I'm not sure if you realize how game development works, but this is how it doesn't happen:
Spend years designing a game. Create artwork. Create the engine. Create maps. Find Beta testers. Try to run the game.
It turns out that the "try to run the game" step happens pretty early, and it happens often. It's not like they just finish the game and then, as an afterthought, decide to run it for the first time. If it looks like shit at any point, there is ample time to fix that without needing a last-minute delay.
There are a lot of people who seem to think that posting on Slashdot, and modding the posts, is the way to get Blizzard to make changes. The venue you're looking for is here:
Yeah, you could, so could all the other people who replied to me and everyone else who doesn't like that they removed the LAN option. But instead people just post to Slashdot.
Give me a break. The tazer was supposed to replace the handgun so that you don't need to actually kill the person. The reality is that officers use the tazer in situations where the handgun would never be an option. An elderly lady disagreeing with you is not an excuse for several thousand volts, I don't give a shit how much experience you have. The "don't taze me bro" guy is a perfect example - he was being a dick, but it was nothing that 2 officers and a pair of handcuffs couldn't handle.
But hey, if you're the type of guy who thinks that only the police are able to give oversight to the police, then I'm sure we disagree on things more serious than tazer usage.
1) The person buying the article failed to exercise due diligence when he attempted to purchase it from the wrong place. If there's any negligence here it's on him and not the AP.
The AP also needs to do due diligence. When the AP is selling a license to something, they need to do due diligence to make sure that they are actually able to sell what they're trying to sell. If I paste in a copyrighted book, they aren't allowed to sell me a license to reproduce that online (which is what their boilerplate says I have the right to do).
But no, it's not criminal and it's not malicious. It's just lazy. The fact is that if they are giving me a license that says that I am legally allowed to do a certain thing, they need to make sure that those statements are correct.
The parent raises a valid point. If you are stupid enough to offer me money for a copy of Wagner's Ride of the Valkyries, Thomas Jefferson's or William Shakespeare's writings or anything else in the public domain, why shouldn't I accept your money?
Are you serious? You don't see a problem with the AP selling a "license" to use content that it doesn't own in the first place? What if you go to some random article, say written by the BBC or CNN, and maybe you're not paying attention (I know, journalists not paying attention, it's a stretch but stick with me) and you go to get a license to use that text from the AP, which they happily sell to you and give you a bunch of copyright info etc to use which says that you are legally allowed to post that content. You really don't see an issue there? The AP is taking your money and telling you that they are giving you rights which aren't actually theirs to give in the first place. At best that's gross incompetence, at worst it's fraud.
GoDaddy told them they should have protected themselves better. FWIW, he hacked into the owner's AOL email account in order to get access to their GoDaddy account.
Because shooting them is so much better than tazing them??
You're assuming that, when faced with a difficult situation, a police officer's two options are to 1) shoot the person or 2) taze the person. Many police officers are increasingly taking the view that tazing is justified when the person is disagreeing or arguing with the officer. Neither shooting nor tazing is justified at that point, police need to realize that dialogue is still an option.
Well, yes. But you can't install it on your iPhone unless you jailbreaked the device or you pay the yearly $99 developer fee.
So what?
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that if you really cared about the "spirit of the GPL" and free software in the first place, that you wouldn't have given Apple your money for their extremely closed device. If the choice is between iPhone and Android, I think it's abundantly clear to anyone that cares about free software that Android is already a much, much more open platform than the iPhone will ever be.
All of this whining over the "ethics" of selling GPL software for the iPhone is just hypocritical nonsense. If you were concerned about free software ethics you wouldn't have an iPhone.
I think $2 is a perfectly reasonable fee for a decent game.
Not only is it reasonable, but it's almost expected to be asked for compensation for porting the game to a new platform. It sounds like he's not charging for the game itself, he's charging for the work in porting it if you want to play it on the iPhone. That sounds completely reasonable to me.
