Possibly for the same reason that many here claim that Open Source security beats Closed Source -- many eyes looking for flaws (you know some hot shot engineers or white-hats hoping to get into contract work are looking at that right now trying to find vulnerabilities) beats security-through-obscurity.
Also, remember that millions of people have "Top Secret" clearance -- it's the lowest level of security clearance from the U.S. government. So that phone will leak quickly anyway. They may have a better version in mind for higher levels that they're keeping under wraps (or they just want you to think they do and it's a bluff - "If we can show this off publicly, just imagine what we're not showing you!").
Or are you talking about making and selling your own goods that would have no value without being based on the original work (which is a violation of even the original US copyright law). Could that be what you were talking about?
What? All those unofficial iPhone covers (or similar sorts of accessories) are a violation of original US copyright law? Third-party PS3 controllers? Windows for Dummies (and equivalent types of books)? VMWare? Multi-chat clients like Trillian (particularly before the non-proprietary service interfaces like Jabber were added)? Any number of other unofficial add-ons and mods for popular programs?
I get not being allowed to use the Trademarked name, or being required to state that you aren't officially licensed and there was not official compatibility testing, and even bnetd-style DMCA violation, but in violation of the original US copyright law?
They're allowed to build, maintain, and run nuclear power facilities, as long as they aren't their current inefficient ones that have the power generation as a side effect to creating enriched weapons-grade uranium.
We have lots of options. The question is what sort of society do we want to live in together?
- I am straight out telling you, I am uninterested in any society that believes that using government force to distribute anything from anybody to anybody is acceptable. I don't need to read your lists, it's very simple - government force, yes or no?
I can shorten that for you. "I am uninterested in any society." Violence, or threat of violence, exists. Whether you have a self-declared Warlord or an elected President \ Prime Minister in control is your range of choices at this point unless you choose to entirely wall yourself off from the world... at which point, you'll need your own threat of violence to keep someone else from breaking in and taking it from you. Small communes can exist peacefully in some senses, but often only due to the conditions created by the surrounding society... the violence of which is kept in check by threat of violence from a benevolent and generally benign government.
60 hours a week can sadly almost be considered light for game development. 100+ hours per week is not uncommon enough to be considered a statistical anomaly.
Many companies have been pushing back on crunch (particularly death march style crunch), but it still happens entirely too often, and usually for known and predictable causes. Worse, despite claims to the contrary, many companies hand you a pink slip instead of a bonus check once you finish. No OT pay, no bonuses or royalties even if your product is successful, not even a new project. Thanks for all that extra time you put in without extra pay, now go find a new job.
There are some great companies to work at, but I'd say they're still in the minority. Most major developers -- the ones you know the names of already -- have horrible work-life balance issues because they can replace anyone that cares and complains immediately with a dozen people the next day. I cringe every time I hear the acceptance speeches for the game industry awards that include (sometimes literally) "...and thanks to all our spouses and loved ones who dealt with us missing vacations, holidays, and special events for the last few years. This statue totally shows that it was worth it!"
As long as you don't QA your own code, and they don't QA their own code, that can work out ok in an Agile environment. I've found that you lose a bit of the objectivity and outsider perspective that aids in QA work when you have a more direct hand in content creation, and in particular it's difficult to QA your own work thoroughly (you'll have already considered how you'd break it, and will have those cases covered). That said, I really enjoyed having a direct line of input in the planning stages of development to ensure testability of components is considered (e.g. build me a tool if it'll be nearly impossible to test manually - particularly of use when reproducing issues in systems that have some pseudo-random function in the middle), and to do some "paper-debugging" to catch defects in design before any code gets written at all.
To paraphrase a bit on something I once read: We're all atheists. Those that call themselves atheists just disbelieve on more religion than those that don't.
If it were spelled that way in the US, I'd hear it pronounced "Foe-tus" rather than "Fee-tus". And Paid-o-phile, which wouldn't be any closer to correct. Never underestimate the stupidity of the American public and their pronunciation. Then again, I'm still mystified by those that would pronounce "sauce" and "source" identically in other parts of the world, so I guess it's all up to local interpretation.
