They have released no comment on the code since receiving it. They have not bothered to comment on possible release dates, except to kill any rumors of them. It is common practice to reveal release dates months in advance. HL2 has had several of them. It has not shipped on any of them. The latest rumor, November 23, has been denied by VUG. Valve will only comment that VUG has not given them permission to release the game via Steam. If VUG is really worried about making the holiday season, why are they releasing no information? Really, for you to declare that there is no possibility that VUG is holding up HL2 makes you seem either impossibly dense, or impossibly naive. Again, I said you seem that way, no need to pull out the 'l' word here either. As I've stated many, many times...it is my opinion that VUG is doing this because of their spat with Valve. What is not my opinion is that they are doing it. To say that it is normal business for the publisher to have a release candidate for months without even a tentative ship date is to show less understanding of the video game world than you claim I have. (especially when the game is expected to sell as well as HL2 is)
I understand what a candidate is. I also understand that the Valve coders have said that the game has been ready to ship for a while. I suppose you know better than they do, however. I suppose their understanding must be as feeble as mine.
I have very firm evidence that HL2 is not in the stores. Your attempt to claim otherwise is ludicrous. Really, you must be an employee of VUG. No one else would go to such ludicrous lengths to defend them. Of course, I don't *know* that you are, so I'm not asserting it as fact. Too bad for you, there's no room for your favorite charge here.
You did indeed put words into my mouth, and yet again you do so. I never stated nor implied that games were of any special importance. You have stated twice now that they are not. You have stated this in apparent disagreement with me, when I never made such a statement in the first place. That is a classic example of a straw man argument.
I did read the definition that you posted, and I looked up the legal definition, which mandates the causing of harm. You declared my post to be libelous, but you were wrong. Then when I called you on it, you claim that the legal actionability is not at issue. Why then, did you use a legal term?
I am merely contesting your notion of truth. No need to be so prickly.
Um. You accused me of libel. That makes me prickly.
some of the code has been preloaded for weeks. I'm on Steam too you know.
Yes, over a GB of code. I suppose it's only 1/4 finished or something, huh? You're acting as though the game hasn't been finished when Valve say it has. They have said they are simply waiting for the 'go' from VUG.
It is actually reaching a heck of a distance.
Let's see...game company has dispute with publisher....coders say game is ready to go pending publisher approval...over a month later, publisher has not given approval...boy, it sure is a stretch to think there's a non-code reason for that.
In addition I also see that VU and Valve have a contract. Valve seems to have reneged on part of it and is trying to re-negotiate another part. Hey VU isn't an angel, but I do respect contractual obligations.
That is a straw man. As I am not party to the lawsuit, I'm not going to comment on its validity. Either way, VUG is holding HL2 up. I don't care if Valve 'started it', I am merely stating that they are doing so. It is not in question whether HL2 is out yet, the only question is the reason it is being delayed.
Finally - remember VU & Valve have no duty to release HL2 - it isn't like some basic human right to play HL2 - it's a game, untwist your underwear and relax.
How many straw men do you need to set up in order to make your argument seem valid? I never said anyone had any sort of duty to do anything. I simply said that VUG is, in my opinion, withholding the release of HL2 punitively. I will either buy the game when it comes out, or not buy it if it never comes out. I don't have any personal stake in it at all. Never did I imply that I did. After you knocked your straw men down, my point still stands.
As for your 'libel' take, you are wrong. I did not defame or harm VUG in any way. Note that as long as I believe what I am saying about you or VUG or anyone else to be the truth, I am free to state it. If VUG would care to take me to court over a posting on slashdot, which as you very well know they wouldn't, I am confident that I would easily prevail. If you'd like, I can say a lot of really mean things about you so that you can claim libel. Then you can take me to court, since you're such a concerned citizen.
Sure, sure. They're not withholding the game. That's why it's on store shelves, right? It may not be what they are claiming, but that is what is happening. Nice troll, btw, playing the 'libel' card. That one wouldn't even have worked if my comment was a press release. Good effort, though. My opinion may or may not be correct, but I do have the right to hold it and express it. It represents the truth, as far as I can tell. Valve has released the game to VUG but it is not on shelves, nor is it available to unlock on Steam even though the code has been preloaded for weeks. VUG controls the release of Half-Life 2. Valve has already released Counter-Strike: Source*. VUG has not released Half-Life 2, and they are in the middle of a legal battle with Valve. My conclusion is not unreasonable.
