[T]hat whole freedom of speech thing protects such asshattery. But it's a good thing it also protects the creative reviewers of Gary's establishment.
He's saying there is no problem here, except the restaurant owner is an asshole, he delights at the creative responses some people have made to the restaurant owner's assholery, and he disapproves of the restaurant owner, which is also protected speech.
VAC is enabled only on specific servers, and you can choose not to enable it on your machine and to only play on VAC-free servers. It doesn't exist on singleplayer games and many multiplayer games. It is separate from Steam.
Another (imo bigger) issue is that you can't publish to steam without DRM.
That's not true. You can publish to Steam without DRM, and plenty of publishers have. These games can be launched from their executables without Steam needing to run. They don't use Steamworks or any third-party DRM.
I originally had the title in quotes, which meant the comma before it was correct. However, since in American English the punctuation goes inside the quotes, I changed my mind and italicized the correction instead. That's how the comma got there.
An awkward silence ensued. The blue suits did not even confer among themselves. They just sat there, stonelike. Finally, the chief suit responded. "OK," he said, "maybe you don't infringe these seven patents. But we have 10,000 U.S. patents. Do you really want us to go back to Armonk [IBM headquarters in New York] and find seven patents you do infringe? Or do you want to make this easy and just pay us $20 million?"
Funny, the correct response should be, "Yes, we really want you to go back to Armonk and find seven patents we do infringe, and in the meanwhile to sodomize yourselves with the set you brought."
Sorry, Paul, if someone calls you a morally bankrupt scamming loser -- that would be an ad hominem attack.
No, it wouldn't. If somebody said, "You should disregard all of Paul Hansmeier's arguments because he's a lawyer" or even "You should disregard all of Paul Hansmeier's argument because he has (insert color here) eyes," those would be ad hominem attacks. Which is to say, those would be arguments that make the ad hominem fallacy of invalidating his arguments based on an irrelevant facts.
Calling Paul Hansmeier a morally bankrupt scamming loser is merely a(n apt) personal attack aimed at him and not an example of argumentum ad hominem.
[S]peech can only be prohibited as incitement when it satisfies the Brandenburg test ó when it is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." That's an outgrowth of the famous "clear and present danger" test.
horse with no name, above, expressed a prayer that disgruntled artists and producers would beat you up. This is a rhetorical flourish, and seems unlikely to be intended to actually incite a group of artists and producers to "beat you to a bloody pulp," and is thus not actionable incitement. Read Ken's article for a more thorough examination of a line similar to this.
In such a fantastic post, I wanted to correct you on a small matter of free speech. Horse's speech was protected, as idiotic as it was. I wouldn't have it any other way.