Here's an up and coming oppressive regime this would be perfect for:
Politics: FEC Deciding Future of Political Blogs Posted by Zonk on Friday September 23, @10:43AM from the won't-someone-think-of-the-livejournals dept. Censorship * * Beatles-Beatles wrote to mention a bill entitled "The Online Freedom of Speech Act". The act, if passed, would make the Internet into a form of media subject to campaign finance laws. From the article: "Amid the explosion of political activity on the Internet, a federal court has instructed the six-member Federal Election Commission to draw up regulations that would extend the nation's campaign finance and spending limits to the Web. The FEC, in its initial rules, had exempted the Internet. Bloggers told the Committee on House Administration that regulations encompassing the Internet, even ones just on advertising, would have a chilling effect on free speech. The FEC vice chairman also questioned the necessity of any rules." Update: 09/23 15:33 GMT by Z : Edited to correct Congress != FEC.
Just in time for getting the word out from under oppressive regimes:
Your Rights Online: Blogging as Press Freedom in Repressive Places Posted by CowboyNeal on Friday September 23, @12:21AM from the sticking-it-to-the-man dept. Privacy museumpeace writes "CNN is carrying an AP story from France on the release of guidelines to help bloggers working under threat of suppressive governments to get out their stories without getting caught. "Reporters Without Borders' 'Handbook for Blogger and Cyber-Dissidents" is partly financed by the French government and includes technical advice on how to remain anonymous online.' Makes me proud to be a developer of communication software."
"Rebuilding in such a non-ideal location, after this sort of repeatable disaster, is idiotic"
That would pretty much rule out the entire state of Florida (hurricanes), the plain states (tornadoes), the southwest (unbearable heat, drought, wildfires), and anything on any coast (mudslides), and of course, Texas (Republicans).
Not that I'm saying you're wrong, its just that, there doesn't seem to be anyplace that's both perfectly safe, AND even remotely interesting, in which to live.
And if you say "Idaho" you'll just be proving my point.
Well no you misread my post, I wasn't so much giving my personal opinion as I was laying out a clearer picture (I hoped) of the mixed message of being for capital punishment, and against abortion.
But you bring up an interesting point, the reverse also seems to be true. Those generally opposed to capital punishment (myself included) are also those who are generally pro-abortion, but those are similar contradictory stances to the conservatives, aren't they? The obvious liberal justifications of a woman's right to choose (and I'm not saying liberals are good or bad, I'm just using the labels to set the combatants apart) would seem to run parallel to the conservatives cry of murderers deserving death, etc, etc.
I think ideology really has to come into play, but then the same tenets that say all life is sacred, and judge not lest ye be judged, would seem to run contrary to the use of lethal injection, so I wonder how that's supposed to shake out? Do the religious right ignore those parts of their faith when it suits them, just as maybe the liberals ignore the potential for viable life starting before birth when it suits them?
Oy. I'm going to go watch Dukes of Hazzard and think of simpler things.
Virtually every developed nation except ours has satisfied the demands of justice for murder without resorting to lowering themselves to the same level as the murderer. But the query of the original post was meant to focus on the percieved hypocricy of common hyperbole when related to abortion such as "every life is sacred" or "destroying a human life is murder, period." It has nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of the unborn or the murderer, it is a seeming absolute with regards to one, then completely ignored with regards to the other.
Maybe the chanted slogan should be more like, "Murder is wrong! Except with it is right!"
I am outside. And I want my new xbox to be outside, next to the pool and wooded bbq deck and projection screen behind the tennis court (well, the court net folds up underneath the court and it doubles as an outdoor theatre) it's right on my private lake in the middle of an old growth forest. Is that outside enough to be allowed the privilege of a game console? Do I now have your permission to live my life the way I want?
Very good point there, that just because Kodak runs away, doesn't mean there aren't many other companies with product out there. I always used Ilford, it had a much richer tonal range, and the blacks were warmer than other papers.
