My nephew has Downs and I frequently envy his parents on the simple fact that they don't really need to spend a lot of time explaining how their child is different.
Why does it bother you so much what strangers think? Perhaps you should take a lesson from your son.
Spoken by someone who has never encountered it. You really have no idea how many idiots think their opinion on how to parent a special needs child is worth forcing on a parent at the worst possible moment. You haven't ever seen a meltdown until you get some asshole telling your kid "you deserve a spanking, boy" as he's trying to regain control of himself.
The submission clearly states that it wants to raise fees so high as to actually discourage patent applications.
So we're not talking just triple, or quadruple. It could be 10x or even higher.
The submission is not information from the patent office, but someone's interpretation of it. And a rather skewed one at that. It doesn't even source where the information about the rate hikes come from. The view is from a Chicken Little reporter that doesn't seem to understand the patent process.
Assuming the information about the rate hike is accurate, it doesn't even discuss which rate. There are more than one. Starting around 80 bucks, if I remember correctly. 80 bucks to file a patent. That covers, what, maybe 1/2 an hour of a patent investigator's time? Probably less, after all the additional administration needed takes a chunk out of that fee. It absolutely needs to be larger if we expect the patent office to be able to adequately research patents by hiring enough people and letting them spend enough time researching.
If the purpose of the fee hike is to reduce filings, then it stands to reason that they will be too high for someone, otherwise the hikes won't have any effect. And clearly, those affected will be the inventors at the lower end of the economic scale.
The purpose of the free hike is not to reduce filings. It's to increase the number of staff. That is how they will manage the backlog.
The submission is an op-ed piece that completely misunderstands why the fee increase is needed and what it is intended to do.
Would any of those talentless hacks have demanded $1 million *pinkies* if the show only earned 25c. per showing? They're preening egomaniacs, just as much overpaid (for what they actually do) as professional sportists.
By what metric are they overpaid?
The producers were happy to pay it, the actors were happy to accept it, and the audience was happy to pay for it (by viewing the commercials, buying the DVD, or whatever).
Apparently, everyone involved in the process thought the asking price was worth paying. They were the best at what they did (making money for the network), and deserved well above average prices in the market.
many OHA members are developing proprietary user experiences, which they are not contributing back into Android
So you are saying that every smartphone in the market will not have the exact same UI?
Say it ain't so!
Why does a teenager who is concerned with facebook and twitter have to necessarily want the same user experience as the corperate employee who is more worried about Outlook sync and calendering?
That's a false dichotomy.
Ideally, the user would be able to decide which device to select, AND which UI to select for their needs. The UI does not need to be tied to the device. Making all of the UIs available and as interchangeable as possible is the best option.
Proprietary UIs are anything but a good idea on an "open" platform.
You know what lesson it will teach Sony and every other console maker? To make everything but the barebones ability to play games (that require no network connection) an option not included included with purchase of the base unit. Sure, they might offer free unlocks for some abilities but those won't be on or in the packaging of the console itself.
Come on now. They advertised what is a pretty important feature to some people, and decided to take it away without compensation. It's not like the feature even stopped working, Sony actively removed the capability from the PS3.
I don't really get the "hard-luck Sony" attitude. If they took out the ability to play games, would you still be defending them? How about the ability to play Blu-Ray movies? Those are the features of the device that consumers paid for.
As far as console manufacturers producing less versatile consoles in the future, your argument doesn't really make sense. The manufacturers are going to make consoles with whatever features they believe will keep them competitive, advertise them as usual, and live or die by their offerings. And hopefully stop trying to pull a bait-and-switch on consumers.
No if you assault me you can't get medical damages from me.
Funny thing: illegal aliens breaking into houses HAVE sued the homeowners for such things as falling on a knife and injuring their legs. Kids screwing around on the roofs of schools have sued the school district when they, illegally trespassing, nevertheless fell through a skylight and injured themselves.
In other words, the law is fucked up, and the fact that you can manage to empanel a jury of 12 retards who don't understand the law & policy, scare them with "wooh this was scary internets stuff", and then have a paid-off judge give the jury bad instructions doesn't help.
