I'm not from the US. A lot of my understanding of current political issues within the US come from this site. I find considerable value in reading the comments of nerds to issues that may not, in themselves, be News _for_ Nerds.

So add my vote to those saying that this _is_ the sort of thing I want to see on Slashdot (within reason, buyer beware, etc.)

As a non-USian, thank you for this insight.

People who pirate your game are not your customers. The number of people who, in the absence of an easily available pirated copy will instead purchase the game is vanishingly small.

A number of games have been released with no DRM. They have been pirated, heavily. Some have even been available for free. Piracy is not tied to the existence of DRM or even the ease/availability of the original. Piracy exists as a social phenomenon independently (or perhaps, intertwined with) the material being copied.

Finally, many games that have been released DRM free and/or at significant discounts to their launch price have shown an increase in sales - massive increases in some cases. From this, it seems to me that the key to piracy, the cost of development, DRM and customers is to recognise that chasing/preventing piracy is a cost with almost no return; that if you want to increase revenue by increasing customer base, then the largest group of potential customers are those who are currently not purchasing based on price.

Will this save a non-selling but technically or artistically excellent game? Maybe. But increasing DRM on the same game most certainly will not.

I would argue that $0.60 is the value people ascribe to the _promise_ that their privacy will be protected. How many times have we seen those who have made such promises fail to keep them - either by accident, attack or incompetence? Enough to make most other such promises seem pretty close to worthless.

Rich and poor are part of something that is close to a zero-sum game. For the rich to be rich, a lot of someone-elses need to be poor. To the extent that this is the inevitable outcome of people of different ability and circumstance, I agree there should be no foul. Beyond that, attempting to maximise personal gain, even while within the 'legal rules' is likely to cost someone, everyone or some combination in between. More, by working those rules as hard as they can, they become at least partially responsible for the ever growing body of law.

Finally, if you are describing their behaviour as "understand[ing] the [ethical] rules and ... what you can do with them" you are either missing the point of ethics or have a profoundly cynical view of what ethics are.

Privacy is not an absolute, it is conditional and comparative. Your nonsense and conspiracy wittering aside, declaring that in the presence of another you have no privacy is playing with semantics.

Psst, your obsessions are showing. Perhaps living in the public eye for so long has inured you to the subtleties of polite company; perhaps you are trying for deliberate shock.

It is the polite fiction that people living in close proximity engage in; it is the small politeness that we extend and receive whereby we don't pay attention to the actions, conversations or behaviour of people that we are not involved with. It's ignoring the telephone conversation on the bus seat behind you. It's not staring, unless staring is permitted. It is averting your eyes when the wind lifts a skirt or the pants split or any one of a number of accidents that would cause someone embarrassment. This is privacy without isolation. This is the privacy of a civilised society.

A reference to Gen 3:19, which in addition to 2 Thesselonians 3:10-12 seems to be pretty clear on the topic of demanding that other people support you and/or claiming that society owes you something (for nothing). I have raised the issue several times - I am interested for your response.

No to both - you justify much of what you do by very selective and often novel interpretations of the Bible. I am trying to show you that your conclusions are not supported by the 'evidence' you offer.

Why? So you can make some outrageous claim about how much more holy you are for not working? So you can claim that because what you do is difficult (and is therefore work in the sense of requiring effort) and so you are 'owed' some kind of living? So you can continue to claim to be a victim because people you deem to be less worthy continue to have the things you want (but deny wanting)?

Oh, I do. Unlike what seems to be a typical US affliction, I am fundamentally socialist in outlook and have no problem with paying to a common pool from which can be drawn funding for public works like roads, health care, education and the like - even those things which do no directly benefit me still benefit the society in which I live and a rising tide lifts all boats, as the saying goes.

Oh, you mean to you. Why? I'm happy enough to do so, but don't really see the point.

I am addressing your complaint that you are being treated in a fashion that you do not wish and (implied) is neither fair nor typical. You are claiming a 'right' that is absent because of your behaviour, not some conspiracy to keep you down.

Please. Your posts are a constant rant about the suffering you have experienced at the hands of some cabal, originally from undernet and carious IRC channels and BBSs and going on to constitute the population of ... well, wherever you happen to be - various employers, the city of LaJolla.

You live in a public space. The space is shared. How does your behaviour differ from the other people who share that space with you? Do they walk with their hands raised, loudly praying? No? Then as the only person who does so, you are going to attract attention. As you well know. One example of many. Please drop the disingenuous act.

