Who am I?
Before the purchase?
I am the customer... and the customer is always right, amirite?
It is their job to make me satisfied with the sale I am about to commit to.
And after the purchase?
I am the owner... and who is Apple to tell me what’s best for my devices?
They’re just the manufacturer, and all the more say that the manufacturer gets is to print out nice full-colour manuals, instructional booklets, and quick start guides that I won’t ever read (step 1: open box, remove this instruction sheet from its protective sleeve).
Who am I, indeed!
I have to agree with the other responders: don't buy at Best Buy! You're just getting ripped off. Go home, and shop on Newegg.com (or zipzoomfly.com, or many others). The prices are much lower, there's customer reviews so you can see what other people say about the product or if there's common problems, and you probably won't have to pay sales tax which should make up for any shipping charges.
Right. So you're telling me I should purchase your game, sight unseen. That all I have to go on is whatever your marketing department has cooked up?
Maybe that is what they expect. I imagine hype is substantially more effective when the product can't be evaluated.
Copyright that last forever is the problem here.
Current U.S. copyright for an individual is life plus 70 years and for a corporation 95 years. Since both of those are longer then the U.S. life expectancy, copyright is now infinite. I guess Jack Valenti got his wish.
The problem here is not that they are doing this, but that they are doing this NOW.
RHEL was pay-to-update from day one. Everyone considering RHEL knew this and could decide whether that was what they wanted to go with.
The difference here is that users who have been using Solaris for years and making do with critical updates are now unable to keep their systems secure.
Oracle is changing the rules of the game in mid-stream. That is where the problem is.
Were they to come out with Solaris 11 and proclaim THEN that security updates to THAT version of the OS would be pay-to-play, then that would be fine.
What isn't fine is yanking the rug out from under people. Especially in this economy.
I think this is a fine example of why users should be wary of freeware. (Not to be confused with open source). Sooner or later, you pay for what you get.
You just make one mistake here: You think you can turn all pirates into legitimate users. Or at least more pirates into legitimate users then you have turned users into no no-users. The danger is draconian DRM might mean less sales.
For example I stopped using Amazon all together because of DRM and territorial restrictions on eBooks. That is not only won't I buy eBooks - I am not buying anything there any more.
Again 0% piracy does not mean your DRM was a success.
Somewhere along the line, publishers got confused!
Marketing Strategist: "Well, its a form of piracy prevention, see? We proliferate our "cracked" copy through the piracy channels, effectively shipping it with a trojan. When the pirate runs it, we have the malware phone home and ta-da, we remotely render their copy useless."
Boss: "So you're saying we can prevent paying customers from enjoying their product and spy on them? Ship it!"
Kidding aside i've already signed on to allow others to
benefit from my spare parts when i'm dead.
I dont understand why this isnt the default setting??!
It's for all our benefits.
Unfortunately, some people seem to think that lack of training about the issues around sex will discourage kids from participation in sex that has been the norm since long before we understood enough to talk about (or, for that matter, even had language to talk about it). It's a process that only works for people who confuse belief and hope with reality.
I think that this explains why some of these same people confuse things like fantasy gaming with real devil worship.
Normally 1.0 implies that all features they expect/want to have in the "final version" of the product are present.
The question is, which features do you decide are going to be in "version 1.0" and what goes in "version 2.0"? I think a lot of OSS developers have a vision of what their project will eventually become, and those features all need to work and be stable before it'll be "1.0".
More commercially-focused developers may have a list of things they want in a "final" product, but then cull it down to a manageable subset and have that be the "1.0" release. And others might just develop until they run out of money, and then call whatever they've got "1.0".
I don't think it's anything to do with spinelessness; simply that if a program doesn't include all the expected features, then it's not "1.0". And the developers are the ones that decide which features are "expected"; it may still be a plenty useful program without them, but it's still "not finished".
UNIX is hot. It's more than hot. It's steaming. It's quicksilver lightning with a laserbeam kicker. -- Michael Jay Tucker