Well, last i checked CA is part of the US. At any rate, you seem to misunderstand US election process. It's designed so that the majority doesn't necessarly win. It's an attempt to level the field somewhat, so that states like CA and NY can't always overrule VT or NH. This has been weaken to a great deal though, since the direct election of Senators (which was another way to stop democracy). Remember, the US is a republic, not a democracy.. at least it was setup that way originally.
Doesn't seem like a valid test at all... especially when drivers are factored in, and you didn't compare two versions differing by word length only. How did you get a license for all those versions, yet not have the 32bit Ultimate? I got Ultimate retail, and it comes with both 32 and 64 bit..
They have the right to refuse service to anyone, therefore they have the right to say you can't buy anything if you don't voluntarily submit to search.
So could they say they have the right to punch you in the stomach too before you leave? Would that be legal in your mind?
Posting a sign does not convey any rights, nor does it restrict them.
Huh? It probably is modify slightly. After all, the kernel only went from 5.0 to 5.1 going from Win2k to WinXP, but winXP was so much more nicer to use than Win2k.
No, correlation doesn't determine anything. It merely suggests that maybe something should be looked into more. And back to the subject at hand, there are WAY too many other variables to make the claims the study does.
No, you're just throwing up a strawman argument. Or do you complain that you shouldn't NEED a key to drive away in the car you just purchased?
Now who's using analogies?
Well apparently you don't understand the concept or I wouldn't have a need to use one..
The flaw here is that I didn't ask for them to build the game. They built it on their own, and now they want to be paid for it.
Irrelvent; I never asked anyone to build a breadbox either, but there's still lots of them around. Or do you think that only things YOU want should be built?
The only difference they need to be concerned about is whether I buy it or not. My point here is to demonstrate that DRM has the opposite effect that they'd like -- DRM is based on the assumption that if the game wasn't DRM'd, I wouldn't pay for it, while if the game was DRM'd, I would.
There are a suprising number of people that wouldn't pay for the game. No, I'm not claiming DRM will stop people.. it may stop some though. Of course, no one would bother with DRM if games actually weren't being pirated to begin with. This is a case where a (hopefully) minority of people ruined it for everyone.
If that's not the assumption, then we can stop right now, because DRM clearly isn't about piracy.
The real effect here is that if the game is too heavily DRM'd, I will never pay for it, while if the game is less DRM'd, or not DRM'd at all, I might pay for it.
Whether or not I pirate it is really irrelevant to that equation. It's not about what I get, it's about what they get for their effort.
Sure it is; by pirating, you re-enforce the idea that people would rather steal their work than buy it. So they in turn will clamp down harder. If you want to get rid of DRM, stop pirating games. Go without.
First, I shouldn't have to. It's akin to have to break into a car I just bought.
More like you have to find the key they lost... which is just hung on the wrong ring. See, you're still getting the key, it causes no "damage" to the game you just bought. Oh wait, you're talking about secureROM. In that case, you bought a car and don't like the anti-lock brake system it came with. So you need to decide; do you really want the car or not, because they don't offer a model without anti-lock brakes.
Second, it's illegal, thanks to the DMCA.
Then don't buy the game, and don't pirate it. Or is it ok to steal the car now because it wasn't EXACTLY what you wanted?
I've done nothing to their time, since they have no relationship with me.
If I hired them personally, claimed I'd write them a paycheck, and then didn't, that would be theft of work.
Stop it. You've stolen their work, whether or not you have a personal relationship with them. Same as stealing a breadbox directly from the breadbox guy. You're rationalizing, and you know it.
Also irrelevant.
No, it is totally relevent. The product was designed a certain way, and part of that design includes relying on SecureRom.
Which is why it's called "defective by design".
Ha. A phrase coined by retards trying to use engineering terms. If it works as EA designed it, it can't be defective, by definition. Defective would mean it's not working according to the specs EA created.
Filling the tank is a physical necessity, not a restriction imposed by the manufacturer.
Sure it is! They could have made it run on anything; they chose gasoline though. You can't pore water in the tank and expect the car to run can you?
