Hm. I have heard that the word "socialist" has had some syntactic drift in the USA. Just to clarify, a socialist is not the same thing as a communist. We have those too, but Thomas Bodström is not one of them.
Yesterday, I read two news articles end to end. The first was Anandtech's preview of the upcoming ULi single-chip chipset solution U1697 http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx? i=2641. I most particularily noted that although the chipset is competent and very full-featured, aside from 10/100 mbit networking, it would most likely not be able to support dual-videocard solutions - i.e. Nvidia SLI or ATI CrossFire - because both ATI and Nvidia like to keep such support for themselves and their licensees - of which ULi is not one.
The article also states that ATI was most likely to allow ULi support for CrossFire, since ULi and ATi have been doing motherboard business together already. ATI has been using ULi Southbridge chips together with their own Northbridges.
The second article I read yesterday was that of Nvidia buying ULi. ULi make fully-featured low-cost motherboards. Their U1695-based motherboards are on sale for as little as 60 in Europe, with most competent motherboards costing twice that amount. Nvidia already have a full range of Motherboard offerings, so why buy ULi? Probably not to expand their offerings, and probably not because they want to be nice to ULi by offering them free licenses. It's a buy-out of a possible future competitor, while they can still be had for cheap.
As an added bonus, Nvidia will own one of their main competitor's suppliers.
Reading the article I cannot help but assume that the proposal put forward to the EU Parliament was forwarded by "our" minister of law, Mr Tomas Bodström. I say "our" because he is a socialist, and I am a liberal (what Americans call "libertarians"), so he is certainly not my minister of law, if such a distinction can even be made. The socialists are in power, and my party is not.
The suggestions and proposals forwarded by Mr Bodström are nothing short of amazing. A year ago he proposed that data on "all transactions" be saved for "up to three years". Telephone calls, instant messaging, e-mail, even web browsing.
Responses and ridicule was swift, one ISP and cell phone service company pointing out that in order to comply with such a suggestion, Sweden would have to pave its largest island of Gotland and fill it with disk server racks from end to end.
The ridicule did however not put a stop to Mr Bodström's hawk instincts. Not only is his suggestion now brought to the Parliament, he has had other flashes of inspiration. Now prepaid cell phone cards have been targeted, as well as monitoring of public internet terminals.
So, what is the state of the nation (Sweden)? Struggling, I would say, against a socialist turned Orwellian rogue - not that it's very far to turn. The problem, I think, is that Bodström is merely a minister in Sweden, but in the European Parliament, he is not restricted to what his superiors and country may demand of him and he is free to give his "suggestions" unchecked, in a place where they may take root with delegates from nations which do not have the fairly long history of freedom and neutrality that Sweden does.
As so many times before, by the way, Germany longs for a police state to prevent the rise of neonazis. It really is amazing. Rebuilding the past in order to prevent the past from being rebuilt.
PS: Europe is not a nation.
So.. these drones will be remote controlled? Yes, I read the thread, bear with me. They are going to save on "OUR" human casualties, by killing more of the enemy via a remote link to an actual soldier controlling these mechanoid suckers. Instead of losing lives, "we" will only lose millions of items of immense monetary value, which still is considered the smaller loss. Of course a surviving fighter pilot gets one hell of a scolding if the plane gets lost, but it's basically the same thing here: If you have more tech than soldiers, it's a good thing to empower every soldier with more tech than he or she is worth, so to speak.
Now, what is the interface going to look like? I am assuming a live-feed, encrypted, RF signal with video and audio and not some command line interface thing because we don't have that kind of autonomy in AI yet... unless you count my industry. I am not in defense works, I am a game designer. We have AI that could do the job. Sure, the bots would freeze up for seconds at a time trying to convert the terrain into a pathmap grid, and it will get stuck in odd loops between rocks and hard places, but my point is that some degree of autonomy is possible if the operator is taking a piss or getting another jolt, pizza, mountain dew, what have you.
And so, what interface will the "mechanized infantry" be using against its operator? One 'bot per remote operator "Operation Flashpoint" style (or "Mechwarrior" / "Starsiege" style?) or two to four 'bots per operator, "Hidden & Dangerous"-style or maybe even eight ("Full Spectrum Warrior") or 60 ("Ground Control") 'bots for every operator?
