Well, that's the rub, isn't it? The TV is not supposed to be a recording device.
Preamble... Yes, I abhor this functionality personally, and I think these devices should ship with a giant caution tape banner stuck to the screen explicitly declaring "we're spying on you. Yes, now." But...
That's not actually accurate in this case. The product in question isn't a TV. It's a "Smart TV". As in, a television with other functions. A person who buys one of these paid a premium for those extra functions.
You're mostly right. I'm sure they have a very detailed plan for what features to remove at each release. By end-of-year 2017 the goal is to have Firefox resemble Notepad, only without mouse, keyboard, or clipboard input support.
I didn't say anything about forgiveness. You can't forgive people that haven't even been accused other than by a mob. Forgive them for what? For somebody falsely claiming they were convicted, or equivalent? For somebody else claiming they somehow need forgiveness for a mob having formed? Sounds like history class in Salem, MA to me.
The whole idea that forgiveness is involved is the same offensive immoral unethical bullshit as the rest of the mob. And you even try to push it off on me, claiming I talked about forgiveness. No, you did not understand my words; even though they were literal.
And if Steve Jobs murdered a unicorn or something, I'm sure the whole mob would be blaming this guy, or some other random employee who had to write an email promising to kiss his ass. iPhones in hand. I'll bet over 50% of the whiny editors are still actively paying money to the companies responsible for the crimes they believe took place. I guess it helps to resolve their cognitive dissonance to blame this guy, since he doesn't work there anymore. Or maybe, he isn't to blame for the sins of Jobs. And BTW, a mob doesn't form if you say the name Steve Jobs. A crowd of groupies and well-wishers is all that forms. Hmmmm, curious, isn't it?
Let's start at the beginning, shall we?
ME: "The guy who just got out of jail for mass-murder..." and "maybe let's all agree that "passenger airline pilot" isn't the job for him."
YOU: "No. If there isn't a clear condition of his release that prohibits him from flying an airplane, and you're worried about it, the thing to do would be to agree to make a new rule that people convicted of that crime can't be airline pilots."
There is no mob. You made it up. There's an individual who was tried, convicted, and did his time for a crime. There's my assertion that said individual is not the ideal candidate for certain positions. There's you disagreeing with that being correct.
That's it. That's where I'm getting a sense that you're arguing for forgiveness from. I don't think you need a law forbidding people with criminal records from being pilots. If the crime was drug-trafficking or robbery or even assault, it may not be a big deal. I made the example of mass-murder. Someone who's deliberately killed several people. Giving such a person a position where they're enabled to do the same again... unwise. That's it. That's all I've ever been saying. The specific crime and the specific job don't mesh well. It's a judgement call, and it should be made by the employer, not congress. At least I think so.
So again, I'm still not talking about the single, specific example this story was about. I was trying to set the stage that discrimination based on previous wrongdoing isn't universally a bad thing. It may - in some cases - be sensible. Of course, I'd have to study the hell out of the specific case in question to be able to have an (rational, informed) opinion on its merits, but I haven't, and thus I haven't (an opinion).
I did reply to what you said; you didn't address the response, or even begin to. You did not show that you understood my position, and yet you seem to be requesting that I change my view, or claiming my position is incorrect.
It is clear you cannot comprehend the words that I have said, and are not willing to even consider the ethical issues involved in the situation. Too bad.
What? Something, somewhere is failing to get communicated.
"You're not going to convince the majority of educated modern humans that unproven accusations of something horrible counts as a proof of something horrible. And when that type of accusation exists, it is irrational to expect people who demand a trial before the sentencing to suddenly drop their demand.
The mob is just screaming and wailing, and won't stop soon, but wikipedia's board has to respond in a way that is actually ethical, using the ethical principles that human societies agree to. That includes things like being innocent until proven guilty. Ultimately, there is no ethical dilemma in letting editors quit over it; they have that right. But giving the protesters what they ask for in this case would be illegal; and ironically it would violate employment ethics in a well-established way. Serious analysis does not land this protest on the side of supporting workers rights. It is where you want to be, but it isn't where you are."
