Then go for it and show that it's a viable model.
I don't know if it is, yet, because of the successes of the copyright cartel.
You can't permanently band people from Steam when all you need to create a new account is an e-mail address. People will just use a new throwaway account for hacking
So what? It still magnifies the cost substantially.
The way to go is to make getting a pass to play online painfully difficult.
I don't think even Valve can get away with that.
If a bunch of dudes 2000+ years ago could talk directly to the Abrahamic God, and one in particular through a burning bush, why not some dude in the modern days through a computer?
Because his OS doesn't have networking?
Try living with a serious mental illness for a while and then get back to us, mkay? It's not as easy as you think.
You're saying that to a slashdotter? YMBNH
Most people don't need their drive to be that fast. We'd all like faster storage, but HDDs are so slow that a fairly slow SSD is still pretty speedy.
How, as a society, do we fund the creation of big budget movies that a lot of people really enjoy?
Crowdsourcing, I suppose. You pay for the movie ahead of time, and based on your investment you get to see the film, download it, get a DVD or a Blu-Ray or an M4V, get to be an extra in a crowd scene or whatever they're offering. There's no reason that major studios can't use this model. And then there's merchandising, official conventions, and lots of other opportunities for profit. I don't really think that there will be any problem getting enough people to fund some of these big-budget stinkers.
That's incorrect: no judge ever had a hand in creating it.
A judge is the ONLY person who gets to decide how that information is made available. That means he goes over every bit of it for context, and the entire package is his product, with his reputation at stake for making mistakes in what's released and how it impacts the anonymity of the witnesses involved. There is no provider of that information except for the judge.
You're now claiming witnesses don't exist? After you started off claiming there were 7, six of whom were African-American? You can't even keep your own story straight.
I realize that English is not your native tongue, so I appreciate how much you're trying here. But we're talking about YOUR assertion that the documents in front of your eyes don't include the testimony of eye witnesses. Or have you finally got around to reading it, and you're changing your story, just like the debunked media-frenzy "witnesses" did?
And, ranting? You're the one who's been linked directly to the body of documents that completely satisfies your fake concern that the eye witnesses didn't really exist, and that their testimony doesn't say what the grand jury concluded that it said. So much energy you're putting into pretending it's not there for you to read! Why?
And you think you know this utter load of shit exactly how?
Because everything put in front of the grand jury is also available, online, right in front of you. Not that you'd want to see that or anything, because it would take all the fun out of that petulant little fit you're having.
Prosecutors control everything the grand jury sees. Grand juries are behind closed doors. So how do you know that the prosecutor doesn't lie to the grand jury?
Knowing there would be people with the hearts set on vilifying the cop and the investigation, the prosecutor made the rather unusual decision to let the grand jury take an unusual amount of time to make their own investigative queries, to see any and all testimony they wanted (including obviously spurious stuff from all over the internet, and already debunked nonsense from the street - like Brown's running buddy's description of Wilson shooting out his cruiser window, standing over Brown and shooting him in the back
I like how your correction to someone "deliberately spreading false information" is just a re-telling of the officer's account.
No, that's the account based on recordings of radio communications, and based on the testimony of multiple credible eye witnesses, corroborated by the physical evidence. And that's the account that the grand jury mulled over, along with a lot of obvious BS from all sort of other sources, that led the panel to realize there's no THERE there. Just like the DoJ investigation, in which Eric Holder was passionately, desperately hoping to find some sort of evidence of a civil rights violation, is coming up with a whole lot of nothing.
The people who keep trotting out the false narrative are just trying to wish away the 25 days of work done by the grand jury, and the untold thousands of man hours and millions of dollars tied up by Holder and the FBI, that are delivering exactly no police officer to string up.
Gee. I'd think a better way to avoid being punched is to not try to run the guy over, then slam a car door on him.
That might be something to consider, except of course that's pure fantasy on your part. Multiple credible eye witnesses (unlike you, and unlike the people who changed their stories or finally admitted they didn't actually see it happen after all) pointed out that the officer didn't either of the two things you're mentioning. So why bring them up? What's your agenda, in manufacturing a false narrative?
That's good, since, y'know, there was no judge involved.
Wow, you just keep on going with the whole feigned ignorance thing, don't you? The evidence presented to the grand jury could ONLY be released to the public through the piece-by-piece review of a judge (the same judge that sat the panel, not that you care, since the judge is fictional, right?). That judge is the one to decide whether or not the anonymity guaranteed to witnesses (who, you know, don't want to have their houses burned down by those thoughtful, peaceful protesters) is sufficiently preserved in the documents presented to people like you as you are offered the evidence you don't want to acknowledge.
Your supposed fundamental misunderstanding (again, I'm presuming that on this topic it's fake, and just as deliberate as your little bit of theater about non-existent witnesses) about the way that big pile of evidence was curated and released, and which checks and balances are in place, says plenty about your intentions here. What do you gain by saying there's no judge involved when the fact that there is one was plainly discussed in the press conference, in the summary documents, and by every last journalist and legal commentator asked to bundle all of this up for you? Yeah, the talking heads who are seeking to sell the idea that a grand jury is some sort of novel "secret proceeding" that was dreamed up just for the occasion to be unjust to the guy who assaulted the cop are going to assist you in your characterization, of course - their narrative loses a lot of its inflammatory BS vitality when actual details about the case and the process are discussed. And so they distort at every opportunity, and pretend that the evidence seen by the GJ doesn't matter, and that only a trial would show us the REAL evidence, blah blah blah.
Neither they, nor you, would have to spend so much energy trying to talk the evidence away or establish the myth that it wasn't published right in front of your eyes if they hadn't become so irrationally invested in the BS claims of a few people in the immediate aftermath of Brown's robbery and foolish assault. Media outlets who have been cheerleading for riots and who crave a minority victimhood cause du jour manufacture them if that's what they have to do to get attention. Pesky things like credible eye witnesses, physical evidence, and the documents that lay out exactly what was shown to (and asked for by) the GJ are terribly inconvenient, aren't they. You seem to know how that feels.
" If it was really so dangerous, why do we have more deaths because of steam accidents than nuclear ones?"
That statement is only true if you apply it only to human deaths. If you include sea life, I'd expect oil and nuclear to blow steam out of the water (no pun intended).
"We'd save lives going nuclear even if we had a Chernobyl every year."
Penny smart, pound retarded. Sure, we'd have less human deaths as a direct impact, but after enough Chernobyls, we would start have serious issues with ecological balance. Crops, fisheries, radioactive contamination, the whole system would lead to massive collapse after a decade. Sure, hardly anyone would die from the immediate impact of the annual nuclear meltdown, but once we start ticking off the body count of the millions dying to radiation poisoning and starvation, we might want to reconsider that path.