Yes, but sadly not the person to whom you're replying.
What's wrong with wanting to buy a form of entertainment and not be restricted to a specific device? MP3s don't need to be re-purchased to work on your iPod, your mobile phone, your PC, your in-home streaming speakers. A film in MP4 doesn't need to be re-purchased to work on your TV, your other TV, the TV in your kitchen, your tablet and your PC.
Why should games be locked to a single device? Why shouldn't a game that runs on multiple OSes be bought and run on multiple OSes?
Shit, many of the games I own on Steam run on Windows or Linux or OSX, and I sure as shit didn't buy three copies of them. Is adding in Android or a PS4 really so much to ask?
Aside from the comedy of calling voice chat 'cheating', just because certain techniques are available doesn't mean that players use them.
In decades of online gaming I've seen very few actual cheats. I've admittedly seen a fair few people that were trying to cheat, but usually they end up being easy prey to the people that recognise that some form of automated play is occurring and exploit the weaknesses in the automation.
Nothing quite like tricking a World of Tanks bot into shooting its team mates, for instance.
44% of 25-44 year olds voted to leave. That isn't even middle aged, that's younger voters. So classing leavers as 'elderly' discounts sizeable numbers of non-elderly people.
The breakdown by higher education is heavily tilted - but doesn't factor out the massive discrepancy in educational attainment changes over the years. Somewhere around 50% of people under 30 have a degree, somewhere around 20% of people over 40 do. So you're double-counting the age bias twice, quite apart from again ignoring a lot of educated leave voters.
The poor? That source doesn't really answer this - it looks at median income by area, which is both hard to interpret but also doesn't tell us how voting happened within that area. Lets try another source: http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2...
This one shows that 43% of voters in the AB demographic (i.e. the wealthier ones) voted to leave. Without those 1.6 million very much not poor voters the referendum result would have switched.
More relevantly, 43% shows that although the poor were more likely to vote to leave, the well off were far from certain to vote to remain.
Sorry mate, if you actually look at the demographic breakdown of the vote, you'll find the statement "masses of elderly or uneducated or poor English people" to be mostly correct.
I had looked at the demographics, and shared some of them here with you now, and hopefully you can now understand why I stated
I think you're also ignoring the sizeable educated, young and/or well off people that voted to leave as well.
There are sizeable numbers of people that aren't old, aren't poor, aren't uneducated, that wanted to leave. My anecdote doesn't have to be significant, the raw numbers are.
Which lies? The ones about a collapse in the economy, a house price crash, people being £4300/year worse off, massive layoffs, a market crash or the absolutely daddy, world war 3?
Or the really big ones: Political union with Europe is good for the country, unfettered immigration is needed, people that want to leave the EU are just racists?
Yeah, plenty of lies in the second quarter of the year.
No, it does not suggest that at all. It suggests that there is currently a 15 year limit following which the three million Brits abroad would lose their right to vote.
It does at no point say that they've already hit that limit. They haven't.
And yes, you can easily go from three to four million if you start including people that have never lived in Britain, which that Wikipedia page does.
Next you'll be telling me it's undemocratic that the population of Hong Kong didn't get to vote on EU membership.
masses of elderly or uneducated or poor English people
While they also have a valid say in how the country is run, I think you're also ignoring the sizeable educated, young and/or well off people that voted to leave as well.
Most of my friends voted 'leave' and aren't poor, uneducated or elderly. And then there's the Welsh.
Keep throwing slurs and labels around though, you clearly feel better for it.
Congratulations on linking an article that tells us that there are "more than three million Britons living overseas".
At no point in that article does it tell us how many had been living overseas for more than 15 years at the time of the referendum, and so couldn't vote.
Even worse was the fact that 2 million British citizens living abroad were excluded from the vote and many of them were enjoying the benefits of EU membership and so extremely likely to vote for remain. So the first vote was not even democratic since it excluded many of the citizens who are most directly affected by the results of the decision and since the victory margin was only 1.4 million this could easily have reversed the decision.
