But the fact is that when it comes to Microsoft's core products they are very very conservative about new features. Can you give some examples? People complain about new Windows versions not having enough innovation, but this is more about not having enough releases and the relatively scattershot way Microsoft adds features. Windows doesn't compare well to good Linux distros like Ubuntu or MacOS in this regard, but it's much better than Solaris.
I'd also argue that there are so many 3rd party add-ons, both free and commercial, for Windows that there is less need to innovate in the core OS. Linux pretty much works the same way, Linux distros basically just "roll up" lots of third-party add-ons. What Windows really needs is a software repository, but that's unlikely to happen due to anti-trust issues.
But look at other Microsoft products for a second. They pile features onto every release of Office and Visual Studio (just redesigned the UIs), their core products. The XBOX 360, another core product, gets new features on a monthly basis in firmware updates. MSSQL is relatively conservative, but it's a database. A lot of innovation in controllers, like laser mice, comes from Microsoft. And DirectX is far ahead of other game development kits.
Conversely apple aggressively puts technology out into people's hands.
Apple is a technology popularizer more than an innovator per se.
Take the Zune. It sucks, but that doesn't mean it's not innovative. The idea of an embedded online music store is a good one (technically this happened first in Japan), as is WiFi connectivity and song sharing between Zunes. Apple added iTunes to the iPod touch, but not song sharing. The big difference between the iPod touch and the Zune is that the iPod actually works. But that's In fact, the way iTunes makes it a huge hassle to transfer tracks is the main reason I don't own an iPod (that and FLAC).
That's battery. Depends on the jurisdiction. In some jurisdictions the distinction is based on intent. If you mean to hart someone when you're punching them in the face, it's assault, If you didn't, it's battery. Though you're basically right.
Copyright violation doesn't have anything to do with contract. And, you don't have to worry about criminal violation for stuff like "accidentally taking a cell phone photo of artwork." Yes, it is. The way copyright works is that the consumer, let's say music consumer, upon purchasing a CD is not granted actual ownership of the CD, but a license to use that CD IN A PARTICULAR WAY. That license is form of contract. One way to violate the contract is to play that CD you just bought at a public venue (say you own a coffee show and you play it in the shop), whereupon the music producers can sue you for the fees they charge for public performances.
In the US, you can be charged with a felony, and sent to federal prison for 1 year, for making a 1 copy of a CD or possession of a "circumvention device", like a CD burner (yes, they count) or modchip.
If you made any attempt whatsoever to distribute that cell phone photo you certainly COULD be charged with a crime.
I hope you dont honestly believe this coolaid talk. I believe it because it's true. For example, there are all kind of graphics features pioneered by Direct3D.
Please name who was doing multi-touch on a phone or any device for that matter? "Multi-touch" is Apple's weird marketing name for a touch interface. There are many touch interfaces that allow multiple "targets" to be hit simultaneously. I've seen touch interfaces you can click n' drag with, can't do that on an iPhone.
Nokia and I believe Samsung both had phones with touch interfaces before the iPhone. I don't know if they can handle multiple fingers.
They even did a damn good job with the scratch free surface implementation as well. The iPhone is not "scratch free". The very first thing I did when I touched an iPhone in the Apple Store was drop it and scratch the screen (which was already scratched up). It's got a very good scratch-resistant coating, but it's not as good a coating as I've seen on a few other devices. I've got a universal remote somewhere with a glass screen top that is MUCH more scratch-reistant than the iPhone. Compare the screen on the iPhone to the screens on many PocketPCs and you'll see that the PocketPCs are about the same.
And M$'s knee jerk reaction to Apple's multi-touch technology? Surface!! Talk about funny!! Surface has been in development for many years. I saw a demo of something similar at MS research back in 2000. That same year I built a kiosk with a far more sophisticated touch interface than the one in the iPhone.
You didn't even mention the most innovative feature about the iPhone, the web browser (which is rebadged Konquerer). It's the first cell phone that I'm aware of with a really good web browser. The way the tilt sensor allows you to change the aspect ratio at will is also very handy.
As I said, Apple is very good a packaging innovations, but in reality they do very little that is truly original except industrial design. I would not agree that, for example, the candy-colored iMacs really represent a technical innovation.
Heads up Zoidbot, but this is a rare example of GOOD game journalism.
