There is no feeling of entitlement. It's the feeling of "I want the product, but MS is pricing me out of my ability to buy it"
The other thing is, MS really needs to compete against piracy. People can't justify huge expenditure to themselves if they know can get the exact same thing elsewhere for £0 (or â0 etc.) - irrespective of the legality of it. This problem is big for software too, because the high pricing is really just an intangible barrier. There's no real reason the physical goods/software are that value - so the usage of a free pirate equivalent is further justified.
"Making a game so easy it can play itself for you at the push of a button just might be that point."
No no and no. If anything, this is the [b]reverse[/b] - it means more difficult sections can be added to the game, without endangering less experienced players (by showing them "how it's done" and letting them skip the harder bits completely if they want to).
This means each demographic gets what it wants - hardcores get a game with some nice tricky sections, and casual gamers get a fun game where they skim over the bits they find too difficult/tedious.
The quoted article is just alarmist turd, and skims over the fact this is, effectively, difficulty levels on crack. There's absolutely no difference between this and selecting Easy/Medium/Hard - this is just a clever hybrid.
Surely, for the sake of reason, "Public performance" constitutes use by a commercial body of some form? (e.g. shopping centres, radio stations etc.) Otherwise there are millions of possible scenarios (which are completely inane from a copyright/licensing POV) where it could inadvertently happen - loud music from someone's car, a person having their MP3 player music very loud and hence audible...
If the court / legal bodies "buy" this kind of thing as being a violation, it's going to open the floodgates for a whole new wave of stinking turd - the world is already paranoid about liability, this kind of stuff just pushes us to the brink of practically "denouncing" others for supposed 'public performance'. Crazy, completely crazy. This is a said day for the world:/
The EU want to penalize MS because it's a big monopolistic company that has a stranglehold over their software (governments, schools etc.) - I sense this is more the EU playing "hard ball" than genuinely trying to open up choice for the consumer (due to the price of the software - I believe MS has some nasty tactics when it comes to negotiating cost, so no doubt this is retaliation - "You do that: We'll mess you around in court")
If you can see it, you can copy it. Simple as that. They can plug as many holes as they like, but unless they stop you watching the content in the first place, they can never stop piracy
Yes, but if a bleeding edge treatment is the only thing available which can keep you alive, you have to pay out of your own pocket to get it (if they're not prepared to pay for it)
"f you have enough money in America (Steve Jobs-like money), you get the best healthcare and you get to live."
Arguably that's the same everywhere, since even national health care (e.g. the UK's NHS) can't afford the bleeding edge cancer treatments, for example. You have to fund those out of your own pocket if you want them.
Assuming they've kept their edge, that statement is the key: They lead, they don't follow. That's why the competition are catching up to them, and not the reverse. Provided they keep doing that, there is little room for error to occur
Or (forgive the less cynical view point) they just wanted to focus on improving the game and getting it to a very high level of "it's done" before opening it up for modding (since they're still updating L4D as it is, let alone L4D2). I'd also be very surprised if the SDK was L4D2 only (considering they're effectively the same game at heart, I would expect any SDK to let you choose the version being targeted, like the way the SDKs let you target HL2, or Ep1/Ep2 etc. depending on features used)
As it is, I'd much rather have them thinking about the game and its sequel, than making mod tools to some that could still be polished up even more.
The analogy is horribly flawed: The stars identified Jews so they would be discriminated against by other people as well as by the state (e.g. employers, benches, certain events, buildings etc.)
Filtering IPs from the CoS prevents them from contributing or skewing an already established work: it doesn't attach an indelible mark with which others can identify them with (and use against them) and it doesn't promote wide-spread "We hate you" feelings - it's just saying "We don't want your 'contributions'"
The Pre is pretending to be an iPod in order to sync. Whilst killing monopolies is great, I'm fairly sure that imitating the iPod crosses a legal line somewhere (presumably reverse engineering employed in order to respond to iTunes' requests etc.) and that Apple have every right to sue.
