Your comment has reminded me of a long-standing question that's been floating around in my head for a while and I've never seen an answer to.
Why is it that you don't see generic knockoffs of expensive razor blades? Is it that the razor blade companies change the form factors fast enough that patents protect the properly-fitting blades until they're irrelevant? Is it that razor blades actually are expensive enough to produce that generics can't make money? Is there something else I'm missing?
Yes and no - it does shift power from the populous states to the unpopulous states, but not in such a fashion that the unpopulous states have more power than the populous. The electoral college implements a system such that electoral representation is proportionate to population with a "floor" value for representation. A more-populous state has more influence than a less-populous one - CA's 55 electoral votes certainly carry more weight than MT's 3, but not quite proportionately more weight.
As far as doing away with it because everyone can see the debates, you're missing the point. The EC isn't about making up for misinformation or poor communications, it's making sure that MT as a state has effective representation. The assumption is that the populous urban centers on the coasts will have different interests than the sparsely-populated interior, yet the interior deserves to have a voice in the governing of the country. Access to the internet doesn't change this.
With modern technology and information traveling around the globe in a second, there is no need for an electoral college and other forms of more indirection between the people and their representatives.
It's a common fallacy to assume that the role of the electoral college was simply to overcome the shortcomings of communications methods of the time, but being common makes it no less a fallacy. The electoral college's primary purpose is specifically to ensure that even states with low populations have a say in the presidential election. The disproportionate weight of a vote cast in Montana compared to one cast in California is intentional - no matter how much the residents of the coasts may want to mock "flyover country," the founders recognized that denying "flyover country" an effective voice in government is a fantastic way to foster civil unrest.
This approach goes hand in hand with the intent to have separate states under a minimal federal government, rather than the curious inversion of the Constitution we have now.
Whether or not these are good goals is a different issue, of course.
But you're incorrect that it's the major parties which would most fight elimination of the electoral college. Rather, it's every state which has only two votes in the electoral college, since it's those states which would suffer in its absence.
Your post is one of the most spectacularly ignorant I've ever read, and I've been reading slashdot for a long time.
It's big Compared to the Wii, yes. Compared to the PS3, no. Compared to the original PS2, no. Lose one point.
It's loud The DVD drive is fairly loud. Gain one point.
You have to buy a (shitty) remote control for playing DVD's This is just plain false. You don't need a remote control, shitty or otherwise, for playing DVDs on the 360. Or, for that matter, for playing video or audio from a PC. Or iPod. Or Mac. Lose two points.
Playing DVD's sucks Completely subjective. I'm not sure what you think about playing DVDs on the 360 sucks (though I suspect neither do you, since it seems fairly obvious from your prior claim that you've never actually done it), but I'll assume you don't like on-screen controls, or some such. Lose no points, gain no points.
The controllers are clunky "Clunky" isn't real specific. Their size is pretty much the same as the new Dual Shock. The thumbsticks are better placed (insofar as they're where the thumbs naturally sit), and the trigger buttons are better than the lower shoulders on the Dual Shock (which are, inexplicably, convex. This, presumably, is to help your fingers slip off them). On the other hand, the D-pad on the 360 controller is bizarrely bad. Again, though, this is pretty subjective. I'll call it another wash.
Online access costs money False. The only thing you can't do without paying for XBL gold is play with other people (oh, and see the Gears of War trailer before Silver members). Granted, that's a major thing, but there's plenty of other stuff that's simply included by owning a 360. Patch downloads, demo downloads, trailers, XBLA, video and music downloads. Lose one point (I'd score it two for being flat-out false like your remote control claim, but online play is a big reason to be online, and you do have to pay for it).
If you leave it on with nothing in the drive, the damn thing has some B-grade sci-fi movie "beep and boop" sounds that are annoying as hell False. If there's nothing in the drive, in fact, the console is pretty quiet, since it's the drive that's the loud component. It doesn't make any electronic noises at all with nothing in the drive. Unless you mean the noises it makes when you're playing XBLA games which don't need discs, but most of us call those "sound effects" and "soundtracks". Lose two points.
