You must either be an abortion or a result of inbreeding. Or perhaps you have brain damage, killed it with heroin or something.
It's not that I have any illusions that you will understand the logic, I just like to tease retards.
When you steal a car, you do the company a huge harm by reducing the number of expensive to produce physical objects that they had. You also do them a very small favour by saying you like their products. The net result is very negative.
When you copy a game or another product, you do them a favour by saying you like the game, you don't harm them by stealing a physical copy and IF AND ONLY IF you would have bought the game otherwise, you do them some harm by decreasing their potential sales. The net result depends on whether you would have bought the game otherwise. If you absolutely definitely surely wouldn't, the net result IS positive. The company benefits from knowing you liked the game and it doesn't lose anything.
Some obvious things. You are obviously are moral and law-abiding person, since you bought many games in the past. You have the right to be really pissed off for what Valve did. You are perfectly justified (except legally) in downloading a pirated version because 1) Valve treated you badly and 2) you did enough to support the game industry in the past. You don't have to be polite, when making a point about how pissed off you are. Basically ignore every poster, who badmouths you - they are morons who have "piracy = evil" ingrained in their brains and are incapable of rational thought.
You don't understand it. Copy protection does not protect a copy. It's copy restriction actually. A pirate can always pirate a game, because there are pirate groups, who make sure that getting and installing the pirated version is as painless as possible. The said pirate groups also enjoy disabling copy-"protection", so in no way are they deterred (unless you manage something noone has managed before and make uncrackable copy-protection).
So there is simply no way that copy-"protection" can stop pirates who make a conscious decision to get a pirated copy. It can only stop casual pirates, who buy one copy and try to install it on two computers. So the only possible reasons to have copy-protection are: * Scumbags who buy Sims 2 and install it for both themselves and their mom. * Greedy bastards (developers/publishers), who can't think of anything better to do.
He just demonstrated by virtue of actually doing it, that there is a third option. Obviously YOU failed to realise this. He did nothing wrong whatsoever. I understand perfectly well that you were brainwashed into thinking that piracy is evil and are incapable of forming your own opinion by rational thought, but just try to imagine for a second that piracy is not bad per se. In that case, how is his decision to pirate the game immoral? Please remember that he doesn't want to support Valve, because he doesn't like Steam, but he wants to play the game.
Here is an even bigger clue for you. Slashdot often has consensus and if not that, at least a popular opinion. And in the case of product activation the overwhelming majority of the posts condemn XP activation, while a very significant fraction (perhaps a majority) have nothing against Steam.
The basis for comparision - 4-5 rated posts in those articles about XP activation and steam that I read.
Or, even better, download a pirated DVD-image with a crack included from P2P (BitTorrent, eDonkey, KaZaA, Gnutella). Pirating over P2P has many advantages:
You can still install Steam and play CS:S.
You saved 50 bucks or even 100 bucks in some cases
Your money stayed in your pocket instead of going to Valve
You had HL2 loaded on your harddrive (no cds)
You could start playing 10 minutes after finishing the download.
Steam is great, but P2P and cracks are even better. A huge success, if you must. You will never have to try to install Half-Life 2 on your new computer when Steam servers are offline or Valve is out of business. People don't need to get used to any crap pushed down their throats, because as long as the game can be played, it can be pirated.
OK, fine, when I am done with this post, I will visit you in your house, rape you in the ass, fuck your grandmother and kill your puppies. Please don't say I am insane or a murdurer, and don't tell me not to do it. Unless you have any "constructive criticism", please refrain from complaining, just bend over and take it like a man.
P.S. I am not paying Valve anything. I will just get a pirated version, thank you very much.
I've always assumed that regular LCDs still were better than CRT because at least you don't have an electron gun deluging your face with radiation.
1) Modern CRT monitors produce a negligible amount of radiation. 2) Almost all of that radiation actually goes away from the back of the monitor in the opposite direction to you. 3) All displays emit a form of electro-magnetic radiation called "light". That's how you see objects on the screen.
