FCC: No respect for the first amendment. Makes up a list of words that are too evil to be seen on TV. Raises a huge flap because a nipple was visible. FAIL
FDA: How does a slow, ponderous regulatory body that basically achieves nothing more than UL or Consumer Reports for the drug industry, while yanking any product they don't feel like certifying "doing a good job"?
USDA: They do a pretty good job, partly because so much of their operation is A) voluntary & B) funded by the grower/packer/etc. Like a free market shop would.
Regulated time: Governments are good at creating standards bodies, and usually have the sense to not meddle with them often.
Highways: My commute has been increased by an hour every day this week except Monday. Three major roads flooded out on Monday, about 6" under water. Everyone was driving through the water on Monday, so the traffic wasn't too bad. On Tuesday, they closed all those roads, and detoured everyone 15 miles north to an already crowded highway. They still haven't managed to re-open a single one, after 4 days of sunny dry weather.
EPA: Some good, some bad. When it comes to setting standards (i.e. fuel quality), the government generally does an acceptable job. Don't get me started on the endangered species act.
OSHA: I've worked at more than one place that managed to consistently get a pass despite terrible safety standards.
Building codes: Because building a house that was six inches too tall, or had the wrong kind of grass would cause it to burn down, fall over, then sink into the swamp?
If you do not like Apple's model, you are free to *not buy into it* and instead buy an Android device, or some other competing product. It's not like Apple are the only player here.
This is basically what the OP was suggesting, and was immediately attacked for.
(unless you want an iPhone, but want to do something else with it, but then... why buy the iPhone in the first place
What reasonable excuse is there for Apple to have any control over what people do with their iPhones? Once you've bought it, it's yours and you ought to be able to do whatever you want with it.
Ah but what about the games that use Impulse, Direct2Drive, etc. The problem isn't Steam per se, the problem is that each publisher has at least one option, and sometimes two or three. For example, I own Red Alert 3, which I bought through Steam. But in order to play multiplayer, I need some stupid Gamespy program as well? I have Supreme commander, which I bought through Impulse, and which also requires Games for Windows Live. Why do I need 4 helper apps for 2 games?
You're kid can die while you're playing WoW too. Parent's who are trying to care for kids on heroin are negligent, but they were probably negligent before and after the heroin. When did you become the arbiter of which drugs were ok, and which were just too potent for the proletariat?
If, through negligence, you cause harm, well, that was already addressed by our legal system. Until there is a direct victim, a person who was harmed by an action, that action isn't a problem. And mandatory treatment? Maybe we should mandate treatment for people who drink too? After all that's addictive and can have consequences. Why don't we start treating people like adults: assume that they're capable of making their own decisions, and hold them accountable when (and only when) they actually do harm to others?
I can very easily rip my media, and then use a digital copy while storing the physical copy somewhere secure. Oh, they don't allow that.
Ultimately, there are two parts to this: The right to make backups, resell, lend, etc. The responsibility to make backups, not lose discs, not destroy discs, etc. Whoever has the one, has the other. Simple and easy. If you have the responsibility to protect the media, than you have the implicit right to take such steps as you see fit to protect it.
If you can make a media format that is "sufficiently" robust, here meaning immune to all possible loss, theft, and destruction (including as a result of the heat-death of the universe), than I would be prepared to accept that durability. Otherwise, I will decided for myself how important the content is to me, and take what steps I feel appropriate to back it up. I will certainly not cede that right to an organization which makes more money if my media wear out and need to be replaced.
And plus, they'd hardly want someone to sign on who wasn't prepared to work the hours and then have to go through the hiring process again.
You're absolutely right.
Many people seem to be approaching this from an adversarial standpoint, which strikes me as nonsensical. If you start with the idea that you and the company are opposed, and you're goal is to get the job by hook or by crook, you're pursuing the kind of attitude that will make the job you take less pleasant. Your goal is to determine that the job is something you will be content doing, in an environment you'll be happy in, and for pay/benefits that are worth it to you. The interviewer's goal is to make sure that you'll be able to do the job well, work well with other team members as needed, and generally be worth more to the company than the pay/benefits that they would pay you. The only place where your interests really contrast with theirs is in determining the size of your compensation..
Actually, "How do you deal with unreasonable customers" is a question I've asked everyone I've ever interviewed. From a business perspective, hiring and training someone who isn't willing or able to deal with the bad days means hiring and training someone who will then leave/be asked to leave, and putting back where we started only later and poorer.
Better graphics also enable other things that don't seem as intuitive though. The NPCs in Half-Life 2 are much more convincing and have more realistic features and expressions, so it's easier to tell one from another and they become unique. Because they're more unique and human, we care about them more and so you can create a story with more interesting characters.