Graphics seem to be a lot less sharp than on the PS2 That's the stupidest thing I've read today. Normally, graphics comparisons are subjective, but you'd have to be blind to think the 360's graphics are less sharp than the PS2. Even if you ignore HD entirely, I can't believe you're making the claim that a console released in late 2006 has graphics worse than a console released in late 2000. Lose two points.
My GF got one, and those things annoyed me so much that I never used it after trying it out for a few weeks I call bullshit. Most of your claims are flat-out false. There's no way you can believe these things if you'd actually used a 360.
Boy, can I not wait to see a movie where people run around peeing on the floor, sob into their hands, fly into fits of rage over crappy wall art, and wave their arms in the air like a monkey as their house burns down around them.
Or maybe a movie about a crazy but urbane gentleman in a storm trooper outfit who slaughters people in his back yard by removing the ladder just after they get in the pool?
FFS, half the time actually playing the game was boring (and let me tell you, there's nothing like playing the Sims at 4:00 in the morning, yelling at your sim, "will you get off the fucking computer and go to bed").
Seriously, however, you really hit a very interesting point that I think is illustrative of the problems with the current patent system as a whole:
I am all for patent bashing, but i am not a chemist, nor is most of slashdot.
Here we are on a web site that is read and commented on by a population with an unusually high proportion of scientists of various stripes and people who are intimately familiar with technology - and I've yet to see anyone in the conversation weight in with an informed opinion about the novelty of this technique.
And yet, we expect a bunch of government-service patent examiners to determined - quickly - whether or not it's novel. One can argue, of course, that this is what they're paid to do, so they ought to be capable of it. Fair enough. But then the patent dispute goes to court, and we expect two lawyers and a judge to rule on it - maybe the lawyers can be expected to handle it, since it's their field, but the judge? Much less a jury, if it comes to that.
Which is why, when I saw that slashdot (I think?) story a couple weeks ago about a judge in Europe (maybe?) telling the court that he didn't really understand what a web site is, my first response was "good for him." I'd rather have a judge make clear that he doesn't know what a technology is, in hopes that he can be informed in the court room by experts whose specific job is helping the layperson understand these things than a judge who just rules on it without realizing he doesn't know jack about the tech.
this looks like TTC built a slight logical advancement on top of Sony's (and a vast number of other company's) work in optical discs
The question is whether it's non-obvious or not. Building new technologies atop old technologies but incorporating a new, novel idea is what patents are supposed to protect. If, for example, I developed a method for making a polymer that was self-healing, thereby making optical discs scratch-proof, I would reference existing patents on optical disc formats and claim my improvement. This would be a legitimate patent, insofar as I had developed a new technology.
Of course, that's a bad example, since I can't quickly come up with a contrasting point, but hopefully you get the idea.
There isn't enough information here to form an intelligent position.
Given that Target is only suing Sony over Blu-Ray, and not suing any other organizations over CDs, DVDs, GD-ROMs, Game Discs, HD-DVDs, or FMD-ROMs (!), it's possible (however unlikely) that this is actually an example of patents working the way they should. That is, Target may have a patent on an actual technology; a specific method of producing a reflective layer that is superior and/or cheaper than other methods. If that's the case, then this is exactly how patents are supposed to work.
Alternatively, of course, Target may have patented an obvious evolution of well-established technologies, in which case this is just another patent troll. They could be holding off on suing other companies until they've set some sort of precedent with Sony.
The actual patent begins by specifying an alloy of silver an yttrium, but the further claims also (apparently) expand that claim by including alloys with other elements (such as bismuth and tin). I don't have the time right now to examine the patent in great detail; but a skim makes it look like they patented a specific method for a high-reflectivity layer thats cheaper than other methods of equivalent reflectivity. They then expand this idea to include all the derivative technologies of using this method (single & dual layer discs, write-only discs, write-once disc, re-writeable discs, etc).
The problem is I don't have enough familiarity with the technology to know if this is a non-obvious development or not. If it is non-obvious, then more power to them. Protecting your novel idea with a patent is fair play. If, of course, it's just the optical disc equivalent of "[X], but on the INTERNET and called i[X]," then I hope they get counter-sued into oblivion.
