Whatever your most comfortable using that does the job to a satisfactory level. Usually bleeding edge has a cost, so if you don't really need it or want to invest the time, don't bother.
And whose to say you are depriving them of their earnings? What about the free publicity they get from people that would not have purchased it in the first place? 95% of the stuff I download I would never purchase, cause
a.) It's terrible b.) I don't have money c.) I am lazy and would rather not work to go the movies or play the latest and greatest Doom clone.
You can say potential all you want. But there is no clear indicator whether someone is being deprived or benifiting from piracy.
As the saying goes, "any publicity is good publicity." Even if people pirate, they are still creating demand for the goods. Once people that don't normally play games or see movies get hooked for free, and suddenly the RIAA or the MPAA comes and pulls the plug, they instantly have a new group of consumers.
Don't you see, it's all part of a clevar marketing strategy. Eliminating piracy isn't the key, getting people hooked by letting them pirate, then litigating the hell out of a few to put fear on the many is the smart thing to do. My guess is that is precisely what they are doing. Controlling the supply and demand of the pirates.
This cycle seems to happen every few months. Anyways, this is just a wild conspiracy theory but I think there is some truth to it.
I think this will eventually end up the same way as it did with Microsoft. People will start switching to alternatives ('linux'), the company ('Microsoft') will begin to realize that having people dependent on your product and getting it for free is better than them not paying at all, which will cause them to relax their anti-piracy operations.
Capitalism is like drugs. You want to keep your users hooked while at the same time ensuring that you make your money. Piracy makes for good publicity, but without proper enforcement, there runs the risk of losing money. At least the way that I see it. I don't think the general rule is that piracy hurts business.
The only clear solution is to not buy that shit. I can't remember the last time I saw a movie I didn't forget about upon leaving the theater. Or the last time I listened to a new song that didn't get dated within a week. Anyways, it's time to fight that media addiction! Support the independent artists, even if they suck.
What exactly is griefing? I simply don't get it.
Is griefing attacking other players when they don't expect it in order to take their possessions? Or is griefing when one player uses exploit to gain an unfair advantage over other players?
Some games, like Eve online, have what are called pirates. All to often pirates are considered griefers. People don't seem to understand that the central theme to games like EVE online is risk management.
Non-consentual PVP is a part of many MMORPGS. Players who use non-consentual pvp to generate their income can hardly be called griefers. That form of gameplay is part of the design. Too many people play MMORPGs and naturally expect no competition. Can someone please explain me the point of paying 15$ a month to play a MMORPG if all you are going to do is collect, collect, and chat. Seems rather pointless.
I agree. Unless you can create an argument as to why they hate America other than
Don't like Bush --> Does not like America
there is no reason to qualify him as "hating America." a.) There is no clear definition of what IS American, and what IT means to be American, other than being a citizen of the United States. So unless your implying that this guy hates every person in America, or Bush is a physical manifestation of America, your point not only is poor, but is very inflamitory. So -1 for the post quality, and flamebait for the inflamitory nature of the post.
It certainly does not fall under censorship. You post can still be seen. Perhaps if you rephrased your post and gave a better argument, then perhaps you might not get a -1 score. I would agree if you had a well though out logical argument with some evidence to back it up.
I will agree however that the moderation system really isn't fair in that the moderators really cannont represent a fair spectrum of ideologies. The sample size is simply too small to accurately represent the population of slashdot posters. Some people with niche beliefs will naturally get lower scores than those whose beliefs do not conflict with the natural bias of the moderators.
In this scenario, this post clearly received what it deserved.
Does anybody actually think Bush and his administration have done a good job so far in office? That seems to be the most crucial point of this entire election.
Are we willing to take the risk of having Kerry and his cabinet, or 4 more years of an administration that has created more problems than it has solved?
Is Iraq safer than before right now? Most say no.
Will Iraq be a true democracy without substantially more resources? Again, many analysts say no.
Was the premise for the invasion of Iraq, the death of countless Iraqis and those 1000 soldiers, not to mention the families torn apart both there and here correct? No.
Why were the so eager to go to war? Did they know Saddam was planning an attack and had WMD? How were they so sure? They seem so convinced that Iraq had the capabilities to cause mass destruction... You can't simply come up with something so extravagant without a damn good reason backed with solid evidence. I simply believe Bush's administration either flat out lied, or twisted information to meet their agenda. Seeing as how nobody has taken blame for this blunder, I am ever more convinced.
