While I think you're a fucking cocksmoker for saying "sheeple", I do agree.
If anything, make a money order for however much the game cost and send it to Will Wright. If I choose to install the game, this is what I will be doing. I'm sure as hell not going to give EA cash to infect my computer with Securom.
I would actually do this if I knew where to send it and knew he'd get it personally (or the development team), and EA wouldn't somehow steal it. I've often wanted to do it with music as well - send five or ten bucks to the artists for their CD. I bought Radiohead's CD awhile back, and I don't even like the songs on it, but I wanted to support that model and the idea behind it.
I'm happy to pay for content I enjoy, but I want the content when, where and HOW I want to enjoy it. If I can't have a legitimate way to do that, then you don't get my money.
Joe Sixpack has long known where to download cracks and torrents (and that shoudln't surprise anyone here anymore). DRM has been since it's inception been an annoyance only to customers. I can understand that companies try to curtail piracy, but its measures have been ineffective and have delayed cracks for a week or two at most. Joe Sixpack gets his cracks from the same torrents that non-Joe Sixpacks do.
Nope, Joe-Sixpack does not know anything about how to download a crack (or even what a crack is) - the people who do know what a crack is and where/how to find it are long past the Joe-Sixpack stage and area already beyond reach of DRM. Your parents, your red-neck neighbor, your office manager - those people are Joe-Sixpack. They can barely find the on-button for their computer. If it's not a one click solution, it's too complicated to mess with. Those are the people you need to prevent copying games... anyone else can circumvent any DRM that's put on a game.
It's a funny and interesting trade-off when you mention making it so Joe-Six pack can't copy the media. In order to make that possible, company X has to distribute their product on hardware that isn't typically available. Nintendo is particularly good at this in that they stuck with cartridges for the longest time, put out their GameCube games on CDs that weren't regular sized, distribute Wii games on dvd (I believe). I think most companies don't go this route because either they eliminate a certain portion of their customer base or building the infrastructure (like distributing consoles and regulating physical media) can be daunting. Ironically, it's not entirely the user's fault but the developer's for choosing the largest customer base by using the easiest to distribute methods. By maximizing profits without considering the other issues, they kinda shoot themselves in the foot. I think the people at Stardock have it right though: figure out who will pay for your game, make them as satisfied with their purchase as possible, and ignore the rest. Ultimately, people who pay will get what they want and people who don't pay will live with what's available (like DRM encrusted software).
I think you might be missing the point of what I said. Joe-Sixpack wants to put his game in the drive, hit a button and out comes a copy. If it's anything more complicated than that, he won't do it. Once he does take on the task of a more complicated method (such as GameDrive, Alcohol, etc...), you've crossed the threshold and no amount of copy protection is going to stop him from getting a copy of the game. Either he'll get it from a program that can copy the CD, he'll download the crack or he'll download the torrent. It's the casual copier that you have to protect against (if any protection is going to be used) anything beyond the casual copier is *impossible* (and still remain usable) to protect against. Thus it is a complete waste of money and a complete waste of the users/customers time.
I buy games I play to support them. If the CD in the drive thing is easily fixable and I still retain full functionality then it's something I'm willing to deal with *most* of the time. If it's something as hostile as to how many machines i can install it on and it phones home every time I fire it up for no reason other than to verify it's authorized, then it can piss off.
Although, as time wears on, I'm getting tired of having to play a cracked (and thus having to jump through hoops to patch) version - it's becoming not worth the money to buy even those games. Stardock seems to do rather well without copy protection - I bought their games, so did many others.
The problem is not pirates, as Stardock clearly demonstrates. There are many other factors that are far larger problems than pirates. DRM inconveniences the legitimate users far, FAR more than it causes a problem for the pirates. That being an indisputable fact, why have it?
The only copy protection that is really needed is of the physical media. Make it so Joe-Sixpack can't burn off a quick copy for their buddy and you've done all you can possibly do to prevent piracy. Anything beyond that is completely, utterly meaningless. This is an absolute, it is not an opinion or a theory. Once Joe-Sixpack graduates from the baseline "I put CD in drive and click copy, if it doesn't work, I can't copy it," to the "I go online and download this crack," or "I go online and download this torrent," Joe-Sixpack is already far, far beyond the effects of DRM.
It's a small step, but once that step is made, you can't stop that person. You can appeal to their sense of morality, but you can't physically stop them. Game developers need to put no, or bare minimum copy protection on their games. Then use that money saved from not having to develop useless DRM and make a good game. Works for Stardock!
I usually do as well, unless it doesn't require any interaction on my part after it's installed. I especially hate when the CD/DVD has to be in the drive... it's www.gamecopyworld.com immediately after install if that's the case.
The only games I currently play that I haven't cracked are Steam games... their DRM is barely acceptable, so I haven't felt the need to do away with it.
I've been playing Spore recently, I would love to go out and buy it, but I refuse due to the DRM involved. It's a pretty good game and I'm happy to pay for it, but I won't pay for DRM.
You can choose which display is primary or secondary in the display prefs, and on top of that, you can drag the displays around such that you can have secondary be to the left, right, top or bottom of the primary. 3000 pixels to the left may be too much, but 1000 up isn't.
control+f2 focuses on the menu for keyboard navigation. And you can add to that the ability to have the mouse follow the keyboard focus to have it jump to the menu.
OR my favorite:
command+shift+/ access to any and all menu commands.
I don't see how any of your suggestions addresses the problem. So you move the primary monitor bar to the other monitor. What happens when you have an application in the formerly primary monitor, now secondary and the menu bar is now on the primary (formerly secondary) monitor? Same thing. You have to scroll across two whole monitors just to get to the menu bar. It's stupid - there's no two ways about it. It's hostile to the user and it does not provide ANY benefit. It was ok on single monitor setups, but in todays modern computing world it's ridiculous.
