I wonder if his will has a provision- "If the bloody thing blows up and murders me, the design for it becomes creative commons- hopefully those Linux nuts can figure out why it blew up!"
Little does he know we'd just fork it into a million different versions, all similar but incompatible (and all unable to run Halo2), then Microsoft would bring out JetPackXP Professional and everyone except us would use that instead...
Jack is already probably broke: his wife (an otherwise respectable woman and lawyer) is sick with cancer, and Jack has been unable to find work as anything but a commentator on an occasional news program for years.
I wonder.
Is it right to make his wife suffer for his antics? The fine and his obvious financial distress would probably mean that her medical treatment would suffer. Sure- she doesn't have to stay married to him, but most people would admit that this kind of loyalty deserves to be rewarded- in other ways than painful, long, often-humiliating death.
My second thought is that, honestly, this might make a good plot for a video game. An honest, well meaning lawyer's wife becomes ill... and the only way he can think of to raise enough money to pay for her illness is to do the despicable- sue enough people, say and do outlandish things to create enough controversy to get on the news for paid appearances. At the end of the day, our rugged hero dejectedly climbs into bed, miserable and hating himself for what he's done but determined to save his beautiful wife...
It would be called Grand liTigation Approach, set in The City of Vice. And yes... there will be urination on spinal columns.
I think that it's less that Google have redefined Beta, but that they've bought it back to what it SHOULD be- usable and feature-complete software which is just undergoing stringent testing for subtle defects and bugs.
Frankly, this makes for a refreshing change from the rest of the software industry (particularly Microsoft) who hold the opinion that Beta is Greek for "Great- ship it and patch it up later."
In my opinion, broadly speaking, there are two kinds of people in the world; those who prefer an internal moral compass and those who prefer an external moral compass. The former tend to analyse things for themselves, look at all the facts and come up with a decision- is this "right/true/a good idea/etc". The latter tend to look to some higher authority- religion, the government, parents, spouse, boss, etc to make the majority of these decisions for them.
This doesn't mean that the former is automatically better than the latter- the latter have a vast pool of opinions to draw upon, while the former only have themselves and can be often actively disregard the opinions of others in the name of "doing what *they* want". Individualism for the sake of individualism, you might say.
Most people, I think, fall somewhere in the middle and lean one way or the other. I tend to lean towards the former, but I recognise the traps that can befall these kind of people and actively seek to avoid them.
No modtools? That's a shame. Modtools really extend the life of a game- in fact, I'd say they probably extend the life of a game more than anything else (apart from being an MMO). How long did Half-Life 1 hang around because of Counterstrike?
Not quite- a true Apple fan would never say this because they *know*, deep down in their off-the-shelf Intel heart wrapped in a sickeningly overpriced white shell, that the Apple brand is just so superior because... well, it IS. EVERYONE knows THAT.
If I ever sold anything to EA I'd make sure to put in the EULA somewhere that I get to crack them in the face with a lump of wood then key their car. When the cops arrive, assuming they don't shoot me out of hand, I will simply say that I am preforming services for which I was paid- and present them the EULA detailing as much.
I mean, that's effectively what they're doing. EA are selling one piece of software but not disclosing that it comes with a second, potentially damaging, piece of software which I Do Not Want(tm).
10 DRM product launches. 20 30 Legitimate users are punished while technical 40 users quickly bypass the protections without a 50 second thought. Sales suddenly decline and the 60 latter are blamed for it. 70 80 Harsher restrictions are dreamed up to safeguard 90 the former against the skills of the latter... 100 110 GOTO 10
While the above is true for some cases, and is reasonably insightful (2, insightful IMHO) I think that things like treatment of POWs are one of those things that are ignored when performed to a satisfactory standard but are very, very damaging when performed poorly. The Abu Ghraib prisoner-torture scandal, Guantanamo Bay... these things have significantly harmed America's reputation abroad.
I very much doubt that, in the next great war America wages, becoming an American POW will be nearly so attractive.
"Hi, this is Sandra from accounting- my pencil has a virus! It won't write words anymore and just keeps drawing a picture of a man doing... SOMETHING to his anus!"
