Just a little hint: never read English newspaper about French politics, or vice versa. There's still enough animosity floating around that you can't get straight answers from one about the other. One notable exception might be the Economist.
it simply states the company loses more sales to customers of used games than it loses to pirates
If you don't understand what's wrong with this statement, you will never understand what danger lies ahead for ever being able to own anything that is covered by copyright.
but used gamers would have bought the game new without the used option, hence costing the company money
If you don't understand what's wrong with this statement (hint: there are two things wrong with it), you will never understand exactly how much control corporations are asking for.
It's also quite possible that you're too young to have followed Napster very closely, and how its end started. In which case - be quiet, adults are talking.
Yeah. I said it. Fuck off. Let me repeat something I've said multiple times already: You are not entitled to my money. You sold it once, you got paid what you asked for; now shut the fuck up. Think that copy is worth more? Then ask for more when you sell it. Think you're not getting your fair share? Who the hell are you to determine what your fair share is? This isn't a free market that you're after, that's nothing but "Give me money because I said so" highway robbery.
At least the cat's out of the bag now. The problem that creative types (music, film, software) have with piracy has actually nothing to do with whether something illegal is taking place around the fruit of their sweat and blood. It has everything to do with them feeling that they're not making as much money as they think they could. It's a pure money-grab, nothing else. The only difference between the people who complain that the second-hand market is ruining them and basic robbery is that the first group hires government agents to do their bidding. The second group has at least the decency to do their own dirty work.
To that, I say Fuck You. Don't like it? Fuck you, with a chainsaw.
Peter Molyneux, I have great respect for you. You created Populous, which by itself gives you a near eternal free pass to be a dick. But any interest I have in Fable III will now be satisfied by buying it second hand. I might even write you an email, showing you my original copy, the second hand sticker on it, and a big middle-finger across it. Yeah, I know, you didn't offer up these sentiments. That was one of your underlings. Then get your underlings under control. The same goes for every other entitled asshole who feels that just because they made something pretty, they deserve to be paid in perpetuity anytime someone looks at their work, or creates something that vaguely resembles it.
And just in case anyone missed my point: Fuck you. I'm going to the flea-market.
Non-liberals don't have the same liberal biased reality
I see what your problem is: you don't understand what "reality" is, what the word "reality" means, and how facts are different from opinions. I'm not really surprised; you're not really alone in that error.
Precisely. The hall mark of a good troll is that the poster hits many of the arguments that make people jump, with just enough hints to indicate that it isn't an authentic nutter.
Overthrowing a strongly pro-American regime? Wow, you really don't know Sarkozy or the French very much. He's strongly pro-American only in the context of French foreign politics since de Gaulle, who was almost obsessed with throwing a wrench into American plans in Europe. Sarkozy likes America, but he also likes rich friends who host him during his vacations. The two go hand in hand for him.
As for DSK, he's apparently had a history of treating women in a less than gentlemanly fashion. The reason that DSK is the Socialists' best hope is because the others are intellectual lightweights (Segolene Royal, ugh) with no achievements to show for from a political perspective.
Yes, obviously, there's the Ministry of Truth aspect to it. However, when I want to find out what the real deal is about the latest flu pandemic, you know where I go? cdc.gov. If I want to find out what the story is around the latest federal budget numbers, I go to cbo.gov. If I want raw country data, I go to cia.gov.
There are already plenty of times where some numbers geeks are holed up in a government office, crunching numbers and nothing but numbers. Is there a risk of political influencing? Sure is. You just have to look at FEMA for one of the most egregious examples of political horse trading. But you can set up an organization in such a way as to minimize political influence.
There are really three areas where I would like to see an official government agency providing a central information clearinghouse: * a history of political events (who said what, where and when) * a history of detailed public office budgets (down to who makes how much) * a general list of current hoaxes and misinformation. Think of it as Snopes done.gov style.
Yes, all of that would obviously be done from the perspective of the government, and with associated biases and perspectives. But it would provide an easy place to get that kind of information, rather than having to trawl through countless soundbites presented by various other organizations.
Would it exacerbate the problem, or merely hide it? Discarding information that contradicts currently held beliefs is natural enough that most people aren't aware of it, even without personalized search algorithms. I think the bigger issue is the ready availability of like-minded communities that will reinforce your beliefes, no matter how outrageous and outlandish they are.
