I generally agree with you. I'd define 'fact' as an assertion with sufficient demonstrated evidence to lead me to believe that no evidence will be forthcoming to disprove it. That in no way makes it impossible that such evidence may arise, simply that I do not believe it will.
Anyone who thinks facts are permanently immutable and beyond question has failed to sufficiently question reality.
There are some really, really good theories which serve well as facts. But people keep finding exceptions to most of them, requiring a refinement of the "fact".
Is a laptop really a laptop? Probably. But there's always the remote possibility that someone with a large special effects budget is tricking you. It's still a fact, until proven otherwise.
Also, it could be said that a laptop is a pattern of particles and waves that, for the present, persists in a form which can be used to process and display information, but in a few years might well be recycled into something else entirely. Not to mention that all of those pesky electrons keep slipping out of it and have to be replaced.
So, the "fact" of a laptop gets a little more shaky on that level.
A friend of mine *cough cough* scored very very well on standardized tests, including a near-perfect score on the SAT. Sadly this was coupled with some unhappy emotional issues and never really having learned how to study or work particularly hard at intellectual tasks. He finished his public US High School with a B-ish average, top 25% of his class but not top 10%, but on the strength of test scores received acceptance to and a full ride scholarship at a very prestigious and challenging private university. Predictable mayhem ensued, scholarship was terminated, and our protagonist wound up out on his ear. So sad.
Our plucky hero didn't give up, though. (It was a near thing, but the stubborn streak won out.) He attended a community college for a few terms and learned how to study, amongst other things. He then applied to and transferred to a large and well known university, where he excelled, graduating with a Bachelor's degree with honors, and an A average.
Having left academia at long last, he entered the workforce, and found that having learned how to study and work hard were far more important than knowing all the answers to a particular set of questions. After a few years he decided to learn how to program computers, as that seemed like a booming industry. Unfortunately, nothing he had studied back at the university had anything to do with computer science. So he got some books and learned how, and with a certain degree of persistence ended up (so far) working as a software developer, which has enabled him to support a family in a certain degree of comfort, and so forth and so on.
Now - how accurate were those tests at measuring aptitude? Would you measure that by the next year? Or by the next 5 years? Or the next ten? You might get different results.
And how apt were they at measuring the quality of teaching? Did they say anything at all about the quality of the high school? (Which, by the way, was and still is a very highly ranked school.) Did they say anything about the teachers? How do you rate the school and teachers - by the test scores, or by the student's subsequent disaster, or by the eventual long term outcome?
Does the measurement of one student *really* reflect on anything other than that student, and his or her particular context? How much of that context does a teacher or school represent?
Perhaps the tests are quite good at measuring what a student knows at a given point in time, but they do not actually measure how that student got there, or how that student will progress in the following years. I'd suggest that perhaps people are often using the measurements in the wrong context.
Why? Statistics. These measures are useful given a statistically significant sample. One person, one classroom, even one school or even a school district may not be a large enough sample to provide meaningful answers for a question. It really depends on the question.
With that said, this study does provide some interesting data, to be considered in context.
So when you grow a garden, you only grow exactly how much food you need to eat an no more, because producing extra profit is evil right?
Nobody said that.
You seem to not understand what capitalism and free markets are.
Too easy, I'll pass.
You're leaving out the part that says anyone, regardless of class, race, sex, or anything can, if they choose, pursue as much profit as they wish. You don't even have to work if you don't want to. You can choose to sit on a corner and beg like a lot of people do. Capitalism and free markets are essential to freedom.
This is where my BS meter went into the red. This would be true ONLY in a condition of true equality, which condition cannot exist in the real world. In the real world, a noticeable percentage of people lie, cheat, steal, commit violence against each other, discriminate unfairly against people who look, sound, or act different from themselves, and generally are complete bastards whenever they think they can get away with it.
This is why idealistic ideology falls apart in the face of actual events, whether it's capitalism, communism, libertarianism, or benign authoritarianism. All of these theoretical ideals offer important insights, and should be pursued, but should be recognized as measurements, not goals. The human experiment thus far tends to suggest that a balance of competing ideals is the most workable solution. We must learn to recognize that going too far in ANY direction causes more problems than it solves.