Publishers are traditionally reluctant to show game journalists pre-release code because bugs and instabilities in the code may give the journalist the false impression that the game has a lot more problems that it will actually have on release. So normally when a company invites a magazine or website to see pre-release code, they have the expectation (often DEMAND) that the journalist will do a fawning puff piece on thier game.
In this case, EA choose to show 1UP pre-release code on their game with the explicit understanding that 1UP would talk about it on their website. What EA showed them was apparently terribly broken, and 1UP described it as "near final". It shows great ethics on the part of 1UP that rather than LIE in the piece or (more likely) simply not publish about the pre-release code they saw, they instead chose to tell the TRUTH about what they saw and risk the ire of EA.
The reality here is that Harmonix/Actvision negotiated with the Romantics to use their original recordings. The Romantics wanted a shitload of money for the song. So Harmonix/Activision negotiated to record a cover version (at their expense) for less money. The Romantics bide their time waiting for the game to be released and then sue claiming the cover THEY AGREED TO EARLIER was "too similar" to their original.
There's history here. The Romantics are one of the most whorish bands in history, licensing "What I like About You" and their other hits to everyone under the sun. Unfortunately, during the 80s they spent most of their time partying and their management ran off with much of the profits. So they've spent the past 15 years suing the crap out of everyone because of the way they mismanaged their music.
Basically, they're just trying to extort Activision/Harmonix for more money because they're a one-hit-wonder band that still lives by milking the few hits they had in the 80s.
NIMF is an anti-gaming pressure group AND they don't bother to detail the methodology of their "study". They're almost certainly flat-out lying about the results. I can think of countless ways they could fudge these results, assuming they're not just making them up out of whole cloth (which is typical for such "studies"). Among other things I suspect few of the retailers were actually specialty game retailers. You CAN purchase video games at Rite-Aid, where I suspect the cashiers are poorly educated about carding kids for games. It's also possible that the "kids" they're using are 16-year-olds with fake IDs.
Secondly, in order for something to be a proper study it requires controls, proper methodology, and control cases. I seriously doubt that NIMF bothered to do this in their survey.
And as others have pointed out, these results are better than more credible studies of tobacco and alcohol sales to minors. Most studies show that minors can purchase alcohol and cigarettes about 60% of the time.
Finally, I consider it completely absurd to expect non-specialty games retailers to know the ratings details of every, or even ANY, game on their shelves. It's equivalent to expecting cashiers in grocery stores to know the ingredients on every product they sell. NOBODY expects this level of scrutiny on R-rated or even X-rated games. How many studies do you see of how hard it is for a teenager to buy a copy of Hustler at the local store? What do you think the success rate would be? 90-95%?
In most states you can get a State ID card from age 13+. As far as I'm aware, 17-year-olds in every state can get a State ID card. You can also get a Passport from at least age 5 on. A Passport is valid Picture ID. Every American who isn't batshit crazy should have a Passport.
The situation isn't quite that bad when it comes to traffic laws, luckily, Yes it is. At least in California, it is not physically possible to drive more that a few feet on a public road without committing a moving violation. Look into it. For example, on the road that I live on it is literally not possible to follow the speed limit. The speed limit changes literally every 50 feet with 15 mph variations. In California, you can get a ticket for traveling 15 mph UNDER the speed limit. So on this particular road you have to change your speed by 15mph every 50ft for several miles. No car is actually capable of doing this. Police are constantly handing out tickets on this road, so it's not like they're not enforcing it.
nuisance, trespass, assault** (especially among children), etc... The situation isn't comparable because these laws are written to allow broad interpretation by judges for exactly this reason. Assault is basically "improper touching" and there is SPECIFICALLY IN THE LAW a "reasonableness" test by the judge. In effect, the laws allow individual judges to decide what is "assault" on a case-by-case basis. Since these rulings are subject to appeal, judges tend to be very conservative in what counts as assault. There is typically even more leeway in juvenile court, to the point where judges can redefine statutes at will.
This is NOT the case with copyright law which involves very specific language with no leeway. That's because the copyright people have a powerful lobby and want to be able to pursue the maximum number of cases. And copyright violation now includes criminal penalties, unlike all other contract violations.
the vast majority of parents have no idea about a games content even if it is rated 18. Nothing can help kids whose parents don't give a shit about them. Those aren't the people that complain about violent video games.
