Not to get into the debate over whether or not the game is a good thing or not, but I believe you are mistaken about a factual point. The game is intended to show that it was entirely possible for Kennedy to be killed by a single gunman.
Has it occurred to anyone else that Microsoft quite likely owns enough licenses for this application, but the developer who needed it for Media Player knew he could get his work done faster by using an invalid license than going through the corporate bureaucracy.
And how far will 32 MB carry you? Is it enough to store a 3d executable, 3d data, and your expectations for sound and music?
32 MB is apparently enough to play any PS2 game ever made, so I'm guessing that yes, it is enough to store a 3d executable, 3d data, and sound and music.
I believe I read in a preview a few months ago that there will in fact be Porsche and Ferrari cars in the game. It was a while ago though so my memory could be a little bit fuzzy.
Yes. I sent mine in a few months ago, at no cost. I was one of the people standing outside Best Buy waiting to get one the day they were released, so the warranty was long passed.
That's great that you think that. What I think is that just because he said it well, does not mean it's true. The only way I could think to justify a statement like that is with a gross over-simplification, which includes in part pretending that corporations aren't run by people.
But then again, ignoring reality in favor of pretending statements like that OSS is the solution to all problems, that Windows is the worst piece of software ever written, and that all corporations are huge evil entities out to get us, has never been a problem on slashdot, has it?
So you're saying, since they can't be productive, the government should give them money to do something we don't need done (if you think a tarriff is anything other than that you're kidding yourself). I'm not in favor of a welfare state. I don't consider the fact that someone else needs money a valid reason for them to claim any of mine.
If we did keep industries around to protect people who had spent a lot of years in them from losing their job, we would still have a fucking buggy whip industry. It doesn't matter if the reason is because the product isn't needed anymore or there are cheaper products coming from other countries. It's a drain on the economy, and it will just lead to people losing jobs in other industry.
Do you think the people who lost their jobs in Flint, MI when the plant that made Buicks up there closed were any better off? No? Well, the steel tarrifs fuck over the auto industry. Why protect one segment of the population when the net cost to everyone else is even greater?
This is a fallacy. Look how much good trade sanctions did in Cuba, Iraq, North Korea, etc. Absolutely none. On the other hand, do you think that the lives of the people who are getting IT jobs in India are worse off because of it? I doubt it.
They don't take the jobs that we wouldn't because they aren't smart enough to know better. They take them because any job is an improvement, and what might seem like no money to us is worth a lot more to them.
"Nice spin. One has to have read Orwell's 'Dictionary' for this one. The fact, of course, is that IT jobs increased because there was more IT to go around. Her causality is (intentionally) skewed."
So you're saying that is BS but you don't give any evidence. In fact, your whole rebuttal ignores the basic point of the article, which is that if companies had to pay for IT at the prices it would be at if all of the labor were done in the US, they wouldn't have done it. The reason that there was more IT to go around was because it was becoming more cost efficient, in large part because of out-sourcing.
So no, that is not enough of a rebuttal, since you don't address the point of the article.
Tarriffs as an economic strategy are crap. If you try and save a non-competitive industry by way of tarriffs, you end up hurting everyone, to protect a segment of the economy that would find ways to adjust if it wasn't propped up. It comes down to a small segment of society bitching loud enough to politicians to get them to screw over everyone else, since the general population doesn't notice most of the time anyway. Tarriffs add nothing to the U.S. economy.
Take the tarriff on the steel indstry. It saves a dying industry, so that the workers do not need to try and find other jobs. But it makes cars more expensive, and hence makes domestic made automobiles less competitive, as well as forcing consumers to throw away extra money giving it to an industry which isn't able to produce enough value to cover it's cost.
People need to learn that having to change and adapt in order to survive is a fact of life.
Did you RTFA? In the period when hardware was becoming outsourced more programming jobs with an average salary of $64,000 decreased, but architecting/design jobs with an average slaray of $76,000 or some such increased by a much larger number.
God, of all the people who are posting knee jerk, "the sky is falling, outsourcing is the greatest evil known to man", have ANY of you actually read the article? Because I haven't read a rebuttal which has any substance to it yet.
I'm beginning to wonder if you're even capable of understanding the words you type, based on your claim that that's not implied.
And my comment does not prove anything related to your point, because what is not true, can not be proven. Human nature is a very real concept. Is it a very broad concept? Yes. But so are about a billion other concepts all of which are perfectly real.
I understood it perfectly well. And the fact that you put it into two paragraphs doesn't make it any less stupid.
Clearer, not really since you basically just elaborated on things it was easy to get out of your original post. Less stupid, no. Your whole first paragraph boils down to "You can't learn anything about the world from history." If you honestly believe that, then I'm surprised you're smart enough to have learned how to use words.
