I hate it when people try to justify a company's actions by saying "oh yeah, well look how much money they made!" It's not like this marketing stunt added anything to their bottom line, it just made them look silly and cost the company a lot of money. Just because a company makes a lot of money doesn't mean they spend it wisely. If Microsoft hasn't been wasting their profits then why has their stock been so stagnant for the last decade? They owe their shareholders more than this piss poor squandering of marketing dollars. It's not like this is the first time they made this mistake - Jerry Seinfeld, "I'm a PC!," and the new Windows 7 ads are all pretty pathetic. Not to mention all these classic MS blunders on YouTube everyone here is linking to. . .
I'm not a huge EA fan but this is the perfect time for MS to copy them. Instead of a thirty second add they should have poker sponsored by Hoyle and use cards with their logo on them. The weather program can be "brought to you by the Weather Channel" or something. There are ways to advertise while minimizing the amount it pisses people off.
Having a childish, Star Trek based "Terror Alert System" only plays into the hands of terrorists by giving them goals. Furthermore, it lets them know if we're on to something. I'm not big on government secrecy, but if they're investigating an attack on the country I'd prefer that they take care of the problem and then tell everyone. Letting the terrorists know we're on to them by raising the "terror level" is just absurd.
This is why their stock doesn't move anymore. Ballmer and Gates haven't been concerned about making money in years, they just want to be the name everyone associates with technology. They've tried to squash open source and now that it's apparent that that will never happen, they're attempting to BECOME open source. It's all about status with those guys, they want to go down in history as the pioneers of technology. Just look at the XBox. That's why I've always been so anti-Microsoft - it's hard to trust companies in general because of the profit motive, but at least those who are motivated by profit are predictable and beneficial to the economy. When power and status are what drives a company I don't trust anything they do. Including this.
This is one of the most asinine posts I've ever read. The assault rifle ban was passed shortly after the Columbine shootings because the students used semi-automatic weapons (among others). The reason to ban assault rifles is in the name: ASSAULT. Assault in any form is illegal. It is not hunting, it is not target practices, it is intentional physical harm from one human to another. Assault rifles should be banned for the same reason that brass knuckles are illegal in most places, because they have no purpose other than to hurt or kill humans.
Furthermore, there is a huge difference between a single fire weapon and semi-automatic. Semi-automatic fires as quickly as the trigger can be pressed. Sure, it's not quite as rapid as fully automatic, but just because it's not the most dangerous weapon in no way means that it's not dangerous enough to be illegal. Both automatic and semi-automatic weapons send bursts of fire so quickly that in a public setting collateral damage is almost guaranteed. Comparing a bolt action rifle to a semi-automatic assault rifle is ridiculous.
A good example is handguns, which to me are the only grey area (assault weapons should definitely be illegal, rifles should definitely be legal, handguns are questionable). I was once shown a modified 9mm which was turned semi-automatic with an extended clip. The trigger was so sensitive that the clip could be emptied in seconds. That's not "one shot comes out," as you describe. Sure, the modified 9mm is illegal, but it's illegal for the same reason that assault rifles SHOULD be illegal. The assault rifle ban should never have had an expiration date.
Unfortunately Microsoft will probably win this because there's a difference between spyware and an abusive contract. To the best of my knowledge, abusive contracts are perfectly legal, which is why MS got over on IBM so bad. These license agreements which you click before using software have been legally upheld in court, so Microsoft may be doing something immoral, but it's still legal. The only thing that makes spyware illegal is that they bypass a contract and install without the user's permission.
I love to blame Microsoft as much as anyone here but I think this is a case where the lack of legislation is, in a legal sense, to blame. Companies have no legal obligation to behave ethically. I would love to see a law which prohibits these ridiculous lawyer-speak click-contracts. There has to be a better way to protect both the company and consumer.
It does sound as if their main case is that the WGA contract is misleading and dishonest, and if that's true, they may have a case. I wouldn't know because I've never read it and don't intend to. I don't use Windows.