Because A) It restricts you to an -expensive- platform, x86 Mac OS X B) I believe you need to pay Apple I think like $99 to get it on the app store
I might be completely incorrect or misinformed, but I would also imagine that if someone were to submit a duplicate of an existing app for free, even if it were perfectly legal, that Apple would not allow it. Stranger things have happened.
Harsh punishments are driving illegals underground and stopping them from paying taxes
They aren't paying taxes in the first place. They don't want to pay taxes. Hell, I don't want to pay taxes.
Wouldn't it make more sense to say that illegal immigrants who have a job aren't illegal?
You're talking about changing their status to legal instead of just taxing them somehow. There are several problems there. What if an entire family, 2 parents and several small kids, come across and then the father gets a job. Are the wife and kids now legal? What if the father quits his job or gets fired? What if the father comes first, gets a job, then sends for his family? What if he loses his job before the family gets there? If someone moves here and gets a job, are they a citizen also, can they vote now?
I don't think it makes a lot of sense to just say that if you're able to move here and get a job then you're legal to be here. That sounds like rewarding someone for beating the system (and I'm totally pulling this out of my ass, but I don't think any other country has a policy like that). We have all of the processes in place to make it possible for someone to do all of this legally. We have work visas, green cards, etc. I don't see any reason to make concessions when someone wants to do it illegally instead of going through the established procedures. I've heard people complain that the immigration process takes too long, but I've also heard several immigrants say that, even though it takes a while, it's still one of the best immigration systems in the world. This country was essentially founded on legal immigration, there's no excuse for going through the back door and thinking you're still entitled to everything that people who go through the front door are entitled to.
You may be thinking to yourself by this point that I haven't suggested any solution for illegal immigration. I don't really have one, it's not an easy situation to deal with. It would be great if everyone came in through the front door, short of arresting everyone who tries to do otherwise (which itself puts a major burden on law enforcement and defense), it doesn't seem like there's a lot that can be done. It seems like illegal immigration causes problems for everyone, including the immigrants.
Yeah, defense would be an obvious basic necessity. But so are education and healthcare. When immigrants come across the border without declaring themselves, they still expect to use the health and education services that I'm paying for, but they aren't paying taxes to help with the cost. This is the same reason why a year or so ago there was a measure on the ballot to require that a certain percentage of police become fluent in Spanish. That's not something that should be paid for with public funds.
So yeah, when I think "basics" I'm including (public) education, healthcare, and emergency services, all of which come out of public funding and all of which illegal immigrants expect to be able to use without paying for.
I'm trying to distinguish illegal immigrants from legal immigrants, immigrants are perfectly fine and welcome as long as they come in through the front door.
Folks don't realize that these people rent and spend here too (often times without the societal expense us "real people" tend to cause society). When you have sweeps, a lack of employment and a general sense of animosity towards those who (in my view) are major contributors to society, they move one state over (they're not moving back to Mexico).
"Major contributors"? Maybe they can start by contributing taxes to help our bottom line. Because they're happy to take dollars for education, healthcare, public safety, etc. $600/month renting an apartment doesn't exactly pay for that, and neither does their complete lack of any income taxes.
Consider that the world GDP is around 50 trillion per year, if these 4 banks go under they take with them 6 years' worth of the WORLD's GDP.
What do you mean they "take it with them"? If they go bankrupt they don't get to keep $296 trillion and it's all of sudden out of the economy, that money goes back into the market and gets used by someone who (in theory) actually has a clue about what they're doing.
Slashdot Mirror
Probably for the same reason that you keep replying.
I'm not sure if you realize how game development works, but this is how it doesn't happen:
Spend years designing a game.
Create artwork.
Create the engine.
Create maps.
Find Beta testers.
Try to run the game.
It turns out that the "try to run the game" step happens pretty early, and it happens often. It's not like they just finish the game and then, as an afterthought, decide to run it for the first time. If it looks like shit at any point, there is ample time to fix that without needing a last-minute delay.
