No, the proper answer is to not buy it and don't play it. If it's that important for you to play, buy the damn thing. If you really want to show them that you don't accept their DRM, make the sacrifice and suck it up.
Alright. But don't start complaining if I pirate the game.
If there is no official support for my platform, why should I pay a company that doesn't think I'm important enough.
Why is this such a popular response? If [Game Company] doesn't do [whatever it is I want] then I'm going to pirate the game.
If you have issues with certain things these companies do be it lack of Linux support, or excessive DRM, you aren't granted some right to get it without paying for it. If you feel that strongly about it, please, don't pay for it. I refuse to buy music by the big labels for exactly this reason. But if you are going to boycott a product you don't get to have it anyway just because you want it.
No, as a whole, the people of any given country COULD choose their leaders. Unfortunately, most of them don't care enough to do anything more than have their opinion given to them.
Rereading I see you were referring the "there are other programs for that" comment. By other programs I was referring more broadly to immigrant policies. Not necessarily work to immigrant visas. But by no means is the United States required to offer something of the sort. There are several immigrant policies and I think that most of the other western countries have similar policies. There are bars to be met to attain full citizenship, otherwise, the more broad visas are available.
Like I mentioned in the last post though, I'm not an immigration lawyer. There may be other programs like H-1B that are immigrant options.
I'm not an immigration lawyer and don't have a broad understanding of the full range of visas available. But a quick google found EB2 which looks like it has a much higher bar (post bac degree, 10+ years experience). I'm not sure if there are other similar visas available with lower qualifications.
My point was that the GP was complaining about the immigration process imposed on H-1B visa holders where an H-1B visa isn't an immigrant visa. It does allow for people to change status once in the country, hence the lottery, but it isn't a path to citizenship and doesn't look like it's intended to be one.
Why are you upset about the difficult H-1B to immigrant policy? H-1B is not an immigration visa nor is it a path to citizenship. There are other programs for that. You enrolled in a non-immigrant program that wasn't designed to be a foothold for citizenship and now are complaining that the path to citizenship is difficult?
If the skilled worker program needs to be changed, then so be it. But at the moment, it was designed as a time-limited work visa and isn't advertised by the government as a way to attain citizenship. If your employer indicated otherwise, then you were duped. If you hoped otherwise, then it's unfortunate for you. It doesn't mean you should be indignant about it.
Tesla has quite a bit more R&D to do before their cars are affordable to the mass market. It's a nice idea, and I would like to see the energy used to power autos spread more broadly against energy types (renewable, and non-renewable grid power, gasoline, hydrogen, ethanol, etc). But for broad acceptance, those technologies have to be affordable enough for regular people to buy. Currently the roadster is $100K+ and the sedan is supposed to come out at approx $60k. Gas is going to have to get really expensive to make that money back.
I am split on this as well. I am generally opposed to government involvement in a lot of these things as well. But aren't the companies that are pushing for priority routing, etc also subsidized, or given land by federal and state governments for the lines that this stuff is run over? I know the big telcos that grant access direct to the consumer. I'm not sure about the guys in the middle. Regardless, there is a price to pay for being a government granted monopoly.
Similarly absurd, I must share this story. I work for a company that provides services for a couple hospitals. These hospitals sent a request to the group running the system that handled laboratory reports. They requested that they add a new level of importance. High importance labs are sent STAT. But since every doctor sent his orders as STAT to get them faster, it turned out that everything was fifo. So, they requested that a new level be created, they wanted it to be SUPER STAT. Rather than work on changing the specifications for STAT, or in this case TOP SECRET, they just create a new level with a silly modifier like SUPER.
As recently as 2004, the government gave Fannie Mac a mandate to increase the number of "affordable" loans they carry. This was to encourage an increase in low-income and minority home ownership. A noble intent. Unfortunately, here is another way to say it. The government gave Fannie Mac a mandate to increase the number of SUBPRIME loans they carry. The government mandated that these two enormous institutions create a large market for these loans. The very same loans that are being defaulted on today.
The reason banks couldn't lend in this crisis is because they didn't have the assets to back their loans, which is the result of the mark-to-market practice of valuing assets. Their mortgage backed assets were at a mark-to-market value of zero since no one wanted to buy them, this caused huge issues because these banks needed to find assets to support their outstanding debt, much less give new debt. A change of the banking rules that set mark-to-market could very well have saved a couple of those banks who weren't spewing money or anything, they just couldn't get back in line with their debt:asset rations when their assets were suddenly worth nothing. And the worst part is that this wasn't the case, there was value in those assets, and they would have sold after the market settled out, except the government decided to jump in and buy up all those assets.
