He just heard about it on the news, I guess -- like a lot of other things his administration has done lately.
Translation: "oh shit, somebody noticed the gaping hole in my storyline". Like when you go back to pulling your hair out over the IRS without mentioning the fact that the scrutiny towards political groups began under a Bush appointee...
That's like Christians who try to say that anybody who does anything bad isn't "really" a Christian.
You'd like to think so.
The countries that failed
Who's banking system blew up the worldwide economy? Who's demand for cheap goods is driving climate change? It's not the "leftist" countries, who are enjoying better health care for less money while not forcing their young to gamble their future on 5 figure student loans.
By passing the Heritage Foundation health care plan?
immigration
By deporting far more people than his Republican predecessor?
environment
He's continued Dick Cheney's energy policy, only with more drilling.
race
How. I'll stop there because your bullshit little list is entirely based around Obama's party affiliation and not his actual polices. Which are to the right of Reagan on many, many fronts, from Social Security to torture to prosecuting bankers to declaring amnesty to even the right of unions to bargain collectively.
Great way to be above the partisan ship. You can't even restrain yourself from the "Faux" talking point.
Deal with it. Fox are a naked partisan propaganda outfit out to advance the agenda of the GOP and nothing more. Before anyone starts bitching about MSNBC, remember that they have Joe "dead intern" Scarborough on for three hours every day, and they didn't run banners saying "R-Spitzer" or "R-Wiener" after Dem sex scandals.
That's a bad example -- Mercedes is not a luxury brand in much of the world.
Bad? You're improving the example and going right back to where I started: Mercedes should just forget about that niche luxury car market and churn out lowest-common denominator vehicles.
Big fish in a small pond doesn't work in the 21st century global economy.
Suuuure. Of course Marketing 101 will tell you that you want to maximize your customer base for your product. It will also tell you to differentiate your product in the marketplace.
Which is why EA makes RPG's and shooters and Sim games. And why independent developers make stuff like Minecraft, when no major studio makes something like it.
So you're saying you were making a comparison that's irrelevant to Microsoft's system of graft for their next console, and just wasting everyone's time?
Anybody that would want to go to a place where they demand their fricking passwords is batshit and deserve what they get
Right, just like anyone who gives out their Social Security Number to any financial institution "deserves what they get". Except now that's every financial institution, and that ship has sailed.
Another ship making it's way out of port is credit checks for employment. Next it will be demanding passwords to social media accounts. And its kind of hard to say "no" when it means keeping a roof over your kid's heads and food in their bellies.
You're not buying anything. You're temporarily renting a license. The whole idea of "buying" any form of media has been bullshit for at least the last 15 years.
If that's what you think, I have a great deal on some ocean-front property in Nebraska for you, as well as some pre-IPO shares in the Brooklyn Bridge...
Xbox will have DRM, Steam has DRM. Treat these the same please.
No one's said Steam isn't DRM. Keep the Hatorade in check, please.
Do not divide DRM games into good guys and bad guys
Don't pass by the fact that there's a difference between inconvenience and draconian with a side of graft.
The fans gushing over Steam and passively accepting their DRM has already encouraged so many companies to adopt DRM and try to have more and more restrictions.
There's no connection between those dots. If other companies were following Vavle's lead, you wouldn't have always-on requirements or limited installs.
The reason Microsoft is trying this more heavy handed approach can be directly attributed to Steam leading the way.
It's a digitally enforced licensing contract, despite the fact that most customers don't realize that they're entering into such a contract and are instead misled into thinking that they "purchased" a product.
That's backwards. It's the industry selling people products, and then trying to mislead them into thinking they've only bought a license.
How would that run counter to the law? The law says you can resell it, not how you can resell it.
How are you free to resell something if you have to get the permission of the original publisher to do so while giving them a chunk of any sale?
This has become common with event tickets in the US, too -- you're free to resell a ticket you've got, but you have to do so via the original issuer via a "transfer this to this other person" function. (Which, frankly, is good for Ticketmaster's bottom line
Effectively what we have right now is tantamount to bootlegging.
Uh, no. It's a second hand market no different from used cars or thrift stores. When you're the fourth owner of that house built in 1965, how big was the check you made out to the original developer?
Also, First Sale. Google it.
If successful, this should drive down the cost of new game licenses on console platforms.
Bhwhwhwahahahah. Can you name a single instance in history where a more restrictive, captive market has resulted in lower prices for the consumer? One that wasn't managed by a non-profit or regulated within an inch of its life like a utility?