Not this fucking lie again. I gave you evidence two fucking months ago that there were 700,000 British citizens living abroad that were unable to vote. Under a fucking million, well under the margin by which the country voted to leave the EU.
Unless you have some magical source of information that nobody has been able to find? You sure as shit didn't find one last time.
In the meantime, yes, the vote was democratic. And please stop regurgitating this tired disproven lie.
There will be smoke and more smoke signaling Brexit. Smoke, but no fire
Except in the city centres, during the riots.
The referendum was not binding after all. It was a sop to the right that backfired.
However the result of the referendum demonstrated the strength of feeling amongst the British people. It would be a foolish government that ignored that.
So far Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP, the Welsh Nats and the Greens have all declared their core constituents to be 'wrong'. The political landscape has changed and it's heading rapidly towards a single party government.
I miss the days Slashdot used to only have people commenting who knew what they were talking about rather than just knowing the surface of what was going on.
That's ironic, given your comment..
They want to leave the EU in order to avoid dealing with the human rights court when passing the snoopers charter and persecuting whistleblowers
If nothing else, it tells me that I may as well stop fretting about the price and just buy FM17: its predecessors are some of my most played games, I'll get far better value for money than almost anything else I can buy for more than a quid.
Hmm, no. I started using Steam because games I bought wouldn't run without it.
HL2: Steam exclusive. That alone drew a large audience.
Me, it was Empire:Total War. Yep, no Steam until 2009, but then it started getting difficult to find games that didn't have "Requires Steam".
So yeah, Valve did use exclusives to help grow the platform. It's only the last three years or so that services like GOG have started to challenge the 'Must have Steam' PC gaming hegemony.
Well, this should unblock around 400 of my videos in Germany.
Instead of me making zero money by not having them views in Germany, I'll now make zero money by them being viewed in Germany.
GEMA will make around $0.07 a year by monetising my IP.
It's a fucked up system made worse by the absolute inability to avoid it. You can't legally share videos online (in the UK, but sounds like Germany is the same) if they have music in the background. There's no way for 'normal' people to tell what that music is, whether it's copyrighted, who owns the copyright or indeed negotiate an online distribution agreement, particularly one that aligns to the income generated by the video: across 650 videos on Youtube I could monetise them for around $6/year. Good luck getting 700 musicians and their representatives to licence me for all that music for $6/year.
It's completely fucked up. Either I break the law, I post on Youtube and the media cartels exploit my IP, or I don't share any of the video I capture.
I can't see the benefits anywhere there for consumers, society or (selfishly) me.
What's stifling? Someone's stopping you registering trumpisacunt.com? hillaryouslycorrupt.net? stopthisfuckingelectionbeforewenukerussia.org?
Oh no, you mean you can't lazily browse to trumpsucks.com and go 'yeah, Trump, you really suck'? You're so stifled. Would you like me to find you a counsellor?
The thing is, now that they've shown that they can't be trusted to use this data objectively without compromising individuals or their privacy, I hope to hell the ISPs cut them off from this information source.
Given that three different whois servers I've checked all give consistent information that corresponds exactly, maybe you should use a Russian server because yours is clearly fucking broken.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but sadly not the person to whom you're replying.
What's wrong with wanting to buy a form of entertainment and not be restricted to a specific device? MP3s don't need to be re-purchased to work on your iPod, your mobile phone, your PC, your in-home streaming speakers. A film in MP4 doesn't need to be re-purchased to work on your TV, your other TV, the TV in your kitchen, your tablet and your PC.
Why should games be locked to a single device? Why shouldn't a game that runs on multiple OSes be bought and run on multiple OSes?
Shit, many of the games I own on Steam run on Windows or Linux or OSX, and I sure as shit didn't buy three copies of them. Is adding in Android or a PS4 really so much to ask?