It's not that the graphics being better make the game better, but that better graphics allow the developer to portray things in a more detailed way which increases the options for variety.
I use a third party app called winsplitrevolution to make the giant (30", 2560x1600) display work properly. It works out very well, about as much multi-tasking productivity as two 1600x1200 monitors side by side, but less vertical scrolling, and for smaller stuff (file managers, for example), I go to 1280x720 2 pane windows, which means looking at 8 directories at once.
You're point about TVs is well taken, but remember that most TVs simply aren't in the same size category as monitors, so there isn't much panel sharing going on.
Finally, single rate DVI maxes at WUXGA (1920x1200), but dual like cables aren't that expensive, and it isn't all that hard on a video board, $20 should cover it if you aren't a gamer. (If you are a gamer, you probably know the price/framerate/pixels sweetspot you like best).
As a result of which he is more or less completely responsible for the recent popularity (in America) of micro-brews and distinctive beers. Before that, it had been Clydesdale piss for some time.
Where I live, I have 5mbit. At several of my friends houses, 256k is the fastest upload available for less than $100/month. If there were some competition in the market, that might change. At my family's cabin (which has hosted a few very nice lan parties) anything over 128k upstream has 4 digit monthly pricetag or uses a satellite dish, with the associated 4 digit ping times.
Can you provide a citation? That would quell the performance concern, though it wouldn't address the more basic concerns. (I have enjoyed several LAN parties at locations remote enough that there was no broadband, and no cell coverage, I also default to pirating games that assume I default to pirating, and default to purchasing games that assume I default to purchasing.)
Please define *most* of us. I still only play a few games online, most of my multiplayer gaming is done between two and twenty people in the same room. Voice chat helps, but it still doesn't feel like a social experience, which is the *point* of multiplayer.
Also, since people mention the "everyone has to own the game" thing a fair bit, WTF is with that anyway? If I want to play SCII at a LAN with some friends once every two months, why does *everyone* have to own the game? When we were playing Super Smash Brothers, we only needed *one* copy of the game. Price difference? About $50 for four people versus $50/person for four people, or $150 extra. Blizzards game isn't that much better.
Not everyone has a high speed connection now either. Also, last time I used Battle.net, the process for hosting a private game was annoying and cumbersome.
Also, since most "broadband" connections are only fast on download, and Battle.net will require all game data to be uploaded once for every person playing at a LAN party, ADSL is likely to be too slow for more than two or three players.
Wouldn't bother me if I played multi-player RTS games in any environment *other* than LAN, but every time I've tried, latency, bandwidth, and crappy lobby systems have leeched all the fun out of it.
Depends on whether they're war veterans, as war veterans (especially those with PTSD and similar) are more often neglected and find themselves less capable of handling jobs, etc. (All IIRC, citations needed).
"has actually harmed at least one person, or themselves"
Hell no. Harming yourself should always be legal. We have no right to stop people sticking blades or drugs into their bodies, any more than we have the right to stop people posting compromising pictures of themselves, or selling their bodies, or going bankrupt through stupid financial decisions, or wasting their lives and riches.
In making harming yourself (or any other consenting adult) illegal, you inherently allow a Christian government to force gays into therapy, or a Muslim government to force women who don't wish to wear the Burkha into therapy, or an Atheist government to force those who believe in god into therapy.
Does this mean that, if I were to accuse someone of having sex with a minor in TN, and to provide evidence of the sex, they would then be legally required to provide proof that the other party *wasn't* a minor?
Where exactly do you intend to draw the line with acceptable fetishes that demand medical treatment, and ones that don't?
Very simple: treatment is justified only when the person in question has actually harmed at least one person who did not consent AND there is reasonable evidence that that person cannot control the impulse to do so again.
Otherwise, you have to treat ambition as that can also be a cause of criminal behavior, especially in people in positions of authority.
Assuming that someone who my have owned images doctored to look like they showed someone sexually abusing someone else is likewise unacceptable
Read this again, more slowly this time. If it still sounds like I meant that the owning of images was unacceptable, than I apologize. What I am trying to say is that the act of assuming guilt is at least as evil as the act of abusing someone. (I would actually consider it just another form of abuse).
I *also* do not believe that the mere possession of any information should ever be considered a crime. There is a valid argument for banning the *distribution* of child porn, but I am not convinced that it is possible to do so and still have free speech.
Slashdot Mirror
FCC: No respect for the first amendment. Makes up a list of words that are too evil to be seen on TV. Raises a huge flap because a nipple was visible. FAIL
FDA: How does a slow, ponderous regulatory body that basically achieves nothing more than UL or Consumer Reports for the drug industry, while yanking any product they don't feel like certifying "doing a good job"?