ALL of this stuff is in regards to two things: 1) "accusations", and 2) this specific case. As I said in my prior reply, I'm discussing 1) convicted individuals where there is no sign of wrongful conviction or special circumstances and 2) the concept of universal forgiveness you're espousing, not the specific case. So that's why I didn't reply to any of it. It's not what I'm discussing. It's what I'm not not discussing. So I remain in the dark what your views actually are on the topics that I've been engaging.
See, if there's no grounds for agreement on the general principle, then there's no grounds for agreement on the specific case. No point arguing the specific without establishing the general. Shrug.
You disbelieve that we won't agree to what you say, but you offer no reason for me to change my view. Seems highly irrational to me.
I've clarified. I've quantified. I've made explicit provision for questionable or wrong convictions. I've also been abundantly clear that I'm sparring with you over the principle and concept here, not the specific case that has inspired the debate.
That's not enough for you to even reply to what I've said.
I remain unconvinced that you'd unflinchingly hire someone convicted of elder-abuse to provide care for say... your mother. Because that's what I'm engaging you on here. Your professed standpoint that once someone has done time, all must be forgotten and forgiven. That's what I'm engaging. That's what I fail to believe.
Why? Because the word recidivist exists for a reason. Given the choice between two candidates, it's statistically foolish, unwise, and silly to not prefer the candidate who does not have a history of being irresponsible in the position you are considering them for. The math dictates your correct choice. Sure, it may be Jesus-like to turn the other cheek, but it's the dumb choice, and your statistically-averaged-mother won't thank you for it statistically-averaged-more of the time than she would if you hadn't made it.
I'm not trying to be a knob... I'm genuinely interested in a} where our communication is falling down or b} if it isn't, what makes you tick.
I'm sorry. I don't believe you. I'm sure you mean well, but I don't buy it.
You're trying to tell us you'd put a surgeon convicted of gross negligence back at the operating table.
You're trying to tell us you'd put someone convicted of elder-abuse back as a care-giver in a resting-home.
You're trying to tell us you'd put a convicted pedo back at the principal's desk in a grade-school.
You're trying to tell us you'd put a convicted terrorist back at the chemical research lab.
Yes, there are edge-cases, where there are wrongful, or questionable convictions. Personally I'd hire Snowden to do my IT any day (aside from that I'm already an IT guy.) Personally, I think Manning is employable in any position he's capable of. Young hackers getting security jobs as white-hats, fine. I'll compromise on that sort of thing.
But some things are disqualifiers for some jobs. In this case, once you're outed as a corporate scumbag, you shouldn't be given another opportunity to be a corporate scumbag. You're a great candidate for an airline pilot, surgeon, care-giver, principal, or chemist though.
Our society is supposed to believe that people can improve themselves and we should (eventually) forgive people.
Sure. They guy who just got out of jail for mass-murder can cut my lawn. He can manage the local Wal-Mart. He can teach English-as-a-Second-Language classes to orphan refugees. Just... maybe let's all agree that "passenger airline pilot" isn't the job for him.
Point I'm trying to make is that while second chances are a Good Thing, it's also very reasonable that some bridges are forever burned, and a different way to cross the gorge needs be found.
The summary suggests that POE is a "ubiquitous power source", but the suggests that we have to go to [redacted] to take a chance on getting one. Which is it?
Just because someone names one possible place a thing can be bought doesn't preclude it being massively available via other channels.
But you knew that. You just wanted to spew a buzz-word you made up. Twice in one thread. Well, sorry, you're getting called on it.
A treaty just to talk to a guy in a room in London? A "framework"? This is Ecuador simultaneously trolling and puffing itself up.
I do not know this to be the case, but I suspect this is more a matter of formally establishing paperwork that get signed, wherein Sweden agrees explicitly that they know and agree to obey Ecuador's laws. While in that embassy, Ecuadoran law prevails, and while it's fine to say "I agree to that fact", it's another thing to agree to the specific laws that might come into play.
"Oh, I didn't know I can't wear blue on Wednesdays."
