14 bucks for Borderlands 2 and 2 1/2 bucks for Just Cause 2, and no rights were taken away because I purchased them knowing I was purchasing sole owner games.
I do partially agree with you though. I don't think Steam should be associated with boxed versions of games without it being plastered all over the cover that the game will be sole ownership only. At that point, if some idiot wants to purchase the new game at 60 bucks, that is there business and not mine.
"It keeps you from reselling what you paid for." No it doesn't. I buy games from Steam and Humble Bundle, incredibly cheap, with the full knowledge I won't be able to re-sell them. This doesn't bother me because I fully understand that I'm getting EXACTLY what I paid for: a single owner game for the price of a beer, or at most a pitcher of beer, at the bar. Now if I were stupid enough to spend 60 bucks on a brand new game through Steam I'd be incredibly pissed with myself... but not with Steam for their DRM policies.
How do they have time to create these reviews? Aren't they too busy calling me up as representatives of Microsoft, telling me that they've detected a virus on my computer?
Absolutely. I always turn all comments to 'visible' because the 'mod police' go after anyone with an opinion counter to their own. Unfortunately, comments even get deleted here, based on the commenter's name. The arrogance of the group-think modders will continue to prevent them from seeing the damage their bullying and censorship do to the causes they zealously defend.
Only problem with your argument is that most of the environmental impact attributed to power plants comes from the building of those plants and the flooding of a massive amount of land. Disrupting herd migrations and removing, or reversing, the carbon sink capabilities of the now flooded vegetation. All that concrete has to come from somewhere as well.
How many nations let scientists dictate policy? How many nations let their federally paid scientists badmouth them after implementing a policy that is contrary to what they would like? Are funding cuts to research out of line with the funding cuts to all other branches and departments within the Canadian federal government? (The answer is no to that one, btw, they've actually gotten off rather lightly in the grande scheme of things).
With all due respect to the gentlemen, given his long and happy life, I can't help but think he would have marveled at the ability to order parts or technical manuals online, or even print parts that are no longer available for purchase using a 3d printer. Even downloading manuals for old devices can make life so much easier. As happy as his life was, I bet it killed him every time he had to tell a client that there was nothing he could do to resurrect an old broken machine.
On the other hand, if I want to play one game (say, Halo: ODST) while a friend plays a *different* game, say Halo 3, we can do that. Even though I, and not he, own both games. Steam doesn't let you do that, even with this so-called "Sharing" feature. I didn't want to share access to my account's games list, I wanted to share access to my games, individually. Don't let us both play Foo at the same time if you must, but if I want to play Foo and he wants to play Bar, why the fuck not?
DRM is such incredible bullshit. Steam included.
I only partially agree with you. It is total bullshit that I can't have two machines running two different games from my Steam account, yet I'm willing to sacrifice that flexibility to legally acquire fairly current games for insanely cheap prices. Steam sale prices on modern games often beat what even department store bargain bins can offer on games that are a decade old.
It's stupid to target minor players in the emission of CO2 globally while ignoring the major players. It's stupid to attack any skeptic that has questions related to climate change, simply because they haven't dedicated their lives to reading the latest research papers to answer their own questions. It's stupid to not take into account the economic impact of targeting just a couple countries while ignoring most others and expecting to win over the decision makers.
Is pollution harming the planet? Yup. Are there things that can be done to slow or reverse the impacts of pollution? Maybe. Can any attempt be successful using the current tactics? Absolutely not.
I hear what you're saying, but all I'm hearing is that someone should be getting the carbon credits for preventing certain volatile countries from needlessly burning jet fuel for the last 25 years in those no fly zones?
Just how many jobs out there allow you to embarrass your boss, or their boss, or their boss's boss... with impunity? Though I understand the desire to be outraged by any muzzling, this isn't news. If they don't like it, they can always pursue employment with one of the many environmental special interest groups where they'll risk being fired if they say anything that embarrasses their boss, or anyone up the line right to the Rockefeller's.
The shills don't understand that they are damaging their cause through their zealous efforts to attack anyone who questions them on their numbers. It's a real shame.
Kyoto Accord related maps on emission intensity and growth show where the biggest problems are, but most of the hotspots are ignored in favor of politically charged misdirected efforts that will have little effect on total global emissions or their rate of increase.
