This isn't a formula for commercial success, it's a challenge to think outside the box -
But you're right that a game that doesn't have the "next big thing" technically won't easily succeed. But it's possible to succeed without taking the easy way. You have to be good, but it's possible.
The astronauts didn't follow the procedure, because the procedure was flawed. If they'd had to abort the landing, it would've taken too long to reactivate the docking radar, so it was left on. However, this wasn't taken into account in the software design, so the system failed...
How does keeping yourself marketable protect you against a poor job market.
I know we're talking ancient history here, but take a look at what happened about 20 years ago. There was a huge demand for engineers. Mechanical, chemical, etc, etc. Pay for engineers was through the roof. Companies tried everything they could to hire them, and lobbied to allow more engineers to immigrate. It was a great time to be an engineer.
Then the economy slowed some, and changed some. Suddenly people who were able to write their own tickets had to scramble for jobs, or even take low-paying jobs in different fields.
Of course nothing like that could ever happen to tech workers...
Of course you should work hard to keep yourself marketable. But don't think that's a guarantee. And don't be so sure you'll never need help.
So you experienced getting beaten up, getting your car trashed, etc? All that simply because there was strike talk? Amazing! Or maybe you're exaggerating your experience just a bit, and conflating it with what you've seen in movies or on TV?
How do you get Union == Cartel? The only reason I can see is that union members are represented by a single group. Of course, management is by definition a single group. So following your reasoning, all management is also a cartel.
The problem with filtering is that all current solutions are controlled by soley by private entities, often with unstated agendas.
In a situation like that, how is "local control" possible? If a provider decides to block political views it disagrees with as "obscene," how can the local library control that?
The problem isn't the technology, it's the people using it. Is "running away screaming from filtering" (speaking of belittling and hyperbolic rhetoric) the solution? Let me put it another way: Does it make sense to endorse a flawed solution on the hope that it will improve later?
Unless you can propose specific ways to solve filtering's flaws, the argument that we should just jump on board because it's the best game in town is specious at best.
Steve Jobs vehemently denies these claims as well as the claims that the millions of dollars that Microsoft had supposedly invested in Apple were actually just stuffed down his pants by Bill Gates the night before.
That's someplace I didn't want to go. As long as I had to suffer I figured you should too.
Re:Steam Tunnels: what are they?
on
Infiltration
·
· Score: 1
Heating, most likely. The efficiency of one big boiler can outweigh the loss in piping the steam around a campus.
Your point seems to be that possessing child pornography should be okay. Simply downloading an image shouldn't be punished.
You're wrong. Legally and (in my opinion) morally.
The legality is unquestionable. It is illegal to possess child pornography. If the people who attempted to download these images had gotten what they hoped for, they be breaking the law.
Should it be wrong? Yes, for a number of reasons. First, to avoid rewarding those who produce kiddie porn. Giving them money, eyeballs (on ads?) or even approbation should be banned.
Secondly, it's disingenuous to claim that while it's evil to do something, there's nothing wrong with watching and enjoying the thing being done. This isn't a societal wrong that should be outlawed in all cases, but it certainly is immoral.
Finally, your contention that "Banning mere possession or download is attacking individuals, not for their actions, but for their desires." is ludicrous. Until we come up with brain-controlled computers (and they are connected to your sub-conscious mind) possessing and download is not a result of desire, but of acting on that desire.
Get off your smug high horse and think for a moment:
Quitting wouldn't do any good. This was not ordered by the company, this was ordered by a federal court. Quitting isn't an option. The only alternative to complying with a court order is being jailed for contempt of court.
Think about it for another sec. Company A decides to move offshore, and their prices go through the roof. Company B decides not to move offshore, and their prices stay low. Voila! Instant market-driven boycott of company A.
What would happen if Coke moved to Denmark/France/wherever to keep using slimy business practices? Their prices would go up, their market share would be gobbled up by Pepsi, et al who are not using those slimy practices.
I presume you're basing that on the Nazis being National Socialists? So you'd also say that the German Democratic Republic (East Germany) was a shining example of democracy? So any other two bit totalitarian state can be a democracy?
The only socialist thing about the Nazi's was their name. In the early 30's "socialist" was as desirable a nomenclature as "democratic" is today.