Hmmm... so you don't actually know what evidence was presented, but the judge is somehow "paid-off" and the jury are "retards" because you disagree with them?
While the phone might have been lost, the stories have made it fairly apparent that the seller had not followed the legal requirements for attempting to get it back to it's owner.
"Is this the police?"
"Yeah what you want?"
"Hi. I found a phone. It was working and I logged into facebook and everything; but now it's just dead."
"What' you want son? Haven't got all night here."
"Well I was thinking that you should send a car and open an investigation to return it to its rightful owner. I don't want to be called a thief or anything."
"Hold on a sec. Charlie! CHAAAARLIIEE! Come here hear this one!"
You honestly don't think the police would be interested in "lost" goods that are worth at least $5000? The cutoff for misdemeanor receiving stolen property in California is $400. This is way beyond that. You don't get to keep something simply because you're too lazy to turn it in to the police.
Actually, from what I understand, California law states that it is illegal for someone to find something off the street, take it as their own, and then sell it (in other words, what I've heard is that there is no "finders keepers" right in California, at least if you don't bother to let the police look for the true owner first). Supposedly, it becomes extra illegal if you have good reason to believe that it's owned by someone else but don't try to return it (of which there is, supposedly, no evidence in this case).
He did try to return it. Read (carefully) the Gizmodo timeline, more specifically, the section entitled "Lost and Found"
He reached for a phone and called a lot of Apple numbers and tried to find someone who was at least willing to transfer his call to the right person, but no luck. No one took him seriously and all he got for his troubles was a ticket number.
He thought that eventually the ticket would move up high enough and that he would receive a call back, but his phone never rang. What should he be expected to do then? Walk into an Apple store and give the shiny, new device to a 20-year-old who might just end up selling it on eBay?
He did his due dilligence, and got no response whatsoever. So nothing illegal happened here.
Not quite, since he didn't contact the police to report it found (at least on your link, as far as I can see). That is generally what you have to do if you find something of value. Not reporting it to the police is a pretty big mistake, but of course we don't know if it was intentional.
By your logic you could criminalize or decriminalize anything just via a government's say-so.
Yes, by definition. From Wikipedia: "Crime is the breach of rules or laws for which some governing authority (via mechanisms such as legal systems) can ultimately prescribe a conviction." A government can many anything it wants illegal. Even flying pigs.
Political thinking dismissed that sort of justification three hundred years ago (you know, "unalienable rights"?).
Political thinking doesn't stop guns, knives, or the government from forcefully taking you into custody. Your rights are only "unalienable" when you and your allies protect them from your enemies.
"Elbereth" is the only magic word of protection I know, and that works in Nethack, not in real life.
The question is, is his "a life well spent" or "a life, well, spent".
I absolutely hate quotes like this. It stinks of elitism and moral authority. No one knows the purpose of life, so by what right does one person judge another's success or failure in life? If a person led a life they personally are happy with, how can anyone say it was wasted?
I'm not aiming this at you personally, but people that watch/listen to these type of stories and then spend any time to comment that it's a waste of time makes me run in the other direction. Just in case a black hole of hypocrisy swallows them up.
Don't look at it in the light of "win money", but for its "entertainment value". These people are paying for entertainment.
Though I agree; if you play virtual games to win physical assets, you are an idiot.
The vast majority of gamblers are losers. There are a few out there that do make money simply by being smart. Back in the day before the problems with the US bans, bonuses offered by the numerous online casinos totaled in the thousands of dollars. By playing smartly within the rules of the casinos, you could walk away with most of that money in profit. This is after the almost insignificant losses from the play requirements of the casinos, assuming you played blackjack with correct strategy.
It was a fun month of free time for my wife and I, since we like to play blackjack. And it payed for a nice trip to Las Vegas. We didn't even ever get ripped off or denied our winnings, which surprised me. The only time we encountered problems was when I didn't fully read the rules of the bonuses. But we still made about $4000, even with our mistakes. And I learned to play the fine blackjack variant of Pontoon.
I agree it's mostly stupid. The way most people do it is completely fucking stupid. The way some people do it is addictively self-destructive.