Answering mfh's question, it's best to use an expensive LCD display. Test it before, a lot depends on the way your personal eyes work - different people would prefer different monitors. And make 5-minute breaks every hour. You can use these breaks to visit a toilet, eat a serving of fresh fruits or drink a glass of water. All these things (if done regularly) do wonders to your health. And don't forget about carpal tunnel syndrome and haemorrhoids.:)
Andrew Lourake is an American jet pilot, who had his leg amputeed in 1998. Now he has a C-Leg and in October 2004 he returned to his job. He works for the federal government carrying government officials, congressmen and the like in the C-20 Gulfstream. During the training his performance during some exercises (saving passengers from a burning plane after a crash, for example) was better than that of two healthy novice pilots training together with him.
IBM releases the code, Joe Hacker changes a line and the security rating goes out of the window.:) IBM would still be (for some time) the only company with the capability to maintain a A1-secure distro.
Why don't those MPAA fuckers go and create their own Internet3 or something? Then, when they finish DRMing every last bit and byte of it, they can go to other people and ask if they want to join. Not that I expect the reaction to be more enthusiastic.:)
Those who download MP3s are addicted to it. That's not true. I am what you may call a hardcore pirate. Almost 99% of all the movies, music and software I have are pirated (but I go to the movies sometimes). I have friends who work in wholesale piracy. I've been translating movies for pirate releases. I am really put off the idea of buying media. However, I do buy it sometimes. A few days ago I really liked Blackmore's Night music. The group made a very smart decision of putting some mp3s on their site, further fueling my interest. I wanted to download all their music, but couldn't immediately find all full albums for download.
I don't have a problem with buying the album if it's more convenient and affordable. I can't get it from iTunes, because I don't live in the USA, don't have a credit card and don't consider 1$/track affordable. But I found it on AllOfMP3.Com, MP3Spy.Ru and MP3Search.Ru for tenth (or even 1/20th) of the price and legally (that's 0.5-1.5$/album), so I might just buy it today.
I don't see anything wrong with pirating media, but I don't see anything wrong with buying them either. If I earned enough (and not 30$/month I get as a PhD student now), I would definitely buy more than I do now. And thanks to the taste I developed through piracy, my demand for media is much greater now than it could have ever been without piracy. I am sure most pirates think more or less the same way.
A new version is not something Google did, it's what Keyhole did before the acquisition (even if it was released a few weeks afterwards). Same with hi-res images, there is nothing really complex about adding more data to the system, once you have the client and server applications ready and tested (and the money to pay for the imagery).
Google may (hopefully) make something great with Keyhole and their other datasets. But there is little reason to be excited about today's non-news (we already knew Keyhole was acquired, so now Google made a link to it - big deal). Well, may be very are some reasons, but there are also reasons to be sceptical. After all, Picasa was acquired 4 months ago, but we still haven't saw many new developments (integration with Blogger, how amazing).
Don't get me wrong, I agree that there is potential in Google's acquisitions, but so far we saw little tangible results.
I am just not very impressed. Earthviewer is a cool software, but I used it a year ago and nothing has really changed since then. Google acquiring the company just doesn't look revolutionary. We expect more from them and their infamous PhD team. We expect originality, we expect breakthroughs. And what do we get? Just a product, which is not even new. I mean, it's great that they don't buy innovative campanies just to crush them, but I don't see any added value either.
You gotta love it. "Microsoft.. warned Asian governments... they could face patent lawsuits..." Marmoset, meet the 900-pound gorilla.:) The idea of corporations having unlimited power and almost no accountability is somewhat foreign to the Chinese rulers. This kind of priviledge was historically reserved for the Communist Party, I doubt its leaders would welcome competition from Microsoft.:)
Where did it happen, in Iran? I don't really have an absolute expectation of privacy when I go to a public toiler, but I DO have an expectation that there are NO cameras there and that even if there are, I can do evetything the toiler was designed for, which includes masturbation... O tempora, o mores.