About a year ago my mom asked me to come over and get her set up with her new digital camera. She got it at Best Buy and the Geek Squad convinced her to buy this SD card adaptor for the computer to make transfers easy. It really wasn't necessary but I kind of understood why they might think she'd need it. But here's the kicker: they convinced her to buy a USB cable to connect the little SD card adaptor to the computer despite the fact the thing already came with a USB cable. And they didn't just sell her a USB cable, it was one of the ones with gold plated connectors and excessively long (like $40). I told her to return it but she didn't do so in time so I ended up taking the cable. A couple months later she needed me to hook up a printer (I know, none of this stuff should require assistance) and when I go over there what do I find? An extra USB cable with gold plated connectors and excessively long. So I tell her to return, again. I asked why they told her to buy the cables and she said the Geek Squad informed her they were necessary. They knew she didn't know any better and they lied to her to increase their items per transaction.
I've worked in sales, I understand the importance of the add-on sale, but I've never lied to a customer to get one. Sure, this is an anecdote, but I've been in enough Best Buys to realize that this is how they train their workers. I've heard so much stupid shit come out of their mouths. They hire "hipsters" who know little about technology but think they do because they use computers and cell phones. They tell people who have little to no experience with technology, with confidence, inaccurate information. Sometimes out of shistiness and sometimes out of ignorance. Either way, their Geek Squad is just as credible as the regular employees. At least when I go to an Apple store the ignorant clerk can direct me to a "genius," who, though far from a real genius, knows his product and how to address my needs.
I agree texting isn't primarily to blame, but I think it falls into the same category as those other things. I think the guy is right, technology is ironically making us more stupid. More can be done with less aptitude because technology provides shortcuts. But I think it should also be noted that in America education isn't valued like it is in other countries. We want to reap the benefits of others' education. I don't think you'd see this type of article in Europe or Asia, where texting is just as popular, because they aren't suffering from a major educational decline like we are here in the States.
It used to be that a father taught his son practical things necessary for surviving in the American work force such as using basic tools, mechanical work, and carpentry. This hasn't been happening nearly as much and it doesn't matter nearly as much because technology has made those skills less valuable. Cars run on computers which self-diagnose and usually require dealer work. Manufacturing has become more automated through the development of robotics. A new emphasis needs to be placed on science, mathematics, English, foreign language, and philosophy but we've yet to make that transition. So many Americans have faith in the skill sets of the former generation, which have a more macho-masculine appeal, that they're blinded to the fact that these skills are quickly becoming useless. Meanwhile, they occupy their time with Chinese manufactured, Indian programmed, European-based pieces of consumer electronics and wonder why jobs are so hard to come by.
Lets face it, we've always been more stupid than the Europeans and the Asians, but there was a time when productivity and intelligence weren't as intimately related as they are today. Once basic skills and determination could hurdle one to the top of the economic totem pole, it was the American Dream; but if we, as a country, don't come to realize that that time is past, then this economic decline could continue for decades. Technology is making us more stupid, but only because we take advantage of it rather than utilize it.
I think the main problem is that the policy makers don't understand technology the way they understand linguistics. I would never be able to copyright "The sky is blue" (I could trademark it though:) ), because it's an obvious statement and is cumbersome to state in any other way (everyone else would have to sound like Yoda, "Blue is the sky").
To someone who knows nothing of technology, an algorithm which paints a blue sky on a monitor seems to be incomprehensibly complex. From a logical standpoint it isn't. We just understand grammar so well we never think about the complexities of a basic sentence. The is an article, sky is a noun, is is a verb, and blue is a noun. The article specifies the subject noun, the is verb links the predicate noun to modify it. S is P. No one thinks about the inner workings of a sentence because it's the statement that matters.
When policy makers come to realize that algorithms are mathematical sentences rather than technological voodoo I think we'll see a lot less patent abuse. Like it's commonly understood that just because a song I wrote and copyrighted says "the sky is blue," doesn't mean I have exclusive rights to the sentence; it will be understood that basic algorithms aren't patentable. I know a lot of Slashdotters and all doom and gloom concerning the patent system, but I think the current abuse of the system is just a result of the immaturity of technology. I'm confident time will resolve the major issues. It does suck for right now, but for those being threatened by patent trolls I would recommend using Decartes and Newton and the like to your defense.
I agree. I think they were hoping that PS3 Linux would really take off with people like the Slashdot community. Since that never happened, why would they continue support?