I can't mount my monitors one on top of the other, and I very seriously doubt many people can or do. The most common configuration is side by side. If you are suggesting that I should retain the side by side configuration physically, but tell the OS they are in a top to bottom configuration, you are crazy. There is no possible way I want my mouse jumping around and trying to figure out where it is or where it's going to come out when I move it off screen... never mind trying to drag windows between monitors. That suggestion is a kludge for a broken modality in OSX. Fix the problem, and it IS a problem.
I switched from Windows to a Mac because I wanted to get work done. When I owned Windows PCs I've had hardware problems within a few months of buying a PC new. I've also had to reinstall Windows along with all of the software I used a bunch of tymes. On the other hand the first two Macs I bought I bought used and they both lasted years without problems. As for what I can do with it, I can do anything with it I could do with a Windows PC. Name one thing you think a Mac can not do, and I'll look into it. I bet I can find a way to do it.
You browse the web, you check email, maybe design little HTML based websites and that sort of thing. That's the exact sort of thing OSX excels at. Little stuff for the hobbiest. You said "I've had hardware problems within a few months of buying a new PC. You don't buy a new PC, you build one. Unless you bought a boutique computer, of course you had hardware problems if you bought a Dell or Gateway or something - they use crappy components. Again, this is a strength of Mac, they use good quality shit. You buy a budget PC, you get what you pay for.
Here's one thing I'd like you to do: Run HFS+ and install Dreamweaver for webpage design. Install Flash to augment those web pages. You can't. Here's another thing: In Mail.app, mark a message as unread from the message list so you can address it later. Here's ANOTHER one: Share your HFS+ drive to a Windows box with logon credentials. You can't, the SMB implementation in Leopard is broken and has been for several revisions, Apple doesn't care. You can only share a guest (IE a public) folder. I have more if you'd like.
I can do much more than just surf the web and send and receive email with my Mac. The biggest uses in business is with office suites, and even Microsoft has a version of Office for Macs. Personally I use NeoOffice and I have no trouble opening, editing, and saving Word documents. I can use my Mac to create websites or program. I can also use CADD on it. There is nothing I could do on my Windows PC that I can not do on my Mac, or with some work, on my Linux PC. Heck, I can run Windows software on it, can you run Mac software on your Windows PC?
You can't use a Mac to create websites with Dreamweaver unless you reformat your system with something other than HFS+ or if you were lucky enough to turn off case sensitivity in a frigging UNIX OS. Let's be honest, what other Website creation tool do real developers use? That vast majority of those using an creation tool use Dreamweaver, yet it doesn't work. This, again, is the fault of Adobe, but none the less it's a problem for the Mac.
What CAD software do you use?
Yes, you can run Windows software on your Mac... but only some. Here's something I'd like you to run: A lightweight, full featured Bit Torrent client. It doesn't exist, you'll have to run Parallels or something to run uTorrent. The "lightweight" ones for Mac all suck ass. The heavyweight ones use a lot of resources. Either way you're missing out.
But... let's take a different track and forget about work for a minute: Here's the on thing you can't do on a Mac (and to be fair, you can't do it on Linux either). Go play a game. You can't. There's only a handful of top shelf titles that support Mac. Most of the good titles either don't have a Mac version at all or it comes out more than a year down the road, after the game is all dusty and crusty.
I'm not saying the OS sucks. I'm saying it's built for neophyte users who need handholding and training wheels. That's fine. There's a lot more people out there like that than there are others, so it makes perfect sense. OSX caters to those people, and it does it well. The Mac excels at things like Garage Band and graphic design... although arguably the PC does Photoshop just as well as a Mac. The video editing tools I use work just as well on the PC as on the Mac, so really those advantages are equal if anything.
Presumably these PC users are already sold on trying OSX given they are working on a hackintosh. And again, if these PC users are willing to shell out a few hundred bucks on dongles and a copy of the OS to try it out, they can buy a slighly used mac mini, or an older ibook. Or shell out just a little bit more and get an new mini.
Well, I "pirated" a copy of OSX to try it out. I'm glad I did. I would have been pissed if I had dropped several hundred dollars for a used Mac Mini and then been stuck with it.
I've been using OSX for about 4 months now on a hackintosh. Aside from some minor problems with the initial install, it's pretty stable and I've only had compatibility issues with printers (which I would have with a Mac Mini anyway).
That said, I am glad. After using OSX and wanting to like it, I've come to the conclusion that it is intended for neophyte users (Duh!) and it's a pretty crappy OS when it really break it down. It's absolutely great if you want to use exactly what Apple gives you in terms of functionality, but the moment you step outside Apple's vision, you are in a world of shit.
Add to the that the fact that the MacOS is absolutely hostile to multi-monitor setups (The menu bar on the primary monitor? Seriously? Thanks, I love having to scroll my mouse over 3000 pixels to get to the menu! Fucking idiots.) Samba sharing with Windows is completely non-functional (Maybe a newer OSX update addresses this, I don't know), Broken network permission system, inability to Save As to a network location (gotta mount those drives!), constant renegotiation of logon credentials when accessing mounted shares (ever hear of caching the connection Apple?).
Lets not talk about the stupid Red, yellow and green application window controls. When I press the Red X, I want the fucking application to close, not minimize to a DIFFERENT place than the yellow button minimizes it to. Seriously, who thought this was a good idea?
Lots of UAC popups after initial installation... just as many as Vista. I don't use Vista and that's one of the primary reasons, thanks Apple for giving me the Vista experience!
Trying to print to a network printer attached to a Windows box? Good luck!
iDVD - Complete joke.
iPhoto - It so badly wants to be Picasa but just isn't. It's like the retarded half brother no one wants to talk about.
The dock? Yeah, I love multiple instances of an application stacked onto a single icon... I turn that annoying bullshit off in Windows for a reason. Can't do that in OSX!
