For thousands of years, the whole point of human existence was to perpetuate and improve both quality and quantity of life.
Whether or not this is the purpose of human existence, I am very glad that there are people who have made it the purpose of their existence. Scientists, philosophers, and artists throughout history have worked to increase human capacity, knowledge, and understanding of ourselves and the world around us. A culture of progress + open sharing of ideas creates a windfall from which all of mankind stands to benefit.
Sorry, but what is wrong with making decisions based on tolerance?
I have often found it to be the case that people who dislike the words "pc" and "tolerance" only have respect for some individual rights -- the ones they recognize -- but not others. (abortion, for instance?) It is unfair to demand dignity for one way of life while rejecting that dignity for others.
Tolerance is about treating everyone with respect. It's the golden rule -- treat everyone as you would like to be treated. Is that such a bad guideline?
It is not wrong to harm or even kill in self defense if there be no alternative.
The sticky about that point is, who defines "no alternative"? There is always an alternative, even if people disagree on whether or not it is acceptable. (Alternative to execution --> life imprisonment). Some are easy, but more often it's a gray area.
I'm not just arguing philosophically -- this is what people get into arguments about all the time. (We had no choice but to invade Iraq! They left us no alternative!)
Of course, the alternative is to start making risk/gain analyses. If we don't kill this man, will he be able to wreak havoc again? Will other people start doing things like that if we don't make an example of him? Etc., etc. In short, we make these kind of risk/gain judgements all the time...
Please don't judge anime by what gets shown on Cartoon Network! While I enjoy watching DBZ for comic relief, it's not quality anything.
For good anime watch Cowboy Bebop (space/western/music), Trigun (space/western), Kenshin (samurai/swordfighting), Macross Plus (space/music), Slayers (fantasy/humor), Love Hina (romance), Spirited Away (in theaters now!), or others advocated on/. and AnimeFu.
Also, watch shows that are subtitled. I'm no purest (I already said that I watch DBZ!), but (a) it sounds like you already know Japanese, and (b) american voice acting sounds fake. Maybe Japanese voices sound fake to Japanese audiences, but the emotions conveyed by the original voice actors are infinitely more believable than their low-cost dubbing counterparts.
Finally, be willing to accept a little weirdness. Anime has a rich visual lexicon, and it takes a while to get used to the conventions (especially the tendency switch between high- and low-quality drawing styles).
Also, and I say this in all seriousness, a lot of anime contains suggestive humor or situations. Be prepared for panty flashes and that sort of thing, and don't let it ruin the show for you. It sort of goes with the territory. ^_^;
Searle's argument is not very compelling. (I will admit to being a strong ai believer, but bear with me here). The argument makes a category mistake in not differentiating between hardware, software, and system.
No one claims that the individual neurons in the brain understand anything about language (chinese or otherwise!) As cells they just transmit electrical charges from receivers to transmitters. Likewise, no one would say that the people in the room executing arbitrary instructions from a book understand Chinese.
However, the brain as a whole "understands" language. Where does this understanding live? What is it that can be said to understand?
Well, we just answered our own question! The brain understands. The system. The rules necessary for understanding exist in the pattern of connection between neurons, but that alone isn't active, it's just a pattern. Likewise, a program doesn't understand, it's just a list of rules. The neurons (silicon transistors) don't either, but when one executes the other, the result is what we call understanding.
So yes, the Chinese room does understand Chinese, even though neither the hardware nor the software alone can be said to understand. Just the system, the resulting gestalt of the two.
So Searle's argument doesn't hold water unless you admit that our brains don't understand either. Sorry, that will take a lot more convincing to make me believe.:)
Why not just program the glider to surface every once in a while and recharge its LI batteries from covered solar cells? Eventually you'd have salt encrustation on the cover or something that would reduce the efficiency of solar collection (or cloudy days, more risk of danger from surface storms, etc., though for that you could pipe back meteorological info so that it could wait for calm periods). But it seems like you extend the operational lifetime of these things even longer.