USDA: They do a pretty good job, partly because so much of their operation is A) voluntary & B) funded by the grower/packer/etc. Like a free market shop would.
Regulated time: Governments are good at creating standards bodies, and usually have the sense to not meddle with them often.
Highways: My commute has been increased by an hour every day this week except Monday. Three major roads flooded out on Monday, about 6" under water. Everyone was driving through the water on Monday, so the traffic wasn't too bad. On Tuesday, they closed all those roads, and detoured everyone 15 miles north to an already crowded highway. They still haven't managed to re-open a single one, after 4 days of sunny dry weather.
EPA: Some good, some bad. When it comes to setting standards (i.e. fuel quality), the government generally does an acceptable job. Don't get me started on the endangered species act.
OSHA: I've worked at more than one place that managed to consistently get a pass despite terrible safety standards.
Building codes: Because building a house that was six inches too tall, or had the wrong kind of grass would cause it to burn down, fall over, then sink into the swamp?
If you do not like Apple's model, you are free to *not buy into it* and instead buy an Android device, or some other competing product. It's not like Apple are the only player here.
This is basically what the OP was suggesting, and was immediately attacked for.
(unless you want an iPhone, but want to do something else with it, but then... why buy the iPhone in the first place
What reasonable excuse is there for Apple to have any control over what people do with their iPhones? Once you've bought it, it's yours and you ought to be able to do whatever you want with it.
What police departments in the US seem to do is combine it with a fraudulent anonymous tip, then they get busy kicking down doors and destroying property.
Ah but what about the games that use Impulse, Direct2Drive, etc. The problem isn't Steam per se, the problem is that each publisher has at least one option, and sometimes two or three. For example, I own Red Alert 3, which I bought through Steam. But in order to play multiplayer, I need some stupid Gamespy program as well? I have Supreme commander, which I bought through Impulse, and which also requires Games for Windows Live. Why do I need 4 helper apps for 2 games?
You're kid can die while you're playing WoW too. Parent's who are trying to care for kids on heroin are negligent, but they were probably negligent before and after the heroin. When did you become the arbiter of which drugs were ok, and which were just too potent for the proletariat?
If, through negligence, you cause harm, well, that was already addressed by our legal system. Until there is a direct victim, a person who was harmed by an action, that action isn't a problem. And mandatory treatment? Maybe we should mandate treatment for people who drink too? After all that's addictive and can have consequences. Why don't we start treating people like adults: assume that they're capable of making their own decisions, and hold them accountable when (and only when) they actually do harm to others?
I can very easily rip my media, and then use a digital copy while storing the physical copy somewhere secure. Oh, they don't allow that.
Ultimately, there are two parts to this:
The right to make backups, resell, lend, etc.
The responsibility to make backups, not lose discs, not destroy discs, etc.
Whoever has the one, has the other. Simple and easy. If you have the responsibility to protect the media, than you have the implicit right to take such steps as you see fit to protect it.
See: http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=1894 for a more detailed treatment of this topic.
If you can make a media format that is "sufficiently" robust, here meaning immune to all possible loss, theft, and destruction (including as a result of the heat-death of the universe), than I would be prepared to accept that durability. Otherwise, I will decided for myself how important the content is to me, and take what steps I feel appropriate to back it up. I will certainly not cede that right to an organization which makes more money if my media wear out and need to be replaced.
And plus, they'd hardly want someone to sign on who wasn't prepared to work the hours and then have to go through the hiring process again.
You're absolutely right.
Many people seem to be approaching this from an adversarial standpoint, which strikes me as nonsensical. If you start with the idea that you and the company are opposed, and you're goal is to get the job by hook or by crook, you're pursuing the kind of attitude that will make the job you take less pleasant. Your goal is to determine that the job is something you will be content doing, in an environment you'll be happy in, and for pay/benefits that are worth it to you. The interviewer's goal is to make sure that you'll be able to do the job well, work well with other team members as needed, and generally be worth more to the company than the pay/benefits that they would pay you. The only place where your interests really contrast with theirs is in determining the size of your compensation..
Actually, "How do you deal with unreasonable customers" is a question I've asked everyone I've ever interviewed. From a business perspective, hiring and training someone who isn't willing or able to deal with the bad days means hiring and training someone who will then leave/be asked to leave, and putting back where we started only later and poorer.
Better graphics also enable other things that don't seem as intuitive though. The NPCs in Half-Life 2 are much more convincing and have more realistic features and expressions, so it's easier to tell one from another and they become unique. Because they're more unique and human, we care about them more and so you can create a story with more interesting characters.
It's not that the graphics being better make the game better, but that better graphics allow the developer to portray things in a more detailed way which increases the options for variety.
