September is still a very weak month for moviegoing in general, which is why it tends to be reserved for what are called "soft" movies.
Perfect example of such a film is "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow" which was released on 9/17. It went on to gross ~$60 million worldwide boxoffice, with a production budget of about 70 million (the budget was actually closer to 100 because of CGI cost overruns).
It was originally scheduled to be released in the summer, but it would have been crushed. With little competition it was unable to earn back its budget domestically.
Serenity's production budget is listed at $40 million. This means its marketing budget is somewhere around $20-25 million, probably... Let's assume $65 million as the figure in question.
The film has to double its budget (assuming equitable split between exhibitor and distributor, which isn't always the case) in box office receipts to ensure zero risk for Universal at stage one of the revenue stream. It has to earn $130 million at the box office in OCTOBER! That's a stretch.
So what is more likely is that Universal is willing to take a loss on box office, which they are conceding by moving it to September so that they can get all the box office revenue possible (less competition). Geeks are loyal DVD purchasers, so they are banking on DVD sales to not only offset any loss, but for DVD sales themselves to buck the trend of flattening DVD sales as the DVD market matures.
No one releases a press release stating that they think their movie is going to fail, so refering to one in this instance doesn't amount to much. Also, other films released early summer, with established stars and directors (for example: Kingdom of Heaven with Orlando Bloom and Ridley Scott) failed miserably... with much bigger marketing budgets and the entire summer audience to cater to.
Just so you know, September and February are usually considered throwaway months for Hollywood, meaning that this is when they choose to release films which they consider inferior but still worthy of release (by virtue of audience size or a soft spot in the release schedule at large).
This is interesting. Kids usually don't go to films the first month of school. Their parents start to embrace the theaters in September, but they only see quality films. There's been a bit of a row over the fact that Cinderall Man, starring Russell Crowe, should have been a fall release given the kind of film it is.
I actually find it really interesting that Josh Whedon gets so much love here given how unimaginative his stuff is, for the most part.
I'll get modded down, I'm sure... but this looks lame.
I work in film, and from my experience, far more imaginative and progressive sci-fi gets passed on regularly because the audience settles for this stuff. It makes financial sense for the industry to be "dumber" than its audience, or as smart or smarter. Just general understanding of human nature reveals that most people would rather have the satisfaction of having figured out something (which is why hollywood uses the formula that my nephew's already deciphered) rather than original shit that leads the audience to believe that there might be some smart people out there. Fundamentally, the state of Hollywood is that, for the most part, it reflects its audience. We don't want something novel, we want overstimulation to the point of numbness.
For the most part, this movie has the things that bore me in movies, unrealistic fight scenes that insult the intelligence (let's all attack the guy one at a time; even though we all have guns and could end this.... no, wait your turn to get your ass kicked), shitty dialogue peppered with trendy but utterly anachronistic one-liners, cookie cutter set and ship design from the same guys who bought you Star Trek Deep Space 94 and Andromeda.
Oh, and cue the messianic character....
It's just more of the same.
As a matter of fact, if you guys took a book, any sci fi book or graphic novel. Say Slashdot decided to host a petition to get a film done: half a million unique signatures would get that book serious consideration by a studio or independent investor. Find an obscure book and buy the option from the author for pennies before you pitch it here so when the studios come calling, you can up the price and profit (with flowthrough to the original author, of course) Anything would be better than this Whedon guy.
I don't really code (other than for small hobbyish things) so I actually wouldn't know how this works. But if an uninstall leaves something in the registry, isn't that due to poor uninstall by the programs in question?
In fact, I thought I read that a lot of programs leave registry entries for a number of reasons - like to stem piracy in case you install a wares version, or to ease a reinstall since many programs don't assume you want to get rid of them permanently.
