A simplification of a Bigpond offer (simplified in making it as expensive as possible) actually has 0.0003 cents per kilobyte for the first 10 GB (in this simplified version its impossible to download more then 10GB). So no, 0.002 cents per kilobyte isn't outrageously cheap.
Well considering precedent is no more an law term then say "and" or "that" I'd say there are very specific and special words that allows you to become a professional in a certain field simply by using them. While we now know that precedent is one of these special words, we unfortunately don't know the word that will miraculously transform us into a doctor. Although if you keep reading slashdot I'm sure you'll eventually discover it.
The ethical rule is this; if you make something, it belongs to you, and you can do what you want with it - and that includes handing it down to your kids to help them in their lives. Alright, but only on one condition. We get to strike all of the laws that give you a monopoly on anything non-physical you produce. You can have all the laws you want protecting your physical property (which includes CDs and paintings) but no longer will you be able to sue people for copyright infringement.
If you're willing to agree to that, I'm willing to abolish the public domain.
I'm not saying murdering someone and getting away with it simply because you have MS is at all comparable with getting sued. However the parent's post does (in the context of this thread) seem to imply that someone can get away with murder simply because they have MS.
Wait someone who is otherwise fairly healthy (without the stress of a trial an MS sufferer can actually lead a mostly normal life with very little difference for a few years, at least according to the many posts here) can get away with murder? Now how fucked up is that?
Yes, but won't her MS be even worsened in going through the ordeal of a countersuit? If not, then I'd say the RIAA has a very good way to prove the countersuit incorrect (although there isn't 100% chance it will work). Which is unfortunate as if her condition has been affected by this lawsuit, she has no safe way (to her health) to get monetary compensation.
it highlights the degree to which the practice of randomly selecting defendants with little or no concern to physical evidence of guilt is an injustice. I fail to see how her having MS has absolutely anything to do with the above statement.
You should pay attention because this poor woman has a crippling disease.. Actually those that bring up such facts for sympathy are people I lose empathy for and try to ignore. The fact "news outlets" try to shove it down my throat simply means I stop viewing them.
Maybe you want to tear into Michael J Fox, too? If he tries bringing up his disease for simply naught but sympathy to try to get out of a lawsuit, I will. This lady has a strong enough case that there is no need to bring up her disease.
Ignore the MS part I would have been blissfully unaware of it had she not mentioned it.
If the judge threw the lawyer in jail for a week and sanctioned him, along with a few RIAA execs every time they lied, I suspect this kind of behavior would stop in about 20 seconds. Agreed. But it's irrelevant to the parent's post.
An MS sufferer murders someone and says "nuh uh! You can't put me in jail as that would be a stressful event which could hasten my death" do you really think that's going to fly?
Now with something like pirating music, that's another matter. However if she didn't want to be put in the stressful situation of a lawsuit, she shouldn't have pirated software. Now in this case it appears she didn't actually pirate anything, so the RIAA should definitely be fined a large amount of money, given that their case relied on evidence they knew didn't exist.
It might not be perjury. But a lawyer outright lying to a judge should most definitely be illegal (if its done relating to a case of course for any smart asses out there).
I get that you're saying people who try a game for free do have a bias against it. You're then going so far as to say they're opinion should be ignored if they claim to dislike it.
I'm simply pointing out that people who buy a game have a bias to like it (which is actually a point you made).
I'm now asking, if their opinion should be ignored as well. It seems perfectly logical to me that if you're going to ignore someone's opinion in the first situation, surely you should ignore the opinion in the second situation. Yes? If not, why not?
Funnily enough, running the Jetsons or NASA TV on a SCI-FI channel could actually prove to be profitable. However unfortunately there are other things that are MORE profitable. And so NASA TV and the Jetsons reruns will get canceled for those more profitable items. Science fiction television shows doesn't appear to be one of the top profit makers. And so eventually all but the most successful sci-fi shows will get canceled for the larger profit makers. If television channels were only worried about making profits then we'd be able to have SO much more sci-fi shows on a regular basis that pay for themselves quite easily. However unfortunately they're instead more interested in maximizing profits, which means sci-fi fans lose out.
by saying that nobody who speaks in absolutes has valid points, you've made an absolute statement. I did not say that. I simply said "You may have had valid points, had you not spoken in absolutes." What I meant was that in this particular instance, speaking in an absolute makes the point invalid (although he has since clarified his opinion). You might interpret the meaning behind my statement to be something else, but that is reading into what I said, not simply taking what I said at face value.
