Zoraptor

Turnout's been less than two thirds, though. Given how things are, I'd have expected it to be in the high 70s. Of course now everyone is going to try and take advantage of the referendum result. If the powers that be are smart, they won't give an inch of ground in the coming days and force Greece out of the euro by denying access to credit, cutting their losses. If not, if SYRIZA is allowed to negotiate advantageous terms, the left elsewhere will be emboldened and the risk of a contagion may increase. That would spell certain doom for the EU. After all, ~€320bn is chump change compared to what TTIP represents. Less than 2/3s is about the same as the turnout for the last election (64% per wikipedia), so I don't think too much more could be expected. After all, the last election was in many ways seen as a referendum on austerity at the time. I can't see it leading to the end of the EU either. Perhaps it is the death knell for the 'European Dream' version of the EU (and perhaps/ quite likely the euro as a predestined pan-european currency) with its theory of constant, irreversible integration, but that always needed to be wedded to practicality rather than political expediency and too often wasn't. It may end up going back to a more lite 'EEC' type model instead, but that is not necessarily a bad thing if the current hybrid system is fundamentally flawed.

I'm glad they went No, and reasonably convincingly too. A 51/49 type No would have been worse than a convincing Yes. Now, hopefully, there will be some good sense and good will shown by both sides. And the best way to get rid of the sanctions is to have Greece veto their prorogation/ extension. They have to be renewed every six months, they aren't permanent, and they have to agreed unanimously. Indeed, that would be a main reason why they'd do it (along with south stream and just to generally asterisk around with geostrat enemies in EU/ NATO), not because of any 'orthodox brotherhood' or whatever it would be dressed up as. Russia can still do it easily too as they don't have to pay the whole 420bn USD off, only the part(s) that come due over (whatever) period of time. Russia still has 360 bn in reserves despite some people insisting they should be out of cash already, they can pay off Greece's arrears and this year's principle repayments, if they want to. They almost certainly don't want to though, and certainly not yet. If they do do it they'll want maximum effect for minimum effort having had maximum damage to the EU, and that means riding in to the rescue at the last moment preferably after debt reduction or when lenders are willing to accept that, while looking a bit reluctant to do so. And it should be all rhetorical too, it can certainly be prevented by the lenders/ troika showing some good sense.

There isn't much information at present, but what there is sounds like more action, less RPG with perhaps some sort of attempt at a more meaningfully open galaxy approach to the previous games. From the list it's likely to favour the dislikes, rather than the likes. I wouldn't mind personally if they went full on 3rd person shooter though, they're most of the way there already.

Its non functional/ non intuitive site layout is worse than it being hideous, I'd say. It's pretty much a browser based late 90s gui for usenet ((Free)Agent or similar) with added up and down votes and reduced functionality. Don't really care much about reddit one way or the other in terms of the site itself, I read stuff there sometimes and it's unnecessarily janky but ultimately that's a fairly minor complaint.

Why do you troll Bruce? Don't worry, rhetorical question. Pretty lulzy trying to say that I like Silvio, given my previously shown great love of billionaire media barons, but as always you try too much, with far too little wit and far too obviously. Study Bubbles, with time and a great deal of effort you might just scrape in at mediocrity, eventually. Until that time I'm back to little i ignoring you again. Financial services were a greater proportion of Iceland's GDP than Britain's, and they would have had far more debt from their banks' failure if they'd taken it on. Though I do agree that they aren't comparable to Greece, but then nowhere is really. In any case, the main point was of pragmatism, I'd be as dismissive if the course set was for collectivisation as for neoliberalism, but it is set for neoliberalism. Under the current circumstances there is no such thing as 'solid fiscal principles' because all that is left is voluntary debt reduction or bankruptcy, the Greeks cannot do any more until one or the other happens. The whole question is a bit naive, the other two options are Pasok and New Democracy who were in power in the early 2000s and responsible for the policies then. There's no saviours there.

