Atmosphere or not, "alien" rocks can end up on the surface of a planet quite easily. Of course, if the rocks are all uniform, chances are they are local, and not from somewhere far away. The dead giveaway of a meteorite is that it's very different from the rocks around it. (and usually in a hole:))
It's a bad thing if you're a single company trying to push out a product with recognisable branding in each version. The best way to internationalise your product is to have ONE version, and then modify that one version for your markets. You have the same development costs, yet a product that will satisfy the legal/social requirements of the intended market.
Two of those are actually illegal in the intended market, so it's a little bit more complicated than "demanding respect", whatever that means. The third is a religious issue. I don't think many Americans would like it if an Arabian company released software in the US that showed Jesus shooting up heroin and shitting on a prostitute.
Don't lump the rest of Western Europe with America:) The rest of Western Europe has a clue about geography, even the stuff that America screws up (wrong maps on the news, cities missing on news reports, etc.)
This whole "I don't even know where my own country is on a map" syndrome is entirely American.
They're not stopping the shooting, in fact they're doing most of it.
I'm not anti-troop, but anti-policy. I'm anti the fact that funding and training is withheld from US troops, and instead used to buy new technology (instead of training them how to use it properly).
And for your last point, you seem to be confusing what the military is. When I say "military" I'm not talking about the actual soldiers, but the institution. When you mention that the government is overseeing it, that's the military rebuilding it. Commander-in-chief ring a bell? (oh, and judging by their recent performance, the US military couldn't secure a drunk college girl;))
Ok, forced is a slightly strong word, but "morally obligated" is more long-winded.
Nothing's for free - if you like the site, view the adverts.
Unlike TV, ads that aren't viewed are recognised. Revenue is immediately lost from the site.
Ad-blockers aren't the minority of a minority. Many, many people have them. They come with lots of browsers by default, and even with other software (like Kazaa's "supertrick", etc.). Saying they're a minority of a minority really is wishfull thinking for your argument.
Banner ads didn't get in the way of content, and people still found an excuse to ban them - "they hurt my eyes" or "my bandwidth! my precious bandwidth!".
Advertisers were playing fair, years ago. The banner ad was the ubiquitous form of internet advertising, and it always stayed within the little bar at the top of the page, and maybe one at the bottom. That was still too much for people, and so the ad-blockers were created. Soon, those sites couldn't turn a profit, and so their advertising department/provider (in order to save themselves) had to come up with new ways of improving the click-thru on their ads. That led us to pop-ups, flash ads, interstitials, pop-unders, etc. The more people block, the more intrusive the adverts have to become. If people left the banner ads alone, we wouldn't be in this state.
It wasn't Bob that posted the original comment - it was me. He was merely standing up to a blatant modding clusterfuck.
Where did I once mention the Government should fund it? Oh, I didn't. I'm suggesting that if people really want to spend their money helping people, then maybe those without food and water should be helped, before installing satellite & wireless internet access for the troops. Kind of like how they should turn the power back on before creating an Iraqi national soccer team.
People not getting shot when they go to the shops is AN EVEN BIGGER ISSUE, and for more people.
I can see there are enough flag-waving fanboys here to make this debate one big cry-in, so I'm outta here.
One last thing - the Army IS supposed to rebuild Iraq. That's their job. If they can't put back all the stuff they blew up, then they can't do their jobs properly. The contractors are the muscle.
Because Google's product isn't their search engine, it's what the search engine is running on. We're talking a huge server clustering engine, able to take run-of-the-mill computers and integrate them into a huge cluster, providing (near) instant server recovery and minimal administration. Google.com and gmail are just two incarnations of that technology, with two different front ends. They're as much a flash-in-the-pan as McDonalds.
How about saving up money to help rebuild Iraq's infrastructure, before we start wiring up luxuries for the inva^H^H^H^H^H liberating forces? I'm not trolling, I just wonder why we're not concentrating on why we're there in the first place...
Your logic is a bit flawed. You state that people are obviously using these links, as they are on websites. Yet ads need to be on websites before they are used. If your assertion is true, then people were clicking banner ads on websites before people even put banner ads on websites.
The companies are employing this technique, as we like to use ad-blockers. Sites need advertising revenue to fund them, so if we all go to a site and use ad-blocking, the site gets no money. The advertisers realise their model isn't working any more, and so try something a little more extreme to try and get the revenue flowing again. Simply put - they're doing it because we gave them no choice. We can't expect advertising to simply go away because we can no longer see it. Sites still need funding, and we no longer want to fund them. Either advertising gets more intrusive, or the sites close down one by one.
