Just out of interest, how many careers do you consider similarly without worth? Shopkeeper? Airline pilot? Server administrator? They don't produce anything either, but you still need them. Technically you could have a grand self-service system in shops (and self-stacking shelves, self cleaning floor, etc.), Maybe we could have planes that self-fly (self-refuel, self-repair), and IT systems that completely run themselves. But that's not just a "perfect" system- that's outright fantasy.
Producing things has only ever been one part of society. There are lots of very valid jobs that have tremendous worth, but produce nothing. What good is a farmer if there is no-one to deliver his food?
iPod is basically a mini computer, which fits rather neatly with their decades-old business of making computer hardware (Macs/Macbooks/Newton etc.)
iTunes (in it's original incarnation as a media player programme) is software relating to audio-visual stuff- an area Apple have been operating in to great success for a long time (Macs have aways had the reputation as "the computer to have" for people who need audio or visual editing software, etc.).
iTunes Store (the music store) is a music selling sight, launched after two years of great success in the media player market with the iPod. Not only that, but it's just a website with a payment section and a file server- things which no major electronics company would struggle with.
A search engine is a hugely complex system of search algorithms, web spiders, data handling and massive parallel computing with huge-scale server farms. It's just not the sort of thing Apple has done before.
I'm not saying they couldn't do it, and couldn't be amazing at it. It just stands pointing out that it is about as far from what Apple usually does as is possible while still being in the computing field. The odds of them doing well at it seems slim at first glance.
I just tried that because I thought that that was some sort of urban legend or long-fixed faux pas.
Query: "why is windows so expensive"
1) "Why are Mac's So Expensive? - Yahoo! Answers" 2) "Slashdot | Why is OSS Commercial Software So Expensive?"
Pretty unbelievable. Number 3 is a page mocking this particular phenomenon. Why the hell would Microsoft do something so transparent and easily mocked? Do they have no PR sense whatsoever?
That's the same as the cover price for the physical printed edition. Which is ridiculous- who in their right mind could justify paying the same for online data as they pay for printed/shipped/delivered media?
Surely the costs being lower should mean the price is lower, right?
Incidentally, much the same holds true when it comes to OS usage too.
Just in case anyone says "why should I care if anyone else is using Linux". You should care because a world with fewer monopolies is good for everyone (except the monopolists).
It may seem like a weak argument, but "we've always done it this way" actually should hold a lot of wait- particularly when dealing with "experts" who want to tweak a hundred things in their specifica area.
There is no denying that what people are familiar with is a hugely important factor on their preferences. People like what they're used to. And there's no denying that the ever-popular Windows, as well as the vast majority of GNOME, KDE, XFCE and other Linux WMs all do it in the same way, while Apple have a long history of doing things their way.
When arguing that a very common feature should be changed, the arguments in favour have to be phenomenal- better than just "it's a bit better this way".
That said, I'm not sure I actually care about the issue that sparked all this. Left or right, seems like I'll get used to it.
A republic means "a country ruled by someone other than a monarch". The US is certainly one of those, as is France, Russia, Iraq, North Korea, etc.
A democracy means "a country whose governance is ultimately answerable to the people". In the US, the president, Congress, state governors, sanitation officials, and the rest are all chosen as a result of public ballots.
Your claim is often made because the US founding fathers were openly critical of "democracy"; at the time the term referred almost exclusively to direct democracy (which these days is extremely rare on a national scale), whereas the system that they were pioneering was a much more nuanced and novel form of representative democracy (electoral colleges, double elected congress, etc.). It's also a fallacy to assume that the modern US is anything like how the founding fathers envisaged it.../end political sciences rant.
Yes. Why wouldn't they? They do a lot of bad things, but it seems almost entirely motivated by "keep the party in power" and "keep the Chinese population happy and subdued at all costs". Never, though, have they shown themselves to be against lifting their neighbours out of poverty.
Just because someone is bad, it doesn't mean they're entirely bad.
Whichever way you look at it, escaping the planet is pretty much the most expensive part of the journey, in terms of fuel. If you can make that part easy, it gives you far greater leeway in dealing with the later, more intellectually complicated bits.
Indeed, seeing as most satellite either have some sort of reactant mass or, better yet, nuclear generator, a self-destruct need be little more than overloading its kit. As has been pointed out many times before, a battery on a laptop makes a pretty spectacular bang if overloaded- almost any sort of high technology can be a bomb with the right treatment.
Glad to hear it. Linux projects seem to get the whole Free-Libre and Free-As-In-Beer thing hopelessly confused, as a rule. A software distribution tool that has no way of paying for things seems like a half-way house, even if you only plan on serving open-source software.
