XP ran into a lot of those issues when it came out too.
Don't get me wrong, as a Vista user, I'm not too thrilled with the OS. I do like some things about it, so I continue to use it.
I do agree that Microsoft has the necessary resources to make a more stable and faster running OS. Microsoft doesn't have to look like the bad guy all the time. But for whatever stupid reason, they choose to.
XP has matured to a point where a lot of people really really like it. An XP 2.0 would've been nice.
Well, yes and no. They dropped the suit, and then went and refiled the same suit without telling the federal court that it was the same suit. The RIAA did this to get a different judge. The families lawyer sent both judges a note about it. Hopefully it's just a matter of time before they get disbarment for abusing the legal system.
Why not? STEAM does it and people love them for it! That of course doesn't mean they *have to*, but one would think if they want to stay competitive in that sector of the business, it would be a good idea.
It's only preventing you if you're not from Thailand. That was the point. You're suddenly not going to be not able to play it outside of Thailand if you weren't from Thailand.
I don't think you being dismissive is exactly bad. There's a huge difference between those DX9 cards and the more recent ones. DX10 cards are actually a huge leap. The low end ones probably blow the low-end DX9 cards out of the water.
I have never actually tested that myself (low end to low end), but I did go from a high end DX9 card to a high end DX10 card. My jaw dropped at the FPS increase alone. Massive.
I've never tired the offline mode with any of Valve's games (done it with other games like Geometry Wars), so that could be true. They do after all track things like how long it took you to complete a level, what you found, and where you died at.
No, what's stupid is you taking a snippet without looking at the big picture. Valve has to take certain laws in different areas of the world into account. That's as simple as it gets. The region thing may be stupid from a consumer perspective, but from a companies standpoint, it keeps them from unnecessary litigation as long as they play by the book in the global market.
Also, STEAM doesn't prevent you from playing the game anywhere in the world, which I pointed out earlier.
I agree, losing a CD-Key would suck. Then you'd have to go through the hassle of contacting the company for a new one, where you'd probably have to pay for it. However, I've never lost one that I intended to keep. It's not hard to not lose a CD-key. Get a binder that holds CD's, pop the cd in the binder, put the key in the same slot. Problem solved.
That could be Valve's way of covering their ass. I do agree it is heavy handed and lazy, however.
Certain countries have these crazy ideas that laws need to be created to protect minors from games with "harmful" content. Some kid buys a key from Thailand, even though they live in that country. Kid downloads the game. Parents find out and get upset. They start sensationalizing what had happened and Valve now has a bad name or possibly worse.
It just seems like they're trying to cover their ass. I'm also sure there's probably something in their TOS that covers this.
This really sucks for me as I travel to and from Thailand all the time. What do they expect? I buy the orange box in every damn country?!
From the snippet that you posted, you're fine as long as you buy the game from the region you say you're in. Live in the US? Buy a US version. After that point, it doesn't matter where you play the game.
I especially think the "treating us as criminals" arguments is given way more weight than it's really worth. I mean, does anybody have a better idea about how to validate s/w as being legally purchased other than using some product activation mechanism (whether it works over the phone or net?)
Who says we need a better idea? I'm fine with CD keys. The people who really want to pirate a copy will, regardless of how hard it is to crack. Those who never intended to pay, won't pay.
With less copy protection, developers now have less middleware to deal with, which can be a hassle to get working. Cracked games will work better, which in turn people won't bad mouth a game for being buggy or not working properly because a crack didn't take into account some bit for said copy protection mechanism (Titan's Quest anyone?). Developers and publishers save time and money.
I do realize there is another side to that coin. However, in the end, when you don't poo poo on your target audience, you can get a good bit of sales.
Personally, I haven't bought many games over the years, games I wanted to play, because of the copy protection.
You know, you can play your games in offline mode, where STEAM doesn't snoop on you all the time. That's great for single player games like Portal. Online games, ok, you can't exactly play them in offline mode. Now, at the very least, you can play half the games you mentioned.
The worst part about that is that they cite these huge numbers of pirated copies being used at any given time. I guess they divine that information from their crystal ball? They sure as hell never give sources on how they find these numbers.
I thought some of the examples I gave would explain my position more clearly. It appears that I'm wrong.
I realize all copy protection in some manner treats you like a criminal. I start having issues when it becomes obtrusive to my ability to play a game or use some software.
I think STEAM is fine. Even if I have no Internet access, I can still play the game as long as I have installed the game.
