"The fact that so many people engage in this signal "theft" clearly demonstrates that it is useful and beneficial to the people and therefore, to society."
Now there's a fantastic example of a non-sequitur - just how, exactly, does the mere fact that a significant number of people choose to engage in an activity serve to justify it? Although admittedly, following that sort of logic opens endless delicious possibilities. Why, we could randomly designate otherwise non-essential members of society to be "aggression receptors," and invite the rest of the citizenry to vent their frustrations on said persons whenever the urge to be violent presented itself. Or, perhaps, we could revive Huey P. Long's "SHARE OUR WEALTH" program and financially rape any uppity bastard who just became a bit too successful by comparison to our lesser ambitions. Why, entire swaths of philosophical problems that have taxed the greatest minds for over 2,000 years could be dismissed by merely polling the electorate! Never mind the money that we could save by dispensing with unnecessary baggage such as "experts" and "research" in confronting social issues. Have a pressing societal problem? Just ask the opinion of the relevant portion of society: "Is unprotected promiscuous sex an acceptable practice for eighth graders? YES say 80% of teen boys and 60% of teen girls! Should gay bathhouses be legalized again in New York City? SURE say 75% of gay men polled in the Village!" Wunderbar!
Perhaps you ought to consider whether the sort of personality that exploits an available resource just because it can, satisfied that its own minor satisfaction in doing so is sufficient justification for its activities, is in itself socially beneficial. Besides - just how much does anyone who has to hack DTV to afford the PPV and pr0n really benefit from spending even more time in front of the boob tube?
Helpful Rhetoric Tip #235: when attempting to take the moral high ground via critical commentary, punctuating one's sentences with racial slurs is ill-advised. Likewise, squawking from the shadows is to be avoided.
Never mind that your spiteful little snipe is pretty poorly considered: the Quake II source is hardly obsolete - even Doom represents a very viable platform for game development (as I think the topic article demonstrates, no?). Besides, if anything you should praising Id's code release policy. First, games aren't apps with "essential functionality" (even Stallman has a hard time getting worked up over game code), so the concerns that prompted the development of the GPL are really not even applicable here. Second, unlike, say, Sun or IBM, Id's divulgence of its code is an act of pure magnanimity to students and entry level developers - that is, truly in the spirit of free software. By contrast, the typical poster boys like Sun and IBM are quite unabashed in their use of the GPL for purely self-interested reasons, usually screwing with Microsoft a bit or reducing their total cost of development for server systems.
The site is slashdotted, but risking redundancy...
It seems to me that the death of many a game (and many a young game company) has come about through the mistaken assumption on the part of its developers that the number of features in, and overall flash of, a title are primary to its success. This misconception frequently leads to overly ambitious, unpolished games, when it leads to a marketable title at all (e.g. Summoner). The sad part is that this usually comes about through the best of intentions. A new gaming company wants to make a big splash with its first title, etc. so, it takes on a project that ultimately proves too demanding, forcing the developers to either abandon the project, release a bloated title with a shallow implementation, or cut out features mid-development, leading to a disjointed end product. Ultimately, it's really the polish that makes a game great, and sacrificing implementation for features is almost always a mistake. I have NES games that would hold my interest for a hundred times longer than much of what's coming out for the newer systems, and it certainly isn't because of the breathtaking graphics. Better to follow the old developers admonition of cutting your drawing board feature-set in half, and concentrating on a top notch execution with what remains. At the very least, you'll end up with a "good" game if your development house has real talent. And that's far more insurance than the alternative strategy offers...
Woah there Al... caffeine should be taken in moderation!
"It is extremely unlikely that even DC politicians think the telcos invented investment fraud. Enron is NOT a high-tech company. It used high-tech in its operations, just like Texaco or Shell. So much for your poster child. Also note that there are still voices of opposition in Congress to improved securities regulation."
I haven't invoked Enron as the poster child for anything, other than the sort of corporate irresponsibility that helped to fuel the dot-com crash. Enron is an excellent example of the "don't tread on our business model" attitude that was so typical of the tech sector back in the good old days. The big "E" also had a similar rap sheet - an unclear, nebulous purpose for existing, a business model that was speculation heavy, subsidiary investments to hide losses, etc. etc.
" The reason for the high-tech companies losing political influence on the Hill has nothing to do with public reaction to the dot.bomb any more than corporations lose influence on The Hill just because their products killed a few people."
Funny, I don't recall saying that it has anything to do with the "public reaction" to the dot-com fiasco. Rather, the cold shoulder is a response to the fact of the tech collapse, naturally. Public opinion has little to do with the political support recieved by any given corporation. The big oil and pharmaceutical corps have managed to maintain tremendous influence in spite of a horrendous public image.
