Much of the piracy that game publishers want to prevent is during the initial release. Piracy is less of a concern during the long tail. As such, publishers are starting to make initial releases with restrictive DRM to maximize on the initial burst of interest, then remove the DRM after the buzz has died down. That lets them generate more interest for being consumer friendly, reduces support costs, and additionally opens up new markets. They're getting the benefits of DRM while sidestepping the costs.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting
Techdirt doesn't hold comments for moderation based on content, and doesn't try to silence people. The site does, however, try to promote honest discourse, and one of the things it tries to prevent is sock-puppet posting. Making multiple posts in the same thread with different email addresses will usually trigger manual review, which can take some time. Using proxies to attempt to get around that certainly wouldn't help. Just be patient, and eventually someone will get around to reviewing the posts, and in most cases they'll be approved.
Note, though, that the techdirt community has an unfortunate tendency to abuse the report comment feature to hide comments they disagree with. That's unrelated to the site staff, though, and is entirely done by the users.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting
People 35+ don't really need ID to buy alcohol/tobacco, not a whole lot of people actually own guns, there are plenty of people without bank accounts, you don't need an ID to file taxes, and school-age individuals can't vote...
Several people behind some of the state voter ID laws have themselves admitted that the reason they were pursuing those laws was to suppress likely Democratic voters. If you really think these politicians care one whit for "protecting society", I've got a bridge to sell you.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting
Those behind the various pushes for voter ID laws are not racist. (Well, probably. At least, there's no correlation there.) They are, however, purposefully attempting to make it harder for minorities to vote. This has been well documented. Now, they're not doing so because they hate said minorities and want to silence them, they're doing so because those groups tend to vote Democrat. This is politics, pure and simple.
It really is. What he reads into other people says more about how he views the world than anything else. "Your leadership", "you followers"... Particular amusing given that I'm an independent that dislikes the very idea of political parties.
Keep living in your fantasy world. Going out in a blaze of glory doesn't help anyone. Rational people know when to compromise, even if it means swallowing your pride. If the democratic party had split over Bernie/Hillary, Trump would have waltzed into the presidency without breaking a sweat. And, before you start on about Trump winning regardless, well, hindsight is 20/20, and it was a close race, as indicated by the popular vote. Trump won several key states by a hair. Bernie made the best choice he could have made at the time.
Trump appealed to those dissatisfied with our government, and that's a large group of people. Bernie also appealed to that segment, while Hillary represented everything they hated. I'm not saying Bernie would have pulled that segment entirely from Trump, given the manufactured fear attached to "socialism" (despite the fact that if Bernie wanted to get anything done he'd need to lean moderate, so worrying about him turning America into a socialist republic was completely unwarranted.) He would have pulled some of that segment away from Trump, though, and for the most part the other voting blocks would have voted as they did, which might have made all the difference.
Still, there's no use worrying about what might have been. We'll just have to deal with Trump. He won't be as bad as the fearmongering would have us believe, but he'll move in the wrong direction on several topics I care about, including this one.
No, he's saying that there's no proof that it affects opinions, so people should stop acting like there's proof that it affects opinions. It's a simple concept, really.
I get that, but it's still disrespectful to the troops. They didn't choose to get involved in the messes in Afghanistan/Iraq. They serve as directed, and it's not their fault how they were directed. Even many vets feel that Iraq, in particular, was bungled mess, but that's no reason to be dismissive of their personal sacrifices.
Following orders under a failure of leadership is one of the hardest things that can be asked of soldiers, but it is important. We can't have the entire military deserting because they disagree with the leadership.
Like I said, if you want to criticize the civilian leaders involved, please, be my guest. Just don't belittle the sacrifices made by those who bore more consequences from those decisions than anyone else in this country.
What are you talking about? He's a vet with PTSD. You don't get PTSD without trauma (hint: it's in the name), and trauma implies danger. Doesn't fucking matter whether we were at war at the time, or whether or not military action was the ideal course of action. He was serving his country, and his country ordered him into danger. Ergo, he risked his life for his country.
If you want to criticize the elected officials involved in the "war on terror", I'm right there with you, but don't be dismissive of his or other vets' sacrifices. It's just disrespectful.
Ehhh... The one about the second ammendment is just wild hypothetical boasting, with the intent of making a political statement. The other one is actually the more concerning of the two, but it's still clearly someone venting anger through violent fantasies. Neither statement is a direct threat, and they shouldn't be treated as such. Both of those statements are, of course, quite offensive and divisive, but since when was that grounds to put someone through a "voluntary" psych eval?
Why don't you blame the ISP used to access the information while you're at it, or the manufacturer of the device used, or hell, blame Pope Gregory XIII for the calendar being used to mark age, because that makes exactly as much sense as what you just said.
