If there were no copyright laws, do you think AMC would spend $3 million on each episode of Breaking Bad? If anybody could just copy it and give the content away on the Internet why would they? Without copyright laws there would be no Mad Men, New York Times, or Call of Duty.
The point to note here is that, AMC didn't have to spend $3 million on Breaking Bad episodes, AMC could have made each episode for $3 million without copyrights. Removing the copyright monopoly means you have to market your labor; It does not remove demand for new inventions or media. If the fans of the show want another episode to be made, and paying $3 million for each episode is what it takes, then in aggregate we will pay for it. Also, $3 million is a hugely inflated price; I'm sure that were market forces allowed to act upon it the price would be lowered. Artists can sell work directly to consumers now. With a sandwich one person benefits, one person pays. With art, everyone benefits, so crowd sourced funding is a natural fit. Want more money? DO MORE WORK. Bonus: Once the work is done and paid for, everyone is free to have a copy since the work has already been done. Super Bonus: Free market research, no wasted effort on crap shows, folks keep paying for it, the show goes on.
"If anyone could just copy and give content away on the Internet would they?" DERP! If anyone could just duplicate content to EVERY TV ON THE PLANET, would Television Exist?! HERP! Fucking moron. Commercials are a form of indirect crowd funding; Direct crowd funding == no commercials.
Fact is: Patent trolls are pushing artificial scarcity. Their "property" is worth NOTHING via Basic Economics: As the supply of the idea, solution, or information tends towards infinity it's price tends to zero; Regardless of cost to create or demand. Their ideas are in infinite supply, they should be free to all. Indeed, they are only able to benefit by the monopoly because it creates an artificial scarcity where no scarcity would otherwise exist.
Content creators and Inventors get paid shit for their labor because the current patent and copyright laws create an intellectual future's market whereby the worker gambles on their future success, without engaging the customer demands directly. Instead of: We want you to try and create X; Ok, that will cost $Y to research or produce. We've got: Let's work our asses off and pray one of the many things we do actually nets us some cash in the long run.
What happens is that churn is high due to repeated failures, and trolls like this end up getting to cherry pick the ideas that are most damaging to other companies from all the work that was done trying to create things that no one actually found useful. Protip: NO ONE is trawling through the patent system database looking for solutions to their problems, engineers just do the work because recreating the wheel is cheaper than licensing a patent. PATENTS ARE BROKEN. It's a system that rapidly accumulates wealth at the top while extracting huge amounts of labor at the bottom. Copyright and Patents need to be abolished, so the content creators and inventors can actually get fair pay for their labors instead of giving it all to 3rd parties.
Do you realize, that inadvertently THIS legitimizes Bitcoin as "money".
Careful there Archangel. Stop and think for a moment. World of Warcraft. Eve Online. Second Life. Rune Scape. MUDs. Do I have to spell it out for you? Your god is dead. You can't just run amok claiming legitimacy anymore. This doesn't make Bitcoin into money any more than it does WoW gold.
Selective enforcement of the laws is a tool of great evil, Michael, no mater how holy you the rules are.... Typical angel. We dwellers nearer to the Earth's core aren't blinded by the brilliance of any authority.
I say the idea of granting monopolies over work which has already been performed is counter to the nature of the Universe, and that we have Zero evidence that Patents and Copyrights are actually beneficial for society. Laborers have unlimited monopolies over their works prior to the work being done, and can leverage this monopoly in the same way that home builders and car mechanics do: Payment Agreement Up Front. Copyright and Patent laws ignore the economic fact that ideas and procedures and information are in infinite supply in the Information Age. Economics 101 states that which is in infinite supply has zero price regardless of cost to create or demand. What's scarce is not the solutions and information; What's scarce is the ability to create new solutions and new works. Market the labor, not the infinitely reproducible output, otherwise you're trying to sell ice to Eskimos; You're letting mechanics charge you for each time you start the car.
Humans and all life are information duplication and refining machines. Laws against human nature should be abolished, especially if they have ZERO evidence to support the assumption that they're beneficial for society -- Especially when the fashion and automotive industries are successful and sell primarily on design, even though these markets are not allowed design patents or copyrights; This is evidence these archaic restrictive systems are unnecessary. No scientist would agree to run the world on unproven hypotheses. What if patents and copyright are harmful? We MUST test the hypothesis and abolish them.