You could also implement a surface & breathe operation to refill the compressed air tank on the second model. Run a small air pump off the charge from the solar cells. So it takes a couple of days to refill? No problem. Slow but steady.
To give Microsoft some credit, the MS JVM is a solid, fast implementation. Its speed and memory performance are better than the modern Sun J2SE jre. Why? Tighter integration with the OS to be sure (it's good to be da king!). HotSpot is excellent for running server-side java (J2EE), and of course it includes all the new class libraries from Java 1.4, but for most client-side apps the MSJVM is good enough.
While it's true that Microsoft is using an old version of Java, the surprising thing is that the performance (both memory and speed-wise) of this old VM (especially for client-side UI apps) is actually better than most modern J2SE VMs. The Sun crew has spent a lot of time optimizing HotSpot for server-side applications (J2EE, servlets, etc.) and implementing the new class libraries... meanwhile the MS VM remains solid and fast for most client-side apps.
Tolerance is the opposite of blind hate. There can't be too much of it in the world.
Thank you for expressing this idea so clearly! No harm can come from seeing other people as people, and from trying to understand their points of view. Respect is fundamental to any positive, constructive interaction between people. When missing, there is only friction.
Unfortunately one of the hardest things to tolerate is people who are intolerant -- respecting those who don't respect you. People who can do this have my deepest admiration.
Absolutely! Google is an incredible tool (the google toolbar is the first thing I install on any new computer:>), and this is an interesting challenge. What better way to show respect for their efforts than to participate? Imitation and flattery and all that.
Java also helps out by making use of handles. Because the VM manages all references, objects can be moved around memory. Think of Java references like C/C++ handles. The garbage collector works by marking used memory and compacting it, essentially defragging your heap with every gc() (or whenever the VM decides it's necessary.)
The Microsoft VM allocates X amt of memory for the VM... when than X is fully utilized, it reallocs to get a larger heap and compacts the objects in memory. This way memory fragmentation never becomes a serious problem.
Most notably, there is very little support for AWT, making GCJ unsuitable for GUI applications.
That's the real shame of the matter. Java shines most in its ease-of-use for creating complex GUIs -- unfortunately that's also where the worst memory/performance problems appear. For instance, Swing is good for client apps if you can ship with minimum RAM requirements of 64+ mb (and even that's cutting it close). Performance is most important in the UI, where the user notices any lack of responsiveness. Hopefully some Java native compilers will help out here.
Different compilers support differing levels of class library; Excelsior JET is one compiler that claims to completely support AWT and Swing.
Just to emphasize the point burton made, the importance of unit testing cannot be overstated!
Consider setting up an automated testing process which runs your test packages every hour or two minutes.
When you write code, write tests. When you check in code, check in tests. It's truly liberating! Once your code is in and tested, it's not your fault if it breaks! (Well, most of the time.:>). It's the fault of whoever checked in after you without running the tests.
Comphrehensive tests let you know the exact state of your product at any time, and when you want to test on a new machine configuration, you can just run the test suite to get immediate feedback on what works and what's broken.
Refactoring and designing new architectures is one of the best parts of the job, so good luck and enjoy it!
Re:It's worse than that
on
Dorm Storm?
·
· Score: 1
Not to mention the fact that when things are going bad for people, they're very emotional. Notice how no one's ever happy when they come to ask you for computer help? It's always, "oh my god my fscking computer won't boot," or, "I can't find my term paper!" When they are happy it's a breath of fresh air. But the times when you have to tell them sorry are rough. Write their prof a note. Pat them on the back. Tell them to save multiple copies. And ask them kindly not to knock at 4am next time.
I have to humbly disagree. I think it's a great idea and I hope to see it done, and have considered doing it myself. I recognize that infection is infection, but the box is *already compromised*. I see no problem with coming in through the same already-used exploit to *clean* and *disinfect* the host. What's wrong with doing good? They're already broken and are actively attacking other boxes. Why not fix them before they infect other people?
