I believe their hardware could stand on its own merits and the additional revenue and marketshare couldn't hurt.
Been there, done that, it failed. The authorized Mac clones of the late 1990s proved that a large segment of Apple's customers would gladly trade better hardware and design for lower prices. Now keep in mind the timeframe, people buying Macs in those days were generally pretty solid Mac enthusiasts. So it is probably fair to say that a large segment of Apple's more enthusiastic customers would trade batter hardware and design for lower prices.
Now all of this was on authorized Mac clones so there was some control over the hardware. To attempt to run Mac OS X on any PC hardware would replicate the nightmare faced by Microsoft, being dependent on third parties of questionable ability to provide drivers and to have some of these undermine the stability of the operating system with crappy drivers. Go down this road and the perception of the reliability of Mac OS X will be destroyed and the motivation to abandon Windows for Mac OS X will be greatly diminished.
They believe in space in Mississippi? Has nobody told their wonderfully enlightened pastors about this widespread heathen encroachment on freedom of religion?
The big bang theory was developed by a priest, and rejected by some supposedly open minded scientists because he was a priest not on the merits of the theory. The vatican operates an observatory and supports hard core cosmological research. I wouldn't be so quick with the notion that cosmology and religion are incompatible, or that religion and science in general are incompatible. I recall that the dean of the chemistry department at a local state university in southern california was also a local parish priest.
I'm sorry, this just reminds me of Heinlein's use of the phrase "space lawyer" as the SF generalization of "latrine lawyer."
Heinlein, a former naval officer, was expanding on the navy slang "sea lawyer". A derogatory term referring to someone who tries to use rules and regulations to shirk responsibilities and/or make excuses for their failures. They are generally not the most popular of shipmates.
The purpose of the military is to have and use weapons. These weapons get used specifically on other people. This is what army's do, it's what they are for.
So, if you claim that soldiers abhor war, then WHY THE FUCK DID THEY BECOME SOLDIERS IN THE FIRST PLACE!
If they abhor it so much, why the HELL did they VOLUNTEER to do it?
Because history teaches us that pacifism invites attack. Pacifists can only survive in isolation or when protected by non-pacifists. Soldiers perform a necessary function as deterrents. If deterrence fails, often a result of a perceived weakness - sometimes a military unwilling or unable to fight effectively, then it functions in defense to mitigate damage or perhaps retaliate. Either of which can alter the perception of being weak and affect future deterrence. In short, one of the most effective ways of avoiding attack is to appear to be more than capable of repelling it. Humans are predators and predators look for weak prey.
"stop buying Chinese products"
That is no longer possible in any practical way...You can't even live on the street without getting products from China.
Avoiding Chinese products is possible. The domination of our market was a lengthy process based on *our* decision to buy the cheapest goods regardless of consequence. The switch from Chinese products, if it occurs, will also be a lengthy process. The problem today is that US consumers generally look at nothing other than the price tag. If we start looking at where things come from we can change things, but things can not be changed overnight. We have to get over instant gratification to a degree, both in our consumption and in our solutions. Too often we look for an instant solution and chose a poor quick solution over a long term good solution, or sometimes in the absence of a quick solution we give up. Your post may not have been meant this way but it seems to be of the "give up" variety. We have to look long term and accept that this fix will take time.
A reason for the massive system requirements. The game was in part a "demo" of the engine that id wanted to license to other developers. By the time a licensee has a game ready to ship those system requirements become common.
Re:GPL does pretty much the same thing ...
on
Who Owns Software?
·
· Score: 1
GPL only attempts to grant things that are otherwise prohibited by copyright.
I think you are confusing the spirit with the actual terms. Even the GPL requires compliance to run, from GPL v3: "You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains in force."
Re:GPL does pretty much the same thing ...
on
Who Owns Software?
·
· Score: 1
Nobody, not even RMS himself, would dream of asserting that the GPL has any power whatsoever over what you choose to do with GPL'd software in the privacy of your own computer, or even within your own company; it's only if you start making copies to give to other people that the GPL kicks in.
Wrong. The *license* is the only thing that gives you any rights. From GPL v3: "You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains in force."
Re:GPL does pretty much the same thing ...
on
Who Owns Software?
·
· Score: 1
The copy on the hard drive is there subject to a license. RAM is unnecessarily confusing the issue.
Furthermore, the game downloads code at run-time after connecting. So violating the license at run-time applies as well.