*Yes, you must purchase the Steam Half-Life package first, but then CS:S is immediately playable.
Half-life 2 and Doom 3 do not compete with Halo 2, they're PC games and Halo 2 is Xbox-only.
Yes, I'm quite sure that no gamer would ever have to choose between Halo 2 and Doom 3 or Half-Life 2, since as you have astutely pointed out they currently run on different hardware. I mean, we all know that saying that all three are competing for limited gaming money is just impossible, right? Oh, to be as rich as you apparently are, never to worry about things like 'budget' and 'cost'. It must be nice to only have to worry about what system a game runs on when determining whether to purchase it.
How on Earth could anyone think that a FPS would be in competition with two other FPSs?
Half-Life 2's in a pretty similar situation to how Halo 2 is now
Sorry, you're incorrect. Half-Life 2 is the keystone of a huge legal battle between creator Valve and publisher Vivendi Universal Games (VUG). Microsoft and Bungie are not engaged in a legal battle over the release of Halo 2. Microsoft is not withholding the release of Halo 2 as a punitive action againt Bungie, as VUG is doing with Half-Life 2. The situtations are not comparable. If you want to see Half-Life 2 in stores, email VUG and tell them so.
Yes, that would make a lot of people happy. With the amount of 'mental illness' like ADD and 'sometimes feeling a little bit unhappy' already overprescribed, the drug companies and chemical psychiatrists would love it.
Re:Mental disorders are classifications
on
Coffee is Addictive
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Apparently, getting your feelings hurt by a rude comment, leading to being laughed at by others....that's a mental illness. You see, it's a social factor causing an impairment of your normal cognitive, emotional, or behavioral functioning. Watching a tear-jerker....that's a mental illness. Did you stub your toe? Mental illness.
Next time the definition of 'mental illness' is updated, don't be surprised if it looks like this: Mental illness: n. Anything.
Eventually, no one will be held responsible for anything they do because they will be able to lay the blame off on some 'mental illness'.
Sure. Don't use any form of a word you're defining in its definition. All fixed. I can find you a jillion links for people who believe aliens have implanted chips into their bodies. Does that make them all correct, too? I mean, simply because there are a lot of them? Of course, you used a single source for all of your references. Nice job. I'm very surprised that the same source I called into question earlier contains many other examples of the same mistake. Wouldn't have guessed.
I see. So if someone makes a mistake, that means it is okay for someone else to do so? If you don't know what 'conspiracy' means, how does it help you to know that it involves 'conspiring'? Dictionaries are not the place for contextual learning. Laziness on the part of m-w.com does not excuse laziness on the part of someone else.
...and that a conspiracy is merely two or more individuals conspiring together for any means...
Didn't anyone ever tell you that you can't use a form of the word you are defining in the definition of that word? No tautaulogical definitions, please.
I used hyperbole, as you did. You implied that his use of software that he paid for was illegal copying. That's extremely exaggerated.
Ahhh... but here's the rub... he didn't buy a copy of Windows. Evidently, he paid a licensing fee to run Windows on *that* exact machine that he bought (and no other). He should have bought the transferable license instead.
No, as has been stated elsewhere on this thread, he purchased a copy of Windows preinstalled on his machine. There is a difference, as 'shrinkwrap' EULAs that you have no choice in agreeing to are not legally valid. The price of one copy of Windows was added to the total cost of his machine. It would be like saying that purchasing a computer with an installed cd-rom only entitled you to use that cd-rom on that particular machine. Sure, they can make it a proprietary type of cd-rom, but then you can choose another manufacturer. The paucity of purchasing options has been covered sufficiently elsewhere in this thread. You are basing your case on an argument (he is only entitled to use that key code on that exact hardware) that has been legally defeated. Additionally, you are using the legally defeated illogic that a different install CD with the same key number constitutes illegal use of that key number. I realize that Microsoft sometimes makes it very difficult, but there is no legal reason for it to be so. I don't know what I'm missing, here. Please provide me your evidence, as you are making the assertion, that he is not entitled to run the same version of Windows on another machine using the key number he paid for when it is in use on only one machine.
