> Life is all there is. When you die, from your perspective, that is the end of all things.
So? Why does that matter? From my perspective, before I was born and after I die are equivalent on account of me not being able to have a perspective. 13.8 billion years of the universe where I didn't exist wasn't horrible before so I don't see why it will be so horrible in 60 or 80 more years when I don't exist again.
It's weird how people get very philosophical and accepting about death form old age, but are horrified by murder, suicide, deadly airplane crashes, gas explosions, and so on. You get just as dead either way, but somehow death from old age is considered to be just a natural part of the Plan.
Did you tell her about it/get her permission beforehand? Or did she say something when you met her that indicated it would be okay? If so, great. If not, this is still in the creepy / douche canoe area and the fact that she happened to be okay with it after the fact doesn't really change that.
Perhaps it's just my personal feelings towards the relevant companies but I felt like it was a totally different affair than the Origin bundle, though you are right that it was different from the original ethos.
The main similarity to the Origin bundle was that only DRM-full copies were available and, again, this was definitely a departure.
On the other hand, while THQ was technically a AAA developer/publisher as well, by that point it was largely an in-name-only sort of deal. The THQ bundle was (or at least looked to be; I don't know if there's a definite official word on it) a last ditch effort to save a well-liked company from bankruptcy. Maybe trying to prop up a large company is not quite in the same vein as trying to support a tiny company but I personally felt like the spirit was mostly intact.
The Origin bundle, on the other hand, was a different beast. EA is a large, stable company and has a strong reputation for being anti-consumer. They also only provided DRM-full games in the Bundle but most of the games were only available on a service used by fewer people. And, for that matter, that seemed to be the entire point of the bundle: actually get people to use Origin. As much as I hate to say this phrase, the Origin bundle definitely felt like the HB guys selling out.
The Origin bundle was entirely for charity, though. Kind of hard to consider it "selling out." AND EA let them post Steam keys for some of the games, even though the whole point of the bundle was to promote Origin.
I'm not happy about them not having Linux games, but it's hard to really feel bad about buying that bundle. At least for me.
It would be one thing if it felt like EA had decided they wanted to do a charity event out of the goodness of their heart or at least like the charity was the point of it. As was, it felt more like EA didn't think they could get away with positive PR by actually making money directly from the Humble Bundle but they didn't particularly care since their point was getting buy-in.
I don't mean to say anybody should feel bad about buying it--I don't think they should feel bad even if EA had gotten all the profits--but backing EA's attempt to get market share does feel like a major shift for Humble Bundle.
I'm happy to read that you're complaining about the Humble Bundle's attempt get EA market share. That's as if someone were to complain about Orval trying to get Anheuser-Bush Inbev market share because their lead brewer once said he would buy a Budweiser.
First, if you think I'm complaining you may be misreading. I'm explaining the difference in perceived ethos but I have no problem with HB at all.
Second, I think you already realise that your analogy is only analogous in that there's a multi-billion dollar company and a much smaller company are both involved.
For example, AB InBev makes up half of the US beer sales with Budweiser and Bud Light being the top two US beers and the Budweiser family is the best selling worldwide. On the other hand, while Valve doesn't release many numbers, it's estimated that Steam has a strong majority of the PC game digital distribution market and Origin's market share is, obviously, lagging far behind.
Also, it doesn't take into account the vast difference between Origin and Budweiser. Origin exists to sell you other products and you have to use the service in order for this to happen. It is difficult to overcome the initial user inertia to get them to join and install the service and to keep it running on their system so that things can be further pushed on them. Once this inertia is overcome there is very little extra resistance to using the service to purchase games. This inertia is also increased because the market of people who would use a DRM-full digital distribution service is not at rest but is rather largely moving along happily with another service. By offering a significant discount on popular games if you start using their service they could convince people to get and run Origin giving them that initial hook.
Further, the Humble Bundle was creating an opportunity to have a significant effect on their user numbers. At 50,000,000 users in July, even if only half of the bundle purchasers were new Origin users, that's an extra 2% of people using their service, and they created positive exposure to many more that may have also joined or may be more inclined to join in the future.
And, finally, I don't think HB was attempting to get EA market share at all. EA was trying to increase Origin market share; Humble Bundle was trying to grow their own service and make some money. (People keep saying the Origin Bundle was "all for charity" or whatever, but don't forget that sending a portion of the money to Humble Bundle was an option that I'm sure some people chose, if only by default.) Again, I don't fault HB for this but it is a noteworthy difference from their prior operations.
I'm not sure what the big deal is. Clearly you aren't that interested in the games in the first place, and it's not really an Origin issue.
Steam has some pretty shitty policies as well, like the fact that you can no longer log in on multiple computers. This means you can't play two different games on the same account. Working backwards from the days when if you bought two games, two people could play them simultaneously.
Clearly you aren't that interested in the games in the first place, and it's not really an Origin issue.
Clearly how? You are correct that I am not sufficiently interested in order to go through the additional hassle of Origin. I have in the past been very interested in some games but did not want to add on the hassle of Origin and so I never got them. That's pretty much the same case as here.
Steam has some pretty shitty policies as well, like the fact that you can no longer log in on multiple computers.
It does but I don't find that relevant at all. For one, I have no need to log into multiple computers anyway. But for the more general case of Steam policies, I have found them a sufficient tradeoff for value. My issue with Origin is not strictly their policies but the fact that I already have Steam running with >500 games in my library and I don't want to be running Origin on top of that. It's unnecessary hassle and it's wasteful of resources.
If I got my buy-in on Origin first, odds are I'd be saying things the other way around.
Uh, E = mc^2 is not the full equation. That is, in fact, a special case for an object with no momentum in a given frame.
The actual equation is E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2, where the p is momentum. And, unsurprisingly, the old "p=mv" isn't the whole story, either. The (magnitude of the) momentum of a photon is given by h/λ where h is Planck's constant and λ, of course, is the wavelength.
As such, at no point is it necessary for light to have mass and it is believed that, in fact, photons are entirely and truly massless. Relativistic mass--which some take to mean photons actually gain mass--is a confusing and misleading concept that doesn't really have a whole lot to do with actual mass and doesn't really help explain anything.
"Effective mass"--which is more related to stopping photons, but not really related to the Einstein equation you gave--also doesn't really mean the photon gains mass but it does mean that interactions within the crystal give effects similar to if the photon had mass.
That's pretty much a question of what the divide between zombies and vampires really is. They are, in essence, very similar, especially compiling variants of the myths. They are undead in some way feeding off of humans in a manner that, some percentage of the time or by some means, turns the human into one of them. Pre-Dracula vampires are generally hideous in manners that could be confused with some versions of zombies.
The book is pretty explicit about them being vampires including distinctly vampiric traits (nocturnal, traditional vampire weaknesses, killing them with stakes through the heart.
The film of the same title, however, rides the line pretty close, coming closer to vampires with the original ending. Their weakness to sunlight and their intelligence are clearly more vampiric, but it doesn't really do much more than that.
Either way, though, Matheson's influence on zombie fiction certainly makes the vampires look more zombie-ish from a modern perspective and can probably be uncontroversially explained at least as a stepping stone from between vampires and zombies.