games are good. hot chicks are good. if you can combine them both, thats great. dont start that shit with us. youll alert stupid concerned groups that are getting bored with manhunt and vice city.
Steak is good.
Chocolate is good.
If you can combine them both, that's not good.
I don't think people are interested so much in *censoring* magazines as they are in not funding content that really isn't what they're interested in. If the person reading the magazine is a heterosexual female, a homosexual male, or someone that's gettign a sufficient amount of sexual activity in their lives, they may not be *interested* in funding and paging through a bunch of stuff that's really....pretty stupid except for the sexual content. "What's your favorite position when playing video games?" I mean, come on. That's *stupid*, unless you're looking for the sexual titillation from reading some words that some attractive girl spoke. From the complainant's point of view, it's as if there was a ten page interview with the Teletubbies inserted right into the middle of your favorite magazine. You just don't *care* about the content, and you'd feel a little silly reading it.
The same thing is the reason why you're going to have a hard time finding someone wanting to watch a porn flick if they aren't interested in the sexual content. Sure, you could *make* a masterful adult film, where sex plays a significant and real role in the plot and is balanced with all other elements. You could make a "Saving Private Ryan" or "Shawshank Redepmption" and include adult material. The problem is that usually, when content producers get the opportunity to use sexually charged content, their ability to make the content solid in other ways goes right out the window.
I think the biggest problem is that gaming magazines are not doing a good job of identifying themselves to their proper audiences. It would be *much* better if, instead of battling in the same arena, game magazines could effectively "split up" the market. As someone else pointed out, Nintendo Power (hold the criticisms of the magazine for a moment, please) aims at the young market, and EGM aims at the male teen market. What if you want to *make* a magazine aimed at a different market. Do *you* know of one? Well, there's probably some kind of strategy gaming magazine, and that might reach a different demographic, but basically some magazine needs to come along and say "we aren't aiming to produce a sexually charged magazine".
If I were EGM, I'd make a deal with another magazine to recommend other magazines in each issue (recommended for ages 8-14 Nintendo players, recommended for males ages 14-25, recommended for ages 25+, etc) based on a couple of simple demographics. These magazines would, in turn, recommend EGM using the same set of demographics. Readers would tend to go towards the magazine best-suited to them, and there'd be fewer complaints.
You know, I hear a lot about sexual objectification coming from women's advocacy groups.
However, my guess is that sexual objectification is a pretty much necessary result of the fact that content related to sexuality is frequently suppressed. Public nudity is not okay. Social norms reduce the degree to which men and women expose flesh. Sexual activity is something done strictly in private. Society goes to incredible lengths to try and delay knowledge children learn of sexual activity.
There are two reasons I can think of for producing such an environment. The first would be to the benefit of males -- avoiding a "cuckoo's egg" situation. Men do not want their wives fooling around when they might have to expend lots of resources raising a baby that might not contain their genetic material. Anything to avoid that situation is good. The second, and I think the more predominant, is to the benefit of females -- decreasing the availability of content relating to sexuality increases the bargaining value of each female's sexuality. This is not the '40s, and emphasis on women marrying to reach a certain economic point is not what it used to be, but it is still definitely an element of society -- I remember reading a study finding that women placed much more emphasis on the economic and other practical state of a potential spouse than men did. To some extent, I think that one could say that the sexual objectification of women is an artifact of a social phenomenen that (whether women were "responsible" for it or not) primarily benefits females.
Ignoring the whole issue of whether it's ethical or not to objectify someone...can anyone really enjoy these? I mean, don't get me wrong. I like looking at good-looking underdressed girls as much as the next guy. However, isn't there a point where reading the article, you start to feel silly just because the marketing involved is *so* blatant? I mean, how can you *read* those without looking at yourself and saying "what am I *doing* reading this?"
Besides, it's not as if anyone who wants porn can't get it. Frankly, given the Internet, it's probably quite possible to obtain porn faster than you can conceivably look at it. Why bother with some random half-assed sexual innuendo in a gaming magazine?
Just rename it when releasing it, and use a different logo. Firefox/Firebird/Phoenix/Mozilla hasn't had a name change in something like a *month*, and is damn well overdue for one.
I don't really care about user confusion -- what Debian does is probably going to be the same thing all the other distro vendors do, so it's quite possible that the *new* name will attract more attention than the "firefox" name (which I never thought was all that cool -- certainly not as good as the earlier names).