Talk about irrelevant. 'Copying' and 'Installing on a different machine instead of the one with which I got my copy' are completely different concepts. How could you possibly chide the person you responded to about irrelevancy and then go off on a lecture about how copying software is the devil? He never said he should be able to freely distribute copies of Windows, just that he should be able to install his bought and paid for copy of Windows on the machine of his choice, not the machine of the OS manufacturer and/or vendor's choice. You're not comparing apples to oranges here, more like apples to abstract concepts.
Actually, "the one with the wales" was my favorite. While it is popular on slashdot to confuse 'opinion' with 'troll', my opinion is that those movies were at least watchable, while the others are not. That is just my opinion. You don't have to share it, but there's no chance of you changing it through this forum.
Apparently you misunderstood the use of bold in my post. I seperated Star Wars part from the Star Trek part. I thought I was clear is saying what I would give up and what exactly I would prevent. Yes, DS9 is included in that list, for me. Babylon 5, Terminator, LoTR et al are not Star Trek related and therefore are also outside the scope of the discussion. If you have a different opinion, terrific! Please don't try to strawman me into sharing it, however.
But without Star Wars, all we'd have today is the original series running in syndication.
Your inference seems to be that this is a bad thing. I'm puzzled. That would be my preference. I didn't mind star trek movies #2 and #4, but I'd be willing to sacrafice them to prevent 1,3,5, and any next-generation anything from having been made. Just one man's opinion.
They aren't for states rights, they just like to say they are. I suppose you think they are for small government too?
Erm. That was exactly the OP's point. Their platform declares that they stand for freedom, while their policy indicates that they stand for governmental control. They are, indeed, ostensibly for small government, although the current platform does not reflect this. However, they are counting on the legions of Republicans who *are* for small government and state's rights voting for them. Sadly, many will.
Why not just extend your analogy and end all crime? Dead people don't jaywalk, either. I know you're just an anti-drug apologist, but perhaps you should stick to what you know. (Which, if that post is any indication, is nothing)
You are wrong. Caffeine causes physical symptoms of withdrawal. It also changes your brain chemistry. (of course so do a fuckton of other things, I just like being as dramatic about caffeine as most people are about weed) Here's a well-written student paper which explores both sides of this controversial issue. However mild, caffeine does indeed form a physical dependance. Here.
Many things are classified as 'addictive' that I don't think should be; shopping, jogging, chocolate, gambling, just to name a few. However, caffeine actually does fit the requirements of an addictive substance.
You're just like the Nazis, always bringing up Godwin's Law. Seriously though, it's a lot easier, I think, to *not* get along with people on the Internet, as well as to get along with them. In real life, if you call someone a Nazi or a faggot or a dipshit or whatever, they have the opportunity to make you eat those words physically. Online, you can just stop typing/reading, and whatever is bothering you goes away. So, yes, it can be easier to ignore someone's bad traits and thus get along with them online, but it's far easier to simply ignore their (justified or not) reaction to what you say. Thus not getting along with people online is easier than not getting along with them IRL, and less physically dangerous, to boot. For misanthropes like me, that's one of the beauties of the 'net.
...ever spend a dime to pay for any version of my favorite childhood movie wherein Greedo shoots the ceiling a microsecond before Han blows him away. FUCK YOU GEORGE LUCAS and fuck your Greedo shooting first and your walkie-talkie guns. South Park got it just right.
I stand corrected re: OPEC and the current oil prices. I still believe, however, that the war was waged out of a sense that America is supposed to police the world. I don't agree, but when the UN does nothing to enforce its own regulations (including against the US, I might add) then there is no truly responsible international body. Its lack, however, does not justify the US taking up the reins, as it were. At least, not in my opinion.
That was well said. Thank you for expressing so clearly in so few words what I attempted to express with a veritable book. Sincerely, I wish I could do that. Hopefully you won't mind being added to my friends list.
