Are games localized for each country in Europe and/or the continent as a whole? I was under the impression that they just ran it through the equivalent of the ESRB and shipped an American English version. (Perhaps removing Nazi symbols). This is based just on having looked at a few games in MAME, where the World version is nearly indiscernable from the US.
The EU itself is already seriously considering holding on-line merchants outside of the EU accountable for collecting VAT (!)
I'd like to see them try. Worst case scenario is to halt shipments at the border.
But if that market is Europe, you need to include VAT. Europeans importing games from North America generally don't pay that VAT,
Gotta pay for those socialist programs somehow.
And that's just one of the ways that the cost of doing business (at least with video games) in Europe is higher than in either Japan or North America.
If they were patriotic, and cared about the striking workers, they'd happily pay the VAT.
There's also the money spent on making localized versions of games that don't violate local anti-speech laws (another area in which Europe may hold foreign publishers accountable for the actions of their own citizens).
And yet, I could pick a story at random and find Europeans slagging the US for abridgement of various rights. Pot, meet kettle.
(None of this should be taken as defending the US 100%. I'm just requesting that the Europeans do what they ask Americans to do: examine their own actions, past and present, and own up to the fact that they aren't perfect.)
So they've chosen to make their retailers happy, as opposed to their customers. (Well, yes, technically, the retailers are the customers of Nintendo, not the end users...) Wouldn't it make sense for Nintendo to satisfy everyone by making the games available to UK/European distributors? If the Europeans retailers want the games, they can call their distributor and get them for the end users.
Re:Give the spectrum back to the people
on
Revising Spectrum Rules
·
· Score: 3, Informative
NPR doesn't fulfill that mandate. They are owned/operated by corporations and the philanthropy arm of those corporations. They lobbied against LPFM. They lobbied in favor of the just passed changes by the FCC.
My brother and father watch the episodes new (I just wait for my father to get the DVDs and watch them there). I long ago gave up trying to avoid spoilers. They KNOW I don't want to pay for HBO, but they still tell me, every Monday, what happened the night before.
Of course, if you pay attention to the industry rags, seeing that Joe Pantoliano has a new TV series coming out should have been a dead giveaway:)
Stockholders represent a very small portion of the population,
Wrong. The majority of Americans are stockholders through pensions, IRAs, etc. They don't have control of each and every stock, but they are stockholders of a sort.
You miss one crucial factor, and that is that all states have the same federal minimum wage.
That may be true (not sure) but many localities (NYC, DC, etc.) have minimum wages higher than the national minimum.
Things will eventually reach equilibrium, but only when the majority of Americans have a far lower standard of living.
Not sure what I think, but it's not unreasonable for someone to argue that what will happen is that the standard of living in other countries will improve, whereas the American standard of living will remain static for some time.
The rest of America, with almost 50% owing more than they own(which means that have negative net worth) are going to be left without a safety net, and with a very poor standard of living.
How many people don't have a safety net because they were striving too hard to improve their standard of living? I've tried to raise this point with some other people, and I'll try again: what is an acceptible standard of living? What measurable or demonstrable factors exist in this standard? Most of the middle class people I know or see who are upside down are there because of want, not need. (IOW, WANT a bigger house, want a Mercedes) Darned few people are upside down for the same reason I am (wife lost vision, hearing, and, consequently, job).
The problem with a trade deficit, is that eventually it devalues our currency. Think about it, if we buy a product in dollars from another country, but don't give them anything in return, then eventually that counry realizes that the dollar is worthless.
This is a form of correction. If this occurs, it means that the dollar spent a long time being overvalued.
Here they go, trying to associate corporate globalization as some "right". That's fine, then set a minimum standard of living, so that people can have the right to eat. Export democracy, not corporations.
Wish I had a link, but I've read in a few places recently that democracy and a capitalist economy go hand in hand. However, I must plead that the idea of 'corporation as a person' has gotten way out of hand. Corporations, as you say, don't have rights. Given that they are owned, I would say it's obvious that constitutional protections (free speech, etc.) do not extend to corporations.
If you use that arguement, then you can't buy any American products either, since we have a larger jail population than China.