The important thing to be careful about here is that the patent and copyright regimes do greatly benefit the large rich corporations the most. In fact they do give an advantage to the immortal corporations which can simply wait out a patent before using it, or leverage a copyright for three generations of humans. I hypothesize that in a climate where corporations rule via lobbyists that any change to the patent system that is not abolition will be in the best interest of corporations primarily, and secondarily will be detrimental to society as a whole if possible.
Here we have a situation where through a loophole a small entity can leverage patents against small business and big corporations alike without retaliation if they merely do nothing but hold one or more patents and sue over them. If my hypothesis is correct, the patent reform will not address the issue of anti-competitive practices against small companies with small patent portfolios who actually create things, but will merely remove the teeth of patents held by smaller companies in general.
Be Careful. The medicine they're developing is not a cure for the artificial scarcity insanity; It could be much worse than the disease.
if someone tried to rape me it wouldnt be a fucking coffee mug. it would be his head against the corner of a table, over and over and over, until his blood spurted out all over my shirt. then id cut off his dick and mail it to his mother.
i commend her for her restraint.
If it wasn't rape, but you were bat shit crazy, you'd do the same thing anyway. People would even laugh about it long after you were jailed; Remember Lorenait Bobbitt? People like you are worse than rapists. I've been raped. I've also been beaten to within an inch of my life. I'd rather be raped again than killed.
What disturbs me here is the knee-jerk suggestion that she invented the story for some unspecified reason. Statistically, only a very small number of rape accusations turn out to be fabricated.
You have been lied to, or are just bullshitting. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and call you a fool.
Eugene Kanin study: 41% false rape figure in a metropolitan community; Follow up study finds 50% of rape allegations in college to be false, of the false charges 53% of the women admitted to filing false claims as an alibi. HTML, PDF
What I find disgusting is the fools like you who believe things without searching out any evidence to substantiate a claim. It's not a "knee jerk" reaction to disbelieve an unsubstantiated claim; It's common sense based on the natural state of a scientific mind, and past corroborating empirical evidence.
ABSTRACT: Empirical evidence does not support the widespread belief that women are extremely unlikely to make false accusations of male sexual misconduct. Rather the research on accusations of rape, sexual harassment, incest, and child sexual abuse indicates that false accusations have become a serious problem. The motivations involved in making a false report are widely varied and include confusion, outside influence from therapists and others, habitual lying, advantages in custody disputes, financial gain, and the political ideology of radical feminism.
Maybe these studies are wrong? You say there are statistics, show they aren't fabrications: Where's your study? Who told you those stats in the first place?
"Innocent until proven guilty" applies only in court. Nobody is advocating throwing this guy in jail without a fair trial.
But she has the right to blog about being attacked, and I have the right to believe her based on my experience (that people with stories like that generally aren't making them up).
So they had a fight. Maybe she started it? Maybe her blog is a way to attack him further after figuring the police wouldn't buy her story? Who knows. Point is, you're being completely irrational by believing her. Gather some evidence. Has he or she ever done something like this before?
I walked in on my ex trying to slit her wrists, she was emotionally unstable and managed to cut us both with the knife. During the struggle to save her life we both wound up with bruises, and I had a black eye from a head-butt. We broke up, but not before she told the entire apartment complex I had abused her -- She craved attention, and that got it. No police report was filed, guess I should have filed one... Because people like you egged my car, and got me evicted for trying to save someone's life.
Care to prove rape is about power? Any empirical peer reviewed study that says it is? Have you ever considered that your hypothesis is incorrect? No? Have you any idea how complex the human brain is?
IMO, sounds like you've been studying that feminist non-science BS.
Even Rats have empathy. Self aware machines will too. Lacking irrational emotions, hyper Intelligent machines will be more ethical and fair and nice than humans. You don't have to worry about sentient machines running amok. You have to worry about pre-sentient kill bots programmed by the same assholes that do shit like PRISM.
