Get a clue the really rich don't pay taxes unless they want too.
I certainly agree than too many extremely wealthy people avoid paying fair shares of the tax burden. But simply replacing the progressive tax with a flat tax won't fix the problem. The problem is with the many, many exceptions, deductions, and special cases in our tax code. Yes, declaring, "the tax rate is 18%, no exceptions" will close those special cases, but so will "the tax rate is 10% on income below $6,000, 15% to $27,950, $25% to 67,700, 30% to $141,250, 35% to $307,050, and 38.6% beyond that, no exceptions." Sure, it's a tiny bit complex. But it's still simple and easy to enforce. There are no loopholes to escape through. The problems occur because we have books and books of laws giving weird special case exceptions. Yes, those loopholes can close with the flat tax, but we can close those loopholes while maintaining a progressive tax.
I agree that the system is too complex and needs to be pared down, but you can strip the system to a trivial to understand and enforce policy without moving to a flat tax.
A graduated tax system is making people poor or live check to check, not curing it. A flat tax would save many people from this fate. It would be simple and easy to predict. Predictability brings some comfort and allows us better control.
You offer a confusing argument for why a flat tax will benefit someone living check to check. Currently someone living on a restricted income will pay 10% to 15% of their income, max. By any math, a 17% or 18% flat tax will take more money from them, money they can't really afford to lose. Sure it's might be a little easier for them to estimate how much money they'll have, but ultimately they'll have less. How is that a win? How can having less money help someone cease to be poor?
I will agree that regional cost of living dramatically complicates the situation. But moving to a flat tax doesn't fix the problem. If the cost of living in insane somewhere having a flat tax
I can only assume that you work as a tax accountant or something in that area.
Ouch. I have a respectable job, thank you. (Well, as respectible as any software engineer...:-) I loathe our current tax system. It's too complex. I fear doing my own taxes each year because of the complexity. No one should have a job that exists simply to help deal with the complexities of government. If such a job appears (like an individual tax preparer), it means that the system is broken. But the one thing I don't worry about is the simple progressive taxation that is at the core of the system. Total up my income, look it up in a table, and viola, my tax total.
The flat tax is probably a mistake, and won't fix the core problem. You do hit the nail on the head when you list a very small list of deductions, then say "No other deductions." If you have to add up all of your income, looking up your taxes on a table isn't much harder than multiplying by 18% (or whatever the flat tax is set to). Heck, it's easier, since you just look up an entry in a table, you don't even need to do the multiplication or drag out a calculator. The nightmare is in tracking down exemptions, deductions, and other fiddly little bits to try and save move.
Arguing for a flat tax as a way to simplify things is silly. It's all the worse when you consider the damage that a flat tax would do. A flat tax is inherently regressive. If I'm living check to check, any taxes put me in serious financial danger. But if I'm well off, I can bear higher taxes while maintaining my standard of living and my long term savings. While I'm not wealthy, I certainly pay more than 18% right now. I don't mind. I can afford it and still live comfortably and put away money for retirement. Any of the flat tax proposals will decrease my tax burden. Where is the money going to come from? People less well off than me? That doesn't seem fair. Perhaps you'll argue that it will actually increase taxes on the more wealthy who currently enjoy large deductions and exemptions. If that's the case, you'll need to remove those deductions if you stick with the progressive tax system or move to a flat tax.
I'm sorry, I'm confused. Perhaps I didn't smoke enough of whatever crack it is that you're enjoying. What exactly am I writing my representative about? To complain that because there is a glut of programmers who want to write games, many of them skilled, that there is a fall in the salaries of game programmers? What's my representative going to do? Pass the "Programmers Deserve Higher Minimum Wages Law of 2004?" I almost suspect that you're trying for Funny, but confused a few people into Interesting. Programmers chose to be game programmers. They're drawn by the glamor and glitz. By and large they financially do well, not exceptionally, but well. If they wanted better conditions and salaries, they can jump to the far larger non-game software industry. I myself entered the industry desiring to write software. When I discovered that it primarily ran the blood of new programmers just out of college, paid them (relatively) poorly and treated them like crap, I decided it wasn't for me. Another friend chose to stick with it, he valued the job enough that the pay and the conditions were acceptable. (In fact, he stuck with it long enough that he now makes quite reasonable pay and has acceptable working conditions.) The industry is full of people who want to be there and almost universally can move to jobs with less work and more money. Why mess with the system?
Seriously, they should probably be going out of their way to appeal
to creative non-geeks, artists and writers who can come up with new ideas and
revitalize the stagnant game market. Sure, you can always eke out a few dollars
from the latest boring iteration of a proven formula, Grand Theft Auto 7 or
Warcraft VI. What the industry needs is fresh ideas from different sorts of
people.
Ideas are cheap. Go to any game developer, be they an artist, programmer,
level designer, or whatever, and you'll find dozens of interesting ideas for
games.
There are two problems. 1) Creative doesn't mean good. An idea may just be
stupid. A creative idea might even be interesting and exciting, but not
actually produce something fun to play (like the inspired but unplayable
Black and White). 2) The business types are cowards. Generic
Fighting Game XXVII is seen as safe. It doesn't matter that there are (even
after filtering out the bad ideas), many, many creative ideas available to
them, they're only interested in low risk projects. It's harsh, but it's also
their money.
All that said, while yes the industry is awash in clones and knock-offs,
there is always some genuine innovation going on. In the last year for the
PS/2 we've seen imaginative titles like
Sly Cooper,
Kingdom Hearts, and Rez.
On other systems we saw Animal Crossing,
Freedom Force,
Morrowind, and Mafia.
Head back a little further and you have brilliant titles like Ico,
Jet Grind
Radio, or Pikmin.
Yes, Grant Theft Auto: Vice City and Warcraft III are both
derivative, but they're sequels to cutting edge games that changed
expectations. Grand Theft Auto III redefined open ended game play and
believable worlds. Warcraft effectively popularized real-time
strategy games. Perhaps they're derivative, but they're fundamentally good
games which have been continually refined and improved. Why pick on them if they shipping games that are genuinely fun? Instead, complain
about Generic Real-Time Strategy II, Racing Game Number 8576, or Street Soul Mortal Ultimate Fighter Extreme Blade Combat IV.
I don't own a license to view a DVD, I own a license to view a Movie.
Unless you're buying your DVDs somewhere strange, you don't have a license to anything. You own a single legal copy of the movie as encoded onto the DVD. There is no license either granting you additional freedoms or taking freedoms away from you. You are free to use the DVD however you like, within the limits of copyright law. You are free to watch it, destroy it, sell it, give it away, and loan it out without any license needed, just like a VHS tape, a CD, a book, or a magazine. Assuming you can get around the Macrovision and CSS without violating the DMCA, you're even free to make copies for personal use. Copyright law does places some limitations on behavior, including prohibitions on distributing copies of the work and publically perform/show/broadcast it. (The DMCA part of copyright law effectively bans software capable of breaking the encryption on DVDs.)
