Throw away your television. In fact, throw it away before they are born. Raise your kids without it.
That's certainly a start, but isn't that kind of sad? That a device with such huge potential to educate has to be completely ignored by parents because 95% of even daytime content is unsuitable for childern?
Arbitrary age restictions on ANYTHING are stupid.
The use of the word "age" negates the term "arbitrary". An arbitrary restriction would be based on shirt color or position of the minute hand. When you are defining content as inappropriate for a given age group, age is the only thing you have to base restrictions on said content.
In my memory, the hardest game I could get ahold of was Leisure Suit Larry. Maybe I wasn't running with the right circles, but I don't remember a single utterance of the F-word, or a game that rewarded the player for picking up whores. I do remember some pretty bad bitmapped animated porn "movies" for the AppleIIe, but they were few and far between.
Why should childeren be "lucky" to have 2 parents?
Is that some kind of a joke? How many studies have to show that children of two-parent households are better adjusted and overall more sucessful before you believe me? Are you saying that maybe kids are better off without fathers? Yikes.
The simple solution to the "too much TV" problem is to encourage your kids to interact with other children instead of a picture tube, but then again, who wants that, the TV is such an easy thing.
Actually, television has a lot of power to educate, PBS being a prime example. You're right, it is easier to plop the brat in front of a TV set, especially if you just got home from a 10-hour-day at work, and still have to clean and get dinner ready. TV doesn't have to be as bad an idea for a childhood activity, if it wasn't mostly mindless garbage protected as if it was political speech. And what for your suggestion that children should go out and interact with other children? Have you ever met some of these kids? My kids are probably better off with Mr. Krueger than most of their neighbors these days.
There is no excuse for bad parents.
Of course not. Not everyone can be as great a parent as you are. What's that? You don't actually have any kids? Suprise, suprise.
If you let media teach your kids, then you deserve what they become.
As if it's actually possible to keep a nine-year-old away from media. The point is that there's no "let". Media is everywhere, all the time, and it keeps getting worse and worse. As a parent, I can work to counteract this, but why should I have to? So that you can put a quarter in a videogame you like? C'mon, try to think outside your own world once in a while.
Why is this guy a troll? Because he didn't follow the majority, and actually decided to post as such?
Back in pioneer days, the father of the family kept a loaded musket by the doors, and somehow none of the kids picked it up and shot their siblings/friends.
Look around you. It's not the pioneer days anymore. It's not even the 1950s. Those children lucky enough to even have two parents are still waiting for them both to get home from work. Kids watch a lot more TV today than they did even 10 years ago. Media is becoming pervasive faster than parents can be expected to react. Games, movies, and telivision are much more realistic, special-effects-wise than they ever were.
They taught their kids wrong from right, good from bad, imaginary from reality.
All of which they learned from their own parents, who grew up believing that many of the things we take for granted in media were sick and depraved. Our parents saw a little more adult material growing up than their parents, and we more than our own. What takes place in GTA would have been unthinkable even to market to adults 20 years ago.
I played doom since the day it came out on my 286-12MHZ box. And somehow I still became a rational engineer with a family and no history of violence....
So did I, and I seem to be OK too. Will my kids be alright growing up with Quake III Arena or GTA4? Who knows? Not a gamble I'm looking foward to taking. I know for some kids, it didn't work out as well, given the rash of school shootings a year or so ago. Can that be bleamed on video games? Maybe not, but it's hard to believe that constant violence in the media didn't have something to do with something.
Parenting isn't done by just letting your kids watch TV and play videogames.
Of course not, but rare is the household without at least one TV and one computer. Now the family arcade has to be off-limits because of violent games.
People who are trumpeting this victory as a "win for free speech" need to think twice and consider that there are parents out there who feel otherwise.
True. And let me be the first reply that doesn't instruct you that keeping your kids away from violent materials is solely your job. It really does take a village to raise a child. As a fellow parent, I have to try pretty hard to counteract the media's seeming desire to get my kids to watch (and play with) sex and violence all day. Although parents obviously are the primary moral resource for their children, it makes it harder for us when the rest of the country seems pretty comfortable with the availibility of sex and violence in the media. Do I have to be with my kids every second in order to help them make decisions that they can't possibly be equipped to make on their own? It's impossible, so society has to step in at some point and help.