If Stalin made Ferraris and sold them for $100 a piece I still wouldn't buy one.
You act like people hate Microsoft for the sake of hating them rather than because of the things they've done. Even the 360, the thing you claim they "got right," had a 100% failure rate on the day of release.
I don't think he's implying that the barter system would be lost, just that gold wouldn't be so worthless. Gold ended up being just for repairs, but once you got so far into the game, no one was short on it. There is plenty of bartering in WoW, with gold and items. I'd like D3 to be similar.
"What are the anti-cheating technologies that you are employing in Starcraft II?"
You serious? If that was public information then I doubt it would work.
Also, Blizzard has no problem permanently banning CD-keys of confirmed cheaters. Although any safe can be cracked, I've always been impressed with Blizzard's attempts to keep it fair. I've been playing Starcraft lately to warm up for SC2 and maybe it's because I play on limited resource maps where people are seeking a challenge, but it's rare that an opponent does something that makes me think, "no way." Back in the nineties/early 2000's, when I was really big into SC, there were a lot of maphackers but joining a good clan was an easy way to avoid them (and immature dickheads in general).
I agree, this Star Wars blog post is the worst story I've ever read on Slashdot. Not only is it uninformative, it's also ridiculous. Star Wars is the greatest work of science fiction ever and this douche bag wants to complain about R2D2 and C3PO, the MAIN CHARACTERS! (four characters are in all films - those two, Vader, Obi-Wan). I love how he mentions he's going after Star Trek next. I shouldn't have RTFA, I feel bad for contributing to sensationalist bullshit blog posts.
Not to mention that Lucas snubbed any complaints such as these with the line "A long time ago, in a galaxy far away. .."
Because I can write on a wall, a post-it, paper, or any other surface my Sharpie/pen/pencil will scribble on. It's not convenient to have everything plugged into a keyboard.
Regardless of what you're writing on, spelling is important. It really gets under my skin when I hear, "I don't need to know how to spell, the computer fixes it for me." Really? Just like I don't need to know math, since computers are mathematical machines that can do all the for me, right? It scares me to think that we may be entering an age where the average politician can't spell without a computer to correct him and can't solve a simple calculation without a computer to do it for him. How are we to deal with abstract concepts such as those in politics without a firm grasp on the fundamentals?
Hell, Macs have come with good old "Fred" to read any passage of text to us since System 7. Does that mean we should abandon this archaic reading practice? After all, the computer can do it for us. . .
If you don't read pulp crap then it's impossible to read that much. Quality literature consumes much more brain power than pulp fiction and is tiresome to read. Pulp, romance, horror, J.K. Rowling, ect. are just as strenuous on the brain as watching Two and a Half Men, so you can do it all day. Load her kindle up with Shakespeare and Steinbeck and she'll have to take breaks.
I don't think people who sit and watch t.v. all day are any different. If existence is so boring that you just need something to "pass the time" I wonder why suicide isn't a better option?
The question isn't why would gaming make people depressed, it's why do depressed people play games? My answer is the same reason depressed people watch t.v. for hours on end: it distracts them from self-reflection. They don't have to think about how lonely and depraved their life is.
If life is just about passing time then there's nothing to live for. I don't think it's a coincidence that those who achieve nothing believe life is about nothing while those who devote their time to constructive projects or helping others derive great satisfaction from life. When I get to the end of a game it's usually depressing because I realize that nothing was achieved other than I got to see the final cut scene. It's very rare that I play a game all the way through and don't feel like I've wasted my time. When that does occur it's because that time was spent doing more than just playing a game, it was spent appreciating high art (Metal Gear Solid, Shadow of Colossus). Anyway, to answer your question, gaming can make someone depressed because it's a depressing hobby. It's one thing to play games, it's another to do nothing but play games. I used to work at Gamestop and several of my coworkers, despite hating their lives, were always eager for that new game to come out. It seemed that as long as they were enamored with the latest 3D graphics they didn't have to reflect on how little they achieve in reality.