The idea that you need a license of some sort to make personal use of copyright protected content is wrong. Many copyright based businesses are spreading this erroneously idea because it increases their effective power. Don't buy into it!
(The claim that a publisher can use a click-through license on software is based on some very shaky assumptions and still lacks a good national test case. Any attempt to spread such behavior to DVDs or other media would likely fail miserably.)
One person mistakes the position of Science Advisor for Science Crusader and embarks to convert Bush to Evolutionism. In TWO paragraphs! Surely he knows that Bush is a devout Christian.
An advisor should attempt to convince the advisee of new ideas. Isn't that the entire point of an advisor? (Mind you, there are many advisees who would rather their advisor just reinforce what they already. But it might look bad if you selected Science Yes-Man instead of Science Advisor.) Furthermore, the vast majority of Christians have reconciled their faith with evolution and accept evolution as the likely source of humanity. Most Christians are deeply embarrassed by the behavior of creationists.
I don't think these [Over the] Edge people were playing along with the given scenario as they would've if it were real.
By and large these are people that Bush would never accept in a Science Advisor position. So no, it's not terribly realistic. It's really just an interesting thought experiment to pull some interesting ideas on science from the writers. No one ever thought that they might really get the position. It's a fantasy discussion, much like, "If you have a billion dollars how would you spend it." To harm in it.
Kyoto pretty much screws the US while letting the worlds biggest polluters off scott free.
I'd always viewed it as "We're rich and powerful, and thus more easily able to improve our emissions than many less developed, less wealthy nations. In fact, we got rich and powerful in part by being lucky enough that our most heavily polluting part of history occurred at a time that almost no one cared. We developed nations will take a hit for the good of the planet, and hope that our good example will convince other nations follow. Furthermore, because many other highly developed nations are signing on, I won't even need to worry about local businesses competing with less eco-friendly foreign businesses. This just leaves less developed nations, against whom, depending on the industry, we tend to either have an overwhelming technological advantage, or are ourselves overwhelmed by cheap labor and less regulations. As those nations continue to develop, they will be encouraged to match our restrictions."
Not everyone is going to agree, but I think it bears consideration. No matter what agreement you have, there will be countries that refuse to follow it, or only follow limited versions. We need to make do with what we can get, then use the combined groups effort to convince hold-outs to join in.
What you need to do is put the electronic version online
before or concurrently with the print version. See the Baen Free Library...
I love the Baen Free Library (BFL), but I think you're misrepresenting the results. By and large the books in the BFL were placed online after the print version. In most cases, significantly after, long after the print version is selling only handfuls of copies. In this case, yes, there is strong evidence that a free online version can boost print sales. The BFL doesn't publish stuff in new release specifically because of concerns of gutting sales. Mind you, the BFL's concern doesn't mean that the free release will gut sales, just that they're not willing to be the one to do the experiment at the risk of sales.
Relatedly, I encourage everyone to visit Baen Free Library, if only "Prime Palaver" articles in which the person manging the library discusses the plan and the actual results. It's very enlightening.
This isn't bad editing, it's on purpose and only undermines the impact of the story by showing where the Register's bias is.
I totally agree. I hate it when a news source shows where its bias is. Bias should be subtle so you get the illusion that you're just getting facts, making it easier to deceive myself that I'm getting objective news instead of slanted news. Have the bias hanging out, it's like a news organization's private parts hanging out. Won't someone think of the children!
Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go review the carefully researched, reasoned, and unbiased discussion on the Wall Street Journal's editorial page.
I don't have a general problem with these phones specifically. Ultimately it's just another camera. If the people in question want to carry a camera, they could just as well carry one of the new, smaller-than-a-wallet digital cameras and upload them somewhere that evening.
I do have a problem with societies general move to increased monitoring. People argue "if you're not doing anything wrong, what's the problem?" The problem is that "wrong" is relative and your legal (and in your mind, ethical) activities may cause problems elsewhere. Say you love your spouse, but your spouse is a tad bit paranoididly jealous. Suddenly an innocent picture of you meeting a potential business client of the opposite gender might look suspicious. Perhaps you're just listening to a union organizer's pitch during a unionization effort. Suddenly your decision to just listen, even if you decide against, might cost you a job if a photo of the two of you talking is mis-interpreted. Perhaps you live in part of the world where there is still a strong level of racism/sexism/somethingism. You decide to try and work for social change, but because you have a family to protect you decide to only work behind the scenes. A photo of you meeting someone might cause your children to be threatened. A visit to an family planning clinic might result in your harassment elsewhere as your photo circulates amoung extreme anti-abortion activists. Perhaps the economic downturn has dramatically left you with no options for employment, so you take a job with someone who illegally screens employees based on religion. Sure, it's illegal, but you need the work to support your family. Suddenly photos of you attending religious services might cost you your job.
Sometimes the society around you might strongly disagree with your actions, actions that you feel are ethical and correct. Privacy allows you to follow your heart without needing to put yourself on the line. Sure, ideally you'd have no external commitments and would make a public stand, but for most people that isn't an option.
Until I babysat some kids and showed them Terminator II, I didn't see a connection between a violent movie and violent behavior, but now I am certain there is one.
Numerous studies have shown that in children there is a short term behavoral change when exposed to violent media. That's pretty clear. Children like acting out what they see, be it good or bad. (In fact, while children behave in more violent ways after seeing violent media, there are some very credible arguments that this violent play helps them work through and understand the situations presented, that real violence is almost never their intent and the majority is just play violence that may go slightly out of control.)
Less clear is the long term results in children. Studies found evidence both ways. For adults, there is clearly no significant connection. "Violent movies, television, and games leads to increased violence in society" is too simplistic.
If you charged your neighbor to come over and watch TV, you'd be violating the terms of the current license on your personal DVDs and video tapes...
Right conclusion, wrong reason. It would be illegal because you were engaging in public performance, a right exclusively held by the copyright holder. The FBI warning isn't a license, it's a reminder of the existing copyright laws. (Which is why the FBI is involved. The FBI doesn't generally worry about breaches of licenses, but they are interested in breaches of laws.) It's important to not let the copyright industries convince us that we have no rights in the absense of license. We most certainly do.
metropolis's original prints go pd in 2022, but the transfers they made and broadcast to your hdtv carry new copyrights, to protect that work that went into the transfer, and won't go public domain for 95 years after they're made.
Copyright only protects creative works. Format shifting has never been considered creative work. If they were to remaster it (with, say, new audio), they might try claiming that the new work was restricted by copyright, but I would still be free to take just the video feed. This is why new editions of books don't reset copyright clocks, and why I'm free to copy just the original Shakespeare parts of book of annotated plays. Copyright law has been extended to some insane places, but it's not that bad. Yet.
