The constructive way to "complain" about games is to refrain from buying or demand a refund. Commiserating about frustrations with games in blogs and sites like Slashdot is also technically complaining but isn't likely to be very constructive unless you can form an angry mob of gamers with pitchforks. Short of that it's the publisher who calls all the shots if you keep handing them wads of cash.
So I guess we could crowdsource honesty by sending people to a scrap yard and walking them under one of those auto magnets? Hopefully the percentage of people with metal plates in their heads and Borg implants won't be too high....
So is the FTC telling us that smartphones are unable to cure acne or that they're not going to allow them to do it? What is this, a guv'ment conspiracy to protect the benzoyl peroxide cartel?
Marx described primarily an economic system (a prescriptive ethical one), not a system of government. As you said, the ideal all 'round would be a socialist economy and a democratic or republican government. A republican model is actually a better fit, since it also seeks to be prescriptive and at the least thwart the 'tyranny of the majority'. What Marx described as "communism" doesn't at all resemble the Communist states that arose later. Those were unethical attempts to create an ethical economy through brutal force of government rather than true consensus. Any wonder they failed? The American capitalist economy with socialistic regulation also employs force, but the difference is that those truly threatened are a minority rather than the majority, which is why it succeeds nominally where Communism failed.
Sadly, true socialism or Marx's communism will have to wait for an evolution in human neurology. We aren't enough like ants or Borg to make it work as intended.
For careless lack of a bit of plurality, it winds up declaring that a domain registrar has proposed letting the police disable the entire.uk domain, or TLD. I can just imagine the reactions of the staunchest anti-authoritarians upon reading that little gem! Their heart rate and blood pressure must have spiked nicely for a moment there.
Amazon has had an even more strict Real Name feature, with respect to product reviews at least, for some time now. Why isn't there a bigger outcry about that, I wonder? I wouldn't be at all surprised to hear later that the Google+ identity system is intended for exactly the same purpose, to "add value" to consumer product reviews. Google isn't doing it right, whatever the intention.
I have no problem at all with buying a pair of cheap knockoff brand shoes. If they have the same arrangement of molecules and do the same job, what do I care what name is on the label? So if some other guy offers me the same arrangement of 1's and 0's at a lower price, what do I care whose name is on the office door... errr, cubicle?
Unless the brand has changed hands again, it's just that, a brand name only, in the hands of a French [queue nationalist jokes] game publisher named Infogrames. The name "Atari" has been just as meaningless as "Memorex" for quite a long time.
Yes, I can confirm firsthand that they're doing it, from several days ago. I downloaded a new version of software I am already using; the developer was funneling everyone to CNET to get it, so they probably knew what CNET was doing. The download was an EXE that was obviously not kosher, since the filename was the usual one prepended with "cnet_". I knew to be suspicious, but ran it anyway and declined the toolbar crap, etc.
The result was a pristine copy of the actual installer sitting in my Downloads directory. THAT is the one I'm saving for future rein-stalls, no CNET bloatware in sight. I'd expect any developer that agrees to this, though, is going to take such grief from users that they quickly share that grief with CNET. This tactic won't survive very long. This is one tiny instance where the market will work as intended.
Can you imagine how many patents science fiction writers would hold for fanciful devices, if squatting on IP had been their goal rather than entertaining and stimulating? That's a corollary of what I meant to say, I guess: why should you hold a patent on something neither you nor anyone else can implement at that moment? Further, if the design is so readily implemented with already existing tools and materials, such that independent innovation is likely, then isn't it in fact "obvious" and not worthy of a patent?
I don't think it should be required to demonstrate actual prior art to invalidate a patent; that is too strict a test. It places the burden on The People rather than the inventor who desires that We grant him this exclusive right that nature doesn't confer. A more reasonable test is the above: are conditions such that (a) independent innovation is likely or (b) the design literally can't be implemented for lack of tools or materials? If the answer to either is "yes", then a patent should not be granted.
The entire patent system is stacked to favor the interests of the applicants, rather than The People. Nature doesn't DEscribe patents, and in the absence of The People PREscribing such a construct, the applicants would simply not have such a right. The burden should be squarely on the applicants to demonstrate how granting them this prescribed right benefits The People. That is why patents are supposed to exist in the first place... allegedly.
These so-called Community Designs (I'm an ugly American, what do I know) need another stringent test in order to be considered a reasonable restriction on the market: Did the tools and technology to implement a design already exist, such that anyone could have readily "invented" the same design, or did the design require the initial invention of tools and technology necessary to implement the design itself, in a fashion similar to the work of Charles Babbage?
What happened to the free market where SMS is concerned? If consumers aren't ignorant, they would have said no to using SMS until the pricing stopped being so extortionate and at least vaguely proportional to the actual cost of service (i.e. nil). That is the only way a free market can work. Consumers have to know how to operate in the market in their best long-term interest. Consumers have to know and care about things like cost-to-produce. They don't, do they? That's why free markets aren't free, just playgrounds for a tug-of-war between unfairness and regulation.
I've installed a widow before. She was a better deal than a Russian mailorder bride. And she came with a free lifetime supply of patches and bubblegum.
Slashdot Mirror
The constructive way to "complain" about games is to refrain from buying or demand a refund. Commiserating about frustrations with games in blogs and sites like Slashdot is also technically complaining but isn't likely to be very constructive unless you can form an angry mob of gamers with pitchforks. Short of that it's the publisher who calls all the shots if you keep handing them wads of cash.
So I guess we could crowdsource honesty by sending people to a scrap yard and walking them under one of those auto magnets? Hopefully the percentage of people with metal plates in their heads and Borg implants won't be too high....
Heh, I guess I shouldn't have backspaced "or both".