To extend the analogy, how would you feel if you bought a car which refused to let a woman drive? Or refused to let a man drive? That's not a physical restriction of the car -- in fact, it would take quite a lot of extra effort to impose such a bizarre restriction, and it would take less effort to build a car without such restriction.
I guess your life is so empty that you only have one thing to do, and thus it doesn't matter how long it takes you to get it done.
Others have more to take care of in life, and most things need to be done between certain times, and possibly by certain dates. For these people, +5 minutes here and there really adds up quickly.
Analogies are really overused, and one isn't needed. No one is unclear on the original topic, so your analogy adds nothing.
1: Not theft. 2: Not my preferred choice.
Well, it is theft. Sorry. A breadbox's value is more than the sum of it's parts. It also includes someone's time to take the wood and turn it into a product. In the case of computer games, the raw materials are insignficant to the cost of making it; it's almost entirely a service built product. Using the product without paying for it is very similar to having someone build a breadbox for you when you supplied the wood. The guy that built the box is not out on raw material costs, but did take his time and skill from which you benefited.
But when piracy has a better user experience, in every way, than the legitimate problem, something is fucked up. And it's got nothing to do with price.
But it does; piracy implies you didn't pay for it. If you want a no-cd crack (for example) on a game you bought, I see no problem in that. However, NOT paying for the game but still playing it, yeah, I call that theft. Use all the semantics you want, you've stolen someone's time and skill which they intended to sell.
Can you take out the CD and play the game?
If not, then no, it doesn't work. It's missing a crucial feature -- and it's very likely installing dangerous software, like SecuROM.
Whether I can take the CD out or not is irrelevent. Shall I now complain that my computer "doesn't work" if I take out the RAM? Would you think me crazy? Or that my car "doesn't work" if I don't put gas in the tank? The game is designed to work with the CD in the drive; it should not be suprising that it doesn't work when you fail to meet it's design criteria.
That you don't like it is irrelevent; it also has nothing to do with your liability to pay for the game. If you paid for it, great, use the no-cd. But don't use the game if you haven't paid for it, and say "well I would pay for it but it doesn't work the way I think it should." That's the same as complaining that you can't drive your car because you don't want to pay the price for filling the tank.
So they don't still have their time and effort? They aren't still profiting from said time and effort with you?
They're down the money you should have paid. See, whether I pay or not is irrelevent to whether you should have to pay. If wood were free, and someone built two breadboxes, is it ok for you to take one because I've paid for it? If they make only half of what they could have, it's entirely plassuable that they are not able to make the amount they want (or need, to recover their costs), and cease to make RA4.
And they can expect what they want, doesn't make it so. If you've ever traveled, especially to a third-world country, you'll find plenty of people offering to show you around, or do something for you -- or even doing it without permission (picking up your bags and carrying them into the hotel) -- and then expecting to be paid for it.
Interesting example, but wrong. An offer to show you around for money is just an offer; if you refuse, the one offering hasn't spent any effort showing you around, so there's no loss. EA already invested money, and they make it clear they want to be paid for their effort. If you don't want to pay, that's fine. Don't play the game. In your latter example, you didn't want the service to begin with, so there's no reason to pay. But when you play the pirated game, you DO want the service and DO take advantage of it, and should pay.
Taking your words at face value, no, gaining from someone's time and effort, when they expected to be paid, is not stealing, according to a quick glance in the dictionary. It's not even always dishonest.
I'm not speaking legally, so my use of theft is perfectly valid. You understand exactly what I mean, and are trying to avoid it by using semantics. Legally speaking, I could call it fraud or "theft of services," if that will make you happier.
Stretching cold increases chances for a muscle tear. You don't want that even if you are performing. Stretching almost always seems best done after a workout, or sometimes during.
I have a shoulder injury from slipping and falling on some ice, on my shoulder. The injury actually causes me to have a greater range of motion in my right arm than my left... I've gone to the doctor's and PT, and the greater range of motion is NOT a good thing; it means I can move further than I should, which will cause further injury (muscle tears).
I've always been told NOT to stretch for warmup, as this increases chances of tearing your muscle (tears you don't feel while stretching, but which will show up as I do my routine).