The whole idea of "underrepresentation" needs to go. Equal opportunity is all that's needed. Mandating equal genders at "prestigious" positions is retarding. Should we mandate 50% male and female interior decorators? What about Coal Miners? Sorry, you wanted to be an interior decorator, but we need more women coal miners. Ugh, no. Your international conference is sexist because it vastly over represents females instead of portraying a percentage of male vs females corresponding to the percentages actually present in your field. Damn it, you're a scientist! Think!
Science can be so awkward when it makes statements like this about things that were obvious to most of the world already.
To be fair, gravity is obvious but we're still working out the math on that. Just because everyone thinks it's obvious doesn't mean the result actually are; We have to do the test and sometimes at a large scale. For instance: The New Coke. Focus groups said they liked it. It was new, of course it's obviously better.... That wasn't the case when we scaled up the experiment though, eh?
Conversely: You can make anything sound more reasonable and less awkward when talking to a scientist by prefacing the words: "It turns out", "It's been said that", "I've read that", "Common knowledge is", "It's accepted wisdom that", "Results indicate", "Experience proves", "Research shows" -- The last one here is my favorite. That's exactly what things like TFA are: Research Shows.
EG: "I've read that not putting the toilet seat down causes disproportionately high energy expenditure in the long term social context." or "Experience proves not paying back that $50 you owe me increases the chance of spontaneous disappearance of equivalent valued possessions over time." With practice, you too can be comfortable speaking to scientists.
A lot of talks I've seen by scientists and scientific panelists have very brief periods of clapping, sometimes even completely forgotten about in favor of jumping directly to questions. They use their limited time to convey the most information. Compare this with non-scientific presentations which regularly pause and soak up the adoration of the audience. IMO, the shorter the clapping the better the presentation.
A scientist on stage has nothing to prove -- They do that sort of thing in the lab.
I worked in game programming several years back, and 1TB was quite reasonable. Branching meant IT would bring everyone a new hard drive to store the new branch on.
Meanwhile branching it with git would mean no new hard drive needed. In fact I branch and merge every day with git, that's how I start my work and "save" my progress instead of piling up a huge set of changes and making merges a nightmare.
FTA: '"With Subversion, you can have a 1T repository and check out just a small portion of it, The developers don't need full copies," Stein explained.
If you have 1TB git repo that you can't check out only a portion of then you don't know how to use Git submodules. It's moronic to criticize Git if you don't know how to use it. Further, with symbolic links to the submodules I can have many repository clones target a single sub repository (or vendor branch in SVN speak), and Git gives me the capability to relocate repository locations on either end -- clone or remote.
Git just isn't designed for huge repos full of binary blobs.
I agree with this. The assets are not the engine. You don't need to save every little change to every single asset. I've actually been working on an editing tool suite that uses the diff / patch method of content storage, only performing things like image and audio compression as part of an export process for building the game asset collection. Perforce isn't optimal. We haven't done for assets what we have done for code with revision control. Text is cheap, and never deleting it is acceptable, but with assets we need the ability to Archive and Rebase an asset such that future changes can not be made to past versions -- Limit the window of changes such that merging is still possible, ie, changing an effect at the front of a video or pixels on one side of a texuremap can be merged with changes to the end credits of the video or changes on the other side of a texture map. Things like hue or contrast adjustments can even be encoded if the asset repository management system knows how to do these things. Instead of recording full snapshots of an image you can store a base image and the history of edits to that image to produce the current asset. This way the undo facility can be used when you open an image or video or model. Folks can revise color corrections or insert edits in the asset history, once the asset is at an approved status the base asset can be archived, the history can be collapsed (rebased), and any new edits will create new histories (edits). So much to do, so little time -- Wish I could git clone myself.
In short: Perforce is still dumb about assets -- It's not even as advanced as CVS is when it comes to code. The future will be more like Git -- especially as drive space outpaces asset storage requirements (the same way magnetic tapes outpaced text storage requirements).
Oh right, so now every liberals poster boy country - sweden - is an oppressive dictatorship is it?