I think we're still a long way from the idea of self-mutating pathogens. These exploits are too specific and technical for a virus to change its infection vector. Only the payload is likely to mutate, and the retroviruses are targetting/patching the infection vector. No matter how many ways the nasty payload changes, it's getting onto the system in the same fashion. If that hole can be patched, it doesn't matter what the virus mutates into; it can't infect the host.
Imho, retroviruses are an elegant solution to a serious problem. Though they only stop a single type of virus (whereas education can help stop ALL viruses), they're a powerful tool.
I will dance for joy the first day I see an easy-to-use anti-virus creator package, to combat the virus writer packages out there.
-- And believing that scientific knowledge should be available to everyone? Yes, IBM paid to discover it. No, that doesn't make the knowledge theirs. If I discover it tomorrow, I'll do with it as I choose (no disrespect to the researchers at IBM or the people who support them).
I can't demand that IBM provide it to openwhatever.org, but there's nothing wrong with asking!
For comparison, Apple's 22" Cinema display, the best consumer flat-panel on the market (it's gorgeous!), has only 1600x1024 pixels, or 1.5 megapixels.... then again, the cinema display only requires 1 CPU, and costs about $2500.
One of the largest problems facing manufacturers of large-dimension LCD screens is the high rate of failure during the manufacturing process. This means that each batch of fabricated monitors yields a low number of functional units, driving up the cost per unit. I wonder how the researchers were able to combat this, while at the same time increasing the pixel density by 7x?
Can someone who's more familiar with the industry give approximate numbers on the failure rate of LCD manufacturing? Are we talking 1 bad screen in 20, 1 bad in 2000, or...?
So long Mr. Adams, and thanks for all the fish[, joy, humor, happiness, wit, wild-eyed mania, nonsense, laughter, puns, wordplay, British accents, British sensibilities, shocked British sensibilities, time-travel, gods, dolphins, mice, monsters, robots (clinically depressed or not), angels, two-headed galactic presidents, detectives, vending machines, spaceships, whales, and outrageous parties]. You have brought joy to all of us, and will be sorely missed.
Improbability levels falling... 50%... 25%... 10%... (a group of winged monkeys fly by)... improbability of Mr. Adam's passing reaching zero. Totality reached. Improbability levels: zero. We have arrived at a world without Douglas Adams.
When our retina differs from CRTs, however, is resolution, of course.
The nifty things about eyes are that they are highly optimized for the sort of looking we do. The resolution of the eye at the fovea (the point you're looking at, the part that's in focus and is most sensitive to color) is approximately 500 by 500px. That may not seem like much, but it's concentrated in 5% of your total area of vision -- so any part of the monitor you look at needs to have a res that high. That's not so easy for a static monitor, which can't change resolution in response to where you're looking. Maybe some day we'll have eyes like eagles, which are in focus & color sensitive over their entire field of view (no fuzzing of the peripheral vision). That would be cool.
I think that it is correct to say that "who we are" cannot be fully attributed to the genome. There is an awful lot of complexity to our very existences (and I'm getting a bit metaphysical here so I apologize.)
I think you're touching on the question of nature versus nurture. It's true that who we are individually -- or as a species -- is not defined wholey by our genome. Our genome is no more complex than any other mammal, so what sets us apart? Our genome gives us a few basic abilities: to think (better than other mammals), to feel, to make sounds. That and a few instincts (crying, blinking, suckling) are all we get.
Everything else comes from culture. This includes both oral and written language, which gives rise to communication and rational thought, which cannot exist without it. Oral traditions and written works allow for a cultural memory which spans any physical, genome-determined lifetime. Genes define our physical vessels, everything else comes from culture and individual experience.
That's why it's so important to read and write. You're contributing to our shared cultural memory, adding new sequences to the dna of society.
Before you reject the idea of automatic software upgrades out of hand, consider the reasons why companies use this mechanism.