Stretching doesn't do that though, which is the problem. If you want to get your heart rate up and more oxygen to muscles, cardio is how you acomplish that goal.
I actually makes sense too; do you think we stretched before we started running from the sabor tooth tiger that wanted to eat us? I think we evolved to go from "zero to 60" so to speak.
I lift as well; my trainer has me do a warm up.. 5 minutes on the treadmill. No stretching, because it increases chances of a tear. I would think you won't want to tear your muscle while lifting? She also as me stretch during and after, to keep the muscles from shorting and prevent injury. Also, there is research that suggests that stretching after you lift actually stimulates muscle growth more than those that don't stretch after.
Stretching helps avoid injury... but NOT if you haven't warmed up. It should be done AFTER (or during as well, if you're doing weights) you're finished your exercise. But the warm up should only be to get your blood pumping. Streching cold muscles / ligamites increases chances for you to tear them.
Think of a rubber band; they're easier to snap when they are really cold. Warm them up, and they are more elastic.
Sorry, you're wrong. Yes, warming up is to avoid injury. However, stretching, which is what the article discusses, is NOT warming up. When you stretch your muscles "cold" you increase the chance that you'll tear the muscle. A proper warmup is a full body cardio exercise done for a few minutes.
Of course, I'm not sure why this paper is coming out now.. my trainer told me this same thing two years ago, I suspect it may have been known even longer than that.
So, if you do a proper warmup (treadmill, sprinting, etc.) you won't fall like one of the 100m sprinters (who probably fell because they tore their muscle stretching).
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, so I guess if it does happen to rain everytime my cat dies, that means there must be a relationship?
Well, last i checked CA is part of the US. At any rate, you seem to misunderstand US election process. It's designed so that the majority doesn't necessarly win. It's an attempt to level the field somewhat, so that states like CA and NY can't always overrule VT or NH. This has been weaken to a great deal though, since the direct election of Senators (which was another way to stop democracy). Remember, the US is a republic, not a democracy.. at least it was setup that way originally.
Microsoft previously claimed that the Windows 7 kernel would be a major rewrite. Sorry, no more MSFT stock options this year for you.
Can you site a MS site that said that please?
Doesn't seem like a valid test at all... especially when drivers are factored in, and you didn't compare two versions differing by word length only. How did you get a license for all those versions, yet not have the 32bit Ultimate? I got Ultimate retail, and it comes with both 32 and 64 bit..
What the USA and UK need is Universal Democracy
Ahh, like how great Democracy is when 51% of the people dictate something contrary to what the other 49% want, as happened last Tuesday in CA?
They have the right to refuse service to anyone, therefore they have the right to say you can't buy anything if you don't voluntarily submit to search.
So could they say they have the right to punch you in the stomach too before you leave? Would that be legal in your mind?
Posting a sign does not convey any rights, nor does it restrict them.
Huh? Best Buy is infamous for having the door nazis.
Maybe, but I Circuit City was around in my area like 10 years before I ever even heard of Best Buy.
Ya, I imagine its difficult to drive any faster than 28MPH when you have moneys and cows constantly littering the road.
No, speed limits are set to generate revenue.. otherwise they wouldn't be set lower than they should.
http://trb.org/publications/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_504.pdf
BUT, only if it's the 64bit version, 32bit is crap.
Huh? Besides word length... what exactly is the difference?
Huh? It probably is modify slightly. After all, the kernel only went from 5.0 to 5.1 going from Win2k to WinXP, but winXP was so much more nicer to use than Win2k.
Interesting, because even Jesus was supposed to have fallen to temptation a few times.
No, correlation doesn't determine anything. It merely suggests that maybe something should be looked into more. And back to the subject at hand, there are WAY too many other variables to make the claims the study does.
Apparently, you are, or I wouldn't have used it.
No, you're just throwing up a strawman argument. Or do you complain that you shouldn't NEED a key to drive away in the car you just purchased?
Now who's using analogies?
Well apparently you don't understand the concept or I wouldn't have a need to use one..
The flaw here is that I didn't ask for them to build the game. They built it on their own, and now they want to be paid for it.
Irrelvent; I never asked anyone to build a breadbox either, but there's still lots of them around. Or do you think that only things YOU want should be built?
