And the response to that would be, "When the people of China INVENT something for themselves, then they have the right to give it to everyone in China for free. If it comes from outside of China, then the rules of international trade come into play, meaning either individuals in China, or the Chinese government need to pay for it.".
Generally, Beta is when a product is mostly feature complete, and bugs are being fixed prior to release. Now, if you accept this, then the Firefox 4 beta cycle has been more like a late Alpha release since new features were being added from beta version to beta version. From this, is it any wonder there are still bugs in beta 9? The speed improvements in beta 9 clearly are not the result of fixing bugs or removing test code, so I wouldn't be too worried about the bugs we are seeing right now.
The problem that Palm had(prior to the HP buyout), was primarily the lack of advertising and hype surrounding their Pre and Pixi phones. Very very little effort was put in to create the "you MUST have this device" feel that you saw backing the iPhone and "Droid" phones. As a result, the sales numbers were not very good, and a lack of follow-up advertising continued the trend. The initial quality on the Sprint version of the Pre(exclusive through the end of 2009) also left a lot to be desired, even though the device itself really did deserve credit for innovation.
Most people have never heard that induction charging came with the original Palm Pre when it launched, needing only a back cover to support it. That Touchstone back was included with the Pre Plus for both Verizon and AT&T. What this means is you don't have to plug in your phone to charge it. That alone would have gotten the phone a second look by many casual users who don't really NEED a terribly high end phone. The core design being about having your data synced to either Yahoo or Google without needing a computer to back up your information also would draw in many people if they knew about it. While this functionality is available via apps for other devices, the Palm WebOS devices started out with that functionality built in.
Without all the hype, the iPhone would NOT be nearly as popular as it is, and the same goes for Android. They would have their followings, but Verizon has hyped the hell out of the "Droid" phones, which is the primary reason so many people have purchased them. I am not putting down these phones, but the vast majority of iPhone users do not use the phone as more than a combination of phone and iPod. Android also may draw in the technical crowd, but the general public wouldn't consider buying an Android device if advertising and retail sales people were not pushing these products to back up the very expensive advertising.
Poor children and those in third world countries generally are not customers who would be spending money. This is a key point to this whole issue, where the idea that just because there may be thousands or even hundreds of thousands of users does not mean that there is a lot of money that can be gained from that market. Two billion of these machines will still not end up as profitable for software developers as two million regular PCs running MacOS or Windows for that reason.
Apple pushed buying new devices when the iOS 4 update caused older devices to run slower due to the increased memory footprint of the new OS version. Support for older devices only works when the OS improvements will actually benefit those on older devices. A key element in making this work is to have a consistent API for applications where most changes are done behind the scenes. This allows existing applications to continue working with new OS updates, rather than there being a requirement for new software versions every time there is an OS update.
Companies that sell devices want customers to upgrade their devices as often as possible to the latest models. This applies to EVERY company that manufacturers a product, not just phones. Since reliability is a selling point for many things, companies generally do not aim to make products that FAIL after a certain amount of time though, so they are constantly trying different things to encourage users to upgrade to the latest product they offer.
For Apple, they just release one new iPhone each year, and the zelots race out to buy it. For Samsung, they seem to be using the operating system as the way to push users to buy a new device, even if the old devices can handle the new OS version without a problem. It has NOTHING to do with Android, or Google, and is all about people thinking they need to get their updates from the phone manufacturer, rather than directly from the company that makes the OS.
There are two sides to this whole issue, and it is not as simple as some people make it out to be. A phone that COMES with a given OS version is simple to set up, but doing an in-place upgrade without doing a wipe is a LOT more difficult in many cases. For those who have done their own update, doing a backup of their data and possibly making an image of the device(in case the update goes wrong) is always a good idea, since you can break/brick your phone by doing an update not provided by the manufacturer. It is possible that Samsung has been fighting that issue, where doing the update to the latest OS is causing data corruption or problems with installed applications, and that would be a support nightmare.
On the Palm WebOS based devices, there was a permissions issue that caused some problems with the WebOS 1.4.5 update, and it caused a delay in the release of over the air updates. A clean install of the affected apps would have solved the problem, but since most users can't handle the idea of uninstalling apps and then putting them back, it caused the delay. This is the sort of problem that Samsung may be trying to avoid, since the support costs would be high.
In some other countries, people are simply killed, or are given severe enough punishment that it acts to prevent crime. You steal something and are caught, you lose a hand. This means that fewer people are inclined to steal with that sort of punishment. If you do some horrible crime, you don't get put in prison for life, you lose your life.
People in US prisons are also get more than prisoners do in most other countries, which encourages people to stay in prison rather than having to try surviving in society. People whine about human rights here, but honestly, if people are ready to rape and murder, they should be ready to have all of their rights removed, including protection from other criminals.
Tell your boss that the only way that the employees would find this to be a fair request would be for stock options or even outright grants to be offered in exchange for the excessive number of hours worked each week. If employees feel that they will be rewarded for extra effort, they will be willing to put the extra effort in, but without extra pay in SOME form, forcing employees to work more than 40 hours a week is just asking for EVERYONE to leave.
Most applications designed for smartphones(iOS, Android, WebOS, etc...) are fairly small applications that do not have a lot of complexity compared to applications designed for a computer. This means that except for the casual games you find from Popcap or Shockwave, there isn't a direct apples to apples comparison. The Sims 3 for a mobile device or even a console will tend to be a lower end or cut rate version of what is available for a normal computer.
So, there will be price cuts for the casual games, which currently sell for $20 or so, but for anything else, you still have the issue where you won't see the price of ANYTHING drop unless it is very low end.