So, I put the question to the experts? Who's at fault for the most part when the registry becomes clogged with stales entries? Should Windows assume that this is the case and actively update the registry itself?
he likes games like Sonic Heroes. He's not interested in violent games, which i think is a good thing.
when i do spend time with him, as I've noticed that he's put on some weight, I prefer that we spend time doing active things, so that being active becomes part of his normalized experience.
He tends to imitate some thigns that I do, so I hope that by being active with him, he'll take it upon himself to be more active.
It's interesting that you chose to fixate on that aspect of my comment.
That's the point. I think they plan on using RSS for blogs. You'll RSS corporate blogs to establish relationships with individuals representing corporations and the corporations themselves.
It will be a blogosphere, but a corporate to consumer paradigm as opposed to a gazillion long term bloggers.
Point to note, many early adopter bloggers I know of no longer blog.
corporations can blog forever. they need to innovate to stay pertinent, so as long as the company is viable, so is its blog.
I'm wondering if what is meant by the article is that RSS feeds will allow marginally interested potential consumers to easily keep track of product updates, costs, and evolutionary cycles for products.
Interested in DAPs? Subscribe to an aggregate feed that links to the corporate blogs of the top ten DAP producers and google through them for information pertinent to you. It's unobtrusive advertising always available to you. That way, big companies can avoid spamming, which they currently do, and the companies that establish the best relationships with their consumers generate a word of mouth that will translate into sales.
Maybe your purchase of a flat screen is dependent on the companies official stance on exploited labor. That stuff is probably on their blog.
Maybe you want Dallas Maverick season tickets, but only if you get a good sense of the team's direction from the owner's mouth. Go to Mark Cuban's blog (www.blogmaverick.com btw).
I didn't read the article though, so maybe I've got it all wrong.
the standard tinfoil hat theory is that Stanley Kubrick directd the moon landings to correspond with his work on 2001: a space odyssey, and that he did it for 2 reasons, first because "his brother" was being detained as a communist sympathizer... and 2: because he negotiated a deal wherein he would shoot the footage in exchange for access to Area 51.
I actually have been thinking that it would make a good film, but Christiane Kubrick doesn't agree with me.
dude, all I was suggesting is the equivalent of a V-chip for video games. Creepy? Maybe you're just wound too tight.
I don't want the government to raise my kids. I think that when they're born, they'll be alright. However, as a foster kid, the government for the most part raised me.
Slashdot is more homogenous than I thought. I can't speak for the enfranchised, but coming from where I come from, there were some governmental programs that allowed us to survive... that raised us. I ATE because of governmental programs, I got healthcare because of governmental programs, and I got a place to live when I had no other options. No one wants the government to raise children, but you have to acknowledge that there are conditions when it is NECESSARY TO DO SO. I see the value in them - and I see the value in having certain programs to interdict where parents fall short. If not for such programs I wouldn't be here now, and I'm pretty fscking cool.
Maybe what you suggest is creepy... this nebulous protection of your "rights" when you can't rightly explain what rights of yours are being infringed upon if the government makes it more difficult to procure mature games. Maybe that's creepy.
let's argue that it is indeed bonded servitude (which it's not), what matters is that YOU signed it. Someone gave you a contract with terms you knew you couldn't live up to, and you signed it.
If you go against the terms of this thing you signed, you've BREACHED the contract.
I can't imagine that there wasn't a non-compete clause in the document. Google and Microsft do compete as relates to search, and he's gone from search at Microsoft to search at Google.
One thing free markets are definitely about is holding firms and individuals to contracts... this is important to the infrastructure of various industries.
Microsoft's argument here is probably that Google "enticed" and "aided" him in breaking his agreement with Microsoft. A specious argument, but one that will draw NEGATIVE press Google's way.
This sounds like a way to tarnish the "Don't be evil" mantra with a little negative press. This case has holes.
And they also know that the true market is the international market. This issue, fundamentally, is an issue of predominance of search in the booming Chinese market.
Google still only has one consistent source of revenue, and external presurre from an inflated stock price and eager investors to begin making more cash.