How is a Steambox any less of a "corporate wet dream" than the Xbox One?
Does the Xbox One let you download and play any or all purchases you've ever made, on any machine anywhere that you sign into, the way Steam does? Or is it a case of "tough luck, just buy another copy of COD XXVII"?
What you do is try to making something good enough for everyone.
Right, which is why Mercedes should stop making luxury cars and church out Honda Civic knockoffs. Because you always want to hit the lowest common denominator and no higher.
Or, try for different market segments and be a big fish in a small pond.
Not so much. Nothing stops the President from submitting legislation to Congress. By law, he's even required to do so once a year. Heard of the Federal Budget?
And if units were only used in division, you might have a great point there. Without using a calculator, how many feet are in 123 miles, vs how many meters are in 123 kilometers. Then, how many inches in those miles, vs how many centimeters in that many kilometers.
Why do you look at 1900? What was the population in 1800? Or 1200? Or 3500 BCE?
Because it's the setting for recent events. Duh. What the area was like in 3500 BCE is as relevant as the price of rice in China in 3500 BCE. So why 1900? Because Israel has no claim to legitimacy if it's entirely built on stolen land. It's no different from Manifest Destiny - another ad hoc attempt to justify the unjustifiable.
When you say that only 31% were this group of people, what about when a bunch of upstarts said that the British Colonies were no longer part of Britain? How many people were loyal british citizens, and how many were angry rebels that engaged in high treason?
British colonists rebelling against the British monarchy? Irrelevant comparison. You want to look at that period, you need to look at the colonists stealing land from the native population. Same shit, different day.
So you seem to be saying that this idea, when applied in one spot by the United Nations after WW2, was in error, but every other time was valid?
At no other time has this happened. Nations have been conquered as long as there have been nations, but at no point in history have two major powers (U.S. and Britain) aided a group of immigrants intent on carving a nation out of land where some people already happened to be living.
You are so biased that you really need to hear yourself.
Whatever you say, Pot. Bottom line: there have always been justifications for stealing land from the people who have lived there for thousands of years. Like when the United States started telling native americans to GTFO of the Louisiana Purchase. It was legally bought from France! And besides, we had a flag!
Bullshit then, bullshit in 1948, bullshit in 1967, and another 45 years of illegal settlement bullshit.
It's supply and demand -- cheap loans means more money means prices go up.
False meme. If it's all about supply and demand, the supply of schools competing for student and state dollars would also increase, bringing tuition back down.
This excuse got started by conservatives and Randians avoiding the fact that low taxes have high costs. It's cuts in state funding and administration bloat driving up costs, not "supply and demand".
The gun issue not withstanding, the Government's attack on the Second Amendment is horrific
...need to get the hell over themselves and come back to reality. What attack on the Second Amendment. The Senate can't even expand background checks FFS.
You didn't bother to look at the link. Jews were a tiny minority in Palestine before European Jews started immigrating to the area around 1900, with a spike around WWII for obvious reasons. There is no legal or moral justification for immigrants carving a state out of the native population without the consent of said population. Period.
Like I said, history and facts have a well-known anti-Zionist bias.
Slashdot Mirror
Translation: "oh shit, somebody noticed the gaping hole in my storyline". Like when you go back to pulling your hair out over the IRS without mentioning the fact that the scrutiny towards political groups began under a Bush appointee...
You'd like to think so.
Who's banking system blew up the worldwide economy? Who's demand for cheap goods is driving climate change? It's not the "leftist" countries, who are enjoying better health care for less money while not forcing their young to gamble their future on 5 figure student loans.
How is a president to the right of Reagan "left leaning", exactly?
By passing the Heritage Foundation health care plan?
By deporting far more people than his Republican predecessor?
He's continued Dick Cheney's energy policy, only with more drilling.
How. I'll stop there because your bullshit little list is entirely based around Obama's party affiliation and not his actual polices. Which are to the right of Reagan on many, many fronts, from Social Security to torture to prosecuting bankers to declaring amnesty to even the right of unions to bargain collectively.
Deal with it. Fox are a naked partisan propaganda outfit out to advance the agenda of the GOP and nothing more. Before anyone starts bitching about MSNBC, remember that they have Joe "dead intern" Scarborough on for three hours every day, and they didn't run banners saying "R-Spitzer" or "R-Wiener" after Dem sex scandals.
Bad? You're improving the example and going right back to where I started: Mercedes should just forget about that niche luxury car market and churn out lowest-common denominator vehicles.