While in this particular case it sounds like the guy knowingly violated an NDA and is getting what he desires, I object to your over simplification of the situation. Of course committing a crime is committing a crime. Meanwhile, on other earth shatteringly interesting notes, taking a walk is taking a walk, while writing software is writing software. The implication in this sort of article is that while something may be illegal, there are other factors. Yes, it may be a crime by one perspective, but there are complications worth discussing. Common factors include, "the legal situation is a bit more complicated and it may not actually be a crime," or "Congress passed a law making something a crime, but many argue that the law is unconstitutional", and the ever popular "it may by illegal, but the action was ethical (and the law should be changed)." All of these are very worthy of discussion.
That said, it sounds like this guy was a dumbass. He broke a law, I'm not aware of any constitutional challenges, and what he did was wrong by my ethical standards. This particular article was a bit of a waste.
But I think the point is that under fair use you are allowed to make unlimited "one-off" copies, ie in your Disney analogy. The restriction is that you can't make copies of copies. Napster et al violate fair use in that you create a copy and share it, now the recipient has a second generation copy. They aren't in possesion of the original generation copy.
One of my points is that the number of serial copies made (generations of copies) is irrelevant to fair use. Third generation copies can be used legally (impossible to find now music I originally purchased on 8-track, transfered to tape, then to CD, then to MP3, adjusting to my preferred format of the time). My brother makes multiple generations of copies of television shows he wishes to archive. He used to originally record to VCR, then dubbed to another VCR to remove commercials (two generations). He recently wanted to free up some space, so he's been taking those second generation tapes and transferring them to VCDs (three generations). Both of these legal uses would be effectively impossible under systems that don't allow second generation copies.
But at least this system stops illegal uses, right? Nope. First generation copies can be used illegally. To take a simple example, I could take legally acquired CD, then sell copies of it.
Corporate copyrights last 95 years now, and personal copyrights last for a lifetime plus 75 years. I don't think any of us will be alive to access public domain hdtv no matter what.
Ah, but older works due to expire in the (relatively) near future will start airing in these formats, all locked up. When Metropolis goes public domain in 2022, will the copy restriction flag on the copy I made in 2021 turn itself off?
Of course, this assumes that congress doesn't continue extending copyright...
What is the big deal? Isn't that the limit of fair use? To make a personal copy only for yourself? Contrary to other's belief fair use isn't making a copy and "sharing" it to millions of people you have never met.
The big deal is that fair use is not defined as "one copy for personal use." Fair use includes making a number of copies of a very small portion of a work for commentary purposes (say, showing sixty or so seconds of footage from a movie for a webcast movie review program I create). Fair use includes making multiple copies for personal use (perhaps keeping a "master" copy of the latest Disney movie safe somewhere and then occasionally making a "play" copy to replace the last one the kids destroyed). Fair use includes making multiple copies as I format shift my copy from format to format as technology advances. Fair use includes transferring a recording from one digital video recorder I own to another. On top of that, as the copyright on works expire, these technical limitations will continue to restrict my access to public domain works. Contrary to widespread belief, there are legal, ethical reasons to make multiple copies of a work protected by copyright. Fair use is more complex than the simplistic "one copy is fair use, two or more is not" that they want to enforce on us.
I see alot of people complaining that the GPL isn't absolutely free,
and therefore it's deceptive to call it Free Software. Perhaps, if
you're willing to similarly argue that there are no free nations and
no free people.
Freedom is not an absolute that you have or don't have. It's a
sliding scale. On one end is "Absolute Freedom". Absolute Freedom is
only interesting in the sense that Absolute
Zero is interesting: useful in theory, but unattaintainable in
practice. Absolute Freedom would give me the freedom to, say, murder,
rob, and defraud. Relatively few people people would desire that much
freedom. By accepting restrictions on themselves, they know that
others who might harm them are similarly restricted. In fact,
Absolute Freedom probably isn't attainable for a population of any
size, someone will take that freedom to use force to remove the
freedom from others.
On the other end you have an Absolute Lack of Freedom. This really
requires that we all be robots or otherwise completely controlled. If
you're into predestination or the absolute computability of the
universe, then you might believe that we fundamentally have an
Absolute Lack of Freedom. Most people don't.
So we have a sliding scale between these two points. To take a
situation I'm familiar with, let's look at the United States. The
vast majority of citizens of the United States feel that they are free
people. Yet, we accept a large number of restrictions on our
behavior. There are laws limiting use of violence; which chemical
compounds we're allowed to sell and purchase; when we're allowed to
vote, drink, smoke, and run for political office; electromagnetic
emissions our computers are allowed to emit; pollution allowed from
our cars; what we're allowed to say and where (no "Fire!" in a crowded
theatre). Yet with these restrictions, and thousands more, we
basically feel that we're a free people, a free society. We're
nowhere near Absolute Freedom, but we're free enough. There is
naturally a continuous struggle to define what is free enough. Some
argue to increase freedom in some areas, others argue to reduce
freedom in some areas. Yet we're free enough.
So, back to software. In much of the world, the status quo is that
you cannot distribute copies of other people's software. This is
implemented through local copyright laws. Most software licenses
start with the restrictions of copyright law, then add additional
restrictions. Clearly most software licenses are less free than the
default. The GPL starts with copyright law, then offers you a deal:
you can have more freedom than copyright law grants, but there are
some restrictions. You have a choice with software under the GPL: you
can accept copyright law, or you can accept the GPL and gain certain
freedoms. Yes, the GPL restricts how you can distribute copies of the
GPLed software, but it's still better than the copyright default of
zero copy distribution allowed. Clearly, the GPL is more free than
copyright.
Now, the GPL isn't quite as free as the BSD / MIT / X licenses,
sure. But you cannot claim that those licenses acheive Absolute
Freedom. Clearly not, since there is something more free than the BSD
license: the public domain. In the public domain software just barely
reaches Absolute Freedom. Of course, Absolute Freedom is unstable,
and naturally any software of value is copied out of the public domain
and incorporated into less free works. While works in the public
domain cannot effectively be removed from that freedom, their mere
existance supports the creation of much less free works.
If we're going to debate the meaning of Free, we need to draw a
line in the continuum of Freedom and Lack of Freedom. Would you draw
it at Absolute Freedom? If we're talking about Freedom in general,
you'll never achieve it. In the case of software, you there is an
Absolute Freedom at public domain. Very nearby is the BSD style
licenses. That certainly is a very free location on the continuum.