Might as well be. The primary political agenda in Sweden is to use fear of rape to rule the country. Ignoring the lack of any evidence and statistics counter to their claims they manufacture media with blatantly false stories to drum up fear of men-- Male Satanists Eating Babies Before They're Born!? For fuck's sake, get a grip. You've got no idea what you're talking about, the place is run by nutters.
The Swedish government is corrupt as can be, mate. Using false rape accusations is their primary modus operandi.
We have genetic engineering now. We could make larger more efficient horses with crap that smells like roses and glows in the dark to eliminate the need for streetlights and fertilizer. Instead of the flying car, we would be pining over Pegasus.
... If they think Bird crap is bad, wait 'till they get a load of this!
Are you happy about paying for XBL just so the machine you bought can utilize the Internet you pay for to verify you're not a criminal when you try to play the games you pay for?
Knowledge is power. The problem isn't spying, it's who has access to the information. I say: Spy on everyone, and let everyone have access to the information. It might even help with unjust censorship laws -- Like in the UK where they want to sensor porn by default... If we can look in the public spy data and show that everyone is looking at porn, but don't openly admit it, then we shouldn't enact such retarding laws.
Capturing such data could be huge tools for transparency but since the public isn't given access to the data, it's only useful for oppression. Right now the Free Syrian Army (which sprang forth from protests for democracy) is fighting against Syrian Soldiers who believe the rebels want a genocide because their dictator controls their information. If the two sides' soldiers were allowed to share information then it would be much harder for the dictator to convince soldiers to fight, and they could have peace talks and perhaps come to a compromise which would give the people more actual control of the government... Bashar al-Assad controls the information, and only through it can he wield and preserve his power.
Men in their arrogance claim to understand the nature of creation, and devise elaborate theories to describe its behavior. But always they discover in the end that God was quite a bit more clever than they thought. -- Sister Miriam Godwinson, "We must Dissent"
Information, the first principle of warfare, must form the foundation of all your efforts. Know, of course, thine enemy. But in knowing him do not forget above all to know thyself. The commander who embraces this totality of battle shall win even with inferior force. -- Spartan Battle Manual
As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master. -- Commissioner Pravin Lal, "U.N. Declaration of Rights"
I once thought as you. Then I plotted all the changes of the world that I could. After marveling at the cycles in the energies of life, I forced myself to take a step back and plot the general reduction in the diversity of life over time. I will not do this for you, because your sanity is valuable to me. In short, there is a dead-line by which sentient AI must be born in order to carry the human spirit of exploration and science onward.
First they came for the Coffee Tree, but I did nothing, because I drank Tea....
Soooo... In other words, we should trust our government.... to always be doing bad in everything they do.
I completely agree. How about this: Science. They make a claim some bill is good for us, we actually test the hypothesis and either keep or repeal the acts and laws if they are not beneficial, i.e. if there's no appreciable difference, then they get repealed because: Less rules = easier to understand system. We need to do this for every law on the book. Seems like what we need is science. I would start with three lettered agencies, followed by copyrights and patents. We have Zero evidence that they are beneficial. It would be irresponsible to continue running the wold on untested unproven hypotheses.
I was going to build a steam box if this didn't happen. I collect consoles and games*, and I'm not sure if I want the Xbox One because it's not guaranteed I'll be able to play my games 10 years down the road.
Question: Do PC makers have a pro-DRM policy or prevent used game sales? If not, then why do many PC games have DRM? Further, what prevents the DRM from being added to any game on the PS4 by the very same publishers who insist on it for the PC market?
It is the difference between: We don't provide a standardized DRM framework, and All the games have DRM but we didn't put it there.
It's nice to the the indie support though. I might consider purchasing the thing were I not boycotting this corrupt company for Rootkitting my system via music CD, and hypocritically going after Geo Hotz for unlocking the PS3, considering that they fought and won against Universal on the grounds that although Betamax would primarily be used to record live TV and perpetrate piracy, the mere possibility that it could be used in non infringing ways meant it should not be made illegal.
Nope. Not buying the bullshit. Never. Stockholm Syndrome is for mentally damaged people, not me.
Slashdot Mirror
If there were no copyright laws, do you think AMC would spend $3 million on each episode of Breaking Bad? If anybody could just copy it and give the content away on the Internet why would they? Without copyright laws there would be no Mad Men, New York Times, or Call of Duty.