And both Microsoft and Yahoo have the cash to make it really hard on Google.
I work in the film industry, and I just signed a development deal with a production unit for a studio.
This is the fourth such contract I've been offered.
The first had outrageous terms like:
a. loss of intellectual property rights, including ancillary sources of revenue, including revenue streams not yet invented. (I fully intended on pre-selling ancillary rights and continue to do so)
b. they tried to cover up my development budget by terming it an advance against my share of profits from future films I developed. (5% of developed movies get made, and 8% of those turn enough of a profit to ensure flowthrough revenue to the writer/director. this would ensure that i'd be indebted to the studio for a long time. think of this the next time your favorite director decides to headline a Harlequin romance)
c. contract has an initial term of 5 years, but is automatically renewed (I don't need to sign a renewal) up until they decide they're done with me.
There were some other shady terms. It was the shadiest contract ever. The producer in question assured me that the contract was standard. I consulted an attorney who ripped it to shreds.
GET AN ATTORNEY. GET AN ATTORNEY. It'll take a decent lawyer a couple of hours to go through that contract and translate for you, and you won't get fscked. A lot of these contracts are intimidation tactics.
The development deal I actually just signed is with the same guys, for way better terms. GET AN ATTORNEY.
Well, I'd imagine that a "separation Agreement" was drafted when he left. Meaning that he left with severance pay, maybe some more shares of stock, etc.
My ex girlfriend's dad worked as a high level citbank exec. he got downsized and got a shitload of cash in the separation agreement. part of the agreement was that he couldn't work at another financial services firm for a year, which precluded everything he had 30 years of experience doing. He sat on his thumbs for six months before deciding to get out of financial services and became a real estate developer. It just so happened that a boom was happening in the NY market at the time... which... means she shouldn't be my ex-girlfriend. but i digress.
Point of which to say, these agreements are usually sweetened with cash and stuff, so not working isn't a financial issue.
even if they're not enforceable (I get the feeling you can probably work around it), MS can make it ugly, so much so that the breacher becomes a liability to employ.
I'm not sure who this guy is, but how much cash is Google willing to toss at fighting this case before they regret hiring dude?
Another thing... I can't imagine this is the first cross-pollination issue to occur between these two firms, and I doubt it'll be the last.
This will probably draw the line in the sand going forward.
the noncompete agreement stipulated that he could not take a position with a direct competitor for a year after leaving microsoft.
that's standard language, i think.
anyways, a company can do a lot of things, if they put it in writing and you agree to it by signing off on it.
i guess they can argue on the language, but microsoft and google directly compete as relates to search, so in that sense they are direct competitors. Too bad we can't see the rest of the document so our legal eagles could proffer their expertise.
I was a foster child. My sense of social perspective comes completely from what you might deem overregulation as governmental policies shaped my very childhood. Many of the children I grew up with were similarly disadvantaged. To that end, media and popular culture was escapist for us. It was our preferential reality. Video games were preferential to real life, so were the most violent of movies, because they empowered us.
I'll give you numbers. There were six foster kids in our home. Two are now dead. One is in prison (we've all been arrested... all six of us). I'm the only one with a college degree (I just got it). I'm the only one with a high school diploma. The only reason I got into some interesting educational programs to get me out of Harlem was because I had a teacher in the 3rd grade named Ms. Payne. She was studying for the LSAT and had a sample test lying around. I got in trouble and had to stay after school. I started answering a whole bunch of questions in the booklet. Got enough right to prompt the state to undertake the cost of IQ testing, etc., which in turn got me sent to a magnet school... another tangled bastion of probably meaningless legislation that applies to a relatively small subset of the population.
My point is this: in absence of good parental figures, children are RAISED by media. If you concede that a significant percentage of the country's parents are not satisfactory, then it would seem necessary to have legislature to compensate. To have such legislature that restricts certain kinds of media from falling into the hands of kids like myself and my siblings, when we were not fully capable of placing the data in perspective... just seems sensible. it just doesn't make any sense to me to argue against it, especially given that it can only improve the country by appropriately censoring childhood content where the parental system fails.