I hate to say it, but I'm Canadian, and I've heard the 'aboot' instead of 'about' in some of our accents, especially from the maritimes. Similarly, I'll often hear the word 'out' as 'oot' when Cape Breton'ers I know speak. On the flip-side, I'll never understand how a roof is pronounced 'ruff', as our neighbours down south think it's pronounced.
That was my start as well. Enter the lines of code as is, then begin 'tweaking' things to make it more to my liking. Unfortunately I often hit the memory limit before I'd accomplished what I had wanted to.
"When will those idiots running things realise disagreeing with your views doesn't make you an enemy?"
You realize what site you're posting on? Dare disagree with a group and they'll ignore every point you make and expend every mod point they have to make sure you disappear.
RE: Anthropomorphism. Yeah, my bad. That's what I get for trying to do too many things while multi-tasking. It's almost poetic that anthropomorphism in zoology is another topic where you were taught never to question man's superiority over 'animals'... that even suggesting that animals were capable of reason, self awareness, compassion.... was enough to get you ridiculed.
So other than that word swap, you've chosen to say that everything else I said isn't even worth commenting on. How typically arrogant of you and 'your kind' to ignore what I was actually saying in an attempt to keep science trending towards another dark age. Silencing the opposition does not make you nearly as 'right' as encouraging them to prove you wrong and exposing the flaws in their arguments.
What about a situation where a decade earlier anyone who didn't support the arguments for anthropomorphic global warming had trouble getting grants, lost government positions or were otherwise forced out? What if those who remained had trouble finding journals willing to publish their 'controversial papers' for reasons other than faulty scientific or statistical methods. Wouldn't that impact the percentage of journals opposing the popular theory? I'm not saying that climate change isn't influenced by humans and their pollution. I'm saying that our ability to judge the severity and impact is hindered by this stupid 'silence the opposition' attitude.
Alberta isn't 'digging' for oil. We are slowly separating British Columbia from the mainland. This will accomplish two things: 1) Provide Alberta with it's own seaports. 2) Ensure those B.C. hippies are physically isolated from the rest of the country.
I had to ask myself: Why Sharks? Why not honey badgers? It didn't take long to figure out though that, unlike the sharks, honey badgers wouldn't wait for your call. They don't give a shit, they'd just launch the missiles to see what happens next.
Part of the problem is that left-wing radicals are allowed to give sensationalistic, ridiculous names to things the media wants to talk about. 'Deniers', 'Dirty Oil', 'Dirty Pollution'.
I don't know if I've ever met or read about a scientist who was pro-pollution, but I've met a fair number who can successfully argue that their industries form of pollution is less 'dirty' than their competition's. If the left truly want their arguments to succeed and gain support from the masses they need to switch their focus from sensationalism and the most extreme predictive models and on to moderate ideas that people can get behind.
Knowing that the right-wing radicals are wrong is useless if the left-wing radicals are just as prone to lying, exaggerating, or mislabeling the things in this world that they want to see changed. For example, lumping nuclear power plants in with fossil fuel burning power generators dilutes, if not destroys, any argument you were trying to make.
And you cherry picked mine.
Let's look at the part you ignored a different way. Regardless how the money is spent, nobody likes paying taxes. If you know of legal loopholes that reduce the taxes you will pay, you will use them. Some people will also use illegal tax evasion tactics to reduce further what they pay. For some ridiculous reason these evadors are often thought of as heroes... that they are somehow fighting the good fight. They aren't. They are f'ing you over. They are ensuring that the government coffers are a little less full. And when ridiculous spending gets even more outrageous the government will either raise taxes, or add new ones. This is why the professor was quoted as saying . 'And I have to pay taxes to support free meals for those Google employees.'
Now let's say 'we' try to stop the bleeding and elect accountable officials that bring spending under control. Do they drop taxes? Maybe. It has happened in Canada with a federal sales tax. But could they lower it more if everyone was paying what they legally owed? Of course they could.
I don't understand why we can't fight for both accountability of taxpayers AND a accountability of government in how they spend our money. To fight just one of those two exclusively is just plain stupid.
1) I'm not American
2) The idea of adequate, equitable taxation and responsible spending by governments exists only in the minds of idealists.
2) Government Revenue and Spending Problems are not mutually exclusive.
Slashdot Mirror
14 bucks for Borderlands 2 and 2 1/2 bucks for Just Cause 2, and no rights were taken away because I purchased them knowing I was purchasing sole owner games. I do partially agree with you though. I don't think Steam should be associated with boxed versions of games without it being plastered all over the cover that the game will be sole ownership only. At that point, if some idiot wants to purchase the new game at 60 bucks, that is there business and not mine.