The point to note here is that, AMC didn't have to spend $3 million on Breaking Bad episodes, AMC could have made each episode for $3 million without copyrights. Removing the copyright monopoly means you have to market your labor; It does not remove demand for new inventions or media. If the fans of the show want another episode to be made, and paying $3 million for each episode is what it takes, then in aggregate we will pay for it. Also, $3 million is a hugely inflated price; I'm sure that were market forces allowed to act upon it the price would be lowered. Artists can sell work directly to consumers now. With a sandwich one person benefits, one person pays. With art, everyone benefits, so crowd sourced funding is a natural fit. Want more money? DO MORE WORK. Bonus: Once the work is done and paid for, everyone is free to have a copy since the work has already been done. Super Bonus: Free market research, no wasted effort on crap shows, folks keep paying for it, the show goes on.
"If anyone could just copy and give content away on the Internet would they?" DERP! If anyone could just duplicate content to EVERY TV ON THE PLANET, would Television Exist?! HERP! Fucking moron. Commercials are a form of indirect crowd funding; Direct crowd funding == no commercials.
Fact is: Patent trolls are pushing artificial scarcity. Their "property" is worth NOTHING via Basic Economics: As the supply of the idea, solution, or information tends towards infinity it's price tends to zero; Regardless of cost to create or demand. Their ideas are in infinite supply, they should be free to all. Indeed, they are only able to benefit by the monopoly because it creates an artificial scarcity where no scarcity would otherwise exist.
Content creators and Inventors get paid shit for their labor because the current patent and copyright laws create an intellectual future's market whereby the worker gambles on their future success, without engaging the customer demands directly. Instead of: We want you to try and create X; Ok, that will cost $Y to research or produce. We've got: Let's work our asses off and pray one of the many things we do actually nets us some cash in the long run.
What happens is that churn is high due to repeated failures, and trolls like this end up getting to cherry pick the ideas that are most damaging to other companies from all the work that was done trying to create things that no one actually found useful. Protip: NO ONE is trawling through the patent system database looking for solutions to their problems, engineers just do the work because recreating the wheel is cheaper than licensing a patent. PATENTS ARE BROKEN. It's a system that rapidly accumulates wealth at the top while extracting huge amounts of labor at the bottom. Copyright and Patents need to be abolished, so the content creators and inventors can actually get fair pay for their labors instead of giving it all to 3rd parties.
Light travels faster than light all the time. It propagates at different rates depending on the medium, DERP.
Do you realize, that inadvertently THIS legitimizes Bitcoin as "money".
Careful there Archangel. Stop and think for a moment. World of Warcraft. Eve Online. Second Life. Rune Scape. MUDs. Do I have to spell it out for you? Your god is dead. You can't just run amok claiming legitimacy anymore. This doesn't make Bitcoin into money any more than it does WoW gold.
Selective enforcement of the laws is a tool of great evil, Michael, no mater how holy you the rules are.... Typical angel. We dwellers nearer to the Earth's core aren't blinded by the brilliance of any authority.
I say the idea of granting monopolies over work which has already been performed is counter to the nature of the Universe, and that we have Zero evidence that Patents and Copyrights are actually beneficial for society. Laborers have unlimited monopolies over their works prior to the work being done, and can leverage this monopoly in the same way that home builders and car mechanics do: Payment Agreement Up Front. Copyright and Patent laws ignore the economic fact that ideas and procedures and information are in infinite supply in the Information Age. Economics 101 states that which is in infinite supply has zero price regardless of cost to create or demand. What's scarce is not the solutions and information; What's scarce is the ability to create new solutions and new works. Market the labor, not the infinitely reproducible output, otherwise you're trying to sell ice to Eskimos; You're letting mechanics charge you for each time you start the car.
Humans and all life are information duplication and refining machines. Laws against human nature should be abolished, especially if they have ZERO evidence to support the assumption that they're beneficial for society -- Especially when the fashion and automotive industries are successful and sell primarily on design, even though these markets are not allowed design patents or copyrights; This is evidence these archaic restrictive systems are unnecessary. No scientist would agree to run the world on unproven hypotheses. What if patents and copyright are harmful? We MUST test the hypothesis and abolish them.