I'm not from the USA.:) Of course, this is an example of a studend surpassing its teacher. But I wonder if there is a place in the world where people are immune to this kind of nonsense...
A) Government doesn't inform people that they are being recorded. Private businesses usually do when they have cameras in the premises, but not the government. B) Camera phones don't go into private places either. The last time I checked, locker rooms where public. Bathrooms can be both private and public, but guess what, good luck in sneaking a camera phone into a private bathroom when I go thare.:)
This is a great example of moral panic, for which UK is notorious. Have you personally witnessed a situation where a camera phone was used for illicit purpose? May be any of your friends or relatives fell fictim to camera-equipped voyeurs, who posted their gym pics on the web? Personally I think this is really blown out of proportions.
There's always been voyeur porn, much of which was "professionally" done with willing models. And there has never been a significant number of incidents with camera phones - may be a few tens, a few hundreds worldwide, hardly a reason to legislate (but of course, who needs reason today...).
I like being called an idiot, a fucking moron or, now, a clueless fuck on Slashdot. This is strangely inspiring and invigorating, because to me it shows that I made an interesting point, but people are programmed to responde to it in a predetermined way. With an error message, basically, sort of "Does not computer" or "I don't understand"...
Of course, noone made an effort to explain in a rational and logical fashion why I am wrong. Why would piracy not be more effective tool in achieving your goals. I think (having a good business education on top of a great general education) that it's because my proposition isn't wrong. It's just that some people are turned into mindless zombies, repeating the corporate-sanctioned mantra: "Capitalism good! Piracy bad!". Don't know why, but it reminds me of an animal farm, particularly of sheep...
This sort of functionality is being developed. The goal of WikiProject Fact and Reference Check is exactly what you describe. As usual, it is a work in progress, but Wikipedia will get there eventually. At some point in time, every fact in Wikipedia will be checked and cross-referenced. Not today, not tomorrow, but eventually it will. And the further we go on this road, the more useful Wikipedia becomes. It's already quite useful (especially if you know how to use it best) and it will only become better as it matures.
There are also 'buying it and getting the crack' and 'getting it off P2P (with the crack included)'. It's really simple, here is a decision making algorithm.
10 Do you want to play the game? If Yes, goto 20, if No, goto 80. 20 Do you want annoying copy-protection? If Yes, goto 30, if No, goto 40. 30 Buy the game, install Steam, register the game online and bend over for Valve to fuck you in the ass. Goto 70. 40 Do you want to support Valve for making a great game or punish for being pain in the ass? If Support, goto 50, if Punish, goto 60. 50 Buy a game, get a crack from IRC, P2P or WWW. Goto 70. 60 Get the game from P2P with a crack included. Goto 70. 70 Play the game and have fun. Finish. 80 Don't play the game. Finish.
Heck, why are you so intent on hurting yourself? Punish Valve. Get a game off P2P, play it, have fun, but don't pay Valve a cent. Why this pretended uprightness? When you want to punish Nestle for their baby formula scams, you can't buy Nestle products or they would get your money, and stealing their products would harm the retailer. But with content products like games you can have your cake and eat it too. Pirate the game - this way the developer/publisher is harmed and you have your fun.
Inspired by the example (and some other projects linked in the discussion), I decided to do something similar myself. A quick search turned up this excellent product: PT Gui (shareware), based on just as excellent Panorama Tools libraries (open source). Check it out.
I checked and it works. Is that enough? The article gave one example where the article was apparently worsened by editing. It doesn't disprove my point, which was that usually the system works. The Wikipedia philosophy managed to produce a very useful reference resource. The usefulness is proved by the traffic, by the general lack of "it sucks" comments, by personal experiences, etc. There is no question about it - but Robert McHenry attempts to hijack the argument by saying that Wikipedia is not equal to Britannica. So what? If you use his standards, Wikipedia sucks, but if you use a standard of "Is it useful to many people? Does it help make their lives better?" then Wikipedia is a success and has the potential to soon become more successful than Britannica (even though former Britannica editors would not stop bickering).