The form and content of the questions asked etc, may have restrictions because of Ecuadoran laws on how questioning/interrogation work. Ecuador has a duty to protect a person they've granted asylum to, and that extends to making sure the Swedes don't illegally (for Ecuador) badger, harass, or insult that person.
My point is that this can't be a casual off-the-record conversation between two buds. And you know how police are sometimes known to manipulate people into confessions/self-incrimination? Yeah, well, not when you've granted asylum.
Wait. These cops invited a child they don't know into their car? And the kid accepted? Yeah... no. If the kid isn't in overt danger, I can't say I'm okay with this.
Huh, the 1994-2002 gap corresponds to when North Korea was in the grip of a severe famine and lack of resources. I wonder if that had anything to do with their sudden willingness to negotiate. Let's not investigate this any further, and give all credit to the Clinton administration that was the author of so many successful international adventures such as Blackhawk Down.
This is a textbook example of selection-bias. Let's rewind and condense the conversation that happened.
OP: "Democrats caused this. Conclusion: Republicans good, Democrats bad."
Reply: "Here are some facts.. Republicans were always in power when NK did nuclear, Democrats never. Conclusion: Republicans bad, Democrats good."
You: "Only replying to one aspect of your post, ignoring unpleasant correlation between NK nukes and Republican presidency, dismissing correlation between lack-of-NK nukes and Democrat presidency. Conclusion: Republicans good, Democrats bad."
Me: "I'm not American and this is too complicated for trivial cause & effect analysis. Conclusion: Republicans, Democrats, NK government, OP, Reply, and You all bad, Me awesome."
Ah, yes, a common error of homophone substitution. So...do you have anything useful or interesting to say, or is playing grammar-checker your only skill?
Wait, what? Mute rhymes with "cute" and moot rhymes with "boot". So, no, not a common error of homophone substitution. An error of not-knowing-what-the-correct-word-is, followed by doubling-down and making like someone else is to blame.
No, I do expect that some piracy does represent lost sales. It's just - unsurprisingly - a complicated topic. At the high-demand end, with popular, commercially-valuable end, it's most obvious but still complicated. Meaning, take a hypothetical perfect BluRay rip of the new Star Wars movie, and make that available Day 1. Sure, it's certain some people who would have gone to the theater to see it will not, because they can watch it in their homes. On the other hand, there will be a number of people who pirate it and decide it was worth the big-screen experience and go to the theater to re-watch, because of the pirated copy. How the numbers break down is unclear and unknowable.
Down in the lower-demand segment, where the audience is in the dozens of people, it gets harder to judge what would've been, could've been, should've been.
Frankly - and I know I'm stirring up a bag of worms here - I believe patronage is the (currently best) answer. Things like Kickstarter allow fans who wish to support a thing to do so. Creators get the support they need (or not, if the project doesn't fund). The product gets made, the backers get theirs, and frankly, if a backer leaks the product (say a PDF) and nobody else ever pays for a copy, well, kind of so be it. The patrons (a.k.a. people willing to pay) have paid. The leeches who pirate it after... likely wouldn't've or could'nt've. I'd personally prefer the creative people I've backed focus on the next wonderful product that I will pay them to create instead of spending any time hand-wringing because someone out there has a copy without having paid for it.
How that fits into your project I don't know. But the easiest way to tell the difference between a paying customer and a non-paying customer is that the paying ones give you money. Focus on them.
I knew this was awkward because I really didn't intend to insult you. What you're replying to is the least important part of my point. Thing is, stuff is worth what people are willing to pay for it. If nobody's* willing to pay for it, well, there you go.
Piracy isn't your problem. Not really. Because most/many/some people are absolutely willing to pay for stuff even if it's available pirated, because we see monetary value in what the producer has made. That a think is downloaded off a pirate site doesn't represent a lost sale.
I mean this in the most respectful manner possible.
You produce material that does not generate enough sufficient interest from paying consumers to support its production and distribution. You have therefore accepted remuneration from third-parties in return for providing them access to perform psychological manipulation and subliminal coercion upon anyone who finds your material interesting enough to consume at a market value of zero (as in, free).