I think CD keys are fine. It comes with the game. If I lose the key, that's my fault. The game still theoretically works. The CD key also doesn't force me to go out of my way in some fashion. I don't have to pick up a phone to call someone. My keyboard is right there and all I need to do is type it in.
it doesn't treat me like some criminal. I don't want my software to stop working because I had no internet access, and I now have to go out of my way and call technical support. I don't want my software to install root-kits on my PC because it thinks I might be a pirate. I don't want copy protection to be less useful than the pirated version. And so on and so forth.
I'd just like to say that whoever modded this down, is a tit. This wasn't posted to be inflammatory. I posted it to make a point, a point which you clearly missed.
Care to prove how important foundations and institutions are going to take rudimentary steps to check on plagiarism before they hand out achievements?
No, you probably won't. It's just much easier to mod someone down than it is to consider that a point was being made.
As I mentioned earlier, third hand account, I don't clearly remember all the facts.
However, I have no reason to think my buddy ls lying. I've known him for 20 years now and he has never once told grand lies in any capacity. It seems far-fetched that he would make this up.
Still, my point remains. What is the point in plagiarism being easier to detect if foundations and institutions we hold sacred won't even take rudimentary steps to verify that the work is original?
The answer is simple. They won't. That is, until someone complains. Since work is increasingly being posted online, it's easier to google sections of a piece of work to see if it returns any results. It should be done in the first place, and chances are it's not.
I don't expect every college professor to do that with the work their students hand in, but when you're doing important academic research that you're going to submit to the world, someone important should do some quick checking.
It's easier to detect, but is anything actually being done?
I have a third hand account of a story that illustrates this. It's going to be vague as I don't remember names and dates, but whatever.
My friend was doing research for his physics prof for his undergrad studies. The work was on string theory. His prof had a partner. Well, after some time the partner took whatever information he had, ran off with it, renamed it something else, and won a Nobel Prize for it.
Despite the fact that the work was incomplete and had errors, named something that didn't accurately depict what the work was, and was shown to be stolen, no one cared. That particular professor didn't do all of the work. But instead he gets full credit.
So where's the point in being able to detect plagiarism if no one cares enough to do it?
I fail to see what's so heroic about being shot down and tortured. Care to enlighten why this is considered heroic? Sure, it takes some bravery to hop into a plane, knowing full well you'll be shot at, but the military also brainwashes you to take orders too.
Besides, no one expects to be shot down.
So tell me, where is the bravery in the act of being shot down and tortured?
That star-trek phaser doo-hickey thingy looks more like an AMP crimper I use at work than a weapon, though that thing is kinda heavy. I guess you could bludgeon someone with it if you wanted to.
No, what's archaic and backwards is your thinking. Disarming a population is a terrible idea. "Criminals" - the bad guys you keep going on and on about, will still get their weapons illegally, whether there's laws for guns or not.
Given that, police will still have to fear being shot, knowing full well it's not entirely hard to get guns illegally.
Hell, drugs are outlawed and it's not hard to get those illegally either. But guess what? We still have to worry about and deal with people who sell and use.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't get me wrong, as a Vista user, I'm not too thrilled with the OS. I do like some things about it, so I continue to use it.
I do agree that Microsoft has the necessary resources to make a more stable and faster running OS. Microsoft doesn't have to look like the bad guy all the time. But for whatever stupid reason, they choose to.
XP has matured to a point where a lot of people really really like it. An XP 2.0 would've been nice.
Here's the full story.
Why not? STEAM does it and people love them for it! That of course doesn't mean they *have to*, but one would think if they want to stay competitive in that sector of the business, it would be a good idea.
It's only preventing you if you're not from Thailand. That was the point. You're suddenly not going to be not able to play it outside of Thailand if you weren't from Thailand.
I have never actually tested that myself (low end to low end), but I did go from a high end DX9 card to a high end DX10 card. My jaw dropped at the FPS increase alone. Massive.
I've never tired the offline mode with any of Valve's games (done it with other games like Geometry Wars), so that could be true. They do after all track things like how long it took you to complete a level, what you found, and where you died at.
Winking is serious business.
STEAM actually gives you the option to backup your games. You can also play your games in offline mode.
Also, STEAM doesn't prevent you from playing the game anywhere in the world, which I pointed out earlier.
I agree, losing a CD-Key would suck. Then you'd have to go through the hassle of contacting the company for a new one, where you'd probably have to pay for it. However, I've never lost one that I intended to keep. It's not hard to not lose a CD-key. Get a binder that holds CD's, pop the cd in the binder, put the key in the same slot. Problem solved.
Certain countries have these crazy ideas that laws need to be created to protect minors from games with "harmful" content. Some kid buys a key from Thailand, even though they live in that country. Kid downloads the game. Parents find out and get upset. They start sensationalizing what had happened and Valve now has a bad name or possibly worse.