While the article showed some good examples of things that worked, one thing that is missing is WHY things either work or do not, and an understanding about why any given game is popular is more important than pointing out examples of good and bad sequels.
In games that are clearly story driven, a key to making any sequel work is making sure the sequel has a good story. This may seem like common sense, but many games(and movies) have a great story for one game, but the sequel does not have a great story, so there is less interest in playing through to the end, or there is less satisfaction in playing due to the player not getting involved.
You have the basic "is the game fun to PLAY" issue, where if the game isn't fun to play, it can drag things down a lot. First person shooters for example tend to have very similar gameplay mechanics, with ONLY game engine improvements to keep people interested, because when it comes right down to it, the games are very similar. This links to how good the story in the game is to keep some players interested, but if the engine isn't better, then why not keep playing the older generation of the game? Some games use mini-games that are not very good that cause people to be annoyed, and if the same ones are used over and over again, that does not help.
You also have the issue where a game MUST have acceptable graphics and sound at the time it is released. It is typical that a full game, including engine will take four to six years to develop. Now, for a sequel, if the primary draw is the engine, it had better be more advanced and include improvements in ALL categories. Better here but worse there will end up with a lower score than the previous game in the series. Graphics and sound that is more typical of a game released in 2004 will result in lower popularity as well. For new games, DirectX 10 support as a minimum, taking full advantages of the technology is something of a requirement for graphics.
There are some games that have been released in the past year that failed these things. Civilization 5 is the perfect example of better graphics and better maps not being enough to compensate for poor AI, poor diplomacy options, and a reduction in complexity in many areas(including the tech tree and number/type of units). The main draw in the SERIES has always been DEPTH, combined with how easy it is to learn and understand the basics of gameplay, and when a sequel goes away from that main draw, you end up with a failure.
Now, game developers should not be afraid to try new gameplay elements, but DESIGN experiments can be done without spending all the time needed to perfect the graphics and animations and such, so it should not take four years of full development to discover that certain basic design elements will NOT be fun for players. Some things are fine in moderation, but don't force players to play a weak mini-game 200+ times in one playthrough since that detracts from the enjoyment of the game. Mass Effect 2 is a great sequel, but the mini-games get old VERY fast since the game does not increase or decrease difficulty based on advancement or character/party selection, so there is less of a point to them. The combat areas also are very linear in ME2, but at least the combat itself wasn't worse, and in some ways is better. The reason Mass Effect 2 didn't lose too many points due to the mini-games and poor combat areas is because the primary reasons for ME1 being popular are the characters and story, and the negatives do not cause the game to NOT be fun.
So, to sum all of this up, look at why any given game is popular, and make sure you make those areas the top priority. No one cares if a game has better graphics if the gameplay sucks.
The only real advantage to BASIC is that it allows for some very quick and dirty code to do some VERY VERY basic things. From that perspective, BASIC is better for showing simple concepts such as a "for" loop, or the use of variables. From there, Pascal is a good language to teach programming structure, since it is a bit more obvious about where the beginning and end of each block of code is for loops(begin/ends that are more obvious than {}). C of course has a similar structure to Pascal, but is a bit less verbose, meaning it can be harder to read, and you can miss a } and have problems with tracking down why something is not working properly.
The big issue is in the introduction to programming, and what is the best way to introduce CONCEPTS. Learning how to program when you are 12 or older would be a lot different than learning when you are younger. So, BASIC to teach some simple stuff early on, but then QUICKLY move to either Pascal or C to teach structured programming.
There are some very basic concepts out there when it comes to Internet Service Providers. For many people, an ISP is just an Internet Access Provider to connect people to the Internet, but the reality is that any company that provides a service on the Internet is an ISP. Now, there are some basic things that go back to the early days, before AOL was even really on the Internet, and only had a connection to send e-mail to/from the Internet. First off, if an ISP does not filter content in any way, that company can not be expected to monitor specifically for any given content. They WOULD be expected to help uphold the law and pull content if violations of the law are pointed out to them, but they can not be expected to monitor the activity of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of customers unless there is some reason to suspect illegal activity is going on. The laws of the USA back up this approach since the idea of innocent until proven guilty SHOULD come into play, so a requirement of needing a reason to monitor would be needed.
Things change quite a bit once you start implementing even basic filtering, such as SPAM for e-mail providers, since that system could have certain words set as triggers to identify illegal activity, but that is e-mail and does not apply here. There are many legal and legitimate reasons to want to post files for others to download. Game demos, or even music provided by the artist, and many more things could be hosted by companies like Rapidshare and Megaupload. As a result, the IDEA behind these companies should not be seen as encouraging copyright violations. While some copyright violations may happen, if a copyright holder discovers that there is illegally shared content on that service, they can easily have it removed. This makes it so the SERVICE is not at fault, but individual users/customers might be.
Just because there is the potential for illegal activity does not mean that anything illegal has been done. If you go away on vacation, and while you are gone someone breaks into your home and decides to start selling drugs from your home, should YOU be considered a criminal because you own the home? Unless you KNOW that something is going on in the house, you can't know to have anything done about it. The same applies to people who own rental houses and apartments, you can NOT assume that any illegal activity is being conducted without any evidence, but if you have evidence, you are obviously expected to work with law enforcement.
The fact that the MPAA and RIAA are trying to shut down funding of a company that has not been directly linked to criminal activity should in itself be considered illegal since there should need to be evidence of wrongdoing by the company before financing could be cut. If the MPAA or RIAA point out that there is infringing material, and the company refuses to remove it, THEN further steps might be called for, but in this case, it just seems like the MPAA and RIAA are in the wrong.