I think it has more to do with the fact that people use ad-blockers. And I'm not trolling, it's simple economics. Remove the revenue stream, and they have to find another. The first path of action is usually to ramp-up what they're doing at the moment, which means more intrusive ads. If we block these ads, then a more intrusive type will come along.
The only way this escalation will stop is if we either stop using ad-blocking software, or if the sites close down.
You're *forced* to view the ad, because you're viewing their site. If you like the site, click the ad. You don't have to go all the way through to checkout for click-thrus to be noticed. Heck, one impression is enough to get noticed.
The site most likely pays for itself or its contributors through adverts. If you don't click on the adverts, their revenue stream decreases, and unless they can find new ways to advertise (read: more intrusive), the site will just close up shop.
So, you either have intrusive ads, or many fewer sites. It really is that simple:)
They also automatically block any image with the word "banner" in it, regardless of the server it's being served from. Took me ages to figure out why a particular image was dropping off the face of the earth. Madness.
Your "dead" analogy is even further from the truth. In your analogy, all Joe would have to do is walk out of the cinema, and his cellphone and camcorder would work perfectly. Oh, and Joe was also previously told before even entering the cinema that it would happen. Doesn't seem so draconian, does it?
By "access" the software, I should have said "execute" the software. Copyright laws in most western countries view execution of software as a form of copying it, so copyright laws apply even to running it.
It's mentioned in the EULA for the game, so you can't pull the "they didn't tell us!" line. It's hardly malware - it's trying to ensure there are more games after it.
They're not treating you like a criminal. Does the museum treat you like a criminal because it has an alarm on its multi-million dollar exhibit? Of course not. It's called protecting its interests, and something any reasonable person would have no problem with.
When you install it, it tells you if it has copy protection. If it does, return it to the store, and get a refund. In sane parts of the world (I don't know about the US) that's a perfectly reasonable request.
A virus that upheld copyright law, and did nothing malicious, that you agreed to have on your PC?
I'm all for pirating games. Don't get me wrong.
The code is protecting copyright, and you agree to have it installed on your computer. If you read the license for the game, it mentions the StarForce installation. If you click "ok" (which you have to to play the game), you agree to it.
Where's the problem with this? They didn't install it on your machine (contrary to your analogy), it denies access only to things the copyright holder (and intellectual property owner) doesn't want you to access (which is a legal right, by the way).
Be fair. I know you all get riled up when someone "takes away your rights" or "rapes you over the hot coals of capitalism" or whatever, but just think it through for 2 seconds. It's not that big a deal. Don't like the copy protection? Don't install the game. sheesh.
Slashdot Mirror
Atmosphere or not, "alien" rocks can end up on the surface of a planet quite easily. Of course, if the rocks are all uniform, chances are they are local, and not from somewhere far away. The dead giveaway of a meteorite is that it's very different from the rocks around it. (and usually in a hole :))
It's a bad thing if you're a single company trying to push out a product with recognisable branding in each version. The best way to internationalise your product is to have ONE version, and then modify that one version for your markets. You have the same development costs, yet a product that will satisfy the legal/social requirements of the intended market.
Two of those are actually illegal in the intended market, so it's a little bit more complicated than "demanding respect", whatever that means. The third is a religious issue. I don't think many Americans would like it if an Arabian company released software in the US that showed Jesus shooting up heroin and shitting on a prostitute.
This whole "I don't even know where my own country is on a map" syndrome is entirely American.
Republic. Queen. enough?
Google is your friend!
I'm not anti-troop, but anti-policy. I'm anti the fact that funding and training is withheld from US troops, and instead used to buy new technology (instead of training them how to use it properly).
And for your last point, you seem to be confusing what the military is. When I say "military" I'm not talking about the actual soldiers, but the institution. When you mention that the government is overseeing it, that's the military rebuilding it. Commander-in-chief ring a bell? (oh, and judging by their recent performance, the US military couldn't secure a drunk college girl ;))
Nothing's for free - if you like the site, view the adverts.
Unlike TV, ads that aren't viewed are recognised. Revenue is immediately lost from the site.