It's so free that other people take the free thing and create
something non-free. While that's very free, it seems a bit unfair to
some people who want spread freedom more widely. If I create
something and I want to make it free, why should my work support less
free works? So I'm willing to move the line up to the GPL. Clearly
less free than the BSD license, it helps to ensure that my donations
to things on the Free side of the line cannot be used to support
things on the Non-Free side of the line.
Perhaps you feel that the GPL isn't free enough. But for many
people it is free enough, and as such can legitimately be called Free
software. (To be fair, some people probably feel that proprietary
software is free enough. I suspect relatively few people who have
ever tried to get additional legal copies of software that was no
longer published, or support for out of lifespan software, or wanted
to use software no longer supported on modern system, or subjected to
a BSA audit feel that the software in question is particularlly Free.)
MP3 and other lossy codecs fool our ears, and unlike our eyes, our ears require constant re-calibration to function properly. If we are calibrating to inaccurate/unnatural sounds, he thinks this could be a concern.
Perhaps there is a risk, but if it exists it's downed out by other factors. Lossly audio compression is fairly subtle in the damage it does to audio. We listen to audio damaged far worse, far more freqently. The serious mangling of audio done over the phone. The damage done listening to audio on crappy computer speakers, or the speakers built into your laptop, or the speakers built into your television, or desktop radio. All of these things are feeding "ill formed" audio into you, and the ill formed audio is far more mangled than the damage done by MP3 or other lossy codecs.
Don't forget that CNN and NPR have allowed US military "psy-ops" officers to be "interns" in their news offices.
If you're going to make a point like this, I suspect I'm not alone in asking that you just pick a relatively reputable source and link to that instead of linking to a Google search. Especially when the Google search turns up a large number of sites your average person has never heard of and there will mistrust. Perhaps offer the Google link as a follow up.
Also, don't make the link text the same as the link. Give a useful label, like "Google search on 'CNN Army Psyops'" It's much more useful and likely to draw people to click on it. (Of course, if the link said something like "FAIR's coverage of psy-ops working at CNN" and linked to the FAIR coverage, I think it would have gotten even more.)
That said, I found your contention alarming, so I took a quick look. After skimming over a number of small sites I've never heard, I found one a group I'm actually familiar with: FAIR. While often disagree with FAIR, I'm familiar with them and understand where their prejudices lie. I trust them (or at least trust their slant). So, seeing FAIR's coverage of Psy-Ops at CNN, I feel I got a reasonable summary of the issue and relaxed.
As an example, i'm boycotting CNN for the last 3 years...
The fall of CNN from reputable news source to racing Fox News to the bottom of the filth was terribly depressing. I used to watch CNN Headline News regularlly. The news moved quickly, the anchors were serious and limited themselves strictly to the news, and the reporting was relatively unbiased for mainstream media. In thirty minutes (any thirty minutes) I could get a quick summary of the world's news. It was perfect background as I went about my mornings.
Then the changes. They got rid of all of the old anchors and replaced them with irritatingly perky youngsters. The broadcasts become full of inane banter between various anchors. They filled the screen with sidebars and tickers and newsflashes. They created more and longer needless story animations (Dum dum dum, *horns*, "The WARonTERROR" *horns*). Then it happened... near the end of last year (or was it the year before?), the bubbly airhead anchor introduced "a special report on purchasing gifts online." Well, vapid... but I guess. "As reported by our special AOL correspondant." Erm, that's an amazingly uncomfortable conflict of interest. The "AOL correspondant" then proceeded to tell me all the great stuff I could buy using AOL. No web sites, no general tips. AOL specific content. I turned off my television. Years of my watching for a half hour a day, of my general like of CNN HN, destroyed. To hell with big media.
somebody who was fired for posting derogatory stuff about her employer (if you don't like it don't work there!);
Well, that's not entirely fair. It may be that for reasons out of the employee's control that they are at the only job available. That said, even if you hate your job with a passion, unless you're planning on leaving already, badmouthing your job in public is a good way to get fired.
what a C&D letter is (HINT, YOU MORONS, IT IS NOT A LAWSUIT)
No it isn't a lawsuit, any more than my pointing a gun at you is attempted murder. It's just a threat. In this particular case it's a threat by someone with a great deal more power and money than you who could effectively bankrupt you in could. Of course, like all threats, it could just be a bluff, but, like when a mugger points a gun at you, are you really willing to risk it? A Cease and Desist may not be a lawsuit, but for most people it effectively stops their behavior, even if their behavior is legal and ethical. (I'm not arguing the specific case of C&D use in the article, it sounds like the guy accidentally did violate his NDA, he got warned to fix the situation, and he did. C&Ds can be used in perfectly ethical ways.)
I see you're not encumbered with any experience in the fields of game
development, 3D graphics, or software development. If you weren't so earnest,
I'd assume you were a troll.
You earlier suggested the people reverse engineer how Doom works. While
that might have been interesting nine years ago, it's old hat now. One of the
reasons that Carmack is such a god amoung geeks is that he gives talks on how
his technology works. In the case of Doom, it's extremely well understood at
this point. You can actually buy "How to write a 3D game" books that walk you
through creating a Doom-like engine. In fact, the technology in question is
out of date. To make Doom and fast and cool as possible, Carmack took a number
of shortcuts (like making the game fundamentally 2D). Shortcuts that would be
unacceptable these days (and thus Carmack continues to be on the cutting edge,
developing a new engine for Doom III.
These games are all Doom and Wolfenstein based.
I'd suggest using "inspired by" instead of "based". Many
people (myself in cluded) view "based" as meaning "derived from",
as in "sharing some specific elements, probably source code.
None of the games you cited are derived from the Doom or
Wolfenstein's code. They may share certain algorithms common in
3D graphics, but those same algorithms were well known by
computer scientists working on graphics many years prior. You
strangely included "All 3D Basketball/Baseball/Football Games".
What are you smoking? They certainly didn't inherit the portal
based or ray casting systems allowing for large levels. They
didn't inherit the first person perspective. They didn't inherit
the twitchy, violent gameplay. The didn't inherit the software
based rendered. The only thing in common is that they are both
3D.
One answer (although not the only one): Leap frog
ahead of the competition. Predict what the gaming platform is
going to be 2 or 4 or 8 years from now, and begin programming
now....
Trying to guess what sort of hardware you'll be dealing with
is insane. The only sure thing is "it will be faster." The
console companies in question aren't quite sure what they'll be
releasing in 4 years. (Yes, they're working on them now, but
their plan will continually shift as their goals and dreams meet
budgets and schedules.)
Now then, if you go through this process, and
approach the mathematics carefully, you might be able to program
up a nice engine that utilizes menger spaces and
fractals.
And now you're just babbling.... Just because something
sounds impressive doesn't mean it makes any sense. Leave the
decisions on technology to people actually doing the work.
