Why flush money down a losing venture until it starts to see a return? Because they can. And one of the many faults of capitalism is that those with a ton of money can do the stupidest shit and still come out okay.
The whole point of capitalism is, via a free market where YOU have the choice, to let people decide for themselves that those who "do the stupidest shit" CAN'T "come out okay". You surely are not speaking of true, laissez-faire capitalism - you must be speaking of bastardized capitalism (see the USA), which is not capitalism at all.
Lamenting the fact that a successful company can correct mistakes and offer a product that you admittedly buy yourself is no reason to damn the very politico-economic system that allows them to be successful in the first place.
The extreme distrust of intellectualism throughout the US in particular is a major block in the advancement of society on a wide variety of fronts, and most often that distrust is manufactured as a form of religious views attacking scientific foundations and research.
Advancement towards what exactly? Have you ever considered that not everyone want to go in the direction you want to "advance" them?
I think this sets a terrible precedence because while Sony may have removed a generally disused feature by the majority of PS3 owners, they added a HELL of a lot more free features to the PS3 since release.
You're missing the point, though. The point is, Sony should NOT be allowed to sell a device with Feature X, and then take it away. Sony should be praised for adding a lot of new features; that's great. What they shouldn't do is take away functionality that was included at the time of sale. And a full refund isn't even enough; what about all the time that is wasted by a PS3 owner who DID use the Other OS feature? Now they have to take the time to research what happened to the feature, why it was removed, if they can get it back, try to sell or return the PS3, etc. etc.
The problem with that theory is it is NOT "optional" in the least bit. You see most folks bought the PS3 to actually play games and none of the newer games will work without the updated firmware.
I think more responsibility falls on the consumer. If Sony demands ridiculous terms, it's up to us to boycott their products and send a message. The problem is, consumers want to have their cake and eat it too. They want a reasonable EULA, but they're not willing to refuse unreasonable EULAs. The choice is ours, folks.
Having said that, if Sony sells a product with Feature X and then takes it away... that is plain wrong.
Can any/.ers here with a legal/law background comment on the legality of a contract that grants infinite powers over said contract to one party?
I'm just glad I decided to stick with PC gaming. Between the RRoD on the MSFT side and Sony being their usual douchebag selves there really isn't a good console for those that don't want to play kiddie games.
That's exactly it; you're doing the right thing. Don't give in to their unreasonable EULA, boycott their product, and either choose another gaming platform or none at all if you can't find one that suits you.
"Is it a basic right to be allowed to receive e-mail from whomever I desire, or does Comcast have the right to censor as they wish?"
As a service provider, Comcast has the right to censor the ever-living-f*ck out of whatever they choose.
It is not a basic right to be allowed to receive e-mail from whomever you desire. Comcast does not exist to accomodate your every whim.
If you want them to give you a new feature (ability to opt out of such blacklists, for example), then by all means bark at them until the cows come home. But in the end, they offer a service; if you find it of value, pay for it. If you don't like their rules, play somewhere else.
I hate censorship as much as the next guy, but it's their service they're providing. Make some noise, but don't think it's your right to demand and receive a given service.
Slashdot Mirror
This one time, at C camp, I stuck a float in my putc().
Amen!
Why flush money down a losing venture until it starts to see a return? Because they can. And one of the many faults of capitalism is that those with a ton of money can do the stupidest shit and still come out okay.
The whole point of capitalism is, via a free market where YOU have the choice, to let people decide for themselves that those who "do the stupidest shit" CAN'T "come out okay". You surely are not speaking of true, laissez-faire capitalism - you must be speaking of bastardized capitalism (see the USA), which is not capitalism at all.
Lamenting the fact that a successful company can correct mistakes and offer a product that you admittedly buy yourself is no reason to damn the very politico-economic system that allows them to be successful in the first place.
Advancement towards what exactly? Have you ever considered that not everyone want to go in the direction you want to "advance" them?
Advancements towards prosperity of human life?
I think this sets a terrible precedence because while Sony may have removed a generally disused feature by the majority of PS3 owners, they added a HELL of a lot more free features to the PS3 since release.
You're missing the point, though. The point is, Sony should NOT be allowed to sell a device with Feature X, and then take it away. Sony should be praised for adding a lot of new features; that's great. What they shouldn't do is take away functionality that was included at the time of sale. And a full refund isn't even enough; what about all the time that is wasted by a PS3 owner who DID use the Other OS feature? Now they have to take the time to research what happened to the feature, why it was removed, if they can get it back, try to sell or return the PS3, etc. etc.
The problem with that theory is it is NOT "optional" in the least bit. You see most folks bought the PS3 to actually play games and none of the newer games will work without the updated firmware.
I think more responsibility falls on the consumer. If Sony demands ridiculous terms, it's up to us to boycott their products and send a message. The problem is, consumers want to have their cake and eat it too. They want a reasonable EULA, but they're not willing to refuse unreasonable EULAs. The choice is ours, folks.
Having said that, if Sony sells a product with Feature X and then takes it away... that is plain wrong.
Can any /.ers here with a legal/law background comment on the legality of a contract that grants infinite powers over said contract to one party?
I'm just glad I decided to stick with PC gaming. Between the RRoD on the MSFT side and Sony being their usual douchebag selves there really isn't a good console for those that don't want to play kiddie games.
That's exactly it; you're doing the right thing. Don't give in to their unreasonable EULA, boycott their product, and either choose another gaming platform or none at all if you can't find one that suits you.
It is not a basic right to be allowed to receive e-mail from whomever you desire. Comcast does not exist to accomodate your every whim.
If you want them to give you a new feature (ability to opt out of such blacklists, for example), then by all means bark at them until the cows come home. But in the end, they offer a service; if you find it of value, pay for it. If you don't like their rules, play somewhere else.
I hate censorship as much as the next guy, but it's their service they're providing. Make some noise, but don't think it's your right to demand and receive a given service.