As a soon-to-graduate-and-become-a-developer, I have to disagree in the strongest possible terms to your statement.
Commercial piracy- sure. That's just plain theft. Taking someone else's art and selling it without permission is theft.
Individual piracy? The key question you have to answer here is: "Did this act of piracy cost me a sale?"
Sometimes it did. Frequently it didn't. Was this person willing and able to pay for your software, but chose to pirate it instead? Perhaps you're not adding enough value to the product. Perhaps you're charging too much. Perhaps your product is inconvenient (read; DRM-ridden). Perhaps your product is crap and not worth paying for.
Generally, people will do the right thing and buy games if the pirated version is not significantly easier to install/maintain (read; DRM-ridden), easily available, decently priced and contains benefits beyond the software itself. Things like a nice manual, a fold out map of the galaxy you're fighting over, official forums where (if you register using your CD key) you can get offical insider tips on what's coming out in the next patch or vote on requested features... stuff like that. If you're developing more serious software, telephone/email/forum support, free replacement CDs for verified customers, option to opt-in to beta version of the next version, vote on features, etc... creativity, people!
Once you start seeing your own customers as potential criminals... your business suffers.
Nobody is contesting their legal rights in this case- at least, not me.
I am, however, contesting how *wise* this decision is. Game companies produce a lot of crap. The signal to noise ratio is extremely low, especially when considering just how many games are produced for the PC every year. So how do we know what's good?
Well, we could seek reviews- but many reviewers are paid for their submissions, have an agenda, or simply have different tastes. Or we hear about it from friends. Or... we pirate them and see for ourselves. If the game is crap- nothing wasted. If the game is good, we're going to want its expansion pack/online play/multiplayer/box art/full colour manual/bragging rights/etc.
In almost all cases, such "piracy" doesn't constitute a lost sale. Either the "pirate" couldn't afford it anyway, or wouldn't buy it if she couldn't "pirate" it. Think students, working mums, etc. Not all of them are- but most.
But these pirates give you something money can't buy- legitimate word of mouth advertising. You can't buy it, it's the BEST form of advertising short of beaming ads into people's dreams and it's generally free. And it's one of the three ways people decide if a game is good or not- and as stated earlier, it's generally the most telling.
So: you can excuse acts of individual not-for-profit piracy and write it off as free advertising. Or, you could hunt down anyone who pirates even a single game and charge them for a crime with punishments quite often worse than rape.
Are people going to buy more of your games, or fewer?
I am wary of euphemisms, but yes- you make an excellent point. Learning why creationism and its watered down cousin intelligent design are flawed, including their incorrect application of the scientific method, should be something discussed- but the practices themselves should not be given merit.
As a software engineer, as part of my education we often examined code that was faulty. That doesn't mean defect-ridden code should be taught in schools, just that it was seen, discussed, dissected and its flaws revealed to the world.
If this man proposes something similar, then yes- I support him. However, creationism by stealth is not something I can honestly condone.
Wow. WTB mod points!
The bottom line here is- science is evidence seeking a conclusion. Creationism is a conclusion seeking evidence.
That is why it should not be taught in science classes.
Slashdot Mirror
... what happens if he doesn't make it?
I wonder if his will has a provision- "If the bloody thing blows up and murders me, the design for it becomes creative commons- hopefully those Linux nuts can figure out why it blew up!"
Little does he know we'd just fork it into a million different versions, all similar but incompatible (and all unable to run Halo2), then Microsoft would bring out JetPackXP Professional and everyone except us would use that instead...
Jack is already probably broke: his wife (an otherwise respectable woman and lawyer) is sick with cancer, and Jack has been unable to find work as anything but a commentator on an occasional news program for years.
I wonder.
Is it right to make his wife suffer for his antics? The fine and his obvious financial distress would probably mean that her medical treatment would suffer. Sure- she doesn't have to stay married to him, but most people would admit that this kind of loyalty deserves to be rewarded- in other ways than painful, long, often-humiliating death.
