Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh.... isn't this what you wanted?
You seem to be missing an important difference between legal systems
Oh, I am aware of the difference (just pointing out that Judge Wright isn't going to be much help to the French.) Eventually the French will come around. I'm happy they went as far as they did the last time...before that, it was the will of a King that determined whether you were guilty or not of a crime and he didn't have to be impartial. ;)
(Though seriously, are there actually DU bullets? I've only heard of it being used in shells fired from tanks - in which case it was the tank gunner.)
Vulcans spit out DU. However the rounds in those things are 20x102mm, which aren't necessarily what you'd find in a gun. They are usually mounted to helicopters and airplanes. I only know this because they talked about the use on Apache gunships. I am not aware of DU being used in personal weapons, and doubt they would because the rounds would be hazardous to the person using the weapon (you'd be amazed on how much gasses you breath in at a range with a normal weapon.) DU is also very heavy, and would add considerable weight to the weapon (more so then then lead that is currently used.)
I guess my version is an example of the metal gymnastics one would have to do to make the poll question make sense. Am I being blindly optimistic to hope a poll respondent would make a similar translation?
Heh... I like your version far better and would have not even hesitated in answering it truthfully. Guns are dangerous. Far more so then video games will ever be whether or not they are violent. I don't think anyone with training in and understanding of firearms would honestly disagree.
I wish there were more folks who would ask the question they wanted an answer on, not one that they can use to influence others. Art Guerrilla is dead on (as is Tim, though it was hard to see through the sarcasm)...the survey game is not about getting the answers, so much as influencing minds and determining illogical patterns based on bad input.
A computer with a violent gam loaded can't physically harm a 3 year old, and they would probaly get bored with it quickly. A cocked and loaded gun can. Especially when it looks like a toy.
I agree, but that isn't the question they asked, was it? I am arguing that this should have been the question they asked if they wanted a logical and well reasoned answer. They didn't. They chose the loaded question. What if the question asked the following: "What do you think is a bigger security threat in America: cameras or violent video games?" Would your answer change? Why?
Anyone who leaves a cocked and loaded gun where a child of any age can access it, should be locked away and never allowed to have a gun or children ever again. Period. Nobody is arguing against that here.
If a gun poses "little danger" then it you can't say it's not a threat. It is a weapon and as such comes with a certain amount of danger
Well, I guess the semantics weren't right on this one, good catch. I'd say that in 99.9% of the time, I'd be correct, but there is always the gun with a delicate trigger, that could go off with a change in air pressure or earth movement. However, as to whether that is a threat to me, or anyone else, depends on how close they are to the barrel of the gun.
I'd argue that a loaded gun sitting by itself is innately more dangerous than a video game sitting by itself.
And I'd agree. Though neither is a threat. Guns are dangerous, don't get me wrong. You should always treat guns as though they were loaded, and never point one at anything you don't want to shoot. I'd never say the same about a video game...though I'd probably not give Postal to a twelve year old boy, I don't see it as inherently dangerous (unlike a gun.)
What we're really asking is if video games have a corrupting effect that makes a person more dangerous than a person with a gun.
But that isn't what is asked. At no point did the question ask whether the corrupting influence of a person playing a video game was more dangerous than a person with a gun. I play a ton of video games, some of them violent, and often times (when you don't cheat,) those violent games depict real consequences of gun violence. If you asked me the question above, instead of what they asked, I'd answer yes...a person with a gun is more dangerous than the corrupting influence of a video game.
The only reason I was comparing objects is because that is exactly what they did...when they said "What do you think is a bigger safety threat in America: guns or violent video games?" When asked that way, neither would be my answer.
People who run red lights or speed have been photographed breaking the law.
Have they though? Is it possible that the company who photographed them doctored the pictures to make it look like they were breaking the law in order to profit from the fines? In California, if you enter the intersection before the light turns red, you have entered the intersection legally and may continue through the intersection even with the red light. The companies that have run the cameras have put verbiage into their contracts that outlawed the cities from changing the duration of the yellow light, or even worse, worked with the cities to shorten the yellow light to durations that weren't safe, in order to yield more convictions. And there have been issues where lights were not in time with the cameras and took pictures well before an infraction occurred. And that isn't counting things like physics, the speed of light, and reaction times of human beings. And in many cases, these cameras are run and administered by private corporations.
