People think that restrictive DRM warrants an illegal download while the only legal solution to your problem would be to simply not play Civ V at all if you don't like the DRM.
If I'm not going to buy the game in either case, playing a pirated copy doesn't cause the producer any loss of profit.
Personally I don't like baseball, but I can see the appeal of playing the game on a console.
See geeks like to take long drawn-out inefficient methods of accomplishing something and do it for fun.
Like killing 500 monsters to flip a few bits in memory. Sort of a physical touring machine, you ARE the program.
So in a similar sense... trying to precisely direct the velocity and flight path of a baseball using an inefficient and unwieldy instrument which is wholly unsuited to the task... instead of ya know... a potato cannon or something... is a way of physically hacking reality.
I can respect that.
Really this doesn't detract from the point that the Wii sold because it was simple, easy and fun.
The point was that the games on the 360 and PS3 "sucked in 2007 and still suck in 2010".
By both attach rate and review score this is demonstrably not true. Attach rate specifically corrects for number of consoles sold.
Naaa. It's the Wii
Whence, WiiWii.
I think you'd be surprised how many real geeks use apple devices.
Agreed.
I'm 35. I got my first computer (a TRS-80 CoCo 1) in 1980. I was writing pretty sophisticated code by the mid- to late-80's. Wrote a wardialer for OS-9 Level II when I was in my teens. I've been professionally involved in IT (engineering, consulting and management) for well over a decade. I own or have owned most easily obtainable computing platforms, often just for the sake of exploration and learning. I recently bought an old HP-9000/735 just to play around with NeXTStep PA-RISC. I do system administration for various flavors of Windows, Linux, and Unix, including Mac OS X.
By almost any account, I'm a hardcore geek. And I love my iPad. If anything, just because it's a new platform to explore. But also because it's a great kick-back and relax device for content consumption and play.
For some reason, there's a group of people out there who view the iPad as a threat of some kind. I frankly just don't get it. Apple's not forcing anyone to buy or use their products, and they aren't trying to take away your "real" computer. If you don't want one, don't buy it. But, leave those who do buy it in peace. The iPad appeals to a wide class of people: both hardcore geeks like myself who are eager to explore the new platform, and also to people who really don't want to put up with the complexity of traditional computers just for the sake of sending an email to their family.
Yet you continue to assume people buy Apple products just for the 'cool factor' when obviously they buy them because the features fit their needs. Although i'm certain there are people who buy them as a popular/fad item, those kinds of fads do fade and they move on to something else. Given that the satisfaction rate with Apple products and the % of folks who would buy again are tops in the industry, I wouldn't classify it as a 'fad' purchase.
I may decide to break the speed limit so I can get someone to the hospital, but that's irrelevant to my point. I am talking about executive policies and judicial decisions.
I understand it's a separate point, which is why I posted this with a reference to rambling. I am not necessarily trying to argue your position on the FCC's actions, which really makes this all offtopic. I was just curious what your personal take on the law was.
OK. Then you hate the rule of law, and prefer the rule of men, which means our liberties have no serious protections and no guarantees, but are subject to the whims of whoever happens to be in power.
I found this part of your response particularly interesting. I am not sure that you can make the leap from "I don't consider the law to be something that must be followed..." to "...you hate the rule of law..." I actually think the law has a place in society. It serves a very particular function in that it gives folk a basic framework from which to derive their ideas on what is appropriate in a particular society and what is not. I also think that it serves a very important function in that it gives a society the power to eliminate diseased cells (dangerous people) from the rest of the body. That said, I think the law needs to have its roots in some form of basic rights in order to have any teeth. Once you start moving beyond that, the law starts becoming an entity which no longer serves its original function of protecting the body (society) from diseased cells (dangerous individuals), but rather becomes an entity that serves the subjective agenda of whatever particular subgroup of people control the law at that point. That's a problem. However, that's also a different discussion to have. In my opinion, the law is a very necessary and beneficial part of society, so making the leap to say that I hate it, and prefer the rule of men seems odd odd to me...Furthermore, the law is handed down by men, so I am not sure where the distinction comes from. I guess the part of your claim that I find most intriguing is the following:
...which means our liberties have no serious protections and no guarantees, but are subject to the whims of whoever happens to be in power.
That, to me, is precisely what defines the concept of law. Our liberties are simply our liberties because they were handed down to us by folk that claimed power years ago. The only reason the law is shaped the way it is today is because, at some time in the past, a particular group of humans that were in power declared that these liberties are essential, and these are the means by which they could be protected. If a different group of humans were in power at the time the law, our liberties, and the protection of those liberties available to us, the people, would be quite different. I suppose I don't see how the law is in any meaningful way distinguishable from men with power. When it comes down to it, the most powerful humans, be it through violence, or money, or charisma, or whatever, are the ones that will, inevitably, influence and determine the law. It is through their power that the law is enforced (even if that means giving a small amount of controllable power to some other subset of people). So I fail to see how the rule of law is in any way distinguishable from the rule of man.... Perhaps you could expand upon that?
...because rejecting the law for your subjective view of what is right gives us precedent where it is essentially arbitrary whether or not we follow the law.
Regarding this it seems that it is already arbitrary whether or not we follow the law. There is nothing keeping me from breaking the law at my will. If I want to do something illegal, I can. It's that simple. Of course, I do so knowing, full well, that I will have to take responsibility for that decision, even if it means prosecution by the powers that be. If I determine that the cost of breaking the law is negligible to the benefits derived from breaking it, then I may very well chose to break the law. I guess what I am getting at is that the only thing that prevents us from breaking the law is our own, subjective assertions that following the law is the right thing to do, be it short term or long term. I don't understand, therefore, why following the law is more important in the long term since such a decision is still subjective with respect to our own view of what's right for the long term....
Also, regarding changing the law, what if the system by which the law can be legally changed has been set up in such a manner that it is impossible for anyone, save those that are already in power, to change the law? I am not saying that is the case, I would just like to hear your thoughts on the matter.
For the record, I am not attempting to derail your position regarding the FCC on this matter. I am just curious to hear your thoughts.
Otherwise...wow. I feel bad for them.
I don't feel sorry for anyone with such lax morals. WTF is wrong with people?
You know, this may be the first valid argument I've ever seen for the uber-lockdown thing Apple has with the iPhone/iPad OS. As much as I hate recent Apple products, I can do nothing other than agree with this statement. Good job, sir.
Money
He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion
