Generally, no opinions aren't evidence. Opinions are BASED on evidence and an expert can explain the technical evidence to the jury. If the expert hasn't seen the code, he can't testify that it's the same. He can only testify "I think it's so BECAUSE...". For example they do show and tell, showing the jury two DNA samples and pointing out the differences. The jury themselves see the differences, which are the evidence. The expert is there to show the jury where to look, to explain the evidence.
Apparently, in this case the expert said he thought it might be the same BECAUSE the games look similar from a player's perspective. He chose not to SHOW the jury what they look like, though. So the jury didn't even have any evidence that the games LOOK similar - only that one guy to THOUGHT they look similar (when he was paid to think that.)
The difference between evidence of thinking and evidence of truth is obvious if I point a gun at you, you act in self-defense, and later you find out mine was a BB gun. You might introduce evidence that you THOUGHT you were in danger. That's different from actually BEING in danger. Same here - they produced evidence that a guy THOUGHT they looked similar, not that they actually WERE similar. Evidence of actual similarity would be either the games themselves, so the jury could judge for themselves, or some measure of similarity like "of 249 classes in the binary, 242 of them have the same interfaces in both versions" (and show the jury how a COM inspector can show you the interfaces).
I'm not understanding what you're saying. You said:
> they couldn't rule that EA reusing code. From what I've read there was nothing about source code.
The ruling was that their was no evidence of EA copying the code, and there's nothing about code? Are you suggesting there is some other kind of code at issue other than source code? He sued EA for copying his source code.
The expert testified that the output of the game looked similar.
I might agree somewhat with your conclusions if plaintiff properly attempted to get the source through discovery and EA didn't produce it. As far as I know, EA provided the source to plaintiff and plaintiff decided they didn't want the jury to see it. Perhaps it's written in an entirely different language.
If the source was copied, an expert should be able to SHOW evidence of that to the jury using techniques as simple as "strings". It sounds like the expert simply declared that he thought it was copied, rather than showing WHY he thought that and letting the jury decide.
> But if defense doesn't present any evidence, doesn't that make it an automatic win for the plaintiff under preponderance of evidence?
I hereby state that CmdrTaco, founder of Slashdot, is a typing horse.
Noone has testified that he's not a horse. Do you believe that he's a horse?
Plaintiff has to convince the jury that "it is more likely than not" that his version of the facts are true. This case has a great example. Regarding the statute of limitations, plaintiff claims that it wasn't until version 4 came out that he started to suspect that v2-v4 were copied from v1. Without EA saying anything, we can think that's probably not true.
Additionally, in this case the plaintiff presented NO EVIDENCE that the source code was copied. Since the plaintiff presented NO evidence on the key question of the case, shouldn't the defendant win by default. Yes, they should, the judge ruled. The expert testimony saying the appearance of the games are similar doesn't provide any evidence of anything about the source code. If you make a football cake and I make a football cake, and the cakes are similar, that isn't evidence that I copied your recipe.
On top of voluminous case the, the statute requires that the plaintiff show evidence that the copyrighted source code is the same. What is at issue is not the general concept of the game, but the source code.
Plaintiff presented no evidence at all that the source was copied. Therefore as a matter of law, the defense prevails. It's upto a jury to determine if the evidence is "good enough" . Under the law, it's up to the judge to rule when no evidence eas presented, and that's what happened in this case.
Plaintiff may or may not be right, but his attorneys presented no evidence that he was right - that his source code was copied.
> Breyer, who presided over the trial, ruled Wednesday that the jurors had no basis for that conclusion > because they were never shown the games side by side in order to make their own evaluation, as the law requires for a verdict of copyright infringement.
If, as the article says, the law requires that the jury look at the two works and decide for themselves if they are the same, and that wasn't done, that's a slam dunk for the defense. The plaintiff's attorney should have followed the law and showed both games.
Additionally, remember this is about copyright on the source code - not the general idea of the game. EA says they wrote V2 from scratch, not using any code from V1. The expert witness didn't claim to have looked at the source code. If no-one who has seen the code thinks they are the same, the jury has no evidence that they are.
> Every Republican primary and local elections we've had in the last couple of decades has the candidates battling about whose the most "conservative" -
With the occasional mention of being electable, yeah. Democrat primaries have the candidates selling to liberals, republican primaries pitch conservatives. Of course, there are also guys like McCain and Lieberman, who are damn near the center. McCain won the nomination, then got silly by picking Palin.