To suggest that soft-core porn comics of idealized boys going at it for the entertainment of girls is some sort of test raid on something like classical literature is just silly.
No, it's a test raid on things that the majority doesn't care about. The problem occurs when the test raids expand to things that you care about, and you realize that there's nothing left to defend.
1. No shit. All breaks start with following people around. 2. Ya think????? 3. That wasn't released by the White House. That was picked up by looking at pictures coming from third parties. 4. Umm. ya think they use the latest available toys? FYI, kids on the street in Baghdad thought that the sunglasses of army grunts where "hyper-spectral imagers". 5. What difference does that make? Just adds flavor. 6. Source please. Unless you think publicly available info about where they're stationed is the same as giving away identities. Not to mention - so? It's not like they're hanging out in a country, gathering intel? They come in, shoot stuff, get the hell out. 7. Again, source please. Idle speculation by websites on what kind of breed it might be doesn't count. 8. Wow. NSA is involved in SIGINT? I'm shocked - shocked, I tell you.
You haven't given a single example of a time when either something previously unknown or something that is still operationally relevant has been given away.
And sometimes, those requests are denied for a good reason. This is one of them. As others pointed out, the benefit of releasing them is exactly zero. Tinfoil hatters will still cook up a hoax. Besides, Al Quaeda confirmed bin laden is dead.
What would the pictures tell you that you don't already know? That he was killed by three bullets, instead of two? That the bullets used were NATO spec, not US MIL spec? That he prefers his clothes in hot pink? That he bleeds red?
I still don't understand why everyone wants to see the pictures. No, "Because I want to" is not a good reason.
Let me ask you something: in the absence of the FCC, what would have been different? There would not even have been a review of the merger. Conservatives seem to forget the reasons why regulation exists in the first place. I think they should spend some time talking to thee grandparents working in coal mining towns, complete with script and company housing. Fun times.
Why is Apple able to dictate the wholesale price of books to retailers other than Apple?
Because Apple owns the hardware platform, the distribution network to access said hardware and has decided not to open everything up to anybody? In other words, Apple has developed its own walled garden. It is charging access to said walled garden. What's so shocking about Apple changing the terms of entry into said walled garden? In the words of a wise old man: "Pray I don't alter it any further".
Newsflash for developers: if you want maximum access to a worldwide audience, develop your own internet presence and your own internet distribution channel. Yes, it's expensive. The alternative has the potential to be much more expensive.
What China REALLY needs to do is let yuan appreciate, let the market set the interest rate and the exchange rate, and China will see incredible rise in standard of living for its people and the prices for commodities will go down in yuan.
Yes, I'm sure those Keyenesian fanbois in the Chinese government are completely ignorant of what the impact of a strong yuan would be. Why don't you tell them? I'm sure they'd fete you as a hero on the level of Mao and Sun-Tzu. How does it feel to be that superior to the rest of the world?
Oh, and how is Switzerland, your favorite political and social utopia faring on the production side of things? Last time I checked, they produced alpine milk, watches, snow and bank secrets. Yep, economic powerhouse right there.
As I said before, the only thing that scares me about your opinions is how many people agree with it.
There's a reason no one else is quoting you. The only reason corporations do not have guns or throw you in prison is because the government has a monopoly on that. As soon as the government abdicates its monopoly on that, corporations will have that ability, and they will use it. And then, you will finally discover for your own what failed states have discovered a long time ago: government sucks, but lack of governments suck even more.
Furthermore, what's the difference between a police officer pointing a gun at you and throwing you in jail because you stole some CDs, and a police officer pointing a gun at you and throwing you in jail because of a law that the corporation running the state jail drafted put through the legislature through bribery - sorry, I meant campaign contributions? For you, there is no difference. Chew on that.
As always, you and every libertarian out there is dead wrong on this. Comcast and Cox are natural monopolies because the hard part isn't pulling fiber into your home, it is building it out into a worldwide network - or at least building it out so that it can tap into a worldwide network. That little fiber in your house needs to be running to some central hub, where it is connected to a million other little fibers. The hubs and lines have to all be bought, built and maintained. Personnel needs health care, a compensation plan; contracts need to be written by legal and sold by sales teams - and suddenly you're looking at a multi-billion dollar affair to get a network off the ground that doesn't rely on CLEC laws and does more than string a neighborhood bbs system together.