Re:GPL does pretty much the same thing ...
on
Who Owns Software?
·
· Score: 1
"... and if you fail to comply with the terms of the EULA you are violating a copyright
Except that's not how the law works. If you don't comply with the terms of the EULA you are violating a contract not a copyright.
I'm just going by what the FSF lawyers say, that compliance with the license is the *only* thing that grants you access to the copyrighted work. What works for GPL should work for EULAs.
Except they consider it copyright infringement to copy the program into RAM... Make sure to carefully read the bolded section.
Oh I saw the RAM bit, it just seemed irrelevant. Once you have voided your license the copy on your hard drive is infringing. Again, just like the GPL. Once you refuse to distribute source you have voided the license.
"In Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp., however, the licensee was able to download and install the software without first being required to review and positively assent to the terms of the agreement, and so the license was held to be unenforceable." ,br>
You have the software before you agree, so I suspect it may not be enforceable. I'm not a lawyer, please correct me if I am wrong.
I may be think of another case but the problem above may have been that the "download" button appeared and was active *before* the EULA and "I Agree" button was visible.
As long as the EULA appears before the user could type in a cd-key then the EULA should be enforceable. In a business law class various cases were cited that upheld the validity of the EULA concept.
Also, keep in mind that a user has to agree to a EULA when connecting to a server to play. It is not just an installation issue.
Re:IAAAL (I am almost a lawyer) but...
on
Who Owns Software?
·
· Score: 1
I wouldn't even necessarily call what glider does "damage" to the server, but that will be up to the courts.
They are being denied the full value of their property by unlicensed/unauthorized use. Bots are consuming CPU and RAM resources that were intended for users in compliance with the license. Damages would seem to range from frustrated customers who quit due to lagging servers to additional servers that have to be deployed and maintained to offset the unlicensed/unauthorized use.
Re:IAAAL (I am almost a lawyer) but...
on
Who Owns Software?
·
· Score: 1
It doesn't physically damage the servers per se
The damage is to the capability of the servers in that a particular server is only able to serve a smaller number of players when automated players are present by unlicensed/unauthorized use. Another way to say this is that they are being denied the expected value of their property, that is a form of damage.
GPL does pretty much the same thing ...
on
Who Owns Software?
·
· Score: 1
"Here's the scary part: Blizzard also insists that because the license agreement forbids using Glider with WoW, Glider users are committing copyright infringement when they load copies of WoW into RAM in order to play the game."
This has to be one of the stupidest attempts at trying to pin someone for copyright infringement ever.
I'm going to pretend that the quoted characterization is accurate. If so, then this sound very much like the GPL. The are both licenses. If you fail to comply with the terms of the GPL you are violating a copyright since the license is the only thing that grants permission to the copyrighted work, and if you fail to comply with the terms of the EULA you are violating a copyright since the license is the only thing that grants permission to the copyrighted work.
The ethical dilemma is that, if a person goes missing they may or may not be in danger so if you violate their privacy by tracking them down with their cellphone you're only justified if they were in danger. If they just decided they wanted to leave their town without telling anyone, you've committed a huge breach of their personal privacy for nothing. I usually find it best to err on the side of privacy rather than safety.
First, your logic fails in that the desire for rescue is nearly always greater than the desire for privacy, especially given the fact that a cell phone may be turned off or the battery removed if true isolation and privacy is desired by the individual.
Second, your conclusion that it is best to err on privacy is ludicrous. If harm should befall an individual you will be sued by the family, a jury will be highly sympathetic and likely to award a large judgement against you. In contrast, a person who sues because their privacy was intruded upon will most likely fail to persuade a jury when you state that family and law enforcement told you that the customer was in immediate peril. Your decision to provide information would be most likely considered reasonable. More importantly, you probably anticipated something like this put a clause into the subscriber contract that you would assist in rescues, etc.
Linux is NOT Unix, there's never been shown to be any shared code, and SCO lost the battle years ago. It seems that once the lawyers took over SCO, it became just a litigation machine and lost whatever technological brainpower it once had.
