The amount of hassle involved as a legitimate customer is a bit higher than anything Ubi or GfW will throw your way. Origin, UPlay and Games for Windows are clear indicators(to me at least) that I may have to count myself lucky if I can play the game at all.
That's why I basically only buy games that either come in humble bundles (or sometimes one of its many ripoffs) or on Steam/Desura after I'm sure the game doesn't have some kind of silly DRM like the ones you mentioned.
Yes, it means I can't play the newest versions of SimCity or Diablo or whatever, but judging from what I hear after releases of these games, neither can the people who actually bought them. So I still count myself ahead.
Personally, I prefer it when a developer gives me a choices between a free, ad-supported version, and a paid app. Sometimes, for whatever reason, they choose not to do this. (The original Angry Birds comes to mind, not sure about the rest. I believe I read they made a lot more money this way than the iOS version.)
I'm not saying it's morally right or wrong to deprive them of their income, only that in many cases, it's not just people wanting "free software and no advertising". Maybe they just want software.
All the ad blockers I know of (granted, I've not exactly researched the multitudes, so this may be wrong) require root access on your device.
Most people don't even know what it is, or if they do, don't want to go through with the process. Worst case is they rate the app poorly because it doesn't work.
Unless they have totally warped the English language (and spacetime)
I'm pretty sure that is the primary function of lawyers. Well, maybe not warping spacetime, but warping languages until it suits your purpose but not your opponents'.
Still, that is an interesting catch. Maybe some lawyer will pick up on it someday, although I would imagine the worst that would happen is a suit for false advertising, which nobody cares about as I understand it.
You own the small plastic disc, and the flimsy plastic box it comes in.
You don't own the content that happens to be encrypted on that disc though. You don't even own the fancy art on the packaging. You're simply granted a license (which comes with the aforementioned flimsy pieces of plastic) to watch it. They can, however, cancel that license at any time they want.
Well, it's not like Warhammer Fantasy was all that original, either. We had elves and orcs and trolls and dwarfs fighting eachother well before Games Workslop decided to overcharge for tiny pewter figures.
My assumption is that, back in the day when games were trying to squeeze every last ounce of CPU cycles from a machine, checking the clock added just too much overhead.
It likely a compromise between making the game playable today (and maybe not later) versus not being able to ship today. Also, I'd imagine that people just couldn't comprehend the improvements. Trying to explain an AMD Thunderbird to somebody stuffing registers on a 8086 would be like nailing jelly to a tree.
I've been running Steam in Arch and playing games natively with the OSS video-ati driver just fine. Granted, they're usually 2D or light 3D games; we're not talking Crysis 3 here.
Last I looked, FreeDOS couldn't slow down the environment to emulate old hardware. This is basically a requirement for many old games, and is the reason I use DosBox.
The worst idea ever was to make a bit equal a small "b", and a byte a capital B. brrrr.
Why? It always made sense to me. SI is largely base 10, so the difference between a lowercase letter and a uppercase letter is some kind of factor of 10. Yes, I know that is heavily generalized.
Meanwhile, you can think of computers operating in base 8 (aka, Octal). Here, the difference is a factor of 8.
On the other hand, people might upgrade their hardware more often if they could be assured their new hardware wouldn't come with Microsoft's latest abomination and a shit-ton of bloatware.
I highly doubt this. Most consumers still call their computer case the "CPU" and buy new computers when they don't have to because they don't realize Windows and their computer are different things. Basically, the average person looks at their computer like they would an advanced VCR.
The sad fact is, most people go out and buy new computers precisely because it has the newest version of Microsoft's abomination and all that bloatware which are marketed as features on the box and by the Best Buy droids. Computer manufactures know this, love it, and bank on it. It's how companies like Intel can get away with requiring a new goddamned socket every year (or less) and not have people storming their castle with pitchforks and torches. My parents don't care. Dell don't care either, because they're selling whole systems and not parts. Likewise, every time Microsoft come out with a new version of Windows, computer makers start seeing dollarsigns.
Especially when it's far cheaper to pay the "protection fee" than fighting it in court. Most people, even if innocent, don't have the resources to fight the RIAA/MPAA in court; they can drag it out a loooooooooong time.
