If that were true, everything would be ripped up constantly as new people are running new wires to every place since they all want to cover as much as possible. Each company would be spending millions if not billions and the cost would be a hell of a lot higher than it is right now. There would be billions wasted in redundant infrastructure and then what happens when the cable runs are out of space?
Your problem is you start with your ideological conclusion "Government regulation is bad" and then apply that to everything. The world isn't so black and white. Some government regulation is good for society (some is bad as well) but there is a balance. You are completely blinded by your ideology and that is why you are wrong.
Yes, we can have a genuine free market like Haiti. So people can build houses and buildings that will be death traps in earthquakes since it so much cheaper despite being in a major earthquake zone. Really brilliant.
All you morons scream about a true free market. Then when the companies start killing you and your family you scream at the government asking why it isn't doing anything about it.
Load of crap. You could use the same logic to say we don't want the government putting regulations on our food supply. I am sure someone will provide us an alternate source of water that has much less arsenic than the other company.
You ignore reality. There isn't a lot of choice for most people on what ISP they use. So no, there will not be a better option. As far as techniques, it will be a constant escalation between the two sides which will just take up more bandwidth and cause everyone's connection to be slow.
You folks need to wake up and understand that corporations do not and never will have your best interest in mind. Government regulations may not always be good, but in this case having a regulation that guaranteed net neutrality would benefit everyone. Of course that doesn't resonate well with the tin-foil hat and Fox News watchers out there.
A is impossible. That's why developers like consoles. You can't test every possible hardware/software combination out there. Most games don't have B, the ones that do, avoid.
This isn't a solution. Some games are meant to be single player. And just because something had multi-player doesn't make it piracy-proof. It is also more expensive to design and implement a multi-player game. That isn't going to work for a lot of game companies.
Who else is going to be able to make a WoW? Every MMORPG that has come out post WoW hasn't been able to hit that mark. And most games aren't going to be MMORPGs. Yeah, Blizzard is going to sell a crap load of games no matter what. Their track record and ability to deliver is nearly unmatched. How does a newer developer make money in this market?
You are being foolish. Slashdot is all about reinforcing the group-think. Fortunately for you, the anti-group-think is part of the group-think. Just so long as there are less of your comments then that of the group-think. In this case, patents are evil and bad and so is MS.
WoW is elitist? Yikes...no it isn't. I 100% agree that DotA and its clones attract the most awful people on the face of the planet. But WoW and CS:S? They have a bit of a learning curve, but really aren't that bad. It sounds like you are just a little overly sensitive to criticism. Or you are bad at video games;)
It is interesting. I played DotA and it has to have the most vile people ever playing the game. It seems to attract the "elitist" type with anger issues.
Eve's community (at least the forums) is pretty legendary for being jerks. People are encouraged to quit and give up their stuff. DotA (and its clones) make Eve look like a bunch of cuddly bunnies that give free hugs.
I wait for the game to come out and see how it is reviewed. I find a reviewer I have similar tastes too. I'll check it out at a friend's house. Lots of different ways other than breaking the law and then justifying it later.
I don't necessarily agree. Fallout 3 was a complete game (we'll leave the issue of bugs for another discussion). It didn't need any DLC to make it complete, but there were multiple addons you could get. I'd have had no problem paying full price for that game...though I got the GOTY edition when that came out.
If a game company releases and incomplete game and charges more to complete it, then it is an issue. I haven't seen any game yet where the addons are necessary.
So they will just need to put stickers on the cellophane wrappers that say that so that the box doesn't say you can get anything for free. It is obvious to me that stuff would only work for the new game, but I guess consumers are dumb and you have to account for that.
I said this further up. Used game sales aren't necessary for people to be exposed to a game. They can borrow it or pirate it. Can't really do much to stop those two. If you can damage the used market, or manage to recover some profit off of it through DLC, then that is more profit for the company.
People's concepts on here that this will hurt the companies bottom line more than help are naive at best.
Analogies are used to make a complex problem easier to understand. This isn't a complex problem so all an analogy does is confuse the discussion.
The problem with your analogy is that the cost of a car is much different than the cost of a game. Most people can afford a game. If they can't, they generally can wait for the game to become a "classic" or fall in to the bargain bin (in either case, they are buying it for a reduced price).