Do you have about 20 billion dollars lying around? Didn't think so. The natural telecom monopoly has nothing to do with space, and all to do with capital. I really wish you people would stop voting. Your ignorance is killing the Internet.
Not quite. Truck have certain job requirements that make it impossible to use a Yaris. However, making the choice that you want the gas guzzler to transport you and your groceries around instead of the Yaris does mean that you accept gas as a significant part of your motoring cost. You knew what you were getting yourself into, and need to live with your choice instead of forcing me to subsidize your lifestyle.
Hey, I like Switzerland too. One of my favorite places in the world. Government is a bit distrusting of the outside world, but people are nice. Oh wait, did I say it had a government? Surely from all your comments that government kills everything it touches, Switzerland can't possibly be any good place to live. I mean, it has an official Chronometer agency. Surely that means that all swiss chronometers are the dregs of the watch world? Or the fact that there's a motorway tax designed to fund roadways means that there are nothing but suburbs and everyone drives 2 hours to work? And are you sure you don't resent the government telling you what kind of tires to equip when? And that's just government interference I can quote from the top of my head.
The fact that Switzerland is less idiotic about its laws than the US has nothing to do with the amount of government in play and all to do with what citizens consider important when voting for politicians.
And in case you haven't noticed: your message is what makes it impossible to take you seriously. Man. Are you sure you mentioned to your neighbors what you think is the ideal government? They might want to have a word with you.
Really? You're living in Somalia? Maybe one of Afghanistan's/Pakistan's tribal areas? Oh, I know, I know - Antarctica? Because outside of those, there's plenty of government to go around. Even Haiti has more government now than Somalia has had in the last 20 years. You're not? Didn't think so.
I have noticed though that you haven't moved there. Or to any other of your social utopias. I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that they're utter shit holes with life expectancies that make the dark ages look advanced.
Slashdot Mirror
Just a little hint: never read English newspaper about French politics, or vice versa. There's still enough animosity floating around that you can't get straight answers from one about the other. One notable exception might be the Economist.
it simply states the company loses more sales to customers of used games than it loses to pirates
If you don't understand what's wrong with this statement, you will never understand what danger lies ahead for ever being able to own anything that is covered by copyright.
but used gamers would have bought the game new without the used option, hence costing the company money
If you don't understand what's wrong with this statement (hint: there are two things wrong with it), you will never understand exactly how much control corporations are asking for.
It's also quite possible that you're too young to have followed Napster very closely, and how its end started. In which case - be quiet, adults are talking.
Yeah. I said it. Fuck off. Let me repeat something I've said multiple times already: You are not entitled to my money. You sold it once, you got paid what you asked for; now shut the fuck up. Think that copy is worth more? Then ask for more when you sell it. Think you're not getting your fair share? Who the hell are you to determine what your fair share is? This isn't a free market that you're after, that's nothing but "Give me money because I said so" highway robbery.
At least the cat's out of the bag now. The problem that creative types (music, film, software) have with piracy has actually nothing to do with whether something illegal is taking place around the fruit of their sweat and blood. It has everything to do with them feeling that they're not making as much money as they think they could. It's a pure money-grab, nothing else. The only difference between the people who complain that the second-hand market is ruining them and basic robbery is that the first group hires government agents to do their bidding. The second group has at least the decency to do their own dirty work.
To that, I say Fuck You. Don't like it? Fuck you, with a chainsaw.
Peter Molyneux, I have great respect for you. You created Populous, which by itself gives you a near eternal free pass to be a dick. But any interest I have in Fable III will now be satisfied by buying it second hand. I might even write you an email, showing you my original copy, the second hand sticker on it, and a big middle-finger across it. Yeah, I know, you didn't offer up these sentiments. That was one of your underlings. Then get your underlings under control. The same goes for every other entitled asshole who feels that just because they made something pretty, they deserve to be paid in perpetuity anytime someone looks at their work, or creates something that vaguely resembles it.
And just in case anyone missed my point: Fuck you. I'm going to the flea-market.
Non-liberals don't have the same liberal biased reality
I see what your problem is: you don't understand what "reality" is, what the word "reality" means, and how facts are different from opinions. I'm not really surprised; you're not really alone in that error.