I don't know, nor do I care. You have seized on the word 'right' and ignored the context in which I used it. Instead you are asking that I address a completely unrelated matter that is linked only by the word 'right'. Please stop the pedantry and semantics, they are argumentative and add nothing to the discussion. Are you claiming that nothing in that list prohibits you from acting as you do? Of course not, that's not the point. Nothing in that list prohibits people from watching you, staring at you and/or following you. I'm trying to address your complaint about the 'gang stalking' behaviour you claim to suffer.

FFS, stop with the pedantry. It lost it's ability to trump an argument some time in primary school. You claim collusion by people you first met on various IRC channels and BBSs with later employers and current citizens of LaJolla. Conspiracy. One of several you have advanced.

In this discussion alone you resort to games of semantics and passive-aggressive requests for proof. You have talked about how people have reacted to your loud prayers, and the like.

Pedantry. Piss off. There you go, your passive-aggressive behaviour has caused another person to 'attack' you. Now you can get your buzz from being a victim. No, don't thank me, it's the least I can do. Remember to claim that it was completely unprovoked.

That's life, for you. Unexpected accidents. Minimise them where you can and stay fit and healthy so you can deal with the ones you can't avoid. Sorry, do you have a point? I don't understand what you are getting at.

Says the man who thinks seagulls are surveillance drones. Let's just say that if my neurons are missing timings, it's not so as you'd notice.

*laugh* You keep trying to do this. Last time it was with breathing. No, my hips and ankles are fine. I practice a martial art, regularly, stretch frequently and often do a fair bit of barefoot running and wear minimalist shoes when I'm not actually barefoot. My hips and ankles are, I dare say, in much better shape than yours.

No, actually. I live in a warm and humid climate and am active. I sweat. My problem is running the risk of dehydration not some kind of water-logged tissues. But I'll mention your concerns to my doctor at my next visit. I did the last time you made this accusation and he was puzzled. Maybe you are ahead of him in your reading of the latest medical literature. Care to share your source?

I know confronting your own mortality is pretty damn scary, but it's OK. We are all going to die, one day. What matters is how you live.

*laugh* Six years ago I had just emerged from an abusive relationship. My health and fitness were at a low ebb both emotionally and physically. Since then ... hmm, let's see. I've had a knee reconstructed, some potentially cancerous patches of skin removed, a broken finger, a detached ligament, a couple of sprains numerous bruises ... I _live_. I enjoy life. The knee is back to as close to 100% as to be indistinguishable. I've got a neat scar from the skin removal. My finger makes a neat 'click' some mornings. The ligament (and bone fragment) re-attached and I have avoided mallet finger. The sprains and bruises have been in the pursuit of increased strength, fitness and fun.

Your turn.

I, too, am colour-blind and have excellent night vision.

It may be that I/we are more used to picking up visual cues that do not rely on colour information - in low-light conditions, the ability to distinguish colours drops first so people are brought to a playing field that we are much more familiar with. Playing paintball, I disdained wearing camouflage because it was useless - I could see people wearing cam., so clearly they could see me. It took a number of years and some interesting tests to work out that for most people, camouflage is much more effective. For that reason, WWII reconnaissance photos were examined by a team of people that included someone who was colour blind (but I am having trouble quickly finding a reliable citation at the moment).

I had no idea who GreatBunzinni was until your crapflood.

I see no evidence in your posts of GreatBunzinni using multiple accounts to shill. I see a possible AC post. I see someone questioning bonch.
You on the other hand are a spammy bastard who is haunting Slashdot and amassing a GNAA-worthy number of FPs. One has to wonder whether you are paid for your attentiveness.

I recognise some of the names on GreatBunzinni's list and thought they sounded a little 'shill'. Now this. It adds weight to my suspicions.

If you are one of the aggrieved, respond to posts where they out you. Logged in. Maybe the GreatBunzini has included some names they shouldn't have. Until then, _your_ crusade has just confirmed the GreatBunzini's accusations, as far as I am concerned. Well done.

With apologies for the offtopicness of this post.

Yes, well. I was 'twilight' a bunch of places, but someone had already used that name by the time I created and account, here back around the turn-of-the-millenium, so ...

Then there was the book/movie. But that was OK. I figured it was a flash in the pan. Then there were the sequels.

But that's OK. I figure in 5-10 years I'll be able to use the name and only a few old farts will snigger.