This is because consoles are targeted almost exclusively at teenagers, and the concept that ADULTS might want to play games just hasn't gotten through to the console makers or developers. If we can have shows for ADULTS where there are dramas with some sex and violence in them, why can't the game industry seem to make them? True Blood is one show that even if you don't like it, does provide a good mix of drama, sex, violence, without necessarily being ABOUT the sex or violence.
Adults want things that they enjoy, and by not providing it, Microsoft loses out on a lot of potential revenue. There is a huge difference between having some sex, nudity, or violence in games and having a game be based on it. The problem with games today is that game developers are aiming at teenagers, where ONLY sex, or violence focused games seem to be made, or sports or kids games are being made. Think about that for a moment.
Now, look at the movie industry. You have some movies for kids, you have some big action/adventure movies, some horror movies, and then you have dramas, comedies, and then you move into the more "mature" movies. Notice how there is a market for movies that have sex or violence as only a fairly small part of what goes on during the movie. Now, notice that the games industry has decided to cut out most of those types, and focus only on content more suitable for teenagers. There is room for adult-only content in the game world in the same way that there is room for kids games.
Microsoft is not the company that is saying what THEY want to invest in or not, this is Microsoft saying they don't approve of a game made by an independent company that is not getting ANY money from Microsoft. Microsoft should NOT emulate Apple by saying what is or is not appropriate content.
This is what we have seen in the console world, and with the PC gaming selection as well. The perception by game developers seems to be that only games sold to teenagers are selling well, and as a result, more mature content is more difficult to find. Mature does NOT mean breasts everywhere in games, or women running around in the game showing a lot of "skin". It is just that, mature subject matter that can be done in an artistic way where there CAN be nudity and sex, but more as a proper background to the story.
Now, look at some of the more popular shows that have come out over the years on HBO and Showtime. You find nudity, but only in the context of how it falls into the life of the characters, and it generally is kept as just one part of the life of the characters. The Sopranos for example had strip clubs and such, but you didn't see a lot of nudity outside of scenes that took place in a strip club. In other shows, you might have the occasional "mature" scene, but it does not dominate the entire show for content. This is what is lacking in games today, the lack of APPROPRIATE nudity and sex to flesh out the life of the main character that makes the game more appropriate for older players.
At the same time, adult-only content should not be seen as a bad thing if adults are the ones with the content.
On the flip side to this discussion on "mature" content, I want to know why all these people complaining about content in games are not calling for better monitoring of the children, since there are so many stories about sex parties and such by 13-year-olds that it is obvious the parents are not paying attention to what their kids are doing these days.
Those who go to college tend to look forward to the future, and when you see the difficulties in life ahead of time, you will tend to be focused on THAT more than death. The more you have, the less you want it to be taken away as well, so many will pay attention to avoiding losing what they have. Those who have very little overall will tend to be more attached to just staying alive.
Over the past ten years, I have found that FedEx delivers packages that are in the best overall condition compared to the competition. For most packages, we don't worry as much about shifting as much as obvious signs of abuse in transit, and that is a real key. If you send something that is in a box in PERFECT condition, meaning good packaging, solid edges(has never been crushed or abused), and you then wrap it and send it, how many packages sent arrive in reasonable condition?
Now, UPS is the worst about this based on my location here on the east end of Long Island, NY. FedEx on the other hand delivers packages that are as good as most things you buy retail, with no abuse evident. Isn't that what people want, to order something, or ship something, and have it get delivered in GOOD condition?
I have personally shipped items using UPS from California to this area before flying here myself, and was shocked at how bad the boxes themselves looked, even though 8 out of 14 were labeled fragile and had insurance. And yes, the contents were severely damaged in transit. As a result, I have found it is better to pay extra to ship FedEx when possible than to go UPS. I HATE UPS at this point because their organization cares nothing about the customer and you can complain over and over and over again without any results.
The USPS is ok, but it is hit or miss when it comes to how well your packages will be delivered. The system in the northeast USA is far better than it is in the San Francisco Bay area when it comes to getting anything delivered, so it is really hit or miss for handling based on where in the country you are.
People who want to test the quality of service need to take location into account, and the article clearly did not do this. Those living in Kansas may experience a very different experience than those living in the suburbs of New York or Boston.
If the storyline of the game is not interesting enough to make people WANT to see how things turn out, then people won't bother finishing it. In other cases, there are games that are generally good, but then come up with some stupid "action sequence" that just takes away from the fun of the game. Hit left, now jump, roll, right, left, and then you are through the stupid sequence and can get on with the game. This is the sort of thing you see that makes people either get frustrated and give up, or just disgusts people and makes them lose interest.
It is like these "boss encounters" as well, where the player needs to try things over and over and over again, not because of needed skill, but because luck plays into it a bit too often. If the story is not interesting in the first place, then people just stop playing.
Now, there are some ways to help, such as making multiple difficulties so you can make things much easier, but it really just comes down to game design, and some designs just being really poor. If I feel like the entire game is "doing the same thing over and over for no reason", then I just don't enjoy it(which is why I hate first person shooters, because shooting everything that moves bores me to tears). Other ways are to make it so you actually have some choice in playing and the order of events in the game, so if something is too difficult in the early stages of the game, give the player the option of doing that difficult part later, after you have better equipment/abilities.