Slashdot Mirror
You must either be an abortion or a result of inbreeding. Or perhaps you have brain damage, killed it with heroin or something.
It's not that I have any illusions that you will understand the logic, I just like to tease retards.
When you steal a car, you do the company a huge harm by reducing the number of expensive to produce physical objects that they had. You also do them a very small favour by saying you like their products. The net result is very negative.
When you copy a game or another product, you do them a favour by saying you like the game, you don't harm them by stealing a physical copy and IF AND ONLY IF you would have bought the game otherwise, you do them some harm by decreasing their potential sales. The net result depends on whether you would have bought the game otherwise. If you absolutely definitely surely wouldn't, the net result IS positive. The company benefits from knowing you liked the game and it doesn't lose anything.
Some obvious things. You are obviously are moral and law-abiding person, since you bought many games in the past. You have the right to be really pissed off for what Valve did. You are perfectly justified (except legally) in downloading a pirated version because 1) Valve treated you badly and 2) you did enough to support the game industry in the past. You don't have to be polite, when making a point about how pissed off you are. Basically ignore every poster, who badmouths you - they are morons who have "piracy = evil" ingrained in their brains and are incapable of rational thought.
You don't understand it. Copy protection does not protect a copy. It's copy restriction actually. A pirate can always pirate a game, because there are pirate groups, who make sure that getting and installing the pirated version is as painless as possible. The said pirate groups also enjoy disabling copy-"protection", so in no way are they deterred (unless you manage something noone has managed before and make uncrackable copy-protection).
So there is simply no way that copy-"protection" can stop pirates who make a conscious decision to get a pirated copy. It can only stop casual pirates, who buy one copy and try to install it on two computers. So the only possible reasons to have copy-protection are:
* Scumbags who buy Sims 2 and install it for both themselves and their mom.
* Greedy bastards (developers/publishers), who can't think of anything better to do.
He just demonstrated by virtue of actually doing it, that there is a third option. Obviously YOU failed to realise this. He did nothing wrong whatsoever. I understand perfectly well that you were brainwashed into thinking that piracy is evil and are incapable of forming your own opinion by rational thought, but just try to imagine for a second that piracy is not bad per se. In that case, how is his decision to pirate the game immoral? Please remember that he doesn't want to support Valve, because he doesn't like Steam, but he wants to play the game.
Here is an even bigger clue for you. Slashdot often has consensus and if not that, at least a popular opinion. And in the case of product activation the overwhelming majority of the posts condemn XP activation, while a very significant fraction (perhaps a majority) have nothing against Steam.
The basis for comparision - 4-5 rated posts in those articles about XP activation and steam that I read.
Steam is great, but P2P and cracks are even better. A huge success, if you must. You will never have to try to install Half-Life 2 on your new computer when Steam servers are offline or Valve is out of business. People don't need to get used to any crap pushed down their throats, because as long as the game can be played, it can be pirated.
OK, fine, when I am done with this post, I will visit you in your house, rape you in the ass, fuck your grandmother and kill your puppies. Please don't say I am insane or a murdurer, and don't tell me not to do it. Unless you have any "constructive criticism", please refrain from complaining, just bend over and take it like a man.
P.S. I am not paying Valve anything. I will just get a pirated version, thank you very much.
I've always assumed that regular LCDs still were better than CRT because at least you don't have an electron gun deluging your face with radiation.
:)
1) Modern CRT monitors produce a negligible amount of radiation.
2) Almost all of that radiation actually goes away from the back of the monitor in the opposite direction to you.
3) All displays emit a form of electro-magnetic radiation called "light". That's how you see objects on the screen.