Slashdot Mirror
They have released no comment on the code since receiving it. They have not bothered to comment on possible release dates, except to kill any rumors of them. It is common practice to reveal release dates months in advance. HL2 has had several of them. It has not shipped on any of them. The latest rumor, November 23, has been denied by VUG. Valve will only comment that VUG has not given them permission to release the game via Steam. If VUG is really worried about making the holiday season, why are they releasing no information? Really, for you to declare that there is no possibility that VUG is holding up HL2 makes you seem either impossibly dense, or impossibly naive. Again, I said you seem that way, no need to pull out the 'l' word here either. As I've stated many, many times...it is my opinion that VUG is doing this because of their spat with Valve. What is not my opinion is that they are doing it. To say that it is normal business for the publisher to have a release candidate for months without even a tentative ship date is to show less understanding of the video game world than you claim I have. (especially when the game is expected to sell as well as HL2 is)
I understand what a candidate is. I also understand that the Valve coders have said that the game has been ready to ship for a while. I suppose you know better than they do, however. I suppose their understanding must be as feeble as mine.
I have very firm evidence that HL2 is not in the stores. Your attempt to claim otherwise is ludicrous. Really, you must be an employee of VUG. No one else would go to such ludicrous lengths to defend them. Of course, I don't *know* that you are, so I'm not asserting it as fact. Too bad for you, there's no room for your favorite charge here.
You did indeed put words into my mouth, and yet again you do so. I never stated nor implied that games were of any special importance. You have stated twice now that they are not. You have stated this in apparent disagreement with me, when I never made such a statement in the first place. That is a classic example of a straw man argument.
I did read the definition that you posted, and I looked up the legal definition, which mandates the causing of harm. You declared my post to be libelous, but you were wrong. Then when I called you on it, you claim that the legal actionability is not at issue. Why then, did you use a legal term?
Valve released a candidate to VU.
Yes. In August. What's today's date, again?
I am merely contesting your notion of truth. No need to be so prickly.
Um. You accused me of libel. That makes me prickly.
some of the code has been preloaded for weeks. I'm on Steam too you know.
Yes, over a GB of code. I suppose it's only 1/4 finished or something, huh? You're acting as though the game hasn't been finished when Valve say it has. They have said they are simply waiting for the 'go' from VUG.
It is actually reaching a heck of a distance.
Let's see...game company has dispute with publisher....coders say game is ready to go pending publisher approval...over a month later, publisher has not given approval...boy, it sure is a stretch to think there's a non-code reason for that.
In addition I also see that VU and Valve have a contract. Valve seems to have reneged on part of it and is trying to re-negotiate another part. Hey VU isn't an angel, but I do respect contractual obligations.
That is a straw man. As I am not party to the lawsuit, I'm not going to comment on its validity. Either way, VUG is holding HL2 up. I don't care if Valve 'started it', I am merely stating that they are doing so. It is not in question whether HL2 is out yet, the only question is the reason it is being delayed.
Finally - remember VU & Valve have no duty to release HL2 - it isn't like some basic human right to play HL2 - it's a game, untwist your underwear and relax.
How many straw men do you need to set up in order to make your argument seem valid? I never said anyone had any sort of duty to do anything. I simply said that VUG is, in my opinion, withholding the release of HL2 punitively. I will either buy the game when it comes out, or not buy it if it never comes out. I don't have any personal stake in it at all. Never did I imply that I did. After you knocked your straw men down, my point still stands.
As for your 'libel' take, you are wrong. I did not defame or harm VUG in any way. Note that as long as I believe what I am saying about you or VUG or anyone else to be the truth, I am free to state it. If VUG would care to take me to court over a posting on slashdot, which as you very well know they wouldn't, I am confident that I would easily prevail. If you'd like, I can say a lot of really mean things about you so that you can claim libel. Then you can take me to court, since you're such a concerned citizen.
Sure, sure. They're not withholding the game. That's why it's on store shelves, right? It may not be what they are claiming, but that is what is happening. Nice troll, btw, playing the 'libel' card. That one wouldn't even have worked if my comment was a press release. Good effort, though. My opinion may or may not be correct, but I do have the right to hold it and express it. It represents the truth, as far as I can tell. Valve has released the game to VUG but it is not on shelves, nor is it available to unlock on Steam even though the code has been preloaded for weeks. VUG controls the release of Half-Life 2. Valve has already released Counter-Strike: Source*. VUG has not released Half-Life 2, and they are in the middle of a legal battle with Valve. My conclusion is not unreasonable.