Linux is clearly a copy of UNIX in the sense that Windows was a copy of Mac OS, Excel was a copy of Lotus 123, Internet Explorer was a copy of Netscape,... The word "copy" is entire appropriate in this context. How many Linux advocates dismissed Windows NT as a copy of DEC VMS and even propagated the falsehood that Microsoft was using VMS code? I remember quite a few who embraced this idea. Lawyers are hardly necessary for these types of misrepresentations and technological brainpower does not necessarily immunize people against them. Crap like this happens wherever people have agendas, outside and inside of FOSS. At least inside of FOSS we save money by arguing this crap on slashdot instead of in court with lawyers.;-)
Why should I (or any tax payer) have to pay for this guys search and rescue?
Taxes already pay for search and rescue, it is already a government service. Collective security and assistance is a long standing government function. Absent some form of negligence, drunk driving/flying for example, there should be no additional charges for a service a citizen has *already* paid for.
You do something risky, why should the rest of us be on the hook for your rescue costs?
Search and Rescue is a government service supported by taxes, and in some cases special fees. The latter may include airport and other aviation related fees. Note that rescue includes fire and paramedics showing up at car accidents, you might want to reconsider saying people should be billed for rescue.
Unless negligence is involved, drunk driving/flying etc, rescue should not be a billable service. Consider the abuse of early fire departments (1800s?) that did bill for services.
The reason for high textbook prices is profit-taking by publishers. In the last 25 years, textbook prices have risen much, much faster than can be explained by inflation.
I do not believe that it is quite that simple. As technology has made the used textbook market a national market rather than a local market fewer new textbooks are being sold. The overhead has to be paid for by a diminishing number of books. If the price increases were merely price gouging then publishers in related markets would move into the gouged market. I once did software for a textbook publisher engaging in such "envelopment" strategies, gouging by a competitor would be viewed as an opportunity for them.
And besides, tell me what advances in business that are occurring that requires those in B-school to have the "latest" info? Hmmm?
About half of my b-school classes have two books. One a typical textbook and the other a publish on demand soft cover book that is a compilation of academic papers or important articles from the business press. Some of these papers/articles are classics, some are quite recent. Such compilations do need to change each year. The remaining half of my classes have one book, a compilation not a textbook.
FWIW this is a graduate level program, I don't know what undergrad business programs are like.
I agree with some of your sentiments but you seem to be using FOSS when you should be referring to GPL only.
I would never, ever, ever let my company get shackled into open source. Every company which has done so, has done it to their own detriment, because it revokes all their ability to choose. It also limits their ability to grow, but that's a side issue.... There's a reason MS and Apple have successfully competed against "free" for as long as Teh Lunix and Teh FOSS have been around.
Apple does not compete successfully against FOSS, they have incorporated and leveraged FOSS. FreeBSD and Mach are core components of Mac OS X and Apple has made some of their code FOSS, HFS+ for example. Apple is an excellent counterexample to your claim that those companies that get involved with FOSS suffer. Use BSD-style code for the commodity parts of your project and only write code for the parts that differentiate you, in Apple's case the UI is a good example.
Getting it done on time is not an FOSS attribute
on
Ubuntu 8.04 Released
·
· Score: 1
Fancy that... an open source team releases a product on time, as promised, and delivers the feature sets they promised.. meanwhile, the leading closed source competitor.....
When projects are on time they are usually either better defined and managed or features were dropped. Proprietary or open source has nothing to do with it.
I've been on time with proprietary products. Agree on a set of features when starting, sort them with respect to importance, work only on that list in order. When the great new ideas pop up during development they go to the end of the list, even the company president's and the client's. If the client pushed we asked which agreed upon features would they like to drop or if they preferred the delivery date could be moved back. In other words changes have a cost. A year long development project with six programmers needed only 3 weeks of light overtime to deliver the agreed upon functionality on time. Well, mostly agreed upon, some things didn't work out as well as expected (Mr Design meet Mr Reality) and alternatives had to be used. There were regular deliverables during development so that quality control was in full swing for most of the development. The downside, if we were late we would have been missing the least important agreed upon features.
Well, I suppose a pissed off client was another potential downside. Was the client a frustrated with the "changes have a cost" attitude? Yes, but only to a small degree since we explained why we were doing this and to do otherwise would put their very hard deadline at risk. In the end they viewed us as professional and honest.
We started working on the great new ideas that went to the end of the list as soon as 1.0 shipped, while 2.0 was being discussed with the client. 2.0 would retain the same look and feel and was adding only new functionality. We finished the list two months later.