Another thing that some people like and others hate is being lead by the nose, like playing through a movie and not being able to change ANYTHING. If a game is 100 percent linear, if I like the story I will play through ONCE, but that is it, but if you can change events a bit, then I will play through multiple times to see how my actions change things in later parts of the game. If anything though, people want CHOICES. If you play on the "good" path, you shouldn't end up with the same options as someone who played the "evil" path, and things SHOULD diverge based on the choices you make.
Anyone can comment about a movie, that isn't something that would lead to prosecution or persecution under the law. Putting up movies for others to watch/download without permission on the other hand IS where people run into trouble.
To take the work of others and then reproduce it and give that reproduction to others is NOT free speech. If you memorize the entire script and want to do your own performance, then that would be covered under free speech if the wording is not copyrighted as well.
Have you noticed that many movies, TV shows, and books tell the same basic story over and over again, but use different wording, character names, etc? The reason this is allowed is that you can't copyright a concept, but you can copyright the exact expression of that concept. So, if you personally want to sing a song, or write your own book(without copying from another book), and then want to give it away to the world, THAT is covered under free speech. The information published on the Internet is the same way, you can write your own interpretation of anything and put it online, but you can't take the words of others and claim it as your own without giving due credit.
Think about that a moment, claiming the work of someone else as your own does not mean your claim is covered under the first amendment. The right to say what you want, without fear of prosecution is what is protected, but the act of making an exact duplicate of what others have said is not. There are some exceptions, such as recording a speech made in public being allowed, but you can't make a copy of a recording of that speech without the permission of the person who actually made that recording. There are also clear cases where you are not allowed to make a recording without permission, such as in a concert hall that has restricted/paid admission since the concert is not a "public" concert.
There are also "fair use" rules in play, where you can make PERSONAL copies for yourself, as long as you do not give out those copies. The idea that each person who wants to OWN a copy has to get permission from whoever made the original.
The MPAA and RIAA are there to protect the copyrights of the copyright holders. Now, if you consider that even the lowest budget movie can easily cost over $1 million to make in some cases, I don't see a problem with enforcing copyright for the movie studios when sales of these movies cost $20, give or take. Those who make movies deserve to get paid for their efforts since the expense is in the creation of the movie, and not so much on the distribution side. The RIAA on the other hand is about the music labels, since the recording artists/bands generally get very little money from the recording process.
So, you have a group of hundreds, if not thousands of people who are getting paid for their role in a movie and the creation of the movie. Can you really fault the MPAA for making sure that those who are involved in making illegal copies pay for each copy they have made and given to others? It isn't like the recording industry, where $5000 worth of investment can make millions of dollars in profits for the recording label.
While the first amendment will not stop you from saying anything, it does not say that you may record or redistribute the work/property of others without their consent. You can't copyright a concept, but you can copyright the exact wording of said concept, and that is the real key to any copyright issue. Did YOU make the movie, or sing the song, or write the book that you want to make a copy of and give to others? If you have not done the work, then you should not have the right to make money off the work of others without permission.
Now, most web sites that are out there and offer up copyrighted materials are making money from the advertising space they sell, even if it is not profitable overall. This is EXACTLY what the problem comes down to, making money off the work of others without there being a formal agreement between the source of the materials(authors/copyright holders), and the site that is redistributing said materials. If you work for a company, you have signed a contract that basically says that the company owns the results of your work for that company, and if you leave, you can't take that work with you. It is fair, you have been paid to produce something for the company, and the company reaps the rewards. When it comes to copyright, the same idea applies, where web sites should not make money off the work of others without paying for it up front, or paying as they go for those materials.
The problem with your argument is that you fail to address the differences between film, music, and print media. You also fail to address the problem with royalties and when artists/authors actually get paid for their works over time. The issue that I see is that most people look at the music industry and how bad that industry is as their reason to dislike copyright. In the music industry, the artist generally gets very little money from the sale of recorded music, and has to count on money from performances. This means that those who own the copyright, the recording labels get the money for the terms of copyright, and all of those sales on iTunes do not benefit the artist. Most people don't have a problem with the idea of stealing from record labels when it doesn't hurt the person who writes/sings/performs.
Film on the other hand is far more expensive to make and distribute. How many thousands of people are involved in making each movie, and the movie studios pay all those people before any revenues come in at the box office or from DVD/BluRay sales. Considering the cost of a movie tends to be the same as a music CD, most people should see why the MPAA really does have a fair argument since a movie that does not do well at the box office will often LOSE money for the movie studio. From that point of view, movie studios need to bring in as much money as they can, just so they can afford to continue to bring out new movies, the good with the bad.
Then you have books and print media. If an author releasing a great "best selling" book, it is very possible that will be the only book that author will write. Now, if other people enjoy that book and others want to read that book, why shouldn't the author make money for the rest of his/her life from each sale of the book? Seriously, if you like something enough to want to download it, doesn't the author deserve money? Many people spend $5-$15 a day on food, so if a book that you buy and can read for years on end costs you in that same price range, why shouldn't the author make money from each new person who wants his/her own copy?
Going back, the only people who really dislike copyright are those who want something for free, or disagree with the prices. The music industry is really the one area that ENCOURAGES music copyright infringement since most music artists don't make money off the sale of CDs.
The purpose of a benchmark is to try to show how performance will be in the real world. If a given application has been programmed to do very well in a given benchmark yet does not do as well with a real-world situation, then the benchmark results are flawed. The idea of coding an application just to have good benchmark numbers that would not be seen in the real world is considered cheating. In this case, we are talking about JavaScript speeds, so you would be very surprised if you believed that IE 9 was really fast due to the benchmark results, yet was really slow going to other sites that use JavaScript.