It's hardly surprising, they did exactly the same thing to Berlusconi; kicked him out of office then appointed their own technocrat. It was somewhat amusing to see that technocrat then try to run for election and get beaten by a (close to) literal clown, who got the highest vote share of anyone. The EU is basically Emperor Palpatine, they 'love' democracy when it's a rubber stamp, not so much when it's something like a pesky referendum. They'll keep holding referenda until they get the 'right' result, they'll incorporate undemocratic institutions and they'll subvert elections. As the old joke goes, the EU would reject its own application for membership due to not being democratic enough. Yeah, like the Tories have done in the UK. Economy still below 2008 levels, by a fair bit, GDP: debt ratio up to ~85% from 40% in 2009, despite all the rhetoric no actual surplus in sight. Iceland is doing better than that, despite their default. What's needed is pragmatism, and not slavish adherence to some Eton knob end's entirely on paper in Excel economic model that bears as little resemblance to reality as an 18 year old liberal art student's who has just read Marx for the first time. To be fair it would have been far better for the UK if your government had followed our Labour's 2000 era example in its pragmatism (ie paying back debt and establishing a proper pension fund- at 17% returns p/a- while the going was good in the early 2000s; in contrast our Tories have more than doubled debt and never had a surplus, just like yours) but it's too late to go back in time and tell Gordon and Tony that maybe they should pay back some money in the good times and not allow banks to be morans.

But as an advocate of human rights even for those who kick said rights with their feet you're not allowed to ignore him. Its his right to be heard out in this matter since the maximum amount of time a prisoner spends in isolation is indeed regulated by law. So you have to listen to this child murderer and deal with his valid concerns. I can ignore him, I'm not Norwegian let alone a part of their judiciary or prison service. He can hold his appeal, it's his right and if his complaint is valid then it's his right to get that problem fixed every bit as much as if he were in prison for tax evasion or crimes against lutefisk. It's not his right for anyone else to pay him any attention except those necessary.

For sure. We've already seen what happens when governments decide to redefine who human rights apply to, and at very very best it ends up in the flagrant hypocrisy of those governments themselves ignoring human rights. And that's best case. Just ignore Breivik. Not just because he's making complaints because he wants attention and there's a shortage of unarmed people and children around for him to bravely murder with a high powered rifle, ignore him because the most fitting punishment is for him to shuffle off this mortal coil decades from now in the full knowledge that he changed nothing and dies unremarked, unloved and forgotten.

I think she'd meet most of the criteria for a new media journalist. Certainly so here, bloggers are journalists since 2014. (Don't visit the blog mentioned in that article under any circumstances, not even to check whether I'm just being dramatic. You have been warned)

Different US regions aren't analogous to different European states. Perhaps if the Articles of Confederation were in use rather than the Constitution that would be a fair comparison, but that isn't the case here. A weaker currency is better if your primary industries, tourism and agriculture in Greece's case, benefit from having a favorable exchange rate because it allows you to export goods at more competitive prices. Adopting the Euro was an utterly idiotic move on Greece's part, given that their primary industries heavily benefit from favorable exchange rates and are much less competitive without that benefit. A weaker currency also increases the costs of imports, which helps the other side of the equation and balances any tendency to buy too many cheap German imports (on credit) by increasing their cost. There certainly are potential problems with a weak currency, especially if you're making it weak by printing more cash which is what Greece-with-Drachma would have to do as debt relief, as it's inflationary and strongly so if combined with money printing plus tends to reduce standard of living by effectively reducing wages; by and large though the problems they have with the Euro itself are far, far worse than that- they currently have strong deflation instead and 35% poverty rate, you can't get much worse than either. If Greece had the drachma they'd have a lot more tools available to deal with things, essentially. They could adjust central bank interest rates to influence cost of internal lending, print money to pay debt and increase competitiveness via weakening their currency, and the drachma's value would be sensibly (more or less) influenced by what Greece is doing and how Greece is performing, not how Germany is. As it stands they cannot adjust their interest rates and cannot print money, the EU aspects of their fiscal policy ensure deflation, uncompetitiveness and high debt with no way to recover; and if they do adopt the drachma again it is not going to be sensibly valued and 'stable'- far more important as a concept than being 'strong' or 'weak'- but will implode in a singularity of emotion and financial panic. It's not that it would be a panacea and fix everything or conversely, stop everything going wrong if they'd kept the drachma, and certainly not if they go back to it. But it would be easier for them to have managed problems, and less bad than the situation under the Euro for everyone involved.