A large part of the software industry is becoming subscription based. Unlike traditional shrink-wrapped software, subscription-based software "services" use client software (or hardware) which works in conjunction with servers run by the company. These servers hold play lists, hosted web sites, TV listings, you name it. This allows the software to access dynamic data which can't be bundled up and shipped to the client. Subscription fees are like cable fees: you are paying the company for the service (the cost of bandwidth and server maintenance, generating new content, hosting web sites, etc.), not the software itself. This is a common model for MMORPGs, for instace.
Given that the service requires clients to interact with servers run by the company, let's consider some scenarios:
the server software needs to be upgraded or rewritten in such a way that preserving backwards compatibility would be very hard. In this case the client needs to be upgraded, otherwise it will no longer be able to talk to the servers and the service is useless! This is a necessary upgrade. An opt-in strategy isn't going to work if the change will break the old client. Preserving backwards compatibility can be an enormous headache to a company with limited resources, and automatic upgrades means you don't have to do it.
the company wants to offer bug fixes (oops! you know it happens, your software is buggy too.:>) An opt-in strategy (with a description of the problems being resolved) is fine as long as customers realize that not upgrading means they won't get the latest fixes (or any newly-introduced bugs...)
the company wants to offer new functionality. You're paying for the service, and the company wants you to be happy with it. Companies want to make products that you like using. This should be opt-in though: it's your money, it should be your choice as to whether you want the feature.
There are bad reasons too. A company wants to add a new money-making service, and since this means more revenue they want to make it mandatory. I can understand why cash-starved companies would want to do that, but it's wrong. If someone is paying for a service already, they should never be forced to take an upgrade which makes them pay more (in time, money, or aggravation). That means the company is failing to live up to its end of the bargain.
The levels in Oni are cavernous open spaces, full of nothing. Real-world architecture is large, spacious, and empty. No one lives in an empty house or works in an empty office. Imagine your office stripped of desks, tables, paper, clutter, xerox machines, computers, and chairs. That's what Oni looks like. The levels are immaculately designed from an architectural standpoint, but they need more furniture! Pictures on the wall. Potted plants. Something more. See Deus Ex as an example of real-world spaces which are more than buildings (working water coolers, water fountains, potted plants, pots, pans, sinks, trash cans, garbage bags, etc.) A world without things feels wrong.
Read Naomi Klein's No Logo. You probably won't agree with her political views, which is understandable, but she has a lot of information about Nike (and other large labels) who contract with overseas owners of sweatshops in the Free Trade Zones.
The workers are probably are happy to have jobs -- but does that mean contracters should be allowed to pay workers sub-substinence level wages? Should they be allowed to use police to crack down on complaints about unfair treatment, unsafe working conditions, or (god forbid) attempts to unionize?
Nike doesn't hold the baton, but they pay the people who do. The contracters get money, Nike gets cheap labor, and the workers get screwed. Everybody's happy, right?
Slashdot Mirror
For thousands of years, the whole point of human existence was to perpetuate and improve both quality and quantity of life.
Whether or not this is the purpose of human existence, I am very glad that there are people who have made it the purpose of their existence. Scientists, philosophers, and artists throughout history have worked to increase human capacity, knowledge, and understanding of ourselves and the world around us. A culture of progress + open sharing of ideas creates a windfall from which all of mankind stands to benefit.
Thank god for progress junkies.
Sorry, but what is wrong with making decisions based on tolerance?
I have often found it to be the case that people who dislike the words "pc" and "tolerance" only have respect for some individual rights -- the ones they recognize -- but not others. (abortion, for instance?) It is unfair to demand dignity for one way of life while rejecting that dignity for others.
Tolerance is about treating everyone with respect. It's the golden rule -- treat everyone as you would like to be treated. Is that such a bad guideline?
It is not wrong to harm or even kill in self defense if there be no alternative.