Slashdot Mirror
And the response to that would be, "When the people of China INVENT something for themselves, then they have the right to give it to everyone in China for free. If it comes from outside of China, then the rules of international trade come into play, meaning either individuals in China, or the Chinese government need to pay for it.".
Generally, Beta is when a product is mostly feature complete, and bugs are being fixed prior to release. Now, if you accept this, then the Firefox 4 beta cycle has been more like a late Alpha release since new features were being added from beta version to beta version. From this, is it any wonder there are still bugs in beta 9? The speed improvements in beta 9 clearly are not the result of fixing bugs or removing test code, so I wouldn't be too worried about the bugs we are seeing right now.
The problem that Palm had(prior to the HP buyout), was primarily the lack of advertising and hype surrounding their Pre and Pixi phones. Very very little effort was put in to create the "you MUST have this device" feel that you saw backing the iPhone and "Droid" phones. As a result, the sales numbers were not very good, and a lack of follow-up advertising continued the trend. The initial quality on the Sprint version of the Pre(exclusive through the end of 2009) also left a lot to be desired, even though the device itself really did deserve credit for innovation.
Most people have never heard that induction charging came with the original Palm Pre when it launched, needing only a back cover to support it. That Touchstone back was included with the Pre Plus for both Verizon and AT&T. What this means is you don't have to plug in your phone to charge it. That alone would have gotten the phone a second look by many casual users who don't really NEED a terribly high end phone. The core design being about having your data synced to either Yahoo or Google without needing a computer to back up your information also would draw in many people if they knew about it. While this functionality is available via apps for other devices, the Palm WebOS devices started out with that functionality built in.
Without all the hype, the iPhone would NOT be nearly as popular as it is, and the same goes for Android. They would have their followings, but Verizon has hyped the hell out of the "Droid" phones, which is the primary reason so many people have purchased them. I am not putting down these phones, but the vast majority of iPhone users do not use the phone as more than a combination of phone and iPod. Android also may draw in the technical crowd, but the general public wouldn't consider buying an Android device if advertising and retail sales people were not pushing these products to back up the very expensive advertising.
Poor children and those in third world countries generally are not customers who would be spending money. This is a key point to this whole issue, where the idea that just because there may be thousands or even hundreds of thousands of users does not mean that there is a lot of money that can be gained from that market. Two billion of these machines will still not end up as profitable for software developers as two million regular PCs running MacOS or Windows for that reason.
Apple pushed buying new devices when the iOS 4 update caused older devices to run slower due to the increased memory footprint of the new OS version. Support for older devices only works when the OS improvements will actually benefit those on older devices. A key element in making this work is to have a consistent API for applications where most changes are done behind the scenes. This allows existing applications to continue working with new OS updates, rather than there being a requirement for new software versions every time there is an OS update.
Companies that sell devices want customers to upgrade their devices as often as possible to the latest models. This applies to EVERY company that manufacturers a product, not just phones. Since reliability is a selling point for many things, companies generally do not aim to make products that FAIL after a certain amount of time though, so they are constantly trying different things to encourage users to upgrade to the latest product they offer.
For Apple, they just release one new iPhone each year, and the zelots race out to buy it. For Samsung, they seem to be using the operating system as the way to push users to buy a new device, even if the old devices can handle the new OS version without a problem. It has NOTHING to do with Android, or Google, and is all about people thinking they need to get their updates from the phone manufacturer, rather than directly from the company that makes the OS.
There are two sides to this whole issue, and it is not as simple as some people make it out to be. A phone that COMES with a given OS version is simple to set up, but doing an in-place upgrade without doing a wipe is a LOT more difficult in many cases. For those who have done their own update, doing a backup of their data and possibly making an image of the device(in case the update goes wrong) is always a good idea, since you can break/brick your phone by doing an update not provided by the manufacturer. It is possible that Samsung has been fighting that issue, where doing the update to the latest OS is causing data corruption or problems with installed applications, and that would be a support nightmare.
On the Palm WebOS based devices, there was a permissions issue that caused some problems with the WebOS 1.4.5 update, and it caused a delay in the release of over the air updates. A clean install of the affected apps would have solved the problem, but since most users can't handle the idea of uninstalling apps and then putting them back, it caused the delay. This is the sort of problem that Samsung may be trying to avoid, since the support costs would be high.
In some other countries, people are simply killed, or are given severe enough punishment that it acts to prevent crime. You steal something and are caught, you lose a hand. This means that fewer people are inclined to steal with that sort of punishment. If you do some horrible crime, you don't get put in prison for life, you lose your life.
People in US prisons are also get more than prisoners do in most other countries, which encourages people to stay in prison rather than having to try surviving in society. People whine about human rights here, but honestly, if people are ready to rape and murder, they should be ready to have all of their rights removed, including protection from other criminals.
Tell your boss that the only way that the employees would find this to be a fair request would be for stock options or even outright grants to be offered in exchange for the excessive number of hours worked each week. If employees feel that they will be rewarded for extra effort, they will be willing to put the extra effort in, but without extra pay in SOME form, forcing employees to work more than 40 hours a week is just asking for EVERYONE to leave.
Most applications designed for smartphones(iOS, Android, WebOS, etc...) are fairly small applications that do not have a lot of complexity compared to applications designed for a computer. This means that except for the casual games you find from Popcap or Shockwave, there isn't a direct apples to apples comparison. The Sims 3 for a mobile device or even a console will tend to be a lower end or cut rate version of what is available for a normal computer.
So, there will be price cuts for the casual games, which currently sell for $20 or so, but for anything else, you still have the issue where you won't see the price of ANYTHING drop unless it is very low end.