I never liked how "hardcore gamers" were awarded the geek title they never deserved. People just see a guy planted in front of a screen for hours and assume one is as good as the other. The programmer, however, may actually be doing something constructive. Perhaps it's a little app that increases productivity, perhaps it's a cure for cancer. Either way, unlike completing the latest version of Gears of War, something has been accomplished (at the very least the programmer has become a better programmer which can aid future accomplishments, the gamer becoming a better gamer doesn't matter)./rant
Please. The internet is everywhere two computers will be and battle.net is free. Why would you have two computers in the same vicinity if they're not on a router? It's been a long time, but back in the day when I would play friends in SC, we would connect to battle.net despite the LAN option because it was easier and it went on our records. (sure, recs don't matter, but it's nice to rub it in your friend's face - "thanks for ten wins, chump!")
It's the same reason 360 and PS3 titles never have LAN support - 'cause it's unnecessary with broadband and a router, which everyone with multiple online devices have. I really don't understand how the game experience is different between LAN and battle.net.
You didn't read the article, did you? (gasp!) They aren't competing companies, it's ONE FEATURE which i4i just so happened to patent first. Sure, you may be opposed to the patent system but your suggestion that "using patents to prevent Microsoft from competing is anti-competitive" is asinine. Do you know what happens when people infringe your patent and you don't legally defend yourself? YOU LOSE THE PATENT AND IT BECOMES PUBLIC PROPERTY. If i4i were to allow Microsoft to infringe on their patent they would have to allow everyone to infringe on their patents, which might put them out of business.
I understand that the patent system isn't perfect, especially when pertaining to software, but this case is an example of the patent system working. If smaller companies like i4i were unable to patent their ideas then giants like Microsoft would copy their work and out-resource them. For all the bad that patent trolls cause comes the good of allowing the little guys to competing with innovation.
Anyway, I don't know why I'm explaining this. You think i4i and MS are competing, which proves you didn't take the time to read anything about this case before crying foul about the patent system and anti-competitiveness.
I must disagree. Not everyone is concerned with the environment because it's pretty. Not everything is as selfish as you make it out to be. You point out several times that there must be no such thing as a higher purpose but your whole post, whether you realize it or not, it an argument against ethics. If there isn't a way that things should be, then all is permitted. The ethical philosopher doesn't need much to debunk this theory: if we accept that everything we do is meaningless and has no moral implications then being immoral and self-serving is the most logical way to live one's life. That's what the other animals on this planet do. But being human gives us the unique ability to care for things other than ourselves - people other than ourselves, species other than our own, and universal concepts of the way things ought to be.
Ironically, even if one were to accept your claim that some environmentalists are inspired by the beauty of nature, you just bring up aesthetics, which is as unique to humans as ethics. We are here for a higher purpose. We, unlike most life, do not exist to exist. Basic analysis of humans tells us this. If ethics and aesthetics are meaningless then we are the stupidest creatures on earth - but we know this is not true because the most intelligent animals are no more intelligent than a two year old human. We are the most intelligent creatures on this planet, the only ones which can utilize abstract logic, yet you claim that our most defining features are illogical? Perhaps this is why the existentialist focuses on the absurd.
"What will be will be, so live your life because you can, simply live, that is all." - How pathetic is that? Live a life with meaning, you suggest that we retrograde into beasts, whether you realize it or not.
Yeah, but business is measured in growth. Microsoft may still be profiting in say, five years, but if their stock hasn't gone up how are they to keep investors happy? If you can't keep investors happy you end up with stupid investors, which means a crappy board of directors. Furthermore, you can't offer stock as a salary option because the employees won't want it (which is how Microsoft got a bunch of talent in the 90's). I don't think the article is claiming that MS will go bankrupt and collapse, but it may be paddling upstream for quite some time. After IBM got burned by MS they had to do quite a bit of restructuring to get back on their feet, and they'll never be the force they once were. I think the point that the article is making is that Google is replacing MS as the technology top dog just as MS replaced IBM 25 yrs ago.
His lawyers will probably use that in his defense. When a prosecutor asks for too much the eighth amendment comes into question. Regardless, even if he does get convicted, I doubt they would give him ten years.