If you are "proxying" connection, then you are downloading from user D1 and uploading to D2. It does not matter if you are not retaining that data, you are still copying stuff illegally. So in the end if content owners are unable to determine identity of actual downloaders, they can go for proxying users and hit them with exactly the same lawsuit.
Copying data from storage into RAM ISPs (all along the pipe from your house to the server) copying data into buffers for routing Defragging your hard drive, copying data from one sector to another
All of these examples are just as silly as what you claim is infringement.
You must be new here. Government and "Big Money" are pretty much the same thing now.
I'm not sure how one would provide a source for this, but it seems to me that most new laws nowadays are obviously there to protect powerful companies, instead of the common good of the people.
"True christians" believe in a Christ, Jesus, and in what he taught-- at least by the definition in use for the last 2000 years and as spelled out in the Bible.
Good try, but by including "and what he taught" in your definition, we're back to the same argument. Or do you prescribe to a literal interpretation?
Define "The Cloud". Who's to say your ISP doesn't store a copy of all emails received by you?
Same reason you don't save every piece of electronic crap your computer shits out on a daily basis.
Cost.
You're making the assumption it's costing them money and not turning them a profit.
For instance, Google uses your emails to make money. Read your eighteen-page legalese documents from your ISP lately? How about their "third party marketers" legalese? There has been a marked increase in companies aggregating such data in a way that "maintains privacy" but we all know how usually pans out, don't we? Also, you have no idea if the data is scrubbed of all personally identifiable information before it's stored in their database, or just before they sell it.
And even if you know your ISP isn't currently selling your info, there is no guarantee that they're not building a database of your emails so they can start doing it next year.
I mean, Elon Musk is Elon Musk, whatever Elon Musk does, or doesn't do, is his business - as long as it does not interfere with the life of others.
It's simply a journalistic method for introducing somebody to a new thing by comparing it to known objects. For example, using an orange as a comparative object when trying to describe what a grapefruit is.
Thank you for this, and (even more so) thank you for your previous work. I'm using my PS3 as a media center right now in part because of you, and I'm exceedingly grateful.
Given that nobody (except Iceland) is at 100% renewable energy, yes it does matter. Say you consume 100 TWh a year. Say 25 TWh of that comes from renewables, the rest from fossil fuels (ignore nuclear to keep this simple). Say petrol (gasoline) accounts for 10 TWh of your energy use. And say this process requires 2x as much energy as it creates in petrol.
If you create all your petrol using renewables to power this process, then you're reducing your fossil fuel consumption by 10 TWh, but increasing your renewable consumption by 20 TWh. However, you only have 25 TWh of installed renewables capacity. So the 20 TWh of renewables this process consumes displaces 20 TWh of other consumption which used to come from renewables. To make up for that shortfall, you have to burn 20 TWh more fossil fuels.
You might have a point, but it's entirely impossible to tell because the numbers are pulled directly from your ass. (No offense.)
You cannot pick and choose where your power comes from. If your renewables production is static and less than 100%, then nothing you do on the consumption side matters. Once you exceed that static amount of renewables production capacity, every new power drain you add comes entirely from fossil fuels.
I believe you are incorrect. Ask anybody who has successfully moved their house off the grid if they can pick and choose where their power comes from. Yes, if you have your big Air-to-Petrol plant hooked directly up to the grid, you can't choose. But there are plenty of other viable methods, and when you don't have a constant need for reliable power (like say a factory or even a house does) you can easily get away with a wind/solar farm powering your plant. This is even more true when you're in the business of converting excess energy into something transportable and easily stored.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I have a lock, but I honestly wouldn't give a shit if people could just copy my stuff without taking it from me.
Really? Thanks!
Scan all your financial and medical records and send them to me.
Yay for taking things grossly out of context! Privacy != copying a pair of sunglasses.
The amount of hassle involved as a legitimate customer is a bit higher than anything Ubi or GfW will throw your way. Origin, UPlay and Games for Windows are clear indicators(to me at least) that I may have to count myself lucky if I can play the game at all.