The sticky about that point is, who defines "no alternative"? There is always an alternative, even if people disagree on whether or not it is acceptable. (Alternative to execution --> life imprisonment). Some are easy, but more often it's a gray area.
I'm not just arguing philosophically -- this is what people get into arguments about all the time. (We had no choice but to invade Iraq! They left us no alternative!)
Of course, the alternative is to start making risk/gain analyses. If we don't kill this man, will he be able to wreak havoc again? Will other people start doing things like that if we don't make an example of him? Etc., etc. In short, we make these kind of risk/gain judgements all the time...
Please don't judge anime by what gets shown on Cartoon Network! While I enjoy watching DBZ for comic relief, it's not quality anything.
/. and AnimeFu.
For good anime watch Cowboy Bebop (space/western/music), Trigun (space/western), Kenshin (samurai/swordfighting), Macross Plus (space/music), Slayers (fantasy/humor), Love Hina (romance), Spirited Away (in theaters now!), or others advocated on
Also, watch shows that are subtitled. I'm no purest (I already said that I watch DBZ!), but (a) it sounds like you already know Japanese, and (b) american voice acting sounds fake. Maybe Japanese voices sound fake to Japanese audiences, but the emotions conveyed by the original voice actors are infinitely more believable than their low-cost dubbing counterparts.
Finally, be willing to accept a little weirdness. Anime has a rich visual lexicon, and it takes a while to get used to the conventions (especially the tendency switch between high- and low-quality drawing styles).
Also, and I say this in all seriousness, a lot of anime contains suggestive humor or situations. Be prepared for panty flashes and that sort of thing, and don't let it ruin the show for you. It sort of goes with the territory. ^_^;
Searle's argument is not very compelling. (I will admit to being a strong ai believer, but bear with me here). The argument makes a category mistake in not differentiating between hardware, software, and system.
:)
No one claims that the individual neurons in the brain understand anything about language (chinese or otherwise!) As cells they just transmit electrical charges from receivers to transmitters. Likewise, no one would say that the people in the room executing arbitrary instructions from a book understand Chinese.
However, the brain as a whole "understands" language. Where does this understanding live? What is it that can be said to understand?
Well, we just answered our own question! The brain understands. The system. The rules necessary for understanding exist in the pattern of connection between neurons, but that alone isn't active, it's just a pattern. Likewise, a program doesn't understand, it's just a list of rules. The neurons (silicon transistors) don't either, but when one executes the other, the result is what we call understanding.
So yes, the Chinese room does understand Chinese, even though neither the hardware nor the software alone can be said to understand. Just the system, the resulting gestalt of the two.
So Searle's argument doesn't hold water unless you admit that our brains don't understand either. Sorry, that will take a lot more convincing to make me believe.
Why not just program the glider to surface every once in a while and recharge its LI batteries from covered solar cells? Eventually you'd have salt encrustation on the cover or something that would reduce the efficiency of solar collection (or cloudy days, more risk of danger from surface storms, etc., though for that you could pipe back meteorological info so that it could wait for calm periods). But it seems like you extend the operational lifetime of these things even longer.
You could also implement a surface & breathe operation to refill the compressed air tank on the second model. Run a small air pump off the charge from the solar cells. So it takes a couple of days to refill? No problem. Slow but steady.
What about using a similar technique to strip pollutants out of the air in smoggy cities?
Develop a tree or plant that absorbs carbon monoxide from the air, or something similar, then tear down half of downtown LA and replant.
If you also get the normal CO2-->02 oxygen scrubbing benefits of the tree, it can do double-duty.
To give Microsoft some credit, the MS JVM is a solid, fast implementation. Its speed and memory performance are better than the modern Sun J2SE jre. Why? Tighter integration with the OS to be sure (it's good to be da king!). HotSpot is excellent for running server-side java (J2EE), and of course it includes all the new class libraries from Java 1.4, but for most client-side apps the MSJVM is good enough.