Especially if bots feature some kind of learning, remembering last used commands, path maps, all of these alternatives are more or less feasible. I actually think the "Quake 3" or "OFP" approach is the least appropriate because a bot can be destroyed, chaffed, EMP'd, taken out of range, fall down a hole, lose the connection or start dropping packages like crazy. Controlling a bot lagging over radio with a jerky video feed is not a first person shooter experience you would want to participate in, not even for fun, and especially not when you are sitting in a command bunker undefended save for those ABC mechanoids.
Instead, imagine a setup where each operator shares his or her attention between members of a squad of four or five 'bots. Equip the 'bots with a few different pieces of equipment while they're awaiting deployment, maybe tweak one of them for speed and recon, another for damage soak and a third with a long-range weapon, and so on. Now, keep in mind that a video feed is possible but not speedy enough to make instant point-and-click orders. Thunderstorms, sandstorms, building occluding the signal and so forth will make that much too unreliable. Instead, the operator gives move orders to the 'bots, identifies targets, marks them on the IFF using bandboxing or clicking, the bot remembers distingishing features and asks for confirmation when a takedown is possible.
The only thing the USA has to worry about now is Korea. No matter how smart US operators become, how streamlined their interface or how autonomous their remote controlled heavy weapons platforms, they will remain unable to stop the Zerg rush, kekekekeke.
How are browsers (to find information on the web) different from cars (to get you from one place to another).
There are people who go for brands of car, who value them on their features and capabilities and then there are people who really are only interested in getting there, preferably at low cost, perhaps with some comfort, and maybe in a color they like. Since cars, having been around for so much longer than browsers, still has customers of these both types, I can't imagine why browsers would be any different, ever.
..from relief. I was seriously worried about The Sims online eating up people's lives. The ordinary Sims game already does that to some people I know, and the worst type isn't the ones who like the "Funny" post "have no life", the worst are people who DO have lives but bungle it all up because they'd rather lead ANOTHER life in a single-player game where they play a character who tends towards being so similar to themselves that it's frightening at times.
So suffice to say, I was pretty freaked at the prospect of a life-eating game of this scale becoming even more life-eating as it made its way into the online-realm, a place notorious for eating the lives of nerds and wives alike (see MMORPGs et al). Glad to see another one of my computers-eat-human-future scenarios fizzle into nothing.
I'm a games reviewer and I wrote a preview on the November build for the Swedish gaming / RPG magazine "Codex". That establishes the background for the following statement:
Don't hire one, because he will be unchecked by someone else with competence. Don't hire two, because two can conspire. Hire three, because if they try to conspire, at least one of them will be less liked and all votes will come to a two to one, causing disgruntlement.
1. You're right. Not all developers pay for postage. In fact, I didn't say "we pay even for postage", I said "some of us even pay for".. which is to say some do, some don't. Not sure which is in majority. Then there's the subject of all the people who don't even ask for postage even though it we offer it, or better yet don't claim it when we do offer it.
And.. you don't "want" to send the broken DVD off to the publisher? Maybe you don't "want" a working one in return then?:) You do have that choice, we're not forcing you. Strictly speaking, we already have your money, it would just be nice if you could use the product too.
But come on, you did break the disk and there are costs involved. We're getting a cracked disk and we get you a new one, even though it does cost us money too. Postage is a small price to pay for something that was broken on your side. If we on the other hand sent you a broken disk, then that's just cheap of the publisher if they won't pay for everything.
2.. As for a hassle, and stamps too for that matter.. wouldn't it also be a hassle and cost you money to buy a DVD recorder / CD burner, the mod chip hardware, mod chip installation and even the empty DVD-R or CD-R disks? It might get you there faster, but you'll still have to wait. Neither of which would help you if all you have is a broken disk anyway.
3. Strictly speaking I'm a game developer which is why I used the word publisher in the third person a few times - I still consider developers and publishers unified in a cause on many points.. On others, it's not so united. Copy protection is added by publishers, AFTER us sending our gold version to the publisher for mass-production. Our precious product is submitted to the horrendous Sony tryware-quality SecuROM treatment that will leave the disk unreadable on many CD-ROM drives. Caveat Emptor. Some of the more reasonable publishers have accepted this fact -- that their dear beloved associate is staffed of incompetents -- and do offer special copies to those who are displaying troubles related to this. Both Sierra and Blizzard have offered alternative-method protected discs in such cases, sometimes just overburn-CDs which can be played all players (bt which can also be pirated by most burners, even without special settings or cracks.
