what you are saying was that he didn't pay enough?
"enough" is not determined by the buyer. You don't go into a store and argue with the cashier - at least not in most western economies - that the price is too much. You either buy it or you don't.
If Microsoft decides their price is too high and people actually can't afford it and that's why their sales are going down, maybe they'll lower the prices. As it is, people can afford it, Microsoft is making money, and there is little incentive for game publishers to lower their prices.
It's like asking an IT guy to lower his price because, while I and many others can afford his service, I think it's too expensive. You know how you solve that one? You don't hire him to do the work in the first place. I guess with entertainment it's different... because we are entitled to cheap entertainment - "cheap" being defined not by what we can afford or supply/demand but by what we feel like paying - at the expense of these evil corporations...
I still think they should lower the prices. There are 16-year-old kids out there, they don't earn money so they go screaming to their parents saying, 'Can you buy me this game?'
Their parents should say "No. You buy it yourself. Go earn some money." And why should they lower the prices if people are buying them as it is? I guess normal supply-and-demand isn't good enough for people that don't want to pay for their entertainment. It should be cheaper for the sake of being cheaper...
Fair enough, one game once in a while but the amount of games coming out, good games, everyone wants to play them all.
I would love to have a 100 acre ranch near where I work, too. Unfortunately, they're too expensive.
My favorite quote.
I play with my mates all the time. It's just a good laugh, we all sit there chatting, playing games. Now I don't know what to do.
How about sit there and chat with your mates? Or is playing video games the only thing you and your mates know how to do, and you can't actually have fun without it. *sigh*
Hum. Out of curiosity, does the slashdot crowd think copying 30-40 games and "saving £600" is good? Wouldn't that actually be considered... basically stealing? Maybe he couldn't afford £600 of games. I don't feel sorry for him. Not being able to afford something/something being too expensive doesn't mean you should get it illegally (and it's ok, as long as you couldn't afford it).
This is slightly OT but not completely... Microsoft is protecting their income flow by trying to keep people from getting games for free when they are supposed to pay for them. IMO, that's a good thing. Microsoft should be allowed to do that, and if someone can't afford the game... I dunno, go get a job (or try, heh) or *gasp* go without the game for a few more months...
The real fun will begin when these uneducated nits attempt to rationalize their system over
There are a lot of highly educated and intellectual "uneducated nits" on that side, both now and in the past.
And incidentally, there are plenty of highly educated and intellectual people making the stupidest decisions today. They're typically in government, it would seem. I'm not sure what good "education" is if you end up making the same stupid decisions anyway...
So in other words, myths that nobody claims are true are "cool" in comparison to Genesis, which many people do claim is true... and is rather "boring" as far as literature goes. You would almost think that the 7-Day stuff wasn't written from stuff dreamed up by humans.
It's interesting that you bring it up, though. The Biblical account of creation is very different from most religion's accounts of creation-like times. The Biblical account is pretty... "boring."
Eugenics requires evolution. Evolution does not require eugenics.
Good point. Evolution certainly does not require eugenics. I argue still, though, that evolution will lead to eugenics. Perhaps not inevitably, but it seems that it an evolutionary worldview would certainly lend itself to the practice of eugenics. IMO, an evolutionary worldview does not logically lead to a practice of environmental preservation. I said that below though, so I guess I'm repeating myself. And writing my comment from the bottom up, ha.:)
I disagree. The idea that inferior genes will naturally die out does not logicically lead to we must kill everyone with inferior genes.
Fair enough.
If they really believed what they were saying, it seems more likely that they would let evolution run its course.
The same could be said about climate change/environmental activists. Humans are just another animal, we're no different from the rest of the animal kingdom except we're farther along teh evolutionary path... so what we are doing to the environment is completely natural and instinctive and we should just let us run our course, even if that leads to extinction. Or... should we intervene and save "ourselves"? Most people, at this point, seem to make an interesting break in their view of how the world works/runs and say that we do need to be responsible and not let ourselves run off and do whatever we want to the environment (as opposed to the rest of the ecosystem, where if something gets out of balance from an outside force, bad things happen). Hitler's reasoning seems to not be too far off from this line of reasoning - we should clean up the race before we get beyond hope (and I choose my race to be the best!... heh).
I had an Indiana Jones moment there. Again with the Nazis...
My first experience with Indiana Jones was pretty much the LucasArts Adventure Pack, which had The Last Crusade in it. I watched the movie 15 years later and that was a strange experience, as the game pretty much got everything right, hehe.
Have you looked at how much clothes, especially "fashion" and "designer" women's clothes, cost? A lot of people spend $83... or more... on impulse buys. At the mall. Or at Fry's...
Why no mention of the several dozen patches released in Snow Leopard 10.6.2? And they were only patches for Apple's latest OS. Unfortunately, those patches apparently aren't very interesting or something.
