I wouldn't say often, but occasionally, and it's a valuable tool. Goto and If are the primitives that all other control structures are derived from, and it's always useful to have those sorts of raw basics at your disposal. Rigidly adhering to a 'no Goto' policy is too dogmatic.
That said, I hardly ever need to use Goto. I'm prepared when the time comes, though!
Once every player and computer authenticates against Battlenet. Thereby eliminating piracy (theoretically), and also eliminating any LAN play in any location without an internet connection.
No, they will feel $60 of pain from every individual that decides not to purchase it because of the deliberate crippling. Sure, it'll still make millions. But you think that companies stop caring about a lost $100,000 just because they've made $10,000,000? They don't.
I would have bought the game, if not for the removal of LAN play, and the splitting of content into three separate games (which seems to have been overshadowed by the LAN issue).
Now I won't. If a pirated copy is released with the LAN issue fixed, I would be very tempted. Still probably won't pirate it; I've got other games to play. But what does Blizzard care? Either way, they've lost a sale. I know it's just one, but it's going to be repeated a substantial number of times.
Plus, once a company goes into 'squeeze the customer for every penny' mode, coupled with 'restricting and removing features is the key to extra profit' mode, they're probably at the start of a long decline in quality and sales. See SONY for a recent example.
No, because that would absolutely guarantee that this flaw would never get corrected. Do you think people should have just 'moved on' when EA ruined Spore? Thankfully they didn't, and there was such an amount of criticism that EA substantially revised their DRM policies.
Maybe YOU should just cope and move on? Or actually be helpful, and advocate Blizzard correcting the problem?
It's a much bigger deal than bitching about killing children in Fallout 3.
It would be as if Bethesda wouldn't let you play Fallout 3 without authenticating on their own servers every time it started. That would be outrageous!
I don't think there's any significant difference between journalists and bloggers. You point to ETHICS CLASSES? Really? I don't think you're thinking in fundamentals.
Bloggers write things for public consumption. Same thing as journalists. Everybody always faces consequences for all their actions. The nature of the consequence changes, depending on whether it's a paid position, free, to a wide or narrow audience, and so forth; but that's just details.
Bloggers, journalists, and every person in the United States should enjoy the exact same right to free speech and relevant legal protection. What degree you have and who employs you should have absolutely no bearing on the matter.
No. First off, the link you point to is full of weasel words. Secondly, it's missing the point. Ping wasn't the biggest problem. Requiring Battlenet accounts for each copy of SC2 sold, with Blizzards keeping records of every game played, with no ability to play without internet access, and no ability to resell SC2, and no ability to hold large LAN events without cooperation of Blizzard... those are some of the problems.
I care for a few reasons, and they're significant enough that I have no intention of buying SC2 any more. The biggest reason is a little philosophical, though: Blizzard is stripping out a reliable, simple, desirable feature, in order to replace it with a more cumbersome, more limiting, feature that will make them more money and give them more marketing potential. This is the sign of a company that has past its peak, and is starting to make mistakes. The sign of a company that is being run by Marketing and Finance... for God's sake, they split the game into three so they could sell more copies. That's got Marketing Weasel written all over it.
I think it should be called 'pulling a Sony.' I will bet that this is the beginning of several years of 'pinch the consumer' from Blizzard, in grand EA fashion.
Right. A summary about how a movie is going to be a massive failure because some people didn't like the trailer?
I'm looking forward to seeing this movie. Do the whiners realize that aliens with primitive technology don't disqualify a story from being science fiction?
Also, come to think of it, there were similar prognostications about massive costly failure shortly before the premiere of Titanic. Wasn't my favorite film, but I don't think anybody could say that film failed...
The researchers suggested that using similar techniques in humans could restore function to patients with organ failure."
The submitter got me, I have to admit. I was reading the summary, thinking that it would end with "could allow humans to regrow teeth"... but they pulled a zigzag, and went a different direction. Organs. Wow. Did M. Knight Shamalyan write this summary?
Yeah, but I think you're getting English confused with Math.