But if you do have DRM your games will *still* be pirated. I have yet to encounter even one piece of single-player DRM for games that defeated the pirates - it only takes one cracker, and their work will be all over the p2p networks in hours. Multiplayer is a different story, yes - you can use things like requiring unique serials then that really do bother the pirates - but single player? No, DRM is useless. Might buy a couple of days.
Occasionally you'll find a few games that last significantly longer. Not forever, but long enough to get those all-important first month sales out of the way before a full crack is available.
Do you have a gas cap on your car? Do you put it in? Why? It doesn't create any value. It prevents loss. Using a limited amount of productive resources to acquire or prevent the loss of a greater amount is known as a net gain.
Snipers, and other killers, can be a net gain. They may not generate value directly, but removing pirates from a shipping lane prevents loss. Eliminating a wolf from the field with your cattle prevents loss (and could generate value if you have a market for wolf body parts).
The low range is due to the low muzzle velocity. They expect to need a custom gunpowder mix to get the muzzle velocity up high enough to meet military standards.
Wast that exponent -b*k_j,i or -b*k_i,j? Can't tell you how many times I've had to remember something so minuscule with so great an impact. And if all of my friends follow this advise, no one will be taking notes and no one will have a definitive answer. And then 40+ people are visiting the professor to clarify stupid mistakes. After answering the same question 40 times eventually he'll just say "you should have been taking notes."
That's why I appreciated professors that would post lecture notes online, so I could get the formula accurately later without needing to rush and copy it down while it was still displayed. That allowed me to listen to what was being said while it was displayed, so I knew what the hell it was actually for, instead of just having a transcription of what was written and missing out on at least part of the lecture part of the lecture.
I had many professors that didn't teach from a book, but that didn't mean I couldn't have written the notes after the fact, or used recitation sessions to correct notes and ensure accuracy. Though I'll admit, I sometimes preferred having physical copies of the lecture ahead of time, so I could annotate the pre-written notes...
How is that illegal or unconsitutional? Yes, it is terrible that it was signed in such clandestine circumstances, but the Constitution gives the President the right and power to sign Treaties "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate" -- which is generally taken these days to mean he can sign, but it isn't actually enforced until a 2/3 vote ratifies it in the Senate. That's how the system has worked. That's how it has always worked. For example, SALT II was signed by Jimmy Carter, but the Senate refused to ratify. I do not believe anyone rational considers that act to have been illegal.
Hypothetical - If I'm an independent game developer who relies on game purchases to finance myself to make future games, what do you expect me to do?
Let's look at the not-hypothetical-at-all practical and functional answers to this question, which has already been handled quite adroitly by that community...
Fund them upfront -- granted this seems to work a lot more for Board and Card games (too many examples there to list even a significant fraction of them), but there's no specific reason it couldn't be used by indie video game developers (and maybe they'd get better at estimating costs after a project or two).
Free-To-Play -- provide services, cosmetic add-ons, and bonuses for revenue
Those are just your basic answers. Handing out your game for free isn't the end of the world... and in many cases has proven to be a far better business model than actually trying to sell it!
P.S. It also works for music -- give it away, sell performances and physical copies worth actually owning.
Yep, the whole point of this is to prevent the party in power from squashing the opposition through bullshit moves.
While that was certainly a concern, at the time it was written I believe it was to prevent, for example, Maryland from blocking the representatives from the North-East from passing through their state. Recall that, at the time, people generally considered themselves members of their particular State first, and the United States second, and inter-state politics were a lot more interesting.
I'd forgotten about that for a moment. That would also challenge the SOPA clauses regarding stopping payments, as Congress can make no laws infringing on free speech, and as money is free speech, they can now make no law abridging the usage of money. Clearly we next need to challenge the IRS on First Amendment grounds...
Slashdot Mirror
Possibly for the same reason that many here claim that Open Source security beats Closed Source -- many eyes looking for flaws (you know some hot shot engineers or white-hats hoping to get into contract work are looking at that right now trying to find vulnerabilities) beats security-through-obscurity.
Also, remember that millions of people have "Top Secret" clearance -- it's the lowest level of security clearance from the U.S. government. So that phone will leak quickly anyway. They may have a better version in mind for higher levels that they're keeping under wraps (or they just want you to think they do and it's a bluff - "If we can show this off publicly, just imagine what we're not showing you!").