Ideally they would have decided that Greece could not pay back their debt under any reasonable circumstance in 2008- they already have the largest primary (ie before interest payments) surplus at 5% in Europe and by a reasonable margin, plus the harshest austerity; if they aren't going to pay money back in those circumstances you've got to just face reality instead of continuing bullheadedly. Even more ideally in 2002 you either have a proper Euro zone with a proper common fiscal policy like aggregated borrowing and rules that are followed by everyone*, or decide to have no Euro. Since you cannot do either without a time machine and more political will than anyone in Europe has that leaves two options, reduce the debt to a reasonable level via a 'haircut', which is what happened for Germany post WW2, or let Greece leave the Euro on terms as amicable as possible and just take the damage from default. Increasing debt levels on Greece and increasing debt levels of your own when it cannot in any reasonable sense be paid back is simply stupid and benefits no one except those ideologically wedded to the ideal of the Euro for whom a grexit is simple anathema and the death knell of out and out integrationism. In the more general sense, there's no literal obligation on Germany to remember and reciprocate their debt being forgiven, that's a part of it being forgiven after all. Morally though? One of the fundamentals not just of 'good manners' but of diplomacy and all other forms of balanced relationships is reciprocity, the idea that you don't just do stuff to benefit yourself all the time and that when you benefit from another's action, well, one good turn deserves another. If Greece helped Germany out under circumstances where they'd be justified in saying "no" emphatically there is a moral obligation of reciprocity on Germany's part for precisely that reason. *And it should be noted, even the rules that do exist now are regularly ignored by nearly everyone.

Really Bruce, even for you that is particularly... unique* perspective given how many Greeks the Germans outright killed, let alone the damage they did to the country and its economy over WW2. Blame me for mentioning Lidice, I guess, even if I couched it as a economic comparison I clearly should have used Kondomari/ Kalavryta/ Kandanos instead- just on Crete, mind you. Just in case anyone doesn't know the details, Germany declared war on and conquered Greece during WW2 with commensurate deaths in combat, mass murder, starvation, destruction of property, mass appropriation and the like. 12 years after that they forgave Germany their debt. Bruce is right, that's not really similar circumstances- half a million (7% of pop) Greeks died as a result of WW2, I'm pretty sure not a single German has died due to issuing stupid loans that can't be paid back. BTW Bruce, won't get much more west than Greece, cradle of western civilisation and that. Oh,* *

Don't know about especially profligate, their debt: GDP ratio didn't spike until 2008 and didn't significantly increase from that of their Euro accession so their borrowing was keeping pace with growth. It was retrospectively stupid, massively so, but it was a retrospective stupidity nearly everyone had over the equivalent period and which they were at least somewhat encouraged towards by the same people who are complaining now about bailing them out. Fundamentally, few nations paid back debt in the early-mid 2000s as they should have, and wherever they were. And I guess I'd also chirp in again there should be an obligation on lenders to lend with some responsibility as well as for borrowers to borrow responsibly, and significant consequences if they don't. The tax enforcement thing is also a bit overstated, though obviously more is better for their situation. I was rather surprised myself but in 2009 Greece's black/ grey economy was almost exactly 20% (wikipedia says 25%, but their maths is simply wrong, herp derp) of GDP with well regulated and efficient Germany having 15% GDP grey/ black economy. There isn't that much room for improvement, certainly not as much as there is generally implied to be.