Personally I have no problem with the concept of paying for software, even though I'm a huge open-source fan. I'm even happy with the concept of closed-source software, within certain circumstances. Some way of including it in the mainstream software management, and not treating it like some unwanted add-on, is much welcome.
So the moral of the story is "capitalism is the best way to do things, except when I'm being out-competed and am resorting to corporate sabotage"?
People can do your job for less money- if you're a capitalist at heart, suck it up and volunteer to work for minimum wage. That or admit capitalism is only fun when you're winning.
With difficulty, unfortunately. Asking the game's creators might be a good start, as they might have an idea of what happened to the rights- their company was bought by A, that company was bought by B, etc.
If you try looking and after a reasonable amount of effort still can't locate anyone, then maybe just go for broke and press on with the project. At least you tried though.
While I agree with all you say in terms of privacy rights, I disagree with things being "off limits" just because it's implied.
If you put data on the internet which isn't access protected or encrypted, then like it or not it is accessible to the public. Putting a robots.txt on your site is like putting a "please don't read me" sticker on a book and then leaving it on the bus; sure it's a common courtesy to obey the label, but you can't really start citing invasion-of-privacy spiels if someone doesn't.
If you want data to be on the internet but private, protect it properly. If you leave it wide open with nothing but a robots.txt to it's defence then don't come complaining when it gets looked at.
Remember, just because they haven't "done anything" with their copyright over the last 30 years, that doesn't mean they don't still have copyright. Or more importantly, that SOMEONE could still have the copyright, and that they might not be very nice.
Writing any code on the basis of "they probably won't care" isn't a great idea, and other projects have been burned by that in the past.
As said elsewhere in the comments, contact the owner or creator first. If it really is abandonware then he probable won't mind (might even be flattered). And if he is sue-happy (or if the rights have passed to someone else other than him) it's better to find out now rather than later.
You're lucky that was the only typo you had to correct. Felt like my fingers were made of uncooked bacon typing that. Not even been drinking as an excuse...
This whole "up to" thing seems like a barely legal joke to me.
If I ran a dairy delivery, and I offered my customers "packages" of either "up to 2 pints of milk, up to 3 pints, or up to 4 pints", and then proceeded to deliver them 1 pint, 1 1/4 pints, or 1 1/2 pints, do you know what would happen? I'd be bitch slapped by the Trade Descriptions Act quicker than you can say "but did you read the fine print?". You're not allowed to offer something that you have no intention of delivering, and that's that.
It seems like the ISPs are in one of those strange legal loop-holes that so regularly plague the technology industries. It seems that the second someone introduces something "on a computer", the regulators completely lose their minds...
Legislation in the EU is either introduced by parliament (less likely), or the Commission (who are all ministers from the democratically elected governments of the various member states, more likely). They're all politicians- just the results of different elections.
This whole "they're just faceless bureaucrats" meme was lame when it started, and is no less lame 40 years on.
Perhaps more importantly, the internet also gives us access directly to the experts in each field.
Traditionally, a journalist (who may be very good, or he may not be) will ad-lib a long article on a subject, interspersing it with quotes and snippets from all the various sources. Perfectly valid, perfectly acceptable, pretty damned flawed.
These days an aggregator service (hi Slashdot!) posts a very short summary with links to the various blogs and feeds of the people who traditionally were only a 3-quote-source.
Why read about a scientific study in your daily rag when instead you can read the blogs (and counter blogs) of the scientists actually involved? Why read articles about a trade show when you can hear directly from the people who were actually there?
I don't think it's "the death of the paid journalist", but I think it'll inevitably cull their numbers. A lot of the easier leg work simply doesn't need doing any more.
I disagree. You could say the same about the paved road network.
Yes, life would go on if we had to revert to 30mph single lane dirt tracks. Yes, you would be quite able to live your life individually by avoiding the road network (not own a car, not ride the bus). Yes there are alternatives to the road (rail, aircraft, canals, etc.).
But that doesn't mean the road network isn't a necessity. If it were ripped up right now today then there would be serious repercussions- even for the minority who doggedly never use it. Businesses would crumble, quality of life would drop.
If the internet were switched off tomorrow, there would be repercussions. Even if you never use it yourself, it would still effect you.
Slashdot Mirror
Just out of interest, how many careers do you consider similarly without worth? Shopkeeper? Airline pilot? Server administrator? They don't produce anything either, but you still need them. Technically you could have a grand self-service system in shops (and self-stacking shelves, self cleaning floor, etc.), Maybe we could have planes that self-fly (self-refuel, self-repair), and IT systems that completely run themselves. But that's not just a "perfect" system- that's outright fantasy.