Completely agree. What do they expect to happen when the game is no longer profitable to run? A refund of any money they spent?
Something like that.
Or are you talking about making and selling your own goods that would have no value without being based on the original work (which is a violation of even the original US copyright law). Could that be what you were talking about?
What? All those unofficial iPhone covers (or similar sorts of accessories) are a violation of original US copyright law? Third-party PS3 controllers? Windows for Dummies (and equivalent types of books)? VMWare? Multi-chat clients like Trillian (particularly before the non-proprietary service interfaces like Jabber were added)? Any number of other unofficial add-ons and mods for popular programs?
I get not being allowed to use the Trademarked name, or being required to state that you aren't officially licensed and there was not official compatibility testing, and even bnetd-style DMCA violation, but in violation of the original US copyright law?
I'd love to, but they got this super adhesive on me...
Or are we now living in a country where the federal government is the sole final arbiter on corporate decisions?
Actually, we are living in a country where the federal government is the sole final arbiter on corporate (and personal) decisions.
They're allowed to build, maintain, and run nuclear power facilities, as long as they aren't their current inefficient ones that have the power generation as a side effect to creating enriched weapons-grade uranium.
We have lots of options. The question is what sort of society do we want to live in together?
- I am straight out telling you, I am uninterested in any society that believes that using government force to distribute anything from anybody to anybody is acceptable. I don't need to read your lists, it's very simple - government force, yes or no?
I can shorten that for you. "I am uninterested in any society." Violence, or threat of violence, exists. Whether you have a self-declared Warlord or an elected President \ Prime Minister in control is your range of choices at this point unless you choose to entirely wall yourself off from the world... at which point, you'll need your own threat of violence to keep someone else from breaking in and taking it from you. Small communes can exist peacefully in some senses, but often only due to the conditions created by the surrounding society... the violence of which is kept in check by threat of violence from a benevolent and generally benign government.
60 hours a week can sadly almost be considered light for game development. 100+ hours per week is not uncommon enough to be considered a statistical anomaly.
The original: http://ea-spouse.livejournal.com/274.html
More recent: http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/117/1179020p1.html and http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2011/05/the-death-march-the-problem-of-crunch-time-in-game-development.ars
Many companies have been pushing back on crunch (particularly death march style crunch), but it still happens entirely too often, and usually for known and predictable causes. Worse, despite claims to the contrary, many companies hand you a pink slip instead of a bonus check once you finish. No OT pay, no bonuses or royalties even if your product is successful, not even a new project. Thanks for all that extra time you put in without extra pay, now go find a new job.
There are some great companies to work at, but I'd say they're still in the minority. Most major developers -- the ones you know the names of already -- have horrible work-life balance issues because they can replace anyone that cares and complains immediately with a dozen people the next day. I cringe every time I hear the acceptance speeches for the game industry awards that include (sometimes literally) "...and thanks to all our spouses and loved ones who dealt with us missing vacations, holidays, and special events for the last few years. This statue totally shows that it was worth it!"
Some of that is already being done by fans.
As long as you don't QA your own code, and they don't QA their own code, that can work out ok in an Agile environment. I've found that you lose a bit of the objectivity and outsider perspective that aids in QA work when you have a more direct hand in content creation, and in particular it's difficult to QA your own work thoroughly (you'll have already considered how you'd break it, and will have those cases covered). That said, I really enjoyed having a direct line of input in the planning stages of development to ensure testability of components is considered (e.g. build me a tool if it'll be nearly impossible to test manually - particularly of use when reproducing issues in systems that have some pseudo-random function in the middle), and to do some "paper-debugging" to catch defects in design before any code gets written at all.
To paraphrase a bit on something I once read: We're all atheists. Those that call themselves atheists just disbelieve on more religion than those that don't.
If it were spelled that way in the US, I'd hear it pronounced "Foe-tus" rather than "Fee-tus". And Paid-o-phile, which wouldn't be any closer to correct. Never underestimate the stupidity of the American public and their pronunciation. Then again, I'm still mystified by those that would pronounce "sauce" and "source" identically in other parts of the world, so I guess it's all up to local interpretation.