In the U.S. the strikes program is an agreement between two provate companies, so the ISP would be responsible for assessing and enforcing any "fines" ... the result would be a lot of angry calls and an enormous push toward finding an alternative.
I agree...and hope this will ultimately be the outcome. Just wish we didn't have to lose personal liberties to get there.
Google "speeding camera Arizona" to find out why Arizona stopped using speeding-ticket cameras.
Many cities in California have discontinued red-light cameras for the same reason. Ultimately, it came down to a judge deciding that the best interests of the public weren't being served when a private company, with interest in the outcome of the prosecution (since most of the companies were paid on the fines they collected.) Yet California courts still were sending out "you've been caught on camera, pay the bill and move on with your life, don't fight it or you'll end up paying far more for it," letters to those who were caught by the cameras. For the most part, those cities that didn't follow this private enforcement model got to keep their cameras.
I don't know what's with the ceaseless chants of "due process" outside of a legal proceeding. It simply doesn't apply.... anywhere.
Maybe it should.
Likely that fines would simply be collected on your monthly bill.
I'd be ok with this so long as any competitor would be allowed to enter the market to take on folks disconnected or fined for the accusation. I could see a great business opportunity in setting up an ISP that caters to those disenfranchised by the other vendors, but unfortunately due to the current cabal, at least in the US, if you are cut off you may or may not (likely may not) find another company able to provide you with the same service due to the monopoly stranglehold they currently have. And the fact that the current ISPs usually have a business reason (in that they are owned by or are heavily involved with the copyright industry,) this becomes worse. The only thing this will do is make it difficult for poor people to access the internet legally.
Judge Otis Wright has rightly pointed out that not only is an IP not proof of guilt it's not even enough evidence on its own to warrant further discovery.
Now all we need is a French judge like Judge Otis Wright to weigh in on the matter and we are golden.
also -i recounted this earlier- had a number of polls where after you were finished, they got 'basic info' on the respondent: age, race, etc... one question -which i heard from 2-3 different polls, was along the lines of 'How often do you go to church/worship?', and the answers you had to choose from, were 'several times a week'; 'once a week'; 'once a month'; and the LAST 'choice' was 'less than once a month', there was NO CHOICE for 'never'...
Heh... How about those who just go for the free food and don't actually believe the stuff? Or because if they don't, bad things (either real or imagined) will happen to them even if they don't believe the theology? Yup...a whole lot of lies/statistics.
I pretty much ignore surveys and survey calls now. If I happen to pick up the phone when they call, I tell them nicely (and some times not so nicely, when they are particularly annoying) that I don't participate in surveys.
They aren't really interested in what I think, so much as they are interested in using me as part of their constructed weapon to get the government to relent to their lobbying efforts. The few surveys that did get me to respond, usually I wait until they spring a loaded question on me and then ask them politely why they are so unsure of their position that they have to use loaded questions to get the results they want. Usually they hang up though I've had a few intelligent discussions and an interviewer that was honestly (or maybe not) unaware that their question was unloaded. Only got through one survey so far where I didn't have to ask the question, but that may have just been me not paying attention.
Don't you complain that shutting off the connection is too harsh? So a fine seems more humane, right?
Bob, how about due process? How about giving the person a chance to defend themselves? How about basing the enforcement on something other than a trivial IP address, which may or may not be linked to the person committing the crime? How about making the punishment fit the crime?
I don't want either of these things, fine or disconnection...I want them to recognize the basic rights of innocence until proven guilty, due process, equal protection under the law, and proper identification of the person committing the crime.
If I am committing copyright infringement, I deserve attention. But if I am just using the same IP address as someone else who is committing copyright infringement, or in the same room as someone who is committing copyright infringement (without knowledge) or just not liked by the person accusing me of copyright infringement, why should I be forced to pay or be disconnected just because you think, based on a wisp of evidence, that I am guilty.
Interesting that you compare it to running red lights.
Ah, but I didn't. I compared it to red light cameras.