I believe he was talking specifically about Chinese political prisoners. AFAIK, there are few, if any, US prisoners being held because of speaking favorably about Cuba or the Taliban, etc. (Don't remind me of the folks in Guantanamo. I'm saying that the numbers involved are drastically different, and a few hundred doesn't change that.) But if you want to free people convicted of misdemeanor possession (hell, felony possession if there was no intent to distribute) I've got your back.
So who gained? Not the US. The US experienced higher priced steel as a result of tariffs. No country received any kind of advantage. A small group in one country benefitted.
However, by abandoning the rules of free trade when others are following them, I gain a temporary advantage which forces the hands of others.
It should be highlighted in about a billion different ways that this advantage is 'temporary'. The long term effects are damaging, even if the tariffs go away. Why? In the meantime, external suppliers will continue to improve production techniques. When the tariffs are lifted, the price disparity between domestice and foreign steel is even greater. The benefit will arrive then. And all people will gain. Or the tariff will be reinstated, and all people will be harmed. Again.
I don't know what "contra bono"
I never had a game theory class, but was exposed to it a bit in micro. I believe 'contra bono' means 'against the good' or something of that nature. Basically, the poster to whom you are replying is saying 'it was a bad thing' without showing how he got to that point. But I'm not 100%, and don't want to put words in his mouth.
The problem is, the theory is being applied to practice with only dollars mattering. The dollars can't/don't take into account many non-fiduciary matters.
The problem with classical economics is that knowledge is not perfect. Further, the consumer will not necessarily act in what the politicians, companies, and lobbyists deem is the 'best manner'.
Free trade, as far as we know, still works. There is yet to be a single instance of free international trade with which to compare with the economic models. If 'real' economists are turning away from classical models, it is not because the models have failed; it is the world that has failed.
people are looking at alternative economic constructs to help increase wealth and distribute it more fairly
What basis is the foundation for the assumption that wealth is not being distributed fairly? It would seem this is the larger and more important decision. How can you strive to more fairness in distribution without knowing what fair is?
YMBAL, BAYAJ (You Might Be A Lawyer, But Are You A Judge?) Unless you are, your opinion is worth... Not much. Until there's a trial, all we can rely on are best guesses. Granted, your guess is worth a hell of a lot more than mine, but the existence or not of mutual consideration is, I believe, up to a judge and/or jury.
That's exactly what I meant by `other access methods'.
My bad.
And there's a lot of bookwares out there if you know where to look.
irc.bookwarez.net
(Or.com, I can't remember. It's bookmarked in mIRC)
Sad thing is, I'm happy to spend money on the books. I tried contacting Stephen King (wife's favorite author) through website looking for braille books for purchase. No reply. Screw 'em. I'll buy the hardcopy for me, and assume that I'm allowed, via fair use, to get a txt copy online.
Add one more to your list: deaf blind people can load them on one of these. It's a device to let deaf-blind people read 'portable books'. Unfortunately, it only takes plain text input. Limiting you to Gutenberg and bookwarez.
While it sounds flippant, you are dead on. My problem is that there are no easy solutions for deaf-blind people. I'd like to get one of these for my wife, but it only takes text input. So I'm limited to Gutenberg and bookwarez.
Go back and reread the link. There is info on US releases: there won't be any. This is part of Hudson's value line that is only to be released in Japan.
Glad to see the new editor is just as illiterate as the old ones.
(Moderators, yes, one for informative, one for interesting, one for flamebait, and one for troll would be correct. Since that all evens out, go mod something else)
I don't have any more info than you about that. I was just going based on something some other slashbot said.
Even if Justin was merely a VP of some division within the company, I imagine the argument could be made that he still did have apparant authority to release the software under the aegis of Nullsoft. It's a bit weaker than if Null were a wholly owned subsidiary. After all, someone could make the argument that a janitor had apparant authority. Whether or not that is reasonable is up to a judge/jury to decide.
I didn't intend to say that you were right or wrong. Just that having the definitions of the terms may facilitate the discussion. But what I did mean to say is that if the downloader *thought* and had *good reason to believe* that Justin was in the right, then the company (either AOL or Nullsoft) may have to stand behind that. (If I get any requests, I may be able to equivocate a little more, but it'll probably be tricky. Maybe.)