I use a third party app called winsplitrevolution to make the giant (30", 2560x1600) display work properly. It works out very well, about as much multi-tasking productivity as two 1600x1200 monitors side by side, but less vertical scrolling, and for smaller stuff (file managers, for example), I go to 1280x720 2 pane windows, which means looking at 8 directories at once.
You're point about TVs is well taken, but remember that most TVs simply aren't in the same size category as monitors, so there isn't much panel sharing going on.
Finally, single rate DVI maxes at WUXGA (1920x1200), but dual like cables aren't that expensive, and it isn't all that hard on a video board, $20 should cover it if you aren't a gamer. (If you are a gamer, you probably know the price/framerate/pixels sweetspot you like best).
As a result of which he is more or less completely responsible for the recent popularity (in America) of micro-brews and distinctive beers. Before that, it had been Clydesdale piss for some time.
Where I live, I have 5mbit. At several of my friends houses, 256k is the fastest upload available for less than $100/month. If there were some competition in the market, that might change. At my family's cabin (which has hosted a few very nice lan parties) anything over 128k upstream has 4 digit monthly pricetag or uses a satellite dish, with the associated 4 digit ping times.
Can you provide a citation? That would quell the performance concern, though it wouldn't address the more basic concerns. (I have enjoyed several LAN parties at locations remote enough that there was no broadband, and no cell coverage, I also default to pirating games that assume I default to pirating, and default to purchasing games that assume I default to purchasing.)
FYI, the number is now over 22 Thousand.
http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?LANSC2
With maybe 256k of upload...
Please define *most* of us. I still only play a few games online, most of my multiplayer gaming is done between two and twenty people in the same room. Voice chat helps, but it still doesn't feel like a social experience, which is the *point* of multiplayer.
Also, since people mention the "everyone has to own the game" thing a fair bit, WTF is with that anyway? If I want to play SCII at a LAN with some friends once every two months, why does *everyone* have to own the game? When we were playing Super Smash Brothers, we only needed *one* copy of the game. Price difference? About $50 for four people versus $50/person for four people, or $150 extra. Blizzards game isn't that much better.
Not everyone has a high speed connection now either. Also, last time I used Battle.net, the process for hosting a private game was annoying and cumbersome.
Also, since most "broadband" connections are only fast on download, and Battle.net will require all game data to be uploaded once for every person playing at a LAN party, ADSL is likely to be too slow for more than two or three players.
Wouldn't bother me if I played multi-player RTS games in any environment *other* than LAN, but every time I've tried, latency, bandwidth, and crappy lobby systems have leeched all the fun out of it.
Depends on whether they're war veterans, as war veterans (especially those with PTSD and similar) are more often neglected and find themselves less capable of handling jobs, etc. (All IIRC, citations needed).
Axe? What, you don't have any more gas? Get the chainsaw!
"has actually harmed at least one person, or themselves"
Hell no. Harming yourself should always be legal. We have no right to stop people sticking blades or drugs into their bodies, any more than we have the right to stop people posting compromising pictures of themselves, or selling their bodies, or going bankrupt through stupid financial decisions, or wasting their lives and riches.
In making harming yourself (or any other consenting adult) illegal, you inherently allow a Christian government to force gays into therapy, or a Muslim government to force women who don't wish to wear the Burkha into therapy, or an Atheist government to force those who believe in god into therapy.
Does this mean that, if I were to accuse someone of having sex with a minor in TN, and to provide evidence of the sex, they would then be legally required to provide proof that the other party *wasn't* a minor?
Where exactly do you intend to draw the line with acceptable fetishes that demand medical treatment, and ones that don't?
Very simple: treatment is justified only when the person in question has actually harmed at least one person who did not consent AND there is reasonable evidence that that person cannot control the impulse to do so again.
Otherwise, you have to treat ambition as that can also be a cause of criminal behavior, especially in people in positions of authority.
Assuming that someone who my have owned images doctored to look like they showed someone sexually abusing someone else is likewise unacceptable
Read this again, more slowly this time. If it still sounds like I meant that the owning of images was unacceptable, than I apologize. What I am trying to say is that the act of assuming guilt is at least as evil as the act of abusing someone. (I would actually consider it just another form of abuse).
In alternate form,
evilness_inherent_in(Assuming guilt) >= evilness_inherent_in(actual assault).
I *also* do not believe that the mere possession of any information should ever be considered a crime. There is a valid argument for banning the *distribution* of child porn, but I am not convinced that it is possible to do so and still have free speech.
Hey, at least that time they were actually looking for drugs.
Wait, so now it's legal for pedophiles to force children to strip, as long as their looking for drugs?