Answering mfh's question, it's best to use an expensive LCD display. Test it before, a lot depends on the way your personal eyes work - different people would prefer different monitors. And make 5-minute breaks every hour. You can use these breaks to visit a toilet, eat a serving of fresh fruits or drink a glass of water. All these things (if done regularly) do wonders to your health. And don't forget about carpal tunnel syndrome and haemorrhoids.
Andrew Lourake is an American jet pilot, who had his leg amputeed in 1998. Now he has a C-Leg and in October 2004 he returned to his job. He works for the federal government carrying government officials, congressmen and the like in the C-20 Gulfstream. During the training his performance during some exercises (saving passengers from a burning plane after a crash, for example) was better than that of two healthy novice pilots training together with him.
IBM releases the code, Joe Hacker changes a line and the security rating goes out of the window. :) IBM would still be (for some time) the only company with the capability to maintain a A1-secure distro.
Why don't those MPAA fuckers go and create their own Internet3 or something? Then, when they finish DRMing every last bit and byte of it, they can go to other people and ask if they want to join. Not that I expect the reaction to be more enthusiastic. :)
Those who download MP3s are addicted to it.
That's not true. I am what you may call a hardcore pirate. Almost 99% of all the movies, music and software I have are pirated (but I go to the movies sometimes). I have friends who work in wholesale piracy. I've been translating movies for pirate releases. I am really put off the idea of buying media. However, I do buy it sometimes. A few days ago I really liked Blackmore's Night music. The group made a very smart decision of putting some mp3s on their site, further fueling my interest. I wanted to download all their music, but couldn't immediately find all full albums for download.
I don't have a problem with buying the album if it's more convenient and affordable. I can't get it from iTunes, because I don't live in the USA, don't have a credit card and don't consider 1$/track affordable. But I found it on AllOfMP3.Com, MP3Spy.Ru and MP3Search.Ru for tenth (or even 1/20th) of the price and legally (that's 0.5-1.5$/album), so I might just buy it today.
I don't see anything wrong with pirating media, but I don't see anything wrong with buying them either. If I earned enough (and not 30$/month I get as a PhD student now), I would definitely buy more than I do now. And thanks to the taste I developed through piracy, my demand for media is much greater now than it could have ever been without piracy. I am sure most pirates think more or less the same way.
A new version is not something Google did, it's what Keyhole did before the acquisition (even if it was released a few weeks afterwards). Same with hi-res images, there is nothing really complex about adding more data to the system, once you have the client and server applications ready and tested (and the money to pay for the imagery).
Google may (hopefully) make something great with Keyhole and their other datasets. But there is little reason to be excited about today's non-news (we already knew Keyhole was acquired, so now Google made a link to it - big deal). Well, may be very are some reasons, but there are also reasons to be sceptical. After all, Picasa was acquired 4 months ago, but we still haven't saw many new developments (integration with Blogger, how amazing).
Don't get me wrong, I agree that there is potential in Google's acquisitions, but so far we saw little tangible results.
I am just not very impressed. Earthviewer is a cool software, but I used it a year ago and nothing has really changed since then. Google acquiring the company just doesn't look revolutionary. We expect more from them and their infamous PhD team. We expect originality, we expect breakthroughs. And what do we get? Just a product, which is not even new. I mean, it's great that they don't buy innovative campanies just to crush them, but I don't see any added value either.
You gotta love it. "Microsoft.. warned Asian governments... they could face patent lawsuits..." Marmoset, meet the 900-pound gorilla. :) The idea of corporations having unlimited power and almost no accountability is somewhat foreign to the Chinese rulers. This kind of priviledge was historically reserved for the Communist Party, I doubt its leaders would welcome competition from Microsoft. :)
Where did it happen, in Iran? I don't really have an absolute expectation of privacy when I go to a public toiler, but I DO have an expectation that there are NO cameras there and that even if there are, I can do evetything the toiler was designed for, which includes masturbation... O tempora, o mores.
I'm not from the USA. :) Of course, this is an example of a studend surpassing its teacher. But I wonder if there is a place in the world where people are immune to this kind of nonsense...