As for the argument of a company going out of business.. Unfortunate, of course. Microprose comes to mind. For Microprose games, I would go to eBay actually, but sure, they would soon become extinct simply because diskettes and CDs are deteriorating formats. A 1980 CD held up to a source of strong light will have visibly large transparent holes in their surface.. They will not last forever, just as they will not stand for abuse. While th company is in existance, they can replace the disk. After that, you might be able to get a copy of it somewhere, like a rare book. After that, it's dead.
You did pay to use the game.. but "for often as I like" doesn't necessarily apply. Games don't last a lifetime, I'm afraid. Companies that are dead can't be held responsible, as you said, but neither can you blame companies for wanting to stay in business while they are still in business. You might have a point that copies should be made in case a company goes bankrupt.. but what if those copies help the company go there? Is that an acceptable part of the point?
I just want to work with something I like doing, that helps entertain people.. but I also need to eat.
"As an xbox live subscriber, I take comfort that the 13-year old blowing me to bits (and bits and bits) hasn't downloaded hack o' the week to beat me."
How is that a comfort? You're being beaten repeatedly by a 13-year old using only his own coordination, reactions and skill. Personally, that maks me feel old and I hate feeling old. If there's anything I learned from Counter-strike, it's that todays grown men like to have something to blame that somehow proves they weren't really doing anything wrong.
The comparison to "foul language" is inherently broken. I'm fairly sure a really good lawyer with a large chunk of cash might be able to make the case that foul language on online services harm the product, but that's also broken and not really the issue.. Not yet, anyway.
Banning machines that can be uniquely identified as having been modified to accept copied games however is a measure of limiting the use of such alterations. Sure, you can argue that you just modded your X-box to play those DVD-R X-Box game backups you had to make because you can't be arsed to send broken DVDs off to the publisher for a free replacement for some reason. Fair use and all, I know, I know.
But we (game business employees) really aren't looking to punish you, and you really could send that cracked DVD to us and we'd have something to beat over the head of those lousy disc manufacturers and yes in most cases we do have a free replacement return policy, many of us would even pay your stamps. We consider that fair, because that means modding your console and making backups is not the only way of safeguarding your investment in our game.. that very same process which can let people play our games without paying for them. Naturally we want to make that practice less useful.
I have a certain understanding for people who want to play games they cannot afford, or before they pay money for them. Millions are even upstanding enough to actually pay for a game when they can afford it, if we made a really good game for them.. heck, I even understand the people who want to play free games all their life, but I can't really let that go on if I want to keep collecting a paycheck.
So I'm sorry you can't play your copied games at home online with X-box Live, but I hope you see that we're not out to get the ones who've done nothing wrong.
Symantec do have a reason to want to stay at the front of "malicious code" discovery. That's where they're of any use at all, and if it requires getting information as sensitive as this over public channels then so be it. Heck, with this much exposure the security hole will be closed that much faster.
Aech, where are the good old days when virus writers would mail their virii directly to the AV corporations because all they wanted was the challenge anyway?
Maybe that is just another one of those stories like the ones about Brits and Germans playing football (pardon me: "soccer") between the trenches on Sundays back in WWI? Or was that too an actual event? I'm so confused
Recently I picked up a piece of mail that hadn't been redirected to the trashcan. I checked properties and got the source for this HTML mail and lo, the crudtacular spamcimen was infested with nonse<!--4711-->nsical comment tags.
I don't know if I was more irritated with the spam originator or the lack of functionality in my filter.
Yes, yes, yes and yes. It's the game. The specific games. The older games. The online games. The cutting, bleeding edge 3D games. To some PC gamers, saying "So use a PS2!" would be an insult and not just because they scoff at consoles but because they like using their PCs for playing games.
Heck, maybe part of my using a PC for playing games ties in with the games I love the most. Is there a parallell between upgrading my "Frontier" Cobra Mark III with a Military Drive Class III and me upgrading my Athlon XP1800+ with a GeForce 3? Maybe.
And that again, the question you asked - why do we do it - it's incorrectly put. We've already done it. What do you want us to do? Revoke the purchase on the hardware? Sell our games, get used to not having the old ones around, get used to watching the 50-60Hz TV screen instead of the super-sharp apeture grille monitor? Learn how to aim a crosshairs with a little tiny analogue stick instead of a dedicated hand-eye-coordinated pointing device? Hell no.