To concede that the parental system fails on the one hand and to argue against legislation that might prevent impressionable children from being exposed to dangerous material seems counterproductive. Do I agree with current implementations... definitely not. But I definitely applaud the effort.
I can imagine it's been fun for you because the world's a great place when you can argue in both directions and simply claim a synergistic conclusion. ; - )
To reiterate, I agree that upbringing is tantamount. Parenting, in my humble experience, has left much to be desired. So, am I happy that the government "parented" me? *shrugs*
See, that's what you don't realize, is that I am looking at it from the other side of the issue.
I am speaking as a child who, if not for "the welfare state" ---- for governmental parenting, I'd not be here. I was an abandoned child, a foster child, an abused child, a child who sometimes went hungry. I survived childhood because of social services.
There were times as a child when the schoolbell rang, I had no idea where I'd be going. I am far from the exception.
It's times like this when I realize that slashdot is more homogenous than not.
It is exactly because most parents are shitty that there is importance placed on socially oriented legislature.
Not only do I contend that there are instances where governmental parenting is necessary, I contend that myself and hundreds of thousands of kids like me who are now normalized adults would not be if such programs did not exist.
Be that as it may. This is why I contend that this is a complex issue, not one to be easily resolved by the admonishment of a few vectors.
I also contend that if it doesn't hamper your ability as an adult to acquire your games, I still cannot comprehend why it is such a sticky issue to place tighter restrictions on violent games that might adversely affect children, especially when you concede that most children are poorly parented.
Agreed. I try to spend some quality time with my nephew because his dad isn't around. I've noticed the same thing. they're usually smart enough to deal with honest answers, and they respond better when they don't feel like you're hustling them with the adult spiel.
I posted a similar response elsewhere, because I've gotten the same responses, for the most part... which is: I've played violent games all my life and I've turned out fine.
That's all well and good. I've played violent games all my life as well. I continue to play them. I don't let my nephew play them, which is easy, because he doesn't like them anyway. My mother would think I turned out OK. : - D
More devil's advocacy: To argue that something has not harmed you and those you know is not necessarily an indicant of its ability to harm. Many a smoker will live to a ripe old age. It doesn't obviate lung cancer statistics, or the coronary disease associated with cigarette smoke or the other host of degenerative issues that come with smoking. Thus, at best, I can say that smoking will do the smoker no harm in the long term. I can almost never argue an instance where smoking will benefit the smoker, other than enjoyment, and I can make hosts of arguments about why one should never smoke. I can make the same argument about alcohol. BEST CASE SCENARIO, other than enjoyment, there is no benefit. Likely scenario is that there will be some harm.
Now with violent video games: For the most part, I cannot argue as to benefit. As they repetitively reinforce the benefit of violent behavior, I can infer that there might be harm. I can definitely argue that I don't see the long term benefit to allowing children to play violent games.
Now: There are serious restrictions in regards to children and cigarettes. There are serious restrictions in regards to children and alcohol, both independent of whether or not parents are neglectful or not. It should follow that similar restrictions are placed on violent games, once we determine for certain the nature of the effect repeated game play has on developing brains.
It's why vaccinations are required BY LAW. Even bad parents have to get their kids vaccinated, or the little guys can't attend school, etc.
My point is that the issue of blame is kind of absurd. Regulating games a bit more strictly won't prevent you from getting your games, so what's the big issue?
Slashdot Mirror
September is still a very weak month for moviegoing in general, which is why it tends to be reserved for what are called "soft" movies.
Perfect example of such a film is "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow" which was released on 9/17. It went on to gross ~$60 million worldwide boxoffice, with a production budget of about 70 million (the budget was actually closer to 100 because of CGI cost overruns).