Ad-blockers aren't the minority of a minority. Many, many people have them. They come with lots of browsers by default, and even with other software (like Kazaa's "supertrick", etc.). Saying they're a minority of a minority really is wishfull thinking for your argument.
Advertisers were playing fair, years ago. The banner ad was the ubiquitous form of internet advertising, and it always stayed within the little bar at the top of the page, and maybe one at the bottom. That was still too much for people, and so the ad-blockers were created. Soon, those sites couldn't turn a profit, and so their advertising department/provider (in order to save themselves) had to come up with new ways of improving the click-thru on their ads. That led us to pop-ups, flash ads, interstitials, pop-unders, etc. The more people block, the more intrusive the adverts have to become. If people left the banner ads alone, we wouldn't be in this state.
Where did I once mention the Government should fund it? Oh, I didn't. I'm suggesting that if people really want to spend their money helping people, then maybe those without food and water should be helped, before installing satellite & wireless internet access for the troops. Kind of like how they should turn the power back on before creating an Iraqi national soccer team.
I can see there are enough flag-waving fanboys here to make this debate one big cry-in, so I'm outta here.
One last thing - the Army IS supposed to rebuild Iraq. That's their job. If they can't put back all the stuff they blew up, then they can't do their jobs properly. The contractors are the muscle.
Because Google's product isn't their search engine, it's what the search engine is running on. We're talking a huge server clustering engine, able to take run-of-the-mill computers and integrate them into a huge cluster, providing (near) instant server recovery and minimal administration. Google.com and gmail are just two incarnations of that technology, with two different front ends. They're as much a flash-in-the-pan as McDonalds.
How about saving up money to help rebuild Iraq's infrastructure, before we start wiring up luxuries for the inva^H^H^H^H^H liberating forces? I'm not trolling, I just wonder why we're not concentrating on why we're there in the first place...
Just as with anything untoward in the EULA, you return the game for a full refund.
The companies are employing this technique, as we like to use ad-blockers. Sites need advertising revenue to fund them, so if we all go to a site and use ad-blocking, the site gets no money. The advertisers realise their model isn't working any more, and so try something a little more extreme to try and get the revenue flowing again. Simply put - they're doing it because we gave them no choice. We can't expect advertising to simply go away because we can no longer see it. Sites still need funding, and we no longer want to fund them. Either advertising gets more intrusive, or the sites close down one by one.
The only way this escalation will stop is if we either stop using ad-blocking software, or if the sites close down.
The site most likely pays for itself or its contributors through adverts. If you don't click on the adverts, their revenue stream decreases, and unless they can find new ways to advertise (read: more intrusive), the site will just close up shop.
So, you either have intrusive ads, or many fewer sites. It really is that simple :)
They also automatically block any image with the word "banner" in it, regardless of the server it's being served from. Took me ages to figure out why a particular image was dropping off the face of the earth. Madness.
Your "dead" analogy is even further from the truth. In your analogy, all Joe would have to do is walk out of the cinema, and his cellphone and camcorder would work perfectly. Oh, and Joe was also previously told before even entering the cinema that it would happen. Doesn't seem so draconian, does it?
Come on, folks - how on earth is that trolling? The mods on this site are shit. straight-up shit.
By "access" the software, I should have said "execute" the software. Copyright laws in most western countries view execution of software as a form of copying it, so copyright laws apply even to running it.
It's mentioned in the EULA for the game, so you can't pull the "they didn't tell us!" line. It's hardly malware - it's trying to ensure there are more games after it.
They're not treating you like a criminal. Does the museum treat you like a criminal because it has an alarm on its multi-million dollar exhibit? Of course not. It's called protecting its interests, and something any reasonable person would have no problem with.
When you install it, it tells you if it has copy protection. If it does, return it to the store, and get a refund. In sane parts of the world (I don't know about the US) that's a perfectly reasonable request.
I'm all for pirating games. Don't get me wrong.
The code is protecting copyright, and you agree to have it installed on your computer. If you read the license for the game, it mentions the StarForce installation. If you click "ok" (which you have to to play the game), you agree to it.
Where's the problem with this? They didn't install it on your machine (contrary to your analogy), it denies access only to things the copyright holder (and intellectual property owner) doesn't want you to access (which is a legal right, by the way).
Be fair. I know you all get riled up when someone "takes away your rights" or "rapes you over the hot coals of capitalism" or whatever, but just think it through for 2 seconds. It's not that big a deal. Don't like the copy protection? Don't install the game. sheesh.