"It never snows in August"
"Categorically wrong. Your assertion is untrue. Study the 'little ice age' of the medieval period."
"Uh.. anyway, since it never snows in August..." *rolls eyes*
Natural languages would break if they were consistently held to mathematical and logical rigor. Your statement may be technically accurate, but the OP may still be 'right'.
...so because there was massive underground effort in Berkeley to vandalize all the meters, there were many empty spots that no one could use...
I never thought I would RESPECT a group of Berkeley activists, but here it is. Good job, and keep up the good work. I hope they turn on traffic cameras, as well.
I wonder if part of the problem in America is our lack of violence toward obviously corrupt and harmful politicians? (Lawyers, too.) They should be in a constant state of fear.
However, it may also be clearly true that in the way interactivity is defined for the purpose of the relevant law, it is not. Legal definitions are generally more precise, usually different, and sometimes at odds with common usage. Sometimes legal definitions change depending on the exact law.
For instance, "responsibility" may have different meanings in civil and criminal law, and both are different from what is meant in normal English. Every field has specific technical jargon.
Perhaps google is removing those images upon request, not because it's worried about the lawsuit, but because it's simply polite? Sometimes companies do things for other reasons than for absolute legal necessity. Sometimes for PR... sometimes because an employee actually is NICE.
Of course, it isn't Google's job to fight these kind of fights. That's what newspapers are for, and is an example of the constant legal battles that newspapers are (mostly silently) fighting in court to protect the rights of the average American. Of course, then Google leeches the newspaper's content and makes money off of it, but that's a different argument.
That's not a newspaper's job; it's job is just to report facts. Activism on the part of newspapers is generally detrimental. It's the citizen's job to fight for rights.
And before I get a bunch of IANALs responding to this post, let me just say STFU. It's my job to know these sorts of things. Unless you're a lawyer or a judge who disagrees with all the briefings I've had with some of the nation's top attorneys on just this kind of matter, don't bother to respond.
Wow, you're an ass. Specifically, you are thinking that the only relevant issue is the legal issue. It's not... although the lawyers and judges have probably told you it is.
Someone in the street randomly walking past your house is a momentary, transient thing. Any observations are made incidentally by a single person, if they happen to be looking at all, which most people won't anyway because they'd feel a bit embarassed if they were caught peering in through someone else's window.
It would be perfectly legal for the kid walking down the street to photograph the front of your house, even if he could see you in the window dancing to "old time rock and roll" in your underwear. I believe it would be legal for him to post that on his myspace page.
Your argument has devolved to "They lost 2% of SOMETHING".
They lost about two percent of their revenue. Maybe this means they lost 100% of their profit; maybe they just increased their profit by 100%. You have no way of knowing what this did, because you don't know the amount of fixed expenses, nor the expense of these particular accounts.
However, for an mmorpg running a bank of servers, a 30% reduction in processing is a HUGE reduction in expenses. Whether the savings was immediately taken the next day by selling servers or not is meaningless. Even if they never reduced the number of servers, they just added a huge amount of future expandability, for a relatively negligible price.
You dislike Javascript for a rational reason? That's fine, I suppose; but it's rare. Most of the vitriol against Javascript is undeserved. Javascript gets the blame for the faulty way in which the web evolved. If javascript didn't exist, some other language or technique would be used to annoy browsers.
Seriously... I suspect if Lua or Python had been incorporated into Netscape, everybody would be hating on those languages right now.
In other words, compilation isn't a requirement for 90% of applications. Performance and memory usage rarely matter, unless you're writing a game, video-editing, or other such really heavy software. And even then, memory usage can be sacrificed.
I don't necessarily LIKE that, but it's the trend.
Slashdot Mirror
I wouldn't say often, but occasionally, and it's a valuable tool. Goto and If are the primitives that all other control structures are derived from, and it's always useful to have those sorts of raw basics at your disposal. Rigidly adhering to a 'no Goto' policy is too dogmatic.
That said, I hardly ever need to use Goto. I'm prepared when the time comes, though!
Sad that that evidently works. I don't feel that I pay any more attention to ads with white people than black or some other race.