The only difference they need to be concerned about is whether I buy it or not. My point here is to demonstrate that DRM has the opposite effect that they'd like -- DRM is based on the assumption that if the game wasn't DRM'd, I wouldn't pay for it, while if the game was DRM'd, I would.
There are a suprising number of people that wouldn't pay for the game. No, I'm not claiming DRM will stop people.. it may stop some though. Of course, no one would bother with DRM if games actually weren't being pirated to begin with. This is a case where a (hopefully) minority of people ruined it for everyone.
If that's not the assumption, then we can stop right now, because DRM clearly isn't about piracy.
The real effect here is that if the game is too heavily DRM'd, I will never pay for it, while if the game is less DRM'd, or not DRM'd at all, I might pay for it.
Whether or not I pirate it is really irrelevant to that equation. It's not about what I get, it's about what they get for their effort.
Sure it is; by pirating, you re-enforce the idea that people would rather steal their work than buy it. So they in turn will clamp down harder. If you want to get rid of DRM, stop pirating games. Go without.
First, I shouldn't have to. It's akin to have to break into a car I just bought.
More like you have to find the key they lost... which is just hung on the wrong ring. See, you're still getting the key, it causes no "damage" to the game you just bought. Oh wait, you're talking about secureROM. In that case, you bought a car and don't like the anti-lock brake system it came with. So you need to decide; do you really want the car or not, because they don't offer a model without anti-lock brakes.
Second, it's illegal, thanks to the DMCA.
Then don't buy the game, and don't pirate it. Or is it ok to steal the car now because it wasn't EXACTLY what you wanted?
I've done nothing to their time, since they have no relationship with me.
If I hired them personally, claimed I'd write them a paycheck, and then didn't, that would be theft of work.
Stop it. You've stolen their work, whether or not you have a personal relationship with them. Same as stealing a breadbox directly from the breadbox guy. You're rationalizing, and you know it.
Also irrelevant.
No, it is totally relevent. The product was designed a certain way, and part of that design includes relying on SecureRom.
Which is why it's called "defective by design".
Ha. A phrase coined by retards trying to use engineering terms. If it works as EA designed it, it can't be defective, by definition. Defective would mean it's not working according to the specs EA created.
Filling the tank is a physical necessity, not a restriction imposed by the manufacturer.
Sure it is! They could have made it run on anything; they chose gasoline though. You can't pore water in the tank and expect the car to run can you?
To extend the analogy, how would you feel if you bought a car which refused to let a woman drive? Or refused to let a man drive? That's not a physical restriction of the car -- in fact, it would take quite a lot of extra effort to impose such a bizarre restriction, and it would take less effort to build a car without such restriction.
If th
Well, thank god that never happens in the USA!
I guess your life is so empty that you only have one thing to do, and thus it doesn't matter how long it takes you to get it done.
Others have more to take care of in life, and most things need to be done between certain times, and possibly by certain dates. For these people, +5 minutes here and there really adds up quickly.
It's called an analogy.
Analogies are really overused, and one isn't needed. No one is unclear on the original topic, so your analogy adds nothing.
1: Not theft.
2: Not my preferred choice.
Well, it is theft. Sorry. A breadbox's value is more than the sum of it's parts. It also includes someone's time to take the wood and turn it into a product. In the case of computer games, the raw materials are insignficant to the cost of making it; it's almost entirely a service built product. Using the product without paying for it is very similar to having someone build a breadbox for you when you supplied the wood. The guy that built the box is not out on raw material costs, but did take his time and skill from which you benefited.
But when piracy has a better user experience, in every way, than the legitimate problem, something is fucked up. And it's got nothing to do with price.
But it does; piracy implies you didn't pay for it. If you want a no-cd crack (for example) on a game you bought, I see no problem in that. However, NOT paying for the game but still playing it, yeah, I call that theft. Use all the semantics you want, you've stolen someone's time and skill which they intended to sell.
Can you take out the CD and play the game?
If not, then no, it doesn't work. It's missing a crucial feature -- and it's very likely installing dangerous software, like SecuROM.