Your material has negligible market value. That has no reflection upon you; most art has the same market value but significant social value. That you let those few who appreciate your work be influenced does. Advertising is exceedingly rarely to the benefit of the advertised-to.
I offer this not as criticism of your choice, but food for thought. The starving artist scenario is an age old quandry.
Intuitively, this phenomena as described has the feel of what one thinks of given the word 'resonance'. Perhaps 'pseudo-resonance' would be a good term to apply.
Pretty much. I'm reasonably well-read, and the summary leaves me hearing "resonance was the cause but we engineers have a bunch of other words we'd prefer to use because they're technically more accurate but for anyone not in bridge-building the distinction is meaningless."
"don't see a meaningful difference between steroid-use and nutritionally-balanced breakfasts"
There is. A balanced diet doesn't provide abnormal body mass.
It can also be somewhat quantified with statistical analysis of MLB.
What's "normal"? To me it doesn't matter if the chemicals going into your body are stirred up at a Kellog's cereal plant or a Dow lab. Why it's okay to drink specially engineered shakes but not to shoot up HGH I simply don't know.
My issue with this stuff is it's all so arbitrary.
You mean it seems arbitrary to you.
However, like many people, it may be that you think when somebody makes a decision you don't agree with, or don't properly understand that it must be arbitrary.
This may not be the case.
Don't tell me what I mean. I meant what I said. Unless you can demonstrate that I'm wrong, simply saying "you don't know stuff" isn't a meaningful rebuttal.
I find it hard to decide whether banning human assistive technology in sport is a good thing.
My issue with this stuff is it's all so arbitrary. Hockey players aren't forced to use sticks improvised from re-used household materials. Tennis rackets aren't reduced to whatever hardcover books the players can find laying around. Swimmers aren't required to don industry-standard street-wear.
No. Organized sports allow their participants and technology to optimize... until suddenly they don't.
The argument is usually "we want a level playing field", but that's still rubbish. Somali kids don't have access to the carbon-fiber gear kids in the US have. Even access to health-care and nutrition isn't balanced world-wide. When athletes are required to be raised from infants on the borderline-sufficient foods that some people live on, then we can call things "fair". Until then, I don't see a meaningful difference between steroid-use and nutritionally-balanced breakfasts, between cutting-edge broom-heads and custom-fit swimsuits.
These gentleman's agreements are bunk, making the very idea of sports competitions a joke. These are not the best of the best, they're the best of what they feel like allowing - for now.
You really have that many problems with that? I never even notice that there are.NET updates.
I wouldn't necessarily say "problem", Anecdotal Coward. I'd reserve "problem" for things that prevent function and require resolution. This is an annoyance, requiring nothing more than the investment of time.
The annoyance stems from that in the SMB market, where there are a lot of factors that interfere with best-practices (meaning I understand how to do things right but sometimes can't), I can't always (successfully) arrange for server patching every month, and I can't always arrange for automatic patching. As such, we have several machines ranging from Windows Pro machines acting as P2P file sharing "servers" on tiny four-user networks to small servers that have odd uptime schedule requirements that preclude use of WSUS for patch management. Point is, I've got machines that for various reasons I need to patch manually, say every three months. It's annoying to see a list of around 40 patches, and six of them are.NET, and I know that the other 34 will apply in under 60 seconds each, while those six will each kill off five minutes of my life.
Sure, I can often alt-tab out and do something else at the same time. Doesn't change that it's annoying. It's just annoying in the same sense that the Adobe-Reader-of-the-week is annoying when it requires local admin rights to install. If you can't justify centralized patch management software, or can't use Group Policy to publish them, it's annoying.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, that's the rub, isn't it? The TV is not supposed to be a recording device.
Preamble... Yes, I abhor this functionality personally, and I think these devices should ship with a giant caution tape banner stuck to the screen explicitly declaring "we're spying on you. Yes, now." But...
That's not actually accurate in this case. The product in question isn't a TV. It's a "Smart TV". As in, a television with other functions. A person who buys one of these paid a premium for those extra functions.
You're mostly right. I'm sure they have a very detailed plan for what features to remove at each release. By end-of-year 2017 the goal is to have Firefox resemble Notepad, only without mouse, keyboard, or clipboard input support.