And some people think we aren't already communist...
But if you do have DRM your games will *still* be pirated. I have yet to encounter even one piece of single-player DRM for games that defeated the pirates - it only takes one cracker, and their work will be all over the p2p networks in hours. Multiplayer is a different story, yes - you can use things like requiring unique serials then that really do bother the pirates - but single player? No, DRM is useless. Might buy a couple of days.
Occasionally you'll find a few games that last significantly longer. Not forever, but long enough to get those all-important first month sales out of the way before a full crack is available.
Do you have a gas cap on your car? Do you put it in? Why? It doesn't create any value. It prevents loss. Using a limited amount of productive resources to acquire or prevent the loss of a greater amount is known as a net gain.
Snipers, and other killers, can be a net gain. They may not generate value directly, but removing pirates from a shipping lane prevents loss. Eliminating a wolf from the field with your cattle prevents loss (and could generate value if you have a market for wolf body parts).
The low range is due to the low muzzle velocity. They expect to need a custom gunpowder mix to get the muzzle velocity up high enough to meet military standards.
Even if those citizens were branded as terrorists?
Wast that exponent -b*k_j,i or -b*k_i,j? Can't tell you how many times I've had to remember something so minuscule with so great an impact. And if all of my friends follow this advise, no one will be taking notes and no one will have a definitive answer. And then 40+ people are visiting the professor to clarify stupid mistakes. After answering the same question 40 times eventually he'll just say "you should have been taking notes."
That's why I appreciated professors that would post lecture notes online, so I could get the formula accurately later without needing to rush and copy it down while it was still displayed. That allowed me to listen to what was being said while it was displayed, so I knew what the hell it was actually for, instead of just having a transcription of what was written and missing out on at least part of the lecture part of the lecture.
I had many professors that didn't teach from a book, but that didn't mean I couldn't have written the notes after the fact, or used recitation sessions to correct notes and ensure accuracy. Though I'll admit, I sometimes preferred having physical copies of the lecture ahead of time, so I could annotate the pre-written notes...
How is that illegal or unconsitutional? Yes, it is terrible that it was signed in such clandestine circumstances, but the Constitution gives the President the right and power to sign Treaties "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate" -- which is generally taken these days to mean he can sign, but it isn't actually enforced until a 2/3 vote ratifies it in the Senate. That's how the system has worked. That's how it has always worked. For example, SALT II was signed by Jimmy Carter, but the Senate refused to ratify. I do not believe anyone rational considers that act to have been illegal.
Hypothetical - If I'm an independent game developer who relies on game purchases to finance myself to make future games, what do you expect me to do?
Let's look at the not-hypothetical-at-all practical and functional answers to this question, which has already been handled quite adroitly by that community...
Fund them upfront -- granted this seems to work a lot more for Board and Card games (too many examples there to list even a significant fraction of them), but there's no specific reason it couldn't be used by indie video game developers (and maybe they'd get better at estimating costs after a project or two).
Let people decide how much they think your work was worth -- hey look, you could buy them all for $0... but people don't.
Free-To-Play -- provide services, cosmetic add-ons, and bonuses for revenue
Those are just your basic answers. Handing out your game for free isn't the end of the world... and in many cases has proven to be a far better business model than actually trying to sell it!
P.S. It also works for music -- give it away, sell performances and physical copies worth actually owning.
And if this is what his fiance wants?
Weddings are for the bridge and groom.
If you believe that, I have a bridge to marry you to...
Yep, the whole point of this is to prevent the party in power from squashing the opposition through bullshit moves.
While that was certainly a concern, at the time it was written I believe it was to prevent, for example, Maryland from blocking the representatives from the North-East from passing through their state. Recall that, at the time, people generally considered themselves members of their particular State first, and the United States second, and inter-state politics were a lot more interesting.
So a Non-Disclosure doesn't waive my right to free speech? Actually, isn't that the direct definition of a Waiver?
I'd forgotten about that for a moment. That would also challenge the SOPA clauses regarding stopping payments, as Congress can make no laws infringing on free speech, and as money is free speech, they can now make no law abridging the usage of money. Clearly we next need to challenge the IRS on First Amendment grounds...