I guess hot chicks and explosions is what they need to catch my attention.
Reverb claims that their clients have sold over $2 billion of product under their watch.
I flatly don't believe them.
Why would anybody hire them? Why would you believe and have dealings with a company whose product is explicitly stated as lying and deception?
Once every player and computer authenticates against Battlenet. Thereby eliminating piracy (theoretically), and also eliminating any LAN play in any location without an internet connection.
No, they will feel $60 of pain from every individual that decides not to purchase it because of the deliberate crippling. Sure, it'll still make millions. But you think that companies stop caring about a lost $100,000 just because they've made $10,000,000? They don't.
I would have bought the game, if not for the removal of LAN play, and the splitting of content into three separate games (which seems to have been overshadowed by the LAN issue).
Now I won't. If a pirated copy is released with the LAN issue fixed, I would be very tempted. Still probably won't pirate it; I've got other games to play. But what does Blizzard care? Either way, they've lost a sale. I know it's just one, but it's going to be repeated a substantial number of times.
Plus, once a company goes into 'squeeze the customer for every penny' mode, coupled with 'restricting and removing features is the key to extra profit' mode, they're probably at the start of a long decline in quality and sales. See SONY for a recent example.
No, because that would absolutely guarantee that this flaw would never get corrected. Do you think people should have just 'moved on' when EA ruined Spore? Thankfully they didn't, and there was such an amount of criticism that EA substantially revised their DRM policies.
Maybe YOU should just cope and move on? Or actually be helpful, and advocate Blizzard correcting the problem?
It's a much bigger deal than bitching about killing children in Fallout 3.
It would be as if Bethesda wouldn't let you play Fallout 3 without authenticating on their own servers every time it started. That would be outrageous!
I'm not sure a question marks isn't appropriate in this case, as an indicator of a rising, questioning tone? Similar to the use of a comma as a pause?
I don't think there's any significant difference between journalists and bloggers. You point to ETHICS CLASSES? Really? I don't think you're thinking in fundamentals.
Bloggers write things for public consumption. Same thing as journalists. Everybody always faces consequences for all their actions. The nature of the consequence changes, depending on whether it's a paid position, free, to a wide or narrow audience, and so forth; but that's just details.
Bloggers, journalists, and every person in the United States should enjoy the exact same right to free speech and relevant legal protection. What degree you have and who employs you should have absolutely no bearing on the matter.
No. First off, the link you point to is full of weasel words. Secondly, it's missing the point. Ping wasn't the biggest problem. Requiring Battlenet accounts for each copy of SC2 sold, with Blizzards keeping records of every game played, with no ability to play without internet access, and no ability to resell SC2, and no ability to hold large LAN events without cooperation of Blizzard... those are some of the problems.
I care for a few reasons, and they're significant enough that I have no intention of buying SC2 any more. The biggest reason is a little philosophical, though: Blizzard is stripping out a reliable, simple, desirable feature, in order to replace it with a more cumbersome, more limiting, feature that will make them more money and give them more marketing potential. This is the sign of a company that has past its peak, and is starting to make mistakes. The sign of a company that is being run by Marketing and Finance... for God's sake, they split the game into three so they could sell more copies. That's got Marketing Weasel written all over it.
I think it should be called 'pulling a Sony.' I will bet that this is the beginning of several years of 'pinch the consumer' from Blizzard, in grand EA fashion.
Don't care? I bet they're very excited about cutting out the right of resale. Every other major videogame will soon follow, if it works.
Right. A summary about how a movie is going to be a massive failure because some people didn't like the trailer?
I'm looking forward to seeing this movie. Do the whiners realize that aliens with primitive technology don't disqualify a story from being science fiction?
Also, come to think of it, there were similar prognostications about massive costly failure shortly before the premiere of Titanic. Wasn't my favorite film, but I don't think anybody could say that film failed...
The researchers suggested that using similar techniques in humans could restore function to patients with organ failure."
