Are we running the same Steam? I've been using it for years, and never encountered anything just described.
Lucky you. I have no idea why it takes half of forever to log in but I always assumed it was a poor network connection... until I arrived home and it still acted the same way. *shrug* Maybe Comcast is doing deep packet inspection and delaying the traffic as much as a poor network connection would?
In fact, my only irritation is that it has to install the DirectX runtime or VC RED (whichever it is) for each new game
That is not a Steam thing. It is an game installer issue. It is easier to run the installer for DX/VC than it is to check the versions of all the required libs (which is what the DX/VC installers do).
I don't know if I can really pinpoint why I don't consider Steam to be the kick to the dick that almost all other DRM is.
I can tell you why: It does not install malicious software on to your computer. It does not install software that prevents you from mounting ISO images. It does not install software that ALWAYS runs and slows down your computer. It does not install software that makes the game itself more likely to crash. It does not install software that prevents the game from even loading.
Shall I go on?
Steam uses DRM. I have run into it and it has affected me. It is still less unpleasant than having fucking malicious device drivers installed into my computer.
Also, DRM is essential to delay piracy for the first month of game release. Games only really sell in the first few weeks after launch
If this is true, where is the patch to remove the obnoxious DRM after 6 weeks?
Your control through DRM is an illusion. I see lots of AAA titles in their first few weeks available for downloading sans DRM. It is I, the paying customer that gets to deal with all the trouble.
Do you know how many games I have bought recently? None. Why? Because I know that malware will be installed on my system. Your DRM took a paying customer and turned him into a non-customer.
Also offline mode is an option with steam too, unlike say diablo 3.
Offline mode is only for short disruptions on your home connection. It is utterly useless for when you travel or will otherwise be inconvenienced with no network access for more than a few days.
Put all the movies he's allowed to access in a folder with Full Control permissions for Everyone.
Full Control? No. Read Only. Full Control should ONLY be for an account that needs to modify the contents of the shares. Viewers do not need to modify or add. But you are essentially correct, this is merely a "permissions" issue on the folders unless there is no authorization possible on the viewer interface.
It has been about a decade since 64 cpus have been available and yet we STILL can't get rid of that 32 bit crap. 32 bit was awesome in that it offered a flat memory space but that time is LONG gone. Hell, Firefox is STILL refusing to seriously consider 64 bit. The plugins can not change until the browser changes. Meh.
I am not surprised. When you are an authoritarian parent and cause constant rebellion from your children, you should expect such things. Just as a factory owner who beats his employees and pays them late or not at all should expect to burned alive inside of his factory at some point.
The parents were very bad parents. My kids would have _never_ thought about drugging me. While the kids were very very wrong, the parents brought it on themselves.... no less than a woman in short skirt walking in a dark alley where a group of shady looking men are standing has brought it on herself. Yes, that group of men were wrong for raping her. Totally and completely wrong. The story is still the same though.
The child hates the parents. There is no recovering from this situation. No amount of professional counseling will help. They need to be separated forever and hope that the children can act responsible enough in their new life to keep from fucking things up continuously. Only the deaths of everyone involved will solve this dilemma and since this is a "civilized" society, time will have to take care of the death portion.
They fell asleep and were groggy the next day from 1/4 of the milkshake. Suppose they'd drunk the whole thing. They might be dead by now.
I would not have hesitated to kill my parents in such a way if I had thought about it as child. My parents are lucky to be alive today. I am a bad person who was treated very badly.
I would not kill them now as I do not have to suffer under them any more... but they lay on their deathbeds from old age now and I do not move a finger to help them. You reap what you sow. It does not make me smile though. I wait for my own death so this chapter in history can be wiped forever from the books. My own children have no idea... and they never will.
I do not side with the kids on this one either, but I can easily see how it can happen. The entire family is better off dead than subjecting the rest of society to their fucked up control and rebellion issues.
LOL. That movie was absolutely terrible, perhaps even the worst movie of all time. It is the only movie I have ever fell asleep watching while at a movie theater. Oh my god that movie was terrible. I was woken up by the fire alarm. I was in San Diego at the Mission Valley theaters sound asleep and was rudely woken up by the fire alarm. The movie was so terrible that someone pulled the fire alarm to end it. ROFL. God that movie was bad. Oy.