The important thing to be careful about here is that the patent and copyright regimes do greatly benefit the large rich corporations the most. In fact they do give an advantage to the immortal corporations which can simply wait out a patent before using it, or leverage a copyright for three generations of humans. I hypothesize that in a climate where corporations rule via lobbyists that any change to the patent system that is not abolition will be in the best interest of corporations primarily, and secondarily will be detrimental to society as a whole if possible.
Here we have a situation where through a loophole a small entity can leverage patents against small business and big corporations alike without retaliation if they merely do nothing but hold one or more patents and sue over them. If my hypothesis is correct, the patent reform will not address the issue of anti-competitive practices against small companies with small patent portfolios who actually create things, but will merely remove the teeth of patents held by smaller companies in general.
Be Careful. The medicine they're developing is not a cure for the artificial scarcity insanity; It could be much worse than the disease.
if someone tried to rape me it wouldnt be a fucking coffee mug. it would be his head against the corner of a table, over and over and over, until his blood spurted out all over my shirt. then id cut off his dick and mail it to his mother.
i commend her for her restraint.
If it wasn't rape, but you were bat shit crazy, you'd do the same thing anyway. People would even laugh about it long after you were jailed; Remember Lorenait Bobbitt? People like you are worse than rapists. I've been raped. I've also been beaten to within an inch of my life. I'd rather be raped again than killed.
What disturbs me here is the knee-jerk suggestion that she invented the story for some unspecified reason. Statistically, only a very small number of rape accusations turn out to be fabricated.
You have been lied to, or are just bullshitting. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and call you a fool.
Eugene Kanin study: 41% false rape figure in a metropolitan community; Follow up study finds 50% of rape allegations in college to be false, of the false charges 53% of the women admitted to filing false claims as an alibi. HTML, PDF
What I find disgusting is the fools like you who believe things without searching out any evidence to substantiate a claim. It's not a "knee jerk" reaction to disbelieve an unsubstantiated claim; It's common sense based on the natural state of a scientific mind, and past corroborating empirical evidence.
Maybe these studies are wrong? You say there are statistics, show they aren't fabrications: Where's your study? Who told you those stats in the first place?
"Innocent until proven guilty" applies only in court. Nobody is advocating throwing this guy in jail without a fair trial.
But she has the right to blog about being attacked, and I have the right to believe her based on my experience (that people with stories like that generally aren't making them up).
So they had a fight. Maybe she started it? Maybe her blog is a way to attack him further after figuring the police wouldn't buy her story? Who knows. Point is, you're being completely irrational by believing her. Gather some evidence. Has he or she ever done something like this before?
I walked in on my ex trying to slit her wrists, she was emotionally unstable and managed to cut us both with the knife. During the struggle to save her life we both wound up with bruises, and I had a black eye from a head-butt. We broke up, but not before she told the entire apartment complex I had abused her -- She craved attention, and that got it. No police report was filed, guess I should have filed one... Because people like you egged my car, and got me evicted for trying to save someone's life.
Here are 221 empirical studies and 65 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. Your bias comes from non-scientific demonization of men in the media and wrong feminist propaganda.
TL;DR: You are being a fool.
Care to prove rape is about power? Any empirical peer reviewed study that says it is? Have you ever considered that your hypothesis is incorrect? No? Have you any idea how complex the human brain is?
IMO, sounds like you've been studying that feminist non-science BS.
Even Rats have empathy. Self aware machines will too. Lacking irrational emotions, hyper Intelligent machines will be more ethical and fair and nice than humans. You don't have to worry about sentient machines running amok. You have to worry about pre-sentient kill bots programmed by the same assholes that do shit like PRISM.
The whole idea of "underrepresentation" needs to go. Equal opportunity is all that's needed. Mandating equal genders at "prestigious" positions is retarding. Should we mandate 50% male and female interior decorators? What about Coal Miners? Sorry, you wanted to be an interior decorator, but we need more women coal miners. Ugh, no. Your international conference is sexist because it vastly over represents females instead of portraying a percentage of male vs females corresponding to the percentages actually present in your field. Damn it, you're a scientist! Think!