It's just not hassling with potential future problems with the Mozilla Foundation if a name change and switching out the artwork is all it takes to avoid IP problems.
Online bank servers are *very* well isolated from backbone servers so that they do not pose huge security risks to everyone's money in the database. This is done through the kind of "private" network you are speaking of.
While I agree that this is a pretty reasonable assumption to make, are you sure that this is actually the case?
Before I had ever seen or eaten buffalo wings (just heard the name), I thought that they were some kind of weird cut of buffalo meat. It's not that implausible of an assumption. Commercial production of bison meat, has made a big boom in the last couple of years, too, so bison meat has been in the news.
I'd say that not setting an admin password on a production server falls under "incompetent". That would only be the first thing you do when setting up such a server. I'll give a lot of leeway to "overworked", but not this.
The problem is that federal employees get lousy pay. If the Fed paid more, they might be able to get a half-decent set of admins in the DoI.
Instead, it's a pretty good bet that it's MCSE central in there...
Re:As soon as I figure what this things does....
on
GTK 2.4.0 Released
·
· Score: 2, Informative
On most systems, tar is dynamically linked to glibc. It was probably glib (why on *earth* Red Carpet let him remove it without complaining about dependencies is beyond me). If he had his system set up to use gdm and kicked it into runlevel 5 at startup and the guy didn't know how to use CLI utils (I'm guessing this is the case if he's using Red Carpet), this could pretty much screw you over.
I suspect that you can't. I don't use GNOME (well, as a DE, though I like using GNOME apps), but I've never heard of a DE that lets you do this -- I think that KDE, OS X, WinXP, and GNOME all only let you operate in one mode or the other -- you can't tell the DE to exclude a given set of apps from grouping.
GTK-- (aka Gtkmm) is the official set of C++ bindings for GTK. (GTK+ is the official set of C bindings._ There have been some other projects to produce C++ bindings for GTK, but AFAIK you would normally use GTK-- if you were using a C++ interface to GTK.
Is there some reason you want to avoid using gtk--?
I suppose I should slightly rephrase what I was saying.
My main problem comes in when company A hires contractor B, and contractor B looks for the lowest-cost subcontractor C to do work. Sure enough, subcontractor C has little disincentive to swipe code from somewhere.
I agree that a significant amount of infringement happens, but I still think that Open Source code is less likely to contain infringement (including commercial open source work) -- people that work on such a project know that their code is going to be visible to and exposed to the world, and that any illegality is easier to find.
There is a valid point that infringement on the part of closed-source software is harder to find, and so perhaps you might manage to license closed-source software that isn't legal and get away with it, whereas you could license open-source software and have people find legal problems with it more easily. However, in general I'd say that OSS is cleaner of legal issues than traditional closed-source software.
JA2 is a phenomenal game. It's absolutely *fantastic*.
JA2 is also one of the few games that has had a Linux port.
If you'll look here, you'll notice a snapshot into the kind of problems that Linux people have had trying to keep the ported binary running on modern systems. Linux binary compatibility cross-distro and over time is not exceptional, and this source release means that Linux folks can continue to patch and play JA2 without problems well into the future.
I'd like to give Strategy First a big thumbs up for this -- if I hadn't already purchased JA2, I'd do so again.
Unfortunately, from what I can tell, the source release does not include the Tribsoft source for the Linux port, which means that this stuff may need to be ported again to run on Linux (but when it does, it means that Linux gamers can play the Wildfire release as well). I hope this doesn't mean that Tribsoft makes even less money from their port -- as Linux gamers already didn't give them very many sales.
Keep in mind however that last year was the first year in this states history that more people left than entered. Obviously these retards have pushed it to far.
While TCPA does not imply DRM, it is closely tied to it.
* TCPA or a TCPA-like system is necessary to implement DRM.
* TCPA's primary current application is in implementing DRM. There have been a few alternate suggestions, such as perhaps ensuring that nobody has attached a monitoring device to your computer or installed similar software, such as Magic Lantern. However, for Joe Q. Public, TCPA's primary use is to implement DRM.
* TCPA adds to the cost of hardware. If you are buying TCPA-capable hardware, you are throwing money down the drain if you do not intend to use TCPA.