(i know that what you really meant was that by speaking in absolutes he made it easy to disprove his assertion by finding one contradictory example, but i thought it was funny.) Fair enough:)
No-one who decides they don't like a game as a result of playing on a free account is worth listening to. Playing on a free account biases your opinion towards not liking the game. Someone who dislikes a game based on a free trial is just as worth listening to as someone who likes a game that they've spent money on. Each have a bias. Are you truly saying people should ignore anyone who likes a game they've bought?
Sounds a lot like what happened when Uru Live was originally canceled. Many of the fans worked adding chat functionality in as similar a manner as possible to the original chat functions and even going so far as to work on their own fan-created server. Others were (and still are) working on new content to add to the game with the absence of a company to produce the new content. Fortunately in large part due to these efforts, Uru Live is now getting another official chance. So there's always the possibility Earth & Beyond will also get another chance at being a commercial game. Regardless, it is good to see fan efforts in these directions.
Star Trek was killed after three years. Don't forget that was 3 years of abysmal ratings and fans screaming for the show to be canceled and for the blood of those producing it. If the fans of your franchise don't like a show, you've got a much harder time trying to succeed.
I loved Firefly. I liked Serenity. But I have serious doubts I'm going to be able to be interested in an MMORPG like this. I don't hate MMORPGs, in fact I love them (although I do define them as an online, multiplayer game where there is an evolving storyline). I originally played Armageddon and loved it. I have since tried the Matrix Online which supposedly had an evolving story and it was completely boring. Absolutely no enjoyment factor whatsoever (thankfully I tried it with a free account).
But that doesn't mean graphical MMORPGs must suck. One that is great will be Myst Online: Uru Live. I say that with such certainty because we already got a taste of the evolving storyline with the original beta in 2002 - 2004, a detailed account of which can be found here in an in-character manner. You can also find a film documentary in several parts here.
The big difference between Uru Live and the Matrix Online was that Uru realized you don't need to go around killing people. They also realised that when you first enter an area it can be very confusing and daunting, and so Cyan Worlds limits it by limiting what you can access at first both because areas aren't open to players, but also because areas need a puzzle to be solved before you can go to the next area. This was a problem I had with the Matrix Online as I was allowed to roam free as I liked in a very large area. Although the maps did help alleviate this, I found they actually did too much and took away the challenge in finding out what to do next and so the only challenge was killing people or stopping someone from getting killed. It became very repetitive, which is something Uru Live realises and avoids. Instead each puzzle is unique and there is no leveling so there is no repetitive gameplay (although there are things you can do more then once such as Ahyoheek).
However the big differences between Uru Live and Matrix Online was that the Matrix Online felt like it was completely empty of other players. I logged on and I saw no other players around. Perhaps I was simply in the wrong area. However Uru Live does away with that problem by having an introduction that explains where you can go if you want to play alone or where you can go if you want to find other players. It also has only a couple of places you can go to at the start one of which has players. The Uru Live beta has nowhere near the amount of players that Matrix Online does (it is after all a beta that has limitations on who can play) and yet it felt like it was the more heavily populated. I remember when I first logged onto Uru in 2003 I very quickly not only found another person, but I found a character being played by someone.
Unfortunately this MMORPG Firefly sounds more like Matrix Online then Myst Online: Uru Live.
So only fundamentalist Christians are made a bit uncomfortable with some of these new concepts of cloning, use of aborted embryos for research. Of course not. But who do you think the US government is pandering to with the bans? The "fundamentalist" (if we're defining anti-stem cell as fundamentalist) christians who make up quite a large portion of the population? Or the small minority of atheists who are somewhat concerned about stem cell research (with atheists of any stripe making up a minority in America)?
Slashdot Mirror
A simplification of a Bigpond offer (simplified in making it as expensive as possible) actually has 0.0003 cents per kilobyte for the first 10 GB (in this simplified version its impossible to download more then 10GB). So no, 0.002 cents per kilobyte isn't outrageously cheap.
Well considering precedent is no more an law term then say "and" or "that" I'd say there are very specific and special words that allows you to become a professional in a certain field simply by using them. While we now know that precedent is one of these special words, we unfortunately don't know the word that will miraculously transform us into a doctor. Although if you keep reading slashdot I'm sure you'll eventually discover it.
If you're willing to agree to that, I'm willing to abolish the public domain.
He probably got it off Ebay.
No problem, it happens :)
Wait. People pay for Microsoft products? ;) (Yes, I'm mostly kidding. I did pay for Windows XP.. Well. My parents did).
I'm not saying murdering someone and getting away with it simply because you have MS is at all comparable with getting sued. However the parent's post does (in the context of this thread) seem to imply that someone can get away with murder simply because they have MS.
Wait someone who is otherwise fairly healthy (without the stress of a trial an MS sufferer can actually lead a mostly normal life with very little difference for a few years, at least according to the many posts here) can get away with murder? Now how fucked up is that?