> conservative being is the most socially conservative.
Nope. Just not in any way true. See for example practically ALL of the freshman Congressmen. They nearly all got elected on a platform of fiscal responsibly and personal freedom.
The Moral Majority went bankrupt in what, 1992 or so. They were a major force in the party in the mid to late 1980s, during Reagan's second term. Things have been changing. I pay attention to this because I'm careful not to vote for Moral Majority types, or for race baiting, envy-selling liberals.
True. Also, it is entirely reasonable (and common) to want to support healthcare while not supporting something similar to murder. Half of Americans honestly believe that abortion is murder, or is very similar to murder. That's not a women's health issue.
If somehow someone convinced me that abortion was not analogous to murder, THEN we could talk about healthcare (and a father's rights). So long as it is, in my view, a heinous crime, murdering babies, 99% of what the other side says simply isn't relevant.
Pro-choice people: If you wonder why pro-life people won't listen to what you're saying, first realize that they hear you making excuses for why it's okay to murder babies. Ask yourself if YOU would accept the same arguments as justification for killing a nursing baby.
Once you do that, also realize you are advocating FORCED abortion. The parents have no say-so as to whether or not their child is killed. Well, one parent does, the other parent doesn't.
Those two things will help you understand why your practical arguments aren't getting anywhere.
Rand Paul was born in 1963. You believe whoever told you that he opposed the civil rights act of 1964.
To be fair to whoever that was (comedian Jon Stewart, probably), when asked about his FATHER'S concerns about the first amendment issues with how the concept has been expanded, Rand Paul said:
"I would have marched with King....
I think if you have a two-story office and you hire someone who's handicapped, it might be reasonable to let him have an office on the first floor rather than the government saying you have to have a $100,000 elevator."
Having concerns about how the federal government mandates sometimes fly in face of common sense (and the first amendment) is quite different from opposing civil rights.
The curriculum is called CSCOPE. 80% of government schools in Texas use it. You can Google for whatever level of detail you choose, but here are some examples to get you started.
It's not designed to teach to grade level; a ninth-grade lesson asks students to circle capital letters in a sentence. A social studies lesson teaches that capitalism is obsolete and communism is the best economic system, using a diagram that shows a man climbing a ladder towards communism. A third-grade lesson defines American “equality” as “fair share.” Competing definitions that include “equality under the law” or “equal opportunity” are not discussed. Muhammad is portrayed as a social justice crusader: “Caravan manager from Mecca, rich trading city and host to many religious shrines (Ka’bah); married to a rich widow; became disillusioned with the corruption in the city and the growing gap between the urban dwellers and the Bedouins (nomadic herders).” There is no mention of his marriage to a young girl or his beheading of indigenous population groups. Political parties are taught from what most would call a subjective and left-leaning perspective, e.g. Democrats “benefit each individual” while Republicans “favor big business.”
Are you telling me that's designed to teach career skills, not political indoctrination? If so, I most certainly disagree.
Regardless, I started college at 16. My nieces and nephews start earning college credit at 15 or 16. They don't get there by going to government schools in this country they are home schooled. One of them isn't even all that bright academically, he's musically talented. Still, he's two years ahead in science and math compared to government schooled kids his age.
> In the case I described it was doc, xls, and ppt
That excludes.docx xml format, leaving the other four formats Word has used. The earlier textual formats, which used a.doc extension, have virtually nothing in common with the several OLE based binary formats, which also used a.doc naming extension.
There are 36 weeks of 5 days each in a typical American school year. How do you think they should be spent?
Where I live in Texas, six weeks are devoted to seperating out assorted "minorities". (Hispanics and women are actually the majority, but students are incorrectly taught that each is a minority.) Another 8 weeks or so are devoted to assorted political indoctrination.
Just over half of the year remains for useful ormarketable skills like math, science, writing, etc.
It seems obvious to me that $race month is racist. How about science month? What company today is hiring for "Lead $race Developer". None.
Spending a month out of each nine-month school teaching racial division when our students are so far behind their international competitors is simply foolish.
You think they should teach black history, Mexican history, hill billy history, gay history, and tstv history. I think they should teach history. They'll have enough time for stupid identity politics when they're grown.