It was originally scheduled to be released in the summer, but it would have been crushed. With little competition it was unable to earn back its budget domestically.
Serenity's production budget is listed at $40 million. This means its marketing budget is somewhere around $20-25 million, probably... Let's assume $65 million as the figure in question.
The film has to double its budget (assuming equitable split between exhibitor and distributor, which isn't always the case) in box office receipts to ensure zero risk for Universal at stage one of the revenue stream. It has to earn $130 million at the box office in OCTOBER! That's a stretch.
So what is more likely is that Universal is willing to take a loss on box office, which they are conceding by moving it to September so that they can get all the box office revenue possible (less competition). Geeks are loyal DVD purchasers, so they are banking on DVD sales to not only offset any loss, but for DVD sales themselves to buck the trend of flattening DVD sales as the DVD market matures.
No one releases a press release stating that they think their movie is going to fail, so refering to one in this instance doesn't amount to much. Also, other films released early summer, with established stars and directors (for example: Kingdom of Heaven with Orlando Bloom and Ridley Scott) failed miserably... with much bigger marketing budgets and the entire summer audience to cater to.
I'll buy that. We agree to disagree. It's all good.
So wait, what you're telling me that my choices are Serenity or Johnny Mnemonic? lol.
I'll run some laps, thanks.
lol.
zing!!!
let see.
personal attack (check)
AC posting (check)
lol. you're already on solid footing. please continue.
Just so you know, September and February are usually considered throwaway months for Hollywood, meaning that this is when they choose to release films which they consider inferior but still worthy of release (by virtue of audience size or a soft spot in the release schedule at large).
This is interesting. Kids usually don't go to films the first month of school. Their parents start to embrace the theaters in September, but they only see quality films. There's been a bit of a row over the fact that Cinderall Man, starring Russell Crowe, should have been a fall release given the kind of film it is.
I wonder how it will do?
Agreed!
I actually find it really interesting that Josh Whedon gets so much love here given how unimaginative his stuff is, for the most part.
I'll get modded down, I'm sure... but this looks lame.
I work in film, and from my experience, far more imaginative and progressive sci-fi gets passed on regularly because the audience settles for this stuff. It makes financial sense for the industry to be "dumber" than its audience, or as smart or smarter. Just general understanding of human nature reveals that most people would rather have the satisfaction of having figured out something (which is why hollywood uses the formula that my nephew's already deciphered) rather than original shit that leads the audience to believe that there might be some smart people out there. Fundamentally, the state of Hollywood is that, for the most part, it reflects its audience. We don't want something novel, we want overstimulation to the point of numbness.
For the most part, this movie has the things that bore me in movies, unrealistic fight scenes that insult the intelligence (let's all attack the guy one at a time; even though we all have guns and could end this.... no, wait your turn to get your ass kicked), shitty dialogue peppered with trendy but utterly anachronistic one-liners, cookie cutter set and ship design from the same guys who bought you Star Trek Deep Space 94 and Andromeda.
Oh, and cue the messianic character....
It's just more of the same.
As a matter of fact, if you guys took a book, any sci fi book or graphic novel. Say Slashdot decided to host a petition to get a film done: half a million unique signatures would get that book serious consideration by a studio or independent investor. Find an obscure book and buy the option from the author for pennies before you pitch it here so when the studios come calling, you can up the price and profit (with flowthrough to the original author, of course) Anything would be better than this Whedon guy.
Let the mod-downs begin. *bows*
I don't really code (other than for small hobbyish things) so I actually wouldn't know how this works. But if an uninstall leaves something in the registry, isn't that due to poor uninstall by the programs in question?
In fact, I thought I read that a lot of programs leave registry entries for a number of reasons - like to stem piracy in case you install a wares version, or to ease a reinstall since many programs don't assume you want to get rid of them permanently.
So, I put the question to the experts? Who's at fault for the most part when the registry becomes clogged with stales entries? Should Windows assume that this is the case and actively update the registry itself?
lol. slow "news for nerds" week.