Some of the most talked about and "Best of Show" games at E3 this year were for PC, and PC only. Battlefield 2, F.E.A.R., Spore, etc. I think maybe too many people are drinking the koolaid and accepting at face value all of the hype for the new consoles. Do I want a developer spending 40% of their dev time forced to get the XBox Live Clothing Store connected to my game, or do I want them to have the freedom to spend that time making my game kick ass?
On last week's "24", when the terrorist hackers tried to perform a network attack on the "CTU" headquarters, it was Cisco's network protection system that thwarted them. In fact, when all of the characters stopped what they were doing (chasing down a stolen nuclear device from being detonated on U.S. soil.) and stood around talking about how their Cisco systems were self-defending and how great that was, and those scenes were intercut with screenshots of the Cisco defense system at work saving the day, I was actually kind of lulled into believing that Cisco could protect them, or even themselves, from a nefarious hacker.
Next thing you know, they're going to tell me that the evil terrorists in the world don't actually use Alienware laptops, like in "24", when the lead terrorist was shown for several scenes, bathed in the cool blue glow of his Alienware Area-51, and using it to start the countdown on his nuclear missile.
I don't know what's real, and what's branding anymore!!!
This is connected to the story of the UK being the top worldwide downloader/copier of American TV shows. When will they [big media] learn? They turned us into the ravenous consumers that we are, now they 're once again fumbling how to control us.
Sell Us Something.
If we want a product, and no one wants to sell it to us, we WILL FIND A WAY to get it ourselves. Our thirst is great, and we must feed often.
TV viewing, and movie viewing, is now WORLDWIDE. They try to control it with region encoding, delayed rebroadcasts, etc, but what exactly are they controlling? They're telling a bunch of consumers waving money around to hold on, wait, be patient. We don't want your money.. yet.
But we are too strong for their chains. We know more about their products than they do, we do not live with regional constraints anymore. Our families are spread across the globe, there are no secrets from us. We want to see Battlestar Galactica NOW, the same time our brother sees it in the U.S., before he spoils the ending for us.
If media isn't ready with a full packaging and marketing campaign for a global release, fine. Sell us a digital version online. A full season DVD with extras will sell for $35, so sell a basic episode online for $5, and end piracy forever.
Sell Us Something. Else we will continue to run amok.
I don't know anything about the specs or details, but there have been several stories over the years about how some folk wire up the Burning Man festival for wireless coms every year. Some Google searching would probably bring up the details.
Its exactly what Infinium has been doing for the last three years or so; showing up at trade shows with smoke and mirrors trying to garner more investors. They don't have a product to sell yet, they don't have a delivery system to sell yet, they don't have any customers yet, they don't have a release date yet, they don't have any games or game companies signed yet.
All they have is a shiny box and lots and lots of promises. Otherwise known as vapor...
Sin City is co-directed by Frank Miller, and most of the shots match the comic EXACTLY, so I wouldn't worry too much about the darker stuff getting in.
Also, Rodriguez has big plans for the dvd; he shot each story to interlock together to make the movie whole, but he also shot them to be completely stand alone stories, with extra scenes for each. So on the dvd, there should be even more nastiness too ugly for even a hard R.
If you don't like Miller's touch then you'll be VERY disappointed with the film, its CO-DIRECTED by Miller! He and Rodriguez shot every scene together, matching them to the comic panel by panel. I doubt Miller's going to be the guy who thinks his writing is angsty, so get used to it!
So what part of it do you think is a hoax? Do you think a fan film somehow got footage of all of those actors, in costume and makeup, and generated the cg and music themselves? Uh-uh.
If so, then the San Diego ComicCon event I attended earlier this year was the location of a supreme hoax, as it had the directors, Robert Rodriguez and Frank Miller, talking about the making of the film and showing clips. Ballsy grift, pretending to be Frank Miller at a comic book convention.
