"You understand that neither this Agreement nor the terms associated with a particular subscription entitles you to future updates, new versions or other enhancements of the Steam Software associated with a particular subscription although Valve may choose to provide such updates, etc. in its sole discretion." --http://store.steampowered.com/subscriber_agreement/
"We can do what ever we want" is significantly different than, "If we close we'll unlock all the games."
People always tout this urban myth but it directly conflicts with the EULA and not a single person can cite a source for this myth. Not once. Ever. Exactly zero times has someone provided a source to the myth.
Your claim is false then. It's not in the EULA and it's not on the web page.
Go read your EULA. You haven't bought a single thing. If you're going to give money to a company please go into it eyes open and understand exactly what you are and aren't receiving.
Major flaw with your logic. Closed companies don't have customers so why would they care about loosing customers?
He paid for a copy of the game why can't he have a DVD burner? I'm glad he returned it. It was the right thing to do. Speak with your wallet.
Why should _a_paying_customer_ have to deal with a game refusing to run? How is this a good idea? Can you please explain this to me because it's simply incomprehensible from where I sit. Let me repeat that. Why should _a_paying_customer_ (which is the exact opposite of pirate) have to deal with a game refusing to run? Why should they reward a company for this?
DRM can be done well. "Done well" means the customer doesn't know it's there. Look at DVDs; CSS is a nice polite unobtrusive DRM that you don't even know is there. Unless the fuckers make unskipable ads, previews, or what ever. Then we're back to things _a_paying_customer_ should not have to put up with.
The line about not storing and transmitting are bullshit.
The machines have the capability to both store and transmit. Remember all the comments about the pictures being viewed at a remote site. If the machine has these features they will be used. In the event of an incident they'll want to go back and review.
It just occurred to me that trains are a much much better target than planes.
Just like planes you have a lot of people packed into one place. Additionally you can cause significantly more long term disruption.
If a plane falls out of the sky nothing prevents another plane from using that same air lane.
If a train is blown up how long is that segment of track unusable for?
Also this scanning technology doesn't only work at airports. It works exactly the same at train stations. If people stop using planes and go back to trains then they'll just move the scanners over to the train station.
LWATCDR: Makes Claim Rogerborg: Ask for citation of claim using current colloquialism for the medium used. LWATCDR: Attacks Rogerborg for asking for citation. Makes _no_ mention of being polite. Twice calls Rogerborg lazy for asking for citations. harl: Says there is nothing wrong with asking for citations. Points out logic flaw with LWATCDR's position of making others find citations. LWATCDR: Calls Rogerborg "dumb" for not knowing things that LWATCDR knows. Again attacks Rogerborg directly. Contradicts self by saying asking for citations is now ok but only if Rogerborg shows common courtesy. harl: Points out contradiction. LWATCDR: Again demands politness that LWATCDR refuses to show others. Again attacks Rogerborg for not knowing things LWATCDR knows. harl: Tries to point out that LWATCDR is acting like a rude asshole.
They could but they will fail. The list of perfectly legitimate destinations will always be longer than the white list. Their customers will continuously be bounced from sites. The word of mouth and PR would be disastrous. Sure you can
If you block protocol they just tunnel it through a different protocol or encrypt the protocol.
If the product turns out to be Apple's ebook reader then ignore what's below as it only applies to tablet computing.
Tablet computing has been tried over and over. It always fails. I don't think this is a technology limitation I think it's an interface limitation.
First off writing is slow. The key board is some thing we did right early on. Maybe it would work better with an eastern word level character based language rather than a western letter level character based language.
Second my hand writing is shit. I'm not unique in this. Sometimes I can't read it. I don't expect others to read it and and if capchas still work then computers are going to have trouble with it.
dangerous drivers are dangerous. Address them not latest hate fad.
Fixed that for ya. You get the idea now?
Talking on a cell phone is no more dangerous than many other accepted driving activities. People are just focused on the cell phone because it's the new cool thing to hate. Where's the eating and driving study. Where's the talking to a passenger study? Where's the switching tracks study?
It's not a unified process. It's a dozen competing "unified processes". Some of which are going to fail. At which point you loose access to what you paid for.
Would you buy a TV with the clause that Best Buy could come into your house and take it back at any time?
Slashdot Mirror
This is the closest I can find.
"You understand that neither this Agreement nor the terms associated with a particular subscription entitles you to future updates, new versions or other enhancements of the Steam Software associated with a particular subscription although Valve may choose to provide such updates, etc. in its sole discretion." --http://store.steampowered.com/subscriber_agreement/
"We can do what ever we want" is significantly different than, "If we close we'll unlock all the games."
People always tout this urban myth but it directly conflicts with the EULA and not a single person can cite a source for this myth. Not once. Ever. Exactly zero times has someone provided a source to the myth.
It's worse than that. Most games are available a few days _before_ release.
So because you've never been killed murder doesn't exist?
Your claim is false then. It's not in the EULA and it's not on the web page.
Go read your EULA. You haven't bought a single thing. If you're going to give money to a company please go into it eyes open and understand exactly what you are and aren't receiving.