You don't want for many games. That's you. That's the answer to the question you were asking. Some people do.
"freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, due process of law, etc- apply to all humans. Including silly Europeans."
Funny choice of examples, considering the current US treatment of international terrorist suspects.
Prohibiting certain hate speech is no more an offense to free speech than prohibiting assault and battery is an offense to free movement of arms and legs.
I don't believe in touch-screens for the same reason lightpens flunked: You do not want to keep your hand suspended in the air in front of the monitor, nor do you want to keep bringing it up, for everyday work. In fact, you don't want to do it for any longer period of time at all.
I was about to write a small travesty on the people who read comments and claim that nobody could possibly ever have read or understood the book. A travesty because such argumentation is based on insufficient data and a bit of prejucide, for whom, I really don't know. Everybody?
Then, I thought about pointing out that egomania doesn't mean that you're wrong, or right, as some alluded to.
But in the end, I suppose there can be only one comment on a tome such as the reviewed above, through skimming:
"Interesting."
I might read if some day, but as with most books that are popular to discuss but impopular to read, I will most likely think about he concepts explained in it, but not actually read or adopt any of the conclusions. Some people do. I usually don't.
If one point of the author really is that we can only conclude reality by letting it play out (in some cases) then that is the "blindingly obvious" indeed. We already knew that we could solve it by playing out the events that are going to happen, but did we have insight into why that was, or were we simply observing and remarking? From that perspective, such a theory is a work of understanding the Why.
That's not any new kind of science. That's what science has always been.
"That explains the record profits made by the game industry last year."
This is also true. Industry profit / amount of game projects = profit per project = ~0. The computer game industry is overflowing with supply and while demand can be said to be great too, paying customers are all the more rare. Especially if you take the VCs out of the loop. Most game companies work against the publishers as customers, not the gamers. Publishers have the experience and network/contacts to make a successful sale. Developers.. well, develop, and they are far too many to successfully make those big bucks you're talking about.
Slashdot Mirror
The social democracts are definately socialist.
Hm. I have heard that the word "socialist" has had some syntactic drift in the USA. Just to clarify, a socialist is not the same thing as a communist. We have those too, but Thomas Bodström is not one of them.
Yesterday, I read two news articles end to end. The first was Anandtech's preview of the upcoming ULi single-chip chipset solution U1697 http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx? i=2641. I most particularily noted that although the chipset is competent and very full-featured, aside from 10/100 mbit networking, it would most likely not be able to support dual-videocard solutions - i.e. Nvidia SLI or ATI CrossFire - because both ATI and Nvidia like to keep such support for themselves and their licensees - of which ULi is not one.
The article also states that ATI was most likely to allow ULi support for CrossFire, since ULi and ATi have been doing motherboard business together already. ATI has been using ULi Southbridge chips together with their own Northbridges.
The second article I read yesterday was that of Nvidia buying ULi. ULi make fully-featured low-cost motherboards. Their U1695-based motherboards are on sale for as little as 60 in Europe, with most competent motherboards costing twice that amount. Nvidia already have a full range of Motherboard offerings, so why buy ULi? Probably not to expand their offerings, and probably not because they want to be nice to ULi by offering them free licenses. It's a buy-out of a possible future competitor, while they can still be had for cheap.
As an added bonus, Nvidia will own one of their main competitor's suppliers.
Reading the article I cannot help but assume that the proposal put forward to the EU Parliament was forwarded by "our" minister of law, Mr Tomas Bodström. I say "our" because he is a socialist, and I am a liberal (what Americans call "libertarians"), so he is certainly not my minister of law, if such a distinction can even be made. The socialists are in power, and my party is not.
The suggestions and proposals forwarded by Mr Bodström are nothing short of amazing. A year ago he proposed that data on "all transactions" be saved for "up to three years". Telephone calls, instant messaging, e-mail, even web browsing.
Responses and ridicule was swift, one ISP and cell phone service company pointing out that in order to comply with such a suggestion, Sweden would have to pave its largest island of Gotland and fill it with disk server racks from end to end.
The ridicule did however not put a stop to Mr Bodström's hawk instincts. Not only is his suggestion now brought to the Parliament, he has had other flashes of inspiration. Now prepaid cell phone cards have been targeted, as well as monitoring of public internet terminals.