Slashdot Mirror
I hate it when people try to justify a company's actions by saying "oh yeah, well look how much money they made!" It's not like this marketing stunt added anything to their bottom line, it just made them look silly and cost the company a lot of money. Just because a company makes a lot of money doesn't mean they spend it wisely. If Microsoft hasn't been wasting their profits then why has their stock been so stagnant for the last decade? They owe their shareholders more than this piss poor squandering of marketing dollars. It's not like this is the first time they made this mistake - Jerry Seinfeld, "I'm a PC!," and the new Windows 7 ads are all pretty pathetic. Not to mention all these classic MS blunders on YouTube everyone here is linking to. . .
I'm not a huge EA fan but this is the perfect time for MS to copy them. Instead of a thirty second add they should have poker sponsored by Hoyle and use cards with their logo on them. The weather program can be "brought to you by the Weather Channel" or something. There are ways to advertise while minimizing the amount it pisses people off.
Having a childish, Star Trek based "Terror Alert System" only plays into the hands of terrorists by giving them goals. Furthermore, it lets them know if we're on to something. I'm not big on government secrecy, but if they're investigating an attack on the country I'd prefer that they take care of the problem and then tell everyone. Letting the terrorists know we're on to them by raising the "terror level" is just absurd.
Except for the fact that the only thing their game and the epic poem have in common is that they both take place in hell.
"'I think over a period of time it will change the DNA of the garlic because it shakes up the molecules,' he said Tuesday."
He THINKS? I'd like to KNOW, and know WHY.
This is why their stock doesn't move anymore. Ballmer and Gates haven't been concerned about making money in years, they just want to be the name everyone associates with technology. They've tried to squash open source and now that it's apparent that that will never happen, they're attempting to BECOME open source. It's all about status with those guys, they want to go down in history as the pioneers of technology. Just look at the XBox. That's why I've always been so anti-Microsoft - it's hard to trust companies in general because of the profit motive, but at least those who are motivated by profit are predictable and beneficial to the economy. When power and status are what drives a company I don't trust anything they do. Including this.
This is one of the most asinine posts I've ever read. The assault rifle ban was passed shortly after the Columbine shootings because the students used semi-automatic weapons (among others). The reason to ban assault rifles is in the name: ASSAULT. Assault in any form is illegal. It is not hunting, it is not target practices, it is intentional physical harm from one human to another. Assault rifles should be banned for the same reason that brass knuckles are illegal in most places, because they have no purpose other than to hurt or kill humans.
Furthermore, there is a huge difference between a single fire weapon and semi-automatic. Semi-automatic fires as quickly as the trigger can be pressed. Sure, it's not quite as rapid as fully automatic, but just because it's not the most dangerous weapon in no way means that it's not dangerous enough to be illegal. Both automatic and semi-automatic weapons send bursts of fire so quickly that in a public setting collateral damage is almost guaranteed. Comparing a bolt action rifle to a semi-automatic assault rifle is ridiculous.
A good example is handguns, which to me are the only grey area (assault weapons should definitely be illegal, rifles should definitely be legal, handguns are questionable). I was once shown a modified 9mm which was turned semi-automatic with an extended clip. The trigger was so sensitive that the clip could be emptied in seconds. That's not "one shot comes out," as you describe. Sure, the modified 9mm is illegal, but it's illegal for the same reason that assault rifles SHOULD be illegal. The assault rifle ban should never have had an expiration date.
Unfortunately Microsoft will probably win this because there's a difference between spyware and an abusive contract. To the best of my knowledge, abusive contracts are perfectly legal, which is why MS got over on IBM so bad. These license agreements which you click before using software have been legally upheld in court, so Microsoft may be doing something immoral, but it's still legal. The only thing that makes spyware illegal is that they bypass a contract and install without the user's permission.
I love to blame Microsoft as much as anyone here but I think this is a case where the lack of legislation is, in a legal sense, to blame. Companies have no legal obligation to behave ethically. I would love to see a law which prohibits these ridiculous lawyer-speak click-contracts. There has to be a better way to protect both the company and consumer.
It does sound as if their main case is that the WGA contract is misleading and dishonest, and if that's true, they may have a case. I wouldn't know because I've never read it and don't intend to. I don't use Windows.