If the police were there, pulling folks over for running red lights, I'd have no issue with it. The police officer saw the totality of the event (they saw the conditions of the road at the time the infraction occurred, and the circumstances of the crime.) And based on their training and experience, they saw that the crime broke the spirit of the law, not just the letter of the law. In other words, they put other people's lives at stake running a light. It also provides due process; the police officer can validate the person who is driving the vehicle is the one they are accusing of the crime, and the accused can mount an adequate defense (unlike waiting a number of days before figuring out what they were doing on the day and time in question.)
But I agree with you, the Buenos Aires way is just as bad as a red light camera. With red light cameras, it is your word against some faceless corporation with an interest in you being guilty, whether or not you actually are. Not much different than someone writing down your license plate and sending you a ticket later.
Where is the option "Other"? I'm frankly more afraid of bought/emotional politicians screwing up this country than either of the options they presented. The world needs more politicians that think with wisdom and intelligence than with emotion and "for the children."
If I was given this survey, I would have not answered the question, nor the question that followed it as both are so unbelievably loaded. If forced, I would have chosen not sure, not because I don't have an opinion, but because neither choice is correct. The favorable/unfavorable questions are a little vague, but at least they ask for an opinion not a "best of two evils and aren't really even evil" scenario.
A gun is not a threat, even loaded with the hammer cocked back, ready to fire. So long as it is not touched, there is little if any danger that it will do anything other than just sit there. A person who wields a gun is a threat, regardless to the condition of the gun, but how much of a threat depends on their intentions and their training.
How many people are even going to bother paying these fines?
How many people pay and don't contest fines from red light or speed cameras? Essentially the same thing...though some would argue that the cameras are a safety issue while there is no safety involved with stopping copyright infringement. They are both using technology to stop some transgression, usually employed by a commercial interest that is more interested in making money off of "transgressions" then stopping the problem. And more often then not, just with the cameras, there is an attitude of "this technology is flawless, you can't contest it, just pay up and move along with your life."
Though I'd agree, the French government is pretty much taking the teeth out of this, especially if the only stick involved is removal from the internet, which they cannot do. But if they make this a criminal fine, where you go to jail if you don't pay it, they might get more compliance which is what I fear (not from the standpoint of doing anything wrong, but the standpoint of due process as you are bound to get a lot of innocent people forced to pay.)
Re: Re: MPAA / RIAA / Gaming Companies Are you listening?
I am a gamer, and I hate how much time I have sinked into Minecraft
Let me rephrase that...I don't hate Minecraft, I love it almost to an addiction. If I have an hour to burn, I don't play Minecraft because I know that if I sit down on Minecraft, three hours will go by before I realize that my hour is up. I can blow a whole day on Minecraft and not even feel it. And I'd gladly pay for Minecraft again, if Majong put out a version that allowed me to play via my cell-phone on a craftbukkit server (which the current version of Android Minecraft cannot do.)
I've actually had to set an alarm clock before sitting down with Minecraft, because otherwise I'd become so immersed in the game I'd lose track of time.
Re: MPAA / RIAA / Gaming Companies Are you listening?
I am no gamer. I don't play games at all. I was intrigued by Minecraft and I downloaded it. Then I PAID for it.
I am a gamer, and I hate how much time I have sinked into Minecraft (which was bought and paid for.) If Notch built a paid version to run on Android that could connect to a craftbukkit server, I'd be in a whole new hell, as all of my 'crafting is on a bukkit server. I'd pay the fee in a heart-beat.
Between that, the Torchlight series, and all the GoG games I've purchased, I don't have any time to play any Ubisoft games, and my purchases on Steam have dried up. Of course, I am sure Ubisoft is swearing right now that because I am not buying their stuff, I am pirating it. But the truth is, they haven't made anything to compare to what I buy on GoG, Torchlight or Minecraft to waste my time on.
I'd rather not see Amoeba being turned into a martyr in order to draw attention to copyright law.
I though the same with mp3.com (I spent quite a bit there on independent music before the RIAA sued them out of existence.) Yet, if they did one thing, it was to convince the RIAA that there was money to be made in selling MP3s online.
The process of evolution favors the individuals that breed most.
Evolution did favor individuals that were most intelligent and useful, as they didn't tend to get themselves killed off before they could procreate. Which is why we are here. We have removed those pressures, which has reduced the need for intelligence and usefulness in order to survive and breed.