Luckily, most of humanity realizes this, and acts accordingly, with local variations and frequent missteps. You know this, yourself, as you proceed to demonstrate:
When government takes my work away from me in the form of taxes and uses it for schools, police, or fire departments, I don't really mind. It beats going out and actually helping build a road myself. Instead of working on a sewer system, I can do other work that I freely choose to do and trade that work in the form of money for a sewer system. Everyone benefits, including me, and I get something in exchange for my work.
Aha! So, what you are saying, I think, is that in some cases the collective good outweighs personal freedom and absolute capitalism. An interesting twist of phrasing, working "freely choose" in there. But an essential recognition of truth at some level.
Under socialism, when government takes my money and gives it to another person without giving me anything in return, that is no different than forcing me to work for that person for free, getting nothing in return. That is the very definition of slavery.
Oh dear, now you contradict yourself. If your house does not catch fire, was your tax money wasted on the fire department? Please step away from the loaded words for a moment. Notice that, sans the "S" word, you just described the same situation as your previous statement, only this time instead of "freely choose" we have "Socialism" (shudder).
So, your defense system, court system, fire service, police service, border guards, etc. etc. are all part of the socialist side of the balance scales, along with the usual "evil socialism" suspects of public financial assistance and health care. It's amusing, in a "makes me want to vomit" sort of way, to hear otherwise generally intelligent people decry one sort of socialism while practically worshiping another sort.
Unfortunately, there are lots of people out there who believe slavery is superior to freedom.
More unfortunately, there are far too many people out there who believe in a fantasy world where you get to, or
Finally, I'm really lazy I admit, but can someone tell me if theres a way to ignore timothy and kdawson stories? Since they obviously are going to keep letting idiots qualify as editors I'd hope that CmdrTaco has given us an opt out method at least.
Yes, there is. Look in your account settings. Down toward the bottom, as I recall.
I wonder what oil and coal would cost if you factored in the damage done by them?
But that cost will be paid by the grandkids (along with the costs of runaway deficits) so who cares, right?
Granted, that doesn't say a thing about the long term costs of any other energy source. But maybe it bears consideration. Sooner or later, the bill comes due.
Units of pirated software installed != Units of lost sales.
Better questions:
How many of those using or at least possessing a pirated copy of a given piece of software would actually pay for it if it were not available in pirate form?
How would that ratio change if the software were priced differently?
If prices were lower, would piracy decrease?
How would profits change in response to the above?
A livable society is dependent upon a balance between those who wish to change society for the better, and those who wish to retain the good things about how it is at present.
All of one and none of the other is a sure road to disaster.
Now, are you able to reason out which side is which?
Note that the person who said that is willfully ignoring all of the talk radio/TV, blogs, and other media that agree with the President's opinions. This is a pretty good example of the ideological isolationism the Pres. was decrying, along with decrying excess distraction.
I believe the point was that the poster has experienced both sides of the matter at hand, namely living with and without certain technologies. Apparently, one can actually survive without said tech, and even enjoy it.
On the other hand, I'm actually replying to an AC, so my credibility just plummeted.
I'm younger than both of you (slightly) and have never owned nor know in other than vague terms how to operate any of the listed devices. I'm neither ignorant, nor insulated and detached. I've simply chosen to do other things.
My teenage son owns an XBox and an iPod, uses them both in reasonable moderation, and seems to be none the worse for it, although some of the other kids his age seem remarkably ignorant of life outside video games and MP3s.
I do think the way the President phrased his ideas could have been better. The quality of his rhetoric has slipped of late, since he had to start actually running an entire superpower. Nonetheless, there are some reasonable points to consider, even if you like using the devices in question.
Chiefly, that if you allow meaningless entertainment to drown out learning, or if you allow one-sided information to drown out legitimate discourse, you will doom yourself to a lesser life than you might otherwise have had.
That does not mean you shouldn't purchase or use those any of those devices. Simply that you should rule your own life, not allow yourself to be ruled by trivial things.
Interesting conversation, with the usual outbursts from haters, apologists, [insert direction here]-wing wackos, and conspiracy-fetishists, most of whom don't seem to have given real thought to anything other than "how do these statements compare to my pre-conceived beliefs".
