Even if I didn't care about the privacy issues, can they offer me anywhere near the performance of my SSD? Of course not. It's latency is expressed in microseconds, my network in 2-3 digits of milliseconds. Its bandwidth is near enough 500MB/sec, my network caps out at about 4MB/sec (30mbit).

I fail to see why the hell I'd want to store my data on such an inferior setup.

Now backups to a remote site, sure that is something that can make sense. However that isn't what they are talking about. That is more like what Acronis does. They seem to think I'd want them as straight out storage.

Hell no. Until the performance issues are resolved, it is all 100% moot. Then and only then am I even interested in examining the other issues, which would rule it out anyhow.

You really won't win an argument with bigots. They think their positions is RIGHT, as in absolutely right. As such they think everyone has to support it, or those people are wrong. So ya, they feel like you have to give them money, have to let them do as they wish, or you are the problem.

So just ignore them.

Dooomed we are all doooom.
Dooooooomed!

It looked good on Paper doesn't it.

However it rarely works for a long time or with a lot of people.

The problem is that we live in a world of scarcity, we can't get all that stuff that we want, or need. The communist system tries to make everything equal, however that means everyone will be living in scarcity, and not really having what they need or want. Because everyone will be wanting, it will open the door for someone(s) to cheat the system and try to get more, once they have more they will hold on to it. And the system begins to fail.

Software like Open Source tends to work better, because there isn't a limit in supply. You can copy share make a copy of the copy and continue on and on. There is no scarcity in the Open Source Model.

And they will, if the defendant asks for a trial. However trials cost money, as such prosecutors are heavily pressured to offer plea deals to lesser charges and lesser time. They don't HAVE to, but if they regularly push things to trial and refuse to plead people out, they are likely to wind up fired. Defense lawyers take the pleas because they are a good deal, better than the law specifies. Their client might actually be guilty of a class 6 felony, but the plea deal is for a misdemeanor, that kind of thing.

You need to look in to how this all works a little more, I think. You can argue against harsh sentencing, the US has a real problem with that, and so on but the plea system is not something set up to screw defendants. It is set up to give defendants a better deal with they'd normally get under the law in exchange for reduced costs by not having a trial.

If the concern is that the sentences for crimes are too much, then that is the issue, not the plea system.

But the reason people take plea deals all the time is they are guilty. In general, law enforcement does a pretty good job of not bringing innocent people to trial. Not saying it doesn't happen, but it is fairly rare. It isn't the "all the time" sort of thing some on Slashdot seem to assume.

I'm friends with a number of defense attorneys, private and public, and they'll tell you that almost all their clients are guilty. They did what they are accused of doing. When they can get them off, it is generally because of a mistake made by law enforcement, not because there was never a case in the first place.

So what happens most of the time is a person has been brought up on charges for something they did. The evidence against them is good. Their lawyer looks at it and says "They've got you, you aren't going to get off. You should take the plea."

If the state's case isn't solid? Then they generally take it to trial. My friend is doing that right now with a DUI case. The state screwed up badly, their evidence is basically invalid. However they won't drop the case. So my friend is taking it to trial. He's very likely to win too (he has good instincts and is a good trial lawyer). He recommends trial if he thinks he can win. However, often as not, there's no chance. They have the person dead to rights, so a plea is the smart thing.

No it is quite correct. If the weapon is made properly, and most are, the only way they can fire is if the trigger is pulled. The sear will hold the hammer in place. Since the hammer is held back, there's nothing to fire the bullet.

So, if the gun is sitting in a holster, where the trigger can't be pulled, then it can't go off. Yes, even if it is dropped. You have to understand that guns are meant to be reliable and predictable. If they aren't, well they not only are not likely to be popular, but the makers are likely to get sued.

Guns don't "just fire" they don't randomly decide to go off. They are actually rather simple mechanical devices.

If you want to see for yourself, go to a gun shop or gun range or something. They'll take one apart and show you how it works. They are not complex items.

These days, Valve,s money comes from Steam. Their profits on that are stupid, like tens of millions per employee. Basically they just get to sit back and sell other people's stuff, and take a nice cut (30ish percent). As anyone who's ever had trouble with something will tell you, they have a minimal support staff, there's no phone number to call or anything, and responses take forever. Also when you really look at Steam it isn't that great. It isn't bad, but it is not some masterpiece of software engineering. Rather it was the first DD service to do a reasonable job, and thus it is what everyone started using and is in a nice positive feedback loop. Gamers buy on it because it has all the game and publishers sell on it because it has all the gamers.

Those massive profits let them do whatever the fuck they want in the rest of the company. They can goof off as much as they like, spend as much time as they like, release every game for free if they like, Steam makes WAY more money than they need.

That is also why Valve is so worried about the MS store in Windows. Supposing MS does a competent job of it (which at this point seems very unlikely), it could take away their golden goose. If people decided to start buying from the Windows store instead, because it came with the system and was integrated (like the Play Store on Android or the like) they could see their sales market evaporate and that would leave them in a rather uncomfortable situation. Hence the look at expanding Steam to other platforms, and the Steambox. They didn't just suddenly decide this was a good idea, they decided it when it looked like there might be a threat to Steam. Now given the utter hash MS is making of things, I don't think they need to worry, but that is the reason.