"Any industry that wants influence on the hill has to buy and pay for it. High tech hasn't done this.
Or, as the tech boom proved, simply be successful. You can be quite bastardly if you're successful, and the politicians will sing your praises and jump through flaming hoops to gain your favor. However, once you hit rough water, they'll swim for shore and leave you stranded if you haven't formed close ties - after all, they have nothing to lose at that point. I've never disagreed with the conventional wisdom that campaign investment and lobbying is, in general, the only way to gain an inveterate status in Washington. My point, rather, is that the tech industry and the capital need to get together now in a serious way and address these economic problems, which, I'll remind you, are not simply tech industry problems but national problems; the US economy is increasingly based on high technology, IP, etc. If the tech sector continues to decline, everyone loses. We need a cooperative relationship between the technology industry and government now as much as ever.
I can't help but observe that as demons, devils, etc. are winged creatures, whereas penguins are flightless birds, this seems somehow appropriate.;)
Besides, if they had used Linux, just think of all the time that would've been wasted debating the issue of which distribution to use. I can see the past headline now:
Preliminary setup of space station computer finished, further progress delayed as lead software engineers debate crucial "distro" impass.
The chilly reception that tech sector interests are receiving on Caital Hill is hardly surprising in the wake of Enron, Global Crossing, etc. and the "dot-bomb" fiasco. Even mature representatives are likely to feel slighted by the past industry indifference to the Washington establishment, and when said representatives were being told only a few years ago that it was their "meddling" that was the principle threat to the glorious new economy, they can hardly be expected to race to the industry's side now that the Good Ship Lollypop has run aground and needs a tugboat. Of course, you also have your standard run of stereotypical capital critters: any perceived neglect on their part is simply a mirror of the irrational zeal that they invested in the dot-com phenomenon - it's shabby, but ever so consistent.
Nevertheless, regardless of the motivation behind it, this cold-shoulder routine is ultimately self-defeating. Both the government and high-tech industry have plenty to account for, and the problems facing the economy aren't going to evaporate. These two need to simply acknowledge their respective sins and move forward in a mature partnership.
Slashdot Mirror
Gee... Splinter Cell, perhaps?
"The fact that so many people engage in this signal "theft" clearly demonstrates that it is useful and beneficial to the people and therefore, to society."
Now there's a fantastic example of a non-sequitur - just how, exactly, does the mere fact that a significant number of people choose to engage in an activity serve to justify it? Although admittedly, following that sort of logic opens endless delicious possibilities. Why, we could randomly designate otherwise non-essential members of society to be "aggression receptors," and invite the rest of the citizenry to vent their frustrations on said persons whenever the urge to be violent presented itself. Or, perhaps, we could revive Huey P. Long's "SHARE OUR WEALTH" program and financially rape any uppity bastard who just became a bit too successful by comparison to our lesser ambitions. Why, entire swaths of philosophical problems that have taxed the greatest minds for over 2,000 years could be dismissed by merely polling the electorate! Never mind the money that we could save by dispensing with unnecessary baggage such as "experts" and "research" in confronting social issues. Have a pressing societal problem? Just ask the opinion of the relevant portion of society: "Is unprotected promiscuous sex an acceptable practice for eighth graders? YES say 80% of teen boys and 60% of teen girls! Should gay bathhouses be legalized again in New York City? SURE say 75% of gay men polled in the Village!" Wunderbar!
Perhaps you ought to consider whether the sort of personality that exploits an available resource just because it can, satisfied that its own minor satisfaction in doing so is sufficient justification for its activities, is in itself socially beneficial. Besides - just how much does anyone who has to hack DTV to afford the PPV and pr0n really benefit from spending even more time in front of the boob tube?
Helpful Rhetoric Tip #235: when attempting to take the moral high ground via critical commentary, punctuating one's sentences with racial slurs is ill-advised. Likewise, squawking from the shadows is to be avoided.
Never mind that your spiteful little snipe is pretty poorly considered: the Quake II source is hardly obsolete - even Doom represents a very viable platform for game development (as I think the topic article demonstrates, no?). Besides, if anything you should praising Id's code release policy. First, games aren't apps with "essential functionality" (even Stallman has a hard time getting worked up over game code), so the concerns that prompted the development of the GPL are really not even applicable here. Second, unlike, say, Sun or IBM, Id's divulgence of its code is an act of pure magnanimity to students and entry level developers - that is, truly in the spirit of free software. By contrast, the typical poster boys like Sun and IBM are quite unabashed in their use of the GPL for purely self-interested reasons, usually screwing with Microsoft a bit or reducing their total cost of development for server systems.