Reviewer a shill or a nut
on
Starcraft
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Egad, this woman does like this book. No fewer than 13 reviews: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,
8,
9, 10,
11, 12, 13 (repeated here
and here),
14?.
My first thought was the Denise M. Clark was a shill, but if she is, she's
incompetant. By using the same name over and over, it becomes easy to track
her down. My next thought was that she was a UFO nut trying to spread the
word. Possible, but she has reviewed many other books.
My new theory is that she's desperately trying for fame through the unlikely
technique of publishing reviews on as many sites as possible.
(Check out her web page, "The on-line home of author/reviewer Denise M. Clark".
Either that, or
she's a space alien here to prepare us for use as slaves and food for her
hideous grey masters. If it's the former, she's wasting our time. If it's the latter, I suppose that would could as news for nerds.
However, if I come home and strange cars are parked in front of my house and people are taking photos. I am gonna be suspicious. Could be crooks, murderers, you name it.
Take pics of my house(I am a nice guy) while i am pulling up. I am gonna chase you down, get your plate, call a buddy in the dmv. And call you and ask you why the fuck you taking pics of my crib. I will even call the police.
As a general rule, if I'm concerned that someone is considering commiting a crime against me, I'll just tell the police and provide them with whatever information I can. Calling up my possible assailant seems a bit strange. "Hi, this is Bob the Mangler." "Hi Bob, I happened to notice you scoping out my place. I was just wondering, were you planning on killing me?"
Like it or not, people are pretty much free to stop on the street near your home and take pictures. It's totally different if they're trespassing on your property, but while creepy, it's legal. (And there are potentially good reasons for society to allow this. A private detective investigating a cheating spouse might want photos of the spouses car in their lover's driveway. A nieghborhood association might want evidence of someone violating local planning codes. Someone selling their house across the street might want photos of the view to show prospective buyers. A newspaper reporter writing a piece might want to show the home as a good example of the extravagence that a slimy spammer or politician enjoys.)
Slashdot Mirror
I certainly agree than too many extremely wealthy people avoid paying fair shares of the tax burden. But simply replacing the progressive tax with a flat tax won't fix the problem. The problem is with the many, many exceptions, deductions, and special cases in our tax code. Yes, declaring, "the tax rate is 18%, no exceptions" will close those special cases, but so will "the tax rate is 10% on income below $6,000, 15% to $27,950, $25% to 67,700, 30% to $141,250, 35% to $307,050, and 38.6% beyond that, no exceptions." Sure, it's a tiny bit complex. But it's still simple and easy to enforce. There are no loopholes to escape through. The problems occur because we have books and books of laws giving weird special case exceptions. Yes, those loopholes can close with the flat tax, but we can close those loopholes while maintaining a progressive tax.
I agree that the system is too complex and needs to be pared down, but you can strip the system to a trivial to understand and enforce policy without moving to a flat tax.
You offer a confusing argument for why a flat tax will benefit someone living check to check. Currently someone living on a restricted income will pay 10% to 15% of their income, max. By any math, a 17% or 18% flat tax will take more money from them, money they can't really afford to lose. Sure it's might be a little easier for them to estimate how much money they'll have, but ultimately they'll have less. How is that a win? How can having less money help someone cease to be poor?
I will agree that regional cost of living dramatically complicates the situation. But moving to a flat tax doesn't fix the problem. If the cost of living in insane somewhere having a flat tax
Ouch. I have a respectable job, thank you. (Well, as respectible as any software engineer... :-) I loathe our current tax system. It's too complex. I fear doing my own taxes each year because of the complexity. No one should have a job that exists simply to help deal with the complexities of government. If such a job appears (like an individual tax preparer), it means that the system is broken. But the one thing I don't worry about is the simple progressive taxation that is at the core of the system. Total up my income, look it up in a table, and viola, my tax total.
The flat tax is probably a mistake, and won't fix the core problem. You do hit the nail on the head when you list a very small list of deductions, then say "No other deductions." If you have to add up all of your income, looking up your taxes on a table isn't much harder than multiplying by 18% (or whatever the flat tax is set to). Heck, it's easier, since you just look up an entry in a table, you don't even need to do the multiplication or drag out a calculator. The nightmare is in tracking down exemptions, deductions, and other fiddly little bits to try and save move.
Arguing for a flat tax as a way to simplify things is silly. It's all the worse when you consider the damage that a flat tax would do. A flat tax is inherently regressive. If I'm living check to check, any taxes put me in serious financial danger. But if I'm well off, I can bear higher taxes while maintaining my standard of living and my long term savings. While I'm not wealthy, I certainly pay more than 18% right now. I don't mind. I can afford it and still live comfortably and put away money for retirement. Any of the flat tax proposals will decrease my tax burden. Where is the money going to come from? People less well off than me? That doesn't seem fair. Perhaps you'll argue that it will actually increase taxes on the more wealthy who currently enjoy large deductions and exemptions. If that's the case, you'll need to remove those deductions if you stick with the progressive tax system or move to a flat tax.
I'm sorry, I'm confused. Perhaps I didn't smoke enough of whatever crack it is that you're enjoying. What exactly am I writing my representative about? To complain that because there is a glut of programmers who want to write games, many of them skilled, that there is a fall in the salaries of game programmers? What's my representative going to do? Pass the "Programmers Deserve Higher Minimum Wages Law of 2004?" I almost suspect that you're trying for Funny, but confused a few people into Interesting. Programmers chose to be game programmers. They're drawn by the glamor and glitz. By and large they financially do well, not exceptionally, but well. If they wanted better conditions and salaries, they can jump to the far larger non-game software industry. I myself entered the industry desiring to write software. When I discovered that it primarily ran the blood of new programmers just out of college, paid them (relatively) poorly and treated them like crap, I decided it wasn't for me. Another friend chose to stick with it, he valued the job enough that the pay and the conditions were acceptable. (In fact, he stuck with it long enough that he now makes quite reasonable pay and has acceptable working conditions.) The industry is full of people who want to be there and almost universally can move to jobs with less work and more money. Why mess with the system?
Ideas are cheap. Go to any game developer, be they an artist, programmer, level designer, or whatever, and you'll find dozens of interesting ideas for games.
There are two problems. 1) Creative doesn't mean good. An idea may just be stupid. A creative idea might even be interesting and exciting, but not actually produce something fun to play (like the inspired but unplayable Black and White). 2) The business types are cowards. Generic Fighting Game XXVII is seen as safe. It doesn't matter that there are (even after filtering out the bad ideas), many, many creative ideas available to them, they're only interested in low risk projects. It's harsh, but it's also their money.