To those that support violent content in public places: would you rather there be a bouncer at the door checking IDs? That way, a 17-year-old kid couldn't play Donkey Kong in order to keep minors from playing GTA.
The "certain countries" you mention are often no worse, civil-rights-wise than many of the countries we have actively sold arms to. The US banned exporting high tech to them because of their way of government, not their way of life. Communism was threatening democracy, and we reacted by attempting to cripple it in any way possible. The foriegn policies of the US have never had anything to do with human rights. We only prop up that old cover whenever it's convenient. I'm glad we've finally stopped pretending we care.
Perhaps you aren't aware of this, but the government does have other duties than the "war on terrorism."
Granted, but I can't think of anything more pressing in foriegn policy right now. Although, seeing as how the US is the premiere content provider to the world, I could see the priority level for this. I'm just curious as to whether or not this came to a vote, and if so, which of our representatives needs a new job?
The idea that any band still publishing vinyl probably doesn't care if you download their music is exactly where the problem lies. You are stealing their work.
Stealing? Are you kidding? Do even know what the word means? In order to steal something, I have to take it first, which means depriving the original owner of the use of it. That's not what's happening here. When you download a song you haven't paid anyone for, you're doing just that: listening to a song you haven't paid for, which, ironically enough, happens every time you turn on the radio. When you do it after buying other works by the same artist on another format, it's even more inoccuous.
That idea was not pulled out of my ass. I have plenty of personal contact within the independent music scene. You know what? They _don't_ care. Most smaller acts make most of their money by touring, and value their fanbase over their chart position for this reason.
I believe that a subscription based system such as this new Napster is completely representive for the state of music today anyway.
Good for you, then. You can have my slot if you want it. Although the record execs want to believe that all people want to do is buy one or two hits, they envy the money the indie biz pulls in on tours and merch.
People are not concerned with the overall work and feel of a record
How do you explain the success of Radiohead's Kid A or Amnesiac, then? Huh? Sheesh.
Get the songs you want and artists get paid.
Bullshit. Read some of the other posts, or have a friend in a signed band show you his record contract. The artists make their money on tour, which is why most of them don't care what you download.
So basically, you're saying you'd be willing to pay for the oppotunity to listen to the same songs you hear on the radio, just whenever you want?. Big fucking deal! It's called a cassette recorder, or in the case of MTV, a VCR.
When are people going to wake up and realize that music does not demand US$2M videos, or multi-million-dollar ad campaigns. You are paying the labels for the privelege of making sure that you're listening to the same music as the asshole in the car next to you!
The same NSYNC song you hear on the radio makes NSYNC (and its label) millions in endorsements, merch, ticket sales, calendars, psters and other bullshit. Why do you need to add to their giant, steaming pile of cash with the $2 you throw on? Because you feel guilty? Please! Do yourself a favor- shut off the radio for 2 seconds and go to a record store. That's right, a real record store. Look at the records, then buy some. Notice the $10 price tag. Stop on the way home and buy a record player.
Once you get home, download all the mp3s you want, because you already own the rights to the music. Hell, if you find some songs from the same band you didn't buy yet, download those too. Any band still publishing on vinyl probably doesn't care.
Realize: you are the consumer. Your opinion is the only one that matters. If you think CDs are priced unfairly, stop fucking buying them!. If you think radio sucks, stop fucking listening to it!.
Either way, never sign up for some subscription service. Subscriptions are a great business model, but they put the onus on the consumer to get the most use out of them. If cable was offered on a pay-per-show basis, the cable companies would go bankrupt because it would force consumers to analyze their entertainment choices, just like at the movie theatre, or the concert hall, or the arcade. One by one, only the best programs would be watched, and there would be no audience for the crap that passes as TV. Paying a subscription fee for music makes the already miserable music scene even more depressing.
A temporary solution is to go into your Preferences and in the Privacy section click "Allow Only Users on My Buddy List" under "Who can contact me."
Until some genius manages to script the AIM client to send the exploit to everyone on your buddy list (who will most likely have added you to theirs), making that precaution worthless.
