Dear $publisher$ I will not be buying your new game, $title$, because it requires me to be connected to the internet in order to play it. A significant amount of my gaming time is spent on planes and trains, and in the outhouse while visiting family - during none of which I would be able to play your game.
This is a shame, as I would like to play it in order to take part in the inevitable conversations with my friends regarding the game, who will all have download a warez copy around 48 before your game hits the store shelves I won't be buying it from.
But all that money that "family guys" are spending - that's ALSO on products for which advertisers want to target you. The new 4x4, mortgage, insurance, family holidays, cleaning products, kids toys etc. etc.
Those are all products that get advertised heavily too, so the theory that "gays have more discretionary spend" doesn't necessarily lead to "gays are worth more per click".
Well - obviously not. But should they be denied the ability to play the game? How much further would you take it - if the next generation of Windows required to be on line would it be fair to remove their computers?
How is this significantly different from requiring a certain generation of graphics card? Or a minimum amount of RAM? Or having a PC instead of a Mac?
In order to provide the game experience they want to provide (which is what you're paying for) the developers have decided to place certain requirements on the equipment required to play. If you don't have the required equipment, you will be unable to play.
I really don't understand all the hoo-ha - maybe the people who don't have a reliable net connection should buy one of the MYRIAD of competing products which don't have that requirement?
You probably wouldn't say that if you loved in a remote location. For some people connecting to the internet means driving to a wifi-enabled cafe or buying a satellite connection, i.e. the majority of situations they can't connect.
Perhaps those people are not the target market for this game, then?
Besides, if I add "while moving through space" to any patent which doesn't explicitly state "this can be done while moving" does that make my new patent OK?
In other words, can I patent the ENTIRE PORTFOLIO at the patent office and just add on "while moving" or "portable" and suddenly license out every patent ever previously granted to anyone for use under my own terms as long as the process is carried out in the back of a moving truck, instead of in an office or factory at a fixed location?
In fact, can I just add "in a moving truck" to the end of every patent, and suddenly have a unique new patent?
He never said what the solution would be, nor that no-one would send spam - just that it would be a thing of the past. And for my users at work, for me, for my family it really is a thing of the past, because someone has solved the problem for me. We almost never SEE spam messages anymore - even one per week is quite alot. Despite the fact one of accounts alone gets a thousand a day.
I work for a company that has a pay-per-click ad budget well into seven-figures per annum - and we track every click, journey and resolution.
We know exactly how much we have spent each hour, and exactly how much value each of those clicks had to our business (although it may be some weeks or months before the customer ultimately completes a financial transaction with us, we will know about it).
One of the reasons the internet has been ascending rapidly in terms of its' share of ad/marketing spend *is* the ability to directly track and quantitatively assess the impact of the spend - none of the traditional channels can offer this.
We know all of our serious competitors are doing this too - and the spend makes fiscal sense. So at least one from one (very major) industry sector, I can't see what you mean when you say it's a house of cards - it's an avenue to discover potentially interested customers, and one which results in us earning significantly greater profits. I don't see that changing any time soon...
Wait, it's Facebooks' fault that you chose to browse their site unencrypted?
You have the choice - if you visit https://facebook.com/ it will let you run your entire session on the site in https. They obviously support SSL for those who want it... I fail to see how it's their fault?
Just look at how "computers" are taught in most schools. They teach the students what to click on instead of teaching the concepts of those things.
So... at age 3 did you get taught how to tie your shoelaces, or did you get taught how to strip the hide off an animal, cure the leather, and stitch it to the sole?
Or did you spend that time learning things that may actually be of use to you?
If I was a boss, or it was my own company, I'd implement Linux.
This is the reason why you are neither "a boss" nor "have your own company".
Different tools work well for different purposes and organisations. Windows and its' ecosystem of office productivity apps are expensive and have their flaws - but they are also pretty darn useful and your training costs will be close to zero as your newer employees will already be familiar with them. Further if you're on Windows now and want to be on Linux in 3 years, the TCO has to not just be lower, but has to be lower by a large enough to account for the cost of planning, migration, training, lost productivity and risk of failure. That's *alot* cheaper.