...because the video shows a big image/background at the top. That's great, but part of the other reason Google is the leader (other than the results it produces) is the fact the page is a no-nonsense zone - sure, you've got the Google logo, but other than that, the page consists nearly entirely of blank space, or text/links. No stupid pointless pictures, no needless button images. It's fast, and it works. Once 'Bing' gets up to capacity though, I reckon it'll be dog slow, because it has useless decor. The search engine isn't the destination: So why the pointless crap?
Whilst yes, I did indeed ignore the fact they're talking about repair/service trades, I think the point still stands, that you can never definitively say "My job is safe from outsourcing" etc.
Whilst you can't outsource plumbing etc. what stops a massive multinational company from controlling the entire market? (In the same way super markets came in and killed local shops etc.)
"the latter will find their livelihoods more secure against outsourcing to distant countries."
No, no they won't. Sure it's not as easy to push manual labor elsewhere - that doesn't mean it can't happen: Look at the engineering and textiles industries in Britain. Sure, there were lots of them, and their staff did work "in person and on site" - but that didn't stop the industry being screwed over by workhouses in distant countries that could produce the goods for cheaper. While the British equivalents may well have 'survived' to some extent, the shops and companies wanting the goods produced weren't willing to pay the cash to produce in Britain, and bought their goods elsewhere (Chinese textile mills, for example). Voila: your job is gone, whether you're manual labor or working via a wire.
Amen to that. Developing even the simplest things (and trying to keep each piece in your head as you get it down on paper / in code) can be mind bogglingly frustrating when there's lots of noise. Couple it with working informally in the vicinity of a load of computer illiterate morons, and you have my 100% guaranteed recipe for insanity:)
"If you tell a Linux developer their code is crap - or the application they have written is junk, they'll just walk."
And..? If you ran a charity with volunteers doing work for you for free, would you tell them that their work was junk, and expect them to take it well? Although Linux isn't a charity, it's a very similar model, in terms of the fact that these people give their time and effort freely. I'm not saying that they should be free from any kind of critique because of that, but you need to be extremely cautious when you tell volunteers whether their work is good/bad.
I worked for a small transport charity (carting around old people on mini buses) last summer. It was interesting, but one major problem is that the volunteers routinely clogged up the administration offices, and continually created boring, never-ending conversations. You often get the urge to say "Please, just go away, I'm trying to work, and your conversation is dull" etc. But you just can't do that. I mean, you could: but the volunteers would leave. It's hard to juggle, but free volunteer work and critique are a dangerous mix. You have a valid point to a degree, but it's representative of the fact that these developers don't need 'telling off' - they need decent 'human management' to keep them on track without turning them off giving out their produce for free.
I hate stuff like this - it makes me cringe. Same with video games that are overtly aimed at girls. I mean, fair enough, target audience - but for crying out loud, don't just soil the thing in stereotypes.
Keep it subtle in multiple directions, and you open up to multiple target audiences (including women) rather than targetting one area poorly, and driving it away
"It wouldn't surprise me if Apple had such a thing in the pipeline, an Airport station (Airport Mobility?) that didn't need to be plugged into the wall."
Surely there is no point (yet) in using 3G in a household? Especially due to the (much) higher connectivity cost - the only real reason to use it at the moment is on-the-go, which renders an additional device redundant if it's built into the machine. I'll be surprised if such a peripheral is introduced (this year/soon)
Anyone else worried by the potential adverse effects of a 60GHz Wi-Fi versus the current 2.4GHz - 5GHz range? There's just something that makes me uneasy in such a huge jump...
Just to clarify what I mean: this proves that whilst MS may preach good and try to work with open groups and open standards, this fiasco is solid proof that MS's profit margins and ability to constrict the user's choice is always going to be the highest priority. As a business - yeah, great. As a company trying to spread out and adopt a FOSS-like community of its own: good luck
Slashdot Mirror
There is no feeling of entitlement. It's the feeling of "I want the product, but MS is pricing me out of my ability to buy it"
The other thing is, MS really needs to compete against piracy. People can't justify huge expenditure to themselves if they know can get the exact same thing elsewhere for £0 (or â0 etc.) - irrespective of the legality of it. This problem is big for software too, because the high pricing is really just an intangible barrier. There's no real reason the physical goods/software are that value - so the usage of a free pirate equivalent is further justified.