Want to use an Adobe product? Can't do it if you have HFS! Sorry. This is Adobe's problem, of course, no Apples, but none the less I can use it just fine on Windows.
The list goes on. So yes, I would be pissed if I dropped several hundred bucks for this bag of shit. I know the OS is great for some people, but for those of us who want to get real work done, OSX is NOT the way to go unless the only real work you need to do is video editing or graphic design. Neither of which I do.
The thing is, I really wanted to like OSX. I used a hacked version to see what all the hype was about and found it to be complete hype and no substance. OSX isn't nearly the OS every Mac fanboi claims it to be. It's a middle of the road OS on par with Vista (which I despise). It's not amazing. It's not incredible. It's not easier to use. It's just another OS with it's own quirks and problems. There is absolutely nothing in OSX to draw a power user. It's for Mom and Dad and Little Sister who just want to email and view the web as quickly and easily as possible. In that it excels, no doubt about it. Beyond that, it's nothing special.
true enough, but I would prefer a world without lawyers to one with 'good' lawyers and 'bad' lawyers.
I realize we need laws but the very large majority of the lawyers is simply parasitic to society.
It should be possible to get by with far far less of them then there currently are.
Damn, you are an ignorant fuck that's for sure. The very large majority of lawyers are NOT parasitic to society. You hear about the minority that are... so you think all of them are like that.
Way to go. We should vote with bullets so we can put people like you out of our misery.
Better for the kid to learn now that "free speech" is (and always has been) a crock of shit in the U.S. It's just one of those terms that we throw around to make ourselves feel superior to other countries. But when you take even the most cursory look at it, you realize it's as hollow as a reed. "The right to free speech" in reality translates to "The right to conventional, relatively non-controversial speech in a setting that will not upset anyone or be particularly noticed by anyone who might be offended or threatened by said speech." The second you attempt to break out of any one of those tight boundaries, you WILL find yourself in jail/kicked out of school/fired/persecuted or in some way silenced or punished.
That kid just learned one of the most important lessons in life: That what people SAY and CLAIM has little to do with what they DO and how they actually ACT. And that goes for the government, politicians, and just about everyone else. Just because some civics class says you have "the right to free speech" does not mean that you can actually ever speak freely in any real world environment without fear of persecution.
Consider it the first of many disillusioning life lessons, kid.
Haha god I wish I had mod points to mod you down. It's plainly clear you've never lived or even visited a country where free speech is explicitly denied and punished. Those places are scary. They are scary to live in. They are scary to visit. Walking on egg shells 24/7 is not something you ever want to do. The fact that you dismiss what we call "free speech" as bullshit is ludicrous in the face of real limits on free speech.
The harshest punishments we have for insulting others with your "free speech" is nothing in comparison to some other countries.
You also don't clearly understand what free speech is. You have the right to say what you want... but others also have the right to seek recompense for false/misleading/defamatory/etc... statements. It's a double edged sword, but just because it is a double edged sword does not mean it's a crock of shit.
Learn history. Learn how the world really works. Move out of your mom's basement. Grow up.
There are many features that Media Portal (and every other media player in the world) lack. But what sets XBMC apart bar-none is the fact that it plays just about every format of video known to man. Or at least, every format that you're likely to find online. And it plays them well.
Add in the fact that the UI is first rate and beats any other media center I've seen, and you have a winning combination.
Being able to just drop any type of media file (even RAR'd media) into a directory and XBMC happily plays it is worth it's weight in gold.
The thing that XBMC does not have, and if you need this functionality, you need to look elsewhere is DVR functions. It can't record shows. It's a media streaming/playback solution, not a DVR (such that MythTV et al). If you want to view live shows through your capture card or OTA/cable, then XBMC is not for you. If you want to watch pre-recorded content, XBMC is the only game in town when it comes to the robust codecs and silky smooth UI.
That's very strange, since the Jetta's I have are by far the easiest cars I've ever worked on. I can't imagine how they'd make it easier to work on a car - everything is easily accessable from the top or the bottom depending on the part. The only difficult part to R&R that I've run across is the intake manifold bolts, but other than that everything else has been trivial.
Too bad Volkswagen can't design their cars to be even minimally user serviceable. It took me 30 minutes to replace the cabin air filter in my wife's old Jetta. Takes about 3 minutes on my Corolla. I'd like Volkswagens better if they were designed to be repaired, and not just built. You have to take half the vehicle apart to get to anything, which drives maintenance costs through the roof.
What year Jetta are you talking about? Since 1999, I can change the oil (yes, change the oil), oil filter, the fuel filter, the air filter and the cabin air filter in under 15 minutes in my office clothes with only a phillips screw driver. I don't know about the older VW's, but the newer ones are so user serviceable as to be amazing. My hands get a little dirty from handling the oil filter element, but other than that, it's a quick and mostly clean process.
All diesels I've driven (and that's a lot of them, old and new) are very slow and sluggish when the engine is cold. Diesels need to have a warm engine to perform and get good mileage. So a hybrid diesel might be feasible, but the first time the engine runs it has to run for a while to get good efficiency.
You have never driven a new diesel engine. Your statement confirms you are an absolute liar. Heh. Anyone who has driven a modern diesel knows your statement is 100% false.
Since you only have 2 - 4 years of verifiable employment at each company, I would question your abilities as well. 2 - 4 years is just enough to get a job and for the company to find out you are totally incompetent and then fire you. If you had said 6 - 8 years per company, then you might have a case.
I would have to disagree with this for a lot of IT jobs. Two to four years at an IT job is a long time due to the flux that our industry has. Hell, two to four years is longer than some companies stay in business. I knew a guy that had LITERALLY 27 jobs in 24 years, now that's a red flag.
ft
I'll respond to yours, since it's similar to many others. I am speaking from the experience of large companies. Small companies are different in their length of time from hire -> fire stand point. It many (most) large companies, an incompetent person can wiggle around from job to job and department to department for 4 years fairly easily. The bigger the company the easier it is and the longer the idiots can move around and maintain a job.