Your final comments about "if you really can't figure out it out, I wouldn't want that person as an employee." are a ridiculous justification, and easily debunked. In any company of significant size, you will be hiring from a pool of workers that you share with all your competitors - if you want staff with IT skills noticeably better and more flexible than the average you will have to PAY THEM MORE. So now, suddenly the TCO delta between your Windows and Linux environments needs to be larger again - this time by several thousand or more per head...
See, while it's technically not that difficult to do, very few people who have spent their careers getting into the position to be able to competently make that judgment and to plan and carry out such a migration have also spent significant time in their careers studying business risk, TCO and all the other myriad small factors that must go into make a decision like this.
You say you can do it, I believe you and I respect your technical skills - but claiming it can be done just anywhere and in any company (and make financial sense to do so) sounds naive to me.
I don't mean to be rude, I hope you can see my point.
Isn't that the whole point of Heisenbergs Uncertaintly Principle?
That it's not possible to *PRECISELY* measure an attribute of something?
We all know it's possible to measure it reasonably accurately... (otherwise we wouldn't have speeding tickets) but Heisenbergs is not about "reasonably accurate" but "absolutely accurate".
Then those people at the airlines who are bitching can all jump onto a jumbo jet & fly through the ash cloud several times to make sure it's safe. Ohhhhh, they don't want to do that, they would rather see the passengers used as test subjects.
Actually they *DID* want to do that. And they did.
British Airways 5 hour test flight through the cloud involved several of their senior directors, including their Chief Exec Willie Walsh. This BBC news article (and audio report with alot more detail) describes it.
Slashdot Mirror
Dear $publisher$ I will not be buying your new game, $title$, because it requires me to be connected to the internet in order to play it. A significant amount of my gaming time is spent on planes and trains, and in the outhouse while visiting family - during none of which I would be able to play your game.
This is a shame, as I would like to play it in order to take part in the inevitable conversations with my friends regarding the game, who will all have download a warez copy around 48 before your game hits the store shelves I won't be buying it from.
Yours,
Russ
As for the importance of our respective footballs, is the championship game of your football season essentially a national holiday?
Given that we have 38 of them every year, this might not be feasible...
But all that money that "family guys" are spending - that's ALSO on products for which advertisers want to target you. The new 4x4, mortgage, insurance, family holidays, cleaning products, kids toys etc. etc.
Those are all products that get advertised heavily too, so the theory that "gays have more discretionary spend" doesn't necessarily lead to "gays are worth more per click".
* Accenture is the main developer
Found your problem. Right there.
Didn't the USA just become a "first-to-file" nation?
How is this significantly different from requiring a certain generation of graphics card? Or a minimum amount of RAM? Or having a PC instead of a Mac?
In order to provide the game experience they want to provide (which is what you're paying for) the developers have decided to place certain requirements on the equipment required to play. If you don't have the required equipment, you will be unable to play.
I really don't understand all the hoo-ha - maybe the people who don't have a reliable net connection should buy one of the MYRIAD of competing products which don't have that requirement?
Perhaps those people are not the target market for this game, then?
"Fish *** in it"
- Captain Reggie Thistleton
You guys do know what Alt-Tab does in Windows, right? right?
If I can pivot it, I can move it.
If I can move it, it is portable.
Besides, if I add "while moving through space" to any patent which doesn't explicitly state "this can be done while moving" does that make my new patent OK?
In other words, can I patent the ENTIRE PORTFOLIO at the patent office and just add on "while moving" or "portable" and suddenly license out every patent ever previously granted to anyone for use under my own terms as long as the process is carried out in the back of a moving truck, instead of in an office or factory at a fixed location?
In fact, can I just add "in a moving truck" to the end of every patent, and suddenly have a unique new patent?
Hunh hunh hunh, you said "semi".
Not necessarily a direct answer, but this academic presentation is incredibly eye-opening and well worth a watch:
http://www.ted.com/talks/jeremy_jackson.html
He was right - it is. For the people who matter.