I'd like to trademark "fuck off and die", then use it liberally in these cases.
I didn't say anything about forgiveness. You can't forgive people that haven't even been accused other than by a mob. Forgive them for what? For somebody falsely claiming they were convicted, or equivalent? For somebody else claiming they somehow need forgiveness for a mob having formed? Sounds like history class in Salem, MA to me.
The whole idea that forgiveness is involved is the same offensive immoral unethical bullshit as the rest of the mob. And you even try to push it off on me, claiming I talked about forgiveness. No, you did not understand my words; even though they were literal.
And if Steve Jobs murdered a unicorn or something, I'm sure the whole mob would be blaming this guy, or some other random employee who had to write an email promising to kiss his ass. iPhones in hand. I'll bet over 50% of the whiny editors are still actively paying money to the companies responsible for the crimes they believe took place. I guess it helps to resolve their cognitive dissonance to blame this guy, since he doesn't work there anymore. Or maybe, he isn't to blame for the sins of Jobs. And BTW, a mob doesn't form if you say the name Steve Jobs. A crowd of groupies and well-wishers is all that forms. Hmmmm, curious, isn't it?
Let's start at the beginning, shall we? ME: "The guy who just got out of jail for mass-murder..." and "maybe let's all agree that "passenger airline pilot" isn't the job for him."
YOU: "No. If there isn't a clear condition of his release that prohibits him from flying an airplane, and you're worried about it, the thing to do would be to agree to make a new rule that people convicted of that crime can't be airline pilots."
There is no mob. You made it up. There's an individual who was tried, convicted, and did his time for a crime. There's my assertion that said individual is not the ideal candidate for certain positions. There's you disagreeing with that being correct.
That's it. That's where I'm getting a sense that you're arguing for forgiveness from. I don't think you need a law forbidding people with criminal records from being pilots. If the crime was drug-trafficking or robbery or even assault, it may not be a big deal. I made the example of mass-murder. Someone who's deliberately killed several people. Giving such a person a position where they're enabled to do the same again... unwise. That's it. That's all I've ever been saying. The specific crime and the specific job don't mesh well. It's a judgement call, and it should be made by the employer, not congress. At least I think so.
So again, I'm still not talking about the single, specific example this story was about. I was trying to set the stage that discrimination based on previous wrongdoing isn't universally a bad thing. It may - in some cases - be sensible. Of course, I'd have to study the hell out of the specific case in question to be able to have an (rational, informed) opinion on its merits, but I haven't, and thus I haven't (an opinion).
I did reply to what you said; you didn't address the response, or even begin to. You did not show that you understood my position, and yet you seem to be requesting that I change my view, or claiming my position is incorrect.
It is clear you cannot comprehend the words that I have said, and are not willing to even consider the ethical issues involved in the situation. Too bad.
What? Something, somewhere is failing to get communicated.
"You're not going to convince the majority of educated modern humans that unproven accusations of something horrible counts as a proof of something horrible. And when that type of accusation exists, it is irrational to expect people who demand a trial before the sentencing to suddenly drop their demand.
The mob is just screaming and wailing, and won't stop soon, but wikipedia's board has to respond in a way that is actually ethical, using the ethical principles that human societies agree to. That includes things like being innocent until proven guilty. Ultimately, there is no ethical dilemma in letting editors quit over it; they have that right. But giving the protesters what they ask for in this case would be illegal; and ironically it would violate employment ethics in a well-established way. Serious analysis does not land this protest on the side of supporting workers rights. It is where you want to be, but it isn't where you are."
ALL of this stuff is in regards to two things: 1) "accusations", and 2) this specific case. As I said in my prior reply, I'm discussing 1) convicted individuals where there is no sign of wrongful conviction or special circumstances and 2) the concept of universal forgiveness you're espousing, not the specific case. So that's why I didn't reply to any of it. It's not what I'm discussing. It's what I'm not not discussing. So I remain in the dark what your views actually are on the topics that I've been engaging.
See, if there's no grounds for agreement on the general principle, then there's no grounds for agreement on the specific case. No point arguing the specific without establishing the general. Shrug.