"It keeps you from reselling what you paid for." No it doesn't. I buy games from Steam and Humble Bundle, incredibly cheap, with the full knowledge I won't be able to re-sell them. This doesn't bother me because I fully understand that I'm getting EXACTLY what I paid for: a single owner game for the price of a beer, or at most a pitcher of beer, at the bar. Now if I were stupid enough to spend 60 bucks on a brand new game through Steam I'd be incredibly pissed with myself... but not with Steam for their DRM policies.
How do they have time to create these reviews? Aren't they too busy calling me up as representatives of Microsoft, telling me that they've detected a virus on my computer?
Further to that, quite often routine traffic stops result in arrests for trafficking, firearm offenses, breaches of probation and issued warrants.
Absolutely. I always turn all comments to 'visible' because the 'mod police' go after anyone with an opinion counter to their own. Unfortunately, comments even get deleted here, based on the commenter's name. The arrogance of the group-think modders will continue to prevent them from seeing the damage their bullying and censorship do to the causes they zealously defend.
Only problem with your argument is that most of the environmental impact attributed to power plants comes from the building of those plants and the flooding of a massive amount of land. Disrupting herd migrations and removing, or reversing, the carbon sink capabilities of the now flooded vegetation. All that concrete has to come from somewhere as well.
How many nations let scientists dictate policy? How many nations let their federally paid scientists badmouth them after implementing a policy that is contrary to what they would like? Are funding cuts to research out of line with the funding cuts to all other branches and departments within the Canadian federal government? (The answer is no to that one, btw, they've actually gotten off rather lightly in the grande scheme of things).
With all due respect to the gentlemen, given his long and happy life, I can't help but think he would have marveled at the ability to order parts or technical manuals online, or even print parts that are no longer available for purchase using a 3d printer. Even downloading manuals for old devices can make life so much easier. As happy as his life was, I bet it killed him every time he had to tell a client that there was nothing he could do to resurrect an old broken machine.
For games that don't offer split-screen, yes.
On the other hand, if I want to play one game (say, Halo: ODST) while a friend plays a *different* game, say Halo 3, we can do that. Even though I, and not he, own both games. Steam doesn't let you do that, even with this so-called "Sharing" feature. I didn't want to share access to my account's games list, I wanted to share access to my games, individually. Don't let us both play Foo at the same time if you must, but if I want to play Foo and he wants to play Bar, why the fuck not?
DRM is such incredible bullshit. Steam included.
I only partially agree with you. It is total bullshit that I can't have two machines running two different games from my Steam account, yet I'm willing to sacrifice that flexibility to legally acquire fairly current games for insanely cheap prices. Steam sale prices on modern games often beat what even department store bargain bins can offer on games that are a decade old.
Humanity: Too Stupid to Live?: News at 11!
It's stupid to target minor players in the emission of CO2 globally while ignoring the major players. It's stupid to attack any skeptic that has questions related to climate change, simply because they haven't dedicated their lives to reading the latest research papers to answer their own questions. It's stupid to not take into account the economic impact of targeting just a couple countries while ignoring most others and expecting to win over the decision makers. Is pollution harming the planet? Yup. Are there things that can be done to slow or reverse the impacts of pollution? Maybe. Can any attempt be successful using the current tactics? Absolutely not.
I hear what you're saying, but all I'm hearing is that someone should be getting the carbon credits for preventing certain volatile countries from needlessly burning jet fuel for the last 25 years in those no fly zones?
That doesn't sound very scientific. Is it a central vac, or a Dyson handheld?
Just how many jobs out there allow you to embarrass your boss, or their boss, or their boss's boss... with impunity? Though I understand the desire to be outraged by any muzzling, this isn't news. If they don't like it, they can always pursue employment with one of the many environmental special interest groups where they'll risk being fired if they say anything that embarrasses their boss, or anyone up the line right to the Rockefeller's.
The shills don't understand that they are damaging their cause through their zealous efforts to attack anyone who questions them on their numbers. It's a real shame. Kyoto Accord related maps on emission intensity and growth show where the biggest problems are, but most of the hotspots are ignored in favor of politically charged misdirected efforts that will have little effect on total global emissions or their rate of increase.