The people who complain about violent video games want the games banned for EVERYONE. They are usually the same people that want to ban rap music, pornography, Harry Potter and Dungeons and Dragons. These people believe that "violent" or "sexual" media is fundamentally bad and they want it banned. "For the children" is just an excuse.
Don't hold your breath. DirectX 9 isn't even close to being fully implemented in WINE, and DirectX 10 has major architectural differences. Secondly, Direct3D 10 has features that simply do not exist in OpenGL, so OpenGL has to be extended before this kind of emulation is even possible. We're realistically looking at 2012 before we can expect working WINE DirectX 10 games, and even then they will run extremely poorly. There are DirectX 10-only games shipping NOW.
I seriously doubt that WINE will EVER work properly with DirectX games. I better long-term solution for Windows gaming support in Linux is a hypervisor-based VM.
A friend at work couldn't get Ubuntu working with his eee's wireless card for this reason. I don't understand this. Are you saying that they modified the kernel to support the eee's wireless card and they didn't release the source of that modification, or did they include a binary driver for the wireless card? The former is a GPL violation, the latter isn't. Basically, what you're saying here seems wrong to me. Several other posters have said they had no problems installing Ubuntu on the eeePC. Getting wireless working in most Linux distributions is a PITA in general, so I'm not the least bit surprised the eeePC is having problem. The blame here lies squarely on Linux, not ASUS.
OTOH, The complaints about the warranty seem to be spot on. As the author points out, it is illegal in the United States to void a warranty if customers use a 3rd-party repair shop or choose to make repairs themselves. This comes from auto manufacturers trying to void warranties because car buyers took their cars to other mechanics (or worked on them themselves) rather than going to the dealer.
The system allows them to prioritize delivery methods according to potential goodwill cost. Here's a simple example: Say Amazon has only two customers - you and me. We both frequently buy expensive stuff. I don't really care when it arrives, just so it arrives. You, on the other hand, complain if things arrive late. The system would allow Amazon to know that they should prioritize your shipments over mine. This is a weird characterization. Who ACTUALLY WANTS their stuff to arrive late? I seriously doubt that you could find ANYONE who complains that their packages are arriving too quickly. For "Standard" shipping, Amazon is largely at the mercy of UPS and USPS. This is a system to screw people to pay for expedited shipping. Here's the idea: Customer A is a frequent customer who buys lots of expensive stuff. When HE orders something with 3 day shipping that item is sent via UPS 3-Day Select because he's "important". Customer B is an infrequent customer who only buys cheap things. When HE orders 3-day shipping the item is ACTUALLY sent via normal UPS, and arrives a week late. Sure the customer may complain, but Amazon doesn't care.
I have witnessed PDs aggressively defending clients when the charges are basically bogus. These guys must be in rural areas, because PDs in metro areas simply don't have this kind of time.
Also, no lawyer can force someone to plead guilty, even if he suspects that the client *is* guilty He can say, "If you don't plead guilty, I'm going to tank your case to make sure you lose." Another big problem I've seen with PDs is that some of them are WAY too friendly with DAs to the point that they basically WERE DAs and cooperated with them to force plea bargains (because that's the minimum amount for work for both the PD and DA).
It will be a moot point anyway, since in a hundred years time China will kome knockin' with a stack of American I.O.U.s and say "we own your sorry asses now". Holding a lease is only worthwhile if you're in a position to enforce it. China isn't. They need our investment capital, technology resources, and trade. The Chinese government is far less stable than most people seem to think. They WILL forgive the debts owed by the US or the US will break them up and appoint puppet regional governments.
You absolutely positively have to hire a lawyer (well, not really, but you should) - if you get audited. You hit part of the nail on the head. The trick of dealing with audits is to NOT deal with them.
Never, ever, ever, agree to an audit by the BSA under any circumstances. It's the same as admitting liability. If they threaten you, hire a lawyer and threaten them back. Increasing the cost of the audit keeps it from being profitable and eventually they back off. If you keep stalling, you can drag the process out for years.
Just remember that "My boss told me to do it" isn't much of a defense in court. Oh yes it is. It's called "coercion". Prosecutors are also far more likely to give the "triggerman" immunity to go after the "boss", the one who actually ordered the crime. And if there is any reasonable doubt as to whether or not the act is illegal, generally you'll find the courts will rule in favor of the hapless employee.