Crud, for some reason I used a mish-mash of BB code bold and HTML. Please excuse my stupidity.
"Making a game so easy it can play itself for you at the push of a button just might be that point."
No no and no. If anything, this is the [b]reverse[/b] - it means more difficult sections can be added to the game, without endangering less experienced players (by showing them "how it's done" and letting them skip the harder bits completely if they want to).
This means each demographic gets what it wants - hardcores get a game with some nice tricky sections, and casual gamers get a fun game where they skim over the bits they find too difficult/tedious.
The quoted article is just alarmist turd, and skims over the fact this is, effectively, difficulty levels on crack. There's absolutely no difference between this and selecting Easy/Medium/Hard - this is just a clever hybrid.
Surely, for the sake of reason, "Public performance" constitutes use by a commercial body of some form? (e.g. shopping centres, radio stations etc.) Otherwise there are millions of possible scenarios (which are completely inane from a copyright/licensing POV) where it could inadvertently happen - loud music from someone's car, a person having their MP3 player music very loud and hence audible...
If the court / legal bodies "buy" this kind of thing as being a violation, it's going to open the floodgates for a whole new wave of stinking turd - the world is already paranoid about liability, this kind of stuff just pushes us to the brink of practically "denouncing" others for supposed 'public performance'. Crazy, completely crazy. This is a said day for the world :/
The EU want to penalize MS because it's a big monopolistic company that has a stranglehold over their software (governments, schools etc.) - I sense this is more the EU playing "hard ball" than genuinely trying to open up choice for the consumer (due to the price of the software - I believe MS has some nasty tactics when it comes to negotiating cost, so no doubt this is retaliation - "You do that: We'll mess you around in court")
If you can see it, you can copy it. Simple as that. They can plug as many holes as they like, but unless they stop you watching the content in the first place, they can never stop piracy
Yes, but if a bleeding edge treatment is the only thing available which can keep you alive, you have to pay out of your own pocket to get it (if they're not prepared to pay for it)
"f you have enough money in America (Steve Jobs-like money), you get the best healthcare and you get to live."
Arguably that's the same everywhere, since even national health care (e.g. the UK's NHS) can't afford the bleeding edge cancer treatments, for example. You have to fund those out of your own pocket if you want them.
"the competition is now catching up"
Assuming they've kept their edge, that statement is the key: They lead, they don't follow. That's why the competition are catching up to them, and not the reverse. Provided they keep doing that, there is little room for error to occur
That's a beta: I assume Aftan was referring to a final release of the SDK
Or (forgive the less cynical view point) they just wanted to focus on improving the game and getting it to a very high level of "it's done" before opening it up for modding (since they're still updating L4D as it is, let alone L4D2). I'd also be very surprised if the SDK was L4D2 only (considering they're effectively the same game at heart, I would expect any SDK to let you choose the version being targeted, like the way the SDKs let you target HL2, or Ep1/Ep2 etc. depending on features used)
As it is, I'd much rather have them thinking about the game and its sequel, than making mod tools to some that could still be polished up even more.
"An eye for an eye leaves everybody blind"
The analogy is horribly flawed: The stars identified Jews so they would be discriminated against by other people as well as by the state (e.g. employers, benches, certain events, buildings etc.)
Filtering IPs from the CoS prevents them from contributing or skewing an already established work: it doesn't attach an indelible mark with which others can identify them with (and use against them) and it doesn't promote wide-spread "We hate you" feelings - it's just saying "We don't want your 'contributions'"
Yes, but RTA - the guys working on the project are ex-Apple employees. Dodgy much?
The Pre is pretending to be an iPod in order to sync. Whilst killing monopolies is great, I'm fairly sure that imitating the iPod crosses a legal line somewhere (presumably reverse engineering employed in order to respond to iTunes' requests etc.) and that Apple have every right to sue.
