But it still isn't MSN who did it. The key part of the problem is entirely glossed over in the article.
pjhenry1216
joined 1 year ago
Do people forget that games used to require you to have the CD-ROM in the drive before they would run?
They weren't always like that though. Don't forget piracy didn't start with the video game industry. It only started once it took off. CDs came later.
Source: person who remembers playing games off 8" floppies.
Edit to add: a game 20 years ago will only run because Windows says it's ok. If it's a linux-based game from 20 years ago, then it depends on a lot of other stuff. It's not Steam that keeps them running. Steam just provides you a copy for the most part. GOG exists and doesn't have the DRM that Steam allows. Does it have the same library? No. But we shouldn't support DRM to begin with, so if it's not on GOG, than I don't trust the game itself.
It's a shame that it's even considered "radical" since it's basically a copyright holder upholding their end of the bargain in the promise behind the origin of copyright. To incentivize creative content, a creator is given sole ability to monetize it for a fixed period of time. In return for that protection, the public gets it at the end of the term. Today's copyright is so far off course that it defeats the intent. There's no incentive to create anything new if you can keep milking existing content. And the public never gets a return for offering that protection.
I mean, the US troops do provide a lot of aid around the world. They do more than fight. You can argue an imbalance, sure. And it's also clear they can bring some measure of stability with their presence as we've seen what can happen the moment they're removed.
Isn't this just implying you're paycheck is just you billing yourself? The one portal leads to the other.
I mean, MSN is just a portal and I doubt there's much behind it besides what domains are popular. MSN "published" this the same way Google News published articles. It sounds better to say Microsoft did it, but it's from some news site called Race Track and it was simply scraped by MSN.
It likely ranges. A lot of time the counterfeit is good cheese, it's just not from the correct region. It's not like buying a "Soony Walkman" or something. And if you can't tell it's counterfeit by how it tastes after the fact, then who is this program protecting?
I find the "stricter" meaning more ambiguous though. Nerd still applies to many subclasses of people back in the day. If you read too many books, nerd. Played video games? Nerd. Did math for fun? Nerd. Chess? Nerd. So saying "classic nerd" doesn't say much.
And in regards to being negative or not, it was more the ambiguity of their opening. They said the word "nerd" isn't negative anymore because it's watered down. So when they made a non-watered down version, it just seemed questionable in regards to the reason given for not being negative anymore.
Based on their response, yeah, I think it was just poor wording.
My gatekeeping was referencing a need for "classic nerd" vs "nerd". I find no need to differentiate between what it "used" to mean and what it means today. It makes more sense to categorize the type of nerd to be honest. I don't think anyone is "just" a nerd. They're a nerd in a certain topic or subject.
Nerd means the same thing, just expanded to include different topics. Nerd back in the day could mean various things. You could be a nerd for liking dinosaurs "too much" but didn't mean you knew about computers. So it's just that saying "classic nerd" doesn't really clarify who yorue talking about.
Did he actually say this?
I think you're missing the point. It's that they built it to begin with. And it's not always enclosed. Stadiums exist all over that aren't air conditioned and don't close. It's the level of effort to overcome the heat. Yet we still can't air condition damn Amazon warehouses or UPS trucks. Both of those have had folks pass out from heat.
It's clear you're both using different meanings of "intelligence." Granted I don't think there is consensus on its meaning, but from context they clearly regard "intelligence" as just memorized facts and wisdom as the application of it, which they aren't honestly far off. The amount of data is there, it's the understanding of the data that isn't there.