* TCPA significantly increases complexity. Complexity is a major factor in determining reliability. I feel that PCI, AGP, ATA, USB, Firewire devices (and the BIOS) should be as a reliable as possible -- frankly, people have enough problems with flakiness as it is. It's not as if you need to have a burning desire to pirate movies to want to avoid TCPA.
It is a feature that should probably be considerd good particularly for people who wish to use such a computer for monitary transactions or other highly secure communications.
This statement of yours, while true in theory, is misleading, and I can't help but shake the suspicion that you intended it to be misleading. TCPA allows computer components to authenticate to each other. For all intents and purposes, the only attacks this avoids are local, physical attacks on a computer. Furthermore, short of a user using a smartcard or carrying some other kind of cryptographic security device with him, TCPA provides zero security unless the initial system configuration is trusted. It doesn't do a thing to allow me to trust another person's computer or a mall kiosk. For any of this to be useful, a comprehensive and well-built supporting software system is required. That software infrastructure does not currently exist.
TCPA's primary benefit over other proposed DRM systems is that it may be disabled in the BIOS if so desired. At that point, it becomes little more than the MP3 player that's built into my own computer's BIOS -- another useless feature that I dumped money into that increases complexity and reduces reliability.
I believe there's a GPL driver for the security chip in my Thinkpad T30.
The GPL is almost irrelevant when it comes to TCPA systems. The entire point of the BIOS-level support (rather than just doing everything in software) is that it loads signed binaries, and you won't have a signing key. So you cannot make modifications -- perhaps some Linux distro vendor might be able to put out a signed kernel binary, but that's it.
As for DRM, well... too bad. You won't be able to rip that DVD or burn or fry or copy whatever. Last I heard it *was* illegal. Get out and play frisbee instead. Write your own music. Build a toy car with your kid.
If TCPA lasts more than three months in the wild once people start using it for DRM, it will blow my mind. What the TCPA people are trying to do is *vastly* more complex and less feasible than what Microsoft's X-Box people are doing -- and the X-Box's DRM was broken multiple ways.
For starters, they are trying to make a huge array of hardware that has been designed by ordinary old hardware folks (*not* security people, and there is a *huge* freaking difference) work securely. Microsoft failed to do this perfectly -- they didn't encrypt some data that went over a bus, and incredibly minor error, and it came back to haunt them. And that was (a) a closed system -- all Microsoft has to do is stop making X-Boxes that are exploitable and (b) a system where a break only allows *bogus media to be played on that system*. Two *huge* impediments, either of which would kill TCPA as an effective DRM system.
First, the fact that TCPA is designed for use in an open system -- the PC architecture. It only takes one vendor of video cards to include a debugging feature on their card, or a diagnostic mode, or running so
I've a rather low opinion of the trustworthiness of traditional contractors and subcontractors. They aren't dumping their code in a repository that the world can see with a neat little per-person log and claiming "I wrote this", so stealing code is much more attractive for them -- the risk must appear lower.
I've yet to hear of a major open source project exposing a company that decided to use them to liability through the project's use of illegal code, like Apache swiping code from someone else, say.
As a matter of fact I believe all of the Open Source related cases I've seen where soemone was demonstrated to be in the wrong are where someone (generally a closed-source company) illegally uses software from a major *open-source* project. MPlayer is a popular source to steal from, as well as Linux (for embedded systems).
Open Source doesn't deserve a whit of blame for these cases. These are traditional closed-source companies violating law (and makes me suspicious that this sort of thing may happen much more frequently between projects that are mostly closed-source but someone manages to get access to than OS projects). Open Source people that I've interacted with are some of the *most* upstanding when it comes to following licenses correctly, simply because licenses play such a big role in the Open Source world.
It's great to see PJ get work deriving from her blog and research (and she darn well deserves it), but it does put her in a position where she *has* to have some kind of conflict of interest.
Slashdot Mirror
games are good. hot chicks are good. if you can combine them both, thats great. dont start that shit with us. youll alert stupid concerned groups that are getting bored with manhunt and vice city.
Steak is good.
Chocolate is good.
If you can combine them both, that's not good.