About a year ago my mom asked me to come over and get her set up with her new digital camera. She got it at Best Buy and the Geek Squad convinced her to buy this SD card adaptor for the computer to make transfers easy. It really wasn't necessary but I kind of understood why they might think she'd need it. But here's the kicker: they convinced her to buy a USB cable to connect the little SD card adaptor to the computer despite the fact the thing already came with a USB cable. And they didn't just sell her a USB cable, it was one of the ones with gold plated connectors and excessively long (like $40). I told her to return it but she didn't do so in time so I ended up taking the cable. A couple months later she needed me to hook up a printer (I know, none of this stuff should require assistance) and when I go over there what do I find? An extra USB cable with gold plated connectors and excessively long. So I tell her to return, again. I asked why they told her to buy the cables and she said the Geek Squad informed her they were necessary. They knew she didn't know any better and they lied to her to increase their items per transaction.
I've worked in sales, I understand the importance of the add-on sale, but I've never lied to a customer to get one. Sure, this is an anecdote, but I've been in enough Best Buys to realize that this is how they train their workers. I've heard so much stupid shit come out of their mouths. They hire "hipsters" who know little about technology but think they do because they use computers and cell phones. They tell people who have little to no experience with technology, with confidence, inaccurate information. Sometimes out of shistiness and sometimes out of ignorance. Either way, their Geek Squad is just as credible as the regular employees. At least when I go to an Apple store the ignorant clerk can direct me to a "genius," who, though far from a real genius, knows his product and how to address my needs.
I agree texting isn't primarily to blame, but I think it falls into the same category as those other things. I think the guy is right, technology is ironically making us more stupid. More can be done with less aptitude because technology provides shortcuts. But I think it should also be noted that in America education isn't valued like it is in other countries. We want to reap the benefits of others' education. I don't think you'd see this type of article in Europe or Asia, where texting is just as popular, because they aren't suffering from a major educational decline like we are here in the States.
It used to be that a father taught his son practical things necessary for surviving in the American work force such as using basic tools, mechanical work, and carpentry. This hasn't been happening nearly as much and it doesn't matter nearly as much because technology has made those skills less valuable. Cars run on computers which self-diagnose and usually require dealer work. Manufacturing has become more automated through the development of robotics. A new emphasis needs to be placed on science, mathematics, English, foreign language, and philosophy but we've yet to make that transition. So many Americans have faith in the skill sets of the former generation, which have a more macho-masculine appeal, that they're blinded to the fact that these skills are quickly becoming useless. Meanwhile, they occupy their time with Chinese manufactured, Indian programmed, European-based pieces of consumer electronics and wonder why jobs are so hard to come by.
Lets face it, we've always been more stupid than the Europeans and the Asians, but there was a time when productivity and intelligence weren't as intimately related as they are today. Once basic skills and determination could hurdle one to the top of the economic totem pole, it was the American Dream; but if we, as a country, don't come to realize that that time is past, then this economic decline could continue for decades. Technology is making us more stupid, but only because we take advantage of it rather than utilize it.
I think the main problem is that the policy makers don't understand technology the way they understand linguistics. I would never be able to copyright "The sky is blue" (I could trademark it though :) ), because it's an obvious statement and is cumbersome to state in any other way (everyone else would have to sound like Yoda, "Blue is the sky").
To someone who knows nothing of technology, an algorithm which paints a blue sky on a monitor seems to be incomprehensibly complex. From a logical standpoint it isn't. We just understand grammar so well we never think about the complexities of a basic sentence. The is an article, sky is a noun, is is a verb, and blue is a noun. The article specifies the subject noun, the is verb links the predicate noun to modify it. S is P. No one thinks about the inner workings of a sentence because it's the statement that matters.
When policy makers come to realize that algorithms are mathematical sentences rather than technological voodoo I think we'll see a lot less patent abuse. Like it's commonly understood that just because a song I wrote and copyrighted says "the sky is blue," doesn't mean I have exclusive rights to the sentence; it will be understood that basic algorithms aren't patentable. I know a lot of Slashdotters and all doom and gloom concerning the patent system, but I think the current abuse of the system is just a result of the immaturity of technology. I'm confident time will resolve the major issues. It does suck for right now, but for those being threatened by patent trolls I would recommend using Decartes and Newton and the like to your defense.