Your second paragraph is equally idiotic. Economic textbooks don't talk about how the economy is controlled by human nature, because it should be fucking assumed. The economy is not something that exists outside of humans. It is the way things work when a collection of humans interact to trade. Why do they trade, to meet their basic needs, improve their situation, get a new toy. That is human nature. Honestly, I think most people are kidding themselves if they think it is not human nature to try and exploit other people.
You see, "human nature" doesn't explain anything. It's not even a real concept. And that was what it was all about, in the end.
This almost makes me think your post is a troll, because even the biggest idiots trying sound educated would have a hard time coming up with something like that.
Speaking of there not being a stupid moderation.. Your comment easily ranks among the stupidest comments I have ever read on slashdot, and I've read a lot of stupid comments.
You provide no reasoning. Is your intended reasoning that Nike wouldn't succede because human nature would prevent people from buying their products because of their business practices? I suppose that would be an accurate statement, assuming you conclusion was correct.
Apart from the fact that your argument is circular, your conclusion is ludicrous. How could human nature not control the economy or how could it not be one of the largest deciding factors in human history? What does control these things then? Divine intervention? A great monkey overlord secretly controlling all of us? The illuminati?
Posts like this make me wish someone would pass a law limiting who is allowed to state their opinion.
It hasn't been two weeks yet, give me a break. People complain about companies who don't release Linux ports, then when someone does and it's just a little bit late, you get posts acting like id is screwing Linux users. I strongly suspect id isn't going to be making any money creating a Linux port, so you should respect the fact that they're doing what amounts to a favor for the Linux community.
Brilliant point. Why on earth wouldn't someone invent a way for you to leave voice messages for someone so they can get them with their phone? I should apply for a patent on that idea.
If it's put into the public domain, what's stopping them from putting their own license on it? They can't stop people from distributing the version ibm released into the public domain, but they can license their new code however they want, if I'm not mistaken.
The blog also has a mention of august 24th.. the same date the count down is goign to, so my guess is that august 24th something significant and halo related will happen, if not release.
Oh, my god, now I see the folly of my ways, not whole heartedly embracing everything RMS stands. THanks for this example of XMB and explaining why corporations are bad! Oh wait, no, shut up, the original example is stupid and your point is stupid.
The example given is an example of someone threatening legal action even though they have no case. Oh wait, a minute, someone can do the same thing to a GPL program and the open source coders who hate corporations and hence have no money will not be able to do anything about it.
But I guess they'll still have their principles, and that's what matters, right? Well that and not being a dumbass.
1. Any company who can get $100 profit from 1 spam email is going to make somenoe the richest person in the world. Or even $100 profit for 1000 spam emails is quite doubtful.
2. It's pretty hard to prove you didn't do something. It's much easier to prove you did do something. So if it's so easy to detect spam by looking at the books we should have no problem catching spammers by looking at companies who hire them, but that's not the case.
3. Sure, that applies to me, but what about when an ISP blocks a spammer's email then as retaliation the spammer sends out spam email advertising that ISP?
Your system offers no value over the proposed system and makes it more complicated. If you don't see why that is true, you don't understand the project. What you claim are advantages of your idea are alerady true of this one.
Hey, I have a great idea. Let's use your idea of finnig people whose products are advertised in spam. Then, when a business pisses me off all I have to do is send out a bunch of spam advertising their products.
Slashdot Mirror
Not to get into the debate over whether or not the game is a good thing or not, but I believe you are mistaken about a factual point. The game is intended to show that it was entirely possible for Kennedy to be killed by a single gunman.
Has it occurred to anyone else that Microsoft quite likely owns enough licenses for this application, but the developer who needed it for Media Player knew he could get his work done faster by using an invalid license than going through the corporate bureaucracy.
Are you sure that you didn't mean sarcasticism?
32 MB is apparently enough to play any PS2 game ever made, so I'm guessing that yes, it is enough to store a 3d executable, 3d data, and sound and music.
I believe I read in a preview a few months ago that there will in fact be Porsche and Ferrari cars in the game. It was a while ago though so my memory could be a little bit fuzzy.
Yes. I sent mine in a few months ago, at no cost. I was one of the people standing outside Best Buy waiting to get one the day they were released, so the warranty was long passed.
Get the fuck over yourself. Software engineers are not that special.
But then again, ignoring reality in favor of pretending statements like that OSS is the solution to all problems, that Windows is the worst piece of software ever written, and that all corporations are huge evil entities out to get us, has never been a problem on slashdot, has it?
If we did keep industries around to protect people who had spent a lot of years in them from losing their job, we would still have a fucking buggy whip industry. It doesn't matter if the reason is because the product isn't needed anymore or there are cheaper products coming from other countries. It's a drain on the economy, and it will just lead to people losing jobs in other industry.
Do you think the people who lost their jobs in Flint, MI when the plant that made Buicks up there closed were any better off? No? Well, the steel tarrifs fuck over the auto industry. Why protect one segment of the population when the net cost to everyone else is even greater?