Again, proof that Windows is not the security problem, popularity is the security problem. When JFK got shot, it was assasination. When someone you've never heard of gets shot, it's just murder.
It's bizarre that you assumed I worked in the music industry.
Well, didn't someone say "we in the industry" during a conversation on the music industry? I know I thought music was the industry you were talking about.
Anyway, you are probably wrong.
You can either pay for the music and listen to it.
Or, better yet, we can download it for free, and become so angry at the record industry that we cease even buying what we already do.
The music industry has been gouging both consumers and artists for as long as their essentially uneccessary asses have been dragging dirt. We have put up with $16 CDs because there was previously no alternative*. Now there is one, and suprise! People are flocking to it. Even as evil as the US government can be, it is more than the threat of an audit that keeps most Americans from cheating on their taxes. It is the belief that at its core, our government is providing us with valuable services that we should pay for. It is the understanding that if we don't do our share, others will suffer. Record labels provide none of this, and rake in profit the whole time. The music industry has used its monopoly on popular music recordings to rip off anyone within arm's reach. If "stealing"** music is not an option, then why are there dozens of availible ways to do it? Why don't the practitioners of this "theft" seem like criminals? Because they're not. IP is a new concept, and the effort of people like you to apply RP (real property) ideas to IP materials have failed. You and your ilk are like dinosaurs, and there are 1000 hungry mammals (indie record labels) ready to dance on the chalky ground in which you turn to coal.
*There have always been alternatives, like LPs or 7ins, which can still be had for $10 and $3, respectively. Fugazi CDs are always availible for $10 mail-order. Unfortunately, since the industry marketing machine controls the airwaves, no artists not overpromoted can even breathe.
**Bullshit. Illegally copying music is not depriving the original owners of property, and can even have a number of fair uses, often rendering it legal again.
If a court finds that people are producing things that are invulnerable to court orders, you can bet that within days legislation will be passed preventing any such software from being produced again.
No way, that's impossible! The government would never pass laws that are unpopular, uneccessary, and unenforcable. I mean, except for the war on drugs. Oh, wait...
Q: But that kind of begs the question, because it wasn't completely unthinkable, like someone flying a plane into a building. At the time when all these features were being rolled out, programmers online were screaming left and right that this was inevitably going to result in these massive incidents, and, sure enough, they did.
A: Well, yes. You're right about that. We were given the signal loud and clear, and completely ignored it. We here at Microsoft are terrible at making software. In fact, please don't ever again buy any of our products. We are very, very bad.
I mean, this guy is speaking on behalf of a multi-billion dollar software giant. He is not going to risk his job by embarrassing his whole company. That's why companies like MS (GM, American Airlines, Exxon) hire guys like this. For reference, consult any presidential press conference.
The developers are going to look at REAL sales numbers when deciding which platforms deserve their attention with future releases
Although that is one factor, it might not even be the most important one. The most important one is profit. In fact, that's really the only factor. Developers look at the potential market for their game (based on a percentage of installed base marketing says will buy a game in a given genre), minus their costs to produce it. Included in those costs are development effort, which is supposed to be higher on PS2. Also licensing fees (don't forget about those). I don't know who has the best licensing scheme, but that certainly is a factor on why the XBOX has so many games out so quickly. Also, from what I hear, MS has better PR with developers, many of which already write games for windows, (and, just as important) on windows. My prediction: within a year or two, PS2 will seem dated. XBOX games will get better and better with time, as more Windows games are ported. After all, Windows is the gaming platform of choice, and XBOX is only a sidestep from Win64 development.
I don't know why I need to reply to an AC (when will you people get logins?), but:
That is because they usually do it better over there.
Uh, yeah. That's why most of the top-selling albums worldwide are by American artists? Sure, the Beatles, but one group does not superiority make (and I think they're overrated anyway).
I wouldn't boast too loudly about House and Hip-Hop.;)
Why not? Have you ever heard hip hop? Aside from radio crap, it has basically replaced punk as America's youth protest music. House is made for the dance floor, filling the void (yes, there was a void) left by disco. I know that was a joke, but seriously, get with the program. What would you prefer people dance to in clubs? Polka? That would be like me unilaterally dissing country (also American music, by the way). Just because P. Diddy sucks doesn't mean hip hop sucks, and just because you don't dance doesn't mean house sucks.
