Quoting: Guest

Quoting: lucifertdarkW

Quoting: GuestExplain to us all why you think he is a fraud and liar. A "fraud" means deception. A "liar" also means deception. What exactly has he lied about?

Well Man Made Climate Change is a huge Fraud & a Lie & he's all in on it.

The Climate Change nonsense is based entirely on a computer model that has been wrong for the last 20 years & has been proven to be wrong & yet frauds like Tyson still parrot it out as being the truth.

If you're talking about some much older models decades ago, sure, some of those models ended up being wrong because they were using currently outdated information because they were older models. For example, some models thought it was going to be a bit better, but the building of several more coal power plants altered that prediction.

The overall science though is correct. There is a radical spike in temperature off of the normal slow curve and it is clearly caused by human activity. There are a lot of very striking obvious effects seen all over the world already. To listen to fossil fuel propaganda instead and ignore science and the need for renewable energy demonstrates the failure and negative effects of unrestrained capitalism and its stranglehold over mass media as well as the deep corruption it has caused in various governments, especially America's.

I dont 't want to support tinfoil hat here, but on one thing, he is right . T here is a lot of lying here. Just look at the latest poke from. Randall: http://xkcd.com/1732/d [External Link]

this was widely shared by almost everyone on the internet. However, if you look at it closely, it puts together day today measurement of temperature in modern times and smoothed estimates from past. Any conclusion about global warming from this is completely made up and in any other topic, this would be instantly dissed as psedudoscience. Not in global warming.

However, many people believe that this graph is correct.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Any other news on this? Because Civ 6 strategic view is awesome!
https://www.reddit.com/r/civ/comments/56r0mw/civ_6_strategic_view_is_fing_beautiful_it_looks/ [External Link]

View this comment - View article - View full comments

It seems to me that currently, FPS and 4X are, not counting various indie titles, the most represented AAA/AA games on linux. If someone filter out all those procedurally generated rogue-like/lite zombie survival games.

However, anyone have closer information on this? There seems to be a lot of dev diaries on their website, however no writeup on what the game really is.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

More like science communicator.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: emphy

Quoting: Colombo...

Quicky post, since I don't have much time now.

I understand my own examples quite well, thank you ^_^

Sure, there are cookbooks for which you must pay, but there's no one stopping you from sharing the recipes contained therein. Same for theatre groups performing out of copyright plays. Still, more than enough people are prepared to pay for (quite high quality) versions to be able to fund the production.

The general availability of culture has absolutely nothing to do with the ability of the authors to charge for their work. But once people have culture in their hands/minds/computer, the author's control of it is a legal construct. The simple reality is that, without some stasi-level surveillance, people will share products of the mind. The implication of people owning ideas is restricting peoples freedom to share it, FORCING them to stop doing what has been a pillar to cultural development for thousands of years.

If someone wants to invest a lot of work and money into creation of new product, he will do it only in situation where he thinks he will get his investment back.

You can do it by various way, one way is to have idealized moral society. Another way is to have state subsidized creation of stuff. Another way is to provide creator some sort of control over his product.

First one is realm of fiction and not stable state anyway. The second is huge baggage of problems as well (how do you decide who is worth subsidizing?), it can partially work, but not fully. So third is our only realistic choice.

Now, every control can be broken. It depends on necessary effort and gains. (however, some take this as challenge...)

For customer, it is need for product, its quality, accessibility, price, some tiny bit of morality and huge deal of feeling of fairness. You put all of these into decision function and you could predict, given enough data, how will customer decide.

Obviously, there are various disparities in power and this was one of reasons behind revolution that happened a few years back. New ways of distribution, rise of youtubers and so on clearly changed pattern of customer decision making as suddenly there was plenty of information about quality, accessibility steeply risen thanks to steam and so on.

So to sum it up, I kind of agree with you about freedom and sharing of information. Problem is, we do not live in ideal world and creators must be motivated to create, this is much more obvious in the case of huge investments, like movies, games or damn science (i.e., for GMO or drugs, you must do crapload of testing to show that product is safe, lab experiments, then studies on living objects, comparison with other drugs..., I would rather have something protected for 5-10 years, but with known chemicals, then not protected, but secret (and sold) or not at all).