Also going back to the start of Steam, again you are correct. People seem to forget that Steam was hated, maligned, when it came out. The reason people used it was because they wanted to play Halflife 2, and that required Steam. They weren't pleased with it, but they wanted HL2. In that way, Valve got Steam to a large market. From there they worked on improving it, offering more games, etc, etc until eventually it is the juggernaut we see today.

No. Not at all, your analogy is horribly flawed. 5 points taken away from your house.

A car and roads have been made to work with each other, they are complements of each other.

A gun doesn't need to shoot a person, for you should hope your gun never does. If you are at a shooting range, the rule is if someone crosses the line everyone stops shooting. Even if the person isn't near your target, but the fact that they are near where you are shooting, you stop.

Well sometimes good idea are just at the wrong time.

Mindcraft was able to use the 3d+Networking aspect to modern games to make it far more popular than it would be at 2d and single player.
Kids like to build blocks, but once they are done the like to show it to other people.

Back in the 1980's and 1990's networked multi-player games were hard to come by. As telephone service was rather expensive (Pay $0.10 per call for a local call, long distance charges), and data was slow, then the main game hub system needed some rather expensive equipment to gather and split the data meaning you need to pay a rather hefty for the time fee to play the games. (Think the old Sierra Network).

A while back I came up with an idea Kinda like YouTube/iTunes however at the time most people were limited to a 14.4k modem and downloading and Playing an MP3 would require the PC's full power to decode and play at real time. Good idea, but the technology wasn't there yet.

Our Economy on the whole needs more Apprenticeship like schooling.

Colleges (I think partially due to the GI Bill, for WWII and Vietnam War, combined with trying to dodge the draft) have seem to have taken the near monopoly on Higher Learning after High School. It isn't that College and University education is bad, but it isn't for everyone leaving a gap in labor. As well lowering the value of a College education.

Apprenticeships, vocational training, and other alternate forms of education should be a larger part of our modern economy. A lot of people go into Computer Science, or Computer Engineering degrees to be Programmers and System Admins. Those don't need Degrees they can be learned via an Apprenticeship program. Also not IT jobs but other white collar jobs, like Accounting, Marketing, Sales, Advertising, Management... Doesn't need College degrees but experience and learning from skilled workers.

However the problem was the Baby Boomer created a culture of Cut Throat type of thinking, where if the Apprentice passes the master it is seen as a threat on his job, and the idea of working you way up in an organization is no longer the case, we need to jump from job to job in order to advance in life.

I am not a Gun Owner, but if I were, I don't want to be on a public list to say I am one of "those people".
The biggest problem I see is a lack of Gun Education, and proper handling of a firearm. For the most part (Yes they are exceptions) the Kids who grew up with parents with a Gun and were taught how to use a gun, actually tend not to be involved in Gun crimes. Because things like "Never point a gun (doesn't matter if it is loaded or not) at or near a person", "Take the Ammo out when you're done", "Put the gun in a safe place when not in use". After training these things become such a habit, that the idea of using a gun for violence is unthinkable. But Kid often grow up in area and are not taught gun safety, and politics tell people these things are bad, and you are bad if you have on or your parents does. So once the Kid grows up a bit, he sees this gun as a source of power over other people, and not a tool that needs to be respected so he will be far more willing to point it at people and shoot people he is angry at, as he doesn't have the habit of gun safety.

It can look like anything. But it doesn't work like anything. It still works like Linux. With its good and bad.

Linux has shown that it does have growth opportunities for the consumer market. Android has shown this. but the GNU/Linux (what we normally call Linux) is really going to stay more toward high end workstations and servers. But what Android has done was create their own OS not look like other OS's to seem like a cheap ripoff of iOS

Well, if they hate Windows 8 so much, They are going to pay more and go with Apple. Even if they don't have the extra cash they will just buy a lesser price Apple. Or they will just deal with it and use Windows 8.

When Linux Wins the Desktop, is the same day when the Desktop would be irrelevant for the common folk, and companies like Apple and Microsoft would just no longer support that platform.

The desktop will become like how Mainframes are today. Only used by people who have a particular use where they shine, there will still be new systems faster and better... However it will only be by a few companies and sold mostly to businesses.

Some of the games that have come on KS have had a pretty good business plan behind them. They know what they want to make, the basics of the world, the story, the scope, all that kind of thing. They then can determine based on funding what sorts of things they'll be able to put in the final project. I mean this goes on with any game project, you will have more ideas than you've ability to implement, so you decide what to keep and what to cut.

However the Doublefine Adventure really didn't seem to have that. It was basically "Let's make a point and click adventure game!" Ok, cool, but that is pretty broad. I mean they don't even have enough to have a title, just kinda a place holder. A whole lot could fall in their potential scope. Hence, a bit harder to know how to budget for it and so on.

They really would have been better off having a more solid plan first and then been able to do some budgeting on it.