Oh. Did I forget to say that the movie was terrible? Which is a shame as I thoroughly enjoyed the book. I read it in one 24 hour sitting. The movie was completely terrible.
You have a valid point. I will ensure that my wording is toned down in the future. I am not a gun activist but I do feel very strongly about restrictions of any sort in general. It is very easy for my wording to become extreme.
Arbitrary restrictions severely upset me, especially when they are fear based. For example: Machine guns are banned. What is next? Semi-automatics? And then? Single shots? And then? Any weapon that can hurl a projectile? And then? Anything with a sharp edge? And then? We are back to killing each other with rocks and only the strongest and most fittest will win. Weapons of _any_ sort help to overcome accidents of birth (physical size). Bad people will always be bad. Let's change the equation a bit.
People fear weapons and want to ban them. I can respect that feeling. I do not respect how incredibly short sighted and poorly thought out that it is though. I understand that not everyone wants to think things through, they just want to live their happy happy joy joy lives forever and forget about the specter of death haunting them every day. Death will get them eventually as it does to everyone. Reality can not be refused even if a person refuses to acknowledge reality. The refusal itself causes distortions in their perceptions. And... we end up with a bunch of loud people hyperventilating about gun control.
The only gun control that should exist is each individual controlling their own guns so that nothing happens with those guns that they did not personally choose to have happen... and those people being held responsible by society for when they do not control their guns in a socially acceptable manner.
That can indeed happen in specific instances. What can also happen is that someone uses a gun to commit a crime against me, say a mugging, and someone else pulls out a gun and defends me. We should discuss the general class of crimes and defense rather than get bogged down in specific scenarios.
I would be interested to see if that is true. How does that statment work with countries other than the U.S.?
I believe what you are trying to get at is an argument based on availability. The more guns that are around, the more crimes that will be committed with them. Yes?
My reasoning concerning that very valid question is that crime will happen regardless of the availability of a particular weapon and that it is more important for people to be able to defend themselves than to worry about whether or not you get shot or beaten on for twenty minutes with a baseball bat. Defense is defense. Taking away defense is not reasonable based on the type of death you would like to experience.
'The editor, Caryn McBride, told police the newspaper hired a private security company whose "employees are armed and will be on site during business hours," the report said.
So the newspaper is against guns and publishes a list of gun owners... and then hires a bunch of folks armed with, yes, guns. When push comes to shove, the reality is clear. Guns are effective as a defense measure. Criminals do not care about laws so outlawing guns will not take the guns from the criminals. This mean that all gun laws are for the explicit purpose of making law abiding citizens defenseless against criminals.
Guns can be used to make committing crimes easier and to make defense against crimes easier. Seems like a null proposition and that all guns should be abolished. Right? Well, not quite so fast there. Guns equalize the situation. Without a gun, crimes and defense against crimes depends purely on physical characteristics of the aggressor and the intended victim. A large and fit criminal can pretty much do whatever they want. Everyone else gets to suffer. Guns change this equation. Anyone who can shoot can defend themselves against aggression as long as they can aim and pull a trigger. This rebalances the equation in favor of having guns around for self defense.
I do not even personally own a gun (kids in the house and such) and yet I feel safer knowing that people around me could be carrying guns. Criminals always perform their crimes when the police are not present.
Of course, if this huge tax payer subsidy is removed then other forms of transportation would immediately become viable. In other words, trains and buses would become cost effective and the US would get an environmentally friendly transport network.
ROFL. Stop it, you are killing me. LOL.
US would get an environmentally friendly transport network.
LOL.
The US would get shit. And we would have no choice but to like it. You could put as much economic pressure as you want to get more mass transit and people would end up being forced to fucking walk.
What makes you think economic pressure will cause mass transit to suddenly plop into existence? It will just cause suffering. Government certainly has no interest in actually serving its citizens. I am honestly surprised that parks even exist. There is no way a private entity will do it. Where will this mass transit come from? Economic pressure. ROFL. Economic suffering for absolutely no gain whatsoever. You sir are hilarious.
This does not bode well. You cannot just have a new computing form factor and throw stuff at it to see what sticks.