I don't know, when they double the speed of the 333Mhz processors, all of the CPU manufacturers labeled their chips as 667 Mhz. So, there must be some thought given to the the Christian tech sector. Of course, it could just be that they thought there were more Christian CPU buyers than Satanic ones.
The speeds were in reality 333.33... and 666.66..., so simple rounding produces 333 and 667. Perhaps they were merely using better mathematics than when they named the 133 and 266.;-)
Slashdot Mirror
I believe their hardware could stand on its own merits and the additional revenue and marketshare couldn't hurt.
Been there, done that, it failed. The authorized Mac clones of the late 1990s proved that a large segment of Apple's customers would gladly trade better hardware and design for lower prices. Now keep in mind the timeframe, people buying Macs in those days were generally pretty solid Mac enthusiasts. So it is probably fair to say that a large segment of Apple's more enthusiastic customers would trade batter hardware and design for lower prices.
Now all of this was on authorized Mac clones so there was some control over the hardware. To attempt to run Mac OS X on any PC hardware would replicate the nightmare faced by Microsoft, being dependent on third parties of questionable ability to provide drivers and to have some of these undermine the stability of the operating system with crappy drivers. Go down this road and the perception of the reliability of Mac OS X will be destroyed and the motivation to abandon Windows for Mac OS X will be greatly diminished.
My suggestion is spaceship chasers.
;-)
Wouldn't that be "crew emergency return vehicle" chaser.
They believe in space in Mississippi? Has nobody told their wonderfully enlightened pastors about this widespread heathen encroachment on freedom of religion?
The big bang theory was developed by a priest, and rejected by some supposedly open minded scientists because he was a priest not on the merits of the theory. The vatican operates an observatory and supports hard core cosmological research. I wouldn't be so quick with the notion that cosmology and religion are incompatible, or that religion and science in general are incompatible. I recall that the dean of the chemistry department at a local state university in southern california was also a local parish priest.
I'm sorry, this just reminds me of Heinlein's use of the phrase "space lawyer" as the SF generalization of "latrine lawyer."
Heinlein, a former naval officer, was expanding on the navy slang "sea lawyer". A derogatory term referring to someone who tries to use rules and regulations to shirk responsibilities and/or make excuses for their failures. They are generally not the most popular of shipmates.
The purpose of the military is to have and use weapons. These weapons get used specifically on other people. This is what army's do, it's what they are for. So, if you claim that soldiers abhor war, then WHY THE FUCK DID THEY BECOME SOLDIERS IN THE FIRST PLACE! If they abhor it so much, why the HELL did they VOLUNTEER to do it?
Because history teaches us that pacifism invites attack. Pacifists can only survive in isolation or when protected by non-pacifists. Soldiers perform a necessary function as deterrents. If deterrence fails, often a result of a perceived weakness - sometimes a military unwilling or unable to fight effectively, then it functions in defense to mitigate damage or perhaps retaliate. Either of which can alter the perception of being weak and affect future deterrence. In short, one of the most effective ways of avoiding attack is to appear to be more than capable of repelling it. Humans are predators and predators look for weak prey.
"stop buying Chinese products" That is no longer possible in any practical way...You can't even live on the street without getting products from China.
Avoiding Chinese products is possible. The domination of our market was a lengthy process based on *our* decision to buy the cheapest goods regardless of consequence. The switch from Chinese products, if it occurs, will also be a lengthy process. The problem today is that US consumers generally look at nothing other than the price tag. If we start looking at where things come from we can change things, but things can not be changed overnight. We have to get over instant gratification to a degree, both in our consumption and in our solutions. Too often we look for an instant solution and chose a poor quick solution over a long term good solution, or sometimes in the absence of a quick solution we give up. Your post may not have been meant this way but it seems to be of the "give up" variety. We have to look long term and accept that this fix will take time.
The massive (at the time) system requirements
A reason for the massive system requirements. The game was in part a "demo" of the engine that id wanted to license to other developers. By the time a licensee has a game ready to ship those system requirements become common.
GPL only attempts to grant things that are otherwise prohibited by copyright.
I think you are confusing the spirit with the actual terms. Even the GPL requires compliance to run, from GPL v3: "You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains in force."
Nobody, not even RMS himself, would dream of asserting that the GPL has any power whatsoever over what you choose to do with GPL'd software in the privacy of your own computer, or even within your own company; it's only if you start making copies to give to other people that the GPL kicks in.
Wrong. The *license* is the only thing that gives you any rights. From GPL v3: "You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains in force."