Also, your anecdote doesn't make sense in regards to the point you are trying to make. Your friend could have just borrowed the game. He didn't need to touch the used market. Also, since he was able to buy ME2, it is clear that he wasn't a "buyers that would not or cannot participate in the primary market.:buyers that would not or cannot participate in the primary market."
There really is no reason for game companies to encourage used game sales. People can already borrow or pirate if they want to try something out. It was that used games were just as much money to them as a pirated game. With DLC, now they still have a chance to gain some profit for their work. While I don't particularly like it, it does make sense from a business perspective and I understand why they do it.
I agree, the person shouldn't have done this. But you can make the technology a tad stronger I think. Usually if you have to resort to a security question, it should e-mail you a new password to your password protected e-mail. So to get in, you would need to have that information as well. It sounds like Twitter's protection just lets you in with the security question, which I would say is broken by design.
I suggest people just answer the questions. Fine, skip the race one if you are really freaked out. But honestly, you are getting in to tin foil full body suits at this point.
Just because Ayn Rand says something, doesn't make it true. I could say "Civilization is the progress toward a society of openness. The savage's whole existence is private, ruled by its darkest thoughts and back room deals. Civilization is the process of bringing things in to the open so that man can not subject men to tyranny."
When you have a country/world willing to post all their info online, there is no problem with privacy because no one cares any more. There are plenty of good reasons to want privacy...but you aren't going to be convincing anyone quoting Ayn Rand.
Except "Colon exams should be free" isn't a fact. There is no way to present that as a fact. A fact would be "Most colon diseases can be detected early and prevented". Fox News says things like "Health care bill has death panels". They present something as a fact that isn't one.
People take their words as fact. They hide behind the "Oh, I am just an opinion show" when people try to hold them accountable. Then whatever misinformation they say is reported in their actual new segments as "some people are saying this..." repeat the Beck and friends garbage. More of Fox is opinion than news...shouldn't they be called Fox Opinion?
If you want to say all news networks are biased you are just being lazy. There are different degrees and by far Fox News is the worst offender. If you are unable to recognize this difference, you aren't trying very hard.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, and power and water are cheap. So what's your point again?
If it is unreasonable, you elect someone that will fix it.
If that were true, everything would be ripped up constantly as new people are running new wires to every place since they all want to cover as much as possible. Each company would be spending millions if not billions and the cost would be a hell of a lot higher than it is right now. There would be billions wasted in redundant infrastructure and then what happens when the cable runs are out of space?
Your problem is you start with your ideological conclusion "Government regulation is bad" and then apply that to everything. The world isn't so black and white. Some government regulation is good for society (some is bad as well) but there is a balance. You are completely blinded by your ideology and that is why you are wrong.
Yes, we can have a genuine free market like Haiti. So people can build houses and buildings that will be death traps in earthquakes since it so much cheaper despite being in a major earthquake zone. Really brilliant.
All you morons scream about a true free market. Then when the companies start killing you and your family you scream at the government asking why it isn't doing anything about it.
Load of crap. You could use the same logic to say we don't want the government putting regulations on our food supply. I am sure someone will provide us an alternate source of water that has much less arsenic than the other company.
You ignore reality. There isn't a lot of choice for most people on what ISP they use. So no, there will not be a better option. As far as techniques, it will be a constant escalation between the two sides which will just take up more bandwidth and cause everyone's connection to be slow.
You folks need to wake up and understand that corporations do not and never will have your best interest in mind. Government regulations may not always be good, but in this case having a regulation that guaranteed net neutrality would benefit everyone. Of course that doesn't resonate well with the tin-foil hat and Fox News watchers out there.
A is impossible. That's why developers like consoles. You can't test every possible hardware/software combination out there. Most games don't have B, the ones that do, avoid.
This isn't a solution. Some games are meant to be single player. And just because something had multi-player doesn't make it piracy-proof. It is also more expensive to design and implement a multi-player game. That isn't going to work for a lot of game companies.
Who else is going to be able to make a WoW? Every MMORPG that has come out post WoW hasn't been able to hit that mark. And most games aren't going to be MMORPGs. Yeah, Blizzard is going to sell a crap load of games no matter what. Their track record and ability to deliver is nearly unmatched. How does a newer developer make money in this market?
You are being foolish. Slashdot is all about reinforcing the group-think. Fortunately for you, the anti-group-think is part of the group-think. Just so long as there are less of your comments then that of the group-think. In this case, patents are evil and bad and so is MS.