Farscape was killed off thanks to Stargate (Sci Fi crunched the numbers, SG1 was cheaper to produce, yet had more viewers, even with reruns) Personally, I think there's room for a good old-fashioned crossover! Browder's character actually IS Crichton, he runs into SG1 while they're unwittingly exploring a Peacekeeper planet, they have to take him with them just as the planet is destroyed, blah blah.
Next up: 21 Jump Street goes undercover on Law and Order
I'm sure UGO got some payback for running the SW Infomercial, but I wonder if Slashdot did as well, or were they just a tool? Lucas doesn't have enough money to slather Star Wars merketing goo all up and down here if they wanted to, you have to go ahead and regurge their press release ink for FREE?
I thought you people were above mainstream news puppetry. At least have them check for lumps while they've got their hand way up there.
That's not turnabout. Turnabout would be starting a "Filth Advocacy Group" or similar that would, on a proactive basis to match the evangelical "parents" groups, contact the FCC and compliment every time an indecent image or word was shown. Next time there's a nipple shot, we call them up and say, "nice use of nipple! That was great, it was helpful for the whole family!". Next time there's cursing, "Hey, this guy said $@## and I want you folks to know how much I appreciated that. It made his point really hit home and didn't sugarcoat the truth!"
At least then you'd have some balance, the next time the FCC comes out and says there were 4000 complaints against a certain NFL commercial, it would have to admit it also recieved 5000 comments applauding it.
Making a scene or a movie using videogame tools isn't meant to be a replacement for real actors, or Pixar quality animation. It is just another tool, a different palette to get your ideas across with. One of the appealing things about using a game engine as a movie making tool is, it is DIRT CHEAP. Try the Doom3 engine, if it isn't doing what you want, you blew $55. Move on.
I'm a professional level designer, and I can tell you right now, you do NOT need to be a programmer to get the most out of the tools. Certainly the scale of your project may require a team of talented people, but you can squeeze a lot out of just yourself and your own ingenuity.
So you CAN be "MacGyver", and write your own stuff, build your own "sets", animate your own "actors", and control your own cameras.
First thing, you pick a game that already has a look similar to what you want to make, that way at least at the start you have access to assets (textures, props, models, environments) that have the look (realistic, historical, sci fi, etc) that you're planning on. If you eventually want your finished film to make you some $coin$, then you'll have to remake all of the models and props and textures borrowed from the game, to keep the copyright nazis off your back.
Then also you'll want to pick a game that's "mod friendly", that either uses an engine that's easily modified or even better, includes the tools WITH the game. Most games using the Quake3, Unreal, or Half Life engines do that. Also now you have newer tech like Far Cry, Doom3, and Half Life 2 to consider (and Unreal 3 right around the corner), and that's all just with FPS games.
Personally, and I've used the Quake3, Unreal, and Far Cry engines extensively, I'd say I'm most interested in the Half Life 2 engine as a tool for making movies with. I know next to nothing about the tools right now, but I'm going to learn. The facial animations are the most lifelike and deep yet seen in a game, with many elements automatic (like the lip syncing with sound files). Also the lighting and materials offer some very realistic, real world settings.
But that's my bent. Lots of options out there now, just pick one, dig into the community, see what the tutorials say, and start making stuff.
No, the point is that people who DID buy something, a physical box with physical cds at a physical store, for $55 US, are considered thieves by default until they prove themselves otherwise. That may fly in Russia or China, but it used to work the other way around here.
Literally, you pay $55, yet you do NOT own Half Life 2. Even beyond getting coralled in with the thieves, Steam takes all control away from the user. I couldn't play HL2, the non-online single player game, all weekend, because Steam couldn't connect to confirm me. No explanation, no help online, nothing. Steam was down, my game was down. If this were an online service, I'd get a prorated refund or similar. No such business plan here. They take my money, and control how and when I play. They may think they're halting piracy, but calling your actual paying customers thieves and treating them like characters in an Orwell novel will likely drive up piracy, just as a f#$k you to the "man".