Precisely. OP seemed to imply that evolution and Nazi/Racist thought had nothing in common and thus including that discussion or opinion or whatever it is was stupid. I think they definitely do.
Of course I don't have the faith that the government is any more capable either. I am a pessimist, at best.
Because any government is made of the same greedy and ignorant people that a company is. So the question is, which is worse: having companies compete with some amount of regulation or having a government (of greedy people) simply rule and decide things without competition...
Ronald Reagan stopped funding research on coal to liquids and extraction from oil shale by abolishing the Synthetic Liquid Fuels Program in the 80s
I guess the government has to fund any research that takes place or it won't get done? Reagan did attempt to cut spending, as I recall. Maybe he decided this was something businesses could do, since they would directly benefit, and it would take the burden off the taxpayer.
So, mandates, high taxes, and bans on exploration and new extraction will be the norm
Which is stupid. I understand the "it's ugly" and "it ruins the environment" concerns, and perhaps those should be addressed... but to decide, as a politician, that (1) the free market giving incentive to companies to innovate/invent/investigate/[insert cool word that starts with i here] and (2) that various shales are inaccessible (and never WILL be accessible) and then force, through the things you mentioned, companies NOT to investigate and try to do it with their own money...
Well, at least, American companies. Who knows what non-American/non-European companies or governments will do.
I see Kirk is adding in mentions of Nazis and racism... how divine.
Because evolutionary principle/thought definitely had nothing to do with Nazi thought or racist thought....
I don't know how you can get around eugenics as being something that seemed to come out of evolutionary concepts. I'm not trolling. I'm not even accusing evolution of being wrong or false or whatever. I'm saying that eugenics, which was behind Hitler/Nazi thought and to some extent behind racism - at least, if the racism is born out of other things (including religion, e.g., antisemitism) - seems to be a logical progression from evolutionary thought. Improvements come from lots of breeding/procreation -> must be going on today -> there must be "inferior" races currently alive -> why not help evolution along and get rid of these inferior races.
Joking aside, I know you can get adapter cables. but they are a little annoying to use and annoying to carry around. My monitor takes VGA and DVI. I'm glad it takes both, because my two year old Dell laptop doesn't have DVI out, it only has VGA. My desktop video card, which is newer, only has DVI.
It's not really that big of a deal... but VGA has been working for a while and there are a lot of older VGA monitors still in use that are perfectly fine. Phasing out VGA already seems a little extreme.
Also, it's not just the VGA people that will have to carry around adapters; there are plenty of old projectors in use that don't have DVI. So if you buy a laptop with DVI only and end up needing to use a projector that doesn't have DVI... you're the one that needs the adapter then.:)
He never says he used to be, or that he actually changed his views. This quote, for example, appears to explain the "change" - but it's a change in tactics, not a change in political views:
According to the article, "He took an objective look at the movement's effectiveness and decided that the changes he was seeking were actually getting farther away. Not only did the left need to be more unified, he decided, it might also benefit from a fundamental shift in tactics. 'I realized that there are a lot of people who are capitalists — shudder, shudder — who are really committed to fairly significant change in the economy, and were having bigger impacts than me and a lot of my friends with our protest signs,' he said."
What's wrong with having a VGA output? Many older projectors and monitors, which are still perfectly functional and don't need to be replaced, use VGA. Why force people to buy a new monitor and a new projector just because they got a new laptop/PC?
Old technology takes a long time to become obsolete because most people don't want to replace their computer, monitor, projector, cd player, dvd player, vcr, or what have you, every two years. And most people don't have that kind of money, either.
Ooooh! That explains why the House and Senate (both with a majority of Democrats for a while) approval rating is extremely low, and why Obama's rating took the sharpest drop that any recent POTUS has had in the first year! People are annoyed with the current Congress/POTUS because they're sick of "Rush and the Repubs." Makes sense...
The funny thing is, everyone knows politicians talk out of both sides of their mouth... until we talk about a politician that someone likes. They "refuted" Beck by giving a quote by Jones that only serves to show that Jones contradicted himself.... but since some people want to believe that Jones was (1) a communist or (2) not a communist, they will take one of the quotes and see the other in light of the first.
I take issue with more with the fact that the politician is dishonest than what he political system he adheres to. I'd rather have an honest communist than a dishonest not-sure-what-he-is(-and-probably-just-wants-power), I think.
Slashdot Mirror
what you are saying was that he didn't pay enough?
"enough" is not determined by the buyer. You don't go into a store and argue with the cashier - at least not in most western economies - that the price is too much. You either buy it or you don't.
If Microsoft decides their price is too high and people actually can't afford it and that's why their sales are going down, maybe they'll lower the prices. As it is, people can afford it, Microsoft is making money, and there is little incentive for game publishers to lower their prices.
