Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:workshop (Score 1) 113

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.

Comment: Re:workshop (Score 1) 113

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.

Comment: Re:should be higher (Score 1) 113

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.

Comment: Re:in my opinion this guy is like Jenny McCarthy (Score 1) 306

by PopeRatzo (#49504047) Attached to: Columbia University Doctors Ask For Dr. Mehmet Oz's Dismissal

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.

Comment: Re:in my opinion this guy is like Jenny McCarthy (Score 1) 306

by PopeRatzo (#49502945) Attached to: Columbia University Doctors Ask For Dr. Mehmet Oz's Dismissal

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?

Comment: Re:Copyrighting History (Score 2) 242

by PopeRatzo (#49502681) Attached to: Joseph Goebbels' Estate Sues Publisher Over Diary Excerpt Royalties

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.

Comment: Re:in my opinion this guy is like Jenny McCarthy (Score 1) 306

by PopeRatzo (#49502509) Attached to: Columbia University Doctors Ask For Dr. Mehmet Oz's Dismissal

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.

Comment: Re:in my opinion this guy is like Jenny McCarthy (Score 1) 306

by PopeRatzo (#49501999) Attached to: Columbia University Doctors Ask For Dr. Mehmet Oz's Dismissal

If you're saying it's a market decision, then the market will work it out, right?

Markets are only efficient when all the parties have good information. And "markets" and "marketing" do not refer to the same thing.

Withholding a specific bit of information that consumers say they want is a sure way to make sure "the market" won't function efficiently.

Do you understand?

It's not like a label "Contains Asbestos" that would signify a clear ingredient with a clear health disadvantage.

I already said that for me, it's not an issue of health. It's a simple consumer decision that includes whether or not I like a company or industry's business practices. In your brave new world, am I allowed to make a decision based on that information or not? Am I allowed to make consumer decisions based on whatever I want or must I stick to your prescribed set of approved parameters?

Putting "GMO" on food would just confuse people even more

Then it's an issue of marketing and consumer education. Not of science, There is no "scientific" reason to withhold a piece of information from a consumer. Maybe it doesn't matter to you, but it matters to upwards of 90% of consumers who are demanding GMO labeling (and over 65% of those people want those labels to be mandated by law).

When did you get appointed the steward of what information people are allowed or not allowed to have?

"Pascal is Pascal is Pascal is dog meat." -- M. Devine and P. Larson, Computer Science 340