The point of that post and others here is, what do you care for the people who DID pay, who gave Valve or Vivendi their $55, and now CAN'T PLAY? Do you care less? Valve is punishing thieves, yay team, but at the cost of accidentally punishing MANY paying customers, as well as considering ALL custumers thieves before they prove themselves otherwise. Kind of the opposite of how our society has worked up till now.
Problem is, odds are no law has been broken. The new Employment "Protection" Act was essentially co-authored by the tech industry (thus the inclusion of "computer professional" under the "treat like shit" category) so as long as they get paid at least $455 a week, they are required to work endless hours for no additional compensation. (I'm pretty sure the author of that letter mis-read CA law concerning the $90,000 ceiling)
So that's why it goes on, because it can. Enough employees bolt, they'll just start hiring from Eastern Europe or North Africa, essentially creating a new digital sweat-shop industry.
How hard would it be to come up with an additional standard, something clearly abusive, such as "at such time of employment, if the 40 hour workweek is exceeded by 40 hours, for a period of two consecutive weeks, then additional compensation equal to salary is required."
I think that's what angers the writer. It isn't that the industry isn't known for overtime, that it isn't expected, but when a company can be so abusive, so endemically mismanaged, and do it with legal impunity, just not give a crap about anyone but their bottom line, then its worth trying to tell people about.
Why is it so hard for EA to manage their products? The general basis for the American work week is 40 hours, so why should it be considered acceptable to manage a project with 80-100 hour work weeks planned in? Sure EA is after profits, but so is China with its $1 a day sweat shops. Take a programmer's $50,000 yearly salary, and cut it into 100 hours a week, and suddenly he/she is better off flipping burgers. Good thing they got that masters degree I guess.
The point of the letter wasn't decrying the "high stress" job, it was decrying the abusive nature of EA practices. You seem to say that, if there was no contractual abuse, then there is no abuse. You must be management.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's an up and coming oppressive regime this would be perfect for:
/ 23/1226250&tid=153&tid=95&tid=219
Politics: FEC Deciding Future of Political Blogs
Posted by Zonk on Friday September 23, @10:43AM
from the won't-someone-think-of-the-livejournals dept.
Censorship
* * Beatles-Beatles wrote to mention a bill entitled "The Online Freedom of Speech Act". The act, if passed, would make the Internet into a form of media subject to campaign finance laws. From the article: "Amid the explosion of political activity on the Internet, a federal court has instructed the six-member Federal Election Commission to draw up regulations that would extend the nation's campaign finance and spending limits to the Web. The FEC, in its initial rules, had exempted the Internet. Bloggers told the Committee on House Administration that regulations encompassing the Internet, even ones just on advertising, would have a chilling effect on free speech. The FEC vice chairman also questioned the necessity of any rules." Update: 09/23 15:33 GMT by Z : Edited to correct Congress != FEC.
http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/09
Just in time for getting the word out from under oppressive regimes:
1 12222&tid=158&tid=153&tid=17
Your Rights Online: Blogging as Press Freedom in Repressive Places
Posted by CowboyNeal on Friday September 23, @12:21AM
from the sticking-it-to-the-man dept.
Privacy
museumpeace writes "CNN is carrying an AP story from France on the release of guidelines to help bloggers working under threat of suppressive governments to get out their stories without getting caught. "Reporters Without Borders' 'Handbook for Blogger and Cyber-Dissidents" is partly financed by the French government and includes technical advice on how to remain anonymous online.' Makes me proud to be a developer of communication software."
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/23/0
"Rebuilding in such a non-ideal location, after this sort of repeatable disaster, is idiotic"
That would pretty much rule out the entire state of Florida (hurricanes), the plain states (tornadoes), the southwest (unbearable heat, drought, wildfires), and anything on any coast (mudslides), and of course, Texas (Republicans).
Not that I'm saying you're wrong, its just that, there doesn't seem to be anyplace that's both perfectly safe, AND even remotely interesting, in which to live.
And if you say "Idaho" you'll just be proving my point.