You disbelieve that we won't agree to what you say, but you offer no reason for me to change my view. Seems highly irrational to me.
I've clarified. I've quantified. I've made explicit provision for questionable or wrong convictions. I've also been abundantly clear that I'm sparring with you over the principle and concept here, not the specific case that has inspired the debate.
That's not enough for you to even reply to what I've said.
I remain unconvinced that you'd unflinchingly hire someone convicted of elder-abuse to provide care for say... your mother. Because that's what I'm engaging you on here. Your professed standpoint that once someone has done time, all must be forgotten and forgiven. That's what I'm engaging. That's what I fail to believe.
Why? Because the word recidivist exists for a reason. Given the choice between two candidates, it's statistically foolish, unwise, and silly to not prefer the candidate who does not have a history of being irresponsible in the position you are considering them for. The math dictates your correct choice. Sure, it may be Jesus-like to turn the other cheek, but it's the dumb choice, and your statistically-averaged-mother won't thank you for it statistically-averaged-more of the time than she would if you hadn't made it.
I'm not trying to be a knob... I'm genuinely interested in a} where our communication is falling down or b} if it isn't, what makes you tick.
No, we won't agree to that.
I'm sorry. I don't believe you. I'm sure you mean well, but I don't buy it.
You're trying to tell us you'd put a surgeon convicted of gross negligence back at the operating table.
You're trying to tell us you'd put someone convicted of elder-abuse back as a care-giver in a resting-home.
You're trying to tell us you'd put a convicted pedo back at the principal's desk in a grade-school.
You're trying to tell us you'd put a convicted terrorist back at the chemical research lab.
Yes, there are edge-cases, where there are wrongful, or questionable convictions. Personally I'd hire Snowden to do my IT any day (aside from that I'm already an IT guy.) Personally, I think Manning is employable in any position he's capable of. Young hackers getting security jobs as white-hats, fine. I'll compromise on that sort of thing.
But some things are disqualifiers for some jobs. In this case, once you're outed as a corporate scumbag, you shouldn't be given another opportunity to be a corporate scumbag. You're a great candidate for an airline pilot, surgeon, care-giver, principal, or chemist though.
Our society is supposed to believe that people can improve themselves and we should (eventually) forgive people.
Sure. They guy who just got out of jail for mass-murder can cut my lawn. He can manage the local Wal-Mart. He can teach English-as-a-Second-Language classes to orphan refugees. Just... maybe let's all agree that "passenger airline pilot" isn't the job for him.
Point I'm trying to make is that while second chances are a Good Thing, it's also very reasonable that some bridges are forever burned, and a different way to cross the gorge needs be found.
The summary suggests that POE is a "ubiquitous power source", but the suggests that we have to go to [redacted] to take a chance on getting one. Which is it?
Just because someone names one possible place a thing can be bought doesn't preclude it being massively available via other channels.
But you knew that. You just wanted to spew a buzz-word you made up. Twice in one thread. Well, sorry, you're getting called on it.
A treaty just to talk to a guy in a room in London? A "framework"? This is Ecuador simultaneously trolling and puffing itself up.
I do not know this to be the case, but I suspect this is more a matter of formally establishing paperwork that get signed, wherein Sweden agrees explicitly that they know and agree to obey Ecuador's laws. While in that embassy, Ecuadoran law prevails, and while it's fine to say "I agree to that fact", it's another thing to agree to the specific laws that might come into play.
"Oh, I didn't know I can't wear blue on Wednesdays."
The form and content of the questions asked etc, may have restrictions because of Ecuadoran laws on how questioning/interrogation work. Ecuador has a duty to protect a person they've granted asylum to, and that extends to making sure the Swedes don't illegally (for Ecuador) badger, harass, or insult that person.
My point is that this can't be a casual off-the-record conversation between two buds. And you know how police are sometimes known to manipulate people into confessions/self-incrimination? Yeah, well, not when you've granted asylum.
The cops drove Lucan to school
Wait. These cops invited a child they don't know into their car? And the kid accepted? Yeah... no. If the kid isn't in overt danger, I can't say I'm okay with this.