That's a major reason our daughter won't be going to public school. She's not going to be taught to hate whitey, she'll be taught math, science, literature. I aim to keep her focused on useful skills as long as possible before she starts asking for details of her heritage so she can figure out which hive you expect her to be a drone in.
You're absolutely right. That last sentence suggests you haven't studied economics, though.
> if capital gains were taxed as regular income, we would have no problem funding education in this country.
Most countries don't tax capital gains, or barely tax them (like 2%) because most countries understand how destructive it is to penalize saving. That's what capital gains tax is - a penalty for retirement savings, buying a house, or most other wise financial decisions. (Anything that results in being better off than when you started.) Capital gains taxes are purely an American political tool, class warfare that greatly harms those same voters who are played by the envy-driven politicians. Even higher capital gains taxes would be a very effective way to destroy the economy.
> So it works really well for kids whose parents can afford to to pick up 1/4 of the tab.
Pretty much every measure says it doesn't work well, for anyone. US scores are routinely lower than countries that spend half as much. The US has alot of education funding and a lot of " worst" rankings. More of the same is more money spent on more garbage.
The US ALREADY has more funding per student than any other major country. That's funded mainly through property taxes, other taxes, etc. This news story points to a 440 page report with all of the details:
We already spend the most money, and we get terrible results. Obviously, then, spending a LOT of money does not result in a better education. If it were a funding issue, the US would have the best education in the world. Funding is NOT the problem.
Some problems we have include: Spending time and money teaching politics rather than skills. (K-12 students spend FAR more time studying global warming than technology). See also full WEEKS devoted to learning about Mexican culture, another week for Asian culture, two different weeks on black culture, etc.
Ridiculous rules that horribly bad teachers can't ever be fired because they have tenure (weren't fired sooner).
Parents are forced to pay for a specific school, rather than having school choice and therefore competition.
It does not appear that Microsoft is "on high alert".
I recently read over the annual reports from major tech companies, looking at the business risks they report. This is an indication of how high level executives see the risks the company faces. Google, for example, has several paragraphs covering the damage to the brand, costly remediation, and potential liability if users' private information were breached, if confidential information about new product research leaked, etc.
Microsoft lists the following risks to their business:
Competition. If large organizations start using Google Docs etc. that would severely hurt Microsoftprofits.
Product flops. Products they are developing could flop the way Surface and Windows 8.
Legal action. MS is still in trouble in Europe for unlawful behavior.
Patent infringement. MS may be infringing on other companies patents.
Nowhere did it mention security as a risk that MS executives have on their radar screen at all. This is in marked contrast to Google and some others. Several "old guard" companies make no mention of how security issues could affect their business, while newer companies seem to be slightly more aware.
My mother was upset when her new copy of Word wouldn't open her Word files that are so important to her like her will, all of the family recipes, etc. She feared that she had lost everything.
I opened them in LibreOffice with no problems at all. In this respect, older files, Word is the one program that is not compatible with Word. OpenOffice/ LibreOffice can handle older Word documents; Word cannot.
cause this one and only special no one else can use format sure as fuck has been used on every office suite since the late 80's
Which of the five MS Word formats is "the one"? Different versions of Word have used first textual formats similar to rtf, then binary OLE containers, and now XML. As you surely know if you've used Word much, the product is not backwards compatible. Word 2003 will not properly display a Word 6.0 document. OpenOffice does a much better job rendering the older Word files..doc file formats: Word for DOS (textual) Word for Windows 1 and 2; Word 4 and 5 for Mac (textual) Word 6 and Word 95 for Windows; Word 6 for Mac Word 97 (binary OLE).docx xml formats
> but it seems curious to me that Provo in Utah County is the first city to get this service from Google
Does it seem less curious when you realize Provo is NOT the city? Kansas City, Kansas got it, then Kansas City, Missouri. Before either of those, a neighbourhood in California. So there were two and a half other cities before Provo.
I agree that's stretching. Recommending gcc is not selling gcc. They sell a product that is compatible with gcc. Just like the Core i7 is compatible with gcc. If Intel mentioned "the i7 is gcc compatible", that's selling a cpu, not a compiler.
Slashdot Mirror
Generally, no opinions aren't evidence. Opinions are BASED on evidence and an expert can explain the technical evidence to the jury. ...". For example they do show and tell, showing the jury two DNA samples and pointing out the differences. The jury themselves see the differences, which are the evidence. The expert is there to show the jury where to look, to explain the evidence.