Well no you misread my post, I wasn't so much giving my personal opinion as I was laying out a clearer picture (I hoped) of the mixed message of being for capital punishment, and against abortion.
But you bring up an interesting point, the reverse also seems to be true. Those generally opposed to capital punishment (myself included) are also those who are generally pro-abortion, but those are similar contradictory stances to the conservatives, aren't they? The obvious liberal justifications of a woman's right to choose (and I'm not saying liberals are good or bad, I'm just using the labels to set the combatants apart) would seem to run parallel to the conservatives cry of murderers deserving death, etc, etc.
I think ideology really has to come into play, but then the same tenets that say all life is sacred, and judge not lest ye be judged, would seem to run contrary to the use of lethal injection, so I wonder how that's supposed to shake out? Do the religious right ignore those parts of their faith when it suits them, just as maybe the liberals ignore the potential for viable life starting before birth when it suits them?
Oy. I'm going to go watch Dukes of Hazzard and think of simpler things.
Virtually every developed nation except ours has satisfied the demands of justice for murder without resorting to lowering themselves to the same level as the murderer. But the query of the original post was meant to focus on the percieved hypocricy of common hyperbole when related to abortion such as "every life is sacred" or "destroying a human life is murder, period." It has nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of the unborn or the murderer, it is a seeming absolute with regards to one, then completely ignored with regards to the other.
Maybe the chanted slogan should be more like, "Murder is wrong! Except with it is right!"
I am outside. And I want my new xbox to be outside, next to the pool and wooded bbq deck and projection screen behind the tennis court (well, the court net folds up underneath the court and it doubles as an outdoor theatre) it's right on my private lake in the middle of an old growth forest. Is that outside enough to be allowed the privilege of a game console? Do I now have your permission to live my life the way I want?
Gee thanks
Google is smart; they're reserving their Linux and Mac versions for the $400 pay level, because they know you whiny idiots will pay for it.
Very good point there, that just because Kodak runs away, doesn't mean there aren't many other companies with product out there. I always used Ilford, it had a much richer tonal range, and the blacks were warmer than other papers.
Some of the most talked about and "Best of Show" games at E3 this year were for PC, and PC only. Battlefield 2, F.E.A.R., Spore, etc. I think maybe too many people are drinking the koolaid and accepting at face value all of the hype for the new consoles. Do I want a developer spending 40% of their dev time forced to get the XBox Live Clothing Store connected to my game, or do I want them to have the freedom to spend that time making my game kick ass?
Kick ass, please.
On last week's "24", when the terrorist hackers tried to perform a network attack on the "CTU" headquarters, it was Cisco's network protection system that thwarted them. In fact, when all of the characters stopped what they were doing (chasing down a stolen nuclear device from being detonated on U.S. soil.) and stood around talking about how their Cisco systems were self-defending and how great that was, and those scenes were intercut with screenshots of the Cisco defense system at work saving the day, I was actually kind of lulled into believing that Cisco could protect them, or even themselves, from a nefarious hacker.
Next thing you know, they're going to tell me that the evil terrorists in the world don't actually use Alienware laptops, like in "24", when the lead terrorist was shown for several scenes, bathed in the cool blue glow of his Alienware Area-51, and using it to start the countdown on his nuclear missile.
I don't know what's real, and what's branding anymore!!!
This is connected to the story of the UK being the top worldwide downloader/copier of American TV shows. When will they [big media] learn? They turned us into the ravenous consumers that we are, now they 're once again fumbling how to control us.
Sell Us Something.
If we want a product, and no one wants to sell it to us, we WILL FIND A WAY to get it ourselves. Our thirst is great, and we must feed often.
TV viewing, and movie viewing, is now WORLDWIDE. They try to control it with region encoding, delayed rebroadcasts, etc, but what exactly are they controlling? They're telling a bunch of consumers waving money around to hold on, wait, be patient. We don't want your money.. yet.