Producing things has only ever been one part of society. There are lots of very valid jobs that have tremendous worth, but produce nothing. What good is a farmer if there is no-one to deliver his food?
I've played RTS games; I don't trust the current state of path-finding AI.
If this comes to head, I'm sure we can expect our entire commuting population to be bumping futiley into trees, or thwarted by the first sharp u-bend.
The store in TFA (TFS, even) is a UK store, you dolt.
The UK is in the EU.
UK and EU law is what matters here, not US law.
Country of origin for the reader is irrelevant.
iPod is basically a mini computer, which fits rather neatly with their decades-old business of making computer hardware (Macs/Macbooks/Newton etc.)
iTunes (in it's original incarnation as a media player programme) is software relating to audio-visual stuff- an area Apple have been operating in to great success for a long time (Macs have aways had the reputation as "the computer to have" for people who need audio or visual editing software, etc.).
iTunes Store (the music store) is a music selling sight, launched after two years of great success in the media player market with the iPod. Not only that, but it's just a website with a payment section and a file server- things which no major electronics company would struggle with.
A search engine is a hugely complex system of search algorithms, web spiders, data handling and massive parallel computing with huge-scale server farms. It's just not the sort of thing Apple has done before.
I'm not saying they couldn't do it, and couldn't be amazing at it. It just stands pointing out that it is about as far from what Apple usually does as is possible while still being in the computing field. The odds of them doing well at it seems slim at first glance.
I just tried that because I thought that that was some sort of urban legend or long-fixed faux pas.
Query: "why is windows so expensive"
1) "Why are Mac's So Expensive? - Yahoo! Answers"
2) "Slashdot | Why is OSS Commercial Software So Expensive?"
Pretty unbelievable. Number 3 is a page mocking this particular phenomenon. Why the hell would Microsoft do something so transparent and easily mocked? Do they have no PR sense whatsoever?
That's the same as the cover price for the physical printed edition. Which is ridiculous- who in their right mind could justify paying the same for online data as they pay for printed/shipped/delivered media?
Surely the costs being lower should mean the price is lower, right?
Incidentally, much the same holds true when it comes to OS usage too.
Just in case anyone says "why should I care if anyone else is using Linux". You should care because a world with fewer monopolies is good for everyone (except the monopolists).
It may seem like a weak argument, but "we've always done it this way" actually should hold a lot of wait- particularly when dealing with "experts" who want to tweak a hundred things in their specifica area.
There is no denying that what people are familiar with is a hugely important factor on their preferences. People like what they're used to. And there's no denying that the ever-popular Windows, as well as the vast majority of GNOME, KDE, XFCE and other Linux WMs all do it in the same way, while Apple have a long history of doing things their way.
When arguing that a very common feature should be changed, the arguments in favour have to be phenomenal- better than just "it's a bit better this way".
That said, I'm not sure I actually care about the issue that sparked all this. Left or right, seems like I'll get used to it.
I hate when people say that.
It is both. Full stop.
A republic means "a country ruled by someone other than a monarch". The US is certainly one of those, as is France, Russia, Iraq, North Korea, etc.
A democracy means "a country whose governance is ultimately answerable to the people". In the US, the president, Congress, state governors, sanitation officials, and the rest are all chosen as a result of public ballots.
Your claim is often made because the US founding fathers were openly critical of "democracy"; at the time the term referred almost exclusively to direct democracy (which these days is extremely rare on a national scale), whereas the system that they were pioneering was a much more nuanced and novel form of representative democracy (electoral colleges, double elected congress, etc.). It's also a fallacy to assume that the modern US is anything like how the founding fathers envisaged it... /end political sciences rant.
Yes. Why wouldn't they? They do a lot of bad things, but it seems almost entirely motivated by "keep the party in power" and "keep the Chinese population happy and subdued at all costs". Never, though, have they shown themselves to be against lifting their neighbours out of poverty.
Just because someone is bad, it doesn't mean they're entirely bad.
Whichever way you look at it, escaping the planet is pretty much the most expensive part of the journey, in terms of fuel. If you can make that part easy, it gives you far greater leeway in dealing with the later, more intellectually complicated bits.
Indeed, seeing as most satellite either have some sort of reactant mass or, better yet, nuclear generator, a self-destruct need be little more than overloading its kit. As has been pointed out many times before, a battery on a laptop makes a pretty spectacular bang if overloaded- almost any sort of high technology can be a bomb with the right treatment.
Glad to hear it. Linux projects seem to get the whole Free-Libre and Free-As-In-Beer thing hopelessly confused, as a rule. A software distribution tool that has no way of paying for things seems like a half-way house, even if you only plan on serving open-source software.