I doubt either Etoys or Amazon got much extra business because of their actions, or that they intended to.
Etoys shut down etoy.com. How would that get them extra business? Joe Average-User accidently types etoy.com instead of etoys. Before the suit he gets the Etoy site, which doesn't mention Etoys. He has to retype before he can buy anything. After the suit he gets an error message. He has to retype before he can buy anything. No difference to Etoys sales.
Amazon v. BN isn't quite as clearcut, but how many users you think said "Hey, I'll have to click twice at BN, and only once at Amazon. I'm going to Amazon!"
While the above response (Wow man your cool) was a little overboard, he has a point.
Sure there are some Unix ways to implement instant messaging. But that's irrelevant to the topic. The topic is whether a Unified Messaging client would be possible/viable/feasible/a good idea.
Flaunting your Unix knowledge and history without adding to the discussion comes across as elitist arrogance.
So people should only have a right to privacy if they have strong enough encryption? And they should be willing to cede that right if their encryption is broken?
Not to quibble...okay, to quibble. Giving the MP# to a friend is just as illegal as selling it. You don't have to make a profit yourself to violate a copyright. For example, it'd be illegal to burn copies of commercial CDs and stand on a street corner giving them away. You don't have to make money off it. You'd still be copying intellectual property that you have no right to.
It's fine as long as it's all public info... The moral of the story is: if you're doing something that will get you in trouble, read the user agreements. If it won't get you in trouble, don't worry about it--if they're not jailing you or stealing your bandwith, hard drive space, etc. with spam, it's not doing you any harm. Save your energy for truly dangerous people: abortion doctors, anti-encryption types, people who support the creation of thought crimes (including hate crimes), and those who try to restrict content on the Internet or rate it based on ages.
I disagree with the above pretty strongly (aggregating public information into private databases has potential to do great harm), but it's a valid opinion. It should not have been moderated down. Dissenting opinions are not necessarily flamebait.
Oh please can I meta-moderate this one? Why, pray tell is "I agree. Those are my top 2 as well." interesting? It probably should have been moderated down as redundant. If you didn't know Hemos had posted it, that is...
They made excellent rifled barrels with hand tools? I find that hard to believe. A clean reliable rifled barrel is not trivial to make. Do you have any documentation for this?
Slashdot Mirror
But you're right that a game that doesn't have the "next big thing" technically won't easily succeed. But it's possible to succeed without taking the easy way. You have to be good, but it's possible.
Nah, I just lick the CD to get the flavor of the game.
The astronauts didn't follow the procedure, because the procedure was flawed. If they'd had to abort the landing, it would've taken too long to reactivate the docking radar, so it was left on. However, this wasn't taken into account in the software design, so the system failed...
How does keeping yourself marketable protect you against a poor job market.
I know we're talking ancient history here, but take a look at what happened about 20 years ago. There was a huge demand for engineers. Mechanical, chemical, etc, etc. Pay for engineers was through the roof. Companies tried everything they could to hire them, and lobbied to allow more engineers to immigrate. It was a great time to be an engineer.
Then the economy slowed some, and changed some. Suddenly people who were able to write their own tickets had to scramble for jobs, or even take low-paying jobs in different fields.
Of course nothing like that could ever happen to tech workers...
Of course you should work hard to keep yourself marketable. But don't think that's a guarantee. And don't be so sure you'll never need help.
So you experienced getting beaten up, getting your car trashed, etc? All that simply because there was strike talk? Amazing! Or maybe you're exaggerating your experience just a bit, and conflating it with what you've seen in movies or on TV?
How do you get Union == Cartel? The only reason I can see is that union members are represented by a single group. Of course, management is by definition a single group. So following your reasoning, all management is also a cartel.
In a situation like that, how is "local control" possible? If a provider decides to block political views it disagrees with as "obscene," how can the local library control that?
The problem isn't the technology, it's the people using it. Is "running away screaming from filtering" (speaking of belittling and hyperbolic rhetoric) the solution? Let me put it another way: Does it make sense to endorse a flawed solution on the hope that it will improve later?
Unless you can propose specific ways to solve filtering's flaws, the argument that we should just jump on board because it's the best game in town is specious at best.