WoW is elitist? Yikes...no it isn't. I 100% agree that DotA and its clones attract the most awful people on the face of the planet. But WoW and CS:S? They have a bit of a learning curve, but really aren't that bad. It sounds like you are just a little overly sensitive to criticism. Or you are bad at video games ;)
He's also stating stuff that he knows nothing about (porting). While he doesn't deserve troll, he isn't saying anything interesting or insightful.
It is interesting. I played DotA and it has to have the most vile people ever playing the game. It seems to attract the "elitist" type with anger issues.
Eve's community (at least the forums) is pretty legendary for being jerks. People are encouraged to quit and give up their stuff. DotA (and its clones) make Eve look like a bunch of cuddly bunnies that give free hugs.
I wait for the game to come out and see how it is reviewed. I find a reviewer I have similar tastes too. I'll check it out at a friend's house. Lots of different ways other than breaking the law and then justifying it later.
I don't necessarily agree. Fallout 3 was a complete game (we'll leave the issue of bugs for another discussion). It didn't need any DLC to make it complete, but there were multiple addons you could get. I'd have had no problem paying full price for that game...though I got the GOTY edition when that came out.
If a game company releases and incomplete game and charges more to complete it, then it is an issue. I haven't seen any game yet where the addons are necessary.
So they will just need to put stickers on the cellophane wrappers that say that so that the box doesn't say you can get anything for free. It is obvious to me that stuff would only work for the new game, but I guess consumers are dumb and you have to account for that.
I said this further up. Used game sales aren't necessary for people to be exposed to a game. They can borrow it or pirate it. Can't really do much to stop those two. If you can damage the used market, or manage to recover some profit off of it through DLC, then that is more profit for the company.
People's concepts on here that this will hurt the companies bottom line more than help are naive at best.
Analogies are used to make a complex problem easier to understand. This isn't a complex problem so all an analogy does is confuse the discussion.
The problem with your analogy is that the cost of a car is much different than the cost of a game. Most people can afford a game. If they can't, they generally can wait for the game to become a "classic" or fall in to the bargain bin (in either case, they are buying it for a reduced price).
Also, your anecdote doesn't make sense in regards to the point you are trying to make. Your friend could have just borrowed the game. He didn't need to touch the used market. Also, since he was able to buy ME2, it is clear that he wasn't a "buyers that would not or cannot participate in the primary market.:buyers that would not or cannot participate in the primary market."
There really is no reason for game companies to encourage used game sales. People can already borrow or pirate if they want to try something out. It was that used games were just as much money to them as a pirated game. With DLC, now they still have a chance to gain some profit for their work. While I don't particularly like it, it does make sense from a business perspective and I understand why they do it.
I agree, the person shouldn't have done this. But you can make the technology a tad stronger I think. Usually if you have to resort to a security question, it should e-mail you a new password to your password protected e-mail. So to get in, you would need to have that information as well. It sounds like Twitter's protection just lets you in with the security question, which I would say is broken by design.
But still, I am with you: good.
Scary, I actually agree with you on this one.
Were you not in the U.S. when this happened? You don't remember the backlash towards Arab-Americans?
I suggest people just answer the questions. Fine, skip the race one if you are really freaked out. But honestly, you are getting in to tin foil full body suits at this point.
Just because Ayn Rand says something, doesn't make it true. I could say "Civilization is the progress toward a society of openness. The savage's whole existence is private, ruled by its darkest thoughts and back room deals. Civilization is the process of bringing things in to the open so that man can not subject men to tyranny."
When you have a country/world willing to post all their info online, there is no problem with privacy because no one cares any more. There are plenty of good reasons to want privacy...but you aren't going to be convincing anyone quoting Ayn Rand.
Except "Colon exams should be free" isn't a fact. There is no way to present that as a fact. A fact would be "Most colon diseases can be detected early and prevented". Fox News says things like "Health care bill has death panels". They present something as a fact that isn't one.
People take their words as fact. They hide behind the "Oh, I am just an opinion show" when people try to hold them accountable. Then whatever misinformation they say is reported in their actual new segments as "some people are saying this..." repeat the Beck and friends garbage. More of Fox is opinion than news...shouldn't they be called Fox Opinion?
If you want to say all news networks are biased you are just being lazy. There are different degrees and by far Fox News is the worst offender. If you are unable to recognize this difference, you aren't trying very hard.
Nothing. It is still the same self-perpetuating groupthink it has always been. Now you just need to filter out Idle.