It just seems like they're trying to cover their ass. I'm also sure there's probably something in their TOS that covers this.
This really sucks for me as I travel to and from Thailand all the time. What do they expect? I buy the orange box in every damn country?!From the snippet that you posted, you're fine as long as you buy the game from the region you say you're in. Live in the US? Buy a US version. After that point, it doesn't matter where you play the game.
I especially think the "treating us as criminals" arguments is given way more weight than it's really worth. I mean, does anybody have a better idea about how to validate s/w as being legally purchased other than using some product activation mechanism (whether it works over the phone or net?)
Who says we need a better idea? I'm fine with CD keys. The people who really want to pirate a copy will, regardless of how hard it is to crack. Those who never intended to pay, won't pay.
With less copy protection, developers now have less middleware to deal with, which can be a hassle to get working. Cracked games will work better, which in turn people won't bad mouth a game for being buggy or not working properly because a crack didn't take into account some bit for said copy protection mechanism (Titan's Quest anyone?). Developers and publishers save time and money.
I do realize there is another side to that coin. However, in the end, when you don't poo poo on your target audience, you can get a good bit of sales.
Personally, I haven't bought many games over the years, games I wanted to play, because of the copy protection.
You know, you can play your games in offline mode, where STEAM doesn't snoop on you all the time. That's great for single player games like Portal. Online games, ok, you can't exactly play them in offline mode. Now, at the very least, you can play half the games you mentioned.
I realize all copy protection in some manner treats you like a criminal. I start having issues when it becomes obtrusive to my ability to play a game or use some software.
I think STEAM is fine. Even if I have no Internet access, I can still play the game as long as I have installed the game.
I think CD keys are fine. It comes with the game. If I lose the key, that's my fault. The game still theoretically works. The CD key also doesn't force me to go out of my way in some fashion. I don't have to pick up a phone to call someone. My keyboard is right there and all I need to do is type it in.
it doesn't treat me like some criminal. I don't want my software to stop working because I had no internet access, and I now have to go out of my way and call technical support. I don't want my software to install root-kits on my PC because it thinks I might be a pirate. I don't want copy protection to be less useful than the pirated version. And so on and so forth.
Care to prove how important foundations and institutions are going to take rudimentary steps to check on plagiarism before they hand out achievements?
No, you probably won't. It's just much easier to mod someone down than it is to consider that a point was being made.
In conclusion, you fail at life.
However, I have no reason to think my buddy ls lying. I've known him for 20 years now and he has never once told grand lies in any capacity. It seems far-fetched that he would make this up.
Still, my point remains. What is the point in plagiarism being easier to detect if foundations and institutions we hold sacred won't even take rudimentary steps to verify that the work is original?
The answer is simple. They won't. That is, until someone complains. Since work is increasingly being posted online, it's easier to google sections of a piece of work to see if it returns any results. It should be done in the first place, and chances are it's not.
I don't expect every college professor to do that with the work their students hand in, but when you're doing important academic research that you're going to submit to the world, someone important should do some quick checking.
This!
It's easier to detect, but is anything actually being done? I have a third hand account of a story that illustrates this. It's going to be vague as I don't remember names and dates, but whatever. My friend was doing research for his physics prof for his undergrad studies. The work was on string theory. His prof had a partner. Well, after some time the partner took whatever information he had, ran off with it, renamed it something else, and won a Nobel Prize for it. Despite the fact that the work was incomplete and had errors, named something that didn't accurately depict what the work was, and was shown to be stolen, no one cared. That particular professor didn't do all of the work. But instead he gets full credit. So where's the point in being able to detect plagiarism if no one cares enough to do it?
I fail to see what's so heroic about being shot down and tortured. Care to enlighten why this is considered heroic? Sure, it takes some bravery to hop into a plane, knowing full well you'll be shot at, but the military also brainwashes you to take orders too. Besides, no one expects to be shot down. So tell me, where is the bravery in the act of being shot down and tortured?
That star-trek phaser doo-hickey thingy looks more like an AMP crimper I use at work than a weapon, though that thing is kinda heavy. I guess you could bludgeon someone with it if you wanted to.
You fail. It's butt scratcher. I don't know why people insist on "back scratcher".
No, what's archaic and backwards is your thinking. Disarming a population is a terrible idea. "Criminals" - the bad guys you keep going on and on about, will still get their weapons illegally, whether there's laws for guns or not. Given that, police will still have to fear being shot, knowing full well it's not entirely hard to get guns illegally. Hell, drugs are outlawed and it's not hard to get those illegally either. But guess what? We still have to worry about and deal with people who sell and use.
I stole your lube because you stole my thoughts. Turn about is foreplay... I mean fair play!