Secondly, there are "corporate crimes". For example, A vice president orders one of his HR staffers to fire one of his employees specifically because he is black. Who committed the crime? It is not the HR staffer, it is not the Vice President, it is the COMPANY that the Vice President represents. It is the COMPANY that will have to pay penalties. The VP and HR staffer have ho liability whatsoever because the ate acting ON BEHALF OF the company, no on their own behalf.
Of course, the company may choose to fire the VP and HR staffer, but that is COMPLETELY SEPARATE.
The only reason they target the small businesses is because they can't defend themselves, period. Large businesses are generally MUCH worse offenders, but they are MUCH more likely to defend themselves with lawyers because it's more cost-effective.
Another point is that flexible license terms and the tools needed to manage licenses are often only made available to large businesses. Large businesses can get "site licenses" so they don't have to track individual licenses. They are often given the software or other tools needed to manage licenses that small businesses must pay for. They are also far more likely to have the manpower necessary to devote time to license management. Software vendors, especially at the small-business level, often try to double-bill on licenses as well.
I am certainly not an Apple freek, but I can say that they have done wonders for the technology industry... Right now they are the one who are pushing the innovation in the technology industry... IPod.. IPhone.. Also, Apple certainly has a history here... Apple is a technology popularizer, not a true innovator. Ever single feature in the iPod and iPhone were available on other devices earlier, often years earlier. What Apple is good at is packaging those features together in an attractive way, which is fundamentally a more difficult task. But if you want pure innovation/features, there are many companies (including Microsoft) that stomp all over Apple.
I would also point out that Apple has absolutely stellar marketing. Apple pays a order of magnitude more on advertising than on R&D (so does Microsoft, I'm not pointing fingers) and it shows.
Try finding the receipt for the energy-efficient windows you put in your house 10 years ago or the receipt for the air conditioner you put in 15 years ago so that the IRS won't bitch-slap you for claiming an adjusted basis so you can pay lower taxes when you sell your house... most people don't have any problem managing those receipts, do they? And it WOULD be a big hassle if you actually needed the receipts to get the tax adjustments. You don't. You can report this based on the printed manufacturing date on the device (if it was made in 2001 you probably bought it in that year).
No, the only real problem is that most businesses don't really expect to ever have to go through an impartial software license audit so they play fast and loose with licenses under the theory that if software companies really cared about license compliance then the software wouldn't let them do anything wrong Virtually every business plays fast and loose with accounting because they have little incentive not to do so. I blame the federal government for not bothering to enforce the law.
It's not hard to come out of an impartial software license audit smelling like roses If there were such a thing as an impartial audit, I'd agree with you. There is not. A software audit is an INVESTMENT in the eyes of the BSA. They are spending money to audit X business with the hope of squeezing additional revenue out of X business. They are not trying to be 'fair', they are trying to get as much money as possible. I have never even heard of a BS audit where the BSA didn't try to claim at least 2X or 3X in fees that what was actually due them. I have never heard of a single company that "passed" a BSA audit without having to pay money to the BSA, my understanding is that they charge you for the audit itself even if you ate 110% complaint. The only 'exception' I can think of to this is a company that signed up for some sort of "insurance" against audits from the BSA, which they bought from the BSA.
I can't say that a large chunk *aren't*, but I've met (through a clinical internship this semester) many of the folks at the Camden (NJ) Defender's office, and while there are certainly touches / streaks / rivers of justified cynicism and battlefield humor, many of the folks there are basically idealistic and hard working, and most of them aren't very young. It's nice that you have this impression, but what's their success rate? Most public defenders "win" about 5% of the cases they take to trial. That's not counting the plea bargains, which accounts for about 95% of the cases that come across their desks, so if you do the math you'll find that most PDs get a "not guilty" or equivalent verdict about 0.25% of the time. That means if you go to a PD you have about a 99% chance of being convicted.
Private attorneys have better than 0.25% success rate because they take many more cases to trial. In fact, many people go to private attorneys after first going to a PD who insists on a plea bargain and outright refuses to take the case to trial, or they tell the defendant that he's absolutely guaranteed to lose no matter what. A PD will not spend one red cent on your defense (largely because he doesn't have it).
Basically, if you have no money and you're charged with a crime RUN. If you're innocent, you'll almost certainly be convicted.