If you were with a 20 person company for 2 - 4 years, that's better than being as a 20,000 person company for that long. The larger the company, the longer you need to stick around to demonstrate you aren't an idiot. This is not always a fool proof method, unfortunately.
To the guy who said something about staying with a company for longer than 4 years means you're a dinosaur doesn't know the first thing about real world jobs, so it's kind of a pointless debate. Live in the real world and work on real projects before interjecting your opinion on them.
Additionally, they do have to take a test. It's called Bar Exam, CPA certification, etc...
These are standardized tests that everyone agrees is robust enough to demonstrate competence. There is no standardized test for IT workers. No, passing MSCE and A+ crap does not count. A+ is somewhat standardized, but honestly there is no IT test that is worth a crap. Arguably some of the Cisco tests are adequate to demonstrate Networking knowledge, but that doesn't mean you are worth a crap when it comes to fixing a broken down Unix machine or even a Windows machine. It also doesn't mean you can build/rebuild a computer.
The field of IT is so broad that coming up with a standardized test is not really feasible. The technology field also moves so fast that a standardized test would be outdated by the time it was developed and agreed upon.
Since you only have 2 - 4 years of verifiable employment at each company, I would question your abilities as well. 2 - 4 years is just enough to get a job and for the company to find out you are totally incompetent and then fire you. If you had said 6 - 8 years per company, then you might have a case.
I'm somewhat in the same boat as you... but I won't buy it because of the DRM. I downloaded it, have been playing it a bit, and was going to go out and buy it, then remembered that it had draconian DRM and decided there was no point.
So the DRM = lost sales, whereas the piracy would have equaled another sale. Eh... doesn't matter to me, I'll keep my $60 bucks. If they don't make any more games because of piracy, I'll find something else to do. If they make more games without DRM, I'll pay for them.
I'm going to have to say yes. Since MS is pushing their movie download service, I very seriously doubt they would allow a competing service like that on the Xbox 360.
But again, it brings up the question - why not just download the movie instead of get it on a USB stick, if you already have the Xbox 360?
So it's more convenient to have a USB stick sticking our of your computer than to have it on the hard drive or in the DVD rom drive? Certainly less safe as well.
Again, if you read the article, it has DRM, which requires specific hardware and software to allow it to play. Thus you can't stick it in your 360, PS3 or DVD player and expect it to play.
If you think movie houses are going to release unencumbered DRM-Free movies on USB stick, dream on.
So you're saying it's more convenient for a USB stick to stick out of your laptop, which could get caught on something and wreck your USB ports than have it on your hard drive, or if you're so inclined, on a DVD that's enclosed and safe in your laptop?
As someone who's had USB protrubances bumped and smashed on airplanes and other crowded areas, I can tell you it's a bad idea.
We are talking about movies, not music. Movies are a whole different entertainment experience than music.
Also, if you read the article, it requires DRM... which means specific hardware required. Just plugging in the stick in question isn't going to let the movie play. If you think the movie houses are going to just release unencumbered movies on a USB stick, you are dreaming.
I don't have a nice surround sound system and a TV picture on a standard set is lower resolution than a PC.
Most people with an adequate computer for watching movies on their PC have a more modern set that has DVD quality resolution. After that, it doesn't matter what your monitor resolution is, until you get to HD movies... 1080p movies are pretty high resolution, even for a monitor, and I would say most monitors can't display 1080p in it's native resolution, so it's actually a downgrade to watch it on your monitor.
A reasonable set of headphones will give pretty decent surround sound
Umm, no. Just... no.
Plus, why would I want extra hardware in my room? A multipurpose PC takes up less space than PC+TV+DVD player.
I'd personally watch everything on my computer if I had the choice, including both movies and TV shows.
I don't know why you'd want extra hardware in your room... I personally put my TV stuff in another room... you know, one big enough to hold it and be comfortable?
Even if you want to have some friends over and watch it together you can always hook up some better speakers (portable guitar amp/speaker combo box for example, all you need is a 1/8-to-1/4" adapter plug)
Haha, I don't even know what do say to this. Portable guitar amp/speaker, lol.
and if you have a large enough monitor you're set. Or you could hook it up to an LCD projector... which is very cool, and I'd recommend trying it sometime if you haven't already.
Yeah, cause that computer chair and those folding chairs you have for your friends are nice and comfy to watch movies in. I know I'd want to come over to your house and gather 'round the monitor for a good flick on a 24" screen and a tinny mono guitar amp/speaker box! Just like being at an old fashioned drive in, except less comfortable. They are also good for snuggling up with a woman and getting frisky. Oh... my mistake, I'm sure you're typical/. user, thus no women to worry about.:)
What is this obsession or draw to people thinking it's fun to watch movies on your computer? My computer room, and by extension my little 24 and 28" monitors are NOT the place I find comfortable to sit down and watch movies.
I realize some people have media center PC's, as do I, but I know I am in the very small minority. Full blown media PC's that can play movies off of USB are rare and not a lucrative market. So why this obsession with movies ON the PC? Now, if I had something like a DVD player that had a USB slot where I stick the USB key in and the movie starts playing, I could understand it... but I do not, and will not ever want to watch a movie in my computer room.
If I have a full blown media PC that can play this USB stick,then I sure as hell likely have a full blown broadband connection... so just let the download the movie. Why fuss around with hardware that's not needed? Hardware that will have certain requirements beyond what's required for a downloaded movie?
I won't be buying any movies on USB keys, that's for sure, just like I refuse to by physical media of any sort. I want to play it where, when and HOW I want... the USB key limits that, so who needs it?