While it's true that Microsoft is using an old version of Java, the surprising thing is that the performance (both memory and speed-wise) of this old VM (especially for client-side UI apps) is actually better than most modern J2SE VMs. The Sun crew has spent a lot of time optimizing HotSpot for server-side applications (J2EE, servlets, etc.) and implementing the new class libraries... meanwhile the MS VM remains solid and fast for most client-side apps.
Tolerance is the opposite of blind hate. There can't be too much of it in the world.
Thank you for expressing this idea so clearly! No harm can come from seeing other people as people, and from trying to understand their points of view. Respect is fundamental to any positive, constructive interaction between people. When missing, there is only friction.
Unfortunately one of the hardest things to tolerate is people who are intolerant -- respecting those who don't respect you. People who can do this have my deepest admiration.
Absolutely! Google is an incredible tool (the google toolbar is the first thing I install on any new computer :>), and this is an interesting challenge. What better way to show respect for their efforts than to participate? Imitation and flattery and all that.
Java also helps out by making use of handles. Because the VM manages all references, objects can be moved around memory. Think of Java references like C/C++ handles. The garbage collector works by marking used memory and compacting it, essentially defragging your heap with every gc() (or whenever the VM decides it's necessary.)
The Microsoft VM allocates X amt of memory for the VM... when than X is fully utilized, it reallocs to get a larger heap and compacts the objects in memory. This way memory fragmentation never becomes a serious problem.
Most notably, there is very little support for AWT, making GCJ unsuitable for GUI applications.
That's the real shame of the matter. Java shines most in its ease-of-use for creating complex GUIs -- unfortunately that's also where the worst memory/performance problems appear. For instance, Swing is good for client apps if you can ship with minimum RAM requirements of 64+ mb (and even that's cutting it close). Performance is most important in the UI, where the user notices any lack of responsiveness. Hopefully some Java native compilers will help out here.
Different compilers support differing levels of class library; Excelsior JET is one compiler that claims to completely support AWT and Swing.
Maybe there's hope yet!
Just to emphasize the point burton made, the importance of unit testing cannot be overstated!
:>). It's the fault of whoever checked in after you without running the tests.
Consider setting up an automated testing process which runs your test packages every hour or two minutes.
When you write code, write tests. When you check in code, check in tests. It's truly liberating! Once your code is in and tested, it's not your fault if it breaks! (Well, most of the time.
Comphrehensive tests let you know the exact state of your product at any time, and when you want to test on a new machine configuration, you can just run the test suite to get immediate feedback on what works and what's broken.
Refactoring and designing new architectures is one of the best parts of the job, so good luck and enjoy it!
Not to mention the fact that when things are going bad for people, they're very emotional. Notice how no one's ever happy when they come to ask you for computer help? It's always, "oh my god my fscking computer won't boot," or, "I can't find my term paper!" When they are happy it's a breath of fresh air. But the times when you have to tell them sorry are rough. Write their prof a note. Pat them on the back. Tell them to save multiple copies. And ask them kindly not to knock at 4am next time.
I have to humbly disagree. I think it's a great idea and I hope to see it done, and have considered doing it myself. I recognize that infection is infection, but the box is *already compromised*. I see no problem with coming in through the same already-used exploit to *clean* and *disinfect* the host. What's wrong with doing good? They're already broken and are actively attacking other boxes. Why not fix them before they infect other people?
Imho, retroviruses are an elegant solution to a serious problem. Though they only stop a single type of virus (whereas education can help stop ALL viruses), they're a powerful tool.
I will dance for joy the first day I see an easy-to-use anti-virus creator package, to combat the virus writer packages out there.
-- And believing that scientific knowledge should be available to everyone? Yes, IBM paid to discover it. No, that doesn't make the knowledge theirs. If I discover it tomorrow, I'll do with it as I choose (no disrespect to the researchers at IBM or the people who support them).
I can't demand that IBM provide it to openwhatever.org, but there's nothing wrong with asking!