There are a lot of people who seem to think that posting on Slashdot, and modding the posts, is the way to get Blizzard to make changes. The venue you're looking for is here:
http://forums.battle.net/board.html?forumId=12009&sid=3000
Which one of those 7 words did you not understand?
So I could say the same to Blizzard.
Yeah, you could, so could all the other people who replied to me and everyone else who doesn't like that they removed the LAN option. But instead people just post to Slashdot.
What you think is irrelevant to Blizzard.
For a company that cares so much about quality and game experience, they are basically willing to shaft their own game to ensure more revenue.
Yeah, pretty much. So clearly they don't care as much about game experience as you think.
FYI: Blizzard's revenue model doesn't give a shit about your bandwidth availability.
Give me a break. The tazer was supposed to replace the handgun so that you don't need to actually kill the person. The reality is that officers use the tazer in situations where the handgun would never be an option. An elderly lady disagreeing with you is not an excuse for several thousand volts, I don't give a shit how much experience you have. The "don't taze me bro" guy is a perfect example - he was being a dick, but it was nothing that 2 officers and a pair of handcuffs couldn't handle.
But hey, if you're the type of guy who thinks that only the police are able to give oversight to the police, then I'm sure we disagree on things more serious than tazer usage.
1) The person buying the article failed to exercise due diligence when he attempted to purchase it from the wrong place. If there's any negligence here it's on him and not the AP.
The AP also needs to do due diligence. When the AP is selling a license to something, they need to do due diligence to make sure that they are actually able to sell what they're trying to sell. If I paste in a copyrighted book, they aren't allowed to sell me a license to reproduce that online (which is what their boilerplate says I have the right to do).
But no, it's not criminal and it's not malicious. It's just lazy. The fact is that if they are giving me a license that says that I am legally allowed to do a certain thing, they need to make sure that those statements are correct.
Based on the way they actually use their tazer, yes I'm inclined to think that they are too quick to rely on it.
The parent raises a valid point. If you are stupid enough to offer me money for a copy of Wagner's Ride of the Valkyries, Thomas Jefferson's or William Shakespeare's writings or anything else in the public domain, why shouldn't I accept your money?
Are you serious? You don't see a problem with the AP selling a "license" to use content that it doesn't own in the first place? What if you go to some random article, say written by the BBC or CNN, and maybe you're not paying attention (I know, journalists not paying attention, it's a stretch but stick with me) and you go to get a license to use that text from the AP, which they happily sell to you and give you a bunch of copyright info etc to use which says that you are legally allowed to post that content. You really don't see an issue there? The AP is taking your money and telling you that they are giving you rights which aren't actually theirs to give in the first place. At best that's gross incompetence, at worst it's fraud.
GoDaddy told them they should have protected themselves better. FWIW, he hacked into the owner's AOL email account in order to get access to their GoDaddy account.
Because shooting them is so much better than tazing them??
You're assuming that, when faced with a difficult situation, a police officer's two options are to 1) shoot the person or 2) taze the person. Many police officers are increasingly taking the view that tazing is justified when the person is disagreeing or arguing with the officer. Neither shooting nor tazing is justified at that point, police need to realize that dialogue is still an option.
It sounds like all of these problems are related to Apple, not the GPL and not the game in particular.
Well, yes. But you can't install it on your iPhone unless you jailbreaked the device or you pay the yearly $99 developer fee.
So what?
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that if you really cared about the "spirit of the GPL" and free software in the first place, that you wouldn't have given Apple your money for their extremely closed device. If the choice is between iPhone and Android, I think it's abundantly clear to anyone that cares about free software that Android is already a much, much more open platform than the iPhone will ever be.
All of this whining over the "ethics" of selling GPL software for the iPhone is just hypocritical nonsense. If you were concerned about free software ethics you wouldn't have an iPhone.
("you" in the general sense of course)
I think $2 is a perfectly reasonable fee for a decent game.
Not only is it reasonable, but it's almost expected to be asked for compensation for porting the game to a new platform. It sounds like he's not charging for the game itself, he's charging for the work in porting it if you want to play it on the iPhone. That sounds completely reasonable to me.