...because the video shows a big image/background at the top. That's great, but part of the other reason Google is the leader (other than the results it produces) is the fact the page is a no-nonsense zone - sure, you've got the Google logo, but other than that, the page consists nearly entirely of blank space, or text/links. No stupid pointless pictures, no needless button images. It's fast, and it works. Once 'Bing' gets up to capacity though, I reckon it'll be dog slow, because it has useless decor. The search engine isn't the destination: So why the pointless crap?
Whilst yes, I did indeed ignore the fact they're talking about repair/service trades, I think the point still stands, that you can never definitively say "My job is safe from outsourcing" etc.
Whilst you can't outsource plumbing etc. what stops a massive multinational company from controlling the entire market? (In the same way super markets came in and killed local shops etc.)
"the latter will find their livelihoods more secure against outsourcing to distant countries."
No, no they won't. Sure it's not as easy to push manual labor elsewhere - that doesn't mean it can't happen: Look at the engineering and textiles industries in Britain. Sure, there were lots of them, and their staff did work "in person and on site" - but that didn't stop the industry being screwed over by workhouses in distant countries that could produce the goods for cheaper. While the British equivalents may well have 'survived' to some extent, the shops and companies wanting the goods produced weren't willing to pay the cash to produce in Britain, and bought their goods elsewhere (Chinese textile mills, for example). Voila: your job is gone, whether you're manual labor or working via a wire.
Amen to that. Developing even the simplest things (and trying to keep each piece in your head as you get it down on paper / in code) can be mind bogglingly frustrating when there's lots of noise. Couple it with working informally in the vicinity of a load of computer illiterate morons, and you have my 100% guaranteed recipe for insanity :)
"If you tell a Linux developer their code is crap - or the application they have written is junk, they'll just walk."
And..? If you ran a charity with volunteers doing work for you for free, would you tell them that their work was junk, and expect them to take it well? Although Linux isn't a charity, it's a very similar model, in terms of the fact that these people give their time and effort freely. I'm not saying that they should be free from any kind of critique because of that, but you need to be extremely cautious when you tell volunteers whether their work is good/bad.
I worked for a small transport charity (carting around old people on mini buses) last summer. It was interesting, but one major problem is that the volunteers routinely clogged up the administration offices, and continually created boring, never-ending conversations. You often get the urge to say "Please, just go away, I'm trying to work, and your conversation is dull" etc. But you just can't do that. I mean, you could: but the volunteers would leave. It's hard to juggle, but free volunteer work and critique are a dangerous mix. You have a valid point to a degree, but it's representative of the fact that these developers don't need 'telling off' - they need decent 'human management' to keep them on track without turning them off giving out their produce for free.
I hate stuff like this - it makes me cringe. Same with video games that are overtly aimed at girls. I mean, fair enough, target audience - but for crying out loud, don't just soil the thing in stereotypes.
Keep it subtle in multiple directions, and you open up to multiple target audiences (including women) rather than targetting one area poorly, and driving it away
That download is a standalone multilingual install. The single language updater version is ~290MB. No "price is being paid" so to speak
"It wouldn't surprise me if Apple had such a thing in the pipeline, an Airport station (Airport Mobility?) that didn't need to be plugged into the wall."
Surely there is no point (yet) in using 3G in a household? Especially due to the (much) higher connectivity cost - the only real reason to use it at the moment is on-the-go, which renders an additional device redundant if it's built into the machine. I'll be surprised if such a peripheral is introduced (this year/soon)
Anyone else worried by the potential adverse effects of a 60GHz Wi-Fi versus the current 2.4GHz - 5GHz range? There's just something that makes me uneasy in such a huge jump...
Just to clarify what I mean: this proves that whilst MS may preach good and try to work with open groups and open standards, this fiasco is solid proof that MS's profit margins and ability to constrict the user's choice is always going to be the highest priority. As a business - yeah, great. As a company trying to spread out and adopt a FOSS-like community of its own: good luck