Using cash for online transactions is somewhat tricky. And, since you can often get things for less online than you can via bricks-n-mortar, it is often a money saver.
Unless you're arguing that all the things you can buy online are unnecessary expenditures - but, while I admit "necessary" may be too strong a word in the "need this to survive" sense, I rather enjoy living a life where I have books and a computer.
I'm also unfamiliar with any modern store that actually charges more for CC purchases. That used to be primarily gas stations, but these days I haven't even seen a "credit card same as cash!" sign in years, much less a place that actually has a price difference.
Beyond which, if you're even vaguely on the ball, credit cards are far more secure than cash. If I leave my credit card someplace, I can make a single phone call and I'm at no financial liability. If I leave a pile of cash someplace, I can't exactly recover that purchasing power. Even online fraud is no problem if you look at your statement every month and verify that the purchases you made are purchases you actually made.
Which, incidentally, makes it easier to track your budget, since you get an itemized list of everything you spent money on, rather than trying to make your own list every time you drop cash on something.
Not to mention that actually acquiring cash often costs you money in ATM fees, check cashing fees, and/or counter fees at your bank. Unless, of course, your employers pays you in cash which you then stuff in your mattress.
Of course, then you might want to worry about fire...
I honestly don't know which is worse; teaching "Intelligent Design" as science, or ignoring the Holocaust as history.
On the one hand, you're denying the validity of the very scientific method itself, which can't possibly be a benefit to the future of your society. On the other, though, you're denying the atrocities societies are capable of, even in our "enlightened" era. If you don't know it happened and don't know it can happen, that has to make it more likely for it to happen again.
I suppose, upon further review, that if I had to choose, I'd rather skip the Holocaust than teach ID. The Holocaust could probably be replaced with the Khmer Rouge, Stalin's purges, and Darfur to accomplish the same goals of warning. You lose a bit of connection, since all those examples are "somewhere else" in a way that Germany in the early 20th century isn't, but they're still perfectly good examples of what can happen.
Moreover, ID is certainly more widespread in this country than Holocaust denial is in the UK, so it's certainly a more immediate threat.
Still and all, the fact that I even have to think about this is ridiculous.
The US Supreme Court, ruling on the legality of the Bono copyright extension of a few years ago, very clearly stated that while their ruling should not in any way be interpreted to mean that copyright extension was a good idea, that "life of the author plus 70 years" (or is it 75 years?) did indeed meet the definition of "limited time" and was therefore constitutional. Until a court is willing to establish limits on what "limited time" means, there is no legal reason why this can't be extended. I fully expect Disney in roughly 30 or so years (whenever Steamboat Willie will be in threat of losing copyright) to push for 50 more years and get it.
The problem was that the case was argued poorly. Due to the way the argument was presented, the SCOTUS got to rule that the provisions of the act did comply with the "limited times" clause, which they do.
What was not addressed was the legitimacy of the retroactive extension of copyright - whether that a) set the stage for effectively endless copyright, since it allows Congress to not let anything fall out of copyright, ever or b) met the "[t]o promote the progress of science and useful arts" test (which, intuitively, it seems to fail, since you can't incent artists in 1925 with legislation passwed in 2007).
I also think you're over-generalizing your assessment of attorneys. Both my mother- and father-in-law are attorneys, and have no trouble whatsoever with understanding the problems of perpetual copyright. Especially in terms of Constitutional law.
I mean, come on - what did he actually say in that interview? It's obvious he's excited, and that's neat and all, but he didn't tell us anything.
Except that death is going to be involved some how, some way. Maybe. But he can't tell you anything about how, or why it might be cool. But it'll be better. Or maybe just different. Or maybe not, but it's something he's thought about a lot.
And there'll be one-button fighting. If it works out well when people test it. If they have people test it. But that's risky.
Also there's this other thing that's super-duper awesome, but he can't tell you anything about it. Well, OK, he can. It's one word. But he can't tell you what that word is. But it's awesome.