*Yes, you must purchase the Steam Half-Life package first, but then CS:S is immediately playable.
Half-life 2 and Doom 3 do not compete with Halo 2, they're PC games and Halo 2 is Xbox-only.
Yes, I'm quite sure that no gamer would ever have to choose between Halo 2 and Doom 3 or Half-Life 2, since as you have astutely pointed out they currently run on different hardware. I mean, we all know that saying that all three are competing for limited gaming money is just impossible, right? Oh, to be as rich as you apparently are, never to worry about things like 'budget' and 'cost'. It must be nice to only have to worry about what system a game runs on when determining whether to purchase it.
How on Earth could anyone think that a FPS would be in competition with two other FPSs?
Half-Life 2's in a pretty similar situation to how Halo 2 is now
Sorry, you're incorrect. Half-Life 2 is the keystone of a huge legal battle between creator Valve and publisher Vivendi Universal Games (VUG). Microsoft and Bungie are not engaged in a legal battle over the release of Halo 2. Microsoft is not withholding the release of Halo 2 as a punitive action againt Bungie, as VUG is doing with Half-Life 2. The situtations are not comparable. If you want to see Half-Life 2 in stores, email VUG and tell them so.
Hmm. Maybe the should change it to:
Mental illness: n.
Being human
Yes, that would make a lot of people happy. With the amount of 'mental illness' like ADD and 'sometimes feeling a little bit unhappy' already overprescribed, the drug companies and chemical psychiatrists would love it.
Apparently, getting your feelings hurt by a rude comment, leading to being laughed at by others....that's a mental illness. You see, it's a social factor causing an impairment of your normal cognitive, emotional, or behavioral functioning. Watching a tear-jerker....that's a mental illness. Did you stub your toe? Mental illness.
Next time the definition of 'mental illness' is updated, don't be surprised if it looks like this:
Mental illness: n.
Anything.
Eventually, no one will be held responsible for anything they do because they will be able to lay the blame off on some 'mental illness'.
Sure. Don't use any form of a word you're defining in its definition.
All fixed.
I can find you a jillion links for people who believe aliens have implanted chips into their bodies. Does that make them all correct, too? I mean, simply because there are a lot of them?
Of course, you used a single source for all of your references. Nice job. I'm very surprised that the same source I called into question earlier contains many other examples of the same mistake. Wouldn't have guessed.
I see. So if someone makes a mistake, that means it is okay for someone else to do so? If you don't know what 'conspiracy' means, how does it help you to know that it involves 'conspiring'? Dictionaries are not the place for contextual learning. Laziness on the part of m-w.com does not excuse laziness on the part of someone else.
here
Do not define a word by mere repetition.
Water is a watery substance.
Running is when a person runs.
A conspiracy is when people conspire.
See the problem here? Or does your faith in m-w.com overrule your common sense?
No one in this election (or indeed the public eye) is spinless. Perhaps you meant spineless?
...and that a conspiracy is merely two or more individuals conspiring together for any means...
Didn't anyone ever tell you that you can't use a form of the word you are defining in the definition of that word? No tautaulogical definitions, please.
Hmmm... I didn't think I implied this.
I used hyperbole, as you did. You implied that his use of software that he paid for was illegal copying. That's extremely exaggerated.
Ahhh... but here's the rub... he didn't buy a copy of Windows. Evidently, he paid a licensing fee to run Windows on *that* exact machine that he bought (and no other). He should have bought the transferable license instead.
No, as has been stated elsewhere on this thread, he purchased a copy of Windows preinstalled on his machine. There is a difference, as 'shrinkwrap' EULAs that you have no choice in agreeing to are not legally valid. The price of one copy of Windows was added to the total cost of his machine. It would be like saying that purchasing a computer with an installed cd-rom only entitled you to use that cd-rom on that particular machine. Sure, they can make it a proprietary type of cd-rom, but then you can choose another manufacturer. The paucity of purchasing options has been covered sufficiently elsewhere in this thread. You are basing your case on an argument (he is only entitled to use that key code on that exact hardware) that has been legally defeated. Additionally, you are using the legally defeated illogic that a different install CD with the same key number constitutes illegal use of that key number. I realize that Microsoft sometimes makes it very difficult, but there is no legal reason for it to be so. I don't know what I'm missing, here. Please provide me your evidence, as you are making the assertion, that he is not entitled to run the same version of Windows on another machine using the key number he paid for when it is in use on only one machine.