Heating, most likely. The efficiency of one big boiler can outweigh the loss in piping the steam around a campus.
Well, assuming Ashcroft makes it in as AG, DOJ may still stay the course. He's no big fan of Microsoft.
Umm...why do you think the region is of strategic importance? Why is Kuwait strategically important, but say...Pakistan is much less so?
Petroleum, of course.
Your point seems to be that possessing child pornography should be okay. Simply downloading an image shouldn't be punished.
You're wrong. Legally and (in my opinion) morally.
The legality is unquestionable. It is illegal to possess child pornography. If the people who attempted to download these images had gotten what they hoped for, they be breaking the law.
Should it be wrong? Yes, for a number of reasons. First, to avoid rewarding those who produce kiddie porn. Giving them money, eyeballs (on ads?) or even approbation should be banned.
Secondly, it's disingenuous to claim that while it's evil to do something, there's nothing wrong with watching and enjoying the thing being done. This isn't a societal wrong that should be outlawed in all cases, but it certainly is immoral.
Finally, your contention that "Banning mere possession or download is attacking individuals, not for their actions, but for their desires." is ludicrous. Until we come up with brain-controlled computers (and they are connected to your sub-conscious mind) possessing and download is not a result of desire, but of acting on that desire.
By my quick count you've written three comments about how it'd be too much work to put in so much effort opposing UCITA.
If all Slashdot readers put that much effort into opposing UCITA it'd sink like a rock.
As long as you're making the effort, doesn't it make sense to put that effort into opposing things that bug you instead of complaining about them?
Get off your smug high horse and think for a moment:
Quitting wouldn't do any good. This was not ordered by the company, this was ordered by a federal court. Quitting isn't an option. The only alternative to complying with a court order is being jailed for contempt of court.
Think about it for another sec. Company A decides to move offshore, and their prices go through the roof. Company B decides not to move offshore, and their prices stay low. Voila! Instant market-driven boycott of company A.
What would happen if Coke moved to Denmark/France/wherever to keep using slimy business practices? Their prices would go up, their market share would be gobbled up by Pepsi, et al who are not using those slimy practices.
Sounds like a good thing to me.
"Hitler is a socialist"?
I presume you're basing that on the Nazis being National Socialists? So you'd also say that the German Democratic Republic (East Germany) was a shining example of democracy? So any other two bit totalitarian state can be a democracy?
The only socialist thing about the Nazi's was their name. In the early 30's "socialist" was as desirable a nomenclature as "democratic" is today.
I doubt either Etoys or Amazon got much extra business because of their actions, or that they intended to.
Etoys shut down etoy.com. How would that get them extra business? Joe Average-User accidently types etoy.com instead of etoys. Before the suit he gets the Etoy site, which doesn't mention Etoys. He has to retype before he can buy anything. After the suit he gets an error message. He has to retype before he can buy anything. No difference to Etoys sales.
Amazon v. BN isn't quite as clearcut, but how many users you think said "Hey, I'll have to click twice at BN, and only once at Amazon. I'm going to Amazon!"
Fat chance indeed. Try this link...
While the above response (Wow man your cool) was a little overboard, he has a point.
Sure there are some Unix ways to implement instant messaging. But that's irrelevant to the topic. The topic is whether a Unified Messaging client would be possible/viable/feasible/a good idea.
Flaunting your Unix knowledge and history without adding to the discussion comes across as elitist arrogance.
So people should only have a right to privacy if they have strong enough encryption? And they should be willing to cede that right if their encryption is broken?
Not to quibble...okay, to quibble. Giving the MP# to a friend is just as illegal as selling it. You don't have to make a profit yourself to violate a copyright. For example, it'd be illegal to burn copies of commercial CDs and stand on a street corner giving them away. You don't have to make money off it. You'd still be copying intellectual property that you have no right to.
c). It was before 1970...
So? Israel had a fairly successful female prime minister back in the 60s.
Oh please can I meta-moderate this one? Why, pray tell is "I agree. Those are my top 2 as well." interesting? It probably should have been moderated down as redundant. If you didn't know Hemos had posted it, that is...
They made excellent rifled barrels with hand tools? I find that hard to believe. A clean reliable rifled barrel is not trivial to make. Do you have any documentation for this?