Then the answer would seem to be to make new games that are actually more fun to play than the old ones. People wouldn't be playing the old ones if the new ones were that much more fun. I think the biggest problem with profit in the game industry right now is that nobody focuses on playability aka controls and game mechanics. The few companies that do for example blizzard make record profits whenever they release a game.
So what you're saying here is that it's about the money either the developers or apple's. which is really always apple's anyway because they get a cut.
How about puting a timer or trigger to reset the hint button. 1 hint per minute/several minutes or 1-3 hints per level. Give the user what they want not what they asked for.
Yeah too bad this one doesn't even seem to be read anymore after the civil war. Freedom and equality for all people good, Increase in federal control bad.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
No because that has to do with insufficient availability of positive assets and not the removal of assets for the gain of another.
Positive assets being if I had the money I could do it. Removal of assets and therefore interference/abridgement being interference by the FCC and a fine. People don't have to tune to my channel if they don't want to.
I'm not saying that the current laws aren't the correct methods however the application is faulty. The only real way to stop Microsoft from being in court every few years is by banning it completely from bundling emerging technologies with it's juggernaut.
And as far as the mass murderer analogy goes you don't slap him on the wrist you stake him down and beat him for every murder he has committed. The issue lies in underenforcing the laws as they stand. We keep trying Microsoft for individual antitrust issues. If you have a repeat offender like Microsoft you ban them and any puppet companies from joining emerging markets until such time that the market is established in a way that their monopoly does not cause undo strain on that market. The biggest problem that I touched on in my last post is that a corporation is incapable of being significantly punished for illicit or illegal activities.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abridge
Websters says to deprive or reduce in scope. To punish someone for certain types of speech is to reduce the scope of their available legal speech. As by fining them or otherwise levying against them you have said that their action was illegal or at the very least in the wrong. There is no but he said bad things about me clause. But in return you too have an adequate defense against mud slingers. Sling some mud.
Yeah I love how the interpreters of laws rewrite the definitions of those laws on a semi regular basis don't you? I'm sorry I don't believe in "a living breathing constitution" I believe in absolute law. If a law is doing harm then the law must change not the interpretation. Changing the interpretation means it can be changed whenever it's inconvenient to follow the law and is a very slippery slope.
So you would rather rewrite the meanings of words to suit your needs? If you follow the words as to their original meanings for that era. Then and only then should these laws be interpreted for their meaning in a modern situation.
The loss of personal character due to libel or defacement was never originally viewed as harm and was never intended to levied against. Why do you think they dueled so often? Because it was more fun to shoot someone then take them to court? With the loss of character as a primary motivator for business most libel and defamation suits have no real life merit anyway.
From the bill of rights. By putting a cost on certain words you are abridging my freedom of speech as I would be limited by the amount of money I am willing and able to spend on putting forward my words. No limitation on speech is legal. Just as conversely if one is to assume one has the right to not hear things one cannot be forced to listen to them in any form. Thus mandating a form of communication is also illegal as it would put people in the position where they may be forced to listen to something they do not wish to. Harassment either verbal or physical is a form of trespass and does not fall under speech. As an internet forum is neither a physical place or a reasonably inescapable venue there can be no trespass and therefore no crime can be committed with regards to speech.
At least that's how I view it. The word of law is the word of law let's stop letting lawyers 'interpret' it for us shall we. IANAL YMMV and other acronyms I'm sure that may apply.
To troll for a moment, Yes. that's the point of free speech not to be superseded by any government law. After all it was created because they weren't allowed to speak out against government laws and criticize the king.
You have no right to stop someone from saying something. But so too do you have a right to not listen to it. You can always close a page or otherwise obscure the free speech of another for yourself. You don't have to listen or read it. But that right does not extend so far as it stops someone from saying what is in their right to say. As there is always the option of not being there.
Nearly every non operating system critical piece of software I mentioned had a preexisting market before it was part of the Microsoft operating system.
If you don't like itunes then look at winamp before it or realplayer. iTunes is just the latest. Tons of things existed before micorosft included them in it's operating system. My point through this whole fiasco is taking microsoft to point for it's latest monopolistic charge is like putting a mass murderer on trial for killing one person. The issue doesn't lie in the fact that they bundle product x with windows. Instead it lies with the fact that the proliferation of windows itself causes any program that is bundled with it to become the De facto standard.
It has come to the point where any action by Microsoft in relation to new features or software can be viewed as an abuse of their monopoly. The free market has done a bang up job of protecting itself lately. How exactly does a company get to 90% market share without any significant negative action against it? If the internet has proven anything it's that a person with no direct liability is likely to do just about anything to get what they want. A Ceo or board of directors has no direct liability or interest in the company except to see it profit. Corporate interest far outreaches any reasonable action that would be taken by a sole proprietorship. Microsoft is just a very visible example of what happens straight across the board.