If the expert hasn't seen the code, he can't testify that it's the same. He can only testify "I think it's so BECAUSE
Apparently, in this case the expert said he thought it might be the same BECAUSE the games look similar from a player's perspective. He chose not to SHOW the jury what they look like, though. So the jury didn't even have any evidence that the games LOOK similar - only that one guy to THOUGHT they look similar (when he was paid to think that.)
The difference between evidence of thinking and evidence of truth is obvious if I point a gun at you, you act in self-defense, and later you find out mine was a BB gun. You might introduce evidence that you THOUGHT you were in danger. That's different from actually BEING in danger. Same here - they produced evidence that a guy THOUGHT they looked similar, not that they actually WERE similar. Evidence of actual similarity would be either the games themselves, so the jury could judge for themselves, or some measure of similarity like "of 249 classes in the binary, 242 of them have the same interfaces in both versions" (and show the jury how a COM inspector can show you the interfaces).
I'm not understanding what you're saying. You said:
> they couldn't rule that EA reusing code. From what I've read there was nothing about source code.
The ruling was that their was no evidence of EA copying the code, and there's nothing about code? Are you suggesting there is some other kind of code at issue other than source code? He sued EA for copying his source code.
The expert testified that the output of the game looked similar.
Noticing that plaintiff didn't present any evidence regarding a required element is neither arbitrary nor capricious.
I might agree somewhat with your conclusions if plaintiff properly attempted to get the source through discovery and EA didn't produce it. As far as I know, EA provided the source to plaintiff and plaintiff decided they didn't want the jury to see it. Perhaps it's written in an entirely different language.
If the source was copied, an expert should be able to SHOW evidence of that to the jury using techniques as simple as "strings". It sounds like the expert simply declared that he thought it was copied, rather than showing WHY he thought that and letting the jury decide.
> But if defense doesn't present any evidence, doesn't that make it an automatic win for the plaintiff under preponderance of evidence?
I hereby state that CmdrTaco, founder of Slashdot, is a typing horse.
Noone has testified that he's not a horse. Do you believe that he's a horse?
Plaintiff has to convince the jury that "it is more likely than not" that his version of the facts are true. This case has a great example. Regarding the statute of limitations, plaintiff claims that it wasn't until version 4 came out that he started to suspect that v2-v4 were copied from v1. Without EA saying anything, we can think that's probably not true.
Additionally, in this case the plaintiff presented NO EVIDENCE that the source code was copied. Since the plaintiff presented NO evidence on the key question of the case, shouldn't the defendant win by default. Yes, they should, the judge ruled. The expert testimony saying the appearance of the games are similar doesn't provide any evidence of anything about the source code. If you make a football cake and I make a football cake, and the cakes are similar, that isn't evidence that I copied your recipe.
On top of voluminous case the, the statute requires that the plaintiff show evidence that the copyrighted source code is the same. What is at issue is not the general concept of the game, but the source code.
Plaintiff presented no evidence at all that the source was copied. Therefore as a matter of law, the defense prevails. It's upto a jury to determine if the evidence is "good enough" . Under the law, it's up to the judge to rule when no evidence eas presented, and that's what happened in this case.
Plaintiff may or may not be right, but his attorneys presented no evidence that he was right - that his source code was copied.
TFA says:
> Breyer, who presided over the trial, ruled Wednesday that the jurors had no basis for that conclusion
> because they were never shown the games side by side in order to make their own evaluation, as the law requires for a verdict of copyright infringement.
If, as the article says, the law requires that the jury look at the two works and decide for themselves if they are the same, and that wasn't done, that's a slam dunk for the defense. The plaintiff's attorney should have followed the law and showed both games.
Additionally, remember this is about copyright on the source code - not the general idea of the game. EA says they wrote V2 from scratch, not using any code from V1. The expert witness didn't claim to have looked at the source code. If no-one who has seen the code thinks they are the same, the jury has no evidence that they are.
> Every Republican primary and local elections we've had in the last couple of decades has the candidates battling about whose the most "conservative" -
With the occasional mention of being electable, yeah. Democrat primaries have the candidates selling to liberals, republican primaries pitch conservatives. Of course, there are also guys like McCain and Lieberman, who are damn near the center. McCain won the nomination, then got silly by picking Palin.
> conservative being is the most socially conservative.
Nope. Just not in any way true. See for example practically ALL of the freshman Congressmen. They nearly all got elected on a platform of fiscal responsibly and personal freedom.