It's still a mystery as to how the missile reached Cuba
On a plane. Says so in the summary.
Why it went to Cuba is the mystery.
Pretty sure why is answered too. It went to Cuba because it was aboard an a plane that went there.
Huh, the 1994-2002 gap corresponds to when North Korea was in the grip of a severe famine and lack of resources. I wonder if that had anything to do with their sudden willingness to negotiate. Let's not investigate this any further, and give all credit to the Clinton administration that was the author of so many successful international adventures such as Blackhawk Down.
This is a textbook example of selection-bias. Let's rewind and condense the conversation that happened.
OP: "Democrats caused this. Conclusion: Republicans good, Democrats bad."
Reply: "Here are some facts.. Republicans were always in power when NK did nuclear, Democrats never. Conclusion: Republicans bad, Democrats good."
You: "Only replying to one aspect of your post, ignoring unpleasant correlation between NK nukes and Republican presidency, dismissing correlation between lack-of-NK nukes and Democrat presidency. Conclusion: Republicans good, Democrats bad."
Me: "I'm not American and this is too complicated for trivial cause & effect analysis. Conclusion: Republicans, Democrats, NK government, OP, Reply, and You all bad, Me awesome."
Witcher 3 was announced for SteamOS two years ago.
Keep up.
I guess all I can say that is:
1} It hasn't happened.
2} It shows no sign it's going to happen, ever.
3} Caught up, thanks.
If you were trying to be sarcastic, I apologize in advance, for not detecting it. Not sure.
Games actually work surprisingly well on Linux by now.
Anecdotal evidence time; let's see what's installed that runs on Linux...
Elite Dangerous? No.
Witcher 3? No.
Mass Effect 3? Yes!
Divinity: Original Sin? No.
Borderlands 2? Yes!
I guess two out of five ain't bad. I mean... unless you want to play them. Looks like the trick is "like games that are 3+ years old".
Ah, yes, a common error of homophone substitution. So...do you have anything useful or interesting to say, or is playing grammar-checker your only skill?
Wait, what? Mute rhymes with "cute" and moot rhymes with "boot". So, no, not a common error of homophone substitution. An error of not-knowing-what-the-correct-word-is, followed by doubling-down and making like someone else is to blame.
No, I do expect that some piracy does represent lost sales. It's just - unsurprisingly - a complicated topic. At the high-demand end, with popular, commercially-valuable end, it's most obvious but still complicated. Meaning, take a hypothetical perfect BluRay rip of the new Star Wars movie, and make that available Day 1. Sure, it's certain some people who would have gone to the theater to see it will not, because they can watch it in their homes. On the other hand, there will be a number of people who pirate it and decide it was worth the big-screen experience and go to the theater to re-watch, because of the pirated copy. How the numbers break down is unclear and unknowable.
Down in the lower-demand segment, where the audience is in the dozens of people, it gets harder to judge what would've been, could've been, should've been.
Frankly - and I know I'm stirring up a bag of worms here - I believe patronage is the (currently best) answer. Things like Kickstarter allow fans who wish to support a thing to do so. Creators get the support they need (or not, if the project doesn't fund). The product gets made, the backers get theirs, and frankly, if a backer leaks the product (say a PDF) and nobody else ever pays for a copy, well, kind of so be it. The patrons (a.k.a. people willing to pay) have paid. The leeches who pirate it after... likely wouldn't've or could'nt've. I'd personally prefer the creative people I've backed focus on the next wonderful product that I will pay them to create instead of spending any time hand-wringing because someone out there has a copy without having paid for it.
How that fits into your project I don't know. But the easiest way to tell the difference between a paying customer and a non-paying customer is that the paying ones give you money. Focus on them.
I knew this was awkward because I really didn't intend to insult you. What you're replying to is the least important part of my point. Thing is, stuff is worth what people are willing to pay for it. If nobody's* willing to pay for it, well, there you go.
Piracy isn't your problem. Not really. Because most/many/some people are absolutely willing to pay for stuff even if it's available pirated, because we see monetary value in what the producer has made. That a think is downloaded off a pirate site doesn't represent a lost sale.