I dunno, maybe the cable companies are just a branch of the Ur-Quan, and by refusing to be their thralls we pissed them off and they've locked Earth behind a shield.
On the post: What The US Intelligence 'Russia Hacked Our Election' Report Could Have Said... But Didn't
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Smoke Screen detected
I think I see the problem, here. There's no such thing.
On the post: What The US Intelligence 'Russia Hacked Our Election' Report Could Have Said... But Didn't
Re: Re: Re: Smoke Screen detected
"Your Honor, he left his front door unlocked! It would have been a crime not to take everything that wasn't nailed down!"
"Excellent point, case dismissed!"
On the post: Snowden's 'Proper Channel' For Whistleblowing Being Booted From The NSA For Retaliating Against A Whistleblower
Re: Re: Re: Now Obama is spouting off about the election being hacked
Well, that went over your head.
On the post: Game Developer Updates Game To Remove Denuvo DRM As Fans Cheer
It served its purpose.
On the post: Somehow Everyone Comes Out Looking Terrible In The Effort For Election Recounts
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting
Techdirt doesn't hold comments for moderation based on content, and doesn't try to silence people. The site does, however, try to promote honest discourse, and one of the things it tries to prevent is sock-puppet posting. Making multiple posts in the same thread with different email addresses will usually trigger manual review, which can take some time. Using proxies to attempt to get around that certainly wouldn't help. Just be patient, and eventually someone will get around to reviewing the posts, and in most cases they'll be approved.
Note, though, that the techdirt community has an unfortunate tendency to abuse the report comment feature to hide comments they disagree with. That's unrelated to the site staff, though, and is entirely done by the users.
On the post: Somehow Everyone Comes Out Looking Terrible In The Effort For Election Recounts
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting
Several people behind some of the state voter ID laws have themselves admitted that the reason they were pursuing those laws was to suppress likely Democratic voters. If you really think these politicians care one whit for "protecting society", I've got a bridge to sell you.
On the post: Somehow Everyone Comes Out Looking Terrible In The Effort For Election Recounts
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting
On the post: Trump Formally Picks Two Net Neutrality Opponents To Head FCC Transition
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Trump Formally Picks Two Net Neutrality Opponents To Head FCC Transition
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Trump appealed to those dissatisfied with our government, and that's a large group of people. Bernie also appealed to that segment, while Hillary represented everything they hated. I'm not saying Bernie would have pulled that segment entirely from Trump, given the manufactured fear attached to "socialism" (despite the fact that if Bernie wanted to get anything done he'd need to lean moderate, so worrying about him turning America into a socialist republic was completely unwarranted.) He would have pulled some of that segment away from Trump, though, and for the most part the other voting blocks would have voted as they did, which might have made all the difference.
Still, there's no use worrying about what might have been. We'll just have to deal with Trump. He won't be as bad as the fearmongering would have us believe, but he'll move in the wrong direction on several topics I care about, including this one.
On the post: Yes, There's Lots Of Fake News On Facebook, But Is It Really Changing Anyone's Mind?
Re:
On the post: Appeals Court To Cops: If You 'Don't Have Time' For 'Constitutional Bullshit,' You Don't Get Immunity
Re: Re: Re:
Following orders under a failure of leadership is one of the hardest things that can be asked of soldiers, but it is important. We can't have the entire military deserting because they disagree with the leadership.
Like I said, if you want to criticize the civilian leaders involved, please, be my guest. Just don't belittle the sacrifices made by those who bore more consequences from those decisions than anyone else in this country.
On the post: Appeals Court To Cops: If You 'Don't Have Time' For 'Constitutional Bullshit,' You Don't Get Immunity
Re:
If you want to criticize the elected officials involved in the "war on terror", I'm right there with you, but don't be dismissive of his or other vets' sacrifices. It's just disrespectful.
On the post: Rutgers Lecturer Forcibly Sent For Psych Evaluation By NYPD For Some Tweets About The Election
Re: Re:
On the post: Appeals Court To Cops: If You 'Don't Have Time' For 'Constitutional Bullshit,' You Don't Get Immunity
Disturbing
On the post: VP Elect Mike Pence Goes To Court To Keep His Emails Secret
Re:
On the post: IMDb Sues The State Of California Over New 'Ageism' Law
Re:
On the post: The Senate Summoned The Wrong Time Warner To Talk About AT&T Merger
Re: Re:
On the post: The Senate Summoned The Wrong Time Warner To Talk About AT&T Merger
Re:
On the post: Why Is North Dakota Arresting Journalists For Doing Journalism?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: MPAA Applauds Derailment of FCC Cable Box Competition Plan Because, Uh, Jobs!
Re:
Next >>