Why should Sony and Nintendo stop it being released on their consoles? Because the AO rating is supposed to be for prn only, and they don't want to be associated with porn (in the United States) because they're worried that would draw more flak from the "critics". Sony is perfectly willing to make adult games for the less prudish Japanese and European markets. Nintendo has ALWAYS tried to maintain a "kid-friendly" image, that's why there are few M rated titles on the Gamecube and Wii. I don't know about Microsoft, but they play mostly in the US market, so I suspect they make few adult titles.
While I could be kind to the "critics", the reality is that most of them are busybody opportunists that see a complete non-issue they can exploit to get brownie points for "helping the children". They really don't care about the issue one way or another, they're looking for handouts from the computer games industry. Make no mistake, people like Jack Thompson want the video game industry to give them cash to GO AWAY. These same people used to make a lot of noise about comic books before they were bought by the big media companies that pay the "critics" salaries.
Just like comic books, video games are easy to attack because they're perceived as a "kid's media". Cartoons used to receive the same sort of criticism (in the early years South Park was attacked the same way) but big media money killed that.
Basically, the video games industry just needs more lobbyists and flacks to promote their position. It really doesn't matter what they say, it's the handouts that matter.
Obviously books themselves can have eyestrain issues when reading them. Which is negligible next to the eyestrain caused by reading off computer screens. Make no mistake, reading causes nearsightedness, especially in children. It's a fact. Reading on computer screens causes nearsightedness faster because eyestrain is worse. Eyestrain is worse on computer screens due to "wiggle". It's complicated, but the basic idea is that the light levels emitted by screen elements are not constant, technically the element is blinking rapidly. This rapid blinking creates more eyestrain than the static text on the printed page, all else being equal. (This means that closed captioning and subtitles should cause more eyestrain than reading off the printed page, and they do).
Having said that, I suspect our eyes are versatile enough to adjust to the "wiggle" effect over time to reduce eyestrain.
Actually, it seems to me as if the judge doesn't want a man convicted based primarily on the evidence of a partial print lifted from a crime scene. There is no such thing as a "complete" print lifted from a crime scene. That's the point I was trying to make.
Ahh, there we have it, there's the strawman that ignited the remainder of this discussion. What strawman? That black men with criminal records tend to be "the usual suspects" and are arrested far more often than white men with criminal records? That police, including fingerprint examiners, tend to be biased against black men? Sorry, those are FACTS.
The problem we're talking about is called "experimenter's bias". The fingerprint examiner knows what conclusion he's "supposed" to reach, so the examiner consciously or unconsciously "finds" that the print matched the suspect. Studies have shown that when examiners work "blind" they do no better than chance.
Lie detectors don't work either, for much the same reasons.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd also argue that there are so many 3rd party add-ons, both free and commercial, for Windows that there is less need to innovate in the core OS. Linux pretty much works the same way, Linux distros basically just "roll up" lots of third-party add-ons. What Windows really needs is a software repository, but that's unlikely to happen due to anti-trust issues.
But look at other Microsoft products for a second. They pile features onto every release of Office and Visual Studio (just redesigned the UIs), their core products. The XBOX 360, another core product, gets new features on a monthly basis in firmware updates. MSSQL is relatively conservative, but it's a database. A lot of innovation in controllers, like laser mice, comes from Microsoft. And DirectX is far ahead of other game development kits.
Conversely apple aggressively puts technology out into people's hands.
Apple is a technology popularizer more than an innovator per se.
Take the Zune. It sucks, but that doesn't mean it's not innovative. The idea of an embedded online music store is a good one (technically this happened first in Japan), as is WiFi connectivity and song sharing between Zunes. Apple added iTunes to the iPod touch, but not song sharing. The big difference between the iPod touch and the Zune is that the iPod actually works. But that's In fact, the way iTunes makes it a huge hassle to transfer tracks is the main reason I don't own an iPod (that and FLAC).
In the US, you can be charged with a felony, and sent to federal prison for 1 year, for making a 1 copy of a CD or possession of a "circumvention device", like a CD burner (yes, they count) or modchip.
If you made any attempt whatsoever to distribute that cell phone photo you certainly COULD be charged with a crime.