A) Government doesn't inform people that they are being recorded. Private businesses usually do when they have cameras in the premises, but not the government. :)
B) Camera phones don't go into private places either. The last time I checked, locker rooms where public. Bathrooms can be both private and public, but guess what, good luck in sneaking a camera phone into a private bathroom when I go thare.
This is a great example of moral panic, for which UK is notorious. Have you personally witnessed a situation where a camera phone was used for illicit purpose? May be any of your friends or relatives fell fictim to camera-equipped voyeurs, who posted their gym pics on the web? Personally I think this is really blown out of proportions.
There's always been voyeur porn, much of which was "professionally" done with willing models. And there has never been a significant number of incidents with camera phones - may be a few tens, a few hundreds worldwide, hardly a reason to legislate (but of course, who needs reason today...).
I like being called an idiot, a fucking moron or, now, a clueless fuck on Slashdot. This is strangely inspiring and invigorating, because to me it shows that I made an interesting point, but people are programmed to responde to it in a predetermined way. With an error message, basically, sort of "Does not computer" or "I don't understand"...
Of course, noone made an effort to explain in a rational and logical fashion why I am wrong. Why would piracy not be more effective tool in achieving your goals. I think (having a good business education on top of a great general education) that it's because my proposition isn't wrong. It's just that some people are turned into mindless zombies, repeating the corporate-sanctioned mantra: "Capitalism good! Piracy bad!". Don't know why, but it reminds me of an animal farm, particularly of sheep...
This sort of functionality is being developed. The goal of WikiProject Fact and Reference Check is exactly what you describe. As usual, it is a work in progress, but Wikipedia will get there eventually. At some point in time, every fact in Wikipedia will be checked and cross-referenced. Not today, not tomorrow, but eventually it will. And the further we go on this road, the more useful Wikipedia becomes. It's already quite useful (especially if you know how to use it best) and it will only become better as it matures.
There are also 'buying it and getting the crack' and 'getting it off P2P (with the crack included)'. It's really simple, here is a decision making algorithm.
10 Do you want to play the game? If Yes, goto 20, if No, goto 80.
20 Do you want annoying copy-protection? If Yes, goto 30, if No, goto 40.
30 Buy the game, install Steam, register the game online and bend over for Valve to fuck you in the ass. Goto 70.
40 Do you want to support Valve for making a great game or punish for being pain in the ass? If Support, goto 50, if Punish, goto 60.
50 Buy a game, get a crack from IRC, P2P or WWW. Goto 70.
60 Get the game from P2P with a crack included. Goto 70.
70 Play the game and have fun. Finish.
80 Don't play the game. Finish.
Heck, why are you so intent on hurting yourself? Punish Valve. Get a game off P2P, play it, have fun, but don't pay Valve a cent. Why this pretended uprightness? When you want to punish Nestle for their baby formula scams, you can't buy Nestle products or they would get your money, and stealing their products would harm the retailer. But with content products like games you can have your cake and eat it too. Pirate the game - this way the developer/publisher is harmed and you have your fun.
Inspired by the example (and some other projects linked in the discussion), I decided to do something similar myself. A quick search turned up this excellent product:
PT Gui (shareware), based on just as excellent Panorama Tools libraries (open source). Check it out.
I checked and it works. Is that enough? The article gave one example where the article was apparently worsened by editing. It doesn't disprove my point, which was that usually the system works. The Wikipedia philosophy managed to produce a very useful reference resource. The usefulness is proved by the traffic, by the general lack of "it sucks" comments, by personal experiences, etc. There is no question about it - but Robert McHenry attempts to hijack the argument by saying that Wikipedia is not equal to Britannica. So what? If you use his standards, Wikipedia sucks, but if you use a standard of "Is it useful to many people? Does it help make their lives better?" then Wikipedia is a success and has the potential to soon become more successful than Britannica (even though former Britannica editors would not stop bickering).