I don't think people are interested so much in *censoring* magazines as they are in not funding content that really isn't what they're interested in. If the person reading the magazine is a heterosexual female, a homosexual male, or someone that's gettign a sufficient amount of sexual activity in their lives, they may not be *interested* in funding and paging through a bunch of stuff that's really....pretty stupid except for the sexual content. "What's your favorite position when playing video games?" I mean, come on. That's *stupid*, unless you're looking for the sexual titillation from reading some words that some attractive girl spoke. From the complainant's point of view, it's as if there was a ten page interview with the Teletubbies inserted right into the middle of your favorite magazine. You just don't *care* about the content, and you'd feel a little silly reading it.
The same thing is the reason why you're going to have a hard time finding someone wanting to watch a porn flick if they aren't interested in the sexual content. Sure, you could *make* a masterful adult film, where sex plays a significant and real role in the plot and is balanced with all other elements. You could make a "Saving Private Ryan" or "Shawshank Redepmption" and include adult material. The problem is that usually, when content producers get the opportunity to use sexually charged content, their ability to make the content solid in other ways goes right out the window.
I think the biggest problem is that gaming magazines are not doing a good job of identifying themselves to their proper audiences. It would be *much* better if, instead of battling in the same arena, game magazines could effectively "split up" the market. As someone else pointed out, Nintendo Power (hold the criticisms of the magazine for a moment, please) aims at the young market, and EGM aims at the male teen market. What if you want to *make* a magazine aimed at a different market. Do *you* know of one? Well, there's probably some kind of strategy gaming magazine, and that might reach a different demographic, but basically some magazine needs to come along and say "we aren't aiming to produce a sexually charged magazine".
If I were EGM, I'd make a deal with another magazine to recommend other magazines in each issue (recommended for ages 8-14 Nintendo players, recommended for males ages 14-25, recommended for ages 25+, etc) based on a couple of simple demographics. These magazines would, in turn, recommend EGM using the same set of demographics. Readers would tend to go towards the magazine best-suited to them, and there'd be fewer complaints.
You know, I hear a lot about sexual objectification coming from women's advocacy groups.
However, my guess is that sexual objectification is a pretty much necessary result of the fact that content related to sexuality is frequently suppressed. Public nudity is not okay. Social norms reduce the degree to which men and women expose flesh. Sexual activity is something done strictly in private. Society goes to incredible lengths to try and delay knowledge children learn of sexual activity.
There are two reasons I can think of for producing such an environment. The first would be to the benefit of males -- avoiding a "cuckoo's egg" situation. Men do not want their wives fooling around when they might have to expend lots of resources raising a baby that might not contain their genetic material. Anything to avoid that situation is good. The second, and I think the more predominant, is to the benefit of females -- decreasing the availability of content relating to sexuality increases the bargaining value of each female's sexuality. This is not the '40s, and emphasis on women marrying to reach a certain economic point is not what it used to be, but it is still definitely an element of society -- I remember reading a study finding that women placed much more emphasis on the economic and other practical state of a potential spouse than men did. To some extent, I think that one could say that the sexual objectification of women is an artifact of a social phenomenen that (whether women were "responsible" for it or not) primarily benefits females.
Ignoring the whole issue of whether it's ethical or not to objectify someone...can anyone really enjoy these? I mean, don't get me wrong. I like looking at good-looking underdressed girls as much as the next guy. However, isn't there a point where reading the article, you start to feel silly just because the marketing involved is *so* blatant? I mean, how can you *read* those without looking at yourself and saying "what am I *doing* reading this?"
Besides, it's not as if anyone who wants porn can't get it. Frankly, given the Internet, it's probably quite possible to obtain porn faster than you can conceivably look at it. Why bother with some random half-assed sexual innuendo in a gaming magazine?
Just rename it when releasing it, and use a different logo. Firefox/Firebird/Phoenix/Mozilla hasn't had a name change in something like a *month*, and is damn well overdue for one.
I don't really care about user confusion -- what Debian does is probably going to be the same thing all the other distro vendors do, so it's quite possible that the *new* name will attract more attention than the "firefox" name (which I never thought was all that cool -- certainly not as good as the earlier names).
It's just not hassling with potential future problems with the Mozilla Foundation if a name change and switching out the artwork is all it takes to avoid IP problems.
Online bank servers are *very* well isolated from backbone servers so that they do not pose huge security risks to everyone's money in the database. This is done through the kind of "private" network you are speaking of.
While I agree that this is a pretty reasonable assumption to make, are you sure that this is actually the case?
Maybe you just do a better job of implementing security than whoever was involved with the credit union that this guy was talking about.
