Killmeplsok

IMO the thing that Valve did wrong wasn't the idea of paid mods itself, a lot of modders deserves kickbacks of some kind for their hard work (although I do agree that a lot don't too) and it's nice to be able to feed yourself doing something you love, the only problem I had with the previous implementation was modder himself gets a mere 30% out of his work and Bethesda getting 40% for doing nothing (30% for Valve, that I have no problem with, they charge 30% for anything on the steam platform so I don't think it has to be any different for mods). As long as modders gets a reasonable share of it I'm fine with paid mods.

IMO the thing that Valve did wrong wasn't the idea of paid mods itself, a lot of modders deserves kickbacks of some kind for their hard work (although I do agree that a lot don't too) and it's nice to be able to feed yourself doing something you love, the only problem I had with the previous implementation was modder himself gets a mere 30% out of his work and Bethesda getting 40% for doing nothing (30% for Valve, that I have no problem with, they charge 30% for anything on the steam platform so I don't think it has to be any different for mods). As long as modders gets a reasonable share of it I'm fine with paid mods.

IMO the thing that Valve did wrong wasn't the idea of paid mods itself, a lot of modders deserves kickbacks of some kind for their hard work (although I do agree that a lot don't too) and it's nice to be able to feed yourself doing something you love, the only problem I had with the previous implementation was modder himself gets a mere 30% out of his work and Bethesda getting 40% for doing nothing (30% for Valve, that I have no problem with, they charge 30% for anything on the steam platform so I don't think it has to be any different for mods). As long as modders gets a reasonable share of it I'm fine with paid mods.

IMO the thing that Valve did wrong wasn't the idea of paid mods itself, a lot of modders deserves kickbacks of some kind for their hard work (although I do agree that a lot don't too) and it's nice to be able to feed yourself doing something you love, the only problem I had with the previous implementation was modder himself gets a mere 30% out of his work and Bethesda getting 40% for doing nothing (30% for Valve, that I have no problem with, they charge 30% for anything on the steam platform so I don't think it has to be any different for mods). As long as modders gets a reasonable share of it I'm fine with paid mods.

Who are you to define the "modding community" as such?
 
Just because they do it for fun they should not get paid for their work? If someone decides that he wants to do something he love full time he deserves to live a poor live?
 
I have some musician friend that does it for fun and others, and people are fine for them to make money doing that, people are fine with pro gamers making money playing games nowadays unlike a decade ago, what makes you think modders should remain the same forever?
 
Also this doesn't mean all modders have to charge for their work, they can stay free if they want, this just added another option for them to feed their family.

IMO the thing that Valve did wrong wasn't the idea of paid mods itself, a lot of modders deserves kickbacks of some kind for their hard work (although I do agree that a lot don't too) and it's nice to be able to feed yourself doing something you love, the only problem I had with the previous implementation was modder himself gets a mere 30% out of his work and Bethesda getting 40% for doing nothing (30% for Valve, that I have no problem with, they charge 30% for anything on the steam platform so I don't think it has to be any different for mods). As long as modders gets a reasonable share of it I'm fine with paid mods.

IMO the thing that Valve did wrong wasn't the idea of paid mods itself, a lot of modders deserves kickbacks of some kind for their hard work (although I do agree that a lot don't too) and it's nice to be able to feed yourself doing something you love, the only problem I had with the previous implementation was modder himself gets a mere 30% out of his work and Bethesda getting 40% for doing nothing (30% for Valve, that I have no problem with, they charge 30% for anything on the steam platform so I don't think it has to be any different for mods). As long as modders gets a reasonable share of it I'm fine with paid mods.

IMO the thing that Valve did wrong wasn't the idea of paid mods itself, a lot of modders deserves kickbacks of some kind for their hard work (although I do agree that a lot don't too) and it's nice to be able to feed yourself doing something you love, the only problem I had with the previous implementation was modder himself gets a mere 30% out of his work and Bethesda getting 40% for doing nothing (30% for Valve, that I have no problem with, they charge 30% for anything on the steam platform so I don't think it has to be any different for mods). As long as modders gets a reasonable share of it I'm fine with paid mods.

IMO the thing that Valve did wrong wasn't the idea of paid mods itself, a lot of modders deserves kickbacks of some kind for their hard work (although I do agree that a lot don't too) and it's nice to be able to feed yourself doing something you love, the only problem I had with the previous implementation was modder himself gets a mere 30% out of his work and Bethesda getting 40% for doing nothing (30% for Valve, that I have no problem with, they charge 30% for anything on the steam platform so I don't think it has to be any different for mods). As long as modders gets a reasonable share of it I'm fine with paid mods.

Ah...yes, tell me if every site you visits starts to ask for a subscription fee is acceptable then.