I vehemently but respectfully disagree. When you are in utterly "new" space, you can not imagine what could be available until the realities of the space you are in impinge upon your consciousness.
It looks to me like Google is treating google glass like a hardware web browser, for which they will have a bunch of "beta" projects and see what works and what doesn't.
I am of the opinion that your view of reality is too restricted to be valuable in undiscovered country. That is not an insult, just an observation. The world needs all types.
What I think is so cool about these discoveries is, in the words of astronomer Steve Vogt, "the emerging view that virtually every star has planets". Think about this for a while. Look at all the stars in the sky, and imagine every single one of them having a planetary system. Suddenly it doesn't seem to much of a stretch thinking some of them might be habitable, or even harbour some kind of life.
Odd. Even as a kid, I always thought there were LOTS of other planets out there. If this insignificant star has 9 planets (8 now, classifications change), then surely other star systems must have at _least_ one other planet. I would be pretty surprised to find a star with a thousand planets, but anywhere from one to twenty (roughly) planets should be incredibly common.
But I also have the thought of 'why bother taxing corporations'? We suck at it, and ultimately companies are owned by individuals, everybody from fat cat industrialists to the retired grandmother who bought $100 of IBM stock 50 years ago.
Well,that is obvious. The corporations will buy huge mansions, expensive luxury cars, etc and the CEO will take home $50k a year... but have the use of all of those nice things like "private" jets and yachts used to transport them to 3 month long conferences on islands of paradise with hundreds of young females attending to their every need. And no tax revenue will be generated.
The reason taxes have been cut against individuals is that individuals have no fucking money to pay taxes with. Taxes should rise but the taxes need to come from a different pot of money than that allocated to individuals. Government, especially the security portion of it, should probably be scaled WAY the fuck back.
Slashdot Mirror
That $1.25 is adjusted for purchasing power.
Then they are dead. $1.25 will absolutely not buy you enough water to stay alive in America. Food? ROFLMAO.
Lies. Adjusted purchasing power my ass.
Are we running the same Steam? I've been using it for years, and never encountered anything just described.
Lucky you. I have no idea why it takes half of forever to log in but I always assumed it was a poor network connection... until I arrived home and it still acted the same way. *shrug* Maybe Comcast is doing deep packet inspection and delaying the traffic as much as a poor network connection would?
In fact, my only irritation is that it has to install the DirectX runtime or VC RED (whichever it is) for each new game
That is not a Steam thing. It is an game installer issue. It is easier to run the installer for DX/VC than it is to check the versions of all the required libs (which is what the DX/VC installers do).
I don't know if I can really pinpoint why I don't consider Steam to be the kick to the dick that almost all other DRM is.
I can tell you why: It does not install malicious software on to your computer. It does not install software that prevents you from mounting ISO images. It does not install software that ALWAYS runs and slows down your computer. It does not install software that makes the game itself more likely to crash. It does not install software that prevents the game from even loading.
Shall I go on?
Steam uses DRM. I have run into it and it has affected me. It is still less unpleasant than having fucking malicious device drivers installed into my computer.
Also, DRM is essential to delay piracy for the first month of game release. Games only really sell in the first few weeks after launch
If this is true, where is the patch to remove the obnoxious DRM after 6 weeks?
Your control through DRM is an illusion. I see lots of AAA titles in their first few weeks available for downloading sans DRM. It is I, the paying customer that gets to deal with all the trouble.
Do you know how many games I have bought recently? None. Why? Because I know that malware will be installed on my system. Your DRM took a paying customer and turned him into a non-customer.
DRM is essential to delay piracy
Also offline mode is an option with steam too, unlike say diablo 3.
Offline mode is only for short disruptions on your home connection. It is utterly useless for when you travel or will otherwise be inconvenienced with no network access for more than a few days.
Put all the movies he's allowed to access in a folder with Full Control permissions for Everyone.
Full Control? No. Read Only. Full Control should ONLY be for an account that needs to modify the contents of the shares. Viewers do not need to modify or add. But you are essentially correct, this is merely a "permissions" issue on the folders unless there is no authorization possible on the viewer interface.
It has been about a decade since 64 cpus have been available and yet we STILL can't get rid of that 32 bit crap. 32 bit was awesome in that it offered a flat memory space but that time is LONG gone. Hell, Firefox is STILL refusing to seriously consider 64 bit. The plugins can not change until the browser changes. Meh.