Given a little context and consideration, I think the president made a few valid points, albeit perhaps awkwardly. First of all, anyone here should know that the internet is full of bad information. (Exhibit A: this discussion.) I think most of us realize that limiting one's input to sources that match our particular prejudices is a road to ignorance. Furthermore, in the years I've been alive and aware, I have from time to time had first hand knowledge of some matter that was reported in the press. In every single case, the article or feature got critical details wrong, not to mention approaching the story from a slanted viewpoint, intentionally or not. Let me repeat that: Every single case.
Apple and Microsoft, of course, might cringe a bit at having their products linked with excessive distraction and information distortion, but that's a marketing and profit concern, not a factual disagreement. They want to sell these devices, hopefully to people who will use them responsibly, but in great numbers regardless.
I won't trouble myself to refute the silly claims people make for any politician's intent. President Obama, and his predecessor, and the one before that, and presidents back as far as I can remember draw forth every possible opinion on every word or facial tic they reveal. Somewhere people got the erroneous notion that the president of the U.S.A. can wave a magic wishing wand and force his personal wish list into reality. Empirical evidence suggests that more often than not, presidents don't get what they wanted. And rightly so.
I did find the quoted passage in the slashdot story summary to be terrifically slanted, as it posited "what the president really meant" rather than what the man really said. But that's one person's opinion, to which he is fully entitled.
So, with that all said, I will now rise up on my soapbox, and take it upon myself to correct the president, and provide greater clarity to this audience.
If you believe everything you read, you are dumb. If you spend all your time reading crappy reporting or slanted opinions, you will become dumber. If you spend more time actually thinking than the time you spend shooting pixel zombies and tweeting your cat's intestinal health events, you will be more productive, and better able to contribute positively to the society in which you live.
On the other hand, sometimes I think people are happier being stupid and misinformed, because, let's face it, it's easier.
As with any game, some like it, some don't. The primary strike against it at the moment is that not enough people play it. Over and over I hear, "If there were more people playing, I'd love this game." There's an obvious remedy, of course...
As may be, I have rather enjoyed playing it for a few years now, off and on. (more on than off) Much more so than other games which released the same year.;-)
The client is a free download, and there's a generous free trial period, so give it a shot, if you think you might enjoy it.
OK, I didn't read all of the responses, so this opinion will inevitably be redundant, there are many like it, but this one is mine.
I am a software developer. I am paid a salary to solve problems and create software. I am not paid a salary to spend X number of hours per day typing code. If I meet or exceed the requirements of my projects, I am golden. If I screw up the projects because I didn't work hard, I am crap.
Some days I work like a fiend, like a bloodhound on the scent. Those days I look up from my computer and say, "oh, hell, when did the sun go down? My wife is gonna kill me..."
Some days I twiddle my thumbs waiting for the pointy haired ones to decide which direction I should go. (Guess which sort of day leaves me reading/.)
Some days I spend walking around outside the office building with problems and potential solutions chasing themselves around my psyche.
Never do I spend a day screwing off doing nothing while a project goes down the tubes, provided there is something for me to do about it.
I don't know what the situation is with your teammates. If the projects are failing and they aren't pulling their load, then in time either they will shape up or or they will be gone. (Perhaps taking the company down with them.... but that's another story.) Meanwhile, you do the best you know how, and don't spend too much time worrying about what others are doing. It will all change soon, anyway. Nature of the business.
When they make an 'Avatar: The Last Airbender', I'll go see that though. There was a lot of good character development and deep issues in that story line despite it being a "kid's show"
Please email me your home address, I would like to come from afar and begin living and farming on your yard, digging mineral resources out of it, drilling and extracting the groundwater until it runs dry, and eradicating annoying pests such as your dog, children, and self, thus justifiably claiming it as my own.
Under the historical system, the distributors dictated the terms to both creator and audience. Both were given the binary choice of 'my way' or 'the highway'. A rare few creators gained enough power to change their terms (e.g. Ray Charles, The Beatles, and such) but the vast majority labored, and continue to labor, in effective indenture. The audience has now begun to seize some measure of power, and as the source of the money, that swings some weight.
You'll find that people with effectively absolute power are loath to relinquish any measure of it, and will leverage that power to maintain it for its own sake. I can't say with certainty that I'd be any different, so be sure not to vote for me if I should ever seek high office.
Oh, definitely. They do choose. In the past, they have had the choice of serve the entrenched system or starve. (Or find a different career.)
These days the choices are just beginning to open up. It's a long way from true freedom of expression and a fair shake for the creator, but something closer to that may be on the horizon. That's really another topic, though.