This doesn't absolve them from lending without an eye beyond the next quarter, they made some really stupid loans. But credit could have kept flowing, if at a slower rate while this whole thing was going on.
Further, you are correct, it was in part our nation's laws that got us to this point. Not necessarily deregulation, but this idealistic idea that everyone deserves a house, even though a healthy portion of the people who couldn't get mortgages before, couldn't get them for a reason. The reason we're seeing now.
The banks bought into this with a voracious greed and took advantage of it. Unfortunately, we are giving those banks every reason to find new, "legal" financial products to continue making the same kind of money they were making before. The government will like it because it promotes growth. The banks will like it because it promotes their quarterly earning statements. And we'll be in trouble again because the government will have to step in again to save the banks, because as long as everyone is doing it, the government won't have a choice but to bail them out again.
I imagine with early action on mark-to-market, and a firm stance from Congress that they weren't going to step in and that the market was going to have to work this out, there would have been a market for these securities, and the banks that weren't properly funded would have been swooped up, and yes, we would have slowed down, but the result would have been much cleaner.
Actually, the dollar is up as a result of this because the rest of the world is at least as badly affected by this, if not more.
Also, the major part of our debt is to the American taxpayer via borrowing from Social Security and Medicare. I think the US Gov owes the American taxpayer approximately 59.1 Trillion, whereas it had about 5.3 Trillion in public debt debt of which, not all is foreign (Citation).
It makes you wonder why we need a new plan to replace Social Security. One idea may be to pay back the money that Congress has been using to pad the budget. If you ask the average American taxpayer if they are upset about the deficit, they will say yes (Citation). Meanwhile, I'm willing to bet that if we had Congress start to cut away at government programs and spending, you'd soon realize that the population isn't willing to see government jobs and services get cut/downsized/made efficient.
Perhaps a closer reading of what I wrote is in order.
It's been mentioned that for about 75 Billion the US Gov could give 100k to each of the households currently in foreclosure
I indicated that I was referring to the number of houses in foreclosure. If we take a quick look at this we see that it was estimated that "As many as 750,000 homes will go into foreclosure this year". Multiply that by 100k, and...whiz bang, doesn't that work out nice?
And spare me arguments about fairness, or efficacy of such a plan. It was an exercise in examining the magnitude of the bailout and reference for what it was supposed to do. If you read further in my comment (I feel I need to remind you to do this since it's apparent that you didn't read it the first time) you'll notice that I don't advocate either of those "options".
Point taken. Perhaps I was a bit defensive (I do use Linux mind you) but the popular bent on here is that everyone should put in the effort to learn XXXX and if they don't they are stupid lemmings. Or something of the sort.
Just like some people are too lazy to learn German. Bastards... Perhaps they just aren't interested in learning Linux? The home computer has turned into an appliance. People aren't interested knowing how to use the computer in a general sense, they just want to sit down and have it do things for them. And that isn't a bad thing, and there isn't anything wrong with those people.
Just regulation won't solve the problem. The whole idea of fannie and freddie and the push to put everyone in a house drove a significant portion of this problem. It was a government mandate to put people who couldn't afford houses into houses.
Not entirely, because these assets will be purchased at greatly inflated values. This won't be a purchase of assets at market rates. The government will be putting a heavy markup on these things paying far more than they'd be worth if sold on the open market. This ends up as a net positive into the pockets of Wall Street and their holders.
It's been mentioned that for about 75 Billion the US Gov could give 100k to each of the households currently in foreclosure, which should stop that process. Unfortunately, the issue isn't necessarily the houses that ARE in foreclosure, as only between 1-2% (from figures I've heard) are in foreclosure. The issue, is that no one wants to buy the securities based on the possibility that more will go into foreclosure. The US Gov is offering to buy all the securities based on the sub-prime mortgages which would remove the concern about buying a mortgage backed security that might be poisoned with possible, future foreclosures.
Unfortunately, either option seems silly. First, we're rewarding foolishness on the part of both the buyer and seller, which only encourages further such action in the future. Second, unemployment is still at reasonable levels, there may not be as much credit on the market, but the market is definitely not dry, and won't be as long as the fed keeps money available which it's done all along.
It looks like fear mongering on behalf of wall street is about to put 700 billion dollars into the pockets of the upper 90% via stock increases as banks unload these securities which they should have never created in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
No, the proper answer is to not buy it and don't play it. If it's that important for you to play, buy the damn thing. If you really want to show them that you don't accept their DRM, make the sacrifice and suck it up.