Table games are a losing cause, but the odds are posted and you make your decision with full cognizance of the risks and the way the chances are stacked against your being a winner, much less a big winner. So for people who aren't addicted, it's just stupidly expensive entertainment until you learn your lesson and stop doing that to yourself.
Online gambling can be, in fact, be a somewhat inexpensive form of entertainment. Playing with very low stakes means you risk, and lose, very little. Most online casinos have slots starting at a $.01 USD, and $.25 or so for table games. I enjoy playing blackjack online with others for the minimum, and it costs next to nothing due to the low house edge, low hands per hour, and numerous bonuses available. Not as many as there used to be, but still.
Poker isn't gambling against the house. The cards randomize the action, but they give every player an even chance, leaving the gaming down to a player's ability to present and interpret behaviors, and compute odds in real time. The house gets paid a capped percentage of the pot, which makes it only as expensive as any correctly-played table game.
Putting poker online doesn't alter the odds if the game is constructed properly. But it does create a massive opportunity for the server operator to cheat, massive enough that it is unlikely that any online poker server isn't being used to cheat. The only way to guarantee it's fair is to be the person who creates and operates the server. But that, again, is a massive opportunity for you to cheat, and nobody else can prove you aren't, so it's logical to make it illegal for you to even spread the game that way.
Cheating at poker has happened before, and will probably happen again, but the risks are simply not worth the reward. All it takes is one disgruntled employee to spill the beans, or an analysis of someone's cards. From the perspective of a successful online casino, all they have to do is have a fair game, and they get a guaranteed cut from every hand. Even moderate cheating is detectable with the right software, and proof could result in a mass exodus from the casino.
There are even a few regulated casinos on the UK stock exchange, and if they were ever found to be cheating, their stock holders would have a class action lawsuit on them in a heartbeat.
It has nothing to do with my empathy for corporations. It has everything to do with what I feel is best for the US. Abolishing corporate taxes would eliminate tax havens and send many foreign companies our way. The tax revenue can be made up by jacking up taxes on the people who own and work for corporations (us). The tax would be more direct and more efficient. Corporate taxes are about 1/4 that of individual income taxes, and only about 1/6 if you include social security payments... so it's not like I'm talking about huge increases in tax burden. Jack up capital gains a bit, maybe hike the top tax brackets a bit. And I guarantee that tax revenue would go up simply because of the extra business done in country.
It would just create personal tax havens, rather than corporate ones. The big earners would just live outside of the US, have dual citizenship, or just have offshore accounts and get paid like that.
Plus, you would still have to fix all of the tax loopholes that individuals use to dodge.
Why do we insist on having insurance companies pay for all our medical issues, which we then have to pay them for? This is all just make-work: huge companies that do nothing but process paperwork and shuffle money, taking some of it for themselves, and providing little value in the process (actually, they provide negative value in most cases).
The reason is because many people won't pay out of pocket for the preventive and minor care that would keep them from serious injury. In the end, pre-paying for preventative and minor care ends up cheaper because people use it instead of getting more ill later.
Theflyonthewall.com just moves it's servers & business outside the US. I hear Antigua might be a good choice, since they've already gotten a WTO judgment against the US and so wouldn't be quick to cooperate with the US to take down the site.
It looks like the US government is determined to drive businesses, particularly internet-based or -dependent businesses, to other countries. Then they whine about trade imbalances and people wonder why business is fleeing the US.
Strat
I'm not exactly boo-hooing over any movement of this website to a different country. A country shouldn't kowtow to businesses to keep them in-country. They should do what's right in the eyes of the people it represents. Or, at least that's what an idealist would say.
People who want a "kid-safe" internet could insist in embedded ratings. Some HTML tag with "xxx, violence" or whatever else they want to put in. Easy to block. Easy to implement. And people don't have to worry about domain squatters trying to register slashdot.xxx to shake down established sites.
Sadly, this used to exist and W3 eliminated it, but I'm not sure why.
PICS was first. Then came POWDER. Then both were dropped. I haven't found a replacement for either.
99.9% of the world's population is, well, the bottom 99.9% of the world. We're talking about the very smartest and most gifted people. The sort that shouldn't be happy if they do not achieve something.