The standard arguments have been beaten to death, especially here, but here we go again:
1. Breaking copyright law is illegal (duh) but laws vary and are interpreted differently in different jurisdictions, leading to some level of confusion and ambiguity. Nonetheless, the majority of the file sharing we're talking about is simply against the law. Some feel justified in doing it, others don't care, and most just don't understand.
2. Creators are rarely harmed to a measurable degree by file sharing, and in many cases are demonstrably benefited by increased exposure. I'll allow an exception for Metallica, they've no doubt been harmed somewhat by file sharing, maybe 10% as much as they've been harmed by alienating their fanbase. (Statistic pulled from rectum, YMMV)
3. The amount of actual damage to distributors of creative works is very debatable. Statistics offered by either camp are invariably a load of BS. Some people download in lieu of purchase, some harm done. Most download in lieu of ignoring the existence of said work, no measurable harm, and potentially benefit in the form of word of mouth advertisement. As I understand, the business is still making some profit, so it's anyone's guess what the actual plus or minus difference to profit may be.
4. The goal of the media distribution industry in all of this is to maintain an artificial scarcity by force of law and/or fear, in order to artificially prop up a business model which no longer creates value as it once did. In other words, they are trying to keep sucking out every last centavo for as long as they can, by any means. Fair enough, that's what business is for, to make money. Whether that business is useful to the public is a matter of debate, in which we find ourselves engaged.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't believe things just because some book says them.
Also, my belief doesn't impose actuality on anything. (Maybe someday...)
You do realize that everything you believe to be real is simply your brain's way of interpreting energy interactions, right?
I generally agree with you. I'd define 'fact' as an assertion with sufficient demonstrated evidence to lead me to believe that no evidence will be forthcoming to disprove it. That in no way makes it impossible that such evidence may arise, simply that I do not believe it will.
Anyone who thinks facts are permanently immutable and beyond question has failed to sufficiently question reality.
There are some really, really good theories which serve well as facts. But people keep finding exceptions to most of them, requiring a refinement of the "fact".
Is a laptop really a laptop? Probably. But there's always the remote possibility that someone with a large special effects budget is tricking you. It's still a fact, until proven otherwise.
Also, it could be said that a laptop is a pattern of particles and waves that, for the present, persists in a form which can be used to process and display information, but in a few years might well be recycled into something else entirely. Not to mention that all of those pesky electrons keep slipping out of it and have to be replaced.
So, the "fact" of a laptop gets a little more shaky on that level.
Right?
Here's an anecdote:
A friend of mine *cough cough* scored very very well on standardized tests, including a near-perfect score on the SAT. Sadly this was coupled with some unhappy emotional issues and never really having learned how to study or work particularly hard at intellectual tasks. He finished his public US High School with a B-ish average, top 25% of his class but not top 10%, but on the strength of test scores received acceptance to and a full ride scholarship at a very prestigious and challenging private university. Predictable mayhem ensued, scholarship was terminated, and our protagonist wound up out on his ear. So sad.
Our plucky hero didn't give up, though. (It was a near thing, but the stubborn streak won out.) He attended a community college for a few terms and learned how to study, amongst other things. He then applied to and transferred to a large and well known university, where he excelled, graduating with a Bachelor's degree with honors, and an A average.
Having left academia at long last, he entered the workforce, and found that having learned how to study and work hard were far more important than knowing all the answers to a particular set of questions. After a few years he decided to learn how to program computers, as that seemed like a booming industry. Unfortunately, nothing he had studied back at the university had anything to do with computer science. So he got some books and learned how, and with a certain degree of persistence ended up (so far) working as a software developer, which has enabled him to support a family in a certain degree of comfort, and so forth and so on.
Now - how accurate were those tests at measuring aptitude?
Would you measure that by the next year? Or by the next 5 years? Or the next ten? You might get different results.
And how apt were they at measuring the quality of teaching?
Did they say anything at all about the quality of the high school? (Which, by the way, was and still is a very highly ranked school.) Did they say anything about the teachers? How do you rate the school and teachers - by the test scores, or by the student's subsequent disaster, or by the eventual long term outcome?
Does the measurement of one student *really* reflect on anything other than that student, and his or her particular context? How much of that context does a teacher or school represent?