A. You severely underestimated the amount of time needed to develop a new tech.
B. Because HBM wasn't ready? For example, DDR4 started it's development during 2005, a couple years before DDR3 even launch and you only see it becoming mainstream this year and in very limited application last year, only ECC memories were available during Q2 2014, non ECC were after that. Same thing happened here, HBM started development before GDDR5 (and GDDR4 actually) even officially launched and it's not rare in any way.

A. You severely underestimated the amount of time needed to develop a new tech.
B. Because HBM wasn't ready? For example, DDR4 started it's development during 2005, a couple years before DDR3 even launch and you only see it becoming mainstream this year and in very limited application last year, only ECC memories were available during Q2 2014, non ECC were after that. Same thing happened here, HBM started development before GDDR5 (and GDDR4 actually) even officially launched and it's not rare in any way.

A. You severely underestimated the amount of time needed to develop a new tech.
B. Because HBM wasn't ready? For example, DDR4 started it's development during 2005, a couple years before DDR3 even launch and you only see it becoming mainstream this year and in very limited application last year, only ECC memories were available during Q2 2014, non ECC were after that. Same thing happened here, HBM started development before GDDR5 (and GDDR4 actually) even officially launched and it's not rare in any way.

Yes you're reading it wrong. The patent's purpose was for improving the efficiency of ARM chips, not the idea of improving the efficiency itself, it might be some design/architectural patent.
 
Just like Asetek has a patent on waterblocks with pumps, with the purpose of cooling CPUs (or whatever under it), they have a patent on how to do it, not a patent on cooling CPUs.

Yes you're reading it wrong. The patent's purpose was for improving the efficiency of ARM chips, not the idea of improving the efficiency itself, it might be some design/architectural patent.
 
Just like Asetek has a patent on waterblocks with pumps, with the purpose of cooling CPUs (or whatever under it), they have a patent on how to do it, not a patent on cooling CPUs.

Yes you're reading it wrong. The patent's purpose was for improving the efficiency of ARM chips, not the idea of improving the efficiency itself, it might be some design/architectural patent.
 
Just like Asetek has a patent on waterblocks with pumps, with the purpose of cooling CPUs (or whatever under it), they have a patent on how to do it, not a patent on cooling CPUs.

Yes you're reading it wrong. The patent's purpose was for improving the efficiency of ARM chips, not the idea of improving the efficiency itself, it might be some design/architectural patent.
 
Just like Asetek has a patent on waterblocks with pumps, with the purpose of cooling CPUs (or whatever under it), they have a patent on how to do it, not a patent on cooling CPUs.

Yes you're reading it wrong. The patent's purpose was for improving the efficiency of ARM chips, not the idea of improving the efficiency itself, it might be some design/architectural patent.
 
Just like Asetek has a patent on waterblocks with pumps, with the purpose of cooling CPUs (or whatever under it), they have a patent on how to do it, not a patent on cooling CPUs.

Yes you're reading it wrong. The patent's purpose was for improving the efficiency of ARM chips, not the idea of improving the efficiency itself, it might be some design/architectural patent.
 
Just like Asetek has a patent on waterblocks with pumps, with the purpose of cooling CPUs (or whatever under it), they have a patent on how to do it, not a patent on cooling CPUs.

Yes you're reading it wrong. The patent's purpose was for improving the efficiency of ARM chips, not the idea of improving the efficiency itself, it might be some design/architectural patent.
 
Just like Asetek has a patent on waterblocks with pumps, with the purpose of cooling CPUs (or whatever under it), they have a patent on how to do it, not a patent on cooling CPUs.

Well, I for one doesn't mind at all, so you won't need to buy certain parts of a specific model from a certain brand because you want certain color schemes, just light everything up with whatever color you want.

First of all, any business with one bit of common sense would do backups, you're expecting businesses guy scurrying to their tech department with their failed HDD after their hard drives fails? No they don't, they just ask for another drive and had it cloned from their backups. Expecting to recover stuff from storage devices are just not feasible for businesses should they failed, no matter its HDDs or SSDs, they'll just toss it out as soon as it failed, whether data is retained on the magnetic platters or not doesn't matter. 
 
One of my senior who has been maintaining servers for 20 years told me that HDD recovery services are only for stupid people or police departments, everyone who are doing anything even slightly important in my company has a RAID 1 setup, true, they're still mostly in HDDs but that's because it's cheap, not because SSDs are risky. I have few dozens of failed HDD lying around and no one bother to do recovery on them, unless it holds super important data, which in that case we have a contracted documents destruction companies who would also gladly punch a few holes through the HDD to completely destroy it for $5 as an add-on service.
 
For personal usage, no matter its a HDD or SSD, you should always be prepared for a hard drive failure and do backup, things that you don't do backup are either not important enough or you have too much money to spend because trying to recover data from your HDD can easily cost more than the price of SSD of the same capacity.

You definitely don't need to spend before this, I have few friends from Dota 2 who have never spend a single dime and they could add friends just fine.