You are confusing genius with ambition. Not all geniuses want to take over the world. Some just want to lead a happy life.
If you can do, why on earth would you settle for a teachers salary?
And I notice that so far, the simplest rememdy, pay more, goes unexplored.
You pay peanuts, you get monkey's.
I have worked with a lot of ex-teachers, who now do things like IT-training, they make several times what they would make in front of a class-room filled with kids, so why would they do it?
Because, sometimes, it's not about the money. Many people are looking for jobs they enjoy, rather than jobs that are more lucrative.
Not to mention, some teachers are paid very, very well considering how much time off they have.
My wife excelled in the corporate world, but hated every minute of it. Now she teaches special ed, and loves going to work.
The much wiser man was a complete moron then.
When government fears the people there is a ineffectual weak populist government that fears making difficult decisions because people collectively are pretty damn stupid. Alas that isn't catchy and doesn't use a clever mechanic of opposites, but alas, reality can't always be handled in a pithy statement.
Government should respect the people, earn their trust, and work as their loyal servants. Neither side should fear the other.
I always took "fear" to have its biblical meaning, obedience, in that context. It's a completely different quote in that case, and one I mostly agree with.
so why the hell do so many americans defy universal healthcare?
It's the irrational fear that somebody somewhere is getting something that they didn't earn or deserve.
Everyone I've talked to who opposes universal healthcare believes the government, by increasing restrictions and tightening regulations, will make the situation worse rather than better, being an often poorly run government.
Not everyone who doesn't think as you do is an idiot. There's no need to attack and marginalize people who disagree with you. Hopefully that's not the kind of person you want to be, and you'll re-examine your perceptions in the future.
Almost every system built to assist communication for people like me are built on top of WinXP. There is a Mac version I have heard of but AFAIK doesn't do full control like the one I use. There is no Linux availability at all (oh how I wish).
Hmmm... that's pretty interesting. What's the software you normally use, and what's the device? There's tons of OSS developers out there just looking for a worthy cause.
The purpose of written language is to communicate ideas. It has never been and will never be a concrete set of rules to be followed without exception. It adapts to the people using the language. If the majority of a society decides "cuz" is a perfectly acceptable substitution for "because," and the rest of the society can understand it in use, what is the problem?
Hell, strict spelling in the English language only began because regional writings were often difficult to decipher, and it was worth the effort to standardize. English is ripe with illogical exceptions to grammar rules only in place because people that should know better insist that they must remain.
Look, the game industry has been run this way for the better part of thirty years.
Not just the game industry. I'm betting everybody who's reading this who has a job is working longer hours under worsening conditions.
I've found a pretty effective way to avoid getting hired for positions under these conditions. When you go in for a face-to-face interview, look around a bit. Are people relaxed? Do they greet each other? Actually smile? Or does the guy who is interviewing you look like he'll go postal with one more thing going wrong?
It sounds simple, but it's really quite effective. And I rarely see anyone coming in for an interview actually take the time to figure out if it's a place they would like to work.
Also, ASK about extra hours. Begin setting limits even before the interview is over. "There are, unfortunately, a few companies out there that do set unreasonable time requirements for coders. Certainly, it's occasionally necessary to do so when a deadline isn't met or some problems come up. *Smile* So I always ask, over the last year, roughly how often have you needed a developer to stay late or work weekends?" Follow up with something like: "That's good to hear. I've seen too many developers burn out young or produce less than stellar code because they couldn't handle their workload. I want to be a developer for quite a long time to come. *Smile*" A good manager will understand its an astute question, and you'll stand out. A bad one will misunderstand and you won't get called back, no matter the answer.
I think part of the problem is that you will have a crunch time on a game. Because of the way game development works, you are almost certainly going to have a crunch time, and probalby a pretty heavy crunch time near the end. The long part of game development, where you are getting together idea, assets, an engine and such can take a number of years and be pretty normal. However, once you've got everything ready and it is time to put a game together, you are on the clock. You can't spend years in actual development, or your game will be dated when it comes out. You've got to get it all put together in short order.