Aside from the comedy of calling voice chat 'cheating', just because certain techniques are available doesn't mean that players use them.
In decades of online gaming I've seen very few actual cheats. I've admittedly seen a fair few people that were trying to cheat, but usually they end up being easy prey to the people that recognise that some form of automated play is occurring and exploit the weaknesses in the automation.
Nothing quite like tricking a World of Tanks bot into shooting its team mates, for instance.
the end of oil as we know it is less than 20 years away
That was true when I was at school in 1980 and learned the word conservation.
Fucking bullshit back then too.
Well, picking just one source.. http://www.newstatesman.com/po...
44% of 25-44 year olds voted to leave. That isn't even middle aged, that's younger voters. So classing leavers as 'elderly' discounts sizeable numbers of non-elderly people.
The breakdown by higher education is heavily tilted - but doesn't factor out the massive discrepancy in educational attainment changes over the years. Somewhere around 50% of people under 30 have a degree, somewhere around 20% of people over 40 do. So you're double-counting the age bias twice, quite apart from again ignoring a lot of educated leave voters.
The poor? That source doesn't really answer this - it looks at median income by area, which is both hard to interpret but also doesn't tell us how voting happened within that area. Lets try another source: http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2...
This one shows that 43% of voters in the AB demographic (i.e. the wealthier ones) voted to leave. Without those 1.6 million very much not poor voters the referendum result would have switched.
More relevantly, 43% shows that although the poor were more likely to vote to leave, the well off were far from certain to vote to remain.
Sorry mate, if you actually look at the demographic breakdown of the vote, you'll find the statement "masses of elderly or uneducated or poor English people" to be mostly correct.
I had looked at the demographics, and shared some of them here with you now, and hopefully you can now understand why I stated
I think you're also ignoring the sizeable educated, young and/or well off people that voted to leave as well.
There are sizeable numbers of people that aren't old, aren't poor, aren't uneducated, that wanted to leave. My anecdote doesn't have to be significant, the raw numbers are.
I'm so sorry, I hadn't realised I was interacting with a bigoted blinkered racist.
I'll stop bothering you, there's clearly no point trying to use reason, logic or common sense here.
Which lies? The ones about a collapse in the economy, a house price crash, people being £4300/year worse off, massive layoffs, a market crash or the absolutely daddy, world war 3?
Or the really big ones: Political union with Europe is good for the country, unfettered immigration is needed, people that want to leave the EU are just racists?
Yeah, plenty of lies in the second quarter of the year.
Oh come on, you don't perceive a difference between a weak majority and complete domination of the Commons?
1997 demonstrated the damage a government with no control can wreak, I don't expect the Conservatives to be any better.
Curious that you'd think of Snow Crash ahead of Virtual Light. Although I guess the VL tech skipped the photons and went straight for the optic nerve.
No, it does not suggest that at all. It suggests that there is currently a 15 year limit following which the three million Brits abroad would lose their right to vote.
It does at no point say that they've already hit that limit. They haven't.
And yes, you can easily go from three to four million if you start including people that have never lived in Britain, which that Wikipedia page does.
Next you'll be telling me it's undemocratic that the population of Hong Kong didn't get to vote on EU membership.
There would be comedy if the Government appealed to the ECJ to be allowed to invoke Article 50 without a vote in parliament.
masses of elderly or uneducated or poor English people
While they also have a valid say in how the country is run, I think you're also ignoring the sizeable educated, young and/or well off people that voted to leave as well.
Most of my friends voted 'leave' and aren't poor, uneducated or elderly. And then there's the Welsh.
Keep throwing slurs and labels around though, you clearly feel better for it.
there is nowhere outside of London, according to the movies
..or the politicians, the newspapers, the civil service, the allocation of investments in civil infrastructure..
At least the BBC have acknowledged that Manchester exists now. Just the rest of the country to go.
Congratulations on linking an article that tells us that there are "more than three million Britons living overseas".