Suuuure. Of course Marketing 101 will tell you that you want to maximize your customer base for your product. It will also tell you to differentiate your product in the marketplace.
Which is why EA makes RPG's and shooters and Sim games. And why independent developers make stuff like Minecraft, when no major studio makes something like it.
So you're saying you were making a comparison that's irrelevant to Microsoft's system of graft for their next console, and just wasting everyone's time?
Right, just like anyone who gives out their Social Security Number to any financial institution "deserves what they get". Except now that's every financial institution, and that ship has sailed.
Another ship making it's way out of port is credit checks for employment. Next it will be demanding passwords to social media accounts. And its kind of hard to say "no" when it means keeping a roof over your kid's heads and food in their bellies.
If that's what you think, I have a great deal on some ocean-front property in Nebraska for you, as well as some pre-IPO shares in the Brooklyn Bridge...
No one's said Steam isn't DRM. Keep the Hatorade in check, please.
Don't pass by the fact that there's a difference between inconvenience and draconian with a side of graft.
There's no connection between those dots. If other companies were following Vavle's lead, you wouldn't have always-on requirements or limited installs.
Hate.
Or.
Ade.
That's backwards. It's the industry selling people products, and then trying to mislead them into thinking they've only bought a license.
How are you free to resell something if you have to get the permission of the original publisher to do so while giving them a chunk of any sale?
Fixed that.
Graft is the opposite of moral.
Or he's a Libertarian Loon and the supremacy of corporate right to profit is his religion after all...
Uh, no. It's a second hand market no different from used cars or thrift stores. When you're the fourth owner of that house built in 1965, how big was the check you made out to the original developer?
Also, First Sale. Google it.
Bhwhwhwahahahah. Can you name a single instance in history where a more restrictive, captive market has resulted in lower prices for the consumer? One that wasn't managed by a non-profit or regulated within an inch of its life like a utility?
Does the Xbox One let you download and play any or all purchases you've ever made, on any machine anywhere that you sign into, the way Steam does? Or is it a case of "tough luck, just buy another copy of COD XXVII"?
Right, which is why Mercedes should stop making luxury cars and church out Honda Civic knockoffs. Because you always want to hit the lowest common denominator and no higher.
Or, try for different market segments and be a big fish in a small pond.
Riiiight. The largest maker of games is going to drop a platform before it's competitors have even been released. Sure, seems legit.
Not so much. Nothing stops the President from submitting legislation to Congress. By law, he's even required to do so once a year. Heard of the Federal Budget?
What the hell, man. Didn't Huckabee congratulating you on your National Igloo count for something?
And if units were only used in division, you might have a great point there. Without using a calculator, how many feet are in 123 miles, vs how many meters are in 123 kilometers. Then, how many inches in those miles, vs how many centimeters in that many kilometers.
Sorry, I was on vacation.
Because it's the setting for recent events. Duh. What the area was like in 3500 BCE is as relevant as the price of rice in China in 3500 BCE. So why 1900? Because Israel has no claim to legitimacy if it's entirely built on stolen land. It's no different from Manifest Destiny - another ad hoc attempt to justify the unjustifiable.
British colonists rebelling against the British monarchy? Irrelevant comparison. You want to look at that period, you need to look at the colonists stealing land from the native population. Same shit, different day.
At no other time has this happened. Nations have been conquered as long as there have been nations, but at no point in history have two major powers (U.S. and Britain) aided a group of immigrants intent on carving a nation out of land where some people already happened to be living.
Whatever you say, Pot. Bottom line: there have always been justifications for stealing land from the people who have lived there for thousands of years. Like when the United States started telling native americans to GTFO of the Louisiana Purchase. It was legally bought from France! And besides, we had a flag!
Bullshit then, bullshit in 1948, bullshit in 1967, and another 45 years of illegal settlement bullshit.
False meme. If it's all about supply and demand, the supply of schools competing for student and state dollars would also increase, bringing tuition back down.
This excuse got started by conservatives and Randians avoiding the fact that low taxes have high costs. It's cuts in state funding and administration bloat driving up costs, not "supply and demand".
If I call Dick Cheney a pacifist Quaker, does that make him one? Obama's less of a socialist than Ronald Reagan.
You didn't bother to look at the link. Jews were a tiny minority in Palestine before European Jews started immigrating to the area around 1900, with a spike around WWII for obvious reasons. There is no legal or moral justification for immigrants carving a state out of the native population without the consent of said population. Period.
Like I said, history and facts have a well-known anti-Zionist bias.