I think a few common misconceptions need to be alleviated, there's a lot of utter rubbish in the press. The Greek issue is not primarily self inflicted- though they're certainly not blameless- and the current situation is the economic equivalent of the US bombing Hanoi to the stone age or the SS liquidating Lidice; pour (d)é(n)courager with a pretty large dollop of I'm looking at you, l'autre Podemos. Syriza is an ideological opponent, if they succeed then Spain and who knows else follows and suddenly the economic kool aid of bailing out the rich- banks in this case- via taxpayers nationalising their bad debt then going full neo liberal theory suddenly looks like kool aid swilling. Gut Syriza, blame them and the Greeks forever, just a bit more cutting, a bit more blood, a bit more hard work (from the people who are already the hardest working per the OECD, shame so few have jobs, eh) and suddenly it'll be paradise! What was the big stumbling block; pensions vs raising taxes on the well off, the amount of money to be raised was the same. Far from being gold plated fountains of euros 45% of Greek pensioners are below the EU's own, self defined poverty line already, yet the IMF wants to cut them further. That is taking money straight out of the Greek economy, money which would be spent in shops, on rent, electricity etc and circulate because people on the poverty line aren't saving and aren't sending their cash off to Switzerland, Bermuda or Frankfurt to sit in banks or offshore share markets, nor are they buying London houses for 15% p/a appreciation which is what any sensible Greek who is rich has been doing for the past 7 years. However, the IMF expects those rich people whose taxes they don't want raised to invest in Greece because... well, who really knows, why would anyone who has an option given the mess the troika has made of it? There ain't an answer, you'd be mad to, yet the IMF says that is what will happen and it won't if you raise taxes on the well off. So still the IMF soldiers on, driving the economy further down, it's already shrunk 30%, unemployment is already 25%, poverty 35%, debt has ballooned to 180% of GDP since 'austerity' from just over 100%, 10% of their entire economic output is required just to service interest let alone pay stuff back, and that is full on GDP, not even tax take note. And, of course, it is largely due to the utterly borked structure of the euro. Greece can't do anything to help itself because its currency is run from Frankfurt, not Athens, and for the benefit of Frankfurt, not Athens. It is constantly uncompetitive because Germany is a far bigger economy, Germany is helped because the euro is lower, relatively, than a deutchmark would be; Greece is hamstrung because the Euro is far higher than a drachma would be and they cannot print money to pay or inflate away debt. So Greece cannot compete effectively either within Europe not externally because its currency is too high which overvalues their products, but at the same time it has to maintain its own debt etc. Worst of both worlds. Fix the Euro, which effectively means full fiscal union, or disband it and the pan Europeans can go asterisk themselves, else Greece will not be the last. Won't happen though, stupid is as stupid does, and politicians will be stupid if it's politically expedient to be so. Greece should have defaulted in 2008 and left the euro, their economy would be 30% larger then than now and facing the same prospect. They couldn't repay their debts when they were 100% of GDP and that was why the banks who owned that debt got bailed out*, how anyone thinks they can service it at its new, 180% of GDP is beyond sensible consideration and is a result of the most moronic ideological myopia imaginable. *Which is the really galling thing. Sure, one can rail on the Greeks for living beyond their means, it's true enough, and complain about bailing them out; but someone lent them the money and they were bailed out every bit as much, more so they since they haven't faced anywhere near the costs Greece has. Yet for some reason you don't hear the Troika pushing that narrative- completely true, too- at all for some reason. Congrats, Eurotypes, you bailed out irresponsible lenders to the tune of 350 billion Euro or whatever, every bit as much as you bailed out the irresponsible borrower. Yet while Greece's economy has shrunk 30%, 35% poverty, 25% unemployment, 60% youth unemployment those irresponsible lenders have, what, bought a new Bugatti Veyron to keep their Ferrari, Maserati and Pagani from being lonely in their 17th century renovated Tuscan villa? Slight disparity in treatment there, even if I were over exaggerating slightly.

Jamming would likely be far more used than hacking, after all it's 'simple' to jam a signal. You could also target the signal propagation at source by hitting the control facility or the satellite system as other potential examples. Though hacking would give some interesting possibilities without an 'assume direct control' approach, like revoking or corrupting security keys so no commands would be recognised.

I'd change the last bit slightly to say that she did nothing wrong that was of public interest, cheating in a relationship is morally wrong most would say, but it is a private matter and isn't really anyone else's business except the involved parties except in extraordinary circumstances which certainly didn't apply here. It was gossip rather than news, one might say. Which is also more or less Hulk Hogan's reasoning vs Gawker. Having said that, her reaction certainly didn't help matters and went a long way towards legitimising the public interest and making it news, at least in regards to her reaction itself. Apart from that the problem was that Grayson seemingly didn't/ doesn't think he did anything wrong and that his privacy should be paramount, and that antagonised many. I actually have a bit of sympathy for Grayson there since I can easily believe he didn't think he did anything wrong, wrote objectively anyway (and I'd use the example I've used before, I bet most people here would have no problem writing a review of an Obsidian game and believe they'd be objective) and most of the reason the issue had legs was due to the other party, not him. I don't like Grayson, he was not good at RPS and worse at Kotaku but I'm less than convinced he actively set out to be unethical as opposed to not even considering those implications.

They have said pretty much exactly that sort of thing before though, prior to the Vietnam War when they were making F-4s with no cannon because they'd only need missiles. The end result was the F4 getting a cannon and the F14/15/16/18. Though they could be right, this time.

Presumably they want to talk about Obsidian stuff at the panel too, not field a million and one questions about Chris leaving, the terms of Chris leaving, what Chris is going to do in the future etc instead.