While the article showed some good examples of things that worked, one thing that is missing is WHY things either work or do not, and an understanding about why any given game is popular is more important than pointing out examples of good and bad sequels.
In games that are clearly story driven, a key to making any sequel work is making sure the sequel has a good story. This may seem like common sense, but many games(and movies) have a great story for one game, but the sequel does not have a great story, so there is less interest in playing through to the end, or there is less satisfaction in playing due to the player not getting involved.
You have the basic "is the game fun to PLAY" issue, where if the game isn't fun to play, it can drag things down a lot. First person shooters for example tend to have very similar gameplay mechanics, with ONLY game engine improvements to keep people interested, because when it comes right down to it, the games are very similar. This links to how good the story in the game is to keep some players interested, but if the engine isn't better, then why not keep playing the older generation of the game? Some games use mini-games that are not very good that cause people to be annoyed, and if the same ones are used over and over again, that does not help.
You also have the issue where a game MUST have acceptable graphics and sound at the time it is released. It is typical that a full game, including engine will take four to six years to develop. Now, for a sequel, if the primary draw is the engine, it had better be more advanced and include improvements in ALL categories. Better here but worse there will end up with a lower score than the previous game in the series. Graphics and sound that is more typical of a game released in 2004 will result in lower popularity as well. For new games, DirectX 10 support as a minimum, taking full advantages of the technology is something of a requirement for graphics.
There are some games that have been released in the past year that failed these things. Civilization 5 is the perfect example of better graphics and better maps not being enough to compensate for poor AI, poor diplomacy options, and a reduction in complexity in many areas(including the tech tree and number/type of units). The main draw in the SERIES has always been DEPTH, combined with how easy it is to learn and understand the basics of gameplay, and when a sequel goes away from that main draw, you end up with a failure.
Now, game developers should not be afraid to try new gameplay elements, but DESIGN experiments can be done without spending all the time needed to perfect the graphics and animations and such, so it should not take four years of full development to discover that certain basic design elements will NOT be fun for players. Some things are fine in moderation, but don't force players to play a weak mini-game 200+ times in one playthrough since that detracts from the enjoyment of the game. Mass Effect 2 is a great sequel, but the mini-games get old VERY fast since the game does not increase or decrease difficulty based on advancement or character/party selection, so there is less of a point to them. The combat areas also are very linear in ME2, but at least the combat itself wasn't worse, and in some ways is better. The reason Mass Effect 2 didn't lose too many points due to the mini-games and poor combat areas is because the primary reasons for ME1 being popular are the characters and story, and the negatives do not cause the game to NOT be fun.
So, to sum all of this up, look at why any given game is popular, and make sure you make those areas the top priority. No one cares if a game has better graphics if the gameplay sucks.
The only real advantage to BASIC is that it allows for some very quick and dirty code to do some VERY VERY basic things. From that perspective, BASIC is better for showing simple concepts such as a "for" loop, or the use of variables. From there, Pascal is a good language to teach programming structure, since it is a bit more obvious about where the beginning and end of each block of code is for loops(begin/ends that are more obvious than {}). C of course has a similar structure to Pascal, but is a bit less verbose, meaning it can be harder to read, and you can miss a } and have problems with tracking down why something is not working properly.
The big issue is in the introduction to programming, and what is the best way to introduce CONCEPTS. Learning how to program when you are 12 or older would be a lot different than learning when you are younger. So, BASIC to teach some simple stuff early on, but then QUICKLY move to either Pascal or C to teach structured programming.
WikiLeaks can be shown to have broken a number of laws, which would back up having financing removed.
There are some very basic concepts out there when it comes to Internet Service Providers. For many people, an ISP is just an Internet Access Provider to connect people to the Internet, but the reality is that any company that provides a service on the Internet is an ISP. Now, there are some basic things that go back to the early days, before AOL was even really on the Internet, and only had a connection to send e-mail to/from the Internet. First off, if an ISP does not filter content in any way, that company can not be expected to monitor specifically for any given content. They WOULD be expected to help uphold the law and pull content if violations of the law are pointed out to them, but they can not be expected to monitor the activity of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of customers unless there is some reason to suspect illegal activity is going on. The laws of the USA back up this approach since the idea of innocent until proven guilty SHOULD come into play, so a requirement of needing a reason to monitor would be needed.
Things change quite a bit once you start implementing even basic filtering, such as SPAM for e-mail providers, since that system could have certain words set as triggers to identify illegal activity, but that is e-mail and does not apply here. There are many legal and legitimate reasons to want to post files for others to download. Game demos, or even music provided by the artist, and many more things could be hosted by companies like Rapidshare and Megaupload. As a result, the IDEA behind these companies should not be seen as encouraging copyright violations. While some copyright violations may happen, if a copyright holder discovers that there is illegally shared content on that service, they can easily have it removed. This makes it so the SERVICE is not at fault, but individual users/customers might be.
Just because there is the potential for illegal activity does not mean that anything illegal has been done. If you go away on vacation, and while you are gone someone breaks into your home and decides to start selling drugs from your home, should YOU be considered a criminal because you own the home? Unless you KNOW that something is going on in the house, you can't know to have anything done about it. The same applies to people who own rental houses and apartments, you can NOT assume that any illegal activity is being conducted without any evidence, but if you have evidence, you are obviously expected to work with law enforcement.
The fact that the MPAA and RIAA are trying to shut down funding of a company that has not been directly linked to criminal activity should in itself be considered illegal since there should need to be evidence of wrongdoing by the company before financing could be cut. If the MPAA or RIAA point out that there is infringing material, and the company refuses to remove it, THEN further steps might be called for, but in this case, it just seems like the MPAA and RIAA are in the wrong.