I agree. I think they were hoping that PS3 Linux would really take off with people like the Slashdot community. Since that never happened, why would they continue support?
If Stalin made Ferraris and sold them for $100 a piece I still wouldn't buy one.
You act like people hate Microsoft for the sake of hating them rather than because of the things they've done. Even the 360, the thing you claim they "got right," had a 100% failure rate on the day of release.
I don't think he's implying that the barter system would be lost, just that gold wouldn't be so worthless. Gold ended up being just for repairs, but once you got so far into the game, no one was short on it. There is plenty of bartering in WoW, with gold and items. I'd like D3 to be similar.
http://www.dilbert.com/strips/comic/2008-09-16/
"What are the anti-cheating technologies that you are employing in Starcraft II?"
You serious? If that was public information then I doubt it would work.
Also, Blizzard has no problem permanently banning CD-keys of confirmed cheaters. Although any safe can be cracked, I've always been impressed with Blizzard's attempts to keep it fair. I've been playing Starcraft lately to warm up for SC2 and maybe it's because I play on limited resource maps where people are seeking a challenge, but it's rare that an opponent does something that makes me think, "no way." Back in the nineties/early 2000's, when I was really big into SC, there were a lot of maphackers but joining a good clan was an easy way to avoid them (and immature dickheads in general).
I agree, this Star Wars blog post is the worst story I've ever read on Slashdot. Not only is it uninformative, it's also ridiculous. Star Wars is the greatest work of science fiction ever and this douche bag wants to complain about R2D2 and C3PO, the MAIN CHARACTERS! (four characters are in all films - those two, Vader, Obi-Wan). I love how he mentions he's going after Star Trek next. I shouldn't have RTFA, I feel bad for contributing to sensationalist bullshit blog posts.
Not to mention that Lucas snubbed any complaints such as these with the line "A long time ago, in a galaxy far away. . ."
Because I can write on a wall, a post-it, paper, or any other surface my Sharpie/pen/pencil will scribble on. It's not convenient to have everything plugged into a keyboard.
Regardless of what you're writing on, spelling is important. It really gets under my skin when I hear, "I don't need to know how to spell, the computer fixes it for me." Really? Just like I don't need to know math, since computers are mathematical machines that can do all the for me, right? It scares me to think that we may be entering an age where the average politician can't spell without a computer to correct him and can't solve a simple calculation without a computer to do it for him. How are we to deal with abstract concepts such as those in politics without a firm grasp on the fundamentals?
Hell, Macs have come with good old "Fred" to read any passage of text to us since System 7. Does that mean we should abandon this archaic reading practice? After all, the computer can do it for us. . .
If you don't read pulp crap then it's impossible to read that much. Quality literature consumes much more brain power than pulp fiction and is tiresome to read. Pulp, romance, horror, J.K. Rowling, ect. are just as strenuous on the brain as watching Two and a Half Men, so you can do it all day. Load her kindle up with Shakespeare and Steinbeck and she'll have to take breaks.
I don't think people who sit and watch t.v. all day are any different. If existence is so boring that you just need something to "pass the time" I wonder why suicide isn't a better option?
The question isn't why would gaming make people depressed, it's why do depressed people play games? My answer is the same reason depressed people watch t.v. for hours on end: it distracts them from self-reflection. They don't have to think about how lonely and depraved their life is.
If life is just about passing time then there's nothing to live for. I don't think it's a coincidence that those who achieve nothing believe life is about nothing while those who devote their time to constructive projects or helping others derive great satisfaction from life. When I get to the end of a game it's usually depressing because I realize that nothing was achieved other than I got to see the final cut scene. It's very rare that I play a game all the way through and don't feel like I've wasted my time. When that does occur it's because that time was spent doing more than just playing a game, it was spent appreciating high art (Metal Gear Solid, Shadow of Colossus). Anyway, to answer your question, gaming can make someone depressed because it's a depressing hobby. It's one thing to play games, it's another to do nothing but play games. I used to work at Gamestop and several of my coworkers, despite hating their lives, were always eager for that new game to come out. It seemed that as long as they were enamored with the latest 3D graphics they didn't have to reflect on how little they achieve in reality.
