I'd love a mundane job with no fscking crunch. Every time I send my CV out and apply for a job advertised on Planet Recruit or something, it ends up with an agent who only cares about games jobs.
Nick Michetti that is. Hal Halpin has some decent points.
Michetti seems to have thrown out a load of random ideas which basically amount to "give the games industry lots of tax breaks because I like it like it is".
Obama doesn't care about games. He advertised in games because the campaign had lots of money and the ads were cheap enough to justify. The campaign advertised just about everywhere else too, even places that traditionally are seen as pointless for political ads.
Companies get a fair number of the suggested tax breaks already. Middleware developers don't sell to big companies because they're short of money. They sell up because they're actually doing very well, and the big companies offer the founders a big pot of cash to get a bite of that success.
I agree but for different reasons. Either they thought she deserved a 40 year penalty and have decided to let her off, or they didn't think she deserved that and used a baseless threat to intimidate her.
I can sort of see the argument for plea bargaining down from murder to manslaughter (still disagree but that's a completely different point), but plea bargaining down from 40 years to a minor misdemeanor makes a mockery of the law.
So swear allegiance (if you have to swear to something) to the country.
People seem to like symbols. The monarch is a figurehead. Traditionally most countries would have sworn allegiance to the king or queen as a symbol for their country. This level of patriotism is somewhat anachronistic these days, but a few decades ago, disrespecting the King would have been seen the same way as many Americans see disrespecting the flag.
I don't see anything wrong with swearing allegiance to a symbol as long as people are aware that they're actually swearing allegiance to what the symbol represents.
Because it's the main symbol of the country. Americans have no king to swear allegience to. They don't swear allegiance to the president - that wouldn't make sense considering a large chunk of the electorate voted against him. There's no official religion, and the constitution is quite specific in that, so the best unifying symbol is the flag.
Soul is a bit of a loaded word. I guess we're talking about a sense of self awareness or an aspect of it. Which is something that is really not well understood. I know I have this sense but I can't prove it to you. I assume other people have this same feeling and suspect that my computer does not.
But I can't prove any of this. So how can we determine if a computer has a soul?
Should any provider who hosts a single spammer ever be shut down? If not, how many is the threshold? How accurately can we measure the problem? How accurate is the information? Does McColo have no legitimate customers?
Did you see the story about the women that gave 400,000 dollars?
Yes. They used free webmail services. Do you propose we shut those down?
The fact of the matter is that most spam comes from 10 well known sources.
That leads to a reducto ad absurdum - All spam comes from the internet. Close it down. Obviously we can't because that will cause a lot of harm to others. But so will closing down a host. You need to determine whether the cure is worse than the disease. Without an exact way of measuring the cost of either it's a grey area.
It doesn't matter how many people pirate the game. What matters is how many people pirated the game instead of paying for it. Eliminate piracy and how many of those 80% will actually buy it.
Basic supply and demand says that if you decrease the cost to zero, demand will go up. Experience tells me that many people who have large collections of copied software still buy a considerable amount of media.
And before you all go off and miss the point and go off on one - I'm not trying to justify piracy here. Just pointing out that from a business point off view the percentage piracy rate is a useless statistic.
What REALLY happened is this: Every security hole that MS discovered on its own, was exploited BUT we are supposed to be happy because in 40% of the cases MS correctly predicted that it would be exploited.
No. What happened was this - MS spotted 18 potential security holes. 9 of them were regarded as more serious. A company that focussed on protecting against those 9 would not have been affected at all and would have had less disruption than a company that protected against all 18.
They are offering this as a means to tell their bug fixing department and other companies which areas to prioritize.
Actually that was John Cleese, even posting anon you should give credit where its due.
Actually it originated with One Alan Baxter of Rochester and expanded by other people on Usenet. So if you do give credit where it's due give it where it's actually due.
A little heavy on the false positives but no false negatives so it allowed more efficient targeting of the risk areas. Also good enough to provide useful feedback.
True. Casinos could put big signs all over the place saying "The odds are against you and you will probably lose", and I bet they'd still rake in a profit.
Once you've lost a bit of money, it becomes harder to accept that you've made a mistake. The first payment would have been a few hundred dollars at least, probably a couple of thousand. No small beans by most people's standards. She can either admit to herself that she's wasted the money, or pay the next instalment and convince herself that she'll get the money back.
Certainly it's foolish, but it's a common enough occurrence that there's an expression for it; Throwing good money after bad.
Slashdot Mirror
How do you break out of games?
I'd love a mundane job with no fscking crunch. Every time I send my CV out and apply for a job advertised on Planet Recruit or something, it ends up with an agent who only cares about games jobs.
Nick Michetti that is. Hal Halpin has some decent points.
Michetti seems to have thrown out a load of random ideas which basically amount to "give the games industry lots of tax breaks because I like it like it is".
Obama doesn't care about games. He advertised in games because the campaign had lots of money and the ads were cheap enough to justify. The campaign advertised just about everywhere else too, even places that traditionally are seen as pointless for political ads.