This is because consoles are targeted almost exclusively at teenagers, and the concept that ADULTS might want to play games just hasn't gotten through to the console makers or developers. If we can have shows for ADULTS where there are dramas with some sex and violence in them, why can't the game industry seem to make them? True Blood is one show that even if you don't like it, does provide a good mix of drama, sex, violence, without necessarily being ABOUT the sex or violence.
Adults want things that they enjoy, and by not providing it, Microsoft loses out on a lot of potential revenue. There is a huge difference between having some sex, nudity, or violence in games and having a game be based on it. The problem with games today is that game developers are aiming at teenagers, where ONLY sex, or violence focused games seem to be made, or sports or kids games are being made. Think about that for a moment.
Now, look at the movie industry. You have some movies for kids, you have some big action/adventure movies, some horror movies, and then you have dramas, comedies, and then you move into the more "mature" movies. Notice how there is a market for movies that have sex or violence as only a fairly small part of what goes on during the movie. Now, notice that the games industry has decided to cut out most of those types, and focus only on content more suitable for teenagers. There is room for adult-only content in the game world in the same way that there is room for kids games.
Microsoft is not the company that is saying what THEY want to invest in or not, this is Microsoft saying they don't approve of a game made by an independent company that is not getting ANY money from Microsoft. Microsoft should NOT emulate Apple by saying what is or is not appropriate content.
This is what we have seen in the console world, and with the PC gaming selection as well. The perception by game developers seems to be that only games sold to teenagers are selling well, and as a result, more mature content is more difficult to find. Mature does NOT mean breasts everywhere in games, or women running around in the game showing a lot of "skin". It is just that, mature subject matter that can be done in an artistic way where there CAN be nudity and sex, but more as a proper background to the story.
Now, look at some of the more popular shows that have come out over the years on HBO and Showtime. You find nudity, but only in the context of how it falls into the life of the characters, and it generally is kept as just one part of the life of the characters. The Sopranos for example had strip clubs and such, but you didn't see a lot of nudity outside of scenes that took place in a strip club. In other shows, you might have the occasional "mature" scene, but it does not dominate the entire show for content. This is what is lacking in games today, the lack of APPROPRIATE nudity and sex to flesh out the life of the main character that makes the game more appropriate for older players.
At the same time, adult-only content should not be seen as a bad thing if adults are the ones with the content.
On the flip side to this discussion on "mature" content, I want to know why all these people complaining about content in games are not calling for better monitoring of the children, since there are so many stories about sex parties and such by 13-year-olds that it is obvious the parents are not paying attention to what their kids are doing these days.
Those who go to college tend to look forward to the future, and when you see the difficulties in life ahead of time, you will tend to be focused on THAT more than death. The more you have, the less you want it to be taken away as well, so many will pay attention to avoiding losing what they have. Those who have very little overall will tend to be more attached to just staying alive.
Over the past ten years, I have found that FedEx delivers packages that are in the best overall condition compared to the competition. For most packages, we don't worry as much about shifting as much as obvious signs of abuse in transit, and that is a real key. If you send something that is in a box in PERFECT condition, meaning good packaging, solid edges(has never been crushed or abused), and you then wrap it and send it, how many packages sent arrive in reasonable condition?
Now, UPS is the worst about this based on my location here on the east end of Long Island, NY. FedEx on the other hand delivers packages that are as good as most things you buy retail, with no abuse evident. Isn't that what people want, to order something, or ship something, and have it get delivered in GOOD condition?
I have personally shipped items using UPS from California to this area before flying here myself, and was shocked at how bad the boxes themselves looked, even though 8 out of 14 were labeled fragile and had insurance. And yes, the contents were severely damaged in transit. As a result, I have found it is better to pay extra to ship FedEx when possible than to go UPS. I HATE UPS at this point because their organization cares nothing about the customer and you can complain over and over and over again without any results.
The USPS is ok, but it is hit or miss when it comes to how well your packages will be delivered. The system in the northeast USA is far better than it is in the San Francisco Bay area when it comes to getting anything delivered, so it is really hit or miss for handling based on where in the country you are.
People who want to test the quality of service need to take location into account, and the article clearly did not do this. Those living in Kansas may experience a very different experience than those living in the suburbs of New York or Boston.
If the storyline of the game is not interesting enough to make people WANT to see how things turn out, then people won't bother finishing it. In other cases, there are games that are generally good, but then come up with some stupid "action sequence" that just takes away from the fun of the game. Hit left, now jump, roll, right, left, and then you are through the stupid sequence and can get on with the game. This is the sort of thing you see that makes people either get frustrated and give up, or just disgusts people and makes them lose interest.
It is like these "boss encounters" as well, where the player needs to try things over and over and over again, not because of needed skill, but because luck plays into it a bit too often. If the story is not interesting in the first place, then people just stop playing.
Now, there are some ways to help, such as making multiple difficulties so you can make things much easier, but it really just comes down to game design, and some designs just being really poor. If I feel like the entire game is "doing the same thing over and over for no reason", then I just don't enjoy it(which is why I hate first person shooters, because shooting everything that moves bores me to tears). Other ways are to make it so you actually have some choice in playing and the order of events in the game, so if something is too difficult in the early stages of the game, give the player the option of doing that difficult part later, after you have better equipment/abilities.