The copy on the hard drive is there subject to a license. RAM is unnecessarily confusing the issue.
Furthermore, the game downloads code at run-time after connecting. So violating the license at run-time applies as well.
"... and if you fail to comply with the terms of the EULA you are violating a copyright
Except that's not how the law works. If you don't comply with the terms of the EULA you are violating a contract not a copyright.
I'm just going by what the FSF lawyers say, that compliance with the license is the *only* thing that grants you access to the copyrighted work. What works for GPL should work for EULAs.
Except they consider it copyright infringement to copy the program into RAM ... Make sure to carefully read the bolded section.
Oh I saw the RAM bit, it just seemed irrelevant. Once you have voided your license the copy on your hard drive is infringing. Again, just like the GPL. Once you refuse to distribute source you have voided the license.
"In Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp., however, the licensee was able to download and install the software without first being required to review and positively assent to the terms of the agreement, and so the license was held to be unenforceable."
,br> You have the software before you agree, so I suspect it may not be enforceable. I'm not a lawyer, please correct me if I am wrong.
I may be think of another case but the problem above may have been that the "download" button appeared and was active *before* the EULA and "I Agree" button was visible.
As long as the EULA appears before the user could type in a cd-key then the EULA should be enforceable. In a business law class various cases were cited that upheld the validity of the EULA concept.
Also, keep in mind that a user has to agree to a EULA when connecting to a server to play. It is not just an installation issue.
I wouldn't even necessarily call what glider does "damage" to the server, but that will be up to the courts.
They are being denied the full value of their property by unlicensed/unauthorized use. Bots are consuming CPU and RAM resources that were intended for users in compliance with the license. Damages would seem to range from frustrated customers who quit due to lagging servers to additional servers that have to be deployed and maintained to offset the unlicensed/unauthorized use.
It doesn't physically damage the servers per se
The damage is to the capability of the servers in that a particular server is only able to serve a smaller number of players when automated players are present by unlicensed/unauthorized use. Another way to say this is that they are being denied the expected value of their property, that is a form of damage.
"Here's the scary part: Blizzard also insists that because the license agreement forbids using Glider with WoW, Glider users are committing copyright infringement when they load copies of WoW into RAM in order to play the game."
This has to be one of the stupidest attempts at trying to pin someone for copyright infringement ever.
I'm going to pretend that the quoted characterization is accurate. If so, then this sound very much like the GPL. The are both licenses. If you fail to comply with the terms of the GPL you are violating a copyright since the license is the only thing that grants permission to the copyrighted work, and if you fail to comply with the terms of the EULA you are violating a copyright since the license is the only thing that grants permission to the copyrighted work.
The ethical dilemma is that, if a person goes missing they may or may not be in danger so if you violate their privacy by tracking them down with their cellphone you're only justified if they were in danger. If they just decided they wanted to leave their town without telling anyone, you've committed a huge breach of their personal privacy for nothing. I usually find it best to err on the side of privacy rather than safety.
First, your logic fails in that the desire for rescue is nearly always greater than the desire for privacy, especially given the fact that a cell phone may be turned off or the battery removed if true isolation and privacy is desired by the individual.
Second, your conclusion that it is best to err on privacy is ludicrous. If harm should befall an individual you will be sued by the family, a jury will be highly sympathetic and likely to award a large judgement against you. In contrast, a person who sues because their privacy was intruded upon will most likely fail to persuade a jury when you state that family and law enforcement told you that the customer was in immediate peril. Your decision to provide information would be most likely considered reasonable. More importantly, you probably anticipated something like this put a clause into the subscriber contract that you would assist in rescues, etc.
Linux is NOT Unix, there's never been shown to be any shared code, and SCO lost the battle years ago. It seems that once the lawyers took over SCO, it became just a litigation machine and lost whatever technological brainpower it once had.
... The word "copy" is entire appropriate in this context. How many Linux advocates dismissed Windows NT as a copy of DEC VMS and even propagated the falsehood that Microsoft was using VMS code? I remember quite a few who embraced this idea. Lawyers are hardly necessary for these types of misrepresentations and technological brainpower does not necessarily immunize people against them. Crap like this happens wherever people have agendas, outside and inside of FOSS. At least inside of FOSS we save money by arguing this crap on slashdot instead of in court with lawyers. ;-)
Linux is clearly a copy of UNIX in the sense that Windows was a copy of Mac OS, Excel was a copy of Lotus 123, Internet Explorer was a copy of Netscape,
Why should I (or any tax payer) have to pay for this guys search and rescue?