I expanded on this somewhere else, and made some similar points as you WRT limitations of apparent authority. I even came to a similar conclusion (code no good), but for different reasons (I think:) The protestations after the fact by AOL do not matter, and don't change how the code was released a couple of weeks ago. They don't negate the situation. What does screw things up is that AOL/Null have pulled Justin's code in the past (gnutella?) It is clear that even being the CEO, he doesn't have the authority to release his company's code.
So, I would argue that AOL pulling gnutella and Aimster (or whatever it was called) are more important WRT the current case. Actually, my final analysis is that some judge will toss all these things up in the air, and see which weighs the most. If it came to court, which I doubt.
Welcome to college. Some profs can't use chalkboards. Some can't use computers. Some can't talk to students effectively. In a brick and mortar school, you'd know which profs suck, and avoid them. By the end of my undergrad degree, I was picking classes based on profs, not on the subject matter. Better a lame subject by a great prof, then engaging material by a dullard.
My experiences with online education are limited. The last time I was in school was 1997. The school was just beginning to experiment with some classwork online. Basically, it sucked. Not only were the profs not 100% (but they were okay, given that it was their first online class) but much of the class wasn't terribly online savvy.
I didn't realize you were an MBA... I could definitely use some of your help if you are interested.
You've got email and AIM. Drop me a line.
The situation is even more damning than you imply. The trick is that AOL didn't have to give any authority ot Null and/or Justin in the first place. Justin's job title was CEO of Nullsoft. The software appeared on Nullsoft's site, probably placed there by Justin himself. Having that job title makes it *look* like things were legit on his end. Anyone who dl'ed that software probably thought that it was on the up and up.
Of course, there are tons of 'ifs'. The first is that everyone dl'ing that software knew that nullsoft releases had been pulled in the past, so it's possible that this one would be as well. There's the RSAREF question, but if I remember the GPL correctly, the non-offending portions of code are still a-okay. There's also whether or not a judge would deem that the GPL is a legit contract. In MD and VA, it should be (shrinkwrap licenses are law, even if they haven't yet appeared in court). Also, there's little or no consideration. In any contractual arrangement, each party has to give a little to get a little. Except for the previously pulled Nullsoft software, none of these issues has anything to do with the legitimacy of Justin offering the code for download.
This is one of the reasons companies have PO systems. Someone with real authority has to okay a purchase. In my company, there's only two signatures that count without another signature. All contracted employees agree to personally indemnify the company against contracts they entered into that the company didn't okay. Any non-contracted employee knows better, and would be fired for signing another other than a UPS delivery. Even in the former case, we are not really safe. Let's say some doctor ordered a new fangled blood-widget tester for $10,000. The company would *still* have to pay for it (most likely). The only thing the contract does is make clear that we can take it out of the employee's (doctor's) ass. It doesn't change the fact that Weyland Yutani entered into what they thought was a legitimate agreement.
Of course, there's one more thing (isn't there always?) in that even apparant authority doesn't work with stolen goods. Let's say Weyland sold us a stolen blood-widget machine. Even though we acted in good faith, we can't keep the stolen goods. But, we can go after Weyland instead of the employee. This does bear on the Justin/AOL/Nullsoft issue, just because of the weirdness of computer code, legally speaking. If AOL/Nullsoft is working on some code to sell that is similar to WASTE, they could make the argument that Justin cost them sales, and perhaps retract the code. But, if they have no plans to do anything with the code (given what has happened with earlier Justin projects, I'd argue this is more likely) and just wants to sit on it, or avoid some legal exposure, they've got a weaker case.
Sadly, there is no 'trumping' action in any of this. Were it to end up in court, some judge would juggle all these myriad legal doctrines, and decide which weighs the most today and in this case. Honestly, AOL should have fired him last time around if they are truly concerned about it.
I've got no answer to the situation. I just thought I'd edumacate some folks. Perhaps if they understood some of these things, they'd know why their bosses are 'such dickheads'.
Slashdot Mirror
Are games localized for each country in Europe and/or the continent as a whole? I was under the impression that they just ran it through the equivalent of the ESRB and shipped an American English version. (Perhaps removing Nazi symbols). This is based just on having looked at a few games in MAME, where the World version is nearly indiscernable from the US.
The EU itself is already seriously considering holding on-line merchants outside of the EU accountable for collecting VAT (!)