I mean, I can respect the fact that you don't want to let the cat out of the bag prematurely when you're making a game and trying to innovate. And given his history, it's not surprising if Molyneux is trying to be far more careful than he's inclined to be about letting information out. But if that's your goal, then just say there isn't anything you can say except you're working on things that you hope will be innovative and fun.
It's a much shorter interview, I admit. But, brevity and wit and all that.
Well said, but I'd go further than this. I'd say the majority of people don't want an operating system, they want to complete tasks. They want to write an email to their friends, buy an airplane ticket online, write a letter to their mother, upload the images of their kids from their digital camera so they can print them out and post them to their grandparents, play the latest fun computer game that everybody says is fantastic, share a work spreadsheet via email or a USB pen drive with one of their office colleagues.
I certainly agree that's what they want, but I also think that most people are aware of the computer as a complex device in a way that they are not aware of the car as a complex device. If asked, of course, they know that the car is a highly complicated machine, but that complication is hidden behind an effective and familiar layer of abstraction, which is supported by a well-established infrastructure of ways to pay for maintenance. Thus, they don't need to be aware of its complexity to any real degree.
I don't think computers have progressed that far - we're still at a stage where very few people (and no one I've met, for whatever that anecdotal evidence is worth) view the computer as an appliance. They don't come in with the expectation that it will just work, though they may certainly have that hope. This, in my opinion, is why users ignore error messages and take program crashes or BSODs almost for granted. They know, in some sense, that they're working with a machine that's more complex than they can deal with, and accept that.
Very few of those same people would ever blithely ignore an engine knock, a squealing brakes, or their oil light until the car actually stopped functioning. That, to me, is indicative of the difference: the car is expected to work, so when something goes wrong, it's worth noting. The computer is not, so when something goes wrong, it's almost ignorable.
The point of all this rambling is twofold: first, I agree with your sentiment about what users want - you're right, they don't actually want an operating system, they want a system that operates. However, I also think that most users are aware - by necessity - of many more of the details of what it takes to get what they want than they are with pretty much any other technology they use. Secondly, it's either a mark of failure in the computer industry or a mark of the immaturity of the computer industry (depending on your take) that this necessity exists.
I should also note that I am in 100% agreement with your last paragraph. There should be no expectation that people whose expertise is in a non-computer area are interested in gaining expertise in computers before they can effectively use them.
Flat-out blackballing used to be fairly commonplace before the fed.gov started trying to stop it from happening. Now they're just bringing it back into fashion, but with a New! and Improved! sticker on it.
Is Linux's less than impressive market share an indication that the movement is out of touch with the average computer user?
The question contains its own answer. Most people - even most technically adept people - are not interested in installing "the movement" on their PCs. They want an operating system. They aren't interested in making a statement, bringing Microsoft to its knees, or sacrificing their souls on the altar of RMS' inevitable apotheosis. They want an OPERATING SYSTEM.
Linux is a great operating system, with - IMHO - just a few minor hurdles that must be overcome before it can be seriously offered to an average person (most importantly, AAA games and hardware support - like USB 802.11x dongles). And those hurdles can be worked around if the average person knows someone with some knowledge of the OS (much like the hurdles of Windows can be worked around if they know someone with some knowledge of the OS).
But yes, "the movement" is out of touch with the average computer user. As long as it thinks of itself as "the movement," it always will be.
I can only speak to two franchises, because they're the ones I've played, but:
For Madden, the game is numbered according to the year the Superbowl takes place in. For the '07-'08 season, of course, that's '08.
For the MLB franchise the name of which I can't remember, the game was numbered according to the year the Series took place in, which means that MLB '07 would represent the '07 season.
Slashdot Mirror
Your comment has reminded me of a long-standing question that's been floating around in my head for a while and I've never seen an answer to.
Why is it that you don't see generic knockoffs of expensive razor blades? Is it that the razor blade companies change the form factors fast enough that patents protect the properly-fitting blades until they're irrelevant? Is it that razor blades actually are expensive enough to produce that generics can't make money? Is there something else I'm missing?