Major flaw with your logic. Closed companies don't have customers so why would they care about loosing customers?
That's completely wrong. They say no such thing.
EA cannot come into my house and take back their copy of Iterative Sports Title 2010.
Get a better pirate source. Most games are cracked and available before release day.
So you admit through no action on your part Steam removes functionality (multiplayer) and denies you access to your games (no install).
How is this good DRM?
As I've done dozens of times with never a single result:
This claim is not in the legally binding contract you agree to when you purchase a Steam game.
Please provide some documentation of this claim.
Steam is the worst possible DRM.
You have to ask permission to play.
You have to agree to a legally binding contract that gives Steam the right to revoke your "purchase" at any time.
Would you buy a car if the dealer had an option to come into your garage and take it back at their whim. Even if you'd paid for it in cash up front?
Fairplay, Impulse, disc in drive, CSS are all examples of good DRM.
He paid for a copy of the game why can't he have a DVD burner? I'm glad he returned it. It was the right thing to do. Speak with your wallet.
Why should _a_paying_customer_ have to deal with a game refusing to run? How is this a good idea? Can you please explain this to me because it's simply incomprehensible from where I sit. Let me repeat that. Why should _a_paying_customer_ (which is the exact opposite of pirate) have to deal with a game refusing to run? Why should they reward a company for this?
DRM can be done well. "Done well" means the customer doesn't know it's there. Look at DVDs; CSS is a nice polite unobtrusive DRM that you don't even know is there. Unless the fuckers make unskipable ads, previews, or what ever. Then we're back to things _a_paying_customer_ should not have to put up with.
Yes that's the classic work around by government.
Did you have anything related to my question?
That's a really good question. Leather jackets are very common. I would think someone has thought of this before.
Live skin and dead skin are substantially different.
The line about not storing and transmitting are bullshit.
The machines have the capability to both store and transmit. Remember all the comments about the pictures being viewed at a remote site. If the machine has these features they will be used. In the event of an incident they'll want to go back and review.
It just occurred to me that trains are a much much better target than planes.
Just like planes you have a lot of people packed into one place. Additionally you can cause significantly more long term disruption.
If a plane falls out of the sky nothing prevents another plane from using that same air lane.
If a train is blown up how long is that segment of track unusable for?
Also this scanning technology doesn't only work at airports. It works exactly the same at train stations. If people stop using planes and go back to trains then they'll just move the scanners over to the train station.
So you support public strip searches?
That's the wording from the States' fourth amendment, which doesn't apply in this case. Do the British have similar "right"? If so what grants it?
LWATCDR: Makes Claim
Rogerborg: Ask for citation of claim using current colloquialism for the medium used.
LWATCDR: Attacks Rogerborg for asking for citation. Makes _no_ mention of being polite. Twice calls Rogerborg lazy for asking for citations.
harl: Says there is nothing wrong with asking for citations. Points out logic flaw with LWATCDR's position of making others find citations.
LWATCDR: Calls Rogerborg "dumb" for not knowing things that LWATCDR knows. Again attacks Rogerborg directly. Contradicts self by saying asking for citations is now ok but only if Rogerborg shows common courtesy.
harl: Points out contradiction.
LWATCDR: Again demands politness that LWATCDR refuses to show others. Again attacks Rogerborg for not knowing things LWATCDR knows.
harl: Tries to point out that LWATCDR is acting like a rude asshole.
So you want him to ask you for references but you yelled at him for asking for references? How does that work exactly?
You're the one who made the claim. Why should he have to prove it?
Why would you want him to prove it? By that logic if he can't find a reference to it then you're wrong.
They could but they will fail. The list of perfectly legitimate destinations will always be longer than the white list. Their customers will continuously be bounced from sites. The word of mouth and PR would be disastrous. Sure you can
If you block protocol they just tunnel it through a different protocol or encrypt the protocol.
If the product turns out to be Apple's ebook reader then ignore what's below as it only applies to tablet computing.
Tablet computing has been tried over and over. It always fails. I don't think this is a technology limitation I think it's an interface limitation.
First off writing is slow. The key board is some thing we did right early on. Maybe it would work better with an eastern word level character based language rather than a western letter level character based language.
Second my hand writing is shit. I'm not unique in this. Sometimes I can't read it. I don't expect others to read it and and if capchas still work then computers are going to have trouble with it.
Punishing the driver for doing dangerous things is hardline?
*plonk*
The 360 version was also out days before the release date.
dangerous drivers are dangerous. Address them not latest hate fad.
Fixed that for ya. You get the idea now?
Talking on a cell phone is no more dangerous than many other accepted driving activities. People are just focused on the cell phone because it's the new cool thing to hate. Where's the eating and driving study. Where's the talking to a passenger study? Where's the switching tracks study?
Focus where the problem is, the driver.
You missed the whole point.
It's not a unified process. It's a dozen competing "unified processes". Some of which are going to fail. At which point you loose access to what you paid for.
Would you buy a TV with the clause that Best Buy could come into your house and take it back at any time?