Perhaps the tests are quite good at measuring what a student knows at a given point in time, but they do not actually measure how that student got there, or how that student will progress in the following years. I'd suggest that perhaps people are often using the measurements in the wrong context.
Why? Statistics. These measures are useful given a statistically significant sample. One person, one classroom, even one school or even a school district may not be a large enough sample to provide meaningful answers for a question. It really depends on the question.
With that said, this study does provide some interesting data, to be considered in context.
So when you grow a garden, you only grow exactly how much food you need to eat an no more, because producing extra profit is evil right?
Nobody said that.
You seem to not understand what capitalism and free markets are.
Too easy, I'll pass.
You're leaving out the part that says anyone, regardless of class, race, sex, or anything can, if they choose, pursue as much profit as they wish. You don't even have to work if you don't want to. You can choose to sit on a corner and beg like a lot of people do. Capitalism and free markets are essential to freedom.
This is where my BS meter went into the red. This would be true ONLY in a condition of true equality, which condition cannot exist in the real world. In the real world, a noticeable percentage of people lie, cheat, steal, commit violence against each other, discriminate unfairly against people who look, sound, or act different from themselves, and generally are complete bastards whenever they think they can get away with it.
This is why idealistic ideology falls apart in the face of actual events, whether it's capitalism, communism, libertarianism, or benign authoritarianism. All of these theoretical ideals offer important insights, and should be pursued, but should be recognized as measurements, not goals. The human experiment thus far tends to suggest that a balance of competing ideals is the most workable solution. We must learn to recognize that going too far in ANY direction causes more problems than it solves.
Luckily, most of humanity realizes this, and acts accordingly, with local variations and frequent missteps. You know this, yourself, as you proceed to demonstrate:
When government takes my work away from me in the form of taxes and uses it for schools, police, or fire departments, I don't really mind. It beats going out and actually helping build a road myself. Instead of working on a sewer system, I can do other work that I freely choose to do and trade that work in the form of money for a sewer system. Everyone benefits, including me, and I get something in exchange for my work.
Aha! So, what you are saying, I think, is that in some cases the collective good outweighs personal freedom and absolute capitalism. An interesting twist of phrasing, working "freely choose" in there. But an essential recognition of truth at some level.
Under socialism, when government takes my money and gives it to another person without giving me anything in return, that is no different than forcing me to work for that person for free, getting nothing in return. That is the very definition of slavery.
Oh dear, now you contradict yourself. If your house does not catch fire, was your tax money wasted on the fire department? Please step away from the loaded words for a moment. Notice that, sans the "S" word, you just described the same situation as your previous statement, only this time instead of "freely choose" we have "Socialism" (shudder).
Newsflash: Collective action, in the form of taxation and government services, OF ANY KIND, is a form of "Socialism". Here's a useful set of definitions. See especially definition number one.
So, your defense system, court system, fire service, police service, border guards, etc. etc. are all part of the socialist side of the balance scales, along with the usual "evil socialism" suspects of public financial assistance and health care. It's amusing, in a "makes me want to vomit" sort of way, to hear otherwise generally intelligent people decry one sort of socialism while practically worshiping another sort.
Unfortunately, there are lots of people out there who believe slavery is superior to freedom.
More unfortunately, there are far too many people out there who believe in a fantasy world where you get to, or
Finally, I'm really lazy I admit, but can someone tell me if theres a way to ignore timothy and kdawson stories? Since they obviously are going to keep letting idiots qualify as editors I'd hope that CmdrTaco has given us an opt out method at least.
Yes, there is. Look in your account settings. Down toward the bottom, as I recall.
I wonder what oil and coal would cost if you factored in the damage done by them?
But that cost will be paid by the grandkids (along with the costs of runaway deficits) so who cares, right?
Granted, that doesn't say a thing about the long term costs of any other energy source. But maybe it bears consideration. Sooner or later, the bill comes due.
Postulate:
Units of pirated software installed != Units of lost sales.
Better questions:
How many of those using or at least possessing a pirated copy of a given piece of software would actually pay for it if it were not available in pirate form?
How would that ratio change if the software were priced differently?
If prices were lower, would piracy decrease?
How would profits change in response to the above?
Answers? *shrug*
A livable society is dependent upon a balance between those who wish to change society for the better, and those who wish to retain the good things about how it is at present.
All of one and none of the other is a sure road to disaster.