You, and lots of other people, make jokes about the irony of the CAPTCHAs you see.
/. for kind of a while now, and I've yet to see a CAPTCHA.
I have to ask: where/when do you see them? I've been reading and posting on
You're right, of course - I was about to make a point about direct election of Senators, and had some mental crosstalk. Sorry for the error.
Yes and no - it does shift power from the populous states to the unpopulous states, but not in such a fashion that the unpopulous states have more power than the populous. The electoral college implements a system such that electoral representation is proportionate to population with a "floor" value for representation. A more-populous state has more influence than a less-populous one - CA's 55 electoral votes certainly carry more weight than MT's 3, but not quite proportionately more weight.
As far as doing away with it because everyone can see the debates, you're missing the point. The EC isn't about making up for misinformation or poor communications, it's making sure that MT as a state has effective representation. The assumption is that the populous urban centers on the coasts will have different interests than the sparsely-populated interior, yet the interior deserves to have a voice in the governing of the country. Access to the internet doesn't change this.
With modern technology and information traveling around the globe in a second, there is no need for an electoral college and other forms of more indirection between the people and their representatives.
It's a common fallacy to assume that the role of the electoral college was simply to overcome the shortcomings of communications methods of the time, but being common makes it no less a fallacy. The electoral college's primary purpose is specifically to ensure that even states with low populations have a say in the presidential election. The disproportionate weight of a vote cast in Montana compared to one cast in California is intentional - no matter how much the residents of the coasts may want to mock "flyover country," the founders recognized that denying "flyover country" an effective voice in government is a fantastic way to foster civil unrest.
This approach goes hand in hand with the intent to have separate states under a minimal federal government, rather than the curious inversion of the Constitution we have now.
Whether or not these are good goals is a different issue, of course.
But you're incorrect that it's the major parties which would most fight elimination of the electoral college. Rather, it's every state which has only two votes in the electoral college, since it's those states which would suffer in its absence.
Your post is one of the most spectacularly ignorant I've ever read, and I've been reading slashdot for a long time.
It's big
Compared to the Wii, yes. Compared to the PS3, no. Compared to the original PS2, no. Lose one point.
It's loud
The DVD drive is fairly loud. Gain one point.
You have to buy a (shitty) remote control for playing DVD's
This is just plain false. You don't need a remote control, shitty or otherwise, for playing DVDs on the 360. Or, for that matter, for playing video or audio from a PC. Or iPod. Or Mac. Lose two points.
Playing DVD's sucks
Completely subjective. I'm not sure what you think about playing DVDs on the 360 sucks (though I suspect neither do you, since it seems fairly obvious from your prior claim that you've never actually done it), but I'll assume you don't like on-screen controls, or some such. Lose no points, gain no points.
The controllers are clunky
"Clunky" isn't real specific. Their size is pretty much the same as the new Dual Shock. The thumbsticks are better placed (insofar as they're where the thumbs naturally sit), and the trigger buttons are better than the lower shoulders on the Dual Shock (which are, inexplicably, convex. This, presumably, is to help your fingers slip off them). On the other hand, the D-pad on the 360 controller is bizarrely bad. Again, though, this is pretty subjective. I'll call it another wash.
Online access costs money
False. The only thing you can't do without paying for XBL gold is play with other people (oh, and see the Gears of War trailer before Silver members). Granted, that's a major thing, but there's plenty of other stuff that's simply included by owning a 360. Patch downloads, demo downloads, trailers, XBLA, video and music downloads. Lose one point (I'd score it two for being flat-out false like your remote control claim, but online play is a big reason to be online, and you do have to pay for it).
If you leave it on with nothing in the drive, the damn thing has some B-grade sci-fi movie "beep and boop" sounds that are annoying as hell
False. If there's nothing in the drive, in fact, the console is pretty quiet, since it's the drive that's the loud component. It doesn't make any electronic noises at all with nothing in the drive. Unless you mean the noises it makes when you're playing XBLA games which don't need discs, but most of us call those "sound effects" and "soundtracks". Lose two points.