Slashdot Mirror
While I think you're a fucking cocksmoker for saying "sheeple", I do agree.
If anything, make a money order for however much the game cost and send it to Will Wright. If I choose to install the game, this is what I will be doing. I'm sure as hell not going to give EA cash to infect my computer with Securom.
I would actually do this if I knew where to send it and knew he'd get it personally (or the development team), and EA wouldn't somehow steal it. I've often wanted to do it with music as well - send five or ten bucks to the artists for their CD. I bought Radiohead's CD awhile back, and I don't even like the songs on it, but I wanted to support that model and the idea behind it.
I'm happy to pay for content I enjoy, but I want the content when, where and HOW I want to enjoy it. If I can't have a legitimate way to do that, then you don't get my money.
Joe Sixpack has long known where to download cracks and torrents (and that shoudln't surprise anyone here anymore). DRM has been since it's inception been an annoyance only to customers. I can understand that companies try to curtail piracy, but its measures have been ineffective and have delayed cracks for a week or two at most. Joe Sixpack gets his cracks from the same torrents that non-Joe Sixpacks do.
Nope, Joe-Sixpack does not know anything about how to download a crack (or even what a crack is) - the people who do know what a crack is and where/how to find it are long past the Joe-Sixpack stage and area already beyond reach of DRM. Your parents, your red-neck neighbor, your office manager - those people are Joe-Sixpack. They can barely find the on-button for their computer. If it's not a one click solution, it's too complicated to mess with. Those are the people you need to prevent copying games... anyone else can circumvent any DRM that's put on a game.
It's a funny and interesting trade-off when you mention making it so Joe-Six pack can't copy the media. In order to make that possible, company X has to distribute their product on hardware that isn't typically available. Nintendo is particularly good at this in that they stuck with cartridges for the longest time, put out their GameCube games on CDs that weren't regular sized, distribute Wii games on dvd (I believe). I think most companies don't go this route because either they eliminate a certain portion of their customer base or building the infrastructure (like distributing consoles and regulating physical media) can be daunting. Ironically, it's not entirely the user's fault but the developer's for choosing the largest customer base by using the easiest to distribute methods. By maximizing profits without considering the other issues, they kinda shoot themselves in the foot. I think the people at Stardock have it right though: figure out who will pay for your game, make them as satisfied with their purchase as possible, and ignore the rest. Ultimately, people who pay will get what they want and people who don't pay will live with what's available (like DRM encrusted software).
I think you might be missing the point of what I said. Joe-Sixpack wants to put his game in the drive, hit a button and out comes a copy. If it's anything more complicated than that, he won't do it. Once he does take on the task of a more complicated method (such as GameDrive, Alcohol, etc...), you've crossed the threshold and no amount of copy protection is going to stop him from getting a copy of the game. Either he'll get it from a program that can copy the CD, he'll download the crack or he'll download the torrent. It's the casual copier that you have to protect against (if any protection is going to be used) anything beyond the casual copier is *impossible* (and still remain usable) to protect against. Thus it is a complete waste of money and a complete waste of the users/customers time.
Who said anything about returning it?
I buy games I play to support them. If the CD in the drive thing is easily fixable and I still retain full functionality then it's something I'm willing to deal with *most* of the time. If it's something as hostile as to how many machines i can install it on and it phones home every time I fire it up for no reason other than to verify it's authorized, then it can piss off.
Although, as time wears on, I'm getting tired of having to play a cracked (and thus having to jump through hoops to patch) version - it's becoming not worth the money to buy even those games. Stardock seems to do rather well without copy protection - I bought their games, so did many others.
The problem is not pirates, as Stardock clearly demonstrates. There are many other factors that are far larger problems than pirates. DRM inconveniences the legitimate users far, FAR more than it causes a problem for the pirates. That being an indisputable fact, why have it?
The only copy protection that is really needed is of the physical media. Make it so Joe-Sixpack can't burn off a quick copy for their buddy and you've done all you can possibly do to prevent piracy. Anything beyond that is completely, utterly meaningless. This is an absolute, it is not an opinion or a theory. Once Joe-Sixpack graduates from the baseline "I put CD in drive and click copy, if it doesn't work, I can't copy it," to the "I go online and download this crack," or "I go online and download this torrent," Joe-Sixpack is already far, far beyond the effects of DRM.
It's a small step, but once that step is made, you can't stop that person. You can appeal to their sense of morality, but you can't physically stop them. Game developers need to put no, or bare minimum copy protection on their games. Then use that money saved from not having to develop useless DRM and make a good game. Works for Stardock!
I usually do as well, unless it doesn't require any interaction on my part after it's installed. I especially hate when the CD/DVD has to be in the drive... it's www.gamecopyworld.com immediately after install if that's the case.
The only games I currently play that I haven't cracked are Steam games... their DRM is barely acceptable, so I haven't felt the need to do away with it.
I've been playing Spore recently, I would love to go out and buy it, but I refuse due to the DRM involved. It's a pretty good game and I'm happy to pay for it, but I won't pay for DRM.
In regards to your monitor problems:
You can choose which display is primary or secondary in the display prefs, and on top of that, you can drag the displays around such that you can have secondary be to the left, right, top or bottom of the primary. 3000 pixels to the left may be too much, but 1000 up isn't.
control+f2 focuses on the menu for keyboard navigation. And you can add to that the ability to have the mouse follow the keyboard focus to have it jump to the menu.
OR my favorite:
command+shift+/ access to any and all menu commands.
I don't see how any of your suggestions addresses the problem. So you move the primary monitor bar to the other monitor. What happens when you have an application in the formerly primary monitor, now secondary and the menu bar is now on the primary (formerly secondary) monitor? Same thing. You have to scroll across two whole monitors just to get to the menu bar. It's stupid - there's no two ways about it. It's hostile to the user and it does not provide ANY benefit. It was ok on single monitor setups, but in todays modern computing world it's ridiculous.