He never said what the solution would be, nor that no-one would send spam - just that it would be a thing of the past. And for my users at work, for me, for my family it really is a thing of the past, because someone has solved the problem for me. We almost never SEE spam messages anymore - even one per week is quite alot. Despite the fact one of accounts alone gets a thousand a day.
Until they go out of fashion. So 12-24 months.
I work for a company that has a pay-per-click ad budget well into seven-figures per annum - and we track every click, journey and resolution.
We know exactly how much we have spent each hour, and exactly how much value each of those clicks had to our business (although it may be some weeks or months before the customer ultimately completes a financial transaction with us, we will know about it).
One of the reasons the internet has been ascending rapidly in terms of its' share of ad/marketing spend *is* the ability to directly track and quantitatively assess the impact of the spend - none of the traditional channels can offer this.
We know all of our serious competitors are doing this too - and the spend makes fiscal sense. So at least one from one (very major) industry sector, I can't see what you mean when you say it's a house of cards - it's an avenue to discover potentially interested customers, and one which results in us earning significantly greater profits. I don't see that changing any time soon...
Wait, it's Facebooks' fault that you chose to browse their site unencrypted?
You have the choice - if you visit https://facebook.com/ it will let you run your entire session on the site in https. They obviously support SSL for those who want it... I fail to see how it's their fault?
So... at age 3 did you get taught how to tie your shoelaces, or did you get taught how to strip the hide off an animal, cure the leather, and stitch it to the sole?
Or did you spend that time learning things that may actually be of use to you?
This is the reason why you are neither "a boss" nor "have your own company".
Different tools work well for different purposes and organisations. Windows and its' ecosystem of office productivity apps are expensive and have their flaws - but they are also pretty darn useful and your training costs will be close to zero as your newer employees will already be familiar with them. Further if you're on Windows now and want to be on Linux in 3 years, the TCO has to not just be lower, but has to be lower by a large enough to account for the cost of planning, migration, training, lost productivity and risk of failure. That's *alot* cheaper.
Your final comments about "if you really can't figure out it out, I wouldn't want that person as an employee." are a ridiculous justification, and easily debunked. In any company of significant size, you will be hiring from a pool of workers that you share with all your competitors - if you want staff with IT skills noticeably better and more flexible than the average you will have to PAY THEM MORE. So now, suddenly the TCO delta between your Windows and Linux environments needs to be larger again - this time by several thousand or more per head...
See, while it's technically not that difficult to do, very few people who have spent their careers getting into the position to be able to competently make that judgment and to plan and carry out such a migration have also spent significant time in their careers studying business risk, TCO and all the other myriad small factors that must go into make a decision like this.
You say you can do it, I believe you and I respect your technical skills - but claiming it can be done just anywhere and in any company (and make financial sense to do so) sounds naive to me.
I don't mean to be rude, I hope you can see my point.
I for one welcome our new terrain-conquering giant pylon overlords.
Isn't that the whole point of Heisenbergs Uncertaintly Principle?
That it's not possible to *PRECISELY* measure an attribute of something?
We all know it's possible to measure it reasonably accurately... (otherwise we wouldn't have speeding tickets) but Heisenbergs is not about "reasonably accurate" but "absolutely accurate".
Why, for the love of god, is this not tagged "whatcouldpossiblygowrong"?
If *any* topic recently has deserved it, this is it.
That *is* about 70 years... I think I'd be fairly happy if my Pacemaker lasted 70 years... :)
What is the hardware life expectancy on those things anyway?
Any reasons grandma can't just transfer the cash for the ticket?
You've never bought petrol? Or a product with plastic in it?
You never bought one of those products because it was cheaper than a competitor?
Methinks you need to think about it a little more...
Actually they *DID* want to do that. And they did.
British Airways 5 hour test flight through the cloud involved several of their senior directors, including their Chief Exec Willie Walsh. This BBC news article (and audio report with alot more detail) describes it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/8629008.stm