So although I agree that we must share, we must also protect, not for centuries, but enough so that prior investment has a chance of returning, so that investors can invest again and we can go forward. And some stuff subsidized (like science, schools for everyone and so on).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: emphyDon't mistake the idea of not charging each and every person individually with actually being free of charge.

I am not mistaking anything, if you took your time and read properly my post, I was speaking about subsidization of culture.

Quoting: emphyNot quite - and this ties closely with how currently culture is organised into intellectual property. For example, you pay for food, but it is quite usual for recipes to be freely shared (similar to, say, how theatre groups can perform Shakespeare's plays) However, literature, music, films and video games are nowadays locked away into this legal framework which prohibits copying and insists that each and everyone who enjoys them pay a fee.

Do you even understand the examples you are giving? There are tons of recipes, still, there are cookbooks for which you must pay. And some recipes are kept secret.

The same with theatre groups. They are not performing for free, nor every play is free.

In the same way, there are tons of books, movies, music and video games that are free, there are people exchanging part of code, even writing for free. As there are football games on which you can go for free, there are ones, for which you must pay.

If you want free games, go to armorgames or kongregate and play for days, months, years, completely free of charge! Or many other free games that authors did in their free time! You can download free books! But understand that ITS UP TO AUTHOR IF HE MAKES HIS WORK FREE OF CHARGE.

But, if you want good products, it takes time. It takes time to be good coder, good writer, good musician. As it takes time to be good engineer, scientists... Only if someone can safely invest that time with the idea, that he won't die from starvation on street, he needs money. And if people are willing to pay for higher quality stuff, he will make money and thus keep creating.

Yeah, there may be benefactors, who will invest their money into their favourite creator and thus enable him to do that and he can make that stuff free. Yeah, there may be investors that invest their money into creator with the idea that they will make money out of it. Yeah, there may be states or organization, that will invest public money into creators with the idea that they will promote culture. There are libraries, if you want something free, go look at them. There are universities and schools that in a lot of countries provide free "services".

But wanting stuff free without DRASTIC societal changes that will subsidize every creator, thats is absolutely out of reality. Namely if you want to force it on EVERYONE. That my friend, is communism.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

From that mentioned steam pinned thread:

Quoting: "Kris (developer) Sep 19"FWH is a small studio and we need to pick our battles carefully. We decided to focus on good single player experience and add optional co-op to that. Despite that, we had to delay some things like consoles or Linux/Mac. We simply don't have the required manpower and budget to do good PvP on top of planned features.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: emphyIts an interesting discussion - as I see it, roughly speaking, there seem to be two views clashing:

One side of the argument sees video games as goods/services. From this it easily follows that if you can't pay you don't get the stuff.

The other side of the argument sees video gaming as a cultural activity. Money barely enters the equations in this view: the street artist has to perform first, then if the audience liked it they pay, or not.

For myself, I sympathise much more with the second view. It seems to be much tougher on the artist since, if you adhere (maybe even partly) to the first view, they have to compete with free copies of their product. However, in the second view, if one is enjoying the culture, one makes sure to return a favour, which in modern times is making sure there's some money going to the artist in question when you can.

One could say that this street performer does not have any other choice.

Many states are subsidizing various cultural activities for the good of population. If certain person wants games to be free because of its part of culture, he can make an attempt during next election in his or her country.

However, I would say that this idea is just plain wrong. Food, architecture, clothing... all those and many others are part of culture, but no one expect to get these things for free (except gypsies)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

scaine: Piracy is not stealing. Stealing is taking from someone. Piracy is piracy. Its like listening to musician who is playing behind fence for audience that paid for it. Musican isn't directly losing anything, audience who paid for it isn't directly losing anything. However, it becomes problematic when everyone is standing behind fence. But, there may be several reasons why people is staying there and not going in. One reason is that they are only passing by, listening shortly to see if they like it. Another reason is that they went previously to this performance but were disappointed by quality, protecting their investment that way. Or just that the entrance cost is too high or they are standing behind fence because no one put doors into it.

View this comment - View article - View full comments