Nokia and I believe Samsung both had phones with touch interfaces before the iPhone. I don't know if they can handle multiple fingers. They even did a damn good job with the scratch free surface implementation as well. The iPhone is not "scratch free". The very first thing I did when I touched an iPhone in the Apple Store was drop it and scratch the screen (which was already scratched up). It's got a very good scratch-resistant coating, but it's not as good a coating as I've seen on a few other devices. I've got a universal remote somewhere with a glass screen top that is MUCH more scratch-reistant than the iPhone. Compare the screen on the iPhone to the screens on many PocketPCs and you'll see that the PocketPCs are about the same. And M$'s knee jerk reaction to Apple's multi-touch technology? Surface!! Talk about funny!! Surface has been in development for many years. I saw a demo of something similar at MS research back in 2000. That same year I built a kiosk with a far more sophisticated touch interface than the one in the iPhone.
You didn't even mention the most innovative feature about the iPhone, the web browser (which is rebadged Konquerer). It's the first cell phone that I'm aware of with a really good web browser. The way the tilt sensor allows you to change the aspect ratio at will is also very handy.
As I said, Apple is very good a packaging innovations, but in reality they do very little that is truly original except industrial design. I would not agree that, for example, the candy-colored iMacs really represent a technical innovation.
Heads up Zoidbot, but this is a rare example of GOOD game journalism.
Publishers are traditionally reluctant to show game journalists pre-release code because bugs and instabilities in the code may give the journalist the false impression that the game has a lot more problems that it will actually have on release. So normally when a company invites a magazine or website to see pre-release code, they have the expectation (often DEMAND) that the journalist will do a fawning puff piece on thier game.
In this case, EA choose to show 1UP pre-release code on their game with the explicit understanding that 1UP would talk about it on their website. What EA showed them was apparently terribly broken, and 1UP described it as "near final". It shows great ethics on the part of 1UP that rather than LIE in the piece or (more likely) simply not publish about the pre-release code they saw, they instead chose to tell the TRUTH about what they saw and risk the ire of EA.
Make no mistake, EA fucked up here.
The reality here is that Harmonix/Actvision negotiated with the Romantics to use their original recordings. The Romantics wanted a shitload of money for the song. So Harmonix/Activision negotiated to record a cover version (at their expense) for less money. The Romantics bide their time waiting for the game to be released and then sue claiming the cover THEY AGREED TO EARLIER was "too similar" to their original.
There's history here. The Romantics are one of the most whorish bands in history, licensing "What I like About You" and their other hits to everyone under the sun. Unfortunately, during the 80s they spent most of their time partying and their management ran off with much of the profits. So they've spent the past 15 years suing the crap out of everyone because of the way they mismanaged their music.
Basically, they're just trying to extort Activision/Harmonix for more money because they're a one-hit-wonder band that still lives by milking the few hits they had in the 80s.
NIMF is an anti-gaming pressure group AND they don't bother to detail the methodology of their "study". They're almost certainly flat-out lying about the results. I can think of countless ways they could fudge these results, assuming they're not just making them up out of whole cloth (which is typical for such "studies"). Among other things I suspect few of the retailers were actually specialty game retailers. You CAN purchase video games at Rite-Aid, where I suspect the cashiers are poorly educated about carding kids for games. It's also possible that the "kids" they're using are 16-year-olds with fake IDs.
Secondly, in order for something to be a proper study it requires controls, proper methodology, and control cases. I seriously doubt that NIMF bothered to do this in their survey.
And as others have pointed out, these results are better than more credible studies of tobacco and alcohol sales to minors. Most studies show that minors can purchase alcohol and cigarettes about 60% of the time.
Finally, I consider it completely absurd to expect non-specialty games retailers to know the ratings details of every, or even ANY, game on their shelves. It's equivalent to expecting cashiers in grocery stores to know the ingredients on every product they sell. NOBODY expects this level of scrutiny on R-rated or even X-rated games. How many studies do you see of how hard it is for a teenager to buy a copy of Hustler at the local store? What do you think the success rate would be? 90-95%?
In most states you can get a State ID card from age 13+. As far as I'm aware, 17-year-olds in every state can get a State ID card. You can also get a Passport from at least age 5 on. A Passport is valid Picture ID. Every American who isn't batshit crazy should have a Passport.