Science can be so awkward when it makes statements like this about things that were obvious to most of the world already.
To be fair, gravity is obvious but we're still working out the math on that. Just because everyone thinks it's obvious doesn't mean the result actually are; We have to do the test and sometimes at a large scale. For instance: The New Coke. Focus groups said they liked it. It was new, of course it's obviously better.... That wasn't the case when we scaled up the experiment though, eh?
Conversely: You can make anything sound more reasonable and less awkward when talking to a scientist by prefacing the words: "It turns out", "It's been said that", "I've read that", "Common knowledge is", "It's accepted wisdom that", "Results indicate", "Experience proves", "Research shows" -- The last one here is my favorite. That's exactly what things like TFA are: Research Shows.
EG: "I've read that not putting the toilet seat down causes disproportionately high energy expenditure in the long term social context." or "Experience proves not paying back that $50 you owe me increases the chance of spontaneous disappearance of equivalent valued possessions over time." With practice, you too can be comfortable speaking to scientists.
A lot of talks I've seen by scientists and scientific panelists have very brief periods of clapping, sometimes even completely forgotten about in favor of jumping directly to questions. They use their limited time to convey the most information. Compare this with non-scientific presentations which regularly pause and soak up the adoration of the audience. IMO, the shorter the clapping the better the presentation.
A scientist on stage has nothing to prove -- They do that sort of thing in the lab.
America soon to be the only country in all history to go to nuclear war over IP theft.
US: We didn't launch the nukes at you Russia! Chinese hackers did it while we were distracted by a huge PRISM!
I worked in game programming several years back, and 1TB was quite reasonable. Branching meant IT would bring everyone a new hard drive to store the new branch on.
Meanwhile branching it with git would mean no new hard drive needed. In fact I branch and merge every day with git, that's how I start my work and "save" my progress instead of piling up a huge set of changes and making merges a nightmare.
FTA: '"With Subversion, you can have a 1T repository and check out just a small portion of it, The developers don't need full copies," Stein explained.
If you have 1TB git repo that you can't check out only a portion of then you don't know how to use Git submodules. It's moronic to criticize Git if you don't know how to use it. Further, with symbolic links to the submodules I can have many repository clones target a single sub repository (or vendor branch in SVN speak), and Git gives me the capability to relocate repository locations on either end -- clone or remote.
Git just isn't designed for huge repos full of binary blobs.
I agree with this. The assets are not the engine. You don't need to save every little change to every single asset. I've actually been working on an editing tool suite that uses the diff / patch method of content storage, only performing things like image and audio compression as part of an export process for building the game asset collection. Perforce isn't optimal. We haven't done for assets what we have done for code with revision control. Text is cheap, and never deleting it is acceptable, but with assets we need the ability to Archive and Rebase an asset such that future changes can not be made to past versions -- Limit the window of changes such that merging is still possible, ie, changing an effect at the front of a video or pixels on one side of a texuremap can be merged with changes to the end credits of the video or changes on the other side of a texture map. Things like hue or contrast adjustments can even be encoded if the asset repository management system knows how to do these things. Instead of recording full snapshots of an image you can store a base image and the history of edits to that image to produce the current asset. This way the undo facility can be used when you open an image or video or model. Folks can revise color corrections or insert edits in the asset history, once the asset is at an approved status the base asset can be archived, the history can be collapsed (rebased), and any new edits will create new histories (edits). So much to do, so little time -- Wish I could git clone myself.
In short: Perforce is still dumb about assets -- It's not even as advanced as CVS is when it comes to code. The future will be more like Git -- especially as drive space outpaces asset storage requirements (the same way magnetic tapes outpaced text storage requirements).
Oh right, so now every liberals poster boy country - sweden - is an oppressive dictatorship is it?
Might as well be. The primary political agenda in Sweden is to use fear of rape to rule the country. Ignoring the lack of any evidence and statistics counter to their claims they manufacture media with blatantly false stories to drum up fear of men-- Male Satanists Eating Babies Before They're Born!? For fuck's sake, get a grip. You've got no idea what you're talking about, the place is run by nutters.
