Yeah, you're right. $5 seems like a good threshold to keep out the spammers.

I prefer games with off-line/stand-alone play as my internet isn't reliable during the summer, when I have the time to play.

You don't need to be online to play games you bought on Steam, unless they are online games, in which case, guess what? you need to be online to play anyway.

Because the game bought in Wal-Mart includes features such as "Access to community updates" and "play with your friends".

The Steam version has exactly the same features. And you don't have to support Wal-Mart.

The people who are being shut out of Steam Workshop are not people who are buying games at Wal-Mart, and if you don't want to use Steam, then why would you complain about not being able to access Steam Workshop?

I want to hear from one single person who is being legitimately put out because of this $5 purchase requirement.

I would say some people may get annoyed due to following limitations:

So wait for a sale, buy a game for $5 that was $49 a year ago, and then you're good to go in Steam Workshop.

And why should Steam give you credit for buying games at Wal-Mart?

Also to spend money you have to hand over your personal information such as your full home address.

Not to Steam, you don't. I buy games on Steam using PayPal.

If you've only spent $4.50 on games, what they hell are you doing trying to get involved in mod discussions. The last thing those discussion forums need is more spammers.

If you set the threshold that high, new users will probably be turned off by the price of entry.

It doesn't prevent them from playing their games, it just prevents them from hassling other users.

If you want to spend $4.25 on a game on Steam, you can play that game to your heart's content. You just can't start spamming other users.

So no, new users will NOT be probably turned off by the price of entry into the community, even if the threshold is $50. Personally, I think the threshold should be $25 and three months of use.

However, not having FM support on my cell phone does significantly decrease my chances of hearing lite rock and smooth jazz.

Even if Dr. Oz is a dunce advocating quackery, isn't that enough to boot him from the department without adding this?

I don't care about Dr Oz. He's a TV goofball and I couldn't pick him out of a lineup.

There is no place for democracy in matters concerning science.

It's not a matter concerning science. It's a matter concerning money, industry, the marketplace. I have no problem with the modification of genomes. Science is gonna do what they're gonna do.

The issue I've been raising has nothing to do with that. My issue comes up after the science is done and now it's industry selling a product to consumers.

Just disclose what's in the package in an honest and open way. It is not science to hide information from people. If you're afraid it's going to be too scary for consumers, then it's a matter for the marketing department, not for science.

Claiming this discussion is about "science" is a little bit dishonest, in fact.

no need to put the iphone down, there is a camera there too, available to the same intellegence agencies.

one nation under durress.

Would you be behind a movement to label all foods that contain "Chemicals" with a label that says "Contains Chemicals"?

No, "contains chemicals" doesn't tell me what's in the food.

You may not realize this, but there's already a law that requires food to be labeled for the chemicals that are in it. It's been in place for decades, and somehow, the world hasn't ended and the food companies are still making food and people are still eating.

Have you looked at a package of potato chips recently? Do you think the words "BUTYLATED HYDROXYANISOLE" on the label just got there by magic? Do you think consumers have a right to know that PARTIALLY HYDROGENATED VEGETABLE OIL is in the food they eat? People know that shit is bad for you, but they still eat potato chips. So what exactly is the harm in people knowing whether or not that styrofoam package contains corn that is from a genetically modified organism? What are you so afraid of?

Brother, that's the truth.

Even worse, is that we have works that have been in the public domain, sometimes for decades, and all of a sudden are protected under copyright again. It's a total scam and it's absolutely doing damage to future generations and to culture generally.

Personally, I wan organic food labeled as having been grown in 400-700 nm radiation.

You have the right to make your consumer decisions based on any criterion you want.

But there's no valid decision a consumer could make with a GMO label

You still don't get it. Consumer decisions don't need to be based on "valid information", they just need to be based on true information. It why someone picks a Chevy over a Ford or Kleenex tissue over Puffs. It's preference. If you're selling a product, you don't get to decide for your customers. They get to decide based on whatever criteria they choose. If they think the Kleenex label is better for their needs than a Puffs label, then the only thing that matters is that when they order Kleenex, they get Kleenex and not Puffs. Because they're the ones paying.

If I decide to buy a product made locally instead of a nearly identical one made somewhere else, there might be a whole host of reasons for that decision. But what can't happen in a "free market" is for something to be sold as made in Chicago when it's really made in Dallas, just because the producer believes that the Dallas product is just as good as the one made in Chicago.

It's not GMO-free food (or I guess food with GMOs) that people want, it's the labeling. Since consumers can see what foods are labeled with, they have the information to make a buying decision.

Now you've appointed yourself the person who decides what people want?

We're done here. You don't believe in "free markets" or in people's ability to have agency over the way they spend their money. You've become such a zealot for GMOs that you're prepared to take away that agency in the name of...something.

I cannot have a meaningful discussion with someone who believes people must not have certain information because you don't believe they "need" it. That's not "pro-Science", that's anti-Science.