As I see it removing IE from windows at this point would do nothing but provide Microsoft with another revenue stream in the form of IE on cd for 10-20 bucks. IE is still being used because people are familiar with it. I've installed firefox and other alternates on dozens of machines and even shown the user how to use them. The minute I turn my back they close firefox and open a wonderfully insecure IE window. I've gone so far as removing IE manually (a difficult process that should change) and then come back later to see that users have downloaded IE "because it's easier".
Nope. In my analogy a firing a gun is bundling. Aiming a gun at a person is having a monopoly.
Bundling a monopolized market and an un-monopolized market undermines the second market, breaks capitalism, and is illegal. Bundling products from any other markets is legal. This isn't rocket science.
Assuming your saying windows is the monopolized market then our original premise holds true all bundled software with windows is either illegal or not illegal the fact that IE is popular has nothing to do with it afterall wmp is bundled with windows but it hasn't stopped itunes popularity. The fact is that sometimes the bundled piece is more popular than other options this does not mean it should be removed so long as it doesn't stop users from acquiring or using a competitive product.
Well using your analogy then the browser must be the heart or head and the rest of the parts are the extremeties and non vital organs so yeah in this context all cases of firing the gun are bad.
Microsoft bundling it's own telnet program is also clearly another antitrust issue. How are other vendors supposed to compete. Oh and the calculator, notepad, outlook express, paint, WMP, and even the shell have to go as they are blocking competition.
Exactly what I was thinking. I'm ok if they include some message with links to other browsers on first run, but you have to include a web browser with vanilla os install.
How about this plus IE can actually be uninstalled without killing the OS.
Yes because the inner city people can easily grow all the food they need inside the wonderfulness that is a city. Rural farming and development exist for a reason and it's not just so people from the city can have somewhere nice to live. That really only happens in areas close to a major city anyway. Humans need food, and lumber, and stone, and a dozen other things that come from rural communities.
That's like saying telephone service can't be overpriced. The internet has become one of the most crucial communication venues just because people are paying for it does not mean it's not overpriced. In any situation where there is a monopoly or duopoly on a utility level service prices can and will be fixed, by the providers, to a point of maximum strain unless otherwise regulated.
People are greedy and your isp is not your friend they make money from you it's what they do. If they can squeeze 30 bucks more a month without you giving up completely and going back to dialup or quiting the internet they will.
Slashdot Mirror
Then the answer would seem to be to make new games that are actually more fun to play than the old ones. People wouldn't be playing the old ones if the new ones were that much more fun. I think the biggest problem with profit in the game industry right now is that nobody focuses on playability aka controls and game mechanics. The few companies that do for example blizzard make record profits whenever they release a game.
Watch out for Packet Loss It can be quite high in certain areas especially if you're rural. Also be aware of Hackers
So what you're saying here is that it's about the money either the developers or apple's. which is really always apple's anyway because they get a cut.
How about puting a timer or trigger to reset the hint button. 1 hint per minute/several minutes or 1-3 hints per level. Give the user what they want not what they asked for.
Yeah too bad this one doesn't even seem to be read anymore after the civil war. Freedom and equality for all people good, Increase in federal control bad.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
No because that has to do with insufficient availability of positive assets and not the removal of assets for the gain of another.
Positive assets being if I had the money I could do it. Removal of assets and therefore interference/abridgement being interference by the FCC and a fine. People don't have to tune to my channel if they don't want to.
I'm not saying that the current laws aren't the correct methods however the application is faulty. The only real way to stop Microsoft from being in court every few years is by banning it completely from bundling emerging technologies with it's juggernaut.
And as far as the mass murderer analogy goes you don't slap him on the wrist you stake him down and beat him for every murder he has committed. The issue lies in underenforcing the laws as they stand. We keep trying Microsoft for individual antitrust issues. If you have a repeat offender like Microsoft you ban them and any puppet companies from joining emerging markets until such time that the market is established in a way that their monopoly does not cause undo strain on that market. The biggest problem that I touched on in my last post is that a corporation is incapable of being significantly punished for illicit or illegal activities.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abridge Websters says to deprive or reduce in scope. To punish someone for certain types of speech is to reduce the scope of their available legal speech. As by fining them or otherwise levying against them you have said that their action was illegal or at the very least in the wrong. There is no but he said bad things about me clause. But in return you too have an adequate defense against mud slingers. Sling some mud.
Yeah I love how the interpreters of laws rewrite the definitions of those laws on a semi regular basis don't you? I'm sorry I don't believe in "a living breathing constitution" I believe in absolute law. If a law is doing harm then the law must change not the interpretation. Changing the interpretation means it can be changed whenever it's inconvenient to follow the law and is a very slippery slope.
So you would rather rewrite the meanings of words to suit your needs? If you follow the words as to their original meanings for that era. Then and only then should these laws be interpreted for their meaning in a modern situation.