Because A) It restricts you to an -expensive- platform, x86 Mac OS X B) I believe you need to pay Apple I think like $99 to get it on the app store
I might be completely incorrect or misinformed, but I would also imagine that if someone were to submit a duplicate of an existing app for free, even if it were perfectly legal, that Apple would not allow it. Stranger things have happened.
Harsh punishments are driving illegals underground and stopping them from paying taxes
They aren't paying taxes in the first place. They don't want to pay taxes. Hell, I don't want to pay taxes.
Wouldn't it make more sense to say that illegal immigrants who have a job aren't illegal?
You're talking about changing their status to legal instead of just taxing them somehow. There are several problems there. What if an entire family, 2 parents and several small kids, come across and then the father gets a job. Are the wife and kids now legal? What if the father quits his job or gets fired? What if the father comes first, gets a job, then sends for his family? What if he loses his job before the family gets there? If someone moves here and gets a job, are they a citizen also, can they vote now?
I don't think it makes a lot of sense to just say that if you're able to move here and get a job then you're legal to be here. That sounds like rewarding someone for beating the system (and I'm totally pulling this out of my ass, but I don't think any other country has a policy like that). We have all of the processes in place to make it possible for someone to do all of this legally. We have work visas, green cards, etc. I don't see any reason to make concessions when someone wants to do it illegally instead of going through the established procedures. I've heard people complain that the immigration process takes too long, but I've also heard several immigrants say that, even though it takes a while, it's still one of the best immigration systems in the world. This country was essentially founded on legal immigration, there's no excuse for going through the back door and thinking you're still entitled to everything that people who go through the front door are entitled to.
You may be thinking to yourself by this point that I haven't suggested any solution for illegal immigration. I don't really have one, it's not an easy situation to deal with. It would be great if everyone came in through the front door, short of arresting everyone who tries to do otherwise (which itself puts a major burden on law enforcement and defense), it doesn't seem like there's a lot that can be done. It seems like illegal immigration causes problems for everyone, including the immigrants.
Yeah, defense would be an obvious basic necessity. But so are education and healthcare. When immigrants come across the border without declaring themselves, they still expect to use the health and education services that I'm paying for, but they aren't paying taxes to help with the cost. This is the same reason why a year or so ago there was a measure on the ballot to require that a certain percentage of police become fluent in Spanish. That's not something that should be paid for with public funds.
So yeah, when I think "basics" I'm including (public) education, healthcare, and emergency services, all of which come out of public funding and all of which illegal immigrants expect to be able to use without paying for.
I'm trying to distinguish illegal immigrants from legal immigrants, immigrants are perfectly fine and welcome as long as they come in through the front door.
That would be the obvious solution, but it's not possible to enforce.
FYI, mods: any post mentioning illegal immigration is not automatically flamebait.
They're speed cameras, not red light cameras. And yes, it's out of the question to stop speeding down the highway.
This is the same idiotic type of idea as making all the interstate into Toll roads.
I've lived here for 30 years and have yet to come across a single toll road in the state. In fact, toll roads would actually *help* the budget.
Folks don't realize that these people rent and spend here too (often times without the societal expense us "real people" tend to cause society). When you have sweeps, a lack of employment and a general sense of animosity towards those who (in my view) are major contributors to society, they move one state over (they're not moving back to Mexico).
"Major contributors"? Maybe they can start by contributing taxes to help our bottom line. Because they're happy to take dollars for education, healthcare, public safety, etc. $600/month renting an apartment doesn't exactly pay for that, and neither does their complete lack of any income taxes.
Consider that the world GDP is around 50 trillion per year, if these 4 banks go under they take with them 6 years' worth of the WORLD's GDP.
What do you mean they "take it with them"? If they go bankrupt they don't get to keep $296 trillion and it's all of sudden out of the economy, that money goes back into the market and gets used by someone who (in theory) actually has a clue about what they're doing.