No, because in the movie they are in some suburb in Los Angeles, not in Australia. So it was Nov 21 in LA, probably Nov 22 in Australia at the time. Still tomorrow for you and everyone else.
So what? Games don't *have* to be art, they have to be games. If we get into the debate as it is presented (ie "are videogames art?"), we concede on a very important point that we shouldn't: art is not better than games. Games don't have to "rise up" to the level of art, they're already on the same level. They're important for human development in their own way, just like art is. How come nobody goes up to an artists and asks "this is nice, but is this a videogame?".
Which is actually the smartest move they can make for that brand, given https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik..., although I think I'm the only parson in the world to ever make the connection. One of my favorite things at GDC for the past ~3 years was going to their booth and asking "are you seriously sticking with GRID? All caps?", they seemed to be completely clueless about it..
It's true that consumers don't have to "trust" anyone to make a good console. Even if you go by the reasoning that they'll dump some money on the console with the promise that there'll be good games in the future, you'll still have to pay for those games. Consumer trust on a brand is useless for the consumer, they won't get anything in return, there's no reciprocal relationship, the brands only cares about the consumer's money, and the consumers only get what they pay for.
Developers however, they have to trust the platform because they have to invest a bunch of money on it, and they will get a bunch of money in return. It's a reciprocal relationship, they put something in, they get something back. I don't know if trust is the right word, but they're asking themselves if they can take the risk or no.
So far apple has been pretty bad to develop for, especially games, especially if they want to have big games, their tools won't cut it; but as a market ios is great, many developers will probably trust that, and put up with the bad tools.
Ok, so you agree that I'm not charged for murder, because the actual murder is committed by someone else? That's the whole point. I don't really care what the "DA might throw", this is not a TV show; I don't even know which country we're talking about, this is about some guys from who knows where (probably multiple countries) dumping a database from a canadian site, with consequences to to some guy from some ass-backwards country were they kill people for being gay. It's more of an ethical discussion to me. Also do you agree that these guys didn't conspire with anyone, didn't instruct anyone to do anything, didn't pay anyone to kill anyone else, they just dumped a database?
I don't know if it's morally neutral, but if I'm ever tried for my actions I will be responsible for telling someone the location of Sam Hamwich and not for killing Sam Hamwich. If, instead of a person, it was a computer asking me to program in the coordinates of Sam Hamwich so it can shoot a missile at him, then yes, I'm responsible, because the computer is just a deterministic machine, it will do what it's programmed to with the information I input, but the hit man is a man, he has free will and can make his own decisions, I'm not responsible for his actions, only for my own.
The actual interesting argument (this is where I thought you were going) is, is the person who paid the hit man also responsible for the death of Sam Hamwich? He didn't actually killed him, he paid money to a hit man (who can make his own decision, etc). But the hackers who published the Ashley Madison database did not pay anyone to do anything as far as I know, so I'm gonna say it's irrelevant:p
Of course it is possible, that's why the first thing I say is that the hackers are violating people's privacy. I'm not saying the hackers are blameless, I'm saying everyone is responsible for their actions, and everyone has to answer/be punished for their actions and not somebody else's. The hackers hacked, and the killers killed. But the hackers did not kill.
No, I'm saying everyone is responsible for their actions. The people who snitched are responsible for snitching, the people who killed are responsible for killing. If you put it all on the snitches, you're making the nazis as machines, like they don't make their own choices. Turning someone in to the gestapo is not the same as pushing someone in front of a train. The train is a machine, it obeys the laws of movement, it can't stop, so the blame is with whoever pushed the person. Someone who kills someone else for being gay or cheating on their spouse is not a machine, is a person that can make choices, and is responsible for the consequences of those choices.
That's my main problem with this, I get that this data breach is a violation of people's privacy, but if someone is killed for doing nothing, it's the fault of the person who killed them, not some hacker. If we blame the hackers, we're reducing every other participant to some sort of deterministic machine, with no mind of its own. That's not what they are; a killer (a person, or a government) can choose not to kill someone for being gay, and if they choose to kill, it's entirely on their hands, and they are responsible for their actions. They don't get to claim that some hacker fed them information and they somehow completely lost control of themselves.