The loss of personal character due to libel or defacement was never originally viewed as harm and was never intended to levied against. Why do you think they dueled so often? Because it was more fun to shoot someone then take them to court? With the loss of character as a primary motivator for business most libel and defamation suits have no real life merit anyway.
or abridging the freedom of speech
From the bill of rights. By putting a cost on certain words you are abridging my freedom of speech as I would be limited by the amount of money I am willing and able to spend on putting forward my words. No limitation on speech is legal. Just as conversely if one is to assume one has the right to not hear things one cannot be forced to listen to them in any form. Thus mandating a form of communication is also illegal as it would put people in the position where they may be forced to listen to something they do not wish to. Harassment either verbal or physical is a form of trespass and does not fall under speech. As an internet forum is neither a physical place or a reasonably inescapable venue there can be no trespass and therefore no crime can be committed with regards to speech.
At least that's how I view it. The word of law is the word of law let's stop letting lawyers 'interpret' it for us shall we. IANAL YMMV and other acronyms I'm sure that may apply.
To troll for a moment, Yes. that's the point of free speech not to be superseded by any government law. After all it was created because they weren't allowed to speak out against government laws and criticize the king.
You have no right to stop someone from saying something. But so too do you have a right to not listen to it. You can always close a page or otherwise obscure the free speech of another for yourself. You don't have to listen or read it. But that right does not extend so far as it stops someone from saying what is in their right to say. As there is always the option of not being there.
Nearly every non operating system critical piece of software I mentioned had a preexisting market before it was part of the Microsoft operating system.
If you don't like itunes then look at winamp before it or realplayer. iTunes is just the latest. Tons of things existed before micorosft included them in it's operating system. My point through this whole fiasco is taking microsoft to point for it's latest monopolistic charge is like putting a mass murderer on trial for killing one person. The issue doesn't lie in the fact that they bundle product x with windows. Instead it lies with the fact that the proliferation of windows itself causes any program that is bundled with it to become the De facto standard.
It has come to the point where any action by Microsoft in relation to new features or software can be viewed as an abuse of their monopoly. The free market has done a bang up job of protecting itself lately. How exactly does a company get to 90% market share without any significant negative action against it? If the internet has proven anything it's that a person with no direct liability is likely to do just about anything to get what they want. A Ceo or board of directors has no direct liability or interest in the company except to see it profit. Corporate interest far outreaches any reasonable action that would be taken by a sole proprietorship. Microsoft is just a very visible example of what happens straight across the board.
As I see it removing IE from windows at this point would do nothing but provide Microsoft with another revenue stream in the form of IE on cd for 10-20 bucks. IE is still being used because people are familiar with it. I've installed firefox and other alternates on dozens of machines and even shown the user how to use them. The minute I turn my back they close firefox and open a wonderfully insecure IE window. I've gone so far as removing IE manually (a difficult process that should change) and then come back later to see that users have downloaded IE "because it's easier".
Stupid quotes broke for some reason first two paragraphs are quotes.
Nope. In my analogy a firing a gun is bundling. Aiming a gun at a person is having a monopoly.
Bundling a monopolized market and an un-monopolized market undermines the second market, breaks capitalism, and is illegal. Bundling products from any other markets is legal. This isn't rocket science.
Assuming your saying windows is the monopolized market then our original premise holds true all bundled software with windows is either illegal or not illegal the fact that IE is popular has nothing to do with it afterall wmp is bundled with windows but it hasn't stopped itunes popularity. The fact is that sometimes the bundled piece is more popular than other options this does not mean it should be removed so long as it doesn't stop users from acquiring or using a competitive product.
Ah but future capital gains in the form of paying for your nursing home and the like.
Disclaimer: Anyone who takes this post as serious trolling needs a new humor module.
http://www.ubuntu.com/aboutus/faq?action=show&redirect=FAQ
Third one down
Well using your analogy then the browser must be the heart or head and the rest of the parts are the extremeties and non vital organs so yeah in this context all cases of firing the gun are bad.
Microsoft bundling it's own telnet program is also clearly another antitrust issue. How are other vendors supposed to compete. Oh and the calculator, notepad, outlook express, paint, WMP, and even the shell have to go as they are blocking competition.
Exactly what I was thinking. I'm ok if they include some message with links to other browsers on first run, but you have to include a web browser with vanilla os install.
How about this plus IE can actually be uninstalled without killing the OS.
Yes because the inner city people can easily grow all the food they need inside the wonderfulness that is a city. Rural farming and development exist for a reason and it's not just so people from the city can have somewhere nice to live. That really only happens in areas close to a major city anyway. Humans need food, and lumber, and stone, and a dozen other things that come from rural communities.
That's like saying telephone service can't be overpriced. The internet has become one of the most crucial communication venues just because people are paying for it does not mean it's not overpriced. In any situation where there is a monopoly or duopoly on a utility level service prices can and will be fixed, by the providers, to a point of maximum strain unless otherwise regulated.
People are greedy and your isp is not your friend they make money from you it's what they do. If they can squeeze 30 bucks more a month without you giving up completely and going back to dialup or quiting the internet they will.
without the use of /humor or /humour tags...
I was being facetious which apparently was entirely lost on the slashdot crowd without the use of or tags...
ah well I have karma to burn.