This is only true because it's an arms race all of the development companies are involved in. If one company stopped the policy, they quickly wouldn't be able to compete with the shiny and new titles the other companies can put out. If they all stopped the policy together, everyone could compete on a level and more humane playing field. And we as consumers would probably get better games, if not quite so cool looking.
Slashdot Mirror
My nephew has Downs and I frequently envy his parents on the simple fact that they don't really need to spend a lot of time explaining how their child is different.
Why does it bother you so much what strangers think? Perhaps you should take a lesson from your son.
Spoken by someone who has never encountered it. You really have no idea how many idiots think their opinion on how to parent a special needs child is worth forcing on a parent at the worst possible moment. You haven't ever seen a meltdown until you get some asshole telling your kid "you deserve a spanking, boy" as he's trying to regain control of himself.
The submission clearly states that it wants to raise fees so high as to actually discourage patent applications.
So we're not talking just triple, or quadruple. It could be 10x or even higher.
The submission is not information from the patent office, but someone's interpretation of it. And a rather skewed one at that. It doesn't even source where the information about the rate hikes come from. The view is from a Chicken Little reporter that doesn't seem to understand the patent process.
Assuming the information about the rate hike is accurate, it doesn't even discuss which rate. There are more than one. Starting around 80 bucks, if I remember correctly. 80 bucks to file a patent. That covers, what, maybe 1/2 an hour of a patent investigator's time? Probably less, after all the additional administration needed takes a chunk out of that fee. It absolutely needs to be larger if we expect the patent office to be able to adequately research patents by hiring enough people and letting them spend enough time researching.
If the purpose of the fee hike is to reduce filings, then it stands to reason that they will be too high for someone, otherwise the hikes won't have any effect. And clearly, those affected will be the inventors at the lower end of the economic scale.
The purpose of the free hike is not to reduce filings. It's to increase the number of staff. That is how they will manage the backlog.
The submission is an op-ed piece that completely misunderstands why the fee increase is needed and what it is intended to do.
Would any of those talentless hacks have demanded $1 million *pinkies* if the show only earned 25c. per showing? They're preening egomaniacs, just as much overpaid (for what they actually do) as professional sportists.
By what metric are they overpaid?
The producers were happy to pay it, the actors were happy to accept it, and the audience was happy to pay for it (by viewing the commercials, buying the DVD, or whatever).
Apparently, everyone involved in the process thought the asking price was worth paying. They were the best at what they did (making money for the network), and deserved well above average prices in the market.
many OHA members are developing proprietary user experiences, which they are not contributing back into Android
So you are saying that every smartphone in the market will not have the exact same UI?
Say it ain't so!
Why does a teenager who is concerned with facebook and twitter have to necessarily want the same user experience as the corperate employee who is more worried about Outlook sync and calendering?
That's a false dichotomy.
Ideally, the user would be able to decide which device to select, AND which UI to select for their needs. The UI does not need to be tied to the device. Making all of the UIs available and as interchangeable as possible is the best option.
Proprietary UIs are anything but a good idea on an "open" platform.
"It will teach Sony a lesson too."
You know what lesson it will teach Sony and every other console maker? To make everything but the barebones ability to play games (that require no network connection) an option not included included with purchase of the base unit. Sure, they might offer free unlocks for some abilities but those won't be on or in the packaging of the console itself.
Come on now. They advertised what is a pretty important feature to some people, and decided to take it away without compensation. It's not like the feature even stopped working, Sony actively removed the capability from the PS3.
I don't really get the "hard-luck Sony" attitude. If they took out the ability to play games, would you still be defending them? How about the ability to play Blu-Ray movies? Those are the features of the device that consumers paid for.
As far as console manufacturers producing less versatile consoles in the future, your argument doesn't really make sense. The manufacturers are going to make consoles with whatever features they believe will keep them competitive, advertise them as usual, and live or die by their offerings. And hopefully stop trying to pull a bait-and-switch on consumers.
No if you assault me you can't get medical damages from me.
Funny thing: illegal aliens breaking into houses HAVE sued the homeowners for such things as falling on a knife and injuring their legs. Kids screwing around on the roofs of schools have sued the school district when they, illegally trespassing, nevertheless fell through a skylight and injured themselves.