They wanted to invade Iraq for reasons by which the majority of Americans would not have agreed to. They justified the war on lies and the American people seem all too forgiving because Saddam was a bad, bad man. The internal turmoil in Iraq in the years to come will make Saddam look like a picnic.
I cannot honestly believe that Kerry would have made the same decisions as Bush had he been in his position. Yes, he gave Bush the power to exercise force, however, he was also under the impression that Iraq was posing an immediate threat to the US like we all were.
ABB -- Anybody But Bush...and anymore of these Republican douchebags. I really wish they would start airing the horrors of war close up and personal on prime time. Start showing the American people that war isn't a bunch of flashy fireworks and large thuds viewed from a safe distance. Why not show some collateral damage? Like the arms and legs of what used to be an Iraqi child dismembered by the blast of a "smart bomb". How can we honestly approve of war without bearing witness to the causulties? I am glad we have people like Michael Moore that keep the spin in balance.
Wars are fought by the rich, and we are the casulties. Kerry might not be a common man, but he is certainly more common than Bush. He is one step in the right direction.
Welp, that's my rant. Unorderly as it may be, I think the spirit of what I am saying is there.
Ok, here is a business model that can appeal to both sides.
Let people have things for free...
Except there is a 1/200 chance you might get sued for 5000$. It's like you get the good free, but the prize is that you might have to pay 1000x the cost. Simply brilliant!
Is that if you anchor yourself to something less durable then a kryptonite lock your screwed. Further adding weight to the old addage: your only as secure as your weakest defense.
I owned a kryptonite lock, I got a 400 dollar bike stolen. They didn't need a pen. All they needed was a bolt cutter.
Kryptonite = false sense of security.
Not everyone can survive on morality. For some cities in the US its about the only thing that a a person with an average IQ can do, apart from being a wage slave. You've all heard the expression that life isn't fair... well that works both ways.
It's called fighting fire with fire. Unless the American people learn how to critically think and make choices they will continue to fall prey to propoganda. People follow their hearts and not their brains. That's always a big mistake IMHO.
In one sense, I am glad Moore is taking down Bush, but I also question the means by which he does so. I guess , in the end, we are going to have to follow the lesser of two evils and walk down the progressive path to truth. It's either that or 4 more years with Bush.
I believe that Moore is intelligent, compassionate, and that his intentions are pure. I have yet to see Moore as anything but a true populist. I will support him, and I will support Kerry. I am quite sure that Kerry would make a much better leader than Bush.
I think anybody would find it difficult to find information on contemporary issues in an encyclopedia. Take for instance file sharing. Type bittorrent into wikipedia and you will find a multitude of useful links and information. That is the fundamental beauty of wikipedia, the topics that people find most relevant and important get addressed.
If workers have the "Don't Complain, Work Hard" work ethic, how is the employer supposed to know that there is a problem and its not only damaging the workers health, but also reducing efficiency?
I know far too many people with this attitude.
Keep your bike indoors. I got mine stolen quite easily, despite it being locked up with a solid kryptonite lock and wire. It doesn't take much to take a bolt cutter and snag a 350$ bike. Also, make it known you are a volatile and dengerous person. =)
I would argue that we are not free simply because we have no clear definition of it. How is it that we are not allowed to walk nude in public? Why, it is simply because it would offend somebody else. So, using this analogy, if I were to protest something that someone else might find offensive, do they not have the right to say that they do not want to see this?
We have a situation where just about anything can be percieved as something that impedes the freedoms of another, so therefore, we are only free to do what what everyone else agrees with in public space.
The only resolution to this problem is to create enclosed public zones for people with certain views to express themselves like they have been doing with the conventions. e.g. Nude zones, leftist political zones, right-winger zones, beastiality zones. Give everyone the freedom to do what they want as long as it does not involve forcing people to do things against their free will. That's how it should be. As long as I don't have to hear about it. As for issues which cannot be partioned into geographic spaces, well, those will have to be voted upon in a democratic fashion. Since ideological differences do not conform to geographic boundaries, this is about the only solution I can think of.
As for this story. This man was unfairly targeted for expressing political views. If people dont get arrested for chalking normally, then I see no reason as to why this man should. Republicans and freedom of speech do not mesh well.
Slashdot Mirror
Whatever your most comfortable using that does the job to a satisfactory level. Usually bleeding edge has a cost, so if you don't really need it or want to invest the time, don't bother.
Religion is bullshit, not a theory.
Otherwise, how would they fill their biological function of finding a man and raising children?