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Yes, but won't her MS be even worsened in going through the ordeal of a countersuit? If not, then I'd say the RIAA has a very good way to prove the countersuit incorrect (although there isn't 100% chance it will work). Which is unfortunate as if her condition has been affected by this lawsuit, she has no safe way (to her health) to get monetary compensation.
An MS sufferer murders someone and says "nuh uh! You can't put me in jail as that would be a stressful event which could hasten my death" do you really think that's going to fly?
Now with something like pirating music, that's another matter. However if she didn't want to be put in the stressful situation of a lawsuit, she shouldn't have pirated software. Now in this case it appears she didn't actually pirate anything, so the RIAA should definitely be fined a large amount of money, given that their case relied on evidence they knew didn't exist.
It might not be perjury. But a lawyer outright lying to a judge should most definitely be illegal (if its done relating to a case of course for any smart asses out there).
I get that you're saying people who try a game for free do have a bias against it. You're then going so far as to say they're opinion should be ignored if they claim to dislike it.
I'm simply pointing out that people who buy a game have a bias to like it (which is actually a point you made).
I'm now asking, if their opinion should be ignored as well. It seems perfectly logical to me that if you're going to ignore someone's opinion in the first situation, surely you should ignore the opinion in the second situation. Yes? If not, why not?
Aaah, sorry. My mistake.
Funnily enough, running the Jetsons or NASA TV on a SCI-FI channel could actually prove to be profitable. However unfortunately there are other things that are MORE profitable. And so NASA TV and the Jetsons reruns will get canceled for those more profitable items. Science fiction television shows doesn't appear to be one of the top profit makers. And so eventually all but the most successful sci-fi shows will get canceled for the larger profit makers. If television channels were only worried about making profits then we'd be able to have SO much more sci-fi shows on a regular basis that pay for themselves quite easily. However unfortunately they're instead more interested in maximizing profits, which means sci-fi fans lose out.
And this immediately proves you wrong. So nice try, better luck next time. You may have had valid points, had you not spoken in absolutes.
Sounds a lot like what happened when Uru Live was originally canceled. Many of the fans worked adding chat functionality in as similar a manner as possible to the original chat functions and even going so far as to work on their own fan-created server. Others were (and still are) working on new content to add to the game with the absence of a company to produce the new content. Fortunately in large part due to these efforts, Uru Live is now getting another official chance. So there's always the possibility Earth & Beyond will also get another chance at being a commercial game. Regardless, it is good to see fan efforts in these directions.
I loved Firefly. I liked Serenity. But I have serious doubts I'm going to be able to be interested in an MMORPG like this. I don't hate MMORPGs, in fact I love them (although I do define them as an online, multiplayer game where there is an evolving storyline). I originally played Armageddon and loved it. I have since tried the Matrix Online which supposedly had an evolving story and it was completely boring. Absolutely no enjoyment factor whatsoever (thankfully I tried it with a free account).
But that doesn't mean graphical MMORPGs must suck. One that is great will be Myst Online: Uru Live. I say that with such certainty because we already got a taste of the evolving storyline with the original beta in 2002 - 2004, a detailed account of which can be found here in an in-character manner. You can also find a film documentary in several parts here.
The big difference between Uru Live and the Matrix Online was that Uru realized you don't need to go around killing people. They also realised that when you first enter an area it can be very confusing and daunting, and so Cyan Worlds limits it by limiting what you can access at first both because areas aren't open to players, but also because areas need a puzzle to be solved before you can go to the next area. This was a problem I had with the Matrix Online as I was allowed to roam free as I liked in a very large area. Although the maps did help alleviate this, I found they actually did too much and took away the challenge in finding out what to do next and so the only challenge was killing people or stopping someone from getting killed. It became very repetitive, which is something Uru Live realises and avoids. Instead each puzzle is unique and there is no leveling so there is no repetitive gameplay (although there are things you can do more then once such as Ahyoheek).
However the big differences between Uru Live and Matrix Online was that the Matrix Online felt like it was completely empty of other players. I logged on and I saw no other players around. Perhaps I was simply in the wrong area. However Uru Live does away with that problem by having an introduction that explains where you can go if you want to play alone or where you can go if you want to find other players. It also has only a couple of places you can go to at the start one of which has players. The Uru Live beta has nowhere near the amount of players that Matrix Online does (it is after all a beta that has limitations on who can play) and yet it felt like it was the more heavily populated. I remember when I first logged onto Uru in 2003 I very quickly not only found another person, but I found a character being played by someone.
Unfortunately this MMORPG Firefly sounds more like Matrix Online then Myst Online: Uru Live.