Nothing will happen because, for all its flaws, we designed the internet to survive government attempts to control it.
But we didn't design it to survive corporate attempts to control it. And that's where it will fall apart.
Precisely. The hall mark of a good troll is that the poster hits many of the arguments that make people jump, with just enough hints to indicate that it isn't an authentic nutter.
A classic troll. Well done.
Overthrowing a strongly pro-American regime? Wow, you really don't know Sarkozy or the French very much. He's strongly pro-American only in the context of French foreign politics since de Gaulle, who was almost obsessed with throwing a wrench into American plans in Europe. Sarkozy likes America, but he also likes rich friends who host him during his vacations. The two go hand in hand for him.
As for DSK, he's apparently had a history of treating women in a less than gentlemanly fashion. The reason that DSK is the Socialists' best hope is because the others are intellectual lightweights (Segolene Royal, ugh) with no achievements to show for from a political perspective.
Yes, obviously, there's the Ministry of Truth aspect to it. However, when I want to find out what the real deal is about the latest flu pandemic, you know where I go? cdc.gov. If I want to find out what the story is around the latest federal budget numbers, I go to cbo.gov. If I want raw country data, I go to cia.gov.
There are already plenty of times where some numbers geeks are holed up in a government office, crunching numbers and nothing but numbers. Is there a risk of political influencing? Sure is. You just have to look at FEMA for one of the most egregious examples of political horse trading. But you can set up an organization in such a way as to minimize political influence.
There are really three areas where I would like to see an official government agency providing a central information clearinghouse: .gov style.
* a history of political events (who said what, where and when)
* a history of detailed public office budgets (down to who makes how much)
* a general list of current hoaxes and misinformation. Think of it as Snopes done
Yes, all of that would obviously be done from the perspective of the government, and with associated biases and perspectives. But it would provide an easy place to get that kind of information, rather than having to trawl through countless soundbites presented by various other organizations.
Would it exacerbate the problem, or merely hide it? Discarding information that contradicts currently held beliefs is natural enough that most people aren't aware of it, even without personalized search algorithms. I think the bigger issue is the ready availability of like-minded communities that will reinforce your beliefes, no matter how outrageous and outlandish they are.
To suggest that soft-core porn comics of idealized boys going at it for the entertainment of girls is some sort of test raid on something like classical literature is just silly.
No, it's a test raid on things that the majority doesn't care about. The problem occurs when the test raids expand to things that you care about, and you realize that there's nothing left to defend.
1. No shit. All breaks start with following people around.
2. Ya think?????
3. That wasn't released by the White House. That was picked up by looking at pictures coming from third parties.
4. Umm. ya think they use the latest available toys? FYI, kids on the street in Baghdad thought that the sunglasses of army grunts where "hyper-spectral imagers".
5. What difference does that make? Just adds flavor.
6. Source please. Unless you think publicly available info about where they're stationed is the same as giving away identities. Not to mention - so? It's not like they're hanging out in a country, gathering intel? They come in, shoot stuff, get the hell out.
7. Again, source please. Idle speculation by websites on what kind of breed it might be doesn't count.
8. Wow. NSA is involved in SIGINT? I'm shocked - shocked, I tell you.
You haven't given a single example of a time when either something previously unknown or something that is still operationally relevant has been given away.
And sometimes, those requests are denied for a good reason. This is one of them. As others pointed out, the benefit of releasing them is exactly zero. Tinfoil hatters will still cook up a hoax. Besides, Al Quaeda confirmed bin laden is dead.
What would the pictures tell you that you don't already know? That he was killed by three bullets, instead of two? That the bullets used were NATO spec, not US MIL spec? That he prefers his clothes in hot pink? That he bleeds red?
I still don't understand why everyone wants to see the pictures. No, "Because I want to" is not a good reason.
Let me ask you something: in the absence of the FCC, what would have been different? There would not even have been a review of the merger. Conservatives seem to forget the reasons why regulation exists in the first place. I think they should spend some time talking to thee grandparents working in coal mining towns, complete with script and company housing. Fun times.
Interesting proposition. Got a source for that?
Why is Apple able to dictate the wholesale price of books to retailers other than Apple?