Alright. But don't start complaining if I pirate the game. If there is no official support for my platform, why should I pay a company that doesn't think I'm important enough.
Why is this such a popular response? If [Game Company] doesn't do [whatever it is I want] then I'm going to pirate the game.
If you have issues with certain things these companies do be it lack of Linux support, or excessive DRM, you aren't granted some right to get it without paying for it. If you feel that strongly about it, please, don't pay for it. I refuse to buy music by the big labels for exactly this reason. But if you are going to boycott a product you don't get to have it anyway just because you want it.
No, as a whole, the people of any given country COULD choose their leaders. Unfortunately, most of them don't care enough to do anything more than have their opinion given to them.
This State Department site gives an overview of the employment based immigrant visas. H-1B is an employment based NON-immigrant visa.
Rereading I see you were referring the "there are other programs for that" comment. By other programs I was referring more broadly to immigrant policies. Not necessarily work to immigrant visas. But by no means is the United States required to offer something of the sort. There are several immigrant policies and I think that most of the other western countries have similar policies. There are bars to be met to attain full citizenship, otherwise, the more broad visas are available.
Like I mentioned in the last post though, I'm not an immigration lawyer. There may be other programs like H-1B that are immigrant options.
I'm not an immigration lawyer and don't have a broad understanding of the full range of visas available. But a quick google found EB2 which looks like it has a much higher bar (post bac degree, 10+ years experience). I'm not sure if there are other similar visas available with lower qualifications.
My point was that the GP was complaining about the immigration process imposed on H-1B visa holders where an H-1B visa isn't an immigrant visa. It does allow for people to change status once in the country, hence the lottery, but it isn't a path to citizenship and doesn't look like it's intended to be one.
Why are you upset about the difficult H-1B to immigrant policy? H-1B is not an immigration visa nor is it a path to citizenship. There are other programs for that. You enrolled in a non-immigrant program that wasn't designed to be a foothold for citizenship and now are complaining that the path to citizenship is difficult?
If the skilled worker program needs to be changed, then so be it. But at the moment, it was designed as a time-limited work visa and isn't advertised by the government as a way to attain citizenship. If your employer indicated otherwise, then you were duped. If you hoped otherwise, then it's unfortunate for you. It doesn't mean you should be indignant about it.
Why not Vista SP2?
I have a sneaking suspicion that posting on slashdot while driving contributed to the accident far more than the ear buds...
Tesla has quite a bit more R&D to do before their cars are affordable to the mass market. It's a nice idea, and I would like to see the energy used to power autos spread more broadly against energy types (renewable, and non-renewable grid power, gasoline, hydrogen, ethanol, etc). But for broad acceptance, those technologies have to be affordable enough for regular people to buy. Currently the roadster is $100K+ and the sedan is supposed to come out at approx $60k. Gas is going to have to get really expensive to make that money back.
I will certainly do that. Many thanks.
Is there a specific text that Drasner uses to teach like this? Or is his course mostly based on lecture? I'd be interested in taking a look at it.
I am split on this as well. I am generally opposed to government involvement in a lot of these things as well. But aren't the companies that are pushing for priority routing, etc also subsidized, or given land by federal and state governments for the lines that this stuff is run over? I know the big telcos that grant access direct to the consumer. I'm not sure about the guys in the middle. Regardless, there is a price to pay for being a government granted monopoly.
Similarly absurd, I must share this story. I work for a company that provides services for a couple hospitals. These hospitals sent a request to the group running the system that handled laboratory reports. They requested that they add a new level of importance. High importance labs are sent STAT. But since every doctor sent his orders as STAT to get them faster, it turned out that everything was fifo. So, they requested that a new level be created, they wanted it to be SUPER STAT. Rather than work on changing the specifications for STAT, or in this case TOP SECRET, they just create a new level with a silly modifier like SUPER.
As recently as 2004, the government gave Fannie Mac a mandate to increase the number of "affordable" loans they carry. This was to encourage an increase in low-income and minority home ownership. A noble intent. Unfortunately, here is another way to say it. The government gave Fannie Mac a mandate to increase the number of SUBPRIME loans they carry. The government mandated that these two enormous institutions create a large market for these loans. The very same loans that are being defaulted on today.
The reason banks couldn't lend in this crisis is because they didn't have the assets to back their loans, which is the result of the mark-to-market practice of valuing assets. Their mortgage backed assets were at a mark-to-market value of zero since no one wanted to buy them, this caused huge issues because these banks needed to find assets to support their outstanding debt, much less give new debt. A change of the banking rules that set mark-to-market could very well have saved a couple of those banks who weren't spewing money or anything, they just couldn't get back in line with their debt:asset rations when their assets were suddenly worth nothing. And the worst part is that this wasn't the case, there was value in those assets, and they would have sold after the market settled out, except the government decided to jump in and buy up all those assets.