Another thing that some people like and others hate is being lead by the nose, like playing through a movie and not being able to change ANYTHING. If a game is 100 percent linear, if I like the story I will play through ONCE, but that is it, but if you can change events a bit, then I will play through multiple times to see how my actions change things in later parts of the game. If anything though, people want CHOICES. If you play on the "good" path, you shouldn't end up with the same options as someone who played the "evil" path, and things SHOULD diverge based on the choices you make.
Anyone can comment about a movie, that isn't something that would lead to prosecution or persecution under the law. Putting up movies for others to watch/download without permission on the other hand IS where people run into trouble.
To take the work of others and then reproduce it and give that reproduction to others is NOT free speech. If you memorize the entire script and want to do your own performance, then that would be covered under free speech if the wording is not copyrighted as well.
Have you noticed that many movies, TV shows, and books tell the same basic story over and over again, but use different wording, character names, etc? The reason this is allowed is that you can't copyright a concept, but you can copyright the exact expression of that concept. So, if you personally want to sing a song, or write your own book(without copying from another book), and then want to give it away to the world, THAT is covered under free speech. The information published on the Internet is the same way, you can write your own interpretation of anything and put it online, but you can't take the words of others and claim it as your own without giving due credit.
Think about that a moment, claiming the work of someone else as your own does not mean your claim is covered under the first amendment. The right to say what you want, without fear of prosecution is what is protected, but the act of making an exact duplicate of what others have said is not. There are some exceptions, such as recording a speech made in public being allowed, but you can't make a copy of a recording of that speech without the permission of the person who actually made that recording. There are also clear cases where you are not allowed to make a recording without permission, such as in a concert hall that has restricted/paid admission since the concert is not a "public" concert.
There are also "fair use" rules in play, where you can make PERSONAL copies for yourself, as long as you do not give out those copies. The idea that each person who wants to OWN a copy has to get permission from whoever made the original.
The MPAA and RIAA are there to protect the copyrights of the copyright holders. Now, if you consider that even the lowest budget movie can easily cost over $1 million to make in some cases, I don't see a problem with enforcing copyright for the movie studios when sales of these movies cost $20, give or take. Those who make movies deserve to get paid for their efforts since the expense is in the creation of the movie, and not so much on the distribution side. The RIAA on the other hand is about the music labels, since the recording artists/bands generally get very little money from the recording process.
So, you have a group of hundreds, if not thousands of people who are getting paid for their role in a movie and the creation of the movie. Can you really fault the MPAA for making sure that those who are involved in making illegal copies pay for each copy they have made and given to others? It isn't like the recording industry, where $5000 worth of investment can make millions of dollars in profits for the recording label.
While the first amendment will not stop you from saying anything, it does not say that you may record or redistribute the work/property of others without their consent. You can't copyright a concept, but you can copyright the exact wording of said concept, and that is the real key to any copyright issue. Did YOU make the movie, or sing the song, or write the book that you want to make a copy of and give to others? If you have not done the work, then you should not have the right to make money off the work of others without permission.
Now, most web sites that are out there and offer up copyrighted materials are making money from the advertising space they sell, even if it is not profitable overall. This is EXACTLY what the problem comes down to, making money off the work of others without there being a formal agreement between the source of the materials(authors/copyright holders), and the site that is redistributing said materials. If you work for a company, you have signed a contract that basically says that the company owns the results of your work for that company, and if you leave, you can't take that work with you. It is fair, you have been paid to produce something for the company, and the company reaps the rewards. When it comes to copyright, the same idea applies, where web sites should not make money off the work of others without paying for it up front, or paying as they go for those materials.
The problem with your argument is that you fail to address the differences between film, music, and print media. You also fail to address the problem with royalties and when artists/authors actually get paid for their works over time. The issue that I see is that most people look at the music industry and how bad that industry is as their reason to dislike copyright. In the music industry, the artist generally gets very little money from the sale of recorded music, and has to count on money from performances. This means that those who own the copyright, the recording labels get the money for the terms of copyright, and all of those sales on iTunes do not benefit the artist. Most people don't have a problem with the idea of stealing from record labels when it doesn't hurt the person who writes/sings/performs.
Film on the other hand is far more expensive to make and distribute. How many thousands of people are involved in making each movie, and the movie studios pay all those people before any revenues come in at the box office or from DVD/BluRay sales. Considering the cost of a movie tends to be the same as a music CD, most people should see why the MPAA really does have a fair argument since a movie that does not do well at the box office will often LOSE money for the movie studio. From that point of view, movie studios need to bring in as much money as they can, just so they can afford to continue to bring out new movies, the good with the bad.
Then you have books and print media. If an author releasing a great "best selling" book, it is very possible that will be the only book that author will write. Now, if other people enjoy that book and others want to read that book, why shouldn't the author make money for the rest of his/her life from each sale of the book? Seriously, if you like something enough to want to download it, doesn't the author deserve money? Many people spend $5-$15 a day on food, so if a book that you buy and can read for years on end costs you in that same price range, why shouldn't the author make money from each new person who wants his/her own copy?
Going back, the only people who really dislike copyright are those who want something for free, or disagree with the prices. The music industry is really the one area that ENCOURAGES music copyright infringement since most music artists don't make money off the sale of CDs.
The purpose of a benchmark is to try to show how performance will be in the real world. If a given application has been programmed to do very well in a given benchmark yet does not do as well with a real-world situation, then the benchmark results are flawed. The idea of coding an application just to have good benchmark numbers that would not be seen in the real world is considered cheating. In this case, we are talking about JavaScript speeds, so you would be very surprised if you believed that IE 9 was really fast due to the benchmark results, yet was really slow going to other sites that use JavaScript.