"Internal" in the question refers (very obtusely) to the cost within a company. In other words, $X per gigabyte is taken from his department's budget in order to "pay" for their IT use.
But the thing is, in order to justify creating the global socialist utopia which is the true goal of the "warmers", ALL the goalposts must be cleared. ALL of the following must be true:
a) warming is happening
b) it's a bad thing
c) human activity contributes significantly
d) it's possible to do something about it
e) the cure is better than the disease
Unless every one of those things is true, then the "green" crusade against global warming falls apart. So yes, you do have a goalpost issue: it's that you have to get past (at least) five of them to even have a shot.
Yes. It is. You shouldn't detect whether you can use a feature based on the User Agent, you should detect based on the presence or absence of that feature. Anything other than that is absolutely the web developers' fault.
This is a story about patent abuse. There's a language and an environment which fires events based on other events. Now it turns out that actually using these features is so frapping ingenious that nobody but Google can do it for 20 years!
Because it could be claimed that GE's "infringement" is okay because it did NOT allow them to copy anything, whereas a Blu-Ray decrypter WOULD allow copying, that might be an illegal circumvention device.
Not buying Nikes because they're made in "sweatshops" may be a marvelous way for you to feel better about yourself, but it certainly doesn't help the people in the third-world country involved who would like to have those jobs.
This is the typical left-wing perspective: as long as it looks and sounds like it's good for the "little people", regardless of how it actually works out, it must be good. Any feel-good initiative must be worthwhile simply because it feels good.
So, let me get this straight. You believe that this so-called "abuse" and "coercion" is so terrible, despite it not involving physical force, that you're going to get the government to use physical force to coerce the game companies into behaving differently. And this makes sense to you, I presume.
Why? Do you perceive peer pressure as being something trivial and easy to ignore? People have an instinct to conform.
That may be so, but that doesn't mean it's somebody else's problem.
Actually I think we have a terminology issue here. I looked up "exploit", and it appears to mean "use to make a profit", which is perfectly normal, describes every job, and is exactly what everyone expects when they get a job.
This is just an industry with peculiar expectations, I suppose, but again there is no force involved, so no problem.
The only reason the companies get away with doing all this is that the employees allow it. They could say "no", and back that up by quitting if need be. Then the companies couldn't do it.
The fact that this doesn't happen means that the developers are being paid fairly for the work that they're doing, whether that work is during "crunch time" or not.
Slashdot Mirror
You may or may not like the Constitution, but it is the only thing granting the federal government you love so much the power to do anything at all.
"Internal" in the question refers (very obtusely) to the cost within a company. In other words, $X per gigabyte is taken from his department's budget in order to "pay" for their IT use.
Anonymous for my own selfish reasons
Sorry that didn't work out for you...
Great post!
But the thing is, in order to justify creating the global socialist utopia which is the true goal of the "warmers", ALL the goalposts must be cleared. ALL of the following must be true:
a) warming is happening
b) it's a bad thing
c) human activity contributes significantly
d) it's possible to do something about it
e) the cure is better than the disease
Unless every one of those things is true, then the "green" crusade against global warming falls apart. So yes, you do have a goalpost issue: it's that you have to get past (at least) five of them to even have a shot.
Like what?
His position is well thought-out and basically unimpeachable, while theirs is untenable and distasteful.
Wouldn't that come out in a debate?
Also, I think you'll find that arguments and legislation have "changed the truth" exactly as frequently as debates have: never.
Yes. It is. You shouldn't detect whether you can use a feature based on the User Agent, you should detect based on the presence or absence of that feature. Anything other than that is absolutely the web developers' fault.
Dignity went out the window when you put on your Spandex shorts and tootled around town on a kid's toy.
Perhaps not everybody else in the world should be forced to be responsible for everybody else's shortcomings?
Basic human compassion enforced at gunpoint. There's an important distinction there.
The Reversal of Freedoms Act of 1990 doesn't care about such things!
People who use proprietary plugins like Flash surely are asking for this kind of thing.
This is a story about patent abuse. There's a language and an environment which fires events based on other events. Now it turns out that actually using these features is so frapping ingenious that nobody but Google can do it for 20 years!
Because it could be claimed that GE's "infringement" is okay because it did NOT allow them to copy anything, whereas a Blu-Ray decrypter WOULD allow copying, that might be an illegal circumvention device.
No; I'm really arguing against government intervention here.
Set up a fund for starving French (or whatever) people, and I'll likely contribute. Pull out your gun and force me to, and I won't like that so much.
Set up a fund to help these put-upon developers, and I bet you'll get practically zero, which really would show how small a problem this is.
Not buying Nikes because they're made in "sweatshops" may be a marvelous way for you to feel better about yourself, but it certainly doesn't help the people in the third-world country involved who would like to have those jobs.
This is the typical left-wing perspective: as long as it looks and sounds like it's good for the "little people", regardless of how it actually works out, it must be good. Any feel-good initiative must be worthwhile simply because it feels good.
So, let me get this straight. You believe that this so-called "abuse" and "coercion" is so terrible, despite it not involving physical force, that you're going to get the government to use physical force to coerce the game companies into behaving differently. And this makes sense to you, I presume.
Why? Do you perceive peer pressure as being something trivial and easy to ignore? People have an instinct to conform.
That may be so, but that doesn't mean it's somebody else's problem.
Actually I think we have a terminology issue here. I looked up "exploit", and it appears to mean "use to make a profit", which is perfectly normal, describes every job, and is exactly what everyone expects when they get a job.
This is just an industry with peculiar expectations, I suppose, but again there is no force involved, so no problem.
If the level of "exploitation" is not sufficient to overcome peer pressure, it's a tough case to make.
Very few people have the option of quitting on a whim.
This means that, "exploitation" and all, the job is still worth having for them.
The software owner was GE. They bought it.
The trouble with that is that GE's "circumvention" allowed them to use the product, but had no bearing on their ability to copy the product.
With DVDs/Blu-Rays, there's no distinction: the same "device" which allows you to "use" the product also allows you to copy it.
Or am I wrong about the GE case?
You're right; I don't see any need for employment law.
I don't understand the neighborhood argument. What you describe is reality, is it not?
Agreed with everything except the weird statement about "someone" stepping in to protect workers' "rights".
They are not forced to work for gaming companies. They can quit if they don't like it there.
Nobody's got a gun to the employees' heads.
The only reason the companies get away with doing all this is that the employees allow it. They could say "no", and back that up by quitting if need be. Then the companies couldn't do it.
The fact that this doesn't happen means that the developers are being paid fairly for the work that they're doing, whether that work is during "crunch time" or not.
But that's not exploitation; that's what they're actually worth. They just wish they were worth more.