If you want to be picky then I'm pretty sure all music (except for Native American tribal forms) came from Europe or Africa to this country seeing as we started as immigrants
Although much of our music is influenced by international and historical sounds, it was made here in the states, by people living here in the states. That would be like saying the Specials were Jamaican, or that Jay-Z makes African tribal music. Just not true.
Based on my knowledge of the history of music over the past 30 years, the UK consistantly turns out what becomes the 'next big thing' in the US
As soon as we package it and send it over there, you mean.
Electronica=Detroit techno
British Pop=REM
And on, and on...
Don't forget, America invented Rock and Roll, Soul, Funk, Garage, House, Hip Hop and R&B. The British only refine it while we've gone on to something else.
What I meant was that things that are normally not a big deal become one quickly when done in the name of a group that blew up the World Trade Center and killed thousands while we are in a war with that same group. When one of these "saboteurs" (assuming the article isn't BS) is on the stand, accused of an act of war against his own country, how will he defend himself? By claiming the whole thing was a harmless joke? Doubtful. IANAL, but it won't be hard to read electronic terrorism into something like this, and that's treason.
The difference being the Forbes error was due to oversized data being entered into a char() field in SQL Server, i.e. a user error (showing Forbes's ass) whereas the MySQL error was a system error (showing MySQL/Linux's ass). Your post was a user error (showing your ass).
I wholeheartedly agree, but over any significant period of time, unless the code never has any bugs, or is never changed, it will be worked on by someone other than the programmer.
Slashdot Mirror
Throw away your television. In fact, throw it away before they are born. Raise your kids without it.
That's certainly a start, but isn't that kind of sad? That a device with such huge potential to educate has to be completely ignored by parents because 95% of even daytime content is unsuitable for childern?
Arbitrary age restictions on ANYTHING are stupid.
The use of the word "age" negates the term "arbitrary". An arbitrary restriction would be based on shirt color or position of the minute hand. When you are defining content as inappropriate for a given age group, age is the only thing you have to base restrictions on said content.
In my memory, the hardest game I could get ahold of was Leisure Suit Larry. Maybe I wasn't running with the right circles, but I don't remember a single utterance of the F-word, or a game that rewarded the player for picking up whores. I do remember some pretty bad bitmapped animated porn "movies" for the AppleIIe, but they were few and far between.
Uh, yeah, from now on, I'll never disagree with blessed Slashdot or statistics ever, ever again. Sheesh.
Why should childeren be "lucky" to have 2 parents?
Is that some kind of a joke? How many studies have to show that children of two-parent households are better adjusted and overall more sucessful before you believe me? Are you saying that maybe kids are better off without fathers? Yikes.
The simple solution to the "too much TV" problem is to encourage your kids to interact with other children instead of a picture tube, but then again, who wants that, the TV is such an easy thing.
Actually, television has a lot of power to educate, PBS being a prime example. You're right, it is easier to plop the brat in front of a TV set, especially if you just got home from a 10-hour-day at work, and still have to clean and get dinner ready. TV doesn't have to be as bad an idea for a childhood activity, if it wasn't mostly mindless garbage protected as if it was political speech. And what for your suggestion that children should go out and interact with other children? Have you ever met some of these kids? My kids are probably better off with Mr. Krueger than most of their neighbors these days.
There is no excuse for bad parents.
Of course not. Not everyone can be as great a parent as you are. What's that? You don't actually have any kids? Suprise, suprise.
If you let media teach your kids, then you deserve what they become.
As if it's actually possible to keep a nine-year-old away from media. The point is that there's no "let". Media is everywhere, all the time, and it keeps getting worse and worse. As a parent, I can work to counteract this, but why should I have to? So that you can put a quarter in a videogame you like? C'mon, try to think outside your own world once in a while.
Simple, my trolling friend.
Why is this guy a troll? Because he didn't follow the majority, and actually decided to post as such?