We have created the birth of Idiocracy, not evolution. I suspect the problem with Idiocracy is that at some time between now and its fruition, we will lose the ability to keep those pressures removed; they will reintroduce themselves and the process will begin anew (or, we'll evolve in another, more productive direction.)
Don't forget about that horrible Dihydrogen Monoxide chemical that is so commonly used and kills thousands every year.
It kills thousands every year directly. It is, however, present in large quantities in every person that dies, so it has become quite a problem in our groundwater supplies.
He should be able to use it on T-Mobil.
They use the same channels, and you're allowed to have a Smart Phone with No Dataplan (As of December 2012 when I asked them about it)
I realize this discussion is about voice with no data, in which case, yes, T-Mobile uses GSM, which uses the same channels as AT&T.
However, T-Mobile does use different channels, namely 1700 Mhz for data on 3G where AT&T uses 2100Mhz, so this would be the added advantage of going with T-Mobile...if you ever accidentaly the internet, apparently according to folks on the internet, you'd have unlimited access at 2G speeds without the data-plan (though I've never tried so I cannot verify this as I actually use the 3G data.) There was some discussion a while back on one of the mobile phone forums about buying a retired and unlocked AT&T iphone and using a T-Mobile chip in it, and getting 2G without a data plan, and apparently it was working for folks. Don't know if this has changed.
On the post: Jealous Of Copyright Trolls, Entertainment Industry Looks To Move Three Strikes From 'Disconnect' To 'Fines'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh.... isn't this what you wanted?
Oh, I am aware of the difference (just pointing out that Judge Wright isn't going to be much help to the French.) Eventually the French will come around. I'm happy they went as far as they did the last time...before that, it was the will of a King that determined whether you were guilty or not of a crime and he didn't have to be impartial. ;)
On the post: If You Want Two-Thirds Of Americans To Agree That Violent Video Games Are More Dangerous Than Guns, All You Have To Do Is Ask The Right Americans
Re: Re:
Vulcans spit out DU. However the rounds in those things are 20x102mm, which aren't necessarily what you'd find in a gun. They are usually mounted to helicopters and airplanes. I only know this because they talked about the use on Apache gunships. I am not aware of DU being used in personal weapons, and doubt they would because the rounds would be hazardous to the person using the weapon (you'd be amazed on how much gasses you breath in at a range with a normal weapon.) DU is also very heavy, and would add considerable weight to the weapon (more so then then lead that is currently used.)
On the post: If You Want Two-Thirds Of Americans To Agree That Violent Video Games Are More Dangerous Than Guns, All You Have To Do Is Ask The Right Americans
Re: Re: Re: Re: As usual, a loaded question...
Heh... I like your version far better and would have not even hesitated in answering it truthfully. Guns are dangerous. Far more so then video games will ever be whether or not they are violent. I don't think anyone with training in and understanding of firearms would honestly disagree.
I wish there were more folks who would ask the question they wanted an answer on, not one that they can use to influence others. Art Guerrilla is dead on (as is Tim, though it was hard to see through the sarcasm)...the survey game is not about getting the answers, so much as influencing minds and determining illogical patterns based on bad input.
On the post: If You Want Two-Thirds Of Americans To Agree That Violent Video Games Are More Dangerous Than Guns, All You Have To Do Is Ask The Right Americans
Re: Re: As usual, a loaded question...
I agree, but that isn't the question they asked, was it? I am arguing that this should have been the question they asked if they wanted a logical and well reasoned answer. They didn't. They chose the loaded question. What if the question asked the following: "What do you think is a bigger security threat in America: cameras or violent video games?" Would your answer change? Why?
Anyone who leaves a cocked and loaded gun where a child of any age can access it, should be locked away and never allowed to have a gun or children ever again. Period. Nobody is arguing against that here.
On the post: If You Want Two-Thirds Of Americans To Agree That Violent Video Games Are More Dangerous Than Guns, All You Have To Do Is Ask The Right Americans
Re: Re: As usual, a loaded question...