I can't mount my monitors one on top of the other, and I very seriously doubt many people can or do. The most common configuration is side by side. If you are suggesting that I should retain the side by side configuration physically, but tell the OS they are in a top to bottom configuration, you are crazy. There is no possible way I want my mouse jumping around and trying to figure out where it is or where it's going to come out when I move it off screen... never mind trying to drag windows between monitors. That suggestion is a kludge for a broken modality in OSX. Fix the problem, and it IS a problem.
I switched from Windows to a Mac because I wanted to get work done. When I owned Windows PCs I've had hardware problems within a few months of buying a PC new. I've also had to reinstall Windows along with all of the software I used a bunch of tymes. On the other hand the first two Macs I bought I bought used and they both lasted years without problems. As for what I can do with it, I can do anything with it I could do with a Windows PC. Name one thing you think a Mac can not do, and I'll look into it. I bet I can find a way to do it.
You browse the web, you check email, maybe design little HTML based websites and that sort of thing. That's the exact sort of thing OSX excels at. Little stuff for the hobbiest. You said "I've had hardware problems within a few months of buying a new PC. You don't buy a new PC, you build one. Unless you bought a boutique computer, of course you had hardware problems if you bought a Dell or Gateway or something - they use crappy components. Again, this is a strength of Mac, they use good quality shit. You buy a budget PC, you get what you pay for.
Here's one thing I'd like you to do: Run HFS+ and install Dreamweaver for webpage design. Install Flash to augment those web pages. You can't. Here's another thing: In Mail.app, mark a message as unread from the message list so you can address it later. Here's ANOTHER one: Share your HFS+ drive to a Windows box with logon credentials. You can't, the SMB implementation in Leopard is broken and has been for several revisions, Apple doesn't care. You can only share a guest (IE a public) folder. I have more if you'd like.
I can do much more than just surf the web and send and receive email with my Mac. The biggest uses in business is with office suites, and even Microsoft has a version of Office for Macs. Personally I use NeoOffice and I have no trouble opening, editing, and saving Word documents. I can use my Mac to create websites or program. I can also use CADD on it. There is nothing I could do on my Windows PC that I can not do on my Mac, or with some work, on my Linux PC. Heck, I can run Windows software on it, can you run Mac software on your Windows PC?
You can't use a Mac to create websites with Dreamweaver unless you reformat your system with something other than HFS+ or if you were lucky enough to turn off case sensitivity in a frigging UNIX OS. Let's be honest, what other Website creation tool do real developers use? That vast majority of those using an creation tool use Dreamweaver, yet it doesn't work. This, again, is the fault of Adobe, but none the less it's a problem for the Mac.
What CAD software do you use?
Yes, you can run Windows software on your Mac... but only some. Here's something I'd like you to run: A lightweight, full featured Bit Torrent client. It doesn't exist, you'll have to run Parallels or something to run uTorrent. The "lightweight" ones for Mac all suck ass. The heavyweight ones use a lot of resources. Either way you're missing out.
But... let's take a different track and forget about work for a minute: Here's the on thing you can't do on a Mac (and to be fair, you can't do it on Linux either). Go play a game. You can't. There's only a handful of top shelf titles that support Mac. Most of the good titles either don't have a Mac version at all or it comes out more than a year down the road, after the game is all dusty and crusty.
I'm not saying the OS sucks. I'm saying it's built for neophyte users who need handholding and training wheels. That's fine. There's a lot more people out there like that than there are others, so it makes perfect sense. OSX caters to those people, and it does it well. The Mac excels at things like Garage Band and graphic design... although arguably the PC does Photoshop just as well as a Mac. The video editing tools I use work just as well on the PC as on the Mac, so really those advantages are equal if anything.
If you like OSX, that's great. The
Presumably these PC users are already sold on trying OSX given they are working on a hackintosh. And again, if these PC users are willing to shell out a few hundred bucks on dongles and a copy of the OS to try it out, they can buy a slighly used mac mini, or an older ibook. Or shell out just a little bit more and get an new mini.
Well, I "pirated" a copy of OSX to try it out. I'm glad I did. I would have been pissed if I had dropped several hundred dollars for a used Mac Mini and then been stuck with it.
I've been using OSX for about 4 months now on a hackintosh. Aside from some minor problems with the initial install, it's pretty stable and I've only had compatibility issues with printers (which I would have with a Mac Mini anyway).
That said, I am glad. After using OSX and wanting to like it, I've come to the conclusion that it is intended for neophyte users (Duh!) and it's a pretty crappy OS when it really break it down. It's absolutely great if you want to use exactly what Apple gives you in terms of functionality, but the moment you step outside Apple's vision, you are in a world of shit.
Add to the that the fact that the MacOS is absolutely hostile to multi-monitor setups (The menu bar on the primary monitor? Seriously? Thanks, I love having to scroll my mouse over 3000 pixels to get to the menu! Fucking idiots.) Samba sharing with Windows is completely non-functional (Maybe a newer OSX update addresses this, I don't know), Broken network permission system, inability to Save As to a network location (gotta mount those drives!), constant renegotiation of logon credentials when accessing mounted shares (ever hear of caching the connection Apple?).
Lets not talk about the stupid Red, yellow and green application window controls. When I press the Red X, I want the fucking application to close, not minimize to a DIFFERENT place than the yellow button minimizes it to. Seriously, who thought this was a good idea?
Lots of UAC popups after initial installation... just as many as Vista. I don't use Vista and that's one of the primary reasons, thanks Apple for giving me the Vista experience!
Trying to print to a network printer attached to a Windows box? Good luck!
iDVD - Complete joke.
iPhoto - It so badly wants to be Picasa but just isn't. It's like the retarded half brother no one wants to talk about.
