For normal businesses you can compare, but not for the government. The government would rather have its contracting work done in the US because it's good for the market. After all, the money being spent is coming from the people, so why not give them jobs as a benefit?
If only america as a whole could realise that it is just another country. This may be its hour in the sun, but it is not nearly as creative as other nations were at their peaks, like Britain, Spain, France and Greece. What has America done that compare?
...
I would like to see america and the males of america adopt a position of humility, and allow the dispossessed and discriminated against, such as Russians and women, to breathe free and stake their claim in society.
And of course when the great empires of Britian, Spain, France, and Greece were at their height, women were treated very well.
You do know where the phrase rule of thumb came from, right? I would venture that women are better off in America right now than they would be at the peaks of any of those "creative" nations you mentioned.
You say you have been attacked for being a woman and a catholic. Do you mean physically attacked? If so, that is ILLEGAL and it is your job to report it. Did you lose your job because of it? That is also ILLEGAL. But, if you mean verbally attacked, then grow up. We are a nation where people are allowed to speak their opinions. If you don't agree with said opinions, you have two options: ignore them or defend yours.
And by the way, I'm sure you've heard of this little thing we invented over here called the internet. You make claims but you give no evidence. Care to back any of your statements up?
While Black & White was published by EA, it was not funded by them. Molyneux paid for development with his own money (approximately six mill I believe), so he had freedom that Origin did not.
I'm not too sure this is correct, but here goes. Let's just say Windows was a free operating system. Everyone that bought a PC would get it at no cost, with no money going to any company. Therefore, everyone that never paid for support or modifications added nothing to the supposedly constant pool.
Also, let's look at it this way. You, as a programmer, are used to getting paid $(x-y). I need some software written, and am used to paying $(x). You offer to provide said software for $(x). However, the programmer down the street, who is also used to being paid $(x-y), would love to get the job. He offers to do it for $(x-y), because fuck it, he's used to working for that much. Now how do you figure I'm going add my $(x) to the pool when I can get the job done for $(x-y)?
Maybe you've seen it before, but I (and no doubt many others) haven't. Personally, as someone who can't keep tabs on Slashdot all-day-all-the-time, I'm glad they give lots of coverage to critical issues like this one.
Repeat posting is a bug that turned into a great feature.
Second of all, some of us realize that just because it's a law doesn't mean it's right. Laws need to be examined and updated.
Just like an individual can infringe on a company's rights by pirating a product, a company can infringe on an individual's rights by monopolizing a market and driving up prices. These things go both ways.
First off, I think that buying and selling items in a game is terribly lame.
Now the question of what exactly these auctions are selling has been brought up. I think what's being sold is a service - namely the service of getting you whatever weapon, armor, or item you desire.
If I call a TV repairman and he can fix my problem without any new parts by simply tightening a loose connection then what am I paying for? I have received no physical objects and no information. I'm paying for the service of being able to watch Scooby Doo again.
However, some TVs come with fine print that says their warranty is null and void if they are serviced by anyone that's not manufacturer certified. And the repairman I called happened to just that. So now I'm screwed out of getting a free replacement, or free repair, even though I'm still within the warranty period. Now this is perfectly fine and a fair thing to do on the manufacturer's part. Even though I can't get a free replacement, I can always pay to have my old one fixed, or buy a new one.
Now let's say I buy a great sword in an auction, violate the EULA, and am banned. The difference is now I'm left with having paid $40.00 or whatever (I don't own EverQuest) for a game that I can no longer use. I can't pay someone else to play - I'm screwed. And so begins the gray area. Yeah, I violated the agreement. But with the more traditional model (the TV) I can still use what I paid for even if I don't get the full benefits of the agreement. With EverQuest I'm left out to dry.
My personal opinion is that these people can be banned because it's Sony's right. But I also think this is definitely a gray area and I look forward to seeing what happens.
As a victim of BESS, I tell you that any statistics they sell are no doubt terribly flawed. BESS blocks sites such as Slashdot, videogame related sites, and most pop culture sites; the very sites that appeal to the majority of the teenager demographic. So I end up trudging through parts of the net I would never visit normally.