See, the problem was having 10 people involved in the initial decision-making.
Having *feedback* from lots of people is okay. Having more than three people involved in actually making a decision is, IMHO, a bad idea.
The Undersecretary of the Interior of the Interior. I like it.
Before I had ever seen or eaten buffalo wings (just heard the name), I thought that they were some kind of weird cut of buffalo meat. It's not that implausible of an assumption. Commercial production of bison meat, has made a big boom in the last couple of years, too, so bison meat has been in the news.
I'd say that not setting an admin password on a production server falls under "incompetent". That would only be the first thing you do when setting up such a server. I'll give a lot of leeway to "overworked", but not this.
The problem is that federal employees get lousy pay. If the Fed paid more, they might be able to get a half-decent set of admins in the DoI.
Instead, it's a pretty good bet that it's MCSE central in there...
On most systems, tar is dynamically linked to glibc. It was probably glib (why on *earth* Red Carpet let him remove it without complaining about dependencies is beyond me). If he had his system set up to use gdm and kicked it into runlevel 5 at startup and the guy didn't know how to use CLI utils (I'm guessing this is the case if he's using Red Carpet), this could pretty much screw you over.
I suspect that you can't. I don't use GNOME (well, as a DE, though I like using GNOME apps), but I've never heard of a DE that lets you do this -- I think that KDE, OS X, WinXP, and GNOME all only let you operate in one mode or the other -- you can't tell the DE to exclude a given set of apps from grouping.
It's an interesting idea for a patch, though.
I didn't have any problems with GTK per se -- though I did find insufficient documentation on auxilary projects like pango.
A quick glance indicates that the pango documentation has fleshed out nicely.
GTK-- (aka Gtkmm) is the official set of C++ bindings for GTK. (GTK+ is the official set of C bindings._ There have been some other projects to produce C++ bindings for GTK, but AFAIK you would normally use GTK-- if you were using a C++ interface to GTK.
Is there some reason you want to avoid using gtk--?
I suppose I should slightly rephrase what I was saying.
My main problem comes in when company A hires contractor B, and contractor B looks for the lowest-cost subcontractor C to do work. Sure enough, subcontractor C has little disincentive to swipe code from somewhere.
I agree that a significant amount of infringement happens, but I still think that Open Source code is less likely to contain infringement (including commercial open source work) -- people that work on such a project know that their code is going to be visible to and exposed to the world, and that any illegality is easier to find.
There is a valid point that infringement on the part of closed-source software is harder to find, and so perhaps you might manage to license closed-source software that isn't legal and get away with it, whereas you could license open-source software and have people find legal problems with it more easily. However, in general I'd say that OSS is cleaner of legal issues than traditional closed-source software.
Dead Horse for sale
Very good deal, was very fast when alive, still has crowd of fans and mourners.
This is *fucking* amazing.
JA2 is a phenomenal game. It's absolutely *fantastic*.
JA2 is also one of the few games that has had a Linux port.
If you'll look here, you'll notice a snapshot into the kind of problems that Linux people have had trying to keep the ported binary running on modern systems. Linux binary compatibility cross-distro and over time is not exceptional, and this source release means that Linux folks can continue to patch and play JA2 without problems well into the future.
I'd like to give Strategy First a big thumbs up for this -- if I hadn't already purchased JA2, I'd do so again.
Unfortunately, from what I can tell, the source release does not include the Tribsoft source for the Linux port, which means that this stuff may need to be ported again to run on Linux (but when it does, it means that Linux gamers can play the Wildfire release as well). I hope this doesn't mean that Tribsoft makes even less money from their port -- as Linux gamers already didn't give them very many sales.
Keep in mind however that last year was the first year in this states history that more people left than entered. Obviously these retards have pushed it to far.
Are you including Mexican influx?
Illegal Mexican immigration is not insignificant.
This isn't actually true.
TCPA can be used in conjunction with an OS to set up an operating environment that does not run untrusted software.
I don't think anyone has proposed doing so, but it's certainly technically possible.
While TCPA does not imply DRM, it is closely tied to it.
... too bad. You won't be able to rip that DVD or burn or fry or copy whatever. Last I heard it *was* illegal. Get out and play frisbee instead. Write your own music. Build a toy car with your kid.
* TCPA or a TCPA-like system is necessary to implement DRM.