The dock? Yeah, I love multiple instances of an application stacked onto a single icon... I turn that annoying bullshit off in Windows for a reason. Can't do that in OSX!
Want to use an Adobe product? Can't do it if you have HFS! Sorry. This is Adobe's problem, of course, no Apples, but none the less I can use it just fine on Windows.
The list goes on. So yes, I would be pissed if I dropped several hundred bucks for this bag of shit. I know the OS is great for some people, but for those of us who want to get real work done, OSX is NOT the way to go unless the only real work you need to do is video editing or graphic design. Neither of which I do.
The thing is, I really wanted to like OSX. I used a hacked version to see what all the hype was about and found it to be complete hype and no substance. OSX isn't nearly the OS every Mac fanboi claims it to be. It's a middle of the road OS on par with Vista (which I despise). It's not amazing. It's not incredible. It's not easier to use. It's just another OS with it's own quirks and problems. There is absolutely nothing in OSX to draw a power user. It's for Mom and Dad and Little Sister who just want to email and view the web as quickly and easily as possible. In that it excels, no doubt about it. Beyond that, it's nothing special.
true enough, but I would prefer a world without lawyers to one with 'good' lawyers and 'bad' lawyers.
I realize we need laws but the very large majority of the lawyers is simply parasitic to society.
It should be possible to get by with far far less of them then there currently are.
Damn, you are an ignorant fuck that's for sure. The very large majority of lawyers are NOT parasitic to society. You hear about the minority that are... so you think all of them are like that.
Way to go. We should vote with bullets so we can put people like you out of our misery.
Better for the kid to learn now that "free speech" is (and always has been) a crock of shit in the U.S. It's just one of those terms that we throw around to make ourselves feel superior to other countries. But when you take even the most cursory look at it, you realize it's as hollow as a reed. "The right to free speech" in reality translates to "The right to conventional, relatively non-controversial speech in a setting that will not upset anyone or be particularly noticed by anyone who might be offended or threatened by said speech." The second you attempt to break out of any one of those tight boundaries, you WILL find yourself in jail/kicked out of school/fired/persecuted or in some way silenced or punished.
That kid just learned one of the most important lessons in life: That what people SAY and CLAIM has little to do with what they DO and how they actually ACT. And that goes for the government, politicians, and just about everyone else. Just because some civics class says you have "the right to free speech" does not mean that you can actually ever speak freely in any real world environment without fear of persecution.
Consider it the first of many disillusioning life lessons, kid.
Haha god I wish I had mod points to mod you down. It's plainly clear you've never lived or even visited a country where free speech is explicitly denied and punished. Those places are scary. They are scary to live in. They are scary to visit. Walking on egg shells 24/7 is not something you ever want to do. The fact that you dismiss what we call "free speech" as bullshit is ludicrous in the face of real limits on free speech.
The harshest punishments we have for insulting others with your "free speech" is nothing in comparison to some other countries.
You also don't clearly understand what free speech is. You have the right to say what you want... but others also have the right to seek recompense for false/misleading/defamatory/etc... statements. It's a double edged sword, but just because it is a double edged sword does not mean it's a crock of shit.
Learn history. Learn how the world really works. Move out of your mom's basement. Grow up.
There are many features that Media Portal (and every other media player in the world) lack. But what sets XBMC apart bar-none is the fact that it plays just about every format of video known to man. Or at least, every format that you're likely to find online. And it plays them well.
Add in the fact that the UI is first rate and beats any other media center I've seen, and you have a winning combination.
Being able to just drop any type of media file (even RAR'd media) into a directory and XBMC happily plays it is worth it's weight in gold.
The thing that XBMC does not have, and if you need this functionality, you need to look elsewhere is DVR functions. It can't record shows. It's a media streaming/playback solution, not a DVR (such that MythTV et al). If you want to view live shows through your capture card or OTA/cable, then XBMC is not for you. If you want to watch pre-recorded content, XBMC is the only game in town when it comes to the robust codecs and silky smooth UI.
That's very strange, since the Jetta's I have are by far the easiest cars I've ever worked on. I can't imagine how they'd make it easier to work on a car - everything is easily accessable from the top or the bottom depending on the part. The only difficult part to R&R that I've run across is the intake manifold bolts, but other than that everything else has been trivial.
Too bad Volkswagen can't design their cars to be even minimally user serviceable. It took me 30 minutes to replace the cabin air filter in my wife's old Jetta. Takes about 3 minutes on my Corolla. I'd like Volkswagens better if they were designed to be repaired, and not just built. You have to take half the vehicle apart to get to anything, which drives maintenance costs through the roof.
What year Jetta are you talking about? Since 1999, I can change the oil (yes, change the oil), oil filter, the fuel filter, the air filter and the cabin air filter in under 15 minutes in my office clothes with only a phillips screw driver. I don't know about the older VW's, but the newer ones are so user serviceable as to be amazing. My hands get a little dirty from handling the oil filter element, but other than that, it's a quick and mostly clean process.
All diesels I've driven (and that's a lot of them, old and new) are very slow and sluggish when the engine is cold. Diesels need to have a warm engine to perform and get good mileage. So a hybrid diesel might be feasible, but the first time the engine runs it has to run for a while to get good efficiency.
You have never driven a new diesel engine. Your statement confirms you are an absolute liar. Heh. Anyone who has driven a modern diesel knows your statement is 100% false.
I would have to disagree with this for a lot of IT jobs. Two to four years at an IT job is a long time due to the flux that our industry has. Hell, two to four years is longer than some companies stay in business. I knew a guy that had LITERALLY 27 jobs in 24 years, now that's a red flag.
ft
I'll respond to yours, since it's similar to many others. I am speaking from the experience of large companies. Small companies are different in their length of time from hire -> fire stand point. It many (most) large companies, an incompetent person can wiggle around from job to job and department to department for 4 years fairly easily. The bigger the company the easier it is and the longer the idiots can move around and maintain a job.