I am sorry, where do I defend this action? I was pointing out to the AC that was calling for action that action has been taken and neither he nor I are the ones who took it. I am sorry that facts offend, but there they are.

Is it? What have you done? What are you doing? I saw a wonderful and generic call for 'action' like so many arm-chair generals do and pointed out that the 'enemy' has 'stolen the march' and have already acted. Please, offer me a suggestion of what I should be doing and I will discuss that - make generic noises about 'action' and I will gently tease.

To address your accusation more directly - I have written to my local member; I have participated in public discussions, government surveys and requests for comments and I have actively recruited people from the community to do the same with respect to legislation like this in my own country. I advise and provide assistance to friends and family on a range of technical issues and take the time and opportunity to explain why actions like this are bad for me, them and the community as a whole. If I can, I provide alternatives and workarounds.

I do not 'sit on my ass'; I strongly believe that the only change possible is that which happens individually and actively pursue exactly that.

Now, pull your head in; stop projecting and re-read what I wrote. The AC I replied to was the one calling for 'someone' to act. They offered neither useful suggestion nor, as far as I can tell, are doing anything themselves.

I don't like being 'told' anything, neither do most people. Especially not being 'told' to do something that in all probability I have been doing longer than they have even been aware of the issue.

They have. They did. It's not you. It's not me.

Add me to the list of those who use Start->Run. Regedit, iexplore, calc, winver, ntbackup, cmd, mstsc, eventvwr ... either they don't have convenient links, or it's quicker to type than play 'where's the icon on _this_ machine'.

GUI might reward exploration but you are dead wrong when you think that what most people do is _not_ repetition. People learn a pattern of movements and clicks. Change the icon's location and they are lost. They don't 'explore' to find it again. Those who are happy to poke about a GUI are also happy enough to play with a CLI if they get shown one. Of course it's going to be a bot confronting if all they have seen is a GUI, but that doesn't make it inherently more challenging than working out how to get the 'classic' control panel so you can find the link you remember from the last version of Windows.

You have a serious case of subjectivity and preconception. You hear what you want to hear - like your Linux admin's claim about new tasks.

You know Windows. I get it. You've met some obnoxious FOSS advocates. Me too. But you are ranting. You often rant. You are rude and obnoxious ... Hey, wait - all the things you claim to have experienced you, in fact, exhibit. You justify your behavior by what amounts to straw men. No one you are responding to made the claims you are attacking. Seriously mate, you come across as though some Linux user killed your dog when you were a kid.

I agree and as someone capable of the meta-cognition necessary to recognise my own preferred learning methods and to adapt to the ones being offered, I understand the value of that choice.

And also how few people are equipped to recognise it, let alone make it.

I am not sure of your educational background, but I was certainly never taught to think about thinking. That was something that a fortunate combination of aptitude and circumstance allowed me to develop on my own. I'm far from unique, but equally, I am far from common.

I'm certainly not comfortable condemning those who both lack the ability to live comfortably in the world as it is and who also lack the means to recognise how they might change that. Doubly damned, to be sure.

I acknowledge that there are those who play the victim and who demand sympathy and/or consideration for their lack of effort but that's not the whole story.

Forgive me, I didn't see anything in your initial post that addressed heritability - either genetic or cultural. I understood you to mean that ADD was a response to the increasing pace of change in society. I've seen reports of decreased attention span and what looks like a decrease in depth of thought and yes, these get lumped in with ADD and ADHD. I think there's still value in distinguishing between people who are not primarily visual/auditory learners and who don't find mono-focussing for hours at a time a natural mode of thought and people who, by dint of being exposed to a large amount of stimulation and competition for their attention have a poor ability to discriminate or focus.

Nonsense.

There's a fair bit of evidence to show that ADD is heritable. There's some that suggests that it has been around a lot longer than just the modern period, but that in the past there was a greater variety of work that allowed people who aren't comfortable with a 9-5 office routine to still be useful and productive.

Decrease access to certain types of work and increase the number of children who don't get to grow up with adult males who can teach and show them ways of using AD in useful ways (it's Y linked) and you are going to see more people who are 'disordered'. The 'attention deficit' part contains a large chunk of people who are just not suited to focusing on a single task for eight hours at a time and/or who aren't primarily audio/visual learners and thinkers.

Perhaps calling your argument 'nonsense' is going too far - social change has resulted in more people exhibiting 'symptoms', but it's not some kind of adaption or reaction to the rate of change.