I can't tell if you're joking or not.
he likes games like Sonic Heroes. He's not interested in violent games, which i think is a good thing.
when i do spend time with him, as I've noticed that he's put on some weight, I prefer that we spend time doing active things, so that being active becomes part of his normalized experience.
He tends to imitate some thigns that I do, so I hope that by being active with him, he'll take it upon himself to be more active.
It's interesting that you chose to fixate on that aspect of my comment.
That's the point. I think they plan on using RSS for blogs. You'll RSS corporate blogs to establish relationships with individuals representing corporations and the corporations themselves.
It will be a blogosphere, but a corporate to consumer paradigm as opposed to a gazillion long term bloggers.
Point to note, many early adopter bloggers I know of no longer blog.
corporations can blog forever. they need to innovate to stay pertinent, so as long as the company is viable, so is its blog.
I'm wondering if what is meant by the article is that RSS feeds will allow marginally interested potential consumers to easily keep track of product updates, costs, and evolutionary cycles for products.
Interested in DAPs? Subscribe to an aggregate feed that links to the corporate blogs of the top ten DAP producers and google through them for information pertinent to you. It's unobtrusive advertising always available to you. That way, big companies can avoid spamming, which they currently do, and the companies that establish the best relationships with their consumers generate a word of mouth that will translate into sales.
Maybe your purchase of a flat screen is dependent on the companies official stance on exploited labor. That stuff is probably on their blog.
Maybe you want Dallas Maverick season tickets, but only if you get a good sense of the team's direction from the owner's mouth. Go to Mark Cuban's blog (www.blogmaverick.com btw).
I didn't read the article though, so maybe I've got it all wrong.
lol... any director will tell you that the real money is made by the handful of stars and by blockbuster producers.
that's actually funny.
the standard tinfoil hat theory is that Stanley Kubrick directd the moon landings to correspond with his work on 2001: a space odyssey, and that he did it for 2 reasons, first because "his brother" was being detained as a communist sympathizer... and 2: because he negotiated a deal wherein he would shoot the footage in exchange for access to Area 51.
I actually have been thinking that it would make a good film, but Christiane Kubrick doesn't agree with me.
dude, all I was suggesting is the equivalent of a V-chip for video games. Creepy? Maybe you're just wound too tight.
I don't want the government to raise my kids. I think that when they're born, they'll be alright. However, as a foster kid, the government for the most part raised me.
Slashdot is more homogenous than I thought. I can't speak for the enfranchised, but coming from where I come from, there were some governmental programs that allowed us to survive... that raised us. I ATE because of governmental programs, I got healthcare because of governmental programs, and I got a place to live when I had no other options. No one wants the government to raise children, but you have to acknowledge that there are conditions when it is NECESSARY TO DO SO. I see the value in them - and I see the value in having certain programs to interdict where parents fall short. If not for such programs I wouldn't be here now, and I'm pretty fscking cool.
Maybe what you suggest is creepy... this nebulous protection of your "rights" when you can't rightly explain what rights of yours are being infringed upon if the government makes it more difficult to procure mature games. Maybe that's creepy.
Oh yeah, kudos for being "normal" lol.
let's argue that it is indeed bonded servitude (which it's not), what matters is that YOU signed it. Someone gave you a contract with terms you knew you couldn't live up to, and you signed it.
If you go against the terms of this thing you signed, you've BREACHED the contract.
I can't imagine that there wasn't a non-compete clause in the document. Google and Microsft do compete as relates to search, and he's gone from search at Microsoft to search at Google.
One thing free markets are definitely about is holding firms and individuals to contracts... this is important to the infrastructure of various industries.
Microsoft's argument here is probably that Google "enticed" and "aided" him in breaking his agreement with Microsoft. A specious argument, but one that will draw NEGATIVE press Google's way.
This sounds like a way to tarnish the "Don't be evil" mantra with a little negative press. This case has holes.