Ok so the summary was really confusing, and the articles linked were obviously one-sided, and talking about "sad puppies" right away (wtf are you even talking about?), but some of the comments here clarified the situation. The only question is, how were these groups able to control who got nominated in the first place? Are the nominations picked by one group of people? Are these the people that rule the awards, will they pick the same way next year? How can they win at the nominations and lose at the final vote?
Oh this is about social media. I thought they meant hoops like wading through a bunch of ObjC and Java bullshit in order to have your main() entry point and go into a loop that runs your program.
I'm not saying I don't appreciate his work, but 100 hours a week doesn't add up. Unless he's counting multiple people? Which would be reasonable, let's find funding for him and some sort of helper/assistant/apprentice.
Don't DMCA takedown notices count as sworn statements? I remember something along the lines of "I swear under penalty of perjury that the information in this document is correct". If the takedown request is actually wrong, isn't this actionable? Is perjury punishable in a civil court?
Is this some alternate timeline of the future where we still care about television? I haven't turned on my TV at home for years, let alone on a hotel room. Now if the hotel would provide proxies to different countries so that guests could watch their favorite streaming service with the correct catalog, *that* would be the future.
Don't forget that "feature" they added some months ago where the browser arbitrarily disables add-ons that weren't approved by the vendor, without the option for the user to white list them or explicitly enable them. They're just disabled, for your own good, stop asking questions. So now you're forced to run the "developer version" which allows this, and it aggressively updates itself to the latest version every chance it gets.
yeah, that's pretty much who I was thinking. Are you suggesting that those people somehow don't count? because they're from the third world? just because we don't care about us citizenship doesn't mean that those people don't exist
It's the biggest economy in the world, and it's notorious for being strict in their immigration policies. We get it, you don't like it because of some ridiculous first world problem or another, but are you really going to use your kids' futures just to make a point? If you don't like the draft and taxes, go vote for the guy who wants to abolish them in the next election, but don't deny your kids a chance at something millions of people would die for.
Slashdot Mirror
you know the rest
Do I share my 3 words with my downstairs neighbor?
No, because in the movie they are in some suburb in Los Angeles, not in Australia. So it was Nov 21 in LA, probably Nov 22 in Australia at the time. Still tomorrow for you and everyone else.
So what? Games don't *have* to be art, they have to be games. If we get into the debate as it is presented (ie "are videogames art?"), we concede on a very important point that we shouldn't: art is not better than games. Games don't have to "rise up" to the level of art, they're already on the same level. They're important for human development in their own way, just like art is. How come nobody goes up to an artists and asks "this is nice, but is this a videogame?".
Which is actually the smartest move they can make for that brand, given https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik..., although I think I'm the only parson in the world to ever make the connection. One of my favorite things at GDC for the past ~3 years was going to their booth and asking "are you seriously sticking with GRID? All caps?", they seemed to be completely clueless about it..
It's true that consumers don't have to "trust" anyone to make a good console. Even if you go by the reasoning that they'll dump some money on the console with the promise that there'll be good games in the future, you'll still have to pay for those games. Consumer trust on a brand is useless for the consumer, they won't get anything in return, there's no reciprocal relationship, the brands only cares about the consumer's money, and the consumers only get what they pay for.
Developers however, they have to trust the platform because they have to invest a bunch of money on it, and they will get a bunch of money in return. It's a reciprocal relationship, they put something in, they get something back. I don't know if trust is the right word, but they're asking themselves if they can take the risk or no.
So far apple has been pretty bad to develop for, especially games, especially if they want to have big games, their tools won't cut it; but as a market ios is great, many developers will probably trust that, and put up with the bad tools.
That's nice but did you ever find out what is the optimal way to jerk off all those people?
I don't know about football fields but it's about 1.8 Libraries of Congress.
Ok, so you agree that I'm not charged for murder, because the actual murder is committed by someone else? That's the whole point. I don't really care what the "DA might throw", this is not a TV show; I don't even know which country we're talking about, this is about some guys from who knows where (probably multiple countries) dumping a database from a canadian site, with consequences to to some guy from some ass-backwards country were they kill people for being gay. It's more of an ethical discussion to me. Also do you agree that these guys didn't conspire with anyone, didn't instruct anyone to do anything, didn't pay anyone to kill anyone else, they just dumped a database?