Any company that buys into this is not getting their money's worth. Sure, I'll see their adds when I'm browsing at school, but is that what they really want? I don't (and can't) make purchases from school, so is my clickthrough of any worth to them?
Slashdot Mirror
For normal businesses you can compare, but not for the government. The government would rather have its contracting work done in the US because it's good for the market. After all, the money being spent is coming from the people, so why not give them jobs as a benefit?
You do know where the phrase rule of thumb came from, right? I would venture that women are better off in America right now than they would be at the peaks of any of those "creative" nations you mentioned.
You say you have been attacked for being a woman and a catholic. Do you mean physically attacked? If so, that is ILLEGAL and it is your job to report it. Did you lose your job because of it? That is also ILLEGAL. But, if you mean verbally attacked, then grow up. We are a nation where people are allowed to speak their opinions. If you don't agree with said opinions, you have two options: ignore them or defend yours.
And by the way, I'm sure you've heard of this little thing we invented over here called the internet. You make claims but you give no evidence. Care to back any of your statements up?
While Black & White was published by EA, it was not funded by them. Molyneux paid for development with his own money (approximately six mill I believe), so he had freedom that Origin did not.
Would you please clarify how this could be considered breaking the GPL?
I'm not too sure this is correct, but here goes. Let's just say Windows was a free operating system. Everyone that bought a PC would get it at no cost, with no money going to any company. Therefore, everyone that never paid for support or modifications added nothing to the supposedly constant pool.
Also, let's look at it this way. You, as a programmer, are used to getting paid $(x-y). I need some software written, and am used to paying $(x). You offer to provide said software for $(x). However, the programmer down the street, who is also used to being paid $(x-y), would love to get the job. He offers to do it for $(x-y), because fuck it, he's used to working for that much. Now how do you figure I'm going add my $(x) to the pool when I can get the job done for $(x-y)?
Maybe you've seen it before, but I (and no doubt many others) haven't. Personally, as someone who can't keep tabs on Slashdot all-day-all-the-time, I'm glad they give lots of coverage to critical issues like this one.
Repeat posting is a bug that turned into a great feature.
First of all, Katz didn't create jack shit.
Second of all, some of us realize that just because it's a law doesn't mean it's right. Laws need to be examined and updated.
Just like an individual can infringe on a company's rights by pirating a product, a company can infringe on an individual's rights by monopolizing a market and driving up prices. These things go both ways.
First off, I think that buying and selling items in a game is terribly lame.
Now the question of what exactly these auctions are selling has been brought up. I think what's being sold is a service - namely the service of getting you whatever weapon, armor, or item you desire.
If I call a TV repairman and he can fix my problem without any new parts by simply tightening a loose connection then what am I paying for? I have received no physical objects and no information. I'm paying for the service of being able to watch Scooby Doo again.
However, some TVs come with fine print that says their warranty is null and void if they are serviced by anyone that's not manufacturer certified. And the repairman I called happened to just that. So now I'm screwed out of getting a free replacement, or free repair, even though I'm still within the warranty period. Now this is perfectly fine and a fair thing to do on the manufacturer's part. Even though I can't get a free replacement, I can always pay to have my old one fixed, or buy a new one.
Now let's say I buy a great sword in an auction, violate the EULA, and am banned. The difference is now I'm left with having paid $40.00 or whatever (I don't own EverQuest) for a game that I can no longer use. I can't pay someone else to play - I'm screwed. And so begins the gray area. Yeah, I violated the agreement. But with the more traditional model (the TV) I can still use what I paid for even if I don't get the full benefits of the agreement. With EverQuest I'm left out to dry.
My personal opinion is that these people can be banned because it's Sony's right. But I also think this is definitely a gray area and I look forward to seeing what happens.
As a victim of BESS, I tell you that any statistics they sell are no doubt terribly flawed. BESS blocks sites such as Slashdot, videogame related sites, and most pop culture sites; the very sites that appeal to the majority of the teenager demographic. So I end up trudging through parts of the net I would never visit normally.
Any company that buys into this is not getting their money's worth. Sure, I'll see their adds when I'm browsing at school, but is that what they really want? I don't (and can't) make purchases from school, so is my clickthrough of any worth to them?
Poetic justice, I guess.