That's why I basically only buy games that either come in humble bundles (or sometimes one of its many ripoffs) or on Steam/Desura after I'm sure the game doesn't have some kind of silly DRM like the ones you mentioned.
Yes, it means I can't play the newest versions of SimCity or Diablo or whatever, but judging from what I hear after releases of these games, neither can the people who actually bought them. So I still count myself ahead.
Personally, I prefer it when a developer gives me a choices between a free, ad-supported version, and a paid app. Sometimes, for whatever reason, they choose not to do this. (The original Angry Birds comes to mind, not sure about the rest. I believe I read they made a lot more money this way than the iOS version.)
I'm not saying it's morally right or wrong to deprive them of their income, only that in many cases, it's not just people wanting "free software and no advertising". Maybe they just want software.
All the ad blockers I know of (granted, I've not exactly researched the multitudes, so this may be wrong) require root access on your device.
Most people don't even know what it is, or if they do, don't want to go through with the process. Worst case is they rate the app poorly because it doesn't work.
Unless they have totally warped the English language (and spacetime)
I'm pretty sure that is the primary function of lawyers. Well, maybe not warping spacetime, but warping languages until it suits your purpose but not your opponents'.
Still, that is an interesting catch. Maybe some lawyer will pick up on it someday, although I would imagine the worst that would happen is a suit for false advertising, which nobody cares about as I understand it.
You own the small plastic disc, and the flimsy plastic box it comes in.
You don't own the content that happens to be encrypted on that disc though. You don't even own the fancy art on the packaging. You're simply granted a license (which comes with the aforementioned flimsy pieces of plastic) to watch it. They can, however, cancel that license at any time they want.
I'm not sure what you're talking about; the article and the person you were replying to are both about Chromebooks, which are laptops, not tablets.
They have plenty of ports / expandable memory and are quite easy to install your own flavor of Linux on.
Well, it's not like Warhammer Fantasy was all that original, either. We had elves and orcs and trolls and dwarfs fighting eachother well before Games Workslop decided to overcharge for tiny pewter figures.
No, because quite frankly I don't want to give Games Workslop the free publicity.
My assumption is that, back in the day when games were trying to squeeze every last ounce of CPU cycles from a machine, checking the clock added just too much overhead.
It likely a compromise between making the game playable today (and maybe not later) versus not being able to ship today. Also, I'd imagine that people just couldn't comprehend the improvements. Trying to explain an AMD Thunderbird to somebody stuffing registers on a 8086 would be like nailing jelly to a tree.
It depends on what games you're talking about.
I've been running Steam in Arch and playing games natively with the OSS video-ati driver just fine. Granted, they're usually 2D or light 3D games; we're not talking Crysis 3 here.
Last I looked, FreeDOS couldn't slow down the environment to emulate old hardware. This is basically a requirement for many old games, and is the reason I use DosBox.
Meh, as an American, I've become desensitized to corruption. Yes, even more so than I have to violence.
Hearing that there is corruption in finance is like hearing water is wet.
The worst idea ever was to make a bit equal a small "b", and a byte a capital B. brrrr.
Why? It always made sense to me. SI is largely base 10, so the difference between a lowercase letter and a uppercase letter is some kind of factor of 10. Yes, I know that is heavily generalized.
Meanwhile, you can think of computers operating in base 8 (aka, Octal). Here, the difference is a factor of 8.
On the other hand, people might upgrade their hardware more often if they could be assured their new hardware wouldn't come with Microsoft's latest abomination and a shit-ton of bloatware.
I highly doubt this. Most consumers still call their computer case the "CPU" and buy new computers when they don't have to because they don't realize Windows and their computer are different things. Basically, the average person looks at their computer like they would an advanced VCR.
The sad fact is, most people go out and buy new computers precisely because it has the newest version of Microsoft's abomination and all that bloatware which are marketed as features on the box and by the Best Buy droids. Computer manufactures know this, love it, and bank on it. It's how companies like Intel can get away with requiring a new goddamned socket every year (or less) and not have people storming their castle with pitchforks and torches. My parents don't care. Dell don't care either, because they're selling whole systems and not parts. Likewise, every time Microsoft come out with a new version of Windows, computer makers start seeing dollarsigns.