So, what is the state of the nation (Sweden)? Struggling, I would say, against a socialist turned Orwellian rogue - not that it's very far to turn. The problem, I think, is that Bodström is merely a minister in Sweden, but in the European Parliament, he is not restricted to what his superiors and country may demand of him and he is free to give his "suggestions" unchecked, in a place where they may take root with delegates from nations which do not have the fairly long history of freedom and neutrality that Sweden does.
As so many times before, by the way, Germany longs for a police state to prevent the rise of neonazis. It really is amazing. Rebuilding the past in order to prevent the past from being rebuilt. PS: Europe is not a nation.
I am reminded of a quote often attributed to Austrian-Swiss physicist Wolfgang Pauli:
"This isn't right. It isn't even wrong."
So.. these drones will be remote controlled? Yes, I read the thread, bear with me. They are going to save on "OUR" human casualties, by killing more of the enemy via a remote link to an actual soldier controlling these mechanoid suckers. Instead of losing lives, "we" will only lose millions of items of immense monetary value, which still is considered the smaller loss. Of course a surviving fighter pilot gets one hell of a scolding if the plane gets lost, but it's basically the same thing here: If you have more tech than soldiers, it's a good thing to empower every soldier with more tech than he or she is worth, so to speak.
Now, what is the interface going to look like? I am assuming a live-feed, encrypted, RF signal with video and audio and not some command line interface thing because we don't have that kind of autonomy in AI yet... unless you count my industry. I am not in defense works, I am a game designer. We have AI that could do the job. Sure, the bots would freeze up for seconds at a time trying to convert the terrain into a pathmap grid, and it will get stuck in odd loops between rocks and hard places, but my point is that some degree of autonomy is possible if the operator is taking a piss or getting another jolt, pizza, mountain dew, what have you.
And so, what interface will the "mechanized infantry" be using against its operator? One 'bot per remote operator "Operation Flashpoint" style (or "Mechwarrior" / "Starsiege" style?) or two to four 'bots per operator, "Hidden & Dangerous"-style or maybe even eight ("Full Spectrum Warrior") or 60 ("Ground Control") 'bots for every operator?
Especially if bots feature some kind of learning, remembering last used commands, path maps, all of these alternatives are more or less feasible. I actually think the "Quake 3" or "OFP" approach is the least appropriate because a bot can be destroyed, chaffed, EMP'd, taken out of range, fall down a hole, lose the connection or start dropping packages like crazy. Controlling a bot lagging over radio with a jerky video feed is not a first person shooter experience you would want to participate in, not even for fun, and especially not when you are sitting in a command bunker undefended save for those ABC mechanoids.
Instead, imagine a setup where each operator shares his or her attention between members of a squad of four or five 'bots. Equip the 'bots with a few different pieces of equipment while they're awaiting deployment, maybe tweak one of them for speed and recon, another for damage soak and a third with a long-range weapon, and so on. Now, keep in mind that a video feed is possible but not speedy enough to make instant point-and-click orders. Thunderstorms, sandstorms, building occluding the signal and so forth will make that much too unreliable. Instead, the operator gives move orders to the 'bots, identifies targets, marks them on the IFF using bandboxing or clicking, the bot remembers distingishing features and asks for confirmation when a takedown is possible.
The only thing the USA has to worry about now is Korea. No matter how smart US operators become, how streamlined their interface or how autonomous their remote controlled heavy weapons platforms, they will remain unable to stop the Zerg rush, kekekekeke.
How are browsers (to find information on the web) different from cars (to get you from one place to another).
There are people who go for brands of car, who value them on their features and capabilities and then there are people who really are only interested in getting there, preferably at low cost, perhaps with some comfort, and maybe in a color they like. Since cars, having been around for so much longer than browsers, still has customers of these both types, I can't imagine why browsers would be any different, ever.
..from relief. I was seriously worried about The Sims online eating up people's lives. The ordinary Sims game already does that to some people I know, and the worst type isn't the ones who like the "Funny" post "have no life", the worst are people who DO have lives but bungle it all up because they'd rather lead ANOTHER life in a single-player game where they play a character who tends towards being so similar to themselves that it's frightening at times.
So suffice to say, I was pretty freaked at the prospect of a life-eating game of this scale becoming even more life-eating as it made its way into the online-realm, a place notorious for eating the lives of nerds and wives alike (see MMORPGs et al). Glad to see another one of my computers-eat-human-future scenarios fizzle into nothing.