But we are too strong for their chains. We know more about their products than they do, we do not live with regional constraints anymore. Our families are spread across the globe, there are no secrets from us. We want to see Battlestar Galactica NOW, the same time our brother sees it in the U.S., before he spoils the ending for us.
If media isn't ready with a full packaging and marketing campaign for a global release, fine. Sell us a digital version online. A full season DVD with extras will sell for $35, so sell a basic episode online for $5, and end piracy forever.
Sell Us Something. Else we will continue to run amok.
I don't know anything about the specs or details, but there have been several stories over the years about how some folk wire up the Burning Man festival for wireless coms every year. Some Google searching would probably bring up the details.
Its exactly what Infinium has been doing for the last three years or so; showing up at trade shows with smoke and mirrors trying to garner more investors. They don't have a product to sell yet, they don't have a delivery system to sell yet, they don't have any customers yet, they don't have a release date yet, they don't have any games or game companies signed yet.
All they have is a shiny box and lots and lots of promises. Otherwise known as vapor...
Sin City is co-directed by Frank Miller, and most of the shots match the comic EXACTLY, so I wouldn't worry too much about the darker stuff getting in.
Also, Rodriguez has big plans for the dvd; he shot each story to interlock together to make the movie whole, but he also shot them to be completely stand alone stories, with extra scenes for each. So on the dvd, there should be even more nastiness too ugly for even a hard R.
If you don't like Miller's touch then you'll be VERY disappointed with the film, its CO-DIRECTED by Miller! He and Rodriguez shot every scene together, matching them to the comic panel by panel. I doubt Miller's going to be the guy who thinks his writing is angsty, so get used to it!
So what part of it do you think is a hoax? Do you think a fan film somehow got footage of all of those actors, in costume and makeup, and generated the cg and music themselves? Uh-uh.
If so, then the San Diego ComicCon event I attended earlier this year was the location of a supreme hoax, as it had the directors, Robert Rodriguez and Frank Miller, talking about the making of the film and showing clips. Ballsy grift, pretending to be Frank Miller at a comic book convention.
Farscape was killed off thanks to Stargate (Sci Fi crunched the numbers, SG1 was cheaper to produce, yet had more viewers, even with reruns) Personally, I think there's room for a good old-fashioned crossover! Browder's character actually IS Crichton, he runs into SG1 while they're unwittingly exploring a Peacekeeper planet, they have to take him with them just as the planet is destroyed, blah blah.
Next up: 21 Jump Street goes undercover on Law and Order
I'm sure UGO got some payback for running the SW Infomercial, but I wonder if Slashdot did as well, or were they just a tool? Lucas doesn't have enough money to slather Star Wars merketing goo all up and down here if they wanted to, you have to go ahead and regurge their press release ink for FREE?
I thought you people were above mainstream news puppetry. At least have them check for lumps while they've got their hand way up there.
That's not turnabout. Turnabout would be starting a "Filth Advocacy Group" or similar that would, on a proactive basis to match the evangelical "parents" groups, contact the FCC and compliment every time an indecent image or word was shown. Next time there's a nipple shot, we call them up and say, "nice use of nipple! That was great, it was helpful for the whole family!". Next time there's cursing, "Hey, this guy said $@## and I want you folks to know how much I appreciated that. It made his point really hit home and didn't sugarcoat the truth!"
At least then you'd have some balance, the next time the FCC comes out and says there were 4000 complaints against a certain NFL commercial, it would have to admit it also recieved 5000 comments applauding it.
They ballot stuff, we can ballot stuff.
Making a scene or a movie using videogame tools isn't meant to be a replacement for real actors, or Pixar quality animation. It is just another tool, a different palette to get your ideas across with. One of the appealing things about using a game engine as a movie making tool is, it is DIRT CHEAP. Try the Doom3 engine, if it isn't doing what you want, you blew $55. Move on.
I'm a professional level designer, and I can tell you right now, you do NOT need to be a programmer to get the most out of the tools. Certainly the scale of your project may require a team of talented people, but you can squeeze a lot out of just yourself and your own ingenuity.