It's like asking an IT guy to lower his price because, while I and many others can afford his service, I think it's too expensive. You know how you solve that one? You don't hire him to do the work in the first place. I guess with entertainment it's different... because we are entitled to cheap entertainment - "cheap" being defined not by what we can afford or supply/demand but by what we feel like paying - at the expense of these evil corporations...
That entire first-hand-account is ... annoying.
I was pulling my hair out thinking, 'No, why me?'
That's a question easily answered.
It's like telling someone their dog's just died.
He likes his xbox too much.
I still think they should lower the prices. There are 16-year-old kids out there, they don't earn money so they go screaming to their parents saying, 'Can you buy me this game?'
Their parents should say "No. You buy it yourself. Go earn some money." And why should they lower the prices if people are buying them as it is? I guess normal supply-and-demand isn't good enough for people that don't want to pay for their entertainment. It should be cheaper for the sake of being cheaper...
Fair enough, one game once in a while but the amount of games coming out, good games, everyone wants to play them all.
I would love to have a 100 acre ranch near where I work, too. Unfortunately, they're too expensive.
My favorite quote.
I play with my mates all the time. It's just a good laugh, we all sit there chatting, playing games. Now I don't know what to do.
How about sit there and chat with your mates? Or is playing video games the only thing you and your mates know how to do, and you can't actually have fun without it. *sigh*
Hum. Out of curiosity, does the slashdot crowd think copying 30-40 games and "saving £600" is good? Wouldn't that actually be considered ... basically stealing? Maybe he couldn't afford £600 of games. I don't feel sorry for him. Not being able to afford something/something being too expensive doesn't mean you should get it illegally (and it's ok, as long as you couldn't afford it).
This is slightly OT but not completely... Microsoft is protecting their income flow by trying to keep people from getting games for free when they are supposed to pay for them. IMO, that's a good thing. Microsoft should be allowed to do that, and if someone can't afford the game ... I dunno, go get a job (or try, heh) or *gasp* go without the game for a few more months...
The real fun will begin when these uneducated nits attempt to rationalize their system over
There are a lot of highly educated and intellectual "uneducated nits" on that side, both now and in the past.
And incidentally, there are plenty of highly educated and intellectual people making the stupidest decisions today. They're typically in government, it would seem. I'm not sure what good "education" is if you end up making the same stupid decisions anyway...
So in other words, myths that nobody claims are true are "cool" in comparison to Genesis, which many people do claim is true... and is rather "boring" as far as literature goes. You would almost think that the 7-Day stuff wasn't written from stuff dreamed up by humans.
It's interesting that you bring it up, though. The Biblical account of creation is very different from most religion's accounts of creation-like times. The Biblical account is pretty ... "boring."
Eugenics requires evolution. Evolution does not require eugenics.
Good point. Evolution certainly does not require eugenics. I argue still, though, that evolution will lead to eugenics. Perhaps not inevitably, but it seems that it an evolutionary worldview would certainly lend itself to the practice of eugenics. IMO, an evolutionary worldview does not logically lead to a practice of environmental preservation. I said that below though, so I guess I'm repeating myself. And writing my comment from the bottom up, ha. :)
I disagree. The idea that inferior genes will naturally die out does not logicically lead to we must kill everyone with inferior genes.
Fair enough.
If they really believed what they were saying, it seems more likely that they would let evolution run its course.
The same could be said about climate change/environmental activists. Humans are just another animal, we're no different from the rest of the animal kingdom except we're farther along teh evolutionary path... so what we are doing to the environment is completely natural and instinctive and we should just let us run our course, even if that leads to extinction. Or... should we intervene and save "ourselves"? Most people, at this point, seem to make an interesting break in their view of how the world works/runs and say that we do need to be responsible and not let ourselves run off and do whatever we want to the environment (as opposed to the rest of the ecosystem, where if something gets out of balance from an outside force, bad things happen). Hitler's reasoning seems to not be too far off from this line of reasoning - we should clean up the race before we get beyond hope (and I choose my race to be the best! ... heh).
I had an Indiana Jones moment there. Again with the Nazis...
My first experience with Indiana Jones was pretty much the LucasArts Adventure Pack, which had The Last Crusade in it. I watched the movie 15 years later and that was a strange experience, as the game pretty much got everything right, hehe.
Have you looked at how much clothes, especially "fashion" and "designer" women's clothes, cost? A lot of people spend $83 ... or more ... on impulse buys. At the mall. Or at Fry's...
Why no mention of the several dozen patches released in Snow Leopard 10.6.2? And they were only patches for Apple's latest OS. Unfortunately, those patches apparently aren't very interesting or something.