Well, I guess the semantics weren't right on this one, good catch. I'd say that in 99.9% of the time, I'd be correct, but there is always the gun with a delicate trigger, that could go off with a change in air pressure or earth movement. However, as to whether that is a threat to me, or anyone else, depends on how close they are to the barrel of the gun.
I'd argue that a loaded gun sitting by itself is innately more dangerous than a video game sitting by itself.
And I'd agree. Though neither is a threat. Guns are dangerous, don't get me wrong. You should always treat guns as though they were loaded, and never point one at anything you don't want to shoot. I'd never say the same about a video game...though I'd probably not give Postal to a twelve year old boy, I don't see it as inherently dangerous (unlike a gun.)
What we're really asking is if video games have a corrupting effect that makes a person more dangerous than a person with a gun.
But that isn't what is asked. At no point did the question ask whether the corrupting influence of a person playing a video game was more dangerous than a person with a gun. I play a ton of video games, some of them violent, and often times (when you don't cheat,) those violent games depict real consequences of gun violence. If you asked me the question above, instead of what they asked, I'd answer yes...a person with a gun is more dangerous than the corrupting influence of a video game.
The only reason I was comparing objects is because that is exactly what they did...when they said "What do you think is a bigger safety threat in America: guns or violent video games?" When asked that way, neither would be my answer.
On the post: Jealous Of Copyright Trolls, Entertainment Industry Looks To Move Three Strikes From 'Disconnect' To 'Fines'
Re: Re: Re:
Have they though? Is it possible that the company who photographed them doctored the pictures to make it look like they were breaking the law in order to profit from the fines? In California, if you enter the intersection before the light turns red, you have entered the intersection legally and may continue through the intersection even with the red light. The companies that have run the cameras have put verbiage into their contracts that outlawed the cities from changing the duration of the yellow light, or even worse, worked with the cities to shorten the yellow light to durations that weren't safe, in order to yield more convictions. And there have been issues where lights were not in time with the cameras and took pictures well before an infraction occurred. And that isn't counting things like physics, the speed of light, and reaction times of human beings. And in many cases, these cameras are run and administered by private corporations.
In the U.S. the strikes program is an agreement between two provate companies, so the ISP would be responsible for assessing and enforcing any "fines" ... the result would be a lot of angry calls and an enormous push toward finding an alternative.
I agree...and hope this will ultimately be the outcome. Just wish we didn't have to lose personal liberties to get there.
Google "speeding camera Arizona" to find out why Arizona stopped using speeding-ticket cameras.
Many cities in California have discontinued red-light cameras for the same reason. Ultimately, it came down to a judge deciding that the best interests of the public weren't being served when a private company, with interest in the outcome of the prosecution (since most of the companies were paid on the fines they collected.) Yet California courts still were sending out "you've been caught on camera, pay the bill and move on with your life, don't fight it or you'll end up paying far more for it," letters to those who were caught by the cameras. For the most part, those cities that didn't follow this private enforcement model got to keep their cameras.
On the post: Jealous Of Copyright Trolls, Entertainment Industry Looks To Move Three Strikes From 'Disconnect' To 'Fines'
Re: Re: Re: Uh.... isn't this what you wanted?
Maybe it should.
Likely that fines would simply be collected on your monthly bill.
I'd be ok with this so long as any competitor would be allowed to enter the market to take on folks disconnected or fined for the accusation. I could see a great business opportunity in setting up an ISP that caters to those disenfranchised by the other vendors, but unfortunately due to the current cabal, at least in the US, if you are cut off you may or may not (likely may not) find another company able to provide you with the same service due to the monopoly stranglehold they currently have. And the fact that the current ISPs usually have a business reason (in that they are owned by or are heavily involved with the copyright industry,) this becomes worse. The only thing this will do is make it difficult for poor people to access the internet legally.
On the post: Jealous Of Copyright Trolls, Entertainment Industry Looks To Move Three Strikes From 'Disconnect' To 'Fines'
Re: Re: Re: Uh.... isn't this what you wanted?
Now all we need is a French judge like Judge Otis Wright to weigh in on the matter and we are golden.
On the post: If You Want Two-Thirds Of Americans To Agree That Violent Video Games Are More Dangerous Than Guns, All You Have To Do Is Ask The Right Americans
Re: Re: As usual, a loaded question...