Back in pioneer days, the father of the family kept a loaded musket by the doors, and somehow none of the kids picked it up and shot their siblings/friends.
Look around you. It's not the pioneer days anymore. It's not even the 1950s. Those children lucky enough to even have two parents are still waiting for them both to get home from work. Kids watch a lot more TV today than they did even 10 years ago. Media is becoming pervasive faster than parents can be expected to react. Games, movies, and telivision are much more realistic, special-effects-wise than they ever were.
They taught their kids wrong from right, good from bad, imaginary from reality.
All of which they learned from their own parents, who grew up believing that many of the things we take for granted in media were sick and depraved. Our parents saw a little more adult material growing up than their parents, and we more than our own. What takes place in GTA would have been unthinkable even to market to adults 20 years ago.
I played doom since the day it came out on my 286-12MHZ box. And somehow I still became a rational engineer with a family and no history of violence....
So did I, and I seem to be OK too. Will my kids be alright growing up with Quake III Arena or GTA4? Who knows? Not a gamble I'm looking foward to taking. I know for some kids, it didn't work out as well, given the rash of school shootings a year or so ago. Can that be bleamed on video games? Maybe not, but it's hard to believe that constant violence in the media didn't have something to do with something.
Parenting isn't done by just letting your kids watch TV and play videogames.
Of course not, but rare is the household without at least one TV and one computer. Now the family arcade has to be off-limits because of violent games.
Spoken like a true non-parent. Kudos.
People who are trumpeting this victory as a "win for free speech" need to think twice and consider that there are parents out there who feel otherwise.
True. And let me be the first reply that doesn't instruct you that keeping your kids away from violent materials is solely your job. It really does take a village to raise a child. As a fellow parent, I have to try pretty hard to counteract the media's seeming desire to get my kids to watch (and play with) sex and violence all day. Although parents obviously are the primary moral resource for their children, it makes it harder for us when the rest of the country seems pretty comfortable with the availibility of sex and violence in the media. Do I have to be with my kids every second in order to help them make decisions that they can't possibly be equipped to make on their own? It's impossible, so society has to step in at some point and help.
To those that support violent content in public places: would you rather there be a bouncer at the door checking IDs? That way, a 17-year-old kid couldn't play Donkey Kong in order to keep minors from playing GTA.
But the responses to this are enlightening.
How about this response?:
The "certain countries" you mention are often no worse, civil-rights-wise than many of the countries we have actively sold arms to. The US banned exporting high tech to them because of their way of government, not their way of life. Communism was threatening democracy, and we reacted by attempting to cripple it in any way possible. The foriegn policies of the US have never had anything to do with human rights. We only prop up that old cover whenever it's convenient. I'm glad we've finally stopped pretending we care.
Perhaps you aren't aware of this, but the government does have other duties than the "war on terrorism."
Granted, but I can't think of anything more pressing in foriegn policy right now. Although, seeing as how the US is the premiere content provider to the world, I could see the priority level for this. I'm just curious as to whether or not this came to a vote, and if so, which of our representatives needs a new job?
The idea that any band still publishing vinyl probably doesn't care if you download their music is exactly where the problem lies. You are stealing their work.
Stealing? Are you kidding? Do even know what the word means? In order to steal something, I have to take it first, which means depriving the original owner of the use of it. That's not what's happening here. When you download a song you haven't paid anyone for, you're doing just that: listening to a song you haven't paid for, which, ironically enough, happens every time you turn on the radio. When you do it after buying other works by the same artist on another format, it's even more inoccuous.
That idea was not pulled out of my ass. I have plenty of personal contact within the independent music scene. You know what? They _don't_ care. Most smaller acts make most of their money by touring, and value their fanbase over their chart position for this reason.
I believe that a subscription based system such as this new Napster is completely representive for the state of music today anyway.
Good for you, then. You can have my slot if you want it. Although the record execs want to believe that all people want to do is buy one or two hits, they envy the money the indie biz pulls in on tours and merch.
People are not concerned with the overall work and feel of a record
How do you explain the success of Radiohead's Kid A or Amnesiac, then? Huh? Sheesh.
Get the songs you want and artists get paid.