They don't take the jobs that we wouldn't because they aren't smart enough to know better. They take them because any job is an improvement, and what might seem like no money to us is worth a lot more to them.
So you're saying that is BS but you don't give any evidence. In fact, your whole rebuttal ignores the basic point of the article, which is that if companies had to pay for IT at the prices it would be at if all of the labor were done in the US, they wouldn't have done it. The reason that there was more IT to go around was because it was becoming more cost efficient, in large part because of out-sourcing.
So no, that is not enough of a rebuttal, since you don't address the point of the article.
Take the tarriff on the steel indstry. It saves a dying industry, so that the workers do not need to try and find other jobs. But it makes cars more expensive, and hence makes domestic made automobiles less competitive, as well as forcing consumers to throw away extra money giving it to an industry which isn't able to produce enough value to cover it's cost.
People need to learn that having to change and adapt in order to survive is a fact of life.
God, of all the people who are posting knee jerk, "the sky is falling, outsourcing is the greatest evil known to man", have ANY of you actually read the article? Because I haven't read a rebuttal which has any substance to it yet.
Do you have anything more to add to the discussion than "Nuh uh"?
And my comment does not prove anything related to your point, because what is not true, can not be proven. Human nature is a very real concept. Is it a very broad concept? Yes. But so are about a billion other concepts all of which are perfectly real.
Clearer, not really since you basically just elaborated on things it was easy to get out of your original post. Less stupid, no. Your whole first paragraph boils down to "You can't learn anything about the world from history." If you honestly believe that, then I'm surprised you're smart enough to have learned how to use words.
Your second paragraph is equally idiotic. Economic textbooks don't talk about how the economy is controlled by human nature, because it should be fucking assumed. The economy is not something that exists outside of humans. It is the way things work when a collection of humans interact to trade. Why do they trade, to meet their basic needs, improve their situation, get a new toy. That is human nature. Honestly, I think most people are kidding themselves if they think it is not human nature to try and exploit other people.
You see, "human nature" doesn't explain anything. It's not even a real concept. And that was what it was all about, in the end.
This almost makes me think your post is a troll, because even the biggest idiots trying sound educated would have a hard time coming up with something like that.
Speaking of there not being a stupid moderation.. Your comment easily ranks among the stupidest comments I have ever read on slashdot, and I've read a lot of stupid comments. You provide no reasoning. Is your intended reasoning that Nike wouldn't succede because human nature would prevent people from buying their products because of their business practices? I suppose that would be an accurate statement, assuming you conclusion was correct. Apart from the fact that your argument is circular, your conclusion is ludicrous. How could human nature not control the economy or how could it not be one of the largest deciding factors in human history? What does control these things then? Divine intervention? A great monkey overlord secretly controlling all of us? The illuminati? Posts like this make me wish someone would pass a law limiting who is allowed to state their opinion.
It hasn't been two weeks yet, give me a break. People complain about companies who don't release Linux ports, then when someone does and it's just a little bit late, you get posts acting like id is screwing Linux users. I strongly suspect id isn't going to be making any money creating a Linux port, so you should respect the fact that they're doing what amounts to a favor for the Linux community.
Brilliant point. Why on earth wouldn't someone invent a way for you to leave voice messages for someone so they can get them with their phone? I should apply for a patent on that idea.
If it's put into the public domain, what's stopping them from putting their own license on it? They can't stop people from distributing the version ibm released into the public domain, but they can license their new code however they want, if I'm not mistaken.
The blog also has a mention of august 24th.. the same date the count down is goign to, so my guess is that august 24th something significant and halo related will happen, if not release.
Oh, my god, now I see the folly of my ways, not whole heartedly embracing everything RMS stands. THanks for this example of XMB and explaining why corporations are bad! Oh wait, no, shut up, the original example is stupid and your point is stupid. The example given is an example of someone threatening legal action even though they have no case. Oh wait, a minute, someone can do the same thing to a GPL program and the open source coders who hate corporations and hence have no money will not be able to do anything about it. But I guess they'll still have their principles, and that's what matters, right? Well that and not being a dumbass.
1. Any company who can get $100 profit from 1 spam email is going to make somenoe the richest person in the world. Or even $100 profit for 1000 spam emails is quite doubtful. 2. It's pretty hard to prove you didn't do something. It's much easier to prove you did do something. So if it's so easy to detect spam by looking at the books we should have no problem catching spammers by looking at companies who hire them, but that's not the case. 3. Sure, that applies to me, but what about when an ISP blocks a spammer's email then as retaliation the spammer sends out spam email advertising that ISP?
Your system offers no value over the proposed system and makes it more complicated. If you don't see why that is true, you don't understand the project. What you claim are advantages of your idea are alerady true of this one.
Hey, I have a great idea. Let's use your idea of finnig people whose products are advertised in spam. Then, when a business pisses me off all I have to do is send out a bunch of spam advertising their products.