In other words, the law is fucked up, and the fact that you can manage to empanel a jury of 12 retards who don't understand the law & policy, scare them with "wooh this was scary internets stuff", and then have a paid-off judge give the jury bad instructions doesn't help.
Hmmm... so you don't actually know what evidence was presented, but the judge is somehow "paid-off" and the jury are "retards" because you disagree with them?
That says more about you than it does about them.
While the phone might have been lost, the stories have made it fairly apparent that the seller had not followed the legal requirements for attempting to get it back to it's owner.
"Is this the police?"
"Yeah what you want?"
"Hi. I found a phone. It was working and I logged into facebook and everything; but now it's just dead."
"What' you want son? Haven't got all night here."
"Well I was thinking that you should send a car and open an investigation to return it to its rightful owner. I don't want to be called a thief or anything."
"Hold on a sec. Charlie! CHAAAARLIIEE! Come here hear this one!"
You honestly don't think the police would be interested in "lost" goods that are worth at least $5000? The cutoff for misdemeanor receiving stolen property in California is $400. This is way beyond that. You don't get to keep something simply because you're too lazy to turn it in to the police.
Actually, from what I understand, California law states that it is illegal for someone to find something off the street, take it as their own, and then sell it (in other words, what I've heard is that there is no "finders keepers" right in California, at least if you don't bother to let the police look for the true owner first). Supposedly, it becomes extra illegal if you have good reason to believe that it's owned by someone else but don't try to return it (of which there is, supposedly, no evidence in this case).
He did try to return it. Read (carefully) the Gizmodo timeline, more specifically, the section entitled "Lost and Found"
He did his due dilligence, and got no response whatsoever. So nothing illegal happened here.
Not quite, since he didn't contact the police to report it found (at least on your link, as far as I can see). That is generally what you have to do if you find something of value. Not reporting it to the police is a pretty big mistake, but of course we don't know if it was intentional.
By your logic you could criminalize or decriminalize anything just via a government's say-so.
Yes, by definition. From Wikipedia: "Crime is the breach of rules or laws for which some governing authority (via mechanisms such as legal systems) can ultimately prescribe a conviction." A government can many anything it wants illegal. Even flying pigs.
Political thinking dismissed that sort of justification three hundred years ago (you know, "unalienable rights"?).
Political thinking doesn't stop guns, knives, or the government from forcefully taking you into custody. Your rights are only "unalienable" when you and your allies protect them from your enemies.
"Elbereth" is the only magic word of protection I know, and that works in Nethack, not in real life.
The question is, is his "a life well spent" or "a life, well, spent".
I absolutely hate quotes like this. It stinks of elitism and moral authority. No one knows the purpose of life, so by what right does one person judge another's success or failure in life? If a person led a life they personally are happy with, how can anyone say it was wasted?
I'm not aiming this at you personally, but people that watch/listen to these type of stories and then spend any time to comment that it's a waste of time makes me run in the other direction. Just in case a black hole of hypocrisy swallows them up.
Don't look at it in the light of "win money", but for its "entertainment value". These people are paying for entertainment. Though I agree; if you play virtual games to win physical assets, you are an idiot.
The vast majority of gamblers are losers. There are a few out there that do make money simply by being smart. Back in the day before the problems with the US bans, bonuses offered by the numerous online casinos totaled in the thousands of dollars. By playing smartly within the rules of the casinos, you could walk away with most of that money in profit. This is after the almost insignificant losses from the play requirements of the casinos, assuming you played blackjack with correct strategy.
It was a fun month of free time for my wife and I, since we like to play blackjack. And it payed for a nice trip to Las Vegas. We didn't even ever get ripped off or denied our winnings, which surprised me. The only time we encountered problems was when I didn't fully read the rules of the bonuses. But we still made about $4000, even with our mistakes. And I learned to play the fine blackjack variant of Pontoon.
I agree it's mostly stupid. The way most people do it is completely fucking stupid. The way some people do it is addictively self-destructive.
Table games are a losing cause, but the odds are posted and you make your decision with full cognizance of the risks and the way the chances are stacked against your being a winner, much less a big winner. So for people who aren't addicted, it's just stupidly expensive entertainment until you learn your lesson and stop doing that to yourself.