Graphics seem to be a lot less sharp than on the PS2
That's the stupidest thing I've read today. Normally, graphics comparisons are subjective, but you'd have to be blind to think the 360's graphics are less sharp than the PS2. Even if you ignore HD entirely, I can't believe you're making the claim that a console released in late 2006 has graphics worse than a console released in late 2000. Lose two points.
My GF got one, and those things annoyed me so much that I never used it after trying it out for a few weeks
I call bullshit. Most of your claims are flat-out false. There's no way you can believe these things if you'd actually used a 360.
Now I know you're joking. 3.7" isn't huge
Boy, I hope you're not my wife.
Boy, can I not wait to see a movie where people run around peeing on the floor, sob into their hands, fly into fits of rage over crappy wall art, and wave their arms in the air like a monkey as their house burns down around them.
Or maybe a movie about a crazy but urbane gentleman in a storm trooper outfit who slaughters people in his back yard by removing the ladder just after they get in the pool?
FFS, half the time actually playing the game was boring (and let me tell you, there's nothing like playing the Sims at 4:00 in the morning, yelling at your sim, "will you get off the fucking computer and go to bed").
I agree, someone should mod me up. ;)
Seriously, however, you really hit a very interesting point that I think is illustrative of the problems with the current patent system as a whole:
I am all for patent bashing, but i am not a chemist, nor is most of slashdot.
Here we are on a web site that is read and commented on by a population with an unusually high proportion of scientists of various stripes and people who are intimately familiar with technology - and I've yet to see anyone in the conversation weight in with an informed opinion about the novelty of this technique.
And yet, we expect a bunch of government-service patent examiners to determined - quickly - whether or not it's novel. One can argue, of course, that this is what they're paid to do, so they ought to be capable of it. Fair enough. But then the patent dispute goes to court, and we expect two lawyers and a judge to rule on it - maybe the lawyers can be expected to handle it, since it's their field, but the judge? Much less a jury, if it comes to that.
Which is why, when I saw that slashdot (I think?) story a couple weeks ago about a judge in Europe (maybe?) telling the court that he didn't really understand what a web site is, my first response was "good for him." I'd rather have a judge make clear that he doesn't know what a technology is, in hopes that he can be informed in the court room by experts whose specific job is helping the layperson understand these things than a judge who just rules on it without realizing he doesn't know jack about the tech.
this looks like TTC built a slight logical advancement on top of Sony's (and a vast number of other company's) work in optical discs
The question is whether it's non-obvious or not. Building new technologies atop old technologies but incorporating a new, novel idea is what patents are supposed to protect. If, for example, I developed a method for making a polymer that was self-healing, thereby making optical discs scratch-proof, I would reference existing patents on optical disc formats and claim my improvement. This would be a legitimate patent, insofar as I had developed a new technology.
Of course, that's a bad example, since I can't quickly come up with a contrasting point, but hopefully you get the idea.
There isn't enough information here to form an intelligent position.
Given that Target is only suing Sony over Blu-Ray, and not suing any other organizations over CDs, DVDs, GD-ROMs, Game Discs, HD-DVDs, or FMD-ROMs (!), it's possible (however unlikely) that this is actually an example of patents working the way they should. That is, Target may have a patent on an actual technology; a specific method of producing a reflective layer that is superior and/or cheaper than other methods. If that's the case, then this is exactly how patents are supposed to work.
Alternatively, of course, Target may have patented an obvious evolution of well-established technologies, in which case this is just another patent troll. They could be holding off on suing other companies until they've set some sort of precedent with Sony.
The actual patent begins by specifying an alloy of silver an yttrium, but the further claims also (apparently) expand that claim by including alloys with other elements (such as bismuth and tin). I don't have the time right now to examine the patent in great detail; but a skim makes it look like they patented a specific method for a high-reflectivity layer thats cheaper than other methods of equivalent reflectivity. They then expand this idea to include all the derivative technologies of using this method (single & dual layer discs, write-only discs, write-once disc, re-writeable discs, etc).