Because Apple owns the hardware platform, the distribution network to access said hardware and has decided not to open everything up to anybody? In other words, Apple has developed its own walled garden. It is charging access to said walled garden. What's so shocking about Apple changing the terms of entry into said walled garden? In the words of a wise old man: "Pray I don't alter it any further".
Newsflash for developers: if you want maximum access to a worldwide audience, develop your own internet presence and your own internet distribution channel. Yes, it's expensive. The alternative has the potential to be much more expensive.
What China REALLY needs to do is let yuan appreciate, let the market set the interest rate and the exchange rate, and China will see incredible rise in standard of living for its people and the prices for commodities will go down in yuan.
Yes, I'm sure those Keyenesian fanbois in the Chinese government are completely ignorant of what the impact of a strong yuan would be. Why don't you tell them? I'm sure they'd fete you as a hero on the level of Mao and Sun-Tzu. How does it feel to be that superior to the rest of the world?
Oh, and how is Switzerland, your favorite political and social utopia faring on the production side of things? Last time I checked, they produced alpine milk, watches, snow and bank secrets. Yep, economic powerhouse right there.
As I said before, the only thing that scares me about your opinions is how many people agree with it.
There's a reason no one else is quoting you. The only reason corporations do not have guns or throw you in prison is because the government has a monopoly on that. As soon as the government abdicates its monopoly on that, corporations will have that ability, and they will use it. And then, you will finally discover for your own what failed states have discovered a long time ago: government sucks, but lack of governments suck even more.
Furthermore, what's the difference between a police officer pointing a gun at you and throwing you in jail because you stole some CDs, and a police officer pointing a gun at you and throwing you in jail because of a law that the corporation running the state jail drafted put through the legislature through bribery - sorry, I meant campaign contributions? For you, there is no difference. Chew on that.
As always, you and every libertarian out there is dead wrong on this. Comcast and Cox are natural monopolies because the hard part isn't pulling fiber into your home, it is building it out into a worldwide network - or at least building it out so that it can tap into a worldwide network. That little fiber in your house needs to be running to some central hub, where it is connected to a million other little fibers. The hubs and lines have to all be bought, built and maintained. Personnel needs health care, a compensation plan; contracts need to be written by legal and sold by sales teams - and suddenly you're looking at a multi-billion dollar affair to get a network off the ground that doesn't rely on CLEC laws and does more than string a neighborhood bbs system together.
Do you have about 20 billion dollars lying around? Didn't think so. The natural telecom monopoly has nothing to do with space, and all to do with capital. I really wish you people would stop voting. Your ignorance is killing the Internet.
Not quite. Truck have certain job requirements that make it impossible to use a Yaris. However, making the choice that you want the gas guzzler to transport you and your groceries around instead of the Yaris does mean that you accept gas as a significant part of your motoring cost. You knew what you were getting yourself into, and need to live with your choice instead of forcing me to subsidize your lifestyle.
Hey, I like Switzerland too. One of my favorite places in the world. Government is a bit distrusting of the outside world, but people are nice. Oh wait, did I say it had a government? Surely from all your comments that government kills everything it touches, Switzerland can't possibly be any good place to live. I mean, it has an official Chronometer agency. Surely that means that all swiss chronometers are the dregs of the watch world? Or the fact that there's a motorway tax designed to fund roadways means that there are nothing but suburbs and everyone drives 2 hours to work? And are you sure you don't resent the government telling you what kind of tires to equip when? And that's just government interference I can quote from the top of my head.
The fact that Switzerland is less idiotic about its laws than the US has nothing to do with the amount of government in play and all to do with what citizens consider important when voting for politicians.
And in case you haven't noticed: your message is what makes it impossible to take you seriously. Man. Are you sure you mentioned to your neighbors what you think is the ideal government? They might want to have a word with you.
Switzerland? That's your no-government utopia? ROFL. It's really hard to take you seriously when you're so fricking delusional.
Really? You're living in Somalia? Maybe one of Afghanistan's/Pakistan's tribal areas? Oh, I know, I know - Antarctica? Because outside of those, there's plenty of government to go around. Even Haiti has more government now than Somalia has had in the last 20 years. You're not? Didn't think so.
I have noticed though that you haven't moved there. Or to any other of your social utopias. I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that they're utter shit holes with life expectancies that make the dark ages look advanced.
Then you haven't played Chu-Chu Rocket. Though I do admit that at least one Civilization entry should be there somewhere...