The Moral Majority went bankrupt in what, 1992 or so. They were a major force in the party in the mid to late 1980s, during Reagan's second term. Things have been changing. I pay attention to this because I'm careful not to vote for Moral Majority types, or for race baiting, envy-selling liberals.
True. Also, it is entirely reasonable (and common) to want to support healthcare while not supporting something similar to murder. Half of Americans honestly believe that abortion is murder, or is very similar to murder. That's not a women's health issue.
If somehow someone convinced me that abortion was not analogous to murder, THEN we could talk about healthcare (and a father's rights). So long as it is, in my view, a heinous crime, murdering babies, 99% of what the other side says simply isn't relevant.
Pro-choice people:
If you wonder why pro-life people won't listen to what you're saying, first realize that they hear you making excuses for why it's okay to murder babies. Ask yourself if YOU would accept the same arguments as justification for killing a nursing baby.
Once you do that, also realize you are advocating FORCED abortion. The parents have no say-so as to whether or not their child is killed. Well, one parent does, the other parent doesn't.
Those two things will help you understand why your practical arguments aren't getting anywhere.
Rand Paul was born in 1963. You believe whoever told you that he opposed the civil rights act of 1964.
To be fair to whoever that was (comedian Jon Stewart, probably), when asked about his FATHER'S concerns about the first amendment issues with how the concept has been expanded, Rand Paul said:
"I would have marched with King ....
I think if you have a two-story office and you hire someone who's handicapped, it might be reasonable to let him have an office on the first floor rather than the government saying you have to have a $100,000 elevator."
Having concerns about how the federal government mandates sometimes fly in face of common sense (and the first amendment) is quite different from opposing civil rights.
The curriculum is called CSCOPE. 80% of government schools in Texas use it. You can Google for whatever level of detail you choose, but here are some examples to get you started.
It's not designed to teach to grade level; a ninth-grade lesson asks students to circle capital letters in a sentence.
A social studies lesson teaches that capitalism is obsolete and communism is the best economic system, using a diagram that shows a man climbing a ladder towards communism.
A third-grade lesson defines American “equality” as “fair share.” Competing definitions that include “equality under the law” or “equal opportunity” are not discussed.
Muhammad is portrayed as a social justice crusader: “Caravan manager from Mecca, rich trading city and host to many religious shrines (Ka’bah); married to a rich widow; became disillusioned with the corruption in the city and the growing gap between the urban dwellers and the Bedouins (nomadic herders).” There is no mention of his marriage to a young girl or his beheading of indigenous population groups.
Political parties are taught from what most would call a subjective and left-leaning perspective, e.g. Democrats “benefit each individual” while Republicans “favor big business.”
Are you telling me that's designed to teach career skills, not political indoctrination? If so, I most certainly disagree.
Regardless, I started college at 16. My nieces and nephews start earning college credit at 15 or 16. They don't get there by going to government schools in this country they are home schooled. One of them isn't even all that bright academically, he's musically talented. Still, he's two years ahead in science and math compared to government schooled kids his age.
Sorry, you're the one with parroting talking points, probably from Comedy Central. Here's another source for you.
http://www.oecd.org/edu/educat...
I'm afraid that parroting Jon Stewart isn't going to fix that fact that our students are routinely whipped by former banana republics.
The Scandinavian countries DO spend a lot.
Denmark is the third highest. The US is the top spender (but nowhere near the best results).
http://www.oecd.org/edu/educat...
> In the case I described it was doc, xls, and ppt
That excludes .docx xml format, leaving the other four formats Word has used. The earlier textual formats, which used a .doc extension, have virtually nothing in common with the several OLE based binary formats, which also used a .doc naming extension.
There are 36 weeks of 5 days each in a typical American school year. How do you think they should be spent?
Where I live in Texas, six weeks are devoted to seperating out assorted "minorities". (Hispanics and women are actually the majority, but students are incorrectly taught that each is a minority.) Another 8 weeks or so are devoted to assorted political indoctrination.
Just over half of the year remains for useful ormarketable skills like math, science, writing, etc.
It seems obvious to me that $race month is racist.
How about science month? What company today is hiring for "Lead $race Developer". None.
Spending a month out of each nine-month school teaching racial division when our students are so far behind their international competitors is simply foolish.