All that said, while yes the industry is awash in clones and knock-offs, there is always some genuine innovation going on. In the last year for the PS/2 we've seen imaginative titles like Sly Cooper, Kingdom Hearts, and Rez . On other systems we saw Animal Crossing, Freedom Force, Morrowind, and Mafia . Head back a little further and you have brilliant titles like Ico, Jet Grind Radio, or Pikmin . Yes, Grant Theft Auto: Vice City and Warcraft III are both derivative, but they're sequels to cutting edge games that changed expectations. Grand Theft Auto III redefined open ended game play and believable worlds. Warcraft effectively popularized real-time strategy games. Perhaps they're derivative, but they're fundamentally good games which have been continually refined and improved. Why pick on them if they shipping games that are genuinely fun? Instead, complain about Generic Real-Time Strategy II, Racing Game Number 8576, or Street Soul Mortal Ultimate Fighter Extreme Blade Combat IV.
Unless you're buying your DVDs somewhere strange, you don't have a license to anything. You own a single legal copy of the movie as encoded onto the DVD. There is no license either granting you additional freedoms or taking freedoms away from you. You are free to use the DVD however you like, within the limits of copyright law. You are free to watch it, destroy it, sell it, give it away, and loan it out without any license needed, just like a VHS tape, a CD, a book, or a magazine. Assuming you can get around the Macrovision and CSS without violating the DMCA, you're even free to make copies for personal use. Copyright law does places some limitations on behavior, including prohibitions on distributing copies of the work and publically perform/show/broadcast it. (The DMCA part of copyright law effectively bans software capable of breaking the encryption on DVDs.)
The idea that you need a license of some sort to make personal use of copyright protected content is wrong. Many copyright based businesses are spreading this erroneously idea because it increases their effective power. Don't buy into it!
(The claim that a publisher can use a click-through license on software is based on some very shaky assumptions and still lacks a good national test case. Any attempt to spread such behavior to DVDs or other media would likely fail miserably.)
An advisor should attempt to convince the advisee of new ideas. Isn't that the entire point of an advisor? (Mind you, there are many advisees who would rather their advisor just reinforce what they already. But it might look bad if you selected Science Yes-Man instead of Science Advisor.) Furthermore, the vast majority of Christians have reconciled their faith with evolution and accept evolution as the likely source of humanity. Most Christians are deeply embarrassed by the behavior of creationists.
By and large these are people that Bush would never accept in a Science Advisor position. So no, it's not terribly realistic. It's really just an interesting thought experiment to pull some interesting ideas on science from the writers. No one ever thought that they might really get the position. It's a fantasy discussion, much like, "If you have a billion dollars how would you spend it." To harm in it.
I'd always viewed it as "We're rich and powerful, and thus more easily able to improve our emissions than many less developed, less wealthy nations. In fact, we got rich and powerful in part by being lucky enough that our most heavily polluting part of history occurred at a time that almost no one cared. We developed nations will take a hit for the good of the planet, and hope that our good example will convince other nations follow. Furthermore, because many other highly developed nations are signing on, I won't even need to worry about local businesses competing with less eco-friendly foreign businesses. This just leaves less developed nations, against whom, depending on the industry, we tend to either have an overwhelming technological advantage, or are ourselves overwhelmed by cheap labor and less regulations. As those nations continue to develop, they will be encouraged to match our restrictions."
Not everyone is going to agree, but I think it bears consideration. No matter what agreement you have, there will be countries that refuse to follow it, or only follow limited versions. We need to make do with what we can get, then use the combined groups effort to convince hold-outs to join in.
I love the Baen Free Library (BFL), but I think you're misrepresenting the results. By and large the books in the BFL were placed online after the print version. In most cases, significantly after, long after the print version is selling only handfuls of copies. In this case, yes, there is strong evidence that a free online version can boost print sales. The BFL doesn't publish stuff in new release specifically because of concerns of gutting sales. Mind you, the BFL's concern doesn't mean that the free release will gut sales, just that they're not willing to be the one to do the experiment at the risk of sales.
Relatedly, I encourage everyone to visit Baen Free Library, if only "Prime Palaver" articles in which the person manging the library discusses the plan and the actual results. It's very enlightening.
I totally agree. I hate it when a news source shows where its bias is. Bias should be subtle so you get the illusion that you're just getting facts, making it easier to deceive myself that I'm getting objective news instead of slanted news. Have the bias hanging out, it's like a news organization's private parts hanging out. Won't someone think of the children!
Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go review the carefully researched, reasoned, and unbiased discussion on the Wall Street Journal's editorial page.
I don't have a general problem with these phones specifically. Ultimately it's just another camera. If the people in question want to carry a camera, they could just as well carry one of the new, smaller-than-a-wallet digital cameras and upload them somewhere that evening.
I do have a problem with societies general move to increased monitoring. People argue "if you're not doing anything wrong, what's the problem?" The problem is that "wrong" is relative and your legal (and in your mind, ethical) activities may cause problems elsewhere. Say you love your spouse, but your spouse is a tad bit paranoididly jealous. Suddenly an innocent picture of you meeting a potential business client of the opposite gender might look suspicious. Perhaps you're just listening to a union organizer's pitch during a unionization effort. Suddenly your decision to just listen, even if you decide against, might cost you a job if a photo of the two of you talking is mis-interpreted. Perhaps you live in part of the world where there is still a strong level of racism/sexism/somethingism. You decide to try and work for social change, but because you have a family to protect you decide to only work behind the scenes. A photo of you meeting someone might cause your children to be threatened. A visit to an family planning clinic might result in your harassment elsewhere as your photo circulates amoung extreme anti-abortion activists. Perhaps the economic downturn has dramatically left you with no options for employment, so you take a job with someone who illegally screens employees based on religion. Sure, it's illegal, but you need the work to support your family. Suddenly photos of you attending religious services might cost you your job.
Sometimes the society around you might strongly disagree with your actions, actions that you feel are ethical and correct. Privacy allows you to follow your heart without needing to put yourself on the line. Sure, ideally you'd have no external commitments and would make a public stand, but for most people that isn't an option.
Numerous studies have shown that in children there is a short term behavoral change when exposed to violent media. That's pretty clear. Children like acting out what they see, be it good or bad. (In fact, while children behave in more violent ways after seeing violent media, there are some very credible arguments that this violent play helps them work through and understand the situations presented, that real violence is almost never their intent and the majority is just play violence that may go slightly out of control.)
Less clear is the long term results in children. Studies found evidence both ways. For adults, there is clearly no significant connection. "Violent movies, television, and games leads to increased violence in society" is too simplistic.
Right conclusion, wrong reason. It would be illegal because you were engaging in public performance, a right exclusively held by the copyright holder. The FBI warning isn't a license, it's a reminder of the existing copyright laws. (Which is why the FBI is involved. The FBI doesn't generally worry about breaches of licenses, but they are interested in breaches of laws.) It's important to not let the copyright industries convince us that we have no rights in the absense of license. We most certainly do.