My second thought is that, honestly, this might make a good plot for a video game. An honest, well meaning lawyer's wife becomes ill... and the only way he can think of to raise enough money to pay for her illness is to do the despicable- sue enough people, say and do outlandish things to create enough controversy to get on the news for paid appearances. At the end of the day, our rugged hero dejectedly climbs into bed, miserable and hating himself for what he's done but determined to save his beautiful wife...
It would be called Grand liTigation Approach, set in The City of Vice. And yes... there will be urination on spinal columns.
Jack Thompson disbarred. On my birthday.
Happy birthday to me, happy birthday to me...
I think that it's less that Google have redefined Beta, but that they've bought it back to what it SHOULD be- usable and feature-complete software which is just undergoing stringent testing for subtle defects and bugs.
Frankly, this makes for a refreshing change from the rest of the software industry (particularly Microsoft) who hold the opinion that Beta is Greek for "Great- ship it and patch it up later."
Well, I'm entirely not surprised.
In my opinion, broadly speaking, there are two kinds of people in the world; those who prefer an internal moral compass and those who prefer an external moral compass. The former tend to analyse things for themselves, look at all the facts and come up with a decision- is this "right/true/a good idea/etc". The latter tend to look to some higher authority- religion, the government, parents, spouse, boss, etc to make the majority of these decisions for them.
This doesn't mean that the former is automatically better than the latter- the latter have a vast pool of opinions to draw upon, while the former only have themselves and can be often actively disregard the opinions of others in the name of "doing what *they* want". Individualism for the sake of individualism, you might say.
Most people, I think, fall somewhere in the middle and lean one way or the other. I tend to lean towards the former, but I recognise the traps that can befall these kind of people and actively seek to avoid them.
Good point- but could you imagine what might happen if there were official modtools for console games? The Wii itself would be endlessly entertaining.
Actually, that's probably why they won't do it- it'd be endlessly entertaining. Gotta bring out the new console sometime...
No modtools? That's a shame. Modtools really extend the life of a game- in fact, I'd say they probably extend the life of a game more than anything else (apart from being an MMO). How long did Half-Life 1 hang around because of Counterstrike?
Yep, you totally put your foot in it that time.
Then I would definitely key their golden parachutes.
I mean, they're gold- they're as soft as hell!
Excellent!
Now when can I expect this in my Intrepid Ibex repositories, mmm?
Mandatory puns:
"Glad to see Linux really putting it's best foot forward in the GUI department."
"The new Gnome is a feet of software engineering."
"Maybe I'll revert from Kubuntu to Ubuntu, dip my toe in and see what it's like."
"I hope the new version doesn't have a much bigger footprint."
Not quite- a true Apple fan would never say this because they *know*, deep down in their off-the-shelf Intel heart wrapped in a sickeningly overpriced white shell, that the Apple brand is just so superior because... well, it IS. EVERYONE knows THAT.
If I ever sold anything to EA I'd make sure to put in the EULA somewhere that I get to crack them in the face with a lump of wood then key their car. When the cops arrive, assuming they don't shoot me out of hand, I will simply say that I am preforming services for which I was paid- and present them the EULA detailing as much.
I mean, that's effectively what they're doing. EA are selling one piece of software but not disclosing that it comes with a second, potentially damaging, piece of software which I Do Not Want(tm).
Of course. One mustn't ask questions regarding the most holy Operating Systems bestowed upon us by our chair-propelling overlords.
Vista is perfect. Vista has ALWAYS been perfect, because all Microsoft products are perfect.
Well, if it's Vista minus the bloatware, DRM and huge resource requirements... it might be actually a decent operating system.
Interesting that Microsoft appears to be actually listening to their users over Vista. That, or they're panicking and being forced to...
I liked "lp0: on fire". I wonder what other things they could extend this too?
"Dell0: on fire."
"iPod0: on fire."
"TheRoof0, TheRoof0, TheRoof0: on fire."
"Heart2: on fire."
10 DRM product launches.
20
30 Legitimate users are punished while technical
40 users quickly bypass the protections without a
50 second thought. Sales suddenly decline and the
60 latter are blamed for it.