Now, are you able to reason out which side is which?
Note that the person who said that is willfully ignoring all of the talk radio/TV, blogs, and other media that agree with the President's opinions. This is a pretty good example of the ideological isolationism the Pres. was decrying, along with decrying excess distraction.
I believe the point was that the poster has experienced both sides of the matter at hand, namely living with and without certain technologies. Apparently, one can actually survive without said tech, and even enjoy it.
On the other hand, I'm actually replying to an AC, so my credibility just plummeted.
I'm younger than both of you (slightly) and have never owned nor know in other than vague terms how to operate any of the listed devices. I'm neither ignorant, nor insulated and detached. I've simply chosen to do other things.
My teenage son owns an XBox and an iPod, uses them both in reasonable moderation, and seems to be none the worse for it, although some of the other kids his age seem remarkably ignorant of life outside video games and MP3s.
I do think the way the President phrased his ideas could have been better. The quality of his rhetoric has slipped of late, since he had to start actually running an entire superpower. Nonetheless, there are some reasonable points to consider, even if you like using the devices in question.
Chiefly, that if you allow meaningless entertainment to drown out learning, or if you allow one-sided information to drown out legitimate discourse, you will doom yourself to a lesser life than you might otherwise have had.
That does not mean you shouldn't purchase or use those any of those devices. Simply that you should rule your own life, not allow yourself to be ruled by trivial things.
Interesting conversation, with the usual outbursts from haters, apologists, [insert direction here]-wing wackos, and conspiracy-fetishists, most of whom don't seem to have given real thought to anything other than "how do these statements compare to my pre-conceived beliefs".
Given a little context and consideration, I think the president made a few valid points, albeit perhaps awkwardly. First of all, anyone here should know that the internet is full of bad information. (Exhibit A: this discussion.) I think most of us realize that limiting one's input to sources that match our particular prejudices is a road to ignorance. Furthermore, in the years I've been alive and aware, I have from time to time had first hand knowledge of some matter that was reported in the press. In every single case, the article or feature got critical details wrong, not to mention approaching the story from a slanted viewpoint, intentionally or not. Let me repeat that: Every single case.
Apple and Microsoft, of course, might cringe a bit at having their products linked with excessive distraction and information distortion, but that's a marketing and profit concern, not a factual disagreement. They want to sell these devices, hopefully to people who will use them responsibly, but in great numbers regardless.
I won't trouble myself to refute the silly claims people make for any politician's intent. President Obama, and his predecessor, and the one before that, and presidents back as far as I can remember draw forth every possible opinion on every word or facial tic they reveal. Somewhere people got the erroneous notion that the president of the U.S.A. can wave a magic wishing wand and force his personal wish list into reality. Empirical evidence suggests that more often than not, presidents don't get what they wanted. And rightly so.
I did find the quoted passage in the slashdot story summary to be terrifically slanted, as it posited "what the president really meant" rather than what the man really said. But that's one person's opinion, to which he is fully entitled.
So, with that all said, I will now rise up on my soapbox, and take it upon myself to correct the president, and provide greater clarity to this audience.
If you believe everything you read, you are dumb. If you spend all your time reading crappy reporting or slanted opinions, you will become dumber. If you spend more time actually thinking than the time you spend shooting pixel zombies and tweeting your cat's intestinal health events, you will be more productive, and better able to contribute positively to the society in which you live.
On the other hand, sometimes I think people are happier being stupid and misinformed, because, let's face it, it's easier.
Or, we could extract the energy from falling straw men on slashdot. That appears to be a limitless resource.
There's not a whole lot to strip, especially from the Matis characters.
I expect to see your drafts later this week.
Must be an interesting game.
It is.
As with any game, some like it, some don't. The primary strike against it at the moment is that not enough people play it. Over and over I hear, "If there were more people playing, I'd love this game." There's an obvious remedy, of course...
As may be, I have rather enjoyed playing it for a few years now, off and on. (more on than off) ;-)
Much more so than other games which released the same year.
The client is a free download, and there's a generous free trial period, so give it a shot, if you think you might enjoy it.
I perused the project website, and was pleased to see that they hope to have native clients for OS X and GNU/Linux by year's end.
I'm happy to see efforts in this direction, and hope that it might lead to more gaming options on those client platforms.