* TCPA's primary current application is in implementing DRM. There have been a few alternate suggestions, such as perhaps ensuring that nobody has attached a monitoring device to your computer or installed similar software, such as Magic Lantern. However, for Joe Q. Public, TCPA's primary use is to implement DRM.
* TCPA adds to the cost of hardware. If you are buying TCPA-capable hardware, you are throwing money down the drain if you do not intend to use TCPA.
* TCPA significantly increases complexity. Complexity is a major factor in determining reliability. I feel that PCI, AGP, ATA, USB, Firewire devices (and the BIOS) should be as a reliable as possible -- frankly, people have enough problems with flakiness as it is. It's not as if you need to have a burning desire to pirate movies to want to avoid TCPA.
It is a feature that should probably be considerd good particularly for people who wish to use such a computer for monitary transactions or other highly secure communications.
This statement of yours, while true in theory, is misleading, and I can't help but shake the suspicion that you intended it to be misleading. TCPA allows computer components to authenticate to each other. For all intents and purposes, the only attacks this avoids are local, physical attacks on a computer. Furthermore, short of a user using a smartcard or carrying some other kind of cryptographic security device with him, TCPA provides zero security unless the initial system configuration is trusted. It doesn't do a thing to allow me to trust another person's computer or a mall kiosk. For any of this to be useful, a comprehensive and well-built supporting software system is required. That software infrastructure does not currently exist.
TCPA's primary benefit over other proposed DRM systems is that it may be disabled in the BIOS if so desired. At that point, it becomes little more than the MP3 player that's built into my own computer's BIOS -- another useless feature that I dumped money into that increases complexity and reduces reliability.
I believe there's a GPL driver for the security chip in my Thinkpad T30.
The GPL is almost irrelevant when it comes to TCPA systems. The entire point of the BIOS-level support (rather than just doing everything in software) is that it loads signed binaries, and you won't have a signing key. So you cannot make modifications -- perhaps some Linux distro vendor might be able to put out a signed kernel binary, but that's it.
As for DRM, well
If TCPA lasts more than three months in the wild once people start using it for DRM, it will blow my mind. What the TCPA people are trying to do is *vastly* more complex and less feasible than what Microsoft's X-Box people are doing -- and the X-Box's DRM was broken multiple ways.
For starters, they are trying to make a huge array of hardware that has been designed by ordinary old hardware folks (*not* security people, and there is a *huge* freaking difference) work securely. Microsoft failed to do this perfectly -- they didn't encrypt some data that went over a bus, and incredibly minor error, and it came back to haunt them. And that was (a) a closed system -- all Microsoft has to do is stop making X-Boxes that are exploitable and (b) a system where a break only allows *bogus media to be played on that system*. Two *huge* impediments, either of which would kill TCPA as an effective DRM system.
First, the fact that TCPA is designed for use in an open system -- the PC architecture. It only takes one vendor of video cards to include a debugging feature on their card, or a diagnostic mode, or running so
Does your company use contractors?
I've a rather low opinion of the trustworthiness of traditional contractors and subcontractors. They aren't dumping their code in a repository that the world can see with a neat little per-person log and claiming "I wrote this", so stealing code is much more attractive for them -- the risk must appear lower.
I've yet to hear of a major open source project exposing a company that decided to use them to liability through the project's use of illegal code, like Apache swiping code from someone else, say.
As a matter of fact I believe all of the Open Source related cases I've seen where soemone was demonstrated to be in the wrong are where someone (generally a closed-source company) illegally uses software from a major *open-source* project. MPlayer is a popular source to steal from, as well as Linux (for embedded systems).
Open Source doesn't deserve a whit of blame for these cases. These are traditional closed-source companies violating law (and makes me suspicious that this sort of thing may happen much more frequently between projects that are mostly closed-source but someone manages to get access to than OS projects). Open Source people that I've interacted with are some of the *most* upstanding when it comes to following licenses correctly, simply because licenses play such a big role in the Open Source world.
On top of that, it means that some company is going to be making lots of money from open source.
The downside is that they have every incentive to blow up the risk of using open source software.
The upside is they also have every incentive to fight anyone like SCO that's suing people.
It's great to see PJ get work deriving from her blog and research (and she darn well deserves it), but it does put her in a position where she *has* to have some kind of conflict of interest.
Hey, Bungie did this ;-) and *they* made good games.