Companies get a fair number of the suggested tax breaks already. Middleware developers don't sell to big companies because they're short of money. They sell up because they're actually doing very well, and the big companies offer the founders a big pot of cash to get a bite of that success.
And used clothing, used furniture, used power tools...
1 FLOPS, 2 FLOPSes, 3 FLOPSeses, 4 FLOPSeseses...
The S stands for "seconds". The singular is therefore "FLOPS".
I agree but for different reasons. Either they thought she deserved a 40 year penalty and have decided to let her off, or they didn't think she deserved that and used a baseless threat to intimidate her.
I can sort of see the argument for plea bargaining down from murder to manslaughter (still disagree but that's a completely different point), but plea bargaining down from 40 years to a minor misdemeanor makes a mockery of the law.
So swear allegiance (if you have to swear to something) to the country.
People seem to like symbols. The monarch is a figurehead. Traditionally most countries would have sworn allegiance to the king or queen as a symbol for their country. This level of patriotism is somewhat anachronistic these days, but a few decades ago, disrespecting the King would have been seen the same way as many Americans see disrespecting the flag.
I don't see anything wrong with swearing allegiance to a symbol as long as people are aware that they're actually swearing allegiance to what the symbol represents.
Because it's the main symbol of the country. Americans have no king to swear allegience to. They don't swear allegiance to the president - that wouldn't make sense considering a large chunk of the electorate voted against him. There's no official religion, and the constitution is quite specific in that, so the best unifying symbol is the flag.
Soul is a bit of a loaded word. I guess we're talking about a sense of self awareness or an aspect of it. Which is something that is really not well understood. I know I have this sense but I can't prove it to you. I assume other people have this same feeling and suspect that my computer does not.
But I can't prove any of this. So how can we determine if a computer has a soul?
Though I disagree with Apple profiting off OSS which they did not initially create
Why not? Most tech companies do this in some way.
Well, they had a good innings.
There is no grey area here.
Sure there is.
Should any provider who hosts a single spammer ever be shut down? If not, how many is the threshold? How accurately can we measure the problem? How accurate is the information? Does McColo have no legitimate customers?
Did you see the story about the women that gave 400,000 dollars?
Yes. They used free webmail services. Do you propose we shut those down?
The fact of the matter is that most spam comes from 10 well known sources.
That leads to a reducto ad absurdum - All spam comes from the internet. Close it down. Obviously we can't because that will cause a lot of harm to others. But so will closing down a host. You need to determine whether the cure is worse than the disease. Without an exact way of measuring the cost of either it's a grey area.
AMD 5x86! 33MHz 4x multiplier. Despite the name it was a 486. CPUID said family was #4.
Was there a DX2/100?
Do you care about the rights of those who may not be spammers but are accused of being so?
Where are the checks and balances in this system?
But legal scare tactics can be scary. This is why they are used.
They could do all sorts of legal shenanigans but since Toyota have so much cash there's always the risk that they'll start a baseless lawsuit.
It doesn't matter how many people pirate the game. What matters is how many people pirated the game instead of paying for it. Eliminate piracy and how many of those 80% will actually buy it.
Basic supply and demand says that if you decrease the cost to zero, demand will go up. Experience tells me that many people who have large collections of copied software still buy a considerable amount of media.
And before you all go off and miss the point and go off on one - I'm not trying to justify piracy here. Just pointing out that from a business point off view the percentage piracy rate is a useless statistic.
What REALLY happened is this: Every security hole that MS discovered on its own, was exploited BUT we are supposed to be happy because in 40% of the cases MS correctly predicted that it would be exploited.
No. What happened was this - MS spotted 18 potential security holes. 9 of them were regarded as more serious. A company that focussed on protecting against those 9 would not have been affected at all and would have had less disruption than a company that protected against all 18.
They are offering this as a means to tell their bug fixing department and other companies which areas to prioritize.
Actually that was John Cleese, even posting anon you should give credit where its due.
Actually it originated with One Alan Baxter of Rochester and expanded by other people on Usenet. So if you do give credit where it's due give it where it's actually due.
A little heavy on the false positives but no false negatives so it allowed more efficient targeting of the risk areas. Also good enough to provide useful feedback.
True. Casinos could put big signs all over the place saying "The odds are against you and you will probably lose", and I bet they'd still rake in a profit.
Perhaps because she's realised she's been stupid and wants to make a clean break. She's confronting her failure and admitting to them.
Those who hide their mistakes and are ashamed of them don't learn from them. Those who admit to their mistakes do.
Once you've lost a bit of money, it becomes harder to accept that you've made a mistake. The first payment would have been a few hundred dollars at least, probably a couple of thousand. No small beans by most people's standards. She can either admit to herself that she's wasted the money, or pay the next instalment and convince herself that she'll get the money back.
Certainly it's foolish, but it's a common enough occurrence that there's an expression for it; Throwing good money after bad.
A lot of us don't actually know what S3 and S4 are.
There is? I thought I was the one writing all these comments? Who's the other guy?
Fair point, but the guidelines are pretty strict.