Agreed!!!!!!!
Well fskcing said.
And they also know that the true market is the international market. This issue, fundamentally, is an issue of predominance of search in the booming Chinese market.
Google still only has one consistent source of revenue, and external presurre from an inflated stock price and eager investors to begin making more cash.
And both Microsoft and Yahoo have the cash to make it really hard on Google.
I work in the film industry, and I just signed a development deal with a production unit for a studio.
This is the fourth such contract I've been offered.
The first had outrageous terms like:
a. loss of intellectual property rights, including ancillary sources of revenue, including revenue streams not yet invented. (I fully intended on pre-selling ancillary rights and continue to do so)
b. they tried to cover up my development budget by terming it an advance against my share of profits from future films I developed. (5% of developed movies get made, and 8% of those turn enough of a profit to ensure flowthrough revenue to the writer/director. this would ensure that i'd be indebted to the studio for a long time. think of this the next time your favorite director decides to headline a Harlequin romance)
c. contract has an initial term of 5 years, but is automatically renewed (I don't need to sign a renewal) up until they decide they're done with me.
There were some other shady terms. It was the shadiest contract ever. The producer in question assured me that the contract was standard. I consulted an attorney who ripped it to shreds.
GET AN ATTORNEY. GET AN ATTORNEY. It'll take a decent lawyer a couple of hours to go through that contract and translate for you, and you won't get fscked. A lot of these contracts are intimidation tactics.
The development deal I actually just signed is with the same guys, for way better terms. GET AN ATTORNEY.
Lol... good point.
Well, I'd imagine that a "separation Agreement" was drafted when he left. Meaning that he left with severance pay, maybe some more shares of stock, etc.
My ex girlfriend's dad worked as a high level citbank exec. he got downsized and got a shitload of cash in the separation agreement. part of the agreement was that he couldn't work at another financial services firm for a year, which precluded everything he had 30 years of experience doing. He sat on his thumbs for six months before deciding to get out of financial services and became a real estate developer. It just so happened that a boom was happening in the NY market at the time... which... means she shouldn't be my ex-girlfriend. but i digress.
Point of which to say, these agreements are usually sweetened with cash and stuff, so not working isn't a financial issue.
even if they're not enforceable (I get the feeling you can probably work around it), MS can make it ugly, so much so that the breacher becomes a liability to employ.
I'm not sure who this guy is, but how much cash is Google willing to toss at fighting this case before they regret hiring dude?
Another thing... I can't imagine this is the first cross-pollination issue to occur between these two firms, and I doubt it'll be the last.
This will probably draw the line in the sand going forward.
the noncompete agreement stipulated that he could not take a position with a direct competitor for a year after leaving microsoft.
that's standard language, i think.
anyways, a company can do a lot of things, if they put it in writing and you agree to it by signing off on it.
i guess they can argue on the language, but microsoft and google directly compete as relates to search, so in that sense they are direct competitors. Too bad we can't see the rest of the document so our legal eagles could proffer their expertise.
I was a foster child. My sense of social perspective comes completely from what you might deem overregulation as governmental policies shaped my very childhood. Many of the children I grew up with were similarly disadvantaged. To that end, media and popular culture was escapist for us. It was our preferential reality. Video games were preferential to real life, so were the most violent of movies, because they empowered us.
I'll give you numbers. There were six foster kids in our home. Two are now dead. One is in prison (we've all been arrested... all six of us). I'm the only one with a college degree (I just got it). I'm the only one with a high school diploma.
The only reason I got into some interesting educational programs to get me out of Harlem was because I had a teacher in the 3rd grade named Ms. Payne. She was studying for the LSAT and had a sample test lying around. I got in trouble and had to stay after school. I started answering a whole bunch of questions in the booklet. Got enough right to prompt the state to undertake the cost of IQ testing, etc., which in turn got me sent to a magnet school... another tangled bastion of probably meaningless legislation that applies to a relatively small subset of the population.