I can't say I think 93 is classic. We have a 62 ford country sedan, though... that's classic ;)
Precisely. OP seemed to imply that evolution and Nazi/Racist thought had nothing in common and thus including that discussion or opinion or whatever it is was stupid. I think they definitely do.
google: xlbs in kg. It's easy.
Of course I don't have the faith that the government is any more capable either. I am a pessimist, at best.
Because any government is made of the same greedy and ignorant people that a company is. So the question is, which is worse: having companies compete with some amount of regulation or having a government (of greedy people) simply rule and decide things without competition...
Ronald Reagan stopped funding research on coal to liquids and extraction from oil shale by abolishing the Synthetic Liquid Fuels Program in the 80s
I guess the government has to fund any research that takes place or it won't get done? Reagan did attempt to cut spending, as I recall. Maybe he decided this was something businesses could do, since they would directly benefit, and it would take the burden off the taxpayer.
... if government artificially lower the price of oil through price caps or subsidies.
Well, we all know the going political trend today is to have the government have as little to do with the supply/demand markets. :)
So, mandates, high taxes, and bans on exploration and new extraction will be the norm
Which is stupid. I understand the "it's ugly" and "it ruins the environment" concerns, and perhaps those should be addressed... but to decide, as a politician, that (1) the free market giving incentive to companies to innovate/invent/investigate/[insert cool word that starts with i here] and (2) that various shales are inaccessible (and never WILL be accessible) and then force, through the things you mentioned, companies NOT to investigate and try to do it with their own money ...
Well, at least, American companies. Who knows what non-American/non-European companies or governments will do.
I see Kirk is adding in mentions of Nazis and racism... how divine.
Because evolutionary principle/thought definitely had nothing to do with Nazi thought or racist thought....
I don't know how you can get around eugenics as being something that seemed to come out of evolutionary concepts. I'm not trolling. I'm not even accusing evolution of being wrong or false or whatever. I'm saying that eugenics, which was behind Hitler/Nazi thought and to some extent behind racism - at least, if the racism is born out of other things (including religion, e.g., antisemitism) - seems to be a logical progression from evolutionary thought. Improvements come from lots of breeding/procreation -> must be going on today -> there must be "inferior" races currently alive -> why not help evolution along and get rid of these inferior races.
Says the "93 Escort Wagon." ;)
Joking aside, I know you can get adapter cables. but they are a little annoying to use and annoying to carry around. My monitor takes VGA and DVI. I'm glad it takes both, because my two year old Dell laptop doesn't have DVI out, it only has VGA. My desktop video card, which is newer, only has DVI.
It's not really that big of a deal... but VGA has been working for a while and there are a lot of older VGA monitors still in use that are perfectly fine. Phasing out VGA already seems a little extreme.
Also, it's not just the VGA people that will have to carry around adapters; there are plenty of old projectors in use that don't have DVI. So if you buy a laptop with DVI only and end up needing to use a projector that doesn't have DVI... you're the one that needs the adapter then. :)
Anybody want to weigh in?
You expect nerds and geeks to give their actual weight online?!
He never says he used to be, or that he actually changed his views. This quote, for example, appears to explain the "change" - but it's a change in tactics, not a change in political views:
According to the article, "He took an objective look at the movement's effectiveness and decided that the changes he was seeking were actually getting farther away. Not only did the left need to be more unified, he decided, it might also benefit from a fundamental shift in tactics. 'I realized that there are a lot of people who are capitalists — shudder, shudder — who are really committed to fairly significant change in the economy, and were having bigger impacts than me and a lot of my friends with our protest signs,' he said."
You are also required to e-mail any "error correction" stuff that you develop, apparently, to Apple and give them the rights to use it.
What's wrong with having a VGA output? Many older projectors and monitors, which are still perfectly functional and don't need to be replaced, use VGA. Why force people to buy a new monitor and a new projector just because they got a new laptop/PC?
Old technology takes a long time to become obsolete because most people don't want to replace their computer, monitor, projector, cd player, dvd player, vcr, or what have you, every two years. And most people don't have that kind of money, either.
Ooooh! That explains why the House and Senate (both with a majority of Democrats for a while) approval rating is extremely low, and why Obama's rating took the sharpest drop that any recent POTUS has had in the first year! People are annoyed with the current Congress/POTUS because they're sick of "Rush and the Repubs." Makes sense...
Or at least the "sell by" date.
The funny thing is, everyone knows politicians talk out of both sides of their mouth... until we talk about a politician that someone likes. They "refuted" Beck by giving a quote by Jones that only serves to show that Jones contradicted himself.... but since some people want to believe that Jones was (1) a communist or (2) not a communist, they will take one of the quotes and see the other in light of the first.
I take issue with more with the fact that the politician is dishonest than what he political system he adheres to. I'd rather have an honest communist than a dishonest not-sure-what-he-is(-and-probably-just-wants-power), I think.