More details on these specific plans here: http://dev.ryzom.com/versions/show/15
Return with us now, to those thrilling days of yesteryear...
oh, forget it, that probably means nothing to you anyway.
OK, I didn't read all of the responses, so this opinion will inevitably be redundant, there are many like it, but this one is mine.
I am a software developer. I am paid a salary to solve problems and create software. I am not paid a salary to spend X number of hours per day typing code. If I meet or exceed the requirements of my projects, I am golden. If I screw up the projects because I didn't work hard, I am crap.
Some days I work like a fiend, like a bloodhound on the scent. Those days I look up from my computer and say, "oh, hell, when did the sun go down? My wife is gonna kill me..."
Some days I twiddle my thumbs waiting for the pointy haired ones to decide which direction I should go. (Guess which sort of day leaves me reading /.)
Some days I spend walking around outside the office building with problems and potential solutions chasing themselves around my psyche.
Never do I spend a day screwing off doing nothing while a project goes down the tubes, provided there is something for me to do about it.
I don't know what the situation is with your teammates. If the projects are failing and they aren't pulling their load, then in time either they will shape up or or they will be gone. (Perhaps taking the company down with them.... but that's another story.) Meanwhile, you do the best you know how, and don't spend too much time worrying about what others are doing. It will all change soon, anyway. Nature of the business.
When they make an 'Avatar: The Last Airbender', I'll go see that though. There was a lot of good character development and deep issues in that story line despite it being a "kid's show"
Wish Granted
Please email me your home address, I would like to come from afar and begin living and farming on your yard, digging mineral resources out of it, drilling and extracting the groundwater until it runs dry, and eradicating annoying pests such as your dog, children, and self, thus justifiably claiming it as my own.
Oh, no, you just made me remember Katz! Why?! I had purged that from my forebrain on purpose!
*goes back to drooling and ogling the rest home nurses*
I, for one, welcome our new UID overlords.
Now get off my lawn, all you whippersnappers.
(P.S. I rather enjoyed the nice prose, stately eldavojohn of the flickering blue basement. Thanks.)
Zombies aren't people.
Correct, Soylent Green is.
Under the historical system, the distributors dictated the terms to both creator and audience. Both were given the binary choice of 'my way' or 'the highway'. A rare few creators gained enough power to change their terms (e.g. Ray Charles, The Beatles, and such) but the vast majority labored, and continue to labor, in effective indenture. The audience has now begun to seize some measure of power, and as the source of the money, that swings some weight.
You'll find that people with effectively absolute power are loath to relinquish any measure of it, and will leverage that power to maintain it for its own sake. I can't say with certainty that I'd be any different, so be sure not to vote for me if I should ever seek high office.
Oh, definitely. They do choose. In the past, they have had the choice of serve the entrenched system or starve. (Or find a different career.)
These days the choices are just beginning to open up. It's a long way from true freedom of expression and a fair shake for the creator, but something closer to that may be on the horizon. That's really another topic, though.
The standard arguments have been beaten to death, especially here, but here we go again:
1. Breaking copyright law is illegal (duh) but laws vary and are interpreted differently in different jurisdictions, leading to some level of confusion and ambiguity. Nonetheless, the majority of the file sharing we're talking about is simply against the law. Some feel justified in doing it, others don't care, and most just don't understand.
2. Creators are rarely harmed to a measurable degree by file sharing, and in many cases are demonstrably benefited by increased exposure. I'll allow an exception for Metallica, they've no doubt been harmed somewhat by file sharing, maybe 10% as much as they've been harmed by alienating their fanbase. (Statistic pulled from rectum, YMMV)
3. The amount of actual damage to distributors of creative works is very debatable. Statistics offered by either camp are invariably a load of BS. Some people download in lieu of purchase, some harm done. Most download in lieu of ignoring the existence of said work, no measurable harm, and potentially benefit in the form of word of mouth advertisement. As I understand, the business is still making some profit, so it's anyone's guess what the actual plus or minus difference to profit may be.
4. The goal of the media distribution industry in all of this is to maintain an artificial scarcity by force of law and/or fear, in order to artificially prop up a business model which no longer creates value as it once did. In other words, they are trying to keep sucking out every last centavo for as long as they can, by any means. Fair enough, that's what business is for, to make money. Whether that business is useful to the public is a matter of debate, in which we find ourselves engaged.
5. Change is gonna come.