Heh... How about those who just go for the free food and don't actually believe the stuff? Or because if they don't, bad things (either real or imagined) will happen to them even if they don't believe the theology? Yup...a whole lot of lies/statistics.
I pretty much ignore surveys and survey calls now. If I happen to pick up the phone when they call, I tell them nicely (and some times not so nicely, when they are particularly annoying) that I don't participate in surveys.
They aren't really interested in what I think, so much as they are interested in using me as part of their constructed weapon to get the government to relent to their lobbying efforts. The few surveys that did get me to respond, usually I wait until they spring a loaded question on me and then ask them politely why they are so unsure of their position that they have to use loaded questions to get the results they want. Usually they hang up though I've had a few intelligent discussions and an interviewer that was honestly (or maybe not) unaware that their question was unloaded. Only got through one survey so far where I didn't have to ask the question, but that may have just been me not paying attention.
On the post: Jealous Of Copyright Trolls, Entertainment Industry Looks To Move Three Strikes From 'Disconnect' To 'Fines'
Re: Re: Uh.... isn't this what you wanted?
Just added it to my dictionary. Thanks good sir.
On the post: Jealous Of Copyright Trolls, Entertainment Industry Looks To Move Three Strikes From 'Disconnect' To 'Fines'
Re: Uh.... isn't this what you wanted?
Bob, how about due process? How about giving the person a chance to defend themselves? How about basing the enforcement on something other than a trivial IP address, which may or may not be linked to the person committing the crime? How about making the punishment fit the crime?
I don't want either of these things, fine or disconnection...I want them to recognize the basic rights of innocence until proven guilty, due process, equal protection under the law, and proper identification of the person committing the crime.
If I am committing copyright infringement, I deserve attention. But if I am just using the same IP address as someone else who is committing copyright infringement, or in the same room as someone who is committing copyright infringement (without knowledge) or just not liked by the person accusing me of copyright infringement, why should I be forced to pay or be disconnected just because you think, based on a wisp of evidence, that I am guilty.
On the post: Jealous Of Copyright Trolls, Entertainment Industry Looks To Move Three Strikes From 'Disconnect' To 'Fines'
Re: Re: Re:
Ah, but I didn't. I compared it to red light cameras.
If the police were there, pulling folks over for running red lights, I'd have no issue with it. The police officer saw the totality of the event (they saw the conditions of the road at the time the infraction occurred, and the circumstances of the crime.) And based on their training and experience, they saw that the crime broke the spirit of the law, not just the letter of the law. In other words, they put other people's lives at stake running a light. It also provides due process; the police officer can validate the person who is driving the vehicle is the one they are accusing of the crime, and the accused can mount an adequate defense (unlike waiting a number of days before figuring out what they were doing on the day and time in question.)
But I agree with you, the Buenos Aires way is just as bad as a red light camera. With red light cameras, it is your word against some faceless corporation with an interest in you being guilty, whether or not you actually are. Not much different than someone writing down your license plate and sending you a ticket later.
On the post: If You Want Two-Thirds Of Americans To Agree That Violent Video Games Are More Dangerous Than Guns, All You Have To Do Is Ask The Right Americans
As usual, a loaded question...
If I was given this survey, I would have not answered the question, nor the question that followed it as both are so unbelievably loaded. If forced, I would have chosen not sure, not because I don't have an opinion, but because neither choice is correct. The favorable/unfavorable questions are a little vague, but at least they ask for an opinion not a "best of two evils and aren't really even evil" scenario.
A gun is not a threat, even loaded with the hammer cocked back, ready to fire. So long as it is not touched, there is little if any danger that it will do anything other than just sit there. A person who wields a gun is a threat, regardless to the condition of the gun, but how much of a threat depends on their intentions and their training.
On the post: Jealous Of Copyright Trolls, Entertainment Industry Looks To Move Three Strikes From 'Disconnect' To 'Fines'
Re:
How many people pay and don't contest fines from red light or speed cameras? Essentially the same thing...though some would argue that the cameras are a safety issue while there is no safety involved with stopping copyright infringement. They are both using technology to stop some transgression, usually employed by a commercial interest that is more interested in making money off of "transgressions" then stopping the problem. And more often then not, just with the cameras, there is an attitude of "this technology is flawless, you can't contest it, just pay up and move along with your life."