Whether I can take the CD out or not is irrelevent. Shall I now complain that my computer "doesn't work" if I take out the RAM? Would you think me crazy? Or that my car "doesn't work" if I don't put gas in the tank? The game is designed to work with the CD in the drive; it should not be suprising that it doesn't work when you fail to meet it's design criteria.
That you don't like it is irrelevent; it also has nothing to do with your liability to pay for the game. If you paid for it, great, use the no-cd. But don't use the game if you haven't paid for it, and say "well I would pay for it but it doesn't work the way I think it should." That's the same as complaining that you can't drive your car because you don't want to pay the price for filling the tank.
So they don't still have their time and effort? They aren't still profiting from said time and effort with you?
They're down the money you should have paid. See, whether I pay or not is irrelevent to whether you should have to pay. If wood were free, and someone built two breadboxes, is it ok for you to take one because I've paid for it? If they make only half of what they could have, it's entirely plassuable that they are not able to make the amount they want (or need, to recover their costs), and cease to make RA4.
And they can expect what they want, doesn't make it so. If you've ever traveled, especially to a third-world country, you'll find plenty of people offering to show you around, or do something for you -- or even doing it without permission (picking up your bags and carrying them into the hotel) -- and then expecting to be paid for it.
Interesting example, but wrong. An offer to show you around for money is just an offer; if you refuse, the one offering hasn't spent any effort showing you around, so there's no loss. EA already invested money, and they make it clear they want to be paid for their effort. If you don't want to pay, that's fine. Don't play the game. In your latter example, you didn't want the service to begin with, so there's no reason to pay. But when you play the pirated game, you DO want the service and DO take advantage of it, and should pay.
Taking your words at face value, no, gaining from someone's time and effort, when they expected to be paid, is not stealing, according to a quick glance in the dictionary. It's not even always dishonest.
I'm not speaking legally, so my use of theft is perfectly valid. You understand exactly what I mean, and are trying to avoid it by using semantics. Legally speaking, I could call it fraud or "theft of services," if that will make you happier.
Stretching cold increases chances for a muscle tear. You don't want that even if you are performing. Stretching almost always seems best done after a workout, or sometimes during.
I have a shoulder injury from slipping and falling on some ice, on my shoulder. The injury actually causes me to have a greater range of motion in my right arm than my left... I've gone to the doctor's and PT, and the greater range of motion is NOT a good thing; it means I can move further than I should, which will cause further injury (muscle tears).
I've always been told NOT to stretch for warmup, as this increases chances of tearing your muscle (tears you don't feel while stretching, but which will show up as I do my routine).
Stretching doesn't do that though, which is the problem. If you want to get your heart rate up and more oxygen to muscles, cardio is how you acomplish that goal.
I actually makes sense too; do you think we stretched before we started running from the sabor tooth tiger that wanted to eat us? I think we evolved to go from "zero to 60" so to speak.
I lift as well; my trainer has me do a warm up.. 5 minutes on the treadmill. No stretching, because it increases chances of a tear. I would think you won't want to tear your muscle while lifting? She also as me stretch during and after, to keep the muscles from shorting and prevent injury. Also, there is research that suggests that stretching after you lift actually stimulates muscle growth more than those that don't stretch after.
Stretching helps avoid injury... but NOT if you haven't warmed up. It should be done AFTER (or during as well, if you're doing weights) you're finished your exercise. But the warm up should only be to get your blood pumping. Streching cold muscles / ligamites increases chances for you to tear them.
Think of a rubber band; they're easier to snap when they are really cold. Warm them up, and they are more elastic.
Sorry, you're wrong. Yes, warming up is to avoid injury. However, stretching, which is what the article discusses, is NOT warming up. When you stretch your muscles "cold" you increase the chance that you'll tear the muscle. A proper warmup is a full body cardio exercise done for a few minutes.
Of course, I'm not sure why this paper is coming out now.. my trainer told me this same thing two years ago, I suspect it may have been known even longer than that.
So, if you do a proper warmup (treadmill, sprinting, etc.) you won't fall like one of the 100m sprinters (who probably fell because they tore their muscle stretching).
Well, it's also possible that looking at the source can give you insight into the hardware design.