I don't know if it's morally neutral, but if I'm ever tried for my actions I will be responsible for telling someone the location of Sam Hamwich and not for killing Sam Hamwich. If, instead of a person, it was a computer asking me to program in the coordinates of Sam Hamwich so it can shoot a missile at him, then yes, I'm responsible, because the computer is just a deterministic machine, it will do what it's programmed to with the information I input, but the hit man is a man, he has free will and can make his own decisions, I'm not responsible for his actions, only for my own.
The actual interesting argument (this is where I thought you were going) is, is the person who paid the hit man also responsible for the death of Sam Hamwich? He didn't actually killed him, he paid money to a hit man (who can make his own decision, etc). But the hackers who published the Ashley Madison database did not pay anyone to do anything as far as I know, so I'm gonna say it's irrelevant :p
Of course it is possible, that's why the first thing I say is that the hackers are violating people's privacy. I'm not saying the hackers are blameless, I'm saying everyone is responsible for their actions, and everyone has to answer/be punished for their actions and not somebody else's. The hackers hacked, and the killers killed. But the hackers did not kill.
No, I'm saying everyone is responsible for their actions. The people who snitched are responsible for snitching, the people who killed are responsible for killing. If you put it all on the snitches, you're making the nazis as machines, like they don't make their own choices. Turning someone in to the gestapo is not the same as pushing someone in front of a train. The train is a machine, it obeys the laws of movement, it can't stop, so the blame is with whoever pushed the person. Someone who kills someone else for being gay or cheating on their spouse is not a machine, is a person that can make choices, and is responsible for the consequences of those choices.
That's my main problem with this, I get that this data breach is a violation of people's privacy, but if someone is killed for doing nothing, it's the fault of the person who killed them, not some hacker. If we blame the hackers, we're reducing every other participant to some sort of deterministic machine, with no mind of its own. That's not what they are; a killer (a person, or a government) can choose not to kill someone for being gay, and if they choose to kill, it's entirely on their hands, and they are responsible for their actions. They don't get to claim that some hacker fed them information and they somehow completely lost control of themselves.
Ok so the summary was really confusing, and the articles linked were obviously one-sided, and talking about "sad puppies" right away (wtf are you even talking about?), but some of the comments here clarified the situation. The only question is, how were these groups able to control who got nominated in the first place? Are the nominations picked by one group of people? Are these the people that rule the awards, will they pick the same way next year? How can they win at the nominations and lose at the final vote?
Oh this is about social media. I thought they meant hoops like wading through a bunch of ObjC and Java bullshit in order to have your main() entry point and go into a loop that runs your program.
I'm not saying I don't appreciate his work, but 100 hours a week doesn't add up. Unless he's counting multiple people? Which would be reasonable, let's find funding for him and some sort of helper/assistant/apprentice.
Don't DMCA takedown notices count as sworn statements? I remember something along the lines of "I swear under penalty of perjury that the information in this document is correct". If the takedown request is actually wrong, isn't this actionable? Is perjury punishable in a civil court?
The film La Femme Nikita by Luc Benson (1990) is famous for the scene where the cleaner guy uses acid to dissolve a body. It's even french.
Is this some alternate timeline of the future where we still care about television? I haven't turned on my TV at home for years, let alone on a hotel room. Now if the hotel would provide proxies to different countries so that guests could watch their favorite streaming service with the correct catalog, *that* would be the future.
Is he also running LORD 2? I was pretty amazing, and it's the kind of game that could scale pretty well to today's systems.
I thought this was about taxes, since Ireland had that loophole for tech companies. I'm not sure what the deal is with north american users tho..
what do you mean by "one of those"? people? because that's what they are, they're all people. I don't see the difference in this context.
Don't forget that "feature" they added some months ago where the browser arbitrarily disables add-ons that weren't approved by the vendor, without the option for the user to white list them or explicitly enable them. They're just disabled, for your own good, stop asking questions. So now you're forced to run the "developer version" which allows this, and it aggressively updates itself to the latest version every chance it gets.
>Millions of third world peasants maybe
yeah, that's pretty much who I was thinking. Are you suggesting that those people somehow don't count? because they're from the third world? just because we don't care about us citizenship doesn't mean that those people don't exist
It's the biggest economy in the world, and it's notorious for being strict in their immigration policies. We get it, you don't like it because of some ridiculous first world problem or another, but are you really going to use your kids' futures just to make a point? If you don't like the draft and taxes, go vote for the guy who wants to abolish them in the next election, but don't deny your kids a chance at something millions of people would die for.