I am not surprised. When you are an authoritarian parent and cause constant rebellion from your children, you should expect such things. Just as a factory owner who beats his employees and pays them late or not at all should expect to burned alive inside of his factory at some point.
The parents were very bad parents. My kids would have _never_ thought about drugging me. While the kids were very very wrong, the parents brought it on themselves.... no less than a woman in short skirt walking in a dark alley where a group of shady looking men are standing has brought it on herself. Yes, that group of men were wrong for raping her. Totally and completely wrong. The story is still the same though.
The child hates the parents. There is no recovering from this situation. No amount of professional counseling will help. They need to be separated forever and hope that the children can act responsible enough in their new life to keep from fucking things up continuously. Only the deaths of everyone involved will solve this dilemma and since this is a "civilized" society, time will have to take care of the death portion.
They fell asleep and were groggy the next day from 1/4 of the milkshake. Suppose they'd drunk the whole thing. They might be dead by now.
I would not have hesitated to kill my parents in such a way if I had thought about it as child. My parents are lucky to be alive today. I am a bad person who was treated very badly.
I would not kill them now as I do not have to suffer under them any more... but they lay on their deathbeds from old age now and I do not move a finger to help them. You reap what you sow. It does not make me smile though. I wait for my own death so this chapter in history can be wiped forever from the books. My own children have no idea... and they never will.
I do not side with the kids on this one either, but I can easily see how it can happen. The entire family is better off dead than subjecting the rest of society to their fucked up control and rebellion issues.
Hate. It is what is for breakfast.
LOL. That movie was absolutely terrible, perhaps even the worst movie of all time. It is the only movie I have ever fell asleep watching while at a movie theater. Oh my god that movie was terrible. I was woken up by the fire alarm. I was in San Diego at the Mission Valley theaters sound asleep and was rudely woken up by the fire alarm. The movie was so terrible that someone pulled the fire alarm to end it. ROFL. God that movie was bad. Oy.
Oh. Did I forget to say that the movie was terrible? Which is a shame as I thoroughly enjoyed the book. I read it in one 24 hour sitting. The movie was completely terrible.
For me it's Nexus from now on. At least then I know the boot-loader is going to be unlock-able...
Samsung phones do not have locked bootloaders currently. They used to but they are all unlocked now.
You have a valid point. I will ensure that my wording is toned down in the future. I am not a gun activist but I do feel very strongly about restrictions of any sort in general. It is very easy for my wording to become extreme.
Arbitrary restrictions severely upset me, especially when they are fear based. For example: Machine guns are banned. What is next? Semi-automatics? And then? Single shots? And then? Any weapon that can hurl a projectile? And then? Anything with a sharp edge? And then? We are back to killing each other with rocks and only the strongest and most fittest will win. Weapons of _any_ sort help to overcome accidents of birth (physical size). Bad people will always be bad. Let's change the equation a bit.
People fear weapons and want to ban them. I can respect that feeling. I do not respect how incredibly short sighted and poorly thought out that it is though. I understand that not everyone wants to think things through, they just want to live their happy happy joy joy lives forever and forget about the specter of death haunting them every day. Death will get them eventually as it does to everyone. Reality can not be refused even if a person refuses to acknowledge reality. The refusal itself causes distortions in their perceptions. And... we end up with a bunch of loud people hyperventilating about gun control.
The only gun control that should exist is each individual controlling their own guns so that nothing happens with those guns that they did not personally choose to have happen... and those people being held responsible by society for when they do not control their guns in a socially acceptable manner.
I wish that I had mod points right now. This is the absolutely best advice so far.
That can indeed happen in specific instances. What can also happen is that someone uses a gun to commit a crime against me, say a mugging, and someone else pulls out a gun and defends me. We should discuss the general class of crimes and defense rather than get bogged down in specific scenarios.
Regards
I would be interested to see if that is true. How does that statment work with countries other than the U.S.?
I believe what you are trying to get at is an argument based on availability. The more guns that are around, the more crimes that will be committed with them. Yes?