This doesn't absolve them from lending without an eye beyond the next quarter, they made some really stupid loans. But credit could have kept flowing, if at a slower rate while this whole thing was going on.
Further, you are correct, it was in part our nation's laws that got us to this point. Not necessarily deregulation, but this idealistic idea that everyone deserves a house, even though a healthy portion of the people who couldn't get mortgages before, couldn't get them for a reason. The reason we're seeing now.
The banks bought into this with a voracious greed and took advantage of it. Unfortunately, we are giving those banks every reason to find new, "legal" financial products to continue making the same kind of money they were making before. The government will like it because it promotes growth. The banks will like it because it promotes their quarterly earning statements. And we'll be in trouble again because the government will have to step in again to save the banks, because as long as everyone is doing it, the government won't have a choice but to bail them out again.
I imagine with early action on mark-to-market, and a firm stance from Congress that they weren't going to step in and that the market was going to have to work this out, there would have been a market for these securities, and the banks that weren't properly funded would have been swooped up, and yes, we would have slowed down, but the result would have been much cleaner.
Actually, the dollar is up as a result of this because the rest of the world is at least as badly affected by this, if not more.
/soapbox
Also, the major part of our debt is to the American taxpayer via borrowing from Social Security and Medicare. I think the US Gov owes the American taxpayer approximately 59.1 Trillion, whereas it had about 5.3 Trillion in public debt debt of which, not all is foreign (Citation).
It makes you wonder why we need a new plan to replace Social Security. One idea may be to pay back the money that Congress has been using to pad the budget. If you ask the average American taxpayer if they are upset about the deficit, they will say yes (Citation). Meanwhile, I'm willing to bet that if we had Congress start to cut away at government programs and spending, you'd soon realize that the population isn't willing to see government jobs and services get cut/downsized/made efficient.
It's been mentioned that for about 75 Billion the US Gov could give 100k to each of the households currently in foreclosure
I indicated that I was referring to the number of houses in foreclosure. If we take a quick look at this we see that it was estimated that "As many as 750,000 homes will go into foreclosure this year". Multiply that by 100k, and...whiz bang, doesn't that work out nice?
And spare me arguments about fairness, or efficacy of such a plan. It was an exercise in examining the magnitude of the bailout and reference for what it was supposed to do. If you read further in my comment (I feel I need to remind you to do this since it's apparent that you didn't read it the first time) you'll notice that I don't advocate either of those "options".
Point taken. Perhaps I was a bit defensive (I do use Linux mind you) but the popular bent on here is that everyone should put in the effort to learn XXXX and if they don't they are stupid lemmings. Or something of the sort.
Just like some people are too lazy to learn German. Bastards... Perhaps they just aren't interested in learning Linux? The home computer has turned into an appliance. People aren't interested knowing how to use the computer in a general sense, they just want to sit down and have it do things for them. And that isn't a bad thing, and there isn't anything wrong with those people.
Just regulation won't solve the problem. The whole idea of fannie and freddie and the push to put everyone in a house drove a significant portion of this problem. It was a government mandate to put people who couldn't afford houses into houses.
I fear that you are correct.
Not entirely, because these assets will be purchased at greatly inflated values. This won't be a purchase of assets at market rates. The government will be putting a heavy markup on these things paying far more than they'd be worth if sold on the open market. This ends up as a net positive into the pockets of Wall Street and their holders.
It's been mentioned that for about 75 Billion the US Gov could give 100k to each of the households currently in foreclosure, which should stop that process. Unfortunately, the issue isn't necessarily the houses that ARE in foreclosure, as only between 1-2% (from figures I've heard) are in foreclosure. The issue, is that no one wants to buy the securities based on the possibility that more will go into foreclosure. The US Gov is offering to buy all the securities based on the sub-prime mortgages which would remove the concern about buying a mortgage backed security that might be poisoned with possible, future foreclosures.
Unfortunately, either option seems silly. First, we're rewarding foolishness on the part of both the buyer and seller, which only encourages further such action in the future. Second, unemployment is still at reasonable levels, there may not be as much credit on the market, but the market is definitely not dry, and won't be as long as the fed keeps money available which it's done all along.
It looks like fear mongering on behalf of wall street is about to put 700 billion dollars into the pockets of the upper 90% via stock increases as banks unload these securities which they should have never created in the first place.
You certainly weren't all that upset when it was dragging you up.