Online gambling can be, in fact, be a somewhat inexpensive form of entertainment. Playing with very low stakes means you risk, and lose, very little. Most online casinos have slots starting at a $.01 USD, and $.25 or so for table games. I enjoy playing blackjack online with others for the minimum, and it costs next to nothing due to the low house edge, low hands per hour, and numerous bonuses available. Not as many as there used to be, but still.
Poker isn't gambling against the house. The cards randomize the action, but they give every player an even chance, leaving the gaming down to a player's ability to present and interpret behaviors, and compute odds in real time. The house gets paid a capped percentage of the pot, which makes it only as expensive as any correctly-played table game.
Putting poker online doesn't alter the odds if the game is constructed properly. But it does create a massive opportunity for the server operator to cheat, massive enough that it is unlikely that any online poker server isn't being used to cheat. The only way to guarantee it's fair is to be the person who creates and operates the server. But that, again, is a massive opportunity for you to cheat, and nobody else can prove you aren't, so it's logical to make it illegal for you to even spread the game that way.
Cheating at poker has happened before, and will probably happen again, but the risks are simply not worth the reward. All it takes is one disgruntled employee to spill the beans, or an analysis of someone's cards. From the perspective of a successful online casino, all they have to do is have a fair game, and they get a guaranteed cut from every hand. Even moderate cheating is detectable with the right software, and proof could result in a mass exodus from the casino.
There are even a few regulated casinos on the UK stock exchange, and if they were ever found to be cheating, their stock holders would have a class action lawsuit on them in a heartbeat.
It has nothing to do with my empathy for corporations. It has everything to do with what I feel is best for the US. Abolishing corporate taxes would eliminate tax havens and send many foreign companies our way. The tax revenue can be made up by jacking up taxes on the people who own and work for corporations (us). The tax would be more direct and more efficient. Corporate taxes are about 1/4 that of individual income taxes, and only about 1/6 if you include social security payments... so it's not like I'm talking about huge increases in tax burden. Jack up capital gains a bit, maybe hike the top tax brackets a bit. And I guarantee that tax revenue would go up simply because of the extra business done in country.
It would just create personal tax havens, rather than corporate ones. The big earners would just live outside of the US, have dual citizenship, or just have offshore accounts and get paid like that.
Plus, you would still have to fix all of the tax loopholes that individuals use to dodge.
Why do we insist on having insurance companies pay for all our medical issues, which we then have to pay them for? This is all just make-work: huge companies that do nothing but process paperwork and shuffle money, taking some of it for themselves, and providing little value in the process (actually, they provide negative value in most cases).
The reason is because many people won't pay out of pocket for the preventive and minor care that would keep them from serious injury. In the end, pre-paying for preventative and minor care ends up cheaper because people use it instead of getting more ill later.
Theflyonthewall.com just moves it's servers & business outside the US. I hear Antigua might be a good choice, since they've already gotten a WTO judgment against the US and so wouldn't be quick to cooperate with the US to take down the site.
It looks like the US government is determined to drive businesses, particularly internet-based or -dependent businesses, to other countries. Then they whine about trade imbalances and people wonder why business is fleeing the US.
Strat
I'm not exactly boo-hooing over any movement of this website to a different country. A country shouldn't kowtow to businesses to keep them in-country. They should do what's right in the eyes of the people it represents. Or, at least that's what an idealist would say.
People who want a "kid-safe" internet could insist in embedded ratings. Some HTML tag with "xxx, violence" or whatever else they want to put in. Easy to block. Easy to implement. And people don't have to worry about domain squatters trying to register slashdot.xxx to shake down established sites.
Sadly, this used to exist and W3 eliminated it, but I'm not sure why.
PICS was first. Then came POWDER. Then both were dropped. I haven't found a replacement for either.
99.9% of the world's population is, well, the bottom 99.9% of the world. We're talking about the very smartest and most gifted people. The sort that shouldn't be happy if they do not achieve something.
You are confusing genius with ambition. Not all geniuses want to take over the world. Some just want to lead a happy life.
If you can do, why on earth would you settle for a teachers salary?