I'd like to see them try. Worst case scenario is to halt shipments at the border.
But if that market is Europe, you need to include VAT. Europeans importing games from North America generally don't pay that VAT,
Gotta pay for those socialist programs somehow.
And that's just one of the ways that the cost of doing business (at least with video games) in Europe is higher than in either Japan or North America.
If they were patriotic, and cared about the striking workers, they'd happily pay the VAT.
There's also the money spent on making localized versions of games that don't violate local anti-speech laws (another area in which Europe may hold foreign publishers accountable for the actions of their own citizens).
And yet, I could pick a story at random and find Europeans slagging the US for abridgement of various rights. Pot, meet kettle.
(None of this should be taken as defending the US 100%. I'm just requesting that the Europeans do what they ask Americans to do: examine their own actions, past and present, and own up to the fact that they aren't perfect.)
So they've chosen to make their retailers happy, as opposed to their customers. (Well, yes, technically, the retailers are the customers of Nintendo, not the end users...) Wouldn't it make sense for Nintendo to satisfy everyone by making the games available to UK/European distributors? If the Europeans retailers want the games, they can call their distributor and get them for the end users.
NPR doesn't fulfill that mandate. They are owned/operated by corporations and the philanthropy arm of those corporations. They lobbied against LPFM. They lobbied in favor of the just passed changes by the FCC.
NPR is not your friend.
Wait, I think they did this on Star Trek last night...
My brother and father watch the episodes new (I just wait for my father to get the DVDs and watch them there). I long ago gave up trying to avoid spoilers. They KNOW I don't want to pay for HBO, but they still tell me, every Monday, what happened the night before.
Of course, if you pay attention to the industry rags, seeing that Joe Pantoliano has a new TV series coming out should have been a dead giveaway:)
Read this, which claims to be the entire original text. The author (who runs CD Baby) says he will do this.
Stockholders represent a very small portion of the population,
Wrong. The majority of Americans are stockholders through pensions, IRAs, etc. They don't have control of each and every stock, but they are stockholders of a sort.
You miss one crucial factor, and that is that all states have the same federal minimum wage.
That may be true (not sure) but many localities (NYC, DC, etc.) have minimum wages higher than the national minimum.
Things will eventually reach equilibrium, but only when the majority of Americans have a far lower standard of living.
Not sure what I think, but it's not unreasonable for someone to argue that what will happen is that the standard of living in other countries will improve, whereas the American standard of living will remain static for some time.
The rest of America, with almost 50% owing more than they own(which means that have negative net worth) are going to be left without a safety net, and with a very poor standard of living.
How many people don't have a safety net because they were striving too hard to improve their standard of living? I've tried to raise this point with some other people, and I'll try again: what is an acceptible standard of living? What measurable or demonstrable factors exist in this standard? Most of the middle class people I know or see who are upside down are there because of want, not need. (IOW, WANT a bigger house, want a Mercedes) Darned few people are upside down for the same reason I am (wife lost vision, hearing, and, consequently, job).
The problem with a trade deficit, is that eventually it devalues our currency. Think about it, if we buy a product in dollars from another country, but don't give them anything in return, then eventually that counry realizes that the dollar is worthless.
This is a form of correction. If this occurs, it means that the dollar spent a long time being overvalued.
Here they go, trying to associate corporate globalization as some "right". That's fine, then set a minimum standard of living, so that people can have the right to eat. Export democracy, not corporations.
Wish I had a link, but I've read in a few places recently that democracy and a capitalist economy go hand in hand. However, I must plead that the idea of 'corporation as a person' has gotten way out of hand. Corporations, as you say, don't have rights. Given that they are owned, I would say it's obvious that constitutional protections (free speech, etc.) do not extend to corporations.
If you use that arguement, then you can't buy any American products either, since we have a larger jail population than China.
I believe he was talking specifically about Chinese political prisoners. AFAIK, there are few, if any, US prisoners being held because of speaking favorably about Cuba or the Taliban, etc. (Don't remind me of the folks in Guantanamo. I'm saying that the numbers involved are drastically different, and a few hundred doesn't change that.) But if you want to free people convicted of misdemeanor possession (hell, felony possession if there was no intent to distribute) I've got your back.
