Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:Why? (Score 2) 53

Steam actually found that sweet spot between walling the user in and offering him what he wants. Allow me to elaborate.

What does NOT work with Steam? Well, I cannot really sensibly resell the game I bought unless I sell the account it is bound to along with the game, which is afaik against the TOS. At least until Steam finds out that they could make a cut of that sale and doesn't fear that studios dump them for basically becoming a way worse version than GameStop (from the Studios' view).

Aside of this, Steam is quite permissive, going as far as offering me the Linux version of games I bought for Windows where available when I launch it in Linux. Now, could you imagine this in a MS-Shop? Or a Mac-Shop? I somehow doubt that you would get Android versions of programs you bought for iPhone, even if you could install the iShop (or whatever it's called) on an Android phone.

The permissiveness of Steam even goes so far that you can "share" your game library with friends to some degree. Personally, I can't really say that there is anything I'm missing.

And this is all the difference. What matters is whether the limitations you're dealing with actually cut into your experience. Steam offers a lot of convenience. No DVDs to hunt down in the mess I call apartment, no hours of patching before playing, double click to install, double click to play. Easy. And yes, there are limitations, mostly concerning the resale of the software. Doesn't affect me, though. But what DOES affect me is that I can return software after playing it for a few minutes and noticing that it's a messy, buggy, unstable piece of junk or simply noticing that I don't like it.

Try that with your local game retailer.

Comment Re:How quickly we forget (Score 1) 53

And Sony has shown no, zero, nada, zip remorse for it. So far not even an apology came out of them and the ... "compromise" they offered to compensate for the damage was offered when their lawyers pretty much told them that they better offer some sort of token because no court is stupid enough to side with them.

As far as anyone can tell, they still feel that action was well within their rights and justified, so why should I assume otherwise? 11 years ago or 111 years ago, what's the difference when the attitude doesn't change?

Comment Cry me a river (Score 1) 340

I bet he also thinks it really hurts his efficiency that he can't simply open letters as he pleases or simply storm suspects' homes and take away whatever he considers to be evidence.

Pesky thing those "liberties" and "rights". Things are so much easier for police in a police state, I tell ya.

Comment Re:Apples and oranges (Score 1) 62

When capitalism (in its modern crony form, since there has never been a free market) or communism (in its modern crony form, since there has never been equality between comrades) gets to 2000 years old, you MIGHT gain a point. Until then, your worship of modernism and utter lack of knowledge of history is blocking you from learning.

"Except you said their day job is hunter/gatherer. Their primary job is to hunt and gather. "

The average hunter/gatherer society works a 32 hour workweek. Plenty of time left over from that job for teaching the next generation.

"capitalists and communists can tell bed time stories too."

Yes they can. I never denied that economics can be a religion, only that it isn't a particularly successful one (due to extreme shortsightedness). When 2000 years old your religion is, maybe you'll have a point.

Wisdom is just how to apply knowledge. I don't know why you are scared of it.

From an evolutionary standpoint, correct wisdom reduces problems, incorrect wisdom increases problems. Cultures that increase problems, die out.

"And you do realize a lot of Christian sects don't let their priests or nuns marry and have kids, right?"

No problem with that as long as you don't use birth control or abortion. 10 child families feed vocations nicely.

Kings are never happy.

Comment Re:Apples and oranges (Score 1) 62

I was responding to "I'm not sure how to parse that sentence. "

"So you admit that religion is no different than capitalism or communism. Somebody wrote the religious books just as somebody wrote books on capitalism and communism. "

Yes. From the point of the view of the radical skeptic, they're all scams.

" Religion is just as materialistic and enslaved to lust as any other, and is no better at passing down wisdom."

Well, it's better in one way. I don't know of any 2000 year old markets.

"In other words, they were priests, but not the type of priest who functioned to pass down wisdom. "

Incorrect. Hunter/gatherer priests pass down a lot of wisdom. If they don't, the tribe starves to death.

"Their role as a "priest" was closer to that of a doctor or scientist today, working with what knowledge (not wisdom) they knew of the world to solve society's problems. "

Knowledge is a subset of wisdom. All true knowledge is necessary for wisdom; wisdom is how to apply the knowledge to solve society's problems. Religion passes on wisdom better than capitalism or communism has, for they just invent NEW problems.

"Ancient Egyptian priests for example didn't even care much for the common people. Their job was to perform rituals in temples (which commoners couldn't enter) to appease the gods, not pass down wisdom or teach the people about religion."

You apparently don't know much about ancient egyptian religion either, for this is entirely false. Did you learn all you know about Egyptian Religion from Stargate? The whole point of those grandiose temples was to inspire awe in the people and teach them something about their environment.

"Ergo, the existence of priests who-don't-pass-down-wisdom are not an example of how religion is somehow good at passing down wisdom."

You can come to all sorts of false conclusions when you invent fake data.

"which is why during the Christian church's peak in power (middle age feudalism all the way to age of colonialism and imperialism) so many royal families kept their blood "pure" through incest while still having many bastard children on the side, so there were plenty of potential contestants in the Game Of Thrones whenever there's an opening."

Which the church actively preached AGAINST, to the point of causing the Protestant Rebellion in England. Or did you forget that point?

"And surly none of the nobles and upper classes failed in exercising humility. The commoners loved their lords so much that they never dragged them out to the guillotine."

That was the atheists who caused that, remember?

"And surly the upper classes practiced love thy neighbor, like how King George loved his subjects. Intolerable acts that pissed off his subjects so much they broke off from his empire? Why he'd never!"

Protestants again. You'd think history was invented in 1500, by your level of knowledge. You know NOTHING about Medieval times, or actual Christendom between 600-1200 A.D., your examples are all modern.

"Oh, and again for chastity, slashdot ran a story [slashdot.org] recently that people are having less sex (read: more chase) than before. And they have less kids, at later times, if they even engage in relationships at all."

And you don't see the inevitable economic problem that will cause, do you. Chastity isn't just about NOT having sex- it's about having appropriate relationships that produce children so that the human race continues.

"How so? As I have shown, the good old past... wasn't."

And yet, 10 children families. MUCH happier, apparently.

"Well, religion is more enslaved to lust than being sexually free."

Then why does divorce exist in your "sexually free" system? And yes, people are having LESS sex, and thus are unhappier.

You're less than 10% of the society, you broke down taboos and demystified sex- and you caused a demographic collapse.

Comment Re:Oh please (Score 2) 123

How about falling into a pile of mud that instantly covered her?

Fossils are rare. For many reasons. One of them being that back then burial rites were not really the big craze and animals that die rarely get to fall apart where they fall to the ground. Carrion eaters tend to pluck them apart and carry parts away. Sometimes a corpse gets buried quickly by natural events. Falling into a swamp, or an animal suffocating from a volcano eruption and getting buried under ash.

Yes, that's rare. But so are fossils. If you consider just how many animals have lived on this planet and then compare that with the amount of fossils we have, it's actually amazing that we DO have Lucy at all.

Slashdot Top Deals

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." - Bert Lantz

Working...