If you were with a 20 person company for 2 - 4 years, that's better than being as a 20,000 person company for that long. The larger the company, the longer you need to stick around to demonstrate you aren't an idiot. This is not always a fool proof method, unfortunately.
To the guy who said something about staying with a company for longer than 4 years means you're a dinosaur doesn't know the first thing about real world jobs, so it's kind of a pointless debate. Live in the real world and work on real projects before interjecting your opinion on them.
Additionally, they do have to take a test. It's called Bar Exam, CPA certification, etc...
These are standardized tests that everyone agrees is robust enough to demonstrate competence. There is no standardized test for IT workers. No, passing MSCE and A+ crap does not count. A+ is somewhat standardized, but honestly there is no IT test that is worth a crap. Arguably some of the Cisco tests are adequate to demonstrate Networking knowledge, but that doesn't mean you are worth a crap when it comes to fixing a broken down Unix machine or even a Windows machine. It also doesn't mean you can build/rebuild a computer.
The field of IT is so broad that coming up with a standardized test is not really feasible. The technology field also moves so fast that a standardized test would be outdated by the time it was developed and agreed upon.
Since you only have 2 - 4 years of verifiable employment at each company, I would question your abilities as well. 2 - 4 years is just enough to get a job and for the company to find out you are totally incompetent and then fire you. If you had said 6 - 8 years per company, then you might have a case.
I'm somewhat in the same boat as you... but I won't buy it because of the DRM. I downloaded it, have been playing it a bit, and was going to go out and buy it, then remembered that it had draconian DRM and decided there was no point.
So the DRM = lost sales, whereas the piracy would have equaled another sale. Eh... doesn't matter to me, I'll keep my $60 bucks. If they don't make any more games because of piracy, I'll find something else to do. If they make more games without DRM, I'll pay for them.
I'm going to have to say yes. Since MS is pushing their movie download service, I very seriously doubt they would allow a competing service like that on the Xbox 360.
But again, it brings up the question - why not just download the movie instead of get it on a USB stick, if you already have the Xbox 360?
Ahh, if that's what you're referring to, then I can agree with your statements.
So it's more convenient to have a USB stick sticking our of your computer than to have it on the hard drive or in the DVD rom drive? Certainly less safe as well.
Again, if you read the article, it has DRM, which requires specific hardware and software to allow it to play. Thus you can't stick it in your 360, PS3 or DVD player and expect it to play.
If you think movie houses are going to release unencumbered DRM-Free movies on USB stick, dream on.
So you're saying it's more convenient for a USB stick to stick out of your laptop, which could get caught on something and wreck your USB ports than have it on your hard drive, or if you're so inclined, on a DVD that's enclosed and safe in your laptop?
As someone who's had USB protrubances bumped and smashed on airplanes and other crowded areas, I can tell you it's a bad idea.
We are talking about movies, not music. Movies are a whole different entertainment experience than music.
Also, if you read the article, it requires DRM... which means specific hardware required. Just plugging in the stick in question isn't going to let the movie play. If you think the movie houses are going to just release unencumbered movies on a USB stick, you are dreaming.
I don't have a nice surround sound system and a TV picture on a standard set is lower resolution than a PC.
Most people with an adequate computer for watching movies on their PC have a more modern set that has DVD quality resolution. After that, it doesn't matter what your monitor resolution is, until you get to HD movies... 1080p movies are pretty high resolution, even for a monitor, and I would say most monitors can't display 1080p in it's native resolution, so it's actually a downgrade to watch it on your monitor.
A reasonable set of headphones will give pretty decent surround sound
Umm, no. Just... no.
Plus, why would I want extra hardware in my room? A multipurpose PC takes up less space than PC+TV+DVD player.
I'd personally watch everything on my computer if I had the choice, including both movies and TV shows.
I don't know why you'd want extra hardware in your room... I personally put my TV stuff in another room... you know, one big enough to hold it and be comfortable?
Even if you want to have some friends over and watch it together you can always hook up some better speakers (portable guitar amp/speaker combo box for example, all you need is a 1/8-to-1/4" adapter plug)
Haha, I don't even know what do say to this. Portable guitar amp/speaker, lol.
and if you have a large enough monitor you're set. Or you could hook it up to an LCD projector... which is very cool, and I'd recommend trying it sometime if you haven't already.
Yeah, cause that computer chair and those folding chairs you have for your friends are nice and comfy to watch movies in. I know I'd want to come over to your house and gather 'round the monitor for a good flick on a 24" screen and a tinny mono guitar amp/speaker box! Just like being at an old fashioned drive in, except less comfortable. They are also good for snuggling up with a woman and getting frisky. Oh... my mistake, I'm sure you're typical /. user, thus no women to worry about. :)
What is this obsession or draw to people thinking it's fun to watch movies on your computer? My computer room, and by extension my little 24 and 28" monitors are NOT the place I find comfortable to sit down and watch movies.
I realize some people have media center PC's, as do I, but I know I am in the very small minority. Full blown media PC's that can play movies off of USB are rare and not a lucrative market. So why this obsession with movies ON the PC? Now, if I had something like a DVD player that had a USB slot where I stick the USB key in and the movie starts playing, I could understand it... but I do not, and will not ever want to watch a movie in my computer room.
If I have a full blown media PC that can play this USB stick,then I sure as hell likely have a full blown broadband connection... so just let the download the movie. Why fuss around with hardware that's not needed? Hardware that will have certain requirements beyond what's required for a downloaded movie?
I won't be buying any movies on USB keys, that's for sure, just like I refuse to by physical media of any sort. I want to play it where, when and HOW I want... the USB key limits that, so who needs it?