on using corpses. We have different words for a reason: they have different meanings. Please try and understand the language used before you accuse the GP of not understanding the issues.
It's okay. We don't want you here anyway. Same with the mod that marked this 'insightful'.
Why is that odd? Most programming languages demand exact syntax or else there is no meaning. Natural languages are much more tolerant, and there is no need for exact syntax. In the absence of an exact syntax requirement, most people, including nerds, are lazy.
the engine can be tuned for maximum efficiency without need for fancy add-ons like turbo chargers which are needed to improve diesel's otherwise sluggish acceleration.
A lot of constant-rpm diesels (trains, generators, etc.) still have turbochargers. It allows for cleaner combustion (less NOx) and higher efficiency.
That was fixed in XP.
if I do anything to put pressure on the CPU, I'll get dropped frames
Have you tried adjusting the process priority in the Task Manager? It would make your computer less usable during capture, but might prevent dropped frames. That assumes that the frame drop is coming from context switches as Windows switches processes.
I think it is you that fails to understand that simply because something is easier does not mean it is inherently different.
In terms of copyright law, you're right, it is no different. What I'm saying is that most of the current copyright law, and all of the historic copyright law, is based around objects that are not as easy to duplicate as digital items, and that the current law is not adequate for digital items. That doesn't necessarily mean it needs to be tightened, just reworked to accomodate the technologies now present. The DMCA was supposed to be the reworking of the law, but as we all know it was horribly balanced towards content creators. IMO, what we need are 'nutrition information' laws for items distributed under a copyright license. There should be a standard format box outlining your rights, what you can/can't do, what copy protection mechanisms are in use, etc. There also needs to be some sort of recourse for the consumer. As it stands now, the creators can trample our rights and there's pretty much nothing we can do about it. Meanwhile, one minor infraction by a consumer, and it's a $25,000 lawsuit from the creators.
But one can also argue that this is balanced out by the mass creation of content afforded by these same technologies. Yes, infringement has exploded. However, so has invention.
So, because there's more content now, that means pirating is okay? Odd logic. Look I'm not arguing that CD-Rs should be banned or anything like that. I'm merely saying that content creators should have the right to distribute their content as they see fit, as long as the consumer is fully informed. Also, the "we can change this agreement at any time" clause cannot be used, and should be illegal to begin with.
Your ability to play Half-Life 2 exists solely at the discretion of Valve Studios even after you have paid them $50 for a "copy".
My legal ability, yes. If anything like this were to happen, I would have no qualms cracking the shit out of the thing.
Furthermore, I knew that was a possibility before I made the purchase. So long as consumers are made aware of the pitfalls of these systems before purchase, I have no problems with them. I don't mean EULAs, either. There needs to be clear language warning the consumer that the rules have changed. People who are paranoid about Valve locking them out should simply not buy or play the game.
The people really hurt here are the consumers that bought HL2 not knowing about the restrictions. Consumer awareness is the key here. If everything is in the open, consumers will be able to make an informed decision. Hopefully a middle ground could be found where content creators are pleased with the protections they have, and consumers are pleased with the freedoms they have.
why should the content providers have any right in either of those two cases to tell me i shouldn't be able to watch something i legally purchased?
That's just it. You purchased a licence for the product. That licence has conditions. If content providers want these conditions, they need to be upfront and not hidden in legalese, and there cannot be any "we can change this at any time" clauses (which should be illegal to begin with).
and i see no reason we should be willing to give up those rights.
While I understand where you're coming from, I really don't think I have the right to tell a content creator that they can't protect their works from unauthorized copying. If that's how they want to distribute their work, why should I complain, as long as I have all the facts before I make a purchase?
We've been dealing with piracy and fair-use issues in this country for two-hundred years.
*sigh* Yes, with physical items. The problem is that software does make it different. Why you fail to understand that, I really can't say.
Have we really dealt with piracy on the scale of music/dvd/software piracy in the past 200 years?
The only difference is that now the software, music, and movie industries are becoming more effective at convincing you that they're somehow doing you a favor by fucking you.
As I said to sibling, I really don't know what you're talking about. I paid $50 for a game. $50 is the market rate for a game these days, and the product has worked flawlessly. I fail to see where I've been 'fucked'. It sounds like a lot of people here are railing against a system they've never used.
That can't be done with software either. You're basing your entire argument on packaging and presentation. Why should software code be safeguarded any more closely than a storyline or the knowledge in a book?
I think there's still a distinction, but analogies suck and I shouldn't have brought it in to begin with. In any case, the core question we're talking about is this: Should content providers be able to dictate how you can access their content? My opinion: Yes, unequivocally, as long as there is transparency.
We don't have that transparency right now. Most people don't know about Macrovision, CSS, Safeloc, etc., etc. So long as you understand what the rules were going into the game, and that those rules do not change, I don't have a problem with anything that content providers choose to do. First, we need to make illegal clauses like "We reserve the right to change this agreement at any time."
Yes, I understand fair use, etc. The problem is that the current system allows widespread copyright infringment. There has to be a middle ground that consumers and content providers can find.
Only in the minds of you, trolls, and lawyers.
Possibly, but you should keep in mind that the opinion of lawyers does have a real effect on what happens in this country.
and you as a consumer are not receiving a fair trade for your dollar?
That's the problem with dollars. What one means to me may not be what one means to you. I was and am happy that I paid for Half Life 2, through Steam. I know that my money went to the content creators, and I consider it a fair trade. I would use Steam again to buy products from Valve.
You'd rather just give software companies a blank slate to dictate to you exactly how they're going to milk you for every penny you're worth in exchange for some fancy advertising, pretty packaging, and a malfunctional product?
They're only 'milking me' for the pennies I choose to give them. The moment that the system infringes on my ability to use their products, I'll cease to use their products. I didn't get any packaging with the game, and as for malfunctional product, I've had 0 problems with Steam or Half Life 2, so I really don't know what you're talking about.
Because it turns out that copyright is just about impossible to enforce for digital items, which is why all these crazy systems (Steam, Safeloc, CSS, etc.) have been created.
Yeah, you're right! Fun is defined by the Overlord and only what He says is fun can be fun. How did I forget!
Get a fucking life.
Semantically, yes that's what I said. What I meant was "Shut the fuck up, asshole."
Seriously, it works with absolutely no problems for me, and it's fun to play. What's your fucking problem? Not all of us are afraid of using money for goods and services.