The problem is I don't have enough familiarity with the technology to know if this is a non-obvious development or not. If it is non-obvious, then more power to them. Protecting your novel idea with a patent is fair play. If, of course, it's just the optical disc equivalent of "[X], but on the INTERNET and called i[X]," then I hope they get counter-sued into oblivion.
more data compression more
That phrase, for example, could have been losslessly compressed with a trivial algorithm by almost twenty percent!
Or they purchase stuff online.
Using cash for online transactions is somewhat tricky. And, since you can often get things for less online than you can via bricks-n-mortar, it is often a money saver.
Unless you're arguing that all the things you can buy online are unnecessary expenditures - but, while I admit "necessary" may be too strong a word in the "need this to survive" sense, I rather enjoy living a life where I have books and a computer.
I'm also unfamiliar with any modern store that actually charges more for CC purchases. That used to be primarily gas stations, but these days I haven't even seen a "credit card same as cash!" sign in years, much less a place that actually has a price difference.
Beyond which, if you're even vaguely on the ball, credit cards are far more secure than cash. If I leave my credit card someplace, I can make a single phone call and I'm at no financial liability. If I leave a pile of cash someplace, I can't exactly recover that purchasing power. Even online fraud is no problem if you look at your statement every month and verify that the purchases you made are purchases you actually made.
Which, incidentally, makes it easier to track your budget, since you get an itemized list of everything you spent money on, rather than trying to make your own list every time you drop cash on something.
Not to mention that actually acquiring cash often costs you money in ATM fees, check cashing fees, and/or counter fees at your bank. Unless, of course, your employers pays you in cash which you then stuff in your mattress.
Of course, then you might want to worry about fire...
I honestly don't know which is worse; teaching "Intelligent Design" as science, or ignoring the Holocaust as history.
On the one hand, you're denying the validity of the very scientific method itself, which can't possibly be a benefit to the future of your society. On the other, though, you're denying the atrocities societies are capable of, even in our "enlightened" era. If you don't know it happened and don't know it can happen, that has to make it more likely for it to happen again.
I suppose, upon further review, that if I had to choose, I'd rather skip the Holocaust than teach ID. The Holocaust could probably be replaced with the Khmer Rouge, Stalin's purges, and Darfur to accomplish the same goals of warning. You lose a bit of connection, since all those examples are "somewhere else" in a way that Germany in the early 20th century isn't, but they're still perfectly good examples of what can happen.
Moreover, ID is certainly more widespread in this country than Holocaust denial is in the UK, so it's certainly a more immediate threat.
Still and all, the fact that I even have to think about this is ridiculous.
...because the low Earth orbit clutter problem just got a lot worse with all the pigs up there.
I mean, they must be, since I'm going to be rooting for Microsoft to win a lawsuit.
Strictly speaking, rifles are small arms. Generally, "small arms" is a term that encompasses anything a soldier can fire unsupported.
The problem was that the case was argued poorly. Due to the way the argument was presented, the SCOTUS got to rule that the provisions of the act did comply with the "limited times" clause, which they do.
What was not addressed was the legitimacy of the retroactive extension of copyright - whether that a) set the stage for effectively endless copyright, since it allows Congress to not let anything fall out of copyright, ever or b) met the "[t]o promote the progress of science and useful arts" test (which, intuitively, it seems to fail, since you can't incent artists in 1925 with legislation passwed in 2007).
I also think you're over-generalizing your assessment of attorneys. Both my mother- and father-in-law are attorneys, and have no trouble whatsoever with understanding the problems of perpetual copyright. Especially in terms of Constitutional law.
No. And if they do, they shouldn't.
I mean, come on - what did he actually say in that interview? It's obvious he's excited, and that's neat and all, but he didn't tell us anything.
Except that death is going to be involved some how, some way. Maybe. But he can't tell you anything about how, or why it might be cool. But it'll be better. Or maybe just different. Or maybe not, but it's something he's thought about a lot.
And there'll be one-button fighting. If it works out well when people test it. If they have people test it. But that's risky.
Also there's this other thing that's super-duper awesome, but he can't tell you anything about it. Well, OK, he can. It's one word. But he can't tell you what that word is. But it's awesome.