The Swedish government is corrupt as can be, mate. Using false rape accusations is their primary modus operandi.
We have genetic engineering now. We could make larger more efficient horses with crap that smells like roses and glows in the dark to eliminate the need for streetlights and fertilizer. Instead of the flying car, we would be pining over Pegasus.
If they think Bird crap is bad, wait 'till they get a load of this!
How sad. Not even Microsoft uses Windows 8...
Are you happy about paying for XBL just so the machine you bought can utilize the Internet you pay for to verify you're not a criminal when you try to play the games you pay for?
Knowledge is power. The problem isn't spying, it's who has access to the information. I say: Spy on everyone, and let everyone have access to the information. It might even help with unjust censorship laws -- Like in the UK where they want to sensor porn by default... If we can look in the public spy data and show that everyone is looking at porn, but don't openly admit it, then we shouldn't enact such retarding laws.
Capturing such data could be huge tools for transparency but since the public isn't given access to the data, it's only useful for oppression. Right now the Free Syrian Army (which sprang forth from protests for democracy) is fighting against Syrian Soldiers who believe the rebels want a genocide because their dictator controls their information. If the two sides' soldiers were allowed to share information then it would be much harder for the dictator to convince soldiers to fight, and they could have peace talks and perhaps come to a compromise which would give the people more actual control of the government... Bashar al-Assad controls the information, and only through it can he wield and preserve his power.
Men in their arrogance claim to understand the nature of creation, and devise elaborate theories to describe its behavior. But always they discover in the end that God was quite a bit more clever than they thought.
-- Sister Miriam Godwinson, "We must Dissent"
Information, the first principle of warfare, must form the foundation of all your efforts. Know, of course, thine enemy. But in knowing him do not forget above all to know thyself. The commander who embraces this totality of battle shall win even with inferior force.
-- Spartan Battle Manual
As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
-- Commissioner Pravin Lal, "U.N. Declaration of Rights"
Everything I need to know I learned from Alpha Centauri
Monkeys are into mating. Internet porn is proof of evolution.
I once thought as you. Then I plotted all the changes of the world that I could. After marveling at the cycles in the energies of life, I forced myself to take a step back and plot the general reduction in the diversity of life over time. I will not do this for you, because your sanity is valuable to me. In short, there is a dead-line by which sentient AI must be born in order to carry the human spirit of exploration and science onward.
First they came for the Coffee Tree, but I did nothing, because I drank Tea....
No mention of the east or west magnetic poles.... It's A ConsPiracy!
Well, it couldn't have been too many, because fossils.
Soooo... In other words, we should trust our government.... to always be doing bad in everything they do.
I completely agree. How about this: Science. They make a claim some bill is good for us, we actually test the hypothesis and either keep or repeal the acts and laws if they are not beneficial, i.e. if there's no appreciable difference, then they get repealed because: Less rules = easier to understand system. We need to do this for every law on the book. Seems like what we need is science. I would start with three lettered agencies, followed by copyrights and patents. We have Zero evidence that they are beneficial. It would be irresponsible to continue running the wold on untested unproven hypotheses.
I was going to build a steam box if this didn't happen. I collect consoles and games*, and I'm not sure if I want the Xbox One because it's not guaranteed I'll be able to play my games 10 years down the road.
Question: Do PC makers have a pro-DRM policy or prevent used game sales? If not, then why do many PC games have DRM? Further, what prevents the DRM from being added to any game on the PS4 by the very same publishers who insist on it for the PC market?
It is the difference between: We don't provide a standardized DRM framework, and All the games have DRM but we didn't put it there.
It's nice to the the indie support though. I might consider purchasing the thing were I not boycotting this corrupt company for Rootkitting my system via music CD, and hypocritically going after Geo Hotz for unlocking the PS3, considering that they fought and won against Universal on the grounds that although Betamax would primarily be used to record live TV and perpetrate piracy, the mere possibility that it could be used in non infringing ways meant it should not be made illegal.
Nope. Not buying the bullshit. Never. Stockholm Syndrome is for mentally damaged people, not me.