So you CAN be "MacGyver", and write your own stuff, build your own "sets", animate your own "actors", and control your own cameras.
First thing, you pick a game that already has a look similar to what you want to make, that way at least at the start you have access to assets (textures, props, models, environments) that have the look (realistic, historical, sci fi, etc) that you're planning on. If you eventually want your finished film to make you some $coin$, then you'll have to remake all of the models and props and textures borrowed from the game, to keep the copyright nazis off your back.
Then also you'll want to pick a game that's "mod friendly", that either uses an engine that's easily modified or even better, includes the tools WITH the game. Most games using the Quake3, Unreal, or Half Life engines do that. Also now you have newer tech like Far Cry, Doom3, and Half Life 2 to consider (and Unreal 3 right around the corner), and that's all just with FPS games.
Personally, and I've used the Quake3, Unreal, and Far Cry engines extensively, I'd say I'm most interested in the Half Life 2 engine as a tool for making movies with. I know next to nothing about the tools right now, but I'm going to learn. The facial animations are the most lifelike and deep yet seen in a game, with many elements automatic (like the lip syncing with sound files). Also the lighting and materials offer some very realistic, real world settings.
But that's my bent. Lots of options out there now, just pick one, dig into the community, see what the tutorials say, and start making stuff.
No, the point is that people who DID buy something, a physical box with physical cds at a physical store, for $55 US, are considered thieves by default until they prove themselves otherwise. That may fly in Russia or China, but it used to work the other way around here.
Literally, you pay $55, yet you do NOT own Half Life 2. Even beyond getting coralled in with the thieves, Steam takes all control away from the user. I couldn't play HL2, the non-online single player game, all weekend, because Steam couldn't connect to confirm me. No explanation, no help online, nothing. Steam was down, my game was down. If this were an online service, I'd get a prorated refund or similar. No such business plan here. They take my money, and control how and when I play. They may think they're halting piracy, but calling your actual paying customers thieves and treating them like characters in an Orwell novel will likely drive up piracy, just as a f#$k you to the "man".
The point of that post and others here is, what do you care for the people who DID pay, who gave Valve or Vivendi their $55, and now CAN'T PLAY? Do you care less? Valve is punishing thieves, yay team, but at the cost of accidentally punishing MANY paying customers, as well as considering ALL custumers thieves before they prove themselves otherwise. Kind of the opposite of how our society has worked up till now.
Problem is, odds are no law has been broken. The new Employment "Protection" Act was essentially co-authored by the tech industry (thus the inclusion of "computer professional" under the "treat like shit" category) so as long as they get paid at least $455 a week, they are required to work endless hours for no additional compensation. (I'm pretty sure the author of that letter mis-read CA law concerning the $90,000 ceiling)
So that's why it goes on, because it can. Enough employees bolt, they'll just start hiring from Eastern Europe or North Africa, essentially creating a new digital sweat-shop industry.
How hard would it be to come up with an additional standard, something clearly abusive, such as "at such time of employment, if the 40 hour workweek is exceeded by 40 hours, for a period of two consecutive weeks, then additional compensation equal to salary is required."
I think that's what angers the writer. It isn't that the industry isn't known for overtime, that it isn't expected, but when a company can be so abusive, so endemically mismanaged, and do it with legal impunity, just not give a crap about anyone but their bottom line, then its worth trying to tell people about.
Why is it so hard for EA to manage their products? The general basis for the American work week is 40 hours, so why should it be considered acceptable to manage a project with 80-100 hour work weeks planned in? Sure EA is after profits, but so is China with its $1 a day sweat shops. Take a programmer's $50,000 yearly salary, and cut it into 100 hours a week, and suddenly he/she is better off flipping burgers. Good thing they got that masters degree I guess. The point of the letter wasn't decrying the "high stress" job, it was decrying the abusive nature of EA practices. You seem to say that, if there was no contractual abuse, then there is no abuse. You must be management.
Nowhere in that article did it indicate the author was a woman...