I mean, I can respect the fact that you don't want to let the cat out of the bag prematurely when you're making a game and trying to innovate. And given his history, it's not surprising if Molyneux is trying to be far more careful than he's inclined to be about letting information out. But if that's your goal, then just say there isn't anything you can say except you're working on things that you hope will be innovative and fun.
It's a much shorter interview, I admit. But, brevity and wit and all that.
Molyneux's history of saying crazy-awesome things in interviews
You know, removing one word from that phrase would transform it into an accurate representation of reality.
All right, technically one hyphen followed by one word.
I certainly agree that's what they want, but I also think that most people are aware of the computer as a complex device in a way that they are not aware of the car as a complex device. If asked, of course, they know that the car is a highly complicated machine, but that complication is hidden behind an effective and familiar layer of abstraction, which is supported by a well-established infrastructure of ways to pay for maintenance. Thus, they don't need to be aware of its complexity to any real degree.
I don't think computers have progressed that far - we're still at a stage where very few people (and no one I've met, for whatever that anecdotal evidence is worth) view the computer as an appliance. They don't come in with the expectation that it will just work, though they may certainly have that hope. This, in my opinion, is why users ignore error messages and take program crashes or BSODs almost for granted. They know, in some sense, that they're working with a machine that's more complex than they can deal with, and accept that.
Very few of those same people would ever blithely ignore an engine knock, a squealing brakes, or their oil light until the car actually stopped functioning. That, to me, is indicative of the difference: the car is expected to work, so when something goes wrong, it's worth noting. The computer is not, so when something goes wrong, it's almost ignorable.
The point of all this rambling is twofold: first, I agree with your sentiment about what users want - you're right, they don't actually want an operating system, they want a system that operates. However, I also think that most users are aware - by necessity - of many more of the details of what it takes to get what they want than they are with pretty much any other technology they use. Secondly, it's either a mark of failure in the computer industry or a mark of the immaturity of the computer industry (depending on your take) that this necessity exists.
I should also note that I am in 100% agreement with your last paragraph. There should be no expectation that people whose expertise is in a non-computer area are interested in gaining expertise in computers before they can effectively use them.
Scribe Maximus: This is a momentous occasion! Rome is burning, the Emperor is doing nothing to help! We must record this for posterity!
Scribe Minimus: Yes, but we'll have to lie about it.
Scribe Maximus: What?! We are historians!
Scribe Minimus: Well, we can't very well write Nero piddled while Rome burned, can we?
Report the competitors you suspect of using illegal labor to the appropriate authorities.
You skipped step one, which is "have appropriate authorities who will do something about it if it's reported to them."
No, it brings an old meaning back to the phrase.
Flat-out blackballing used to be fairly commonplace before the fed.gov started trying to stop it from happening. Now they're just bringing it back into fashion, but with a New! and Improved! sticker on it.
Sort of like bell bottoms.
Is Linux's less than impressive market share an indication that the movement is out of touch with the average computer user?
The question contains its own answer. Most people - even most technically adept people - are not interested in installing "the movement" on their PCs. They want an operating system. They aren't interested in making a statement, bringing Microsoft to its knees, or sacrificing their souls on the altar of RMS' inevitable apotheosis. They want an OPERATING SYSTEM.
Linux is a great operating system, with - IMHO - just a few minor hurdles that must be overcome before it can be seriously offered to an average person (most importantly, AAA games and hardware support - like USB 802.11x dongles). And those hurdles can be worked around if the average person knows someone with some knowledge of the OS (much like the hurdles of Windows can be worked around if they know someone with some knowledge of the OS).
But yes, "the movement" is out of touch with the average computer user. As long as it thinks of itself as "the movement," it always will be.
I can only speak to two franchises, because they're the ones I've played, but:
For Madden, the game is numbered according to the year the Superbowl takes place in. For the '07-'08 season, of course, that's '08.
For the MLB franchise the name of which I can't remember, the game was numbered according to the year the Series took place in, which means that MLB '07 would represent the '07 season.