The site is slashdotted, but risking redundancy...
It seems to me that the death of many a game (and many a young game company) has come about through the mistaken assumption on the part of its developers that the number of features in, and overall flash of, a title are primary to its success. This misconception frequently leads to overly ambitious, unpolished games, when it leads to a marketable title at all (e.g. Summoner). The sad part is that this usually comes about through the best of intentions. A new gaming company wants to make a big splash with its first title, etc. so, it takes on a project that ultimately proves too demanding, forcing the developers to either abandon the project, release a bloated title with a shallow implementation, or cut out features mid-development, leading to a disjointed end product. Ultimately, it's really the polish that makes a game great, and sacrificing implementation for features is almost always a mistake. I have NES games that would hold my interest for a hundred times longer than much of what's coming out for the newer systems, and it certainly isn't because of the breathtaking graphics. Better to follow the old developers admonition of cutting your drawing board feature-set in half, and concentrating on a top notch execution with what remains. At the very least, you'll end up with a "good" game if your development house has real talent. And that's far more insurance than the alternative strategy offers...
Woah there Al... caffeine should be taken in moderation!
"It is extremely unlikely that even DC politicians think the telcos invented investment fraud. Enron is NOT a high-tech company. It used high-tech in its operations, just like Texaco or Shell. So much for your poster child. Also note that there are still voices of opposition in Congress to improved securities regulation."
I haven't invoked Enron as the poster child for anything, other than the sort of corporate irresponsibility that helped to fuel the dot-com crash. Enron is an excellent example of the "don't tread on our business model" attitude that was so typical of the tech sector back in the good old days. The big "E" also had a similar rap sheet - an unclear, nebulous purpose for existing, a business model that was speculation heavy, subsidiary investments to hide losses, etc. etc.
" The reason for the high-tech companies losing political influence on the Hill has nothing to do with public reaction to the dot.bomb any more than corporations lose influence on The Hill just because their products killed a few people."
Funny, I don't recall saying that it has anything to do with the "public reaction" to the dot-com fiasco. Rather, the cold shoulder is a response to the fact of the tech collapse, naturally. Public opinion has little to do with the political support recieved by any given corporation. The big oil and pharmaceutical corps have managed to maintain tremendous influence in spite of a horrendous public image.
"Any industry that wants influence on the hill has to buy and pay for it. High tech hasn't done this.
Or, as the tech boom proved, simply be successful. You can be quite bastardly if you're successful, and the politicians will sing your praises and jump through flaming hoops to gain your favor. However, once you hit rough water, they'll swim for shore and leave you stranded if you haven't formed close ties - after all, they have nothing to lose at that point. I've never disagreed with the conventional wisdom that campaign investment and lobbying is, in general, the only way to gain an inveterate status in Washington. My point, rather, is that the tech industry and the capital need to get together now in a serious way and address these economic problems, which, I'll remind you, are not simply tech industry problems but national problems; the US economy is increasingly based on high technology, IP, etc. If the tech sector continues to decline, everyone loses. We need a cooperative relationship between the technology industry and government now as much as ever.
I can't help but observe that as demons, devils, etc. are winged creatures, whereas penguins are flightless birds, this seems somehow appropriate. ;)
Besides, if they had used Linux, just think of all the time that would've been wasted debating the issue of which distribution to use. I can see the past headline now:
Preliminary setup of space station computer finished, further progress delayed as lead software engineers debate crucial "distro" impass.
The chilly reception that tech sector interests are receiving on Caital Hill is hardly surprising in the wake of Enron, Global Crossing, etc. and the "dot-bomb" fiasco. Even mature representatives are likely to feel slighted by the past industry indifference to the Washington establishment, and when said representatives were being told only a few years ago that it was their "meddling" that was the principle threat to the glorious new economy, they can hardly be expected to race to the industry's side now that the Good Ship Lollypop has run aground and needs a tugboat. Of course, you also have your standard run of stereotypical capital critters: any perceived neglect on their part is simply a mirror of the irrational zeal that they invested in the dot-com phenomenon - it's shabby, but ever so consistent.
Nevertheless, regardless of the motivation behind it, this cold-shoulder routine is ultimately self-defeating. Both the government and high-tech industry have plenty to account for, and the problems facing the economy aren't going to evaporate. These two need to simply acknowledge their respective sins and move forward in a mature partnership.