Bullshit. Read some of the other posts, or have a friend in a signed band show you his record contract. The artists make their money on tour, which is why most of them don't care what you download.
So basically, you're saying you'd be willing to pay for the oppotunity to listen to the same songs you hear on the radio, just whenever you want?. Big fucking deal! It's called a cassette recorder, or in the case of MTV, a VCR.
When are people going to wake up and realize that music does not demand US$2M videos, or multi-million-dollar ad campaigns. You are paying the labels for the privelege of making sure that you're listening to the same music as the asshole in the car next to you!
The same NSYNC song you hear on the radio makes NSYNC (and its label) millions in endorsements, merch, ticket sales, calendars, psters and other bullshit. Why do you need to add to their giant, steaming pile of cash with the $2 you throw on? Because you feel guilty? Please! Do yourself a favor- shut off the radio for 2 seconds and go to a record store. That's right, a real record store. Look at the records, then buy some. Notice the $10 price tag. Stop on the way home and buy a record player.
Once you get home, download all the mp3s you want, because you already own the rights to the music. Hell, if you find some songs from the same band you didn't buy yet, download those too. Any band still publishing on vinyl probably doesn't care.
Realize: you are the consumer. Your opinion is the only one that matters. If you think CDs are priced unfairly, stop fucking buying them!. If you think radio sucks, stop fucking listening to it!.
Either way, never sign up for some subscription service. Subscriptions are a great business model, but they put the onus on the consumer to get the most use out of them. If cable was offered on a pay-per-show basis, the cable companies would go bankrupt because it would force consumers to analyze their entertainment choices, just like at the movie theatre, or the concert hall, or the arcade. One by one, only the best programs would be watched, and there would be no audience for the crap that passes as TV. Paying a subscription fee for music makes the already miserable music scene even more depressing.
A temporary solution is to go into your Preferences and in the Privacy section click "Allow Only Users on My Buddy List" under "Who can contact me."
Until some genius manages to script the AIM client to send the exploit to everyone on your buddy list (who will most likely have added you to theirs), making that precaution worthless.
Again, proof that Windows is not the security problem, popularity is the security problem. When JFK got shot, it was assasination. When someone you've never heard of gets shot, it's just murder.
You can't do anything to us no matter what. Even if we knew that the program would melt your machine, tough!
Sniff! Smells familiar...
but I know that here in Canada, it is the threat of Revenue Canada and only the threat of Revenue Canada that keeps businesses paying taxes.
Emphasis mine.
I know several people in a bizarre legal loophole called "Common Status", wherein the government can't extract income tax from you.
That might have something to do with the incredibly high income tax rate in Canada (>50%?).
It's bizarre that you assumed I worked in the music industry.
Well, didn't someone say "we in the industry" during a conversation on the music industry? I know I thought music was the industry you were talking about.
Anyway, you are probably wrong.
You can either pay for the music and listen to it.
Or, better yet, we can download it for free, and become so angry at the record industry that we cease even buying what we already do.
The music industry has been gouging both consumers and artists for as long as their essentially uneccessary asses have been dragging dirt. We have put up with $16 CDs because there was previously no alternative*. Now there is one, and suprise! People are flocking to it. Even as evil as the US government can be, it is more than the threat of an audit that keeps most Americans from cheating on their taxes. It is the belief that at its core, our government is providing us with valuable services that we should pay for. It is the understanding that if we don't do our share, others will suffer. Record labels provide none of this, and rake in profit the whole time. The music industry has used its monopoly on popular music recordings to rip off anyone within arm's reach. If "stealing"** music is not an option, then why are there dozens of availible ways to do it? Why don't the practitioners of this "theft" seem like criminals? Because they're not. IP is a new concept, and the effort of people like you to apply RP (real property) ideas to IP materials have failed. You and your ilk are like dinosaurs, and there are 1000 hungry mammals (indie record labels) ready to dance on the chalky ground in which you turn to coal.
*There have always been alternatives, like LPs or 7ins, which can still be had for $10 and $3, respectively. Fugazi CDs are always availible for $10 mail-order. Unfortunately, since the industry marketing machine controls the airwaves, no artists not overpromoted can even breathe.