Personally I have no problem with the concept of paying for software, even though I'm a huge open-source fan. I'm even happy with the concept of closed-source software, within certain circumstances. Some way of including it in the mainstream software management, and not treating it like some unwanted add-on, is much welcome.
So the moral of the story is "capitalism is the best way to do things, except when I'm being out-competed and am resorting to corporate sabotage"?
People can do your job for less money- if you're a capitalist at heart, suck it up and volunteer to work for minimum wage. That or admit capitalism is only fun when you're winning.
NHS, free, blah blah.
I mean seriously, people pay for medical equipment? Crazy stuff.
With difficulty, unfortunately. Asking the game's creators might be a good start, as they might have an idea of what happened to the rights- their company was bought by A, that company was bought by B, etc.
If you try looking and after a reasonable amount of effort still can't locate anyone, then maybe just go for broke and press on with the project. At least you tried though.
While I agree with all you say in terms of privacy rights, I disagree with things being "off limits" just because it's implied.
If you put data on the internet which isn't access protected or encrypted, then like it or not it is accessible to the public. Putting a robots.txt on your site is like putting a "please don't read me" sticker on a book and then leaving it on the bus; sure it's a common courtesy to obey the label, but you can't really start citing invasion-of-privacy spiels if someone doesn't.
If you want data to be on the internet but private, protect it properly. If you leave it wide open with nothing but a robots.txt to it's defence then don't come complaining when it gets looked at.
Remember, just because they haven't "done anything" with their copyright over the last 30 years, that doesn't mean they don't still have copyright. Or more importantly, that SOMEONE could still have the copyright, and that they might not be very nice.
Writing any code on the basis of "they probably won't care" isn't a great idea, and other projects have been burned by that in the past.
As said elsewhere in the comments, contact the owner or creator first. If it really is abandonware then he probable won't mind (might even be flattered). And if he is sue-happy (or if the rights have passed to someone else other than him) it's better to find out now rather than later.
You're lucky that was the only typo you had to correct. Felt like my fingers were made of uncooked bacon typing that. Not even been drinking as an excuse...
This whole "up to" thing seems like a barely legal joke to me.
If I ran a dairy delivery, and I offered my customers "packages" of either "up to 2 pints of milk, up to 3 pints, or up to 4 pints", and then proceeded to deliver them 1 pint, 1 1/4 pints, or 1 1/2 pints, do you know what would happen? I'd be bitch slapped by the Trade Descriptions Act quicker than you can say "but did you read the fine print?". You're not allowed to offer something that you have no intention of delivering, and that's that.
It seems like the ISPs are in one of those strange legal loop-holes that so regularly plague the technology industries. It seems that the second someone introduces something "on a computer", the regulators completely lose their minds...
Legislation in the EU is either introduced by parliament (less likely), or the Commission (who are all ministers from the democratically elected governments of the various member states, more likely). They're all politicians- just the results of different elections.
This whole "they're just faceless bureaucrats" meme was lame when it started, and is no less lame 40 years on.
And I wouldn't be at all surprised if they only did it so that they could do the opposite of everybody else in European politics.
If all the MEPs crossed a bridge, they would be the party to jump off it just to claim that they're not "in the pocket of the Europeans"...
and those trucks don't say "Budweiser" on the side.
It still wouldn't be beer.
Perhaps more importantly, the internet also gives us access directly to the experts in each field.
Traditionally, a journalist (who may be very good, or he may not be) will ad-lib a long article on a subject, interspersing it with quotes and snippets from all the various sources. Perfectly valid, perfectly acceptable, pretty damned flawed.
These days an aggregator service (hi Slashdot!) posts a very short summary with links to the various blogs and feeds of the people who traditionally were only a 3-quote-source.
Why read about a scientific study in your daily rag when instead you can read the blogs (and counter blogs) of the scientists actually involved? Why read articles about a trade show when you can hear directly from the people who were actually there?
I don't think it's "the death of the paid journalist", but I think it'll inevitably cull their numbers. A lot of the easier leg work simply doesn't need doing any more.
I disagree. You could say the same about the paved road network.
Yes, life would go on if we had to revert to 30mph single lane dirt tracks. Yes, you would be quite able to live your life individually by avoiding the road network (not own a car, not ride the bus). Yes there are alternatives to the road (rail, aircraft, canals, etc.).
But that doesn't mean the road network isn't a necessity. If it were ripped up right now today then there would be serious repercussions- even for the minority who doggedly never use it. Businesses would crumble, quality of life would drop.
If the internet were switched off tomorrow, there would be repercussions. Even if you never use it yourself, it would still effect you.