So who gained? Not the US. The US experienced higher priced steel as a result of tariffs. No country received any kind of advantage. A small group in one country benefitted.
However, by abandoning the rules of free trade when others are following them, I gain a temporary advantage which forces the hands of others.
It should be highlighted in about a billion different ways that this advantage is 'temporary'. The long term effects are damaging, even if the tariffs go away. Why? In the meantime, external suppliers will continue to improve production techniques. When the tariffs are lifted, the price disparity between domestice and foreign steel is even greater. The benefit will arrive then. And all people will gain. Or the tariff will be reinstated, and all people will be harmed. Again.
I don't know what "contra bono"
I never had a game theory class, but was exposed to it a bit in micro. I believe 'contra bono' means 'against the good' or something of that nature. Basically, the poster to whom you are replying is saying 'it was a bad thing' without showing how he got to that point. But I'm not 100%, and don't want to put words in his mouth.
The problem is, the theory is being applied to practice with only dollars mattering. The dollars can't/don't take into account many non-fiduciary matters.
The problem with classical economics is that knowledge is not perfect. Further, the consumer will not necessarily act in what the politicians, companies, and lobbyists deem is the 'best manner'.
Free trade, as far as we know, still works. There is yet to be a single instance of free international trade with which to compare with the economic models. If 'real' economists are turning away from classical models, it is not because the models have failed; it is the world that has failed.
people are looking at alternative economic constructs to help increase wealth and distribute it more fairly
What basis is the foundation for the assumption that wealth is not being distributed fairly? It would seem this is the larger and more important decision. How can you strive to more fairness in distribution without knowing what fair is?
#!/bin/sh1 DL/volution_manager_1.1_eval.iso -O /dev/null
while true
do wget http://www2.caldera.com/download_files/049-000-00
done
eliminate spaces in the url first.
YMBAL, BAYAJ (You Might Be A Lawyer, But Are You A Judge?) Unless you are, your opinion is worth... Not much. Until there's a trial, all we can rely on are best guesses. Granted, your guess is worth a hell of a lot more than mine, but the existence or not of mutual consideration is, I believe, up to a judge and/or jury.
That's for the source, not necessarily the binary. And, if the market will bear the price, it is de facto 'reasonable'.
That's exactly what I meant by `other access methods'.
.com, I can't remember. It's bookmarked in mIRC)
My bad.
And there's a lot of bookwares out there if you know where to look.
irc.bookwarez.net
(Or
Sad thing is, I'm happy to spend money on the books. I tried contacting Stephen King (wife's favorite author) through website looking for braille books for purchase. No reply. Screw 'em. I'll buy the hardcopy for me, and assume that I'm allowed, via fair use, to get a txt copy online.
But thanks for the polite reply pointing out my deficiencies, anyhow :)
Any time. Just glad to see that you are 'one of the boys':)
Personally, I wouldn't hold my breath on an official US release.
Add one more to your list: deaf blind people can load them on one of these. It's a device to let deaf-blind people read 'portable books'. Unfortunately, it only takes plain text input. Limiting you to Gutenberg and bookwarez.
While it sounds flippant, you are dead on. My problem is that there are no easy solutions for deaf-blind people. I'd like to get one of these for my wife, but it only takes text input. So I'm limited to Gutenberg and bookwarez.
Go back and reread the link. There is info on US releases: there won't be any. This is part of Hudson's value line that is only to be released in Japan.
Glad to see the new editor is just as illiterate as the old ones.
(Moderators, yes, one for informative, one for interesting, one for flamebait, and one for troll would be correct. Since that all evens out, go mod something else)
I don't have any more info than you about that. I was just going based on something some other slashbot said.
Even if Justin was merely a VP of some division within the company, I imagine the argument could be made that he still did have apparant authority to release the software under the aegis of Nullsoft. It's a bit weaker than if Null were a wholly owned subsidiary. After all, someone could make the argument that a janitor had apparant authority. Whether or not that is reasonable is up to a judge/jury to decide.
I didn't intend to say that you were right or wrong. Just that having the definitions of the terms may facilitate the discussion. But what I did mean to say is that if the downloader *thought* and had *good reason to believe* that Justin was in the right, then the company (either AOL or Nullsoft) may have to stand behind that. (If I get any requests, I may be able to equivocate a little more, but it'll probably be tricky. Maybe.)