At no point in that article does it tell us how many had been living overseas for more than 15 years at the time of the referendum, and so couldn't vote.
Here's a hint: It was 700,000.
Even worse was the fact that 2 million British citizens living abroad were excluded from the vote and many of them were enjoying the benefits of EU membership and so extremely likely to vote for remain. So the first vote was not even democratic since it excluded many of the citizens who are most directly affected by the results of the decision and since the victory margin was only 1.4 million this could easily have reversed the decision.
Not this fucking lie again. I gave you evidence two fucking months ago that there were 700,000 British citizens living abroad that were unable to vote. Under a fucking million, well under the margin by which the country voted to leave the EU.
Unless you have some magical source of information that nobody has been able to find? You sure as shit didn't find one last time.
In the meantime, yes, the vote was democratic. And please stop regurgitating this tired disproven lie.
There will be smoke and more smoke signaling Brexit. Smoke, but no fire
Except in the city centres, during the riots.
The referendum was not binding after all. It was a sop to the right that backfired.
However the result of the referendum demonstrated the strength of feeling amongst the British people. It would be a foolish government that ignored that.
So far Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP, the Welsh Nats and the Greens have all declared their core constituents to be 'wrong'. The political landscape has changed and it's heading rapidly towards a single party government.
No. The British people have only ever once had the opportunity to vote on political union with Europe and they voted against it.
I miss the days Slashdot used to only have people commenting who knew what they were talking about rather than just knowing the surface of what was going on.
That's ironic, given your comment..
They want to leave the EU in order to avoid dealing with the human rights court when passing the snoopers charter and persecuting whistleblowers
Pretty much entirely fucking wrong.
I quite like that log.
If nothing else, it tells me that I may as well stop fretting about the price and just buy FM17: its predecessors are some of my most played games, I'll get far better value for money than almost anything else I can buy for more than a quid.
Rebuild it in Unity and it might not fit the size restriction.
That code was _tight_.
Hmm, no. I started using Steam because games I bought wouldn't run without it.
HL2: Steam exclusive. That alone drew a large audience.
Me, it was Empire:Total War. Yep, no Steam until 2009, but then it started getting difficult to find games that didn't have "Requires Steam".
So yeah, Valve did use exclusives to help grow the platform. It's only the last three years or so that services like GOG have started to challenge the 'Must have Steam' PC gaming hegemony.
Well, this should unblock around 400 of my videos in Germany.
Instead of me making zero money by not having them views in Germany, I'll now make zero money by them being viewed in Germany.
GEMA will make around $0.07 a year by monetising my IP.
It's a fucked up system made worse by the absolute inability to avoid it. You can't legally share videos online (in the UK, but sounds like Germany is the same) if they have music in the background. There's no way for 'normal' people to tell what that music is, whether it's copyrighted, who owns the copyright or indeed negotiate an online distribution agreement, particularly one that aligns to the income generated by the video: across 650 videos on Youtube I could monetise them for around $6/year. Good luck getting 700 musicians and their representatives to licence me for all that music for $6/year.
It's completely fucked up. Either I break the law, I post on Youtube and the media cartels exploit my IP, or I don't share any of the video I capture.
I can't see the benefits anywhere there for consumers, society or (selfishly) me.
What's stifling? Someone's stopping you registering trumpisacunt.com? hillaryouslycorrupt.net? stopthisfuckingelectionbeforewenukerussia.org?
Oh no, you mean you can't lazily browse to trumpsucks.com and go 'yeah, Trump, you really suck'? You're so stifled. Would you like me to find you a counsellor?
The thing is, now that they've shown that they can't be trusted to use this data objectively without compromising individuals or their privacy, I hope to hell the ISPs cut them off from this information source.
Given that three different whois servers I've checked all give consistent information that corresponds exactly, maybe you should use a Russian server because yours is clearly fucking broken.
Apparently the Lyft drivers can see photographs, so yes, they can see the skin tone of the proposed passenger.