Well, that aviationweek article doesn't seem to say how it actually performed against/ relative to the F16 in a practical comparison, at all. If it had performed well you'd expect them to focus on how much better than the F16 it already was and how they won x out of y simulated engagements or whatever while still having room for improvement, not just on it having room for improvement. ie, this has no mention of actually being better than the F16, just that they think the F35 has room for improvement. It's certainly inference, but it's pretty likely inference that it isn't better than the F16, just as war-is-boring claims. I have to admit I've never really 'got' the F35 though. Seems far too much a jack of all trades, master of none compromise to me.

Grr quote system, why you not work? I'd be pretty sure that most of the anti sjw crowd would find that comparison a bit... lacking. SJWs are a lot more evangelical than that which is why they have the 'warrior' part of their moniker, religion wise they're more like 7th Day Adventists or adherents of the Church of Latter Day Saints- or perhaps more like an atheist(+) who insists on going into a church to try and convert people there. If I were feeling particularly bad about sjws I'd compare them to Crusaders, going to liberate the heathen reddit and 4chan and convert them by fire and the sword to the Right Way of Social Justice, lest they die the permanent eDeath and never become eNlightened in the ways of our Lord Theoretically Non Hierarchical Pseudo Collective. To which I can only say: boo-****ing-hoo, grow the **** up. I do find it vaguely ironic that cries of "grow a thicker skin!" and "make your own game!" abound whenever someone mentions they don't feel represented in today's gaming, but when "webspaces" [which ones?] are "being pushed" [how?] to adopt a set of morals [specifically what set?] they didn't originally have [since when can't culture shifts happen naturally? for that matter, why is it bad when they happen?], it's suddenly "a blow against your personhood", akin to the plight of the Native Americans. ... Wow. Just wow. That was certainly a bit overstated, if someone seriously feels their personhood has been affronted by something online it had better be something significant like defamation or the like rather than having some hipster be a bit of an asterisk. However, as above sjws are evangelical about their views. 4chan was a asteriskhole of a place, yet sjws want to influence it. Why, really, unless they want to (yeah, metaphorically, there might be a bit of metaphor around this post) sack, slaughter and stick the eHeads of their eNemies on virtual pikes above the gates? You have sjws cliques in reddit running fake groups and doxxing and organising harassment campaigns with impunity because they're fighting the good fight or whatever. Overall though, equating 'make your own games' with 'make your own (new) forums' is not really a valid equation. GGers cannot 'invade' a game and put it to fire and the sword, worst they can do is ridicule it and not buy it, if it appeals to a market and is competently made then that hardly matters- if it doesn't then whatever GG may say, which is all they can really do, doesn't matter. OTOH, sjws can easily invade a forum whether old or new so can invade and brutalise any refugee forums established just as easily as the original ones. So the only answer for places like 8chan or the 'codex is to take the immortal words of Admiral Tolwyn to heart: 'The price of freedom is eternal vigilance'.

There are really two related issues, outright censorship where dissenting voices are silenced systematically by those in power and self censorship via pressure. It's the second one which is the one with the differing interpretations, and that relies on two competing factors- essentially, the personality of the person with the opinion and the intentions of the person (allegedly/ supposedly) trying to silence that opinion. The personality of the person is important because some do take any dissension from their opinion as being harassment or such, and an attempt to silence, while others will go to the other extreme and take any dissension as an invitation to jump on a soap box and shout their opinion from the virtual rafters. Or troll shamelessly, for that matter. Most people tend to be somewhere between those two extremes, of course, and are somewhat responsive to social pressures. The intention of the dissenter is also important, as it may vary from honest disagreement to honest but dogmatic/ ideological disagreement to apologetic disagreement/ correction to a deliberate attempt to shut the other person up via ridicule, dogpiling/ calling in reinforcements, following the person around, appealing to authorities to shut the person up for you etc. So there are two 'blameworthy' types for self censorship, those who are too sensitive to any criticism and thus censor themselves to avoid it (and if we take the Moosa situation as self censorship it would, imo, fit this type) but then claim to have been harassed or whatever; and from the other side those who are genuinely trying to shut others up by the e equivalent of school yard tactics such as shouting at them or calling them names. Though obviously there is some fuzziness and bleed through about where self and real censorship begin, someone shouting about thoughtcrime from other posters on Neogaf is usually trawling for them to be banned for their temerity, not just trying to get them to shut themselves up. Bro', that's not the Golden Horde. That's the whole Mongol asterisking Empire. With a bit of massaging, since the GH and the Ilkhanate had already split from them at that point, to all practical purposes. GH/ Mongol Empire successors lasted until the Crimean Tartarate/ Khanate in 1780 (ish), which just goes to show how educational games are since this is all gained from Crusader Kings/ Europa Universalis.