Talk about irrelevant. 'Copying' and 'Installing on a different machine instead of the one with which I got my copy' are completely different concepts. How could you possibly chide the person you responded to about irrelevancy and then go off on a lecture about how copying software is the devil? He never said he should be able to freely distribute copies of Windows, just that he should be able to install his bought and paid for copy of Windows on the machine of his choice, not the machine of the OS manufacturer and/or vendor's choice. You're not comparing apples to oranges here, more like apples to abstract concepts.
Actually, "the one with the wales" was my favorite. While it is popular on slashdot to confuse 'opinion' with 'troll', my opinion is that those movies were at least watchable, while the others are not. That is just my opinion. You don't have to share it, but there's no chance of you changing it through this forum.
Apparently you misunderstood the use of bold in my post. I seperated Star Wars part from the Star Trek part. I thought I was clear is saying what I would give up and what exactly I would prevent. Yes, DS9 is included in that list, for me. Babylon 5, Terminator, LoTR et al are not Star Trek related and therefore are also outside the scope of the discussion. If you have a different opinion, terrific! Please don't try to strawman me into sharing it, however.
But without Star Wars, all we'd have today is the original series running in syndication.
Your inference seems to be that this is a bad thing. I'm puzzled.
That would be my preference. I didn't mind star trek movies #2 and #4, but I'd be willing to sacrafice them to prevent 1,3,5, and any next-generation anything from having been made. Just one man's opinion.
They aren't for states rights, they just like to say they are. I suppose you think they are for small government too?
Erm. That was exactly the OP's point. Their platform declares that they stand for freedom, while their policy indicates that they stand for governmental control. They are, indeed, ostensibly for small government, although the current platform does not reflect this. However, they are counting on the legions of Republicans who *are* for small government and state's rights voting for them. Sadly, many will.
Why not just extend your analogy and end all crime? Dead people don't jaywalk, either. I know you're just an anti-drug apologist, but perhaps you should stick to what you know. (Which, if that post is any indication, is nothing)
You are wrong. Caffeine causes physical symptoms of withdrawal. It also changes your brain chemistry. (of course so do a fuckton of other things, I just like being as dramatic about caffeine as most people are about weed)
Here's a well-written student paper which explores both sides of this controversial issue. However mild, caffeine does indeed form a physical dependance.
Here.
Many things are classified as 'addictive' that I don't think should be; shopping, jogging, chocolate, gambling, just to name a few. However, caffeine actually does fit the requirements of an addictive substance.
Well said. You're my new Internet hero, billstewart.
Down with the War on Smoke and Mirrors!
You're just like the Nazis, always bringing up Godwin's Law.
Seriously though, it's a lot easier, I think, to *not* get along with people on the Internet, as well as to get along with them. In real life, if you call someone a Nazi or a faggot or a dipshit or whatever, they have the opportunity to make you eat those words physically. Online, you can just stop typing/reading, and whatever is bothering you goes away. So, yes, it can be easier to ignore someone's bad traits and thus get along with them online, but it's far easier to simply ignore their (justified or not) reaction to what you say. Thus not getting along with people online is easier than not getting along with them IRL, and less physically dangerous, to boot. For misanthropes like me, that's one of the beauties of the 'net.
...ever spend a dime to pay for any version of my favorite childhood movie wherein Greedo shoots the ceiling a microsecond before Han blows him away. FUCK YOU GEORGE LUCAS and fuck your Greedo shooting first and your walkie-talkie guns. South Park got it just right.
I stand corrected re: OPEC and the current oil prices. I still believe, however, that the war was waged out of a sense that America is supposed to police the world. I don't agree, but when the UN does nothing to enforce its own regulations (including against the US, I might add) then there is no truly responsible international body. Its lack, however, does not justify the US taking up the reins, as it were. At least, not in my opinion.
That was well said. Thank you for expressing so clearly in so few words what I attempted to express with a veritable book. Sincerely, I wish I could do that. Hopefully you won't mind being added to my friends list.