And whose to say you are depriving them of their earnings? What about the free publicity they get from people that would not have purchased it in the first place? 95% of the stuff I download I would never purchase, cause
a.) It's terrible
b.) I don't have money
c.) I am lazy and would rather not work to go the movies or play the latest and greatest Doom clone.
You can say potential all you want. But there is no clear indicator whether someone is being deprived or benifiting from piracy.
As the saying goes, "any publicity is good publicity." Even if people pirate, they are still creating demand for the goods. Once people that don't normally play games or see movies get hooked for free, and suddenly the RIAA or the MPAA comes and pulls the plug, they instantly have a new group of consumers.
Don't you see, it's all part of a clevar marketing strategy. Eliminating piracy isn't the key, getting people hooked by letting them pirate, then litigating the hell out of a few to put fear on the many is the smart thing to do. My guess is that is precisely what they are doing. Controlling the supply and demand of the pirates.
This cycle seems to happen every few months. Anyways, this is just a wild conspiracy theory but I think there is some truth to it.
If you strike Michael Moore down, he will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
I think this will eventually end up the same way as it did with Microsoft. People will start switching to alternatives ('linux'), the company ('Microsoft') will begin to realize that having people dependent on your product and getting it for free is better than them not paying at all, which will cause them to relax their anti-piracy operations.
Capitalism is like drugs. You want to keep your users hooked while at the same time ensuring that you make your money. Piracy makes for good publicity, but without proper enforcement, there runs the risk of losing money. At least the way that I see it. I don't think the general rule is that piracy hurts business.
The only clear solution is to not buy that shit. I can't remember the last time I saw a movie I didn't forget about upon leaving the theater. Or the last time I listened to a new song that didn't get dated within a week. Anyways, it's time to fight that media addiction! Support the independent artists, even if they suck.
What exactly is griefing? I simply don't get it. Is griefing attacking other players when they don't expect it in order to take their possessions? Or is griefing when one player uses exploit to gain an unfair advantage over other players? Some games, like Eve online, have what are called pirates. All to often pirates are considered griefers. People don't seem to understand that the central theme to games like EVE online is risk management. Non-consentual PVP is a part of many MMORPGS. Players who use non-consentual pvp to generate their income can hardly be called griefers. That form of gameplay is part of the design. Too many people play MMORPGs and naturally expect no competition. Can someone please explain me the point of paying 15$ a month to play a MMORPG if all you are going to do is collect, collect, and chat. Seems rather pointless.
I agree. Unless you can create an argument as to why they hate America other than
Don't like Bush --> Does not like America
there is no reason to qualify him as "hating America." a.) There is no clear definition of what IS American, and what IT means to be American, other than being a citizen of the United States. So unless your implying that this guy hates every person in America, or Bush is a physical manifestation of America, your point not only is poor, but is very inflamitory. So -1 for the post quality, and flamebait for the inflamitory nature of the post.
It certainly does not fall under censorship. You post can still be seen. Perhaps if you rephrased your post and gave a better argument, then perhaps you might not get a -1 score. I would agree if you had a well though out logical argument with some evidence to back it up.
I will agree however that the moderation system really isn't fair in that the moderators really cannont represent a fair spectrum of ideologies. The sample size is simply too small to accurately represent the population of slashdot posters. Some people with niche beliefs will naturally get lower scores than those whose beliefs do not conflict with the natural bias of the moderators.
In this scenario, this post clearly received what it deserved.
Does anybody actually think Bush and his administration have done a good job so far in office? That seems to be the most crucial point of this entire election. Are we willing to take the risk of having Kerry and his cabinet, or 4 more years of an administration that has created more problems than it has solved? Is Iraq safer than before right now? Most say no. Will Iraq be a true democracy without substantially more resources? Again, many analysts say no. Was the premise for the invasion of Iraq, the death of countless Iraqis and those 1000 soldiers, not to mention the families torn apart both there and here correct? No. Why were the so eager to go to war? Did they know Saddam was planning an attack and had WMD? How were they so sure? They seem so convinced that Iraq had the capabilities to cause mass destruction... You can't simply come up with something so extravagant without a damn good reason backed with solid evidence. I simply believe Bush's administration either flat out lied, or twisted information to meet their agenda. Seeing as how nobody has taken blame for this blunder, I am ever more convinced. They wanted to invade Iraq for reasons by which the majority of Americans would not have agreed to. They justified the war on lies and the American people seem all too forgiving because Saddam was a bad, bad man. The internal turmoil in Iraq in the years to come will make Saddam look like a picnic. I cannot honestly believe that Kerry would have made the same decisions as Bush had he been in his position. Yes, he gave Bush the power to exercise force, however, he was also under the impression that Iraq was posing an immediate threat to the US like we all were. ABB -- Anybody But Bush ...and anymore of these Republican douchebags. I really wish they would start airing the horrors of war close up and personal on prime time. Start showing the American people that war isn't a bunch of flashy fireworks and large thuds viewed from a safe distance. Why not show some collateral damage? Like the arms and legs of what used to be an Iraqi child dismembered by the blast of a "smart bomb". How can we honestly approve of war without bearing witness to the causulties? I am glad we have people like Michael Moore that keep the spin in balance.