Copyright only protects creative works. Format shifting has never been considered creative work. If they were to remaster it (with, say, new audio), they might try claiming that the new work was restricted by copyright, but I would still be free to take just the video feed. This is why new editions of books don't reset copyright clocks, and why I'm free to copy just the original Shakespeare parts of book of annotated plays. Copyright law has been extended to some insane places, but it's not that bad. Yet.
Tracking down evidence on this is pretty hard, much like proving any negative. This page from Washington State University does mention the issue (See fact 21).
While in this particular case it sounds like the guy knowingly violated an NDA and is getting what he desires, I object to your over simplification of the situation. Of course committing a crime is committing a crime. Meanwhile, on other earth shatteringly interesting notes, taking a walk is taking a walk, while writing software is writing software. The implication in this sort of article is that while something may be illegal, there are other factors. Yes, it may be a crime by one perspective, but there are complications worth discussing. Common factors include, "the legal situation is a bit more complicated and it may not actually be a crime," or "Congress passed a law making something a crime, but many argue that the law is unconstitutional", and the ever popular "it may by illegal, but the action was ethical (and the law should be changed)." All of these are very worthy of discussion.
That said, it sounds like this guy was a dumbass. He broke a law, I'm not aware of any constitutional challenges, and what he did was wrong by my ethical standards. This particular article was a bit of a waste.
One of my points is that the number of serial copies made (generations of copies) is irrelevant to fair use. Third generation copies can be used legally (impossible to find now music I originally purchased on 8-track, transfered to tape, then to CD, then to MP3, adjusting to my preferred format of the time). My brother makes multiple generations of copies of television shows he wishes to archive. He used to originally record to VCR, then dubbed to another VCR to remove commercials (two generations). He recently wanted to free up some space, so he's been taking those second generation tapes and transferring them to VCDs (three generations). Both of these legal uses would be effectively impossible under systems that don't allow second generation copies.
But at least this system stops illegal uses, right? Nope. First generation copies can be used illegally. To take a simple example, I could take legally acquired CD, then sell copies of it.
Ah, but older works due to expire in the (relatively) near future will start airing in these formats, all locked up. When Metropolis goes public domain in 2022, will the copy restriction flag on the copy I made in 2021 turn itself off?
Of course, this assumes that congress doesn't continue extending copyright...
The big deal is that fair use is not defined as "one copy for personal use." Fair use includes making a number of copies of a very small portion of a work for commentary purposes (say, showing sixty or so seconds of footage from a movie for a webcast movie review program I create). Fair use includes making multiple copies for personal use (perhaps keeping a "master" copy of the latest Disney movie safe somewhere and then occasionally making a "play" copy to replace the last one the kids destroyed). Fair use includes making multiple copies as I format shift my copy from format to format as technology advances. Fair use includes transferring a recording from one digital video recorder I own to another. On top of that, as the copyright on works expire, these technical limitations will continue to restrict my access to public domain works. Contrary to widespread belief, there are legal, ethical reasons to make multiple copies of a work protected by copyright. Fair use is more complex than the simplistic "one copy is fair use, two or more is not" that they want to enforce on us.
I see alot of people complaining that the GPL isn't absolutely free, and therefore it's deceptive to call it Free Software. Perhaps, if you're willing to similarly argue that there are no free nations and no free people.
Freedom is not an absolute that you have or don't have. It's a sliding scale. On one end is "Absolute Freedom". Absolute Freedom is only interesting in the sense that Absolute Zero is interesting: useful in theory, but unattaintainable in practice. Absolute Freedom would give me the freedom to, say, murder, rob, and defraud. Relatively few people people would desire that much freedom. By accepting restrictions on themselves, they know that others who might harm them are similarly restricted. In fact, Absolute Freedom probably isn't attainable for a population of any size, someone will take that freedom to use force to remove the freedom from others.
On the other end you have an Absolute Lack of Freedom. This really requires that we all be robots or otherwise completely controlled. If you're into predestination or the absolute computability of the universe, then you might believe that we fundamentally have an Absolute Lack of Freedom. Most people don't.
So we have a sliding scale between these two points. To take a situation I'm familiar with, let's look at the United States. The vast majority of citizens of the United States feel that they are free people. Yet, we accept a large number of restrictions on our behavior. There are laws limiting use of violence; which chemical compounds we're allowed to sell and purchase; when we're allowed to vote, drink, smoke, and run for political office; electromagnetic emissions our computers are allowed to emit; pollution allowed from our cars; what we're allowed to say and where (no "Fire!" in a crowded theatre). Yet with these restrictions, and thousands more, we basically feel that we're a free people, a free society. We're nowhere near Absolute Freedom, but we're free enough. There is naturally a continuous struggle to define what is free enough. Some argue to increase freedom in some areas, others argue to reduce freedom in some areas. Yet we're free enough.
So, back to software. In much of the world, the status quo is that you cannot distribute copies of other people's software. This is implemented through local copyright laws. Most software licenses start with the restrictions of copyright law, then add additional restrictions. Clearly most software licenses are less free than the default. The GPL starts with copyright law, then offers you a deal: you can have more freedom than copyright law grants, but there are some restrictions. You have a choice with software under the GPL: you can accept copyright law, or you can accept the GPL and gain certain freedoms. Yes, the GPL restricts how you can distribute copies of the GPLed software, but it's still better than the copyright default of zero copy distribution allowed. Clearly, the GPL is more free than copyright.
Now, the GPL isn't quite as free as the BSD / MIT / X licenses, sure. But you cannot claim that those licenses acheive Absolute Freedom. Clearly not, since there is something more free than the BSD license: the public domain. In the public domain software just barely reaches Absolute Freedom. Of course, Absolute Freedom is unstable, and naturally any software of value is copied out of the public domain and incorporated into less free works. While works in the public domain cannot effectively be removed from that freedom, their mere existance supports the creation of much less free works.
If we're going to debate the meaning of Free, we need to draw a line in the continuum of Freedom and Lack of Freedom. Would you draw it at Absolute Freedom? If we're talking about Freedom in general, you'll never achieve it. In the case of software, you there is an Absolute Freedom at public domain. Very nearby is the BSD style licenses. That certainly is a very free location on the continuum. It's so free that other people take the free thing and create something non-free. While that's very free, it seems a bit unfair to some people who want spread freedom more widely. If I create something and I want to make it free, why should my work support less free works? So I'm willing to move the line up to the GPL. Clearly less free than the BSD license, it helps to ensure that my donations to things on the Free side of the line cannot be used to support things on the Non-Free side of the line.
Perhaps you feel that the GPL isn't free enough. But for many people it is free enough, and as such can legitimately be called Free software. (To be fair, some people probably feel that proprietary software is free enough. I suspect relatively few people who have ever tried to get additional legal copies of software that was no longer published, or support for out of lifespan software, or wanted to use software no longer supported on modern system, or subjected to a BSA audit feel that the software in question is particularlly Free.)