Especially when it's far cheaper to pay the "protection fee" than fighting it in court. Most people, even if innocent, don't have the resources to fight the RIAA/MPAA in court; they can drag it out a loooooooooong time.
If you are "proxying" connection, then you are downloading from user D1 and uploading to D2. It does not matter if you are not retaining that data, you are still copying stuff illegally. So in the end if content owners are unable to determine identity of actual downloaders, they can go for proxying users and hit them with exactly the same lawsuit.
Copying data from storage into RAM
ISPs (all along the pipe from your house to the server) copying data into buffers for routing
Defragging your hard drive, copying data from one sector to another
All of these examples are just as silly as what you claim is infringement.
You must be new here. Government and "Big Money" are pretty much the same thing now.
I'm not sure how one would provide a source for this, but it seems to me that most new laws nowadays are obviously there to protect powerful companies, instead of the common good of the people.
What do all true Christians believe?
"True christians" believe in a Christ, Jesus, and in what he taught-- at least by the definition in use for the last 2000 years and as spelled out in the Bible.
Good try, but by including "and what he taught" in your definition, we're back to the same argument. Or do you prescribe to a literal interpretation?
Define "The Cloud". Who's to say your ISP doesn't store a copy of all emails received by you?
Same reason you don't save every piece of electronic crap your computer shits out on a daily basis.
Cost.
You're making the assumption it's costing them money and not turning them a profit.
For instance, Google uses your emails to make money. Read your eighteen-page legalese documents from your ISP lately? How about their "third party marketers" legalese? There has been a marked increase in companies aggregating such data in a way that "maintains privacy" but we all know how usually pans out, don't we? Also, you have no idea if the data is scrubbed of all personally identifiable information before it's stored in their database, or just before they sell it.
And even if you know your ISP isn't currently selling your info, there is no guarantee that they're not building a database of your emails so they can start doing it next year.
Do they have to be compared to others?
I mean, Elon Musk is Elon Musk, whatever Elon Musk does, or doesn't do, is his business - as long as it does not interfere with the life of others.
It's simply a journalistic method for introducing somebody to a new thing by comparing it to known objects. For example, using an orange as a comparative object when trying to describe what a grapefruit is.
Yes, but you are required to have a PSN account to do so. And if you can't upgrade your firmware, you can't be on PSN.
Thank you for this, and (even more so) thank you for your previous work. I'm using my PS3 as a media center right now in part because of you, and I'm exceedingly grateful.
Given that nobody (except Iceland) is at 100% renewable energy, yes it does matter. Say you consume 100 TWh a year. Say 25 TWh of that comes from renewables, the rest from fossil fuels (ignore nuclear to keep this simple). Say petrol (gasoline) accounts for 10 TWh of your energy use. And say this process requires 2x as much energy as it creates in petrol.
If you create all your petrol using renewables to power this process, then you're reducing your fossil fuel consumption by 10 TWh, but increasing your renewable consumption by 20 TWh. However, you only have 25 TWh of installed renewables capacity. So the 20 TWh of renewables this process consumes displaces 20 TWh of other consumption which used to come from renewables. To make up for that shortfall, you have to burn 20 TWh more fossil fuels.
You might have a point, but it's entirely impossible to tell because the numbers are pulled directly from your ass. (No offense.)
You cannot pick and choose where your power comes from. If your renewables production is static and less than 100%, then nothing you do on the consumption side matters. Once you exceed that static amount of renewables production capacity, every new power drain you add comes entirely from fossil fuels.
I believe you are incorrect. Ask anybody who has successfully moved their house off the grid if they can pick and choose where their power comes from. Yes, if you have your big Air-to-Petrol plant hooked directly up to the grid, you can't choose. But there are plenty of other viable methods, and when you don't have a constant need for reliable power (like say a factory or even a house does) you can easily get away with a wind/solar farm powering your plant. This is even more true when you're in the business of converting excess energy into something transportable and easily stored.
Rather cool excuse if it had worked though.
If only there was some way of verifying his story... like looking through the texting logs from his carrier.