The propaganda accusation is based on my observations predominantly, but I think it's well enough founded. It's an english language publication using articles largely sourced from english bureaux and papers, and with a fairly clear slant on its own articles. It isn't so much that it is extraordinarily biased itself, comparatively to other PR outfits on both sides, as that it has a sense of 'false authority' in being a 'Russian' paper saying 'bad' stuff about Russia which is then given extra and undue weight as a balanced source due to that. That is true, but it is also true for everyone, amphibious assaults and the like are not really defensive in nature. Most drills aren't in truth, from any side with power projection capabilities, you can bet that any actual NATO/ Russia confrontation has had offensive drills done for it as well as defensive ones, on both sides, and both with the suggestion they would just be responding to aggression. Fundamentally though, if China does amphibious drills it is likely for a scenario involving an attack on Taiwan whether they say so or not. If Russia did the same it was usually a scenario involving Crimea or the Baltic States, historically, and whether they actually stated it or not. But at the same time, if the US is doing them in South Korea it is definitely aimed at North Korea, whatever is said, and from direct historical experience last time the US actually did an amphibious landing there it was not in any realistic way 'defensive' in nature, they didn't stop at Seoul, and wouldn't have stopped at all until the Yalu and the Chinese intervention. Sure, the US would say that that is defensive because the North started the war- but then they'd also claim that the Iraq War was defensive too, in the preventative sense, so amphibious drills leading up to that were defensive as well.

From their pov Denmark and Norway are members of NATO, which is and always has been an anti Russian alliance. Sweden proclaims neutrality, but is mainly just used as a stalking horse for making NATO look reasonable because a 'neutral' is saying the same things (per the hilarious sub hunt which, coincidentally, took place during budget allocation and was competent and honestly enough run to to label a speedboat as a sub) and was hardly neutral even during the cold war, let alone now. Finland, well, they have the rather inaptly named 'Moscow Times' based there, which is an overt propaganda outlet. Though it does provide amusement when people think it actually is a Russian paper. Still, Finland is passably neutral unlike the other three, but strategy wise you have to go through Finland to get to Sweden/ most of Norway. Mostly though, it is rather ironic that you get exactly the same argument, exactly in reverse, from the US and ROK when it comes to their amphibious invasion drills in the Korean peninsula. That's all defensive, designed to be preventative, supposed to stop DPRK aggression etc and the DPRK is completely, utterly, fundamentally wrong in regarding it as aggressive preparation for an invasion because so long as the DPRK isn't aggressive and provocative nothing will happen! Always nice to see the Torygraph produce something that [North Korean Pravda] would print, just with the names switched around, very illustrative.

Yeah, I could definitely see Trump thinking that the Tenpenny Tower quest sequence in F3 was some sort of metaphorical take on the dangers of immigration. I do wonder if he'd get the Tenpenny <-> Trump connection or not.

It's not specifically about hobbling in a reversible way though. I look at something like, say, the 970 vs the 980 (non Ti) of the current generation and wonder if it really costs 60% more to produce a 980 as opposed to a 970 given that most of the specs are identical- the prices here are ~550NZD vs >850NZD. And looking at the wikipedia page it does seem that there was some... controversy there about whether the 970 was hobbled or nVidia lied about its specs. I doubt that'll be any time soon as the logistics/administration would likely be nightmarish... It has no added cost to what software vendors like Adobe are already doing if they sell the cards then sell 'service plans' or whatever for the extra cash. For 'leasing' you get equivalent situations with cell phones/ call plans and computers plus various other things already; and in any case you're offloading the costs onto the consumer ultimately, so if there are admin costs you increase or otherwise massage the price to reflect that. Corporations love that stuff. I've got a theoretically 'free' satellite TV box and a theoretically free 4g modem- but I don't of course, as they're useless paperweights unless I pay the monthly fee for content- and there's no inherent reason AMD or Nvid couldn't do that too for their cards. Monsanto do much the same for seed, of all things, Steam is a subscription rather than purchase service, all software is licensed etc. Corporates would apply it to just about everything if they could, at the drop of a hat. Fortunately they can't do it at present because of backlash, but they'd still love to in theory.