Perhaps there is a risk, but if it exists it's downed out by other factors. Lossly audio compression is fairly subtle in the damage it does to audio. We listen to audio damaged far worse, far more freqently. The serious mangling of audio done over the phone. The damage done listening to audio on crappy computer speakers, or the speakers built into your laptop, or the speakers built into your television, or desktop radio. All of these things are feeding "ill formed" audio into you, and the ill formed audio is far more mangled than the damage done by MP3 or other lossy codecs.
If you're going to make a point like this, I suspect I'm not alone in asking that you just pick a relatively reputable source and link to that instead of linking to a Google search. Especially when the Google search turns up a large number of sites your average person has never heard of and there will mistrust. Perhaps offer the Google link as a follow up.
Also, don't make the link text the same as the link. Give a useful label, like "Google search on 'CNN Army Psyops'" It's much more useful and likely to draw people to click on it. (Of course, if the link said something like "FAIR's coverage of psy-ops working at CNN" and linked to the FAIR coverage, I think it would have gotten even more.)
That said, I found your contention alarming, so I took a quick look. After skimming over a number of small sites I've never heard, I found one a group I'm actually familiar with: FAIR. While often disagree with FAIR, I'm familiar with them and understand where their prejudices lie. I trust them (or at least trust their slant). So, seeing FAIR's coverage of Psy-Ops at CNN, I feel I got a reasonable summary of the issue and relaxed.
The fall of CNN from reputable news source to racing Fox News to the bottom of the filth was terribly depressing. I used to watch CNN Headline News regularlly. The news moved quickly, the anchors were serious and limited themselves strictly to the news, and the reporting was relatively unbiased for mainstream media. In thirty minutes (any thirty minutes) I could get a quick summary of the world's news. It was perfect background as I went about my mornings.
Then the changes. They got rid of all of the old anchors and replaced them with irritatingly perky youngsters. The broadcasts become full of inane banter between various anchors. They filled the screen with sidebars and tickers and newsflashes. They created more and longer needless story animations (Dum dum dum, *horns*, "The WAR on TERROR " *horns*). Then it happened... near the end of last year (or was it the year before?), the bubbly airhead anchor introduced "a special report on purchasing gifts online." Well, vapid... but I guess. "As reported by our special AOL correspondant." Erm, that's an amazingly uncomfortable conflict of interest. The "AOL correspondant" then proceeded to tell me all the great stuff I could buy using AOL. No web sites, no general tips. AOL specific content. I turned off my television. Years of my watching for a half hour a day, of my general like of CNN HN, destroyed. To hell with big media.
Well, that's not entirely fair. It may be that for reasons out of the employee's control that they are at the only job available. That said, even if you hate your job with a passion, unless you're planning on leaving already, badmouthing your job in public is a good way to get fired.
No it isn't a lawsuit, any more than my pointing a gun at you is attempted murder. It's just a threat. In this particular case it's a threat by someone with a great deal more power and money than you who could effectively bankrupt you in could. Of course, like all threats, it could just be a bluff, but, like when a mugger points a gun at you, are you really willing to risk it? A Cease and Desist may not be a lawsuit, but for most people it effectively stops their behavior, even if their behavior is legal and ethical. (I'm not arguing the specific case of C&D use in the article, it sounds like the guy accidentally did violate his NDA, he got warned to fix the situation, and he did. C&Ds can be used in perfectly ethical ways.)
I see you're not encumbered with any experience in the fields of game development, 3D graphics, or software development. If you weren't so earnest, I'd assume you were a troll.
You earlier suggested the people reverse engineer how Doom works. While that might have been interesting nine years ago, it's old hat now. One of the reasons that Carmack is such a god amoung geeks is that he gives talks on how his technology works. In the case of Doom, it's extremely well understood at this point. You can actually buy "How to write a 3D game" books that walk you through creating a Doom-like engine. In fact, the technology in question is out of date. To make Doom and fast and cool as possible, Carmack took a number of shortcuts (like making the game fundamentally 2D). Shortcuts that would be unacceptable these days (and thus Carmack continues to be on the cutting edge, developing a new engine for Doom III.
I'd suggest using "inspired by" instead of "based". Many people (myself in cluded) view "based" as meaning "derived from", as in "sharing some specific elements, probably source code. None of the games you cited are derived from the Doom or Wolfenstein's code. They may share certain algorithms common in 3D graphics, but those same algorithms were well known by computer scientists working on graphics many years prior. You strangely included "All 3D Basketball/Baseball/Football Games". What are you smoking? They certainly didn't inherit the portal based or ray casting systems allowing for large levels. They didn't inherit the first person perspective. They didn't inherit the twitchy, violent gameplay. The didn't inherit the software based rendered. The only thing in common is that they are both 3D.
Trying to guess what sort of hardware you'll be dealing with is insane. The only sure thing is "it will be faster." The console companies in question aren't quite sure what they'll be releasing in 4 years. (Yes, they're working on them now, but their plan will continually shift as their goals and dreams meet budgets and schedules.)
And now you're just babbling.... Just because something sounds impressive doesn't mean it makes any sense. Leave the decisions on technology to people actually doing the work.
Egad, this woman does like this book. No fewer than 13 reviews: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 (repeated here and here), 14?.
My first thought was the Denise M. Clark was a shill, but if she is, she's incompetant. By using the same name over and over, it becomes easy to track her down. My next thought was that she was a UFO nut trying to spread the word. Possible, but she has reviewed many other books.
My new theory is that she's desperately trying for fame through the unlikely technique of publishing reviews on as many sites as possible. (Check out her web page, "The on-line home of author/reviewer Denise M. Clark". Either that, or she's a space alien here to prepare us for use as slaves and food for her hideous grey masters. If it's the former, she's wasting our time. If it's the latter, I suppose that would could as news for nerds.
As a general rule, if I'm concerned that someone is considering commiting a crime against me, I'll just tell the police and provide them with whatever information I can. Calling up my possible assailant seems a bit strange. "Hi, this is Bob the Mangler." "Hi Bob, I happened to notice you scoping out my place. I was just wondering, were you planning on killing me?"
Like it or not, people are pretty much free to stop on the street near your home and take pictures. It's totally different if they're trespassing on your property, but while creepy, it's legal. (And there are potentially good reasons for society to allow this. A private detective investigating a cheating spouse might want photos of the spouses car in their lover's driveway. A nieghborhood association might want evidence of someone violating local planning codes. Someone selling their house across the street might want photos of the view to show prospective buyers. A newspaper reporter writing a piece might want to show the home as a good example of the extravagence that a slimy spammer or politician enjoys.)