**Bullshit. Illegally copying music is not depriving the original owners of property, and can even have a number of fair uses, often rendering it legal again.
If a court finds that people are producing things that are invulnerable to court orders, you can bet that within days legislation will be passed preventing any such software from being produced again.
No way, that's impossible! The government would never pass laws that are unpopular, uneccessary, and unenforcable. I mean, except for the war on drugs. Oh, wait...
Q: But that kind of begs the question, because it wasn't completely unthinkable, like someone flying a plane into a building. At the time when all these features were being rolled out, programmers online were screaming left and right that this was inevitably going to result in these massive incidents, and, sure enough, they did.
A: Well, yes. You're right about that. We were given the signal loud and clear, and completely ignored it. We here at Microsoft are terrible at making software. In fact, please don't ever again buy any of our products. We are very, very bad.
I mean, this guy is speaking on behalf of a multi-billion dollar software giant. He is not going to risk his job by embarrassing his whole company. That's why companies like MS (GM, American Airlines, Exxon) hire guys like this. For reference, consult any presidential press conference.
The developers are going to look at REAL sales numbers when deciding which platforms deserve their attention with future releases
Although that is one factor, it might not even be the most important one. The most important one is profit. In fact, that's really the only factor. Developers look at the potential market for their game (based on a percentage of installed base marketing says will buy a game in a given genre), minus their costs to produce it. Included in those costs are development effort, which is supposed to be higher on PS2. Also licensing fees (don't forget about those). I don't know who has the best licensing scheme, but that certainly is a factor on why the XBOX has so many games out so quickly. Also, from what I hear, MS has better PR with developers, many of which already write games for windows, (and, just as important) on windows. My prediction: within a year or two, PS2 will seem dated. XBOX games will get better and better with time, as more Windows games are ported. After all, Windows is the gaming platform of choice, and XBOX is only a sidestep from Win64 development.
I don't know why I need to reply to an AC (when will you people get logins?), but:
;)
That is because they usually do it better over there.
Uh, yeah. That's why most of the top-selling albums worldwide are by American artists? Sure, the Beatles, but one group does not superiority make (and I think they're overrated anyway).
I wouldn't boast too loudly about House and Hip-Hop.
Why not? Have you ever heard hip hop? Aside from radio crap, it has basically replaced punk as America's youth protest music. House is made for the dance floor, filling the void (yes, there was a void) left by disco. I know that was a joke, but seriously, get with the program. What would you prefer people dance to in clubs? Polka? That would be like me unilaterally dissing country (also American music, by the way). Just because P. Diddy sucks doesn't mean hip hop sucks, and just because you don't dance doesn't mean house sucks.
If you want to be picky then I'm pretty sure all music (except for Native American tribal forms) came from Europe or Africa to this country seeing as we started as immigrants
Although much of our music is influenced by international and historical sounds, it was made here in the states, by people living here in the states. That would be like saying the Specials were Jamaican, or that Jay-Z makes African tribal music. Just not true.
As soon as we package it and send it over there, you mean.
And on, and on...
Don't forget, America invented Rock and Roll, Soul, Funk, Garage, House, Hip Hop and R&B. The British only refine it while we've gone on to something else.
What I meant was that things that are normally not a big deal become one quickly when done in the name of a group that blew up the World Trade Center and killed thousands while we are in a war with that same group. When one of these "saboteurs" (assuming the article isn't BS) is on the stand, accused of an act of war against his own country, how will he defend himself? By claiming the whole thing was a harmless joke? Doubtful. IANAL, but it won't be hard to read electronic terrorism into something like this, and that's treason.
The difference being the Forbes error was due to oversized data being entered into a char() field in SQL Server, i.e. a user error (showing Forbes's ass) whereas the MySQL error was a system error (showing MySQL/Linux's ass). Your post was a user error (showing your ass).
I wholeheartedly agree, but over any significant period of time, unless the code never has any bugs, or is never changed, it will be worked on by someone other than the programmer.
I'm sorry, please restate the question. I'm not sure what you mean.
Sabotaging a companies product isn't treason, even by todays loose standards.
Yeah, and neither is opening a cardboard box. I still wouldn't bring a boxcutter on a plane if I were you.