You think they should teach black history, Mexican history, hill billy history, gay history, and tstv history. I think they should teach history. They'll have enough time for stupid identity politics when they're grown.
That's a major reason our daughter won't be going to public school. She's not going to be taught to hate whitey, she'll be taught math, science, literature. I aim to keep her focused on useful skills as long as possible before she starts asking for details of her heritage so she can figure out which hive you expect her to be a drone in.
You're absolutely right. That last sentence suggests you haven't studied economics, though.
> if capital gains were taxed as regular income, we would have no problem funding education in this country.
Most countries don't tax capital gains, or barely tax them (like 2%) because most countries understand how destructive it is to penalize saving. That's what capital gains tax is - a penalty for retirement savings, buying a house, or most other wise financial decisions. (Anything that results in being better off than when you started.)
Capital gains taxes are purely an American political tool, class warfare that greatly harms those same voters who are played by the envy-driven politicians. Even higher capital gains taxes would be a very effective way to destroy the economy.
> So it works really well for kids whose parents can afford to to pick up 1/4 of the tab.
Pretty much every measure says it doesn't work well, for anyone.
US scores are routinely lower than countries that spend half as much.
The US has alot of education funding and a lot of " worst" rankings. More of the same is more money spent on more garbage.
The US ALREADY has more funding per student than any other major country. That's funded mainly through property taxes, other taxes, etc. This news story points to a 440 page report with all of the details:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us...
We already spend the most money, and we get terrible results. Obviously, then, spending a LOT of money does not result in a better education. If it were a funding issue, the US would have the best education in the world. Funding is NOT the problem.
Some problems we have include:
Spending time and money teaching politics rather than skills. (K-12 students spend FAR more time studying global warming than technology). See also full WEEKS devoted to learning about Mexican culture, another week for Asian culture, two different weeks on black culture, etc.
Ridiculous rules that horribly bad teachers can't ever be fired because they have tenure (weren't fired sooner).
Parents are forced to pay for a specific school, rather than having school choice and therefore competition.
It does not appear that Microsoft is "on high alert".
I recently read over the annual reports from major tech companies, looking at the business risks they report. This is an indication of how high level executives see the risks the company faces. Google, for example, has several paragraphs covering the damage to the brand, costly remediation, and potential liability if users' private information were breached, if confidential information about new product research leaked, etc.
Microsoft lists the following risks to their business:
Competition. If large organizations start using Google Docs etc. that would severely hurt Microsoftprofits.
Product flops. Products they are developing could flop the way Surface and Windows 8.
Legal action. MS is still in trouble in Europe for unlawful behavior.
Patent infringement. MS may be infringing on other companies patents.
Nowhere did it mention security as a risk that MS executives have on their radar screen at all. This is in marked contrast to Google and some others. Several "old guard" companies make no mention of how security issues could affect their business, while newer companies seem to be slightly more aware.
My mother was upset when her new copy of Word wouldn't open her Word files that are so important to her like her will, all of the family recipes, etc. She feared that she had lost everything.
I opened them in LibreOffice with no problems at all. In this respect, older files, Word is the one program that is not compatible with Word. OpenOffice/ LibreOffice can handle older Word documents; Word cannot.
cause this one and only special no one else can use format sure as fuck has been used on every office suite since the late 80's
Which of the five MS Word formats is "the one"? .doc file formats: .docx xml formats
Different versions of Word have used first textual formats similar to rtf, then binary OLE containers, and now XML. As you surely know if you've used Word much, the product is not backwards compatible. Word 2003 will not properly display a Word 6.0 document. OpenOffice does a much better job rendering the older Word files.
Word for DOS (textual)
Word for Windows 1 and 2; Word 4 and 5 for Mac (textual)
Word 6 and Word 95 for Windows; Word 6 for Mac
Word 97 (binary OLE)
> but it seems curious to me that Provo in Utah County is the first city to get this service from Google
Does it seem less curious when you realize Provo is NOT the city? Kansas City, Kansas got it, then Kansas City, Missouri. Before either of those, a neighbourhood in California. So there were two and a half other cities before Provo.
Nope, not a game. It was professional DJ software.
I wasn't happy with it and I with with a solution I liked better which was open source.
I agree that's stretching. Recommending gcc is not selling gcc.
They sell a product that is compatible with gcc. Just like the Core i7 is compatible with gcc. If Intel mentioned "the i7 is gcc compatible", that's selling a cpu, not a compiler.