One of the largest problems facing manufacturers of large-dimension LCD screens is the high rate of failure during the manufacturing process. This means that each batch of fabricated monitors yields a low number of functional units, driving up the cost per unit. I wonder how the researchers were able to combat this, while at the same time increasing the pixel density by 7x?
Can someone who's more familiar with the industry give approximate numbers on the failure rate of LCD manufacturing? Are we talking 1 bad screen in 20, 1 bad in 2000, or...?
Improbability levels falling... 50%... 25%... 10%... (a group of winged monkeys fly by)... improbability of Mr. Adam's passing reaching zero. Totality reached. Improbability levels: zero. We have arrived at a world without Douglas Adams.
So long, and godspeed.
The nifty things about eyes are that they are highly optimized for the sort of looking we do. The resolution of the eye at the fovea (the point you're looking at, the part that's in focus and is most sensitive to color) is approximately 500 by 500px. That may not seem like much, but it's concentrated in 5% of your total area of vision -- so any part of the monitor you look at needs to have a res that high. That's not so easy for a static monitor, which can't change resolution in response to where you're looking. Maybe some day we'll have eyes like eagles, which are in focus & color sensitive over their entire field of view (no fuzzing of the peripheral vision). That would be cool.
I think you're touching on the question of nature versus nurture. It's true that who we are individually -- or as a species -- is not defined wholey by our genome. Our genome is no more complex than any other mammal, so what sets us apart? Our genome gives us a few basic abilities: to think (better than other mammals), to feel, to make sounds. That and a few instincts (crying, blinking, suckling) are all we get.
Everything else comes from culture. This includes both oral and written language, which gives rise to communication and rational thought, which cannot exist without it. Oral traditions and written works allow for a cultural memory which spans any physical, genome-determined lifetime. Genes define our physical vessels, everything else comes from culture and individual experience.
That's why it's so important to read and write. You're contributing to our shared cultural memory, adding new sequences to the dna of society.
A large part of the software industry is becoming subscription based. Unlike traditional shrink-wrapped software, subscription-based software "services" use client software (or hardware) which works in conjunction with servers run by the company. These servers hold play lists, hosted web sites, TV listings, you name it. This allows the software to access dynamic data which can't be bundled up and shipped to the client. Subscription fees are like cable fees: you are paying the company for the service (the cost of bandwidth and server maintenance, generating new content, hosting web sites, etc.), not the software itself. This is a common model for MMORPGs, for instace.
Given that the service requires clients to interact with servers run by the company, let's consider some scenarios:
There are bad reasons too. A company wants to add a new money-making service, and since this means more revenue they want to make it mandatory. I can understand why cash-starved companies would want to do that, but it's wrong. If someone is paying for a service already, they should never be forced to take an upgrade which makes them pay more (in time, money, or aggravation). That means the company is failing to live up to its end of the bargain.
The levels in Oni are cavernous open spaces, full of nothing. Real-world architecture is large, spacious, and empty. No one lives in an empty house or works in an empty office. Imagine your office stripped of desks, tables, paper, clutter, xerox machines, computers, and chairs. That's what Oni looks like. The levels are immaculately designed from an architectural standpoint, but they need more furniture! Pictures on the wall. Potted plants. Something more. See Deus Ex as an example of real-world spaces which are more than buildings (working water coolers, water fountains, potted plants, pots, pans, sinks, trash cans, garbage bags, etc.) A world without things feels wrong.
Read Naomi Klein's No Logo. You probably won't agree with her political views, which is understandable, but she has a lot of information about Nike (and other large labels) who contract with overseas owners of sweatshops in the Free Trade Zones.
The workers are probably are happy to have jobs -- but does that mean contracters should be allowed to pay workers sub-substinence level wages? Should they be allowed to use police to crack down on complaints about unfair treatment, unsafe working conditions, or (god forbid) attempts to unionize?
Nike doesn't hold the baton, but they pay the people who do. The contracters get money, Nike gets cheap labor, and the workers get screwed. Everybody's happy, right?