I'm a games reviewer and I wrote a preview on the November build for the Swedish gaming / RPG magazine "Codex". That establishes the background for the following statement:
Yes, they have.
That is all.
Don't hire one, because he will be unchecked by someone else with competence. Don't hire two, because two can conspire. Hire three, because if they try to conspire, at least one of them will be less liked and all votes will come to a two to one, causing disgruntlement.
That's group dynamics for ya.
Wait, the United Kingdom want to make rain? Them? Why?
1. You're right. Not all developers pay for postage. In fact, I didn't say "we pay even for postage", I said "some of us even pay for".. which is to say some do, some don't. Not sure which is in majority. Then there's the subject of all the people who don't even ask for postage even though it we offer it, or better yet don't claim it when we do offer it.
And.. you don't "want" to send the broken DVD off to the publisher? Maybe you don't "want" a working one in return then? :) You do have that choice, we're not forcing you. Strictly speaking, we already have your money, it would just be nice if you could use the product too.
But come on, you did break the disk and there are costs involved. We're getting a cracked disk and we get you a new one, even though it does cost us money too. Postage is a small price to pay for something that was broken on your side. If we on the other hand sent you a broken disk, then that's just cheap of the publisher if they won't pay for everything.
2.. As for a hassle, and stamps too for that matter.. wouldn't it also be a hassle and cost you money to buy a DVD recorder / CD burner, the mod chip hardware, mod chip installation and even the empty DVD-R or CD-R disks? It might get you there faster, but you'll still have to wait. Neither of which would help you if all you have is a broken disk anyway.
3. Strictly speaking I'm a game developer which is why I used the word publisher in the third person a few times - I still consider developers and publishers unified in a cause on many points.. On others, it's not so united. Copy protection is added by publishers, AFTER us sending our gold version to the publisher for mass-production. Our precious product is submitted to the horrendous Sony tryware-quality SecuROM treatment that will leave the disk unreadable on many CD-ROM drives. Caveat Emptor. Some of the more reasonable publishers have accepted this fact -- that their dear beloved associate is staffed of incompetents -- and do offer special copies to those who are displaying troubles related to this. Both Sierra and Blizzard have offered alternative-method protected discs in such cases, sometimes just overburn-CDs which can be played all players (bt which can also be pirated by most burners, even without special settings or cracks.
As for the argument of a company going out of business.. Unfortunate, of course. Microprose comes to mind. For Microprose games, I would go to eBay actually, but sure, they would soon become extinct simply because diskettes and CDs are deteriorating formats. A 1980 CD held up to a source of strong light will have visibly large transparent holes in their surface.. They will not last forever, just as they will not stand for abuse. While th company is in existance, they can replace the disk. After that, you might be able to get a copy of it somewhere, like a rare book. After that, it's dead.
You did pay to use the game.. but "for often as I like" doesn't necessarily apply. Games don't last a lifetime, I'm afraid. Companies that are dead can't be held responsible, as you said, but neither can you blame companies for wanting to stay in business while they are still in business. You might have a point that copies should be made in case a company goes bankrupt.. but what if those copies help the company go there? Is that an acceptable part of the point?
I just want to work with something I like doing, that helps entertain people.. but I also need to eat.
If someone tells you you should not trust them, would you trust them? I mean.. isn't that like saying "This is a lie."?
"As an xbox live subscriber, I take comfort that the 13-year old blowing me to bits (and bits and bits) hasn't downloaded hack o' the week to beat me."
How is that a comfort? You're being beaten repeatedly by a 13-year old using only his own coordination, reactions and skill. Personally, that maks me feel old and I hate feeling old. If there's anything I learned from Counter-strike, it's that todays grown men like to have something to blame that somehow proves they weren't really doing anything wrong.
The comparison to "foul language" is inherently broken. I'm fairly sure a really good lawyer with a large chunk of cash might be able to make the case that foul language on online services harm the product, but that's also broken and not really the issue.. Not yet, anyway.
Banning machines that can be uniquely identified as having been modified to accept copied games however is a measure of limiting the use of such alterations. Sure, you can argue that you just modded your X-box to play those DVD-R X-Box game backups you had to make because you can't be arsed to send broken DVDs off to the publisher for a free replacement for some reason. Fair use and all, I know, I know.