Taxes already pay for search and rescue, it is already a government service. Collective security and assistance is a long standing government function. Absent some form of negligence, drunk driving/flying for example, there should be no additional charges for a service a citizen has *already* paid for.
You do something risky, why should the rest of us be on the hook for your rescue costs?
Search and Rescue is a government service supported by taxes, and in some cases special fees. The latter may include airport and other aviation related fees. Note that rescue includes fire and paramedics showing up at car accidents, you might want to reconsider saying people should be billed for rescue.
Unless negligence is involved, drunk driving/flying etc, rescue should not be a billable service. Consider the abuse of early fire departments (1800s?) that did bill for services.
The reason for high textbook prices is profit-taking by publishers. In the last 25 years, textbook prices have risen much, much faster than can be explained by inflation.
I do not believe that it is quite that simple. As technology has made the used textbook market a national market rather than a local market fewer new textbooks are being sold. The overhead has to be paid for by a diminishing number of books. If the price increases were merely price gouging then publishers in related markets would move into the gouged market. I once did software for a textbook publisher engaging in such "envelopment" strategies, gouging by a competitor would be viewed as an opportunity for them.
And besides, tell me what advances in business that are occurring that requires those in B-school to have the "latest" info? Hmmm?
About half of my b-school classes have two books. One a typical textbook and the other a publish on demand soft cover book that is a compilation of academic papers or important articles from the business press. Some of these papers/articles are classics, some are quite recent. Such compilations do need to change each year. The remaining half of my classes have one book, a compilation not a textbook.
FWIW this is a graduate level program, I don't know what undergrad business programs are like.
I agree with some of your sentiments but you seem to be using FOSS when you should be referring to GPL only.
... There's a reason MS and Apple have successfully competed against "free" for as long as Teh Lunix and Teh FOSS have been around.
I would never, ever, ever let my company get shackled into open source. Every company which has done so, has done it to their own detriment, because it revokes all their ability to choose. It also limits their ability to grow, but that's a side issue.
Apple does not compete successfully against FOSS, they have incorporated and leveraged FOSS. FreeBSD and Mach are core components of Mac OS X and Apple has made some of their code FOSS, HFS+ for example. Apple is an excellent counterexample to your claim that those companies that get involved with FOSS suffer. Use BSD-style code for the commodity parts of your project and only write code for the parts that differentiate you, in Apple's case the UI is a good example.
Fancy that... an open source team releases a product on time, as promised, and delivers the feature sets they promised.. meanwhile, the leading closed source competitor.....
When projects are on time they are usually either better defined and managed or features were dropped. Proprietary or open source has nothing to do with it.
I've been on time with proprietary products. Agree on a set of features when starting, sort them with respect to importance, work only on that list in order. When the great new ideas pop up during development they go to the end of the list, even the company president's and the client's. If the client pushed we asked which agreed upon features would they like to drop or if they preferred the delivery date could be moved back. In other words changes have a cost. A year long development project with six programmers needed only 3 weeks of light overtime to deliver the agreed upon functionality on time. Well, mostly agreed upon, some things didn't work out as well as expected (Mr Design meet Mr Reality) and alternatives had to be used. There were regular deliverables during development so that quality control was in full swing for most of the development. The downside, if we were late we would have been missing the least important agreed upon features.
Well, I suppose a pissed off client was another potential downside. Was the client a frustrated with the "changes have a cost" attitude? Yes, but only to a small degree since we explained why we were doing this and to do otherwise would put their very hard deadline at risk. In the end they viewed us as professional and honest.
We started working on the great new ideas that went to the end of the list as soon as 1.0 shipped, while 2.0 was being discussed with the client. 2.0 would retain the same look and feel and was adding only new functionality. We finished the list two months later.
I don't know, when they double the speed of the 333Mhz processors, all of the CPU manufacturers labeled their chips as 667 Mhz. So, there must be some thought given to the the Christian tech sector. Of course, it could just be that they thought there were more Christian CPU buyers than Satanic ones.
;-)
The speeds were in reality 333.33... and 666.66..., so simple rounding produces 333 and 667. Perhaps they were merely using better mathematics than when they named the 133 and 266.