My reasoning concerning that very valid question is that crime will happen regardless of the availability of a particular weapon and that it is more important for people to be able to defend themselves than to worry about whether or not you get shot or beaten on for twenty minutes with a baseball bat. Defense is defense. Taking away defense is not reasonable based on the type of death you would like to experience.
Hm. I think that could be worded better.
'The editor, Caryn McBride, told police the newspaper hired a private security company whose "employees are armed and will be on site during business hours," the report said.
So the newspaper is against guns and publishes a list of gun owners... and then hires a bunch of folks armed with, yes, guns. When push comes to shove, the reality is clear. Guns are effective as a defense measure. Criminals do not care about laws so outlawing guns will not take the guns from the criminals. This mean that all gun laws are for the explicit purpose of making law abiding citizens defenseless against criminals.
Guns can be used to make committing crimes easier and to make defense against crimes easier. Seems like a null proposition and that all guns should be abolished. Right? Well, not quite so fast there. Guns equalize the situation. Without a gun, crimes and defense against crimes depends purely on physical characteristics of the aggressor and the intended victim. A large and fit criminal can pretty much do whatever they want. Everyone else gets to suffer. Guns change this equation. Anyone who can shoot can defend themselves against aggression as long as they can aim and pull a trigger. This rebalances the equation in favor of having guns around for self defense.
I do not even personally own a gun (kids in the house and such) and yet I feel safer knowing that people around me could be carrying guns. Criminals always perform their crimes when the police are not present.
Of course, if this huge tax payer subsidy is removed then other forms of transportation would immediately become viable. In other words, trains and buses would become cost effective and the US would get an environmentally friendly transport network.
ROFL. Stop it, you are killing me. LOL.
US would get an environmentally friendly transport network.
LOL.
The US would get shit. And we would have no choice but to like it. You could put as much economic pressure as you want to get more mass transit and people would end up being forced to fucking walk.
What makes you think economic pressure will cause mass transit to suddenly plop into existence? It will just cause suffering. Government certainly has no interest in actually serving its citizens. I am honestly surprised that parks even exist. There is no way a private entity will do it. Where will this mass transit come from? Economic pressure. ROFL. Economic suffering for absolutely no gain whatsoever. You sir are hilarious.
This does not bode well. You cannot just have a new computing form factor and throw stuff at it to see what sticks.
I vehemently but respectfully disagree. When you are in utterly "new" space, you can not imagine what could be available until the realities of the space you are in impinge upon your consciousness.
It looks to me like Google is treating google glass like a hardware web browser, for which they will have a bunch of "beta" projects and see what works and what doesn't.
I am of the opinion that your view of reality is too restricted to be valuable in undiscovered country. That is not an insult, just an observation. The world needs all types.
What I think is so cool about these discoveries is, in the words of astronomer Steve Vogt, "the emerging view that virtually every star has planets". Think about this for a while. Look at all the stars in the sky, and imagine every single one of them having a planetary system. Suddenly it doesn't seem to much of a stretch thinking some of them might be habitable, or even harbour some kind of life.
Odd. Even as a kid, I always thought there were LOTS of other planets out there. If this insignificant star has 9 planets (8 now, classifications change), then surely other star systems must have at _least_ one other planet. I would be pretty surprised to find a star with a thousand planets, but anywhere from one to twenty (roughly) planets should be incredibly common.
Do I like the fact they are mining my information online when/if I use them?
And you think Cox, Comcast, AT&T and Verizon are not already doing so as well?
Setting corporate taxes to zero would drive all of the money that exists towards corporate coffers. Are you sure that is a sane state of affairs?
But I also have the thought of 'why bother taxing corporations'? We suck at it, and ultimately companies are owned by individuals, everybody from fat cat industrialists to the retired grandmother who bought $100 of IBM stock 50 years ago.
Well,that is obvious. The corporations will buy huge mansions, expensive luxury cars, etc and the CEO will take home $50k a year... but have the use of all of those nice things like "private" jets and yachts used to transport them to 3 month long conferences on islands of paradise with hundreds of young females attending to their every need. And no tax revenue will be generated.
The reason taxes have been cut against individuals is that individuals have no fucking money to pay taxes with. Taxes should rise but the taxes need to come from a different pot of money than that allocated to individuals. Government, especially the security portion of it, should probably be scaled WAY the fuck back.