Wars are fought by the rich, and we are the casulties. Kerry might not be a common man, but he is certainly more common than Bush. He is one step in the right direction.
Welp, that's my rant. Unorderly as it may be, I think the spirit of what I am saying is there.
"You've got to warn everyone and tell them! ... ...
Microsoft Longhorn is made of... people!"
It's like they took the arcade game 1942 and made a movie out of it. How can it possibly be any good without an arcade stick?
How can you stop? It get rereleased every 2 months.
It's a good game though.
Ok, here is a business model that can appeal to both sides. Let people have things for free... Except there is a 1/200 chance you might get sued for 5000$. It's like you get the good free, but the prize is that you might have to pay 1000x the cost. Simply brilliant!
And what business model is that? That everything should be free?
Is that if you anchor yourself to something less durable then a kryptonite lock your screwed. Further adding weight to the old addage: your only as secure as your weakest defense. I owned a kryptonite lock, I got a 400 dollar bike stolen. They didn't need a pen. All they needed was a bolt cutter. Kryptonite = false sense of security.
Not everyone can survive on morality. For some cities in the US its about the only thing that a a person with an average IQ can do, apart from being a wage slave. You've all heard the expression that life isn't fair... well that works both ways.
It's called fighting fire with fire. Unless the American people learn how to critically think and make choices they will continue to fall prey to propoganda. People follow their hearts and not their brains. That's always a big mistake IMHO.
In one sense, I am glad Moore is taking down Bush, but I also question the means by which he does so. I guess , in the end, we are going to have to follow the lesser of two evils and walk down the progressive path to truth. It's either that or 4 more years with Bush.
I believe that Moore is intelligent, compassionate, and that his intentions are pure. I have yet to see Moore as anything but a true populist. I will support him, and I will support Kerry. I am quite sure that Kerry would make a much better leader than Bush.
I think the both of these posts make a very good point.
And considering Bush's record, why would you chose him over a deranged homeless lunatic?
I think anybody would find it difficult to find information on contemporary issues in an encyclopedia. Take for instance file sharing. Type bittorrent into wikipedia and you will find a multitude of useful links and information. That is the fundamental beauty of wikipedia, the topics that people find most relevant and important get addressed.
If workers have the "Don't Complain, Work Hard" work ethic, how is the employer supposed to know that there is a problem and its not only damaging the workers health, but also reducing efficiency? I know far too many people with this attitude.
Cant walking nude be a free expression of speech? Anything can be percieved as diruptive.
Keep your bike indoors. I got mine stolen quite easily, despite it being locked up with a solid kryptonite lock and wire. It doesn't take much to take a bolt cutter and snag a 350$ bike. Also, make it known you are a volatile and dengerous person. =)
I would argue that we are not free simply because we have no clear definition of it. How is it that we are not allowed to walk nude in public? Why, it is simply because it would offend somebody else. So, using this analogy, if I were to protest something that someone else might find offensive, do they not have the right to say that they do not want to see this? We have a situation where just about anything can be percieved as something that impedes the freedoms of another, so therefore, we are only free to do what what everyone else agrees with in public space. The only resolution to this problem is to create enclosed public zones for people with certain views to express themselves like they have been doing with the conventions. e.g. Nude zones, leftist political zones, right-winger zones, beastiality zones. Give everyone the freedom to do what they want as long as it does not involve forcing people to do things against their free will. That's how it should be. As long as I don't have to hear about it. As for issues which cannot be partioned into geographic spaces, well, those will have to be voted upon in a democratic fashion. Since ideological differences do not conform to geographic boundaries, this is about the only solution I can think of. As for this story. This man was unfairly targeted for expressing political views. If people dont get arrested for chalking normally, then I see no reason as to why this man should. Republicans and freedom of speech do not mesh well.