Though I'd agree, the French government is pretty much taking the teeth out of this, especially if the only stick involved is removal from the internet, which they cannot do. But if they make this a criminal fine, where you go to jail if you don't pay it, they might get more compliance which is what I fear (not from the standpoint of doing anything wrong, but the standpoint of due process as you are bound to get a lot of innocent people forced to pay.)
On the post: Minecraft Creator Stops By Pirate Bay Co-Founder's Reddit AMA To Thank Him For 'Making The World A Better Place'
Re: Re: MPAA / RIAA / Gaming Companies Are you listening?
Let me rephrase that...I don't hate Minecraft, I love it almost to an addiction. If I have an hour to burn, I don't play Minecraft because I know that if I sit down on Minecraft, three hours will go by before I realize that my hour is up. I can blow a whole day on Minecraft and not even feel it. And I'd gladly pay for Minecraft again, if Majong put out a version that allowed me to play via my cell-phone on a craftbukkit server (which the current version of Android Minecraft cannot do.)
I've actually had to set an alarm clock before sitting down with Minecraft, because otherwise I'd become so immersed in the game I'd lose track of time.
On the post: Minecraft Creator Stops By Pirate Bay Co-Founder's Reddit AMA To Thank Him For 'Making The World A Better Place'
Re: MPAA / RIAA / Gaming Companies Are you listening?
I am a gamer, and I hate how much time I have sinked into Minecraft (which was bought and paid for.) If Notch built a paid version to run on Android that could connect to a craftbukkit server, I'd be in a whole new hell, as all of my 'crafting is on a bukkit server. I'd pay the fee in a heart-beat.
Between that, the Torchlight series, and all the GoG games I've purchased, I don't have any time to play any Ubisoft games, and my purchases on Steam have dried up. Of course, I am sure Ubisoft is swearing right now that because I am not buying their stuff, I am pirating it. But the truth is, they haven't made anything to compare to what I buy on GoG, Torchlight or Minecraft to waste my time on.
On the post: Amoeba Records Deals With Orphan Works By Pretending It Can Just Digitize & Sell Now, But Pay Later
Re: Re: Confused
I though the same with mp3.com (I spent quite a bit there on independent music before the RIAA sued them out of existence.) Yet, if they did one thing, it was to convince the RIAA that there was money to be made in selling MP3s online.
On the post: Canadian Schools Ban WiFi Based On Bad Science
Re: Evolution of the species
Evolution did favor individuals that were most intelligent and useful, as they didn't tend to get themselves killed off before they could procreate. Which is why we are here. We have removed those pressures, which has reduced the need for intelligence and usefulness in order to survive and breed.
We have created the birth of Idiocracy, not evolution. I suspect the problem with Idiocracy is that at some time between now and its fruition, we will lose the ability to keep those pressures removed; they will reintroduce themselves and the process will begin anew (or, we'll evolve in another, more productive direction.)
On the post: Canadian Schools Ban WiFi Based On Bad Science
Re: Re: Re:
It kills thousands every year directly. It is, however, present in large quantities in every person that dies, so it has become quite a problem in our groundwater supplies.
On the post: AT&T Can Foist Its Data Plans On You, Whether You Use It Or Not
Re: Re: Standard Practice
They use the same channels, and you're allowed to have a Smart Phone with No Dataplan (As of December 2012 when I asked them about it)
I realize this discussion is about voice with no data, in which case, yes, T-Mobile uses GSM, which uses the same channels as AT&T.
However, T-Mobile does use different channels, namely 1700 Mhz for data on 3G where AT&T uses 2100Mhz, so this would be the added advantage of going with T-Mobile...if you ever accidentaly the internet, apparently according to folks on the internet, you'd have unlimited access at 2G speeds without the data-plan (though I've never tried so I cannot verify this as I actually use the 3G data.) There was some discussion a while back on one of the mobile phone forums about buying a retired and unlocked AT&T iphone and using a T-Mobile chip in it, and getting 2G without a data plan, and apparently it was working for folks. Don't know if this has changed.
Next >>