70
80 Harsher restrictions are dreamed up to safeguard
90 the former against the skills of the latter...
100
110 GOTO 10
While the above is true for some cases, and is reasonably insightful (2, insightful IMHO) I think that things like treatment of POWs are one of those things that are ignored when performed to a satisfactory standard but are very, very damaging when performed poorly. The Abu Ghraib prisoner-torture scandal, Guantanamo Bay... these things have significantly harmed America's reputation abroad.
I very much doubt that, in the next great war America wages, becoming an American POW will be nearly so attractive.
Also, what does it mean when fighting a group that does not abide by the Geneva Convention?
I don't know. I don't know what it's like to fight the United States military.
P.S. the Hague convention governs the use of weaponry. The Geneva convention covers the treatment of PoW's.
"Hi, this is Sandra from accounting- my pencil has a virus! It won't write words anymore and just keeps drawing a picture of a man doing... SOMETHING to his anus!"
Sigh...
"I'll be right there."
As a soon-to-graduate-and-become-a-developer, I have to disagree in the strongest possible terms to your statement.
Commercial piracy- sure. That's just plain theft. Taking someone else's art and selling it without permission is theft.
Individual piracy? The key question you have to answer here is: "Did this act of piracy cost me a sale?"
Sometimes it did. Frequently it didn't. Was this person willing and able to pay for your software, but chose to pirate it instead? Perhaps you're not adding enough value to the product. Perhaps you're charging too much. Perhaps your product is inconvenient (read; DRM-ridden). Perhaps your product is crap and not worth paying for.
Generally, people will do the right thing and buy games if the pirated version is not significantly easier to install/maintain (read; DRM-ridden), easily available, decently priced and contains benefits beyond the software itself. Things like a nice manual, a fold out map of the galaxy you're fighting over, official forums where (if you register using your CD key) you can get offical insider tips on what's coming out in the next patch or vote on requested features... stuff like that. If you're developing more serious software, telephone/email/forum support, free replacement CDs for verified customers, option to opt-in to beta version of the next version, vote on features, etc... creativity, people!
Once you start seeing your own customers as potential criminals... your business suffers.
Undoubtedly.
Nobody is contesting their legal rights in this case- at least, not me.
I am, however, contesting how *wise* this decision is. Game companies produce a lot of crap. The signal to noise ratio is extremely low, especially when considering just how many games are produced for the PC every year. So how do we know what's good?
Well, we could seek reviews- but many reviewers are paid for their submissions, have an agenda, or simply have different tastes. Or we hear about it from friends. Or... we pirate them and see for ourselves. If the game is crap- nothing wasted. If the game is good, we're going to want its expansion pack/online play/multiplayer/box art/full colour manual/bragging rights/etc.
In almost all cases, such "piracy" doesn't constitute a lost sale. Either the "pirate" couldn't afford it anyway, or wouldn't buy it if she couldn't "pirate" it. Think students, working mums, etc. Not all of them are- but most.
But these pirates give you something money can't buy- legitimate word of mouth advertising. You can't buy it, it's the BEST form of advertising short of beaming ads into people's dreams and it's generally free. And it's one of the three ways people decide if a game is good or not- and as stated earlier, it's generally the most telling.
So: you can excuse acts of individual not-for-profit piracy and write it off as free advertising. Or, you could hunt down anyone who pirates even a single game and charge them for a crime with punishments quite often worse than rape.
Are people going to buy more of your games, or fewer?
I am wary of euphemisms, but yes- you make an excellent point. Learning why creationism and its watered down cousin intelligent design are flawed, including their incorrect application of the scientific method, should be something discussed- but the practices themselves should not be given merit. As a software engineer, as part of my education we often examined code that was faulty. That doesn't mean defect-ridden code should be taught in schools, just that it was seen, discussed, dissected and its flaws revealed to the world. If this man proposes something similar, then yes- I support him. However, creationism by stealth is not something I can honestly condone.
Wow. WTB mod points! The bottom line here is- science is evidence seeking a conclusion. Creationism is a conclusion seeking evidence. That is why it should not be taught in science classes.