And I notice that so far, the simplest rememdy, pay more, goes unexplored.
You pay peanuts, you get monkey's.
I have worked with a lot of ex-teachers, who now do things like IT-training, they make several times what they would make in front of a class-room filled with kids, so why would they do it?
Because, sometimes, it's not about the money. Many people are looking for jobs they enjoy, rather than jobs that are more lucrative.
Not to mention, some teachers are paid very, very well considering how much time off they have.
My wife excelled in the corporate world, but hated every minute of it. Now she teaches special ed, and loves going to work.
The much wiser man was a complete moron then. When government fears the people there is a ineffectual weak populist government that fears making difficult decisions because people collectively are pretty damn stupid. Alas that isn't catchy and doesn't use a clever mechanic of opposites, but alas, reality can't always be handled in a pithy statement. Government should respect the people, earn their trust, and work as their loyal servants. Neither side should fear the other.
I always took "fear" to have its biblical meaning, obedience, in that context. It's a completely different quote in that case, and one I mostly agree with.
so why the hell do so many americans defy universal healthcare?
It's the irrational fear that somebody somewhere is getting something that they didn't earn or deserve.
Everyone I've talked to who opposes universal healthcare believes the government, by increasing restrictions and tightening regulations, will make the situation worse rather than better, being an often poorly run government.
Not everyone who doesn't think as you do is an idiot. There's no need to attack and marginalize people who disagree with you. Hopefully that's not the kind of person you want to be, and you'll re-examine your perceptions in the future.
Almost every system built to assist communication for people like me are built on top of WinXP. There is a Mac version I have heard of but AFAIK doesn't do full control like the one I use. There is no Linux availability at all (oh how I wish).
Hmmm... that's pretty interesting. What's the software you normally use, and what's the device? There's tons of OSS developers out there just looking for a worthy cause.
The purpose of written language is to communicate ideas. It has never been and will never be a concrete set of rules to be followed without exception. It adapts to the people using the language. If the majority of a society decides "cuz" is a perfectly acceptable substitution for "because," and the rest of the society can understand it in use, what is the problem?
Hell, strict spelling in the English language only began because regional writings were often difficult to decipher, and it was worth the effort to standardize. English is ripe with illogical exceptions to grammar rules only in place because people that should know better insist that they must remain.
Not just the game industry. I'm betting everybody who's reading this who has a job is working longer hours under worsening conditions.
I've found a pretty effective way to avoid getting hired for positions under these conditions. When you go in for a face-to-face interview, look around a bit. Are people relaxed? Do they greet each other? Actually smile? Or does the guy who is interviewing you look like he'll go postal with one more thing going wrong?
It sounds simple, but it's really quite effective. And I rarely see anyone coming in for an interview actually take the time to figure out if it's a place they would like to work.
Also, ASK about extra hours. Begin setting limits even before the interview is over. "There are, unfortunately, a few companies out there that do set unreasonable time requirements for coders. Certainly, it's occasionally necessary to do so when a deadline isn't met or some problems come up. *Smile* So I always ask, over the last year, roughly how often have you needed a developer to stay late or work weekends?" Follow up with something like: "That's good to hear. I've seen too many developers burn out young or produce less than stellar code because they couldn't handle their workload. I want to be a developer for quite a long time to come. *Smile*" A good manager will understand its an astute question, and you'll stand out. A bad one will misunderstand and you won't get called back, no matter the answer.
I think part of the problem is that you will have a crunch time on a game. Because of the way game development works, you are almost certainly going to have a crunch time, and probalby a pretty heavy crunch time near the end. The long part of game development, where you are getting together idea, assets, an engine and such can take a number of years and be pretty normal. However, once you've got everything ready and it is time to put a game together, you are on the clock. You can't spend years in actual development, or your game will be dated when it comes out. You've got to get it all put together in short order.
This is only true because it's an arms race all of the development companies are involved in. If one company stopped the policy, they quickly wouldn't be able to compete with the shiny and new titles the other companies can put out. If they all stopped the policy together, everyone could compete on a level and more humane playing field. And we as consumers would probably get better games, if not quite so cool looking.
But good luck with that.