But we (game business employees) really aren't looking to punish you, and you really could send that cracked DVD to us and we'd have something to beat over the head of those lousy disc manufacturers and yes in most cases we do have a free replacement return policy, many of us would even pay your stamps. We consider that fair, because that means modding your console and making backups is not the only way of safeguarding your investment in our game.. that very same process which can let people play our games without paying for them. Naturally we want to make that practice less useful.
I have a certain understanding for people who want to play games they cannot afford, or before they pay money for them. Millions are even upstanding enough to actually pay for a game when they can afford it, if we made a really good game for them.. heck, I even understand the people who want to play free games all their life, but I can't really let that go on if I want to keep collecting a paycheck.
So I'm sorry you can't play your copied games at home online with X-box Live, but I hope you see that we're not out to get the ones who've done nothing wrong.
If there is a better way, please help us find it.
Symantec do have a reason to want to stay at the front of "malicious code" discovery. That's where they're of any use at all, and if it requires getting information as sensitive as this over public channels then so be it. Heck, with this much exposure the security hole will be closed that much faster.
Aech, where are the good old days when virus writers would mail their virii directly to the AV corporations because all they wanted was the challenge anyway?
Maybe that is just another one of those stories like the ones about Brits and Germans playing football (pardon me: "soccer") between the trenches on Sundays back in WWI? Or was that too an actual event? I'm so confused
In the words of a good friend of mine.. and he probably stole them somewhere else - security through obscurity isn't.
Recently I picked up a piece of mail that hadn't been redirected to the trashcan. I checked properties and got the source for this HTML mail and lo, the crudtacular spamcimen was infested with nonse<!--4711-->nsical comment tags.
I don't know if I was more irritated with the spam originator or the lack of functionality in my filter.
Heck, maybe part of my using a PC for playing games ties in with the games I love the most. Is there a parallell between upgrading my "Frontier" Cobra Mark III with a Military Drive Class III and me upgrading my Athlon XP1800+ with a GeForce 3? Maybe.
And that again, the question you asked - why do we do it - it's incorrectly put. We've already done it. What do you want us to do? Revoke the purchase on the hardware? Sell our games, get used to not having the old ones around, get used to watching the 50-60Hz TV screen instead of the super-sharp apeture grille monitor? Learn how to aim a crosshairs with a little tiny analogue stick instead of a dedicated hand-eye-coordinated pointing device? Hell no.
You don't want for many games. That's you. That's the answer to the question you were asking. Some people do.
Just games. I develop them, I play them, I review them. So.. games, pretty much.
Hate speech requires a target, someone to hate, a victim if you will. In a way, this means there is such a thing as objectively defined "hate speech".
"freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, due process of law, etc- apply to all humans. Including silly Europeans." Funny choice of examples, considering the current US treatment of international terrorist suspects.
Prohibiting certain hate speech is no more an offense to free speech than prohibiting assault and battery is an offense to free movement of arms and legs.
I don't believe in touch-screens for the same reason lightpens flunked: You do not want to keep your hand suspended in the air in front of the monitor, nor do you want to keep bringing it up, for everyday work. In fact, you don't want to do it for any longer period of time at all.
I was about to write a small travesty on the people who read comments and claim that nobody could possibly ever have read or understood the book. A travesty because such argumentation is based on insufficient data and a bit of prejucide, for whom, I really don't know. Everybody?
Then, I thought about pointing out that egomania doesn't mean that you're wrong, or right, as some alluded to.
But in the end, I suppose there can be only one comment on a tome such as the reviewed above, through skimming:
"Interesting."
I might read if some day, but as with most books that are popular to discuss but impopular to read, I will most likely think about he concepts explained in it, but not actually read or adopt any of the conclusions. Some people do. I usually don't.
If one point of the author really is that we can only conclude reality by letting it play out (in some cases) then that is the "blindingly obvious" indeed. We already knew that we could solve it by playing out the events that are going to happen, but did we have insight into why that was, or were we simply observing and remarking? From that perspective, such a theory is a work of understanding the Why.
That's not any new kind of science. That's what science has always been.
"Most game projects do not make any money."
This is true.
"That explains the record profits made by the game industry last year."
This is also true. Industry profit / amount of game projects = profit per project = ~0. The computer game industry is overflowing with supply and while demand can be said to be great too, paying customers are all the more rare. Especially if you take the VCs out of the loop. Most game companies work against the publishers as customers, not the gamers. Publishers have the experience and network/contacts to make a successful sale. Developers.. well, develop, and they are far too many to successfully make those big bucks you're talking about.