*For fuzzy values of nobody.
Just because someone shoplifts an item doesn't mean that the price-tag is appropriate.
I mean this in the most respectful manner possible.
You produce material that does not generate enough sufficient interest from paying consumers to support its production and distribution. You have therefore accepted remuneration from third-parties in return for providing them access to perform psychological manipulation and subliminal coercion upon anyone who finds your material interesting enough to consume at a market value of zero (as in, free).
Your material has negligible market value. That has no reflection upon you; most art has the same market value but significant social value. That you let those few who appreciate your work be influenced does. Advertising is exceedingly rarely to the benefit of the advertised-to.
I offer this not as criticism of your choice, but food for thought. The starving artist scenario is an age old quandry.
Intuitively, this phenomena as described has the feel of what one thinks of given the word 'resonance'. Perhaps 'pseudo-resonance' would be a good term to apply.
Pretty much. I'm reasonably well-read, and the summary leaves me hearing "resonance was the cause but we engineers have a bunch of other words we'd prefer to use because they're technically more accurate but for anyone not in bridge-building the distinction is meaningless."
"don't see a meaningful difference between steroid-use and nutritionally-balanced breakfasts"
There is. A balanced diet doesn't provide abnormal body mass.
It can also be somewhat quantified with statistical analysis of MLB.
What's "normal"? To me it doesn't matter if the chemicals going into your body are stirred up at a Kellog's cereal plant or a Dow lab. Why it's okay to drink specially engineered shakes but not to shoot up HGH I simply don't know.
My issue with this stuff is it's all so arbitrary.
You mean it seems arbitrary to you.
However, like many people, it may be that you think when somebody makes a decision you don't agree with, or don't properly understand that it must be arbitrary.
This may not be the case.
Don't tell me what I mean. I meant what I said. Unless you can demonstrate that I'm wrong, simply saying "you don't know stuff" isn't a meaningful rebuttal.
I find it hard to decide whether banning human assistive technology in sport is a good thing.
My issue with this stuff is it's all so arbitrary. Hockey players aren't forced to use sticks improvised from re-used household materials. Tennis rackets aren't reduced to whatever hardcover books the players can find laying around. Swimmers aren't required to don industry-standard street-wear.
No. Organized sports allow their participants and technology to optimize... until suddenly they don't.
The argument is usually "we want a level playing field", but that's still rubbish. Somali kids don't have access to the carbon-fiber gear kids in the US have. Even access to health-care and nutrition isn't balanced world-wide. When athletes are required to be raised from infants on the borderline-sufficient foods that some people live on, then we can call things "fair". Until then, I don't see a meaningful difference between steroid-use and nutritionally-balanced breakfasts, between cutting-edge broom-heads and custom-fit swimsuits.
These gentleman's agreements are bunk, making the very idea of sports competitions a joke. These are not the best of the best, they're the best of what they feel like allowing - for now.
You really have that many problems with that? I never even notice that there are .NET updates.
I wouldn't necessarily say "problem", Anecdotal Coward. I'd reserve "problem" for things that prevent function and require resolution. This is an annoyance, requiring nothing more than the investment of time.
.NET, and I know that the other 34 will apply in under 60 seconds each, while those six will each kill off five minutes of my life.
The annoyance stems from that in the SMB market, where there are a lot of factors that interfere with best-practices (meaning I understand how to do things right but sometimes can't), I can't always (successfully) arrange for server patching every month, and I can't always arrange for automatic patching. As such, we have several machines ranging from Windows Pro machines acting as P2P file sharing "servers" on tiny four-user networks to small servers that have odd uptime schedule requirements that preclude use of WSUS for patch management. Point is, I've got machines that for various reasons I need to patch manually, say every three months. It's annoying to see a list of around 40 patches, and six of them are
Sure, I can often alt-tab out and do something else at the same time. Doesn't change that it's annoying. It's just annoying in the same sense that the Adobe-Reader-of-the-week is annoying when it requires local admin rights to install. If you can't justify centralized patch management software, or can't use Group Policy to publish them, it's annoying.