I expanded on this somewhere else, and made some similar points as you WRT limitations of apparent authority. I even came to a similar conclusion (code no good), but for different reasons (I think:) The protestations after the fact by AOL do not matter, and don't change how the code was released a couple of weeks ago. They don't negate the situation. What does screw things up is that AOL/Null have pulled Justin's code in the past (gnutella?) It is clear that even being the CEO, he doesn't have the authority to release his company's code.
So, I would argue that AOL pulling gnutella and Aimster (or whatever it was called) are more important WRT the current case. Actually, my final analysis is that some judge will toss all these things up in the air, and see which weighs the most. If it came to court, which I doubt.
Funny joke. Read my journal, and you'll see that I am quite the doting father.
Welcome to college. Some profs can't use chalkboards. Some can't use computers. Some can't talk to students effectively. In a brick and mortar school, you'd know which profs suck, and avoid them. By the end of my undergrad degree, I was picking classes based on profs, not on the subject matter. Better a lame subject by a great prof, then engaging material by a dullard.
My experiences with online education are limited. The last time I was in school was 1997. The school was just beginning to experiment with some classwork online. Basically, it sucked. Not only were the profs not 100% (but they were okay, given that it was their first online class) but much of the class wasn't terribly online savvy.
Personally, I prefer F2F classwork. YMMV.
I didn't realize you were an MBA... I could definitely use some of your help if you are interested.
You've got email and AIM. Drop me a line.
The situation is even more damning than you imply. The trick is that AOL didn't have to give any authority ot Null and/or Justin in the first place. Justin's job title was CEO of Nullsoft. The software appeared on Nullsoft's site, probably placed there by Justin himself. Having that job title makes it *look* like things were legit on his end. Anyone who dl'ed that software probably thought that it was on the up and up.
Of course, there are tons of 'ifs'. The first is that everyone dl'ing that software knew that nullsoft releases had been pulled in the past, so it's possible that this one would be as well. There's the RSAREF question, but if I remember the GPL correctly, the non-offending portions of code are still a-okay. There's also whether or not a judge would deem that the GPL is a legit contract. In MD and VA, it should be (shrinkwrap licenses are law, even if they haven't yet appeared in court). Also, there's little or no consideration. In any contractual arrangement, each party has to give a little to get a little. Except for the previously pulled Nullsoft software, none of these issues has anything to do with the legitimacy of Justin offering the code for download.
This is one of the reasons companies have PO systems. Someone with real authority has to okay a purchase. In my company, there's only two signatures that count without another signature. All contracted employees agree to personally indemnify the company against contracts they entered into that the company didn't okay. Any non-contracted employee knows better, and would be fired for signing another other than a UPS delivery. Even in the former case, we are not really safe. Let's say some doctor ordered a new fangled blood-widget tester for $10,000. The company would *still* have to pay for it (most likely). The only thing the contract does is make clear that we can take it out of the employee's (doctor's) ass. It doesn't change the fact that Weyland Yutani entered into what they thought was a legitimate agreement.
Of course, there's one more thing (isn't there always?) in that even apparant authority doesn't work with stolen goods. Let's say Weyland sold us a stolen blood-widget machine. Even though we acted in good faith, we can't keep the stolen goods. But, we can go after Weyland instead of the employee. This does bear on the Justin/AOL/Nullsoft issue, just because of the weirdness of computer code, legally speaking. If AOL/Nullsoft is working on some code to sell that is similar to WASTE, they could make the argument that Justin cost them sales, and perhaps retract the code. But, if they have no plans to do anything with the code (given what has happened with earlier Justin projects, I'd argue this is more likely) and just wants to sit on it, or avoid some legal exposure, they've got a weaker case.
Sadly, there is no 'trumping' action in any of this. Were it to end up in court, some judge would juggle all these myriad legal doctrines, and decide which weighs the most today and in this case. Honestly, AOL should have fired him last time around if they are truly concerned about it.
I've got no answer to the situation. I just thought I'd edumacate some folks. Perhaps if they understood some of these things, they'd know why their bosses are 'such dickheads'.
The situation is not quite as muddy as portrayed. rather than repeat myself