I never liked how "hardcore gamers" were awarded the geek title they never deserved. People just see a guy planted in front of a screen for hours and assume one is as good as the other. The programmer, however, may actually be doing something constructive. Perhaps it's a little app that increases productivity, perhaps it's a cure for cancer. Either way, unlike completing the latest version of Gears of War, something has been accomplished (at the very least the programmer has become a better programmer which can aid future accomplishments, the gamer becoming a better gamer doesn't matter). /rant
Please. The internet is everywhere two computers will be and battle.net is free. Why would you have two computers in the same vicinity if they're not on a router? It's been a long time, but back in the day when I would play friends in SC, we would connect to battle.net despite the LAN option because it was easier and it went on our records. (sure, recs don't matter, but it's nice to rub it in your friend's face - "thanks for ten wins, chump!")
It's the same reason 360 and PS3 titles never have LAN support - 'cause it's unnecessary with broadband and a router, which everyone with multiple online devices have. I really don't understand how the game experience is different between LAN and battle.net.
You didn't read the article, did you? (gasp!) They aren't competing companies, it's ONE FEATURE which i4i just so happened to patent first. Sure, you may be opposed to the patent system but your suggestion that "using patents to prevent Microsoft from competing is anti-competitive" is asinine. Do you know what happens when people infringe your patent and you don't legally defend yourself? YOU LOSE THE PATENT AND IT BECOMES PUBLIC PROPERTY. If i4i were to allow Microsoft to infringe on their patent they would have to allow everyone to infringe on their patents, which might put them out of business.
I understand that the patent system isn't perfect, especially when pertaining to software, but this case is an example of the patent system working. If smaller companies like i4i were unable to patent their ideas then giants like Microsoft would copy their work and out-resource them. For all the bad that patent trolls cause comes the good of allowing the little guys to competing with innovation.
Anyway, I don't know why I'm explaining this. You think i4i and MS are competing, which proves you didn't take the time to read anything about this case before crying foul about the patent system and anti-competitiveness.
I must disagree. Not everyone is concerned with the environment because it's pretty. Not everything is as selfish as you make it out to be. You point out several times that there must be no such thing as a higher purpose but your whole post, whether you realize it or not, it an argument against ethics. If there isn't a way that things should be, then all is permitted. The ethical philosopher doesn't need much to debunk this theory: if we accept that everything we do is meaningless and has no moral implications then being immoral and self-serving is the most logical way to live one's life. That's what the other animals on this planet do. But being human gives us the unique ability to care for things other than ourselves - people other than ourselves, species other than our own, and universal concepts of the way things ought to be.
Ironically, even if one were to accept your claim that some environmentalists are inspired by the beauty of nature, you just bring up aesthetics, which is as unique to humans as ethics. We are here for a higher purpose. We, unlike most life, do not exist to exist. Basic analysis of humans tells us this. If ethics and aesthetics are meaningless then we are the stupidest creatures on earth - but we know this is not true because the most intelligent animals are no more intelligent than a two year old human. We are the most intelligent creatures on this planet, the only ones which can utilize abstract logic, yet you claim that our most defining features are illogical? Perhaps this is why the existentialist focuses on the absurd.
"What will be will be, so live your life because you can, simply live, that is all." - How pathetic is that? Live a life with meaning, you suggest that we retrograde into beasts, whether you realize it or not.
Yeah, but business is measured in growth. Microsoft may still be profiting in say, five years, but if their stock hasn't gone up how are they to keep investors happy? If you can't keep investors happy you end up with stupid investors, which means a crappy board of directors. Furthermore, you can't offer stock as a salary option because the employees won't want it (which is how Microsoft got a bunch of talent in the 90's). I don't think the article is claiming that MS will go bankrupt and collapse, but it may be paddling upstream for quite some time. After IBM got burned by MS they had to do quite a bit of restructuring to get back on their feet, and they'll never be the force they once were. I think the point that the article is making is that Google is replacing MS as the technology top dog just as MS replaced IBM 25 yrs ago.
Build more supply depots. (b -> s)
His lawyers will probably use that in his defense. When a prosecutor asks for too much the eighth amendment comes into question. Regardless, even if he does get convicted, I doubt they would give him ten years.