My point is this: in absence of good parental figures, children are RAISED by media. If you concede that a significant percentage of the country's parents are not satisfactory, then it would seem necessary to have legislature to compensate. To have such legislature that restricts certain kinds of media from falling into the hands of kids like myself and my siblings, when we were not fully capable of placing the data in perspective... just seems sensible. it just doesn't make any sense to me to argue against it, especially given that it can only improve the country by appropriately censoring childhood content where the parental system fails.
To concede that the parental system fails on the one hand and to argue against legislation that might prevent impressionable children from being exposed to dangerous material seems counterproductive. Do I agree with current implementations... definitely not. But I definitely applaud the effort.
I can imagine it's been fun for you because the world's a great place when you can argue in both directions and simply claim a synergistic conclusion. ; - )
To reiterate, I agree that upbringing is tantamount. Parenting, in my humble experience, has left much to be desired. So, am I happy that the government "parented" me? *shrugs*
See, that's what you don't realize, is that I am looking at it from the other side of the issue.
I am speaking as a child who, if not for "the welfare state" ---- for governmental parenting, I'd not be here. I was an abandoned child, a foster child, an abused child, a child who sometimes went hungry. I survived childhood because of social services.
There were times as a child when the schoolbell rang, I had no idea where I'd be going. I am far from the exception.
It's times like this when I realize that slashdot is more homogenous than not.
It is exactly because most parents are shitty that there is importance placed on socially oriented legislature.
Not only do I contend that there are instances where governmental parenting is necessary, I contend that myself and hundreds of thousands of kids like me who are now normalized adults would not be if such programs did not exist.
Be that as it may. This is why I contend that this is a complex issue, not one to be easily resolved by the admonishment of a few vectors.
I also contend that if it doesn't hamper your ability as an adult to acquire your games, I still cannot comprehend why it is such a sticky issue to place tighter restrictions on violent games that might adversely affect children, especially when you concede that most children are poorly parented.
Agreed. I try to spend some quality time with my nephew because his dad isn't around. I've noticed the same thing. they're usually smart enough to deal with honest answers, and they respond better when they don't feel like you're hustling them with the adult spiel.
I posted a similar response elsewhere, because I've gotten the same responses, for the most part... which is: I've played violent games all my life and I've turned out fine.
That's all well and good. I've played violent games all my life as well. I continue to play them. I don't let my nephew play them, which is easy, because he doesn't like them anyway. My mother would think I turned out OK. : - D
More devil's advocacy: To argue that something has not harmed you and those you know is not necessarily an indicant of its ability to harm. Many a smoker will live to a ripe old age. It doesn't obviate lung cancer statistics, or the coronary disease associated with cigarette smoke or the other host of degenerative issues that come with smoking. Thus, at best, I can say that smoking will do the smoker no harm in the long term. I can almost never argue an instance where smoking will benefit the smoker, other than enjoyment, and I can make hosts of arguments about why one should never smoke. I can make the same argument about alcohol. BEST CASE SCENARIO, other than enjoyment, there is no benefit. Likely scenario is that there will be some harm.
Now with violent video games: For the most part, I cannot argue as to benefit. As they repetitively reinforce the benefit of violent behavior, I can infer that there might be harm. I can definitely argue that I don't see the long term benefit to allowing children to play violent games.
Now: There are serious restrictions in regards to children and cigarettes. There are serious restrictions in regards to children and alcohol, both independent of whether or not parents are neglectful or not. It should follow that similar restrictions are placed on violent games, once we determine for certain the nature of the effect repeated game play has on developing brains.
It's why vaccinations are required BY LAW. Even bad parents have to get their kids vaccinated, or the little guys can't attend school, etc.
My point is that the issue of blame is kind of absurd. Regulating games a bit more strictly won't prevent you from getting your games, so what's the big issue?
dude, the best thing in the world is great parents. Kudos to you - you sound like a good one.