Who are you saying this normal person should throttle, Ellison or the judge?
Smartphones Can't Cure Acne, FTC Rules
So is the FTC telling us that smartphones are unable to cure acne or that they're not going to allow them to do it? What is this, a guv'ment conspiracy to protect the benzoyl peroxide cartel?
Marx described primarily an economic system (a prescriptive ethical one), not a system of government. As you said, the ideal all 'round would be a socialist economy and a democratic or republican government. A republican model is actually a better fit, since it also seeks to be prescriptive and at the least thwart the 'tyranny of the majority'. What Marx described as "communism" doesn't at all resemble the Communist states that arose later. Those were unethical attempts to create an ethical economy through brutal force of government rather than true consensus. Any wonder they failed? The American capitalist economy with socialistic regulation also employs force, but the difference is that those truly threatened are a minority rather than the majority, which is why it succeeds nominally where Communism failed.
Sadly, true socialism or Marx's communism will have to wait for an evolution in human neurology. We aren't enough like ants or Borg to make it work as intended.
Read that title again more carefully:
.UK Registrar Offers To Let Police Close Domain
For careless lack of a bit of plurality, it winds up declaring that a domain registrar has proposed letting the police disable the entire .uk domain, or TLD. I can just imagine the reactions of the staunchest anti-authoritarians upon reading that little gem! Their heart rate and blood pressure must have spiked nicely for a moment there.
Amazon has had an even more strict Real Name feature, with respect to product reviews at least, for some time now. Why isn't there a bigger outcry about that, I wonder? I wouldn't be at all surprised to hear later that the Google+ identity system is intended for exactly the same purpose, to "add value" to consumer product reviews. Google isn't doing it right, whatever the intention.
Greedy jackass.
Wanna know what evil looks like? Andrew Wakefield.
A quote of Carl Sagan, for those who don't know.
... you know, if they broke down her door whilst she was in the shower or lounging poolside at the Beverly Hilton.
You must be new to the corporate world.
Does this mean Google+ won't be filled with extremely annoying "applications"?
Given that in other news Google has confessed that G+ is really an identity clearinghouse and not a socializing gadget, that's exactly what it means.
I have no problem at all with buying a pair of cheap knockoff brand shoes. If they have the same arrangement of molecules and do the same job, what do I care what name is on the label? So if some other guy offers me the same arrangement of 1's and 0's at a lower price, what do I care whose name is on the office door... errr, cubicle?
Unless the brand has changed hands again, it's just that, a brand name only, in the hands of a French [queue nationalist jokes] game publisher named Infogrames. The name "Atari" has been just as meaningless as "Memorex" for quite a long time.
Yes, I can confirm firsthand that they're doing it, from several days ago. I downloaded a new version of software I am already using; the developer was funneling everyone to CNET to get it, so they probably knew what CNET was doing. The download was an EXE that was obviously not kosher, since the filename was the usual one prepended with "cnet_". I knew to be suspicious, but ran it anyway and declined the toolbar crap, etc.
The result was a pristine copy of the actual installer sitting in my Downloads directory. THAT is the one I'm saving for future rein-stalls, no CNET bloatware in sight. I'd expect any developer that agrees to this, though, is going to take such grief from users that they quickly share that grief with CNET. This tactic won't survive very long. This is one tiny instance where the market will work as intended.
Can you imagine how many patents science fiction writers would hold for fanciful devices, if squatting on IP had been their goal rather than entertaining and stimulating? That's a corollary of what I meant to say, I guess: why should you hold a patent on something neither you nor anyone else can implement at that moment? Further, if the design is so readily implemented with already existing tools and materials, such that independent innovation is likely, then isn't it in fact "obvious" and not worthy of a patent?
I don't think it should be required to demonstrate actual prior art to invalidate a patent; that is too strict a test. It places the burden on The People rather than the inventor who desires that We grant him this exclusive right that nature doesn't confer. A more reasonable test is the above: are conditions such that (a) independent innovation is likely or (b) the design literally can't be implemented for lack of tools or materials? If the answer to either is "yes", then a patent should not be granted.
The entire patent system is stacked to favor the interests of the applicants, rather than The People. Nature doesn't DEscribe patents, and in the absence of The People PREscribing such a construct, the applicants would simply not have such a right. The burden should be squarely on the applicants to demonstrate how granting them this prescribed right benefits The People. That is why patents are supposed to exist in the first place... allegedly.
These so-called Community Designs (I'm an ugly American, what do I know) need another stringent test in order to be considered a reasonable restriction on the market: Did the tools and technology to implement a design already exist, such that anyone could have readily "invented" the same design, or did the design require the initial invention of tools and technology necessary to implement the design itself, in a fashion similar to the work of Charles Babbage?
Apple's designs don't pass that test, do they?
Cars don't practice eugenics, people do!
Perhaps it could also diagnose ADD, autism, BPD, schizophrenia, and approaching episodes of road rage? Think of the savings!
Considered and disproved. Oh, BTW... LOL.
What happened to the free market where SMS is concerned? If consumers aren't ignorant, they would have said no to using SMS until the pricing stopped being so extortionate and at least vaguely proportional to the actual cost of service (i.e. nil). That is the only way a free market can work. Consumers have to know how to operate in the market in their best long-term interest. Consumers have to know and care about things like cost-to-produce. They don't, do they? That's why free markets aren't free, just playgrounds for a tug-of-war between unfairness and regulation.
Spread the Fox! They'll have a new Web site up shortly: spreadthefox.com.
I've installed a widow before. She was a better deal than a Russian mailorder bride. And she came with a free lifetime supply of patches and bubblegum.
Next up: Mozilla becomes a wholly owned subsidiary of the Fox News empire after Google and other funding sources dry up.