I hate to say it, but I'm Canadian, and I've heard the 'aboot' instead of 'about' in some of our accents, especially from the maritimes. Similarly, I'll often hear the word 'out' as 'oot' when Cape Breton'ers I know speak. On the flip-side, I'll never understand how a roof is pronounced 'ruff', as our neighbours down south think it's pronounced.
That was my start as well. Enter the lines of code as is, then begin 'tweaking' things to make it more to my liking. Unfortunately I often hit the memory limit before I'd accomplished what I had wanted to.
"When will those idiots running things realise disagreeing with your views doesn't make you an enemy?" You realize what site you're posting on? Dare disagree with a group and they'll ignore every point you make and expend every mod point they have to make sure you disappear.
The federal government has levied massive cuts against just about every federal department, not just those that are science related. The shills love to take stuff out of context. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/which-federal-departments-are-facing-the-biggest-cuts/article10788957/
RE: Anthropomorphism. Yeah, my bad. That's what I get for trying to do too many things while multi-tasking. It's almost poetic that anthropomorphism in zoology is another topic where you were taught never to question man's superiority over 'animals'... that even suggesting that animals were capable of reason, self awareness, compassion.... was enough to get you ridiculed. So other than that word swap, you've chosen to say that everything else I said isn't even worth commenting on. How typically arrogant of you and 'your kind' to ignore what I was actually saying in an attempt to keep science trending towards another dark age. Silencing the opposition does not make you nearly as 'right' as encouraging them to prove you wrong and exposing the flaws in their arguments.
What about a situation where a decade earlier anyone who didn't support the arguments for anthropomorphic global warming had trouble getting grants, lost government positions or were otherwise forced out? What if those who remained had trouble finding journals willing to publish their 'controversial papers' for reasons other than faulty scientific or statistical methods. Wouldn't that impact the percentage of journals opposing the popular theory? I'm not saying that climate change isn't influenced by humans and their pollution. I'm saying that our ability to judge the severity and impact is hindered by this stupid 'silence the opposition' attitude.
Alberta isn't 'digging' for oil. We are slowly separating British Columbia from the mainland. This will accomplish two things: 1) Provide Alberta with it's own seaports. 2) Ensure those B.C. hippies are physically isolated from the rest of the country.
I had to ask myself: Why Sharks? Why not honey badgers? It didn't take long to figure out though that, unlike the sharks, honey badgers wouldn't wait for your call. They don't give a shit, they'd just launch the missiles to see what happens next.
Part of the problem is that left-wing radicals are allowed to give sensationalistic, ridiculous names to things the media wants to talk about. 'Deniers', 'Dirty Oil', 'Dirty Pollution'. I don't know if I've ever met or read about a scientist who was pro-pollution, but I've met a fair number who can successfully argue that their industries form of pollution is less 'dirty' than their competition's. If the left truly want their arguments to succeed and gain support from the masses they need to switch their focus from sensationalism and the most extreme predictive models and on to moderate ideas that people can get behind. Knowing that the right-wing radicals are wrong is useless if the left-wing radicals are just as prone to lying, exaggerating, or mislabeling the things in this world that they want to see changed. For example, lumping nuclear power plants in with fossil fuel burning power generators dilutes, if not destroys, any argument you were trying to make.
And you cherry picked mine. Let's look at the part you ignored a different way. Regardless how the money is spent, nobody likes paying taxes. If you know of legal loopholes that reduce the taxes you will pay, you will use them. Some people will also use illegal tax evasion tactics to reduce further what they pay. For some ridiculous reason these evadors are often thought of as heroes... that they are somehow fighting the good fight. They aren't. They are f'ing you over. They are ensuring that the government coffers are a little less full. And when ridiculous spending gets even more outrageous the government will either raise taxes, or add new ones. This is why the professor was quoted as saying . 'And I have to pay taxes to support free meals for those Google employees.' Now let's say 'we' try to stop the bleeding and elect accountable officials that bring spending under control. Do they drop taxes? Maybe. It has happened in Canada with a federal sales tax. But could they lower it more if everyone was paying what they legally owed? Of course they could. I don't understand why we can't fight for both accountability of taxpayers AND a accountability of government in how they spend our money. To fight just one of those two exclusively is just plain stupid.
1) I'm not American 2) The idea of adequate, equitable taxation and responsible spending by governments exists only in the minds of idealists. 2) Government Revenue and Spending Problems are not mutually exclusive.