The submitter got me, I have to admit. I was reading the summary, thinking that it would end with "could allow humans to regrow teeth"... but they pulled a zigzag, and went a different direction. Organs. Wow. Did M. Knight Shamalyan write this summary?
Yeah, but I think you're getting English confused with Math.
"It never snows in August"
"Categorically wrong. Your assertion is untrue. Study the 'little ice age' of the medieval period."
"Uh.. anyway, since it never snows in August..." *rolls eyes*
Natural languages would break if they were consistently held to mathematical and logical rigor. Your statement may be technically accurate, but the OP may still be 'right'.
...so because there was massive underground effort in Berkeley to vandalize all the meters, there were many empty spots that no one could use...
I never thought I would RESPECT a group of Berkeley activists, but here it is. Good job, and keep up the good work. I hope they turn on traffic cameras, as well.
I wonder if part of the problem in America is our lack of violence toward obviously corrupt and harmful politicians? (Lawyers, too.) They should be in a constant state of fear.
i think what im really missing is, why does anyone have the right to install whatever they want on the device?
There's only one person that has the right to install anything they want on the device.
The owner.
You're absolutely correct.
However, it may also be clearly true that in the way interactivity is defined for the purpose of the relevant law, it is not. Legal definitions are generally more precise, usually different, and sometimes at odds with common usage. Sometimes legal definitions change depending on the exact law.
For instance, "responsibility" may have different meanings in civil and criminal law, and both are different from what is meant in normal English. Every field has specific technical jargon.
Perhaps google is removing those images upon request, not because it's worried about the lawsuit, but because it's simply polite? Sometimes companies do things for other reasons than for absolute legal necessity. Sometimes for PR... sometimes because an employee actually is NICE.
Of course, it isn't Google's job to fight these kind of fights. That's what newspapers are for, and is an example of the constant legal battles that newspapers are (mostly silently) fighting in court to protect the rights of the average American. Of course, then Google leeches the newspaper's content and makes money off of it, but that's a different argument.
That's not a newspaper's job; it's job is just to report facts. Activism on the part of newspapers is generally detrimental. It's the citizen's job to fight for rights.
And before I get a bunch of IANALs responding to this post, let me just say STFU. It's my job to know these sorts of things. Unless you're a lawyer or a judge who disagrees with all the briefings I've had with some of the nation's top attorneys on just this kind of matter, don't bother to respond.
Wow, you're an ass. Specifically, you are thinking that the only relevant issue is the legal issue. It's not... although the lawyers and judges have probably told you it is.
Someone in the street randomly walking past your house is a momentary, transient thing. Any observations are made incidentally by a single person, if they happen to be looking at all, which most people won't anyway because they'd feel a bit embarassed if they were caught peering in through someone else's window.
It would be perfectly legal for the kid walking down the street to photograph the front of your house, even if he could see you in the window dancing to "old time rock and roll" in your underwear. I believe it would be legal for him to post that on his myspace page.
Your argument has devolved to "They lost 2% of SOMETHING".
They lost about two percent of their revenue. Maybe this means they lost 100% of their profit; maybe they just increased their profit by 100%. You have no way of knowing what this did, because you don't know the amount of fixed expenses, nor the expense of these particular accounts.
However, for an mmorpg running a bank of servers, a 30% reduction in processing is a HUGE reduction in expenses. Whether the savings was immediately taken the next day by selling servers or not is meaningless. Even if they never reduced the number of servers, they just added a huge amount of future expandability, for a relatively negligible price.
You dislike Javascript for a rational reason? That's fine, I suppose; but it's rare. Most of the vitriol against Javascript is undeserved. Javascript gets the blame for the faulty way in which the web evolved. If javascript didn't exist, some other language or technique would be used to annoy browsers.
Seriously... I suspect if Lua or Python had been incorporated into Netscape, everybody would be hating on those languages right now.
Ever since performance or memory usage has been.
In other words, compilation isn't a requirement for 90% of applications. Performance and memory usage rarely matter, unless you're writing a game, video-editing, or other such really heavy software. And even then, memory usage can be sacrificed.
I don't necessarily LIKE that, but it's the trend.