This is NOT the case with copyright law which involves very specific language with no leeway. That's because the copyright people have a powerful lobby and want to be able to pursue the maximum number of cases. And copyright violation now includes criminal penalties, unlike all other contract violations.
The people who complain about violent video games want the games banned for EVERYONE. They are usually the same people that want to ban rap music, pornography, Harry Potter and Dungeons and Dragons. These people believe that "violent" or "sexual" media is fundamentally bad and they want it banned. "For the children" is just an excuse.
Don't hold your breath. DirectX 9 isn't even close to being fully implemented in WINE, and DirectX 10 has major architectural differences. Secondly, Direct3D 10 has features that simply do not exist in OpenGL, so OpenGL has to be extended before this kind of emulation is even possible. We're realistically looking at 2012 before we can expect working WINE DirectX 10 games, and even then they will run extremely poorly. There are DirectX 10-only games shipping NOW.
I seriously doubt that WINE will EVER work properly with DirectX games. I better long-term solution for Windows gaming support in Linux is a hypervisor-based VM.
OTOH, The complaints about the warranty seem to be spot on. As the author points out, it is illegal in the United States to void a warranty if customers use a 3rd-party repair shop or choose to make repairs themselves. This comes from auto manufacturers trying to void warranties because car buyers took their cars to other mechanics (or worked on them themselves) rather than going to the dealer.
I'm douchetastic.
Never, ever, ever, agree to an audit by the BSA under any circumstances. It's the same as admitting liability. If they threaten you, hire a lawyer and threaten them back. Increasing the cost of the audit keeps it from being profitable and eventually they back off. If you keep stalling, you can drag the process out for years.
Secondly, there are "corporate crimes". For example, A vice president orders one of his HR staffers to fire one of his employees specifically because he is black. Who committed the crime? It is not the HR staffer, it is not the Vice President, it is the COMPANY that the Vice President represents. It is the COMPANY that will have to pay penalties. The VP and HR staffer have ho liability whatsoever because the ate acting ON BEHALF OF the company, no on their own behalf.
Of course, the company may choose to fire the VP and HR staffer, but that is COMPLETELY SEPARATE.
The only reason they target the small businesses is because they can't defend themselves, period. Large businesses are generally MUCH worse offenders, but they are MUCH more likely to defend themselves with lawyers because it's more cost-effective.
Another point is that flexible license terms and the tools needed to manage licenses are often only made available to large businesses. Large businesses can get "site licenses" so they don't have to track individual licenses. They are often given the software or other tools needed to manage licenses that small businesses must pay for. They are also far more likely to have the manpower necessary to devote time to license management. Software vendors, especially at the small-business level, often try to double-bill on licenses as well.
I would also point out that Apple has absolutely stellar marketing. Apple pays a order of magnitude more on advertising than on R&D (so does Microsoft, I'm not pointing fingers) and it shows.
Private attorneys have better than 0.25% success rate because they take many more cases to trial. In fact, many people go to private attorneys after first going to a PD who insists on a plea bargain and outright refuses to take the case to trial, or they tell the defendant that he's absolutely guaranteed to lose no matter what. A PD will not spend one red cent on your defense (largely because he doesn't have it).
Basically, if you have no money and you're charged with a crime RUN. If you're innocent, you'll almost certainly be convicted.
While I could be kind to the "critics", the reality is that most of them are busybody opportunists that see a complete non-issue they can exploit to get brownie points for "helping the children". They really don't care about the issue one way or another, they're looking for handouts from the computer games industry. Make no mistake, people like Jack Thompson want the video game industry to give them cash to GO AWAY. These same people used to make a lot of noise about comic books before they were bought by the big media companies that pay the "critics" salaries.
Just like comic books, video games are easy to attack because they're perceived as a "kid's media". Cartoons used to receive the same sort of criticism (in the early years South Park was attacked the same way) but big media money killed that.
Basically, the video games industry just needs more lobbyists and flacks to promote their position. It really doesn't matter what they say, it's the handouts that matter.
Having said that, I suspect our eyes are versatile enough to adjust to the "wiggle" effect over time to reduce eyestrain.
The problem we're talking about is called "experimenter's bias". The fingerprint examiner knows what conclusion he's "supposed" to reach, so the examiner consciously or unconsciously "finds" that the print matched the suspect. Studies have shown that when examiners work "blind" they do no better than chance.
Lie detectors don't work either, for much the same reasons.