And are the translations only for free games? No? Then he's more right than you. Sorry, but promotional freebies (or Freemium games, such as TF2) don't make Valve magically a charity.
Commenters also still own their own comments. If Slashdot was asserting copyright over them, rather than providing a place for user-owned comments/stories, it might be different.
We expect for-profit companies to pay for work. That's been a constant since, well, at least the 19th century, and it's not a bad thing.
And, for fuck's sake, I'm tired of this "they'll have to distribute costs to the consumers" bullshit. Costs can also come out of other parts of the operating budget, out of the initial profits from expanded sales - a company expanding its market into new areas doesn't necessarily have to be funded by a price-hike, and in many cases, shouldn't - like when a retailer largely competes on price. Which Valve most assuredly does.
Free fan translation that doesn't directly benefit (and isn't directly at the behest of) the corporation in question is pretty different than a company actively seeking and encouraging free translations and profiting from them.
Also, not everyone benefits (in a legal sense), and, given the much, much weaker quality control of most (not all, but most) free translations by amateurs, it's not a clear win in non-financial terms 100% of the time.
Read the first paragraph. http://www.dol.gov/elaws/esa/flsa/docs/volunteers.asp
Employees includes anyone doing work that is not specifically excluded. Only listed exclusions are religious, non-profit, and public agencies.
Read the first paragraph. It clearly defines conditions under which people doing work are not considered employees - namely, people working for a religious, non-profit, or public institution.
Generic encouragement != specific request? Also, slashdot posts and comments are legally "worthless," as Slashdot's actual revenue is from Ad providers, not from selling the contributor's comments. If I remember correctly, also, Slashdot doesn't own your comments - they host them, but copyright and attribution remain property of the users.
Because they use volunteer labor to replace paid labor. Among other things, this tends to reduce the ability to the less wealthy to get jobs in that industry, regardless of talent. This is happening to a large extent in the publishing industry, with unpaid internships eating much of what used to be entry level positions.
Free labor has consequences. Free labor for profit-seeking corporations is, at best, wrong-headed, and at worst, actively harmful to the economy by means of taking jobs out of the market.
People sue the government all the goddamn time. They sometimes win, sometimes lose, on the merits of their cases and whatever other individual factors contribute to the individual actions.
What airline isn't going to want to take on an additional, non-income problem domain, which is universally publicly hated, NEVER historically a profitable area of service, and which belongs historically and logically to airport staff (pre-TSA) already? Pick one - none of them will want the hassle. There's zero appeal for an airline in being the one to run the security, and there's basically zero chance of the airport failing to handle physical security, given that the physical plant belongs to DURR-HOY the airport.
Seriously, how does your magical airline-run security handle the fact that different terminals handle multiple airlines, but security is (and must remain, due to huge amounts of existing physical infrastructure) handled at the entrance to terminals in most major airports?
Examples? Maybe I have just lucked out, but none of the printers I've bought (or even looked at purchasing) in the last 10 or 12 years have lacked PostScript support, and I've bought low-end, consumer-grade printers.
Because Fluxbox is a pain in the ass to configure, doesn't match some people's UI habits or preferences, and has less functionality built in.
I say these things as a fan of Fluxbox - people have different levels of preference on the "features vs. leanness" tradeoff. Hell, I have different preferences at different times, depending on what resources are available, what activities I plan to engage in, and what mood I'm in.
You've hijacked a discussion of unemployment benefits, which BY DEFINITION are temporary aid for people working at jobs which qualify for unemployment, and turned it into a screed on how poor people are financially incompetent.
So, I'm curious. Why do you assume that because I hold a different opinion from you, I haven't researched it or lived it? You know nothing about me. But I'm curious - exactly where is your huge experiential background in "Poor People Studies" coming from? Do you do huge amounts of outreach in poverty-stricken areas, all the while castigating everyone about how stupid they are about money? Do you live in a poor section of town, and routinely play poker with a group of homeless people? What's this magical daily contact with poor people in which you understand their innermost financial souls? Were you poor, at some point, and thus by definition "financially illiterate?"
Or are you talking out of your ass about something you only ever encounter tangentially or in abstract?
Also, I urge you to go to middle and upper class people, and talk to them. Ask them about their financial decisions - find out about the times they made bad financial decisions, but weren't hurt by them, because they had the starting capital to soak the damage.
Data on which point? I haven't found a study covering motivations and uses of specifically payday loans, but, again, nothing in the article you put up suggests that the motivation behind taking on the debt is different in kind from the motivations for taking on other debt. You're the one making a radical claim - that there's never been a case where medical necessity was the impetus for a payday loan - it's on you to back it up. I'm raising a possibility, backed by similar cases, but not by direct evidence, because, to the best of my knowledge, there isn't direct information, because payday loans are a much less common method of accruing debt than credit cards.
If you have a problem with my statement that credit card debt is largely made up of necessities, rather than frivolous items, I can point you to a number of sources. Or you can do your own research - it's pretty well established, and easily found with a cursory Google.
Frankly, I feel that this is a red herring. You've side-tracked the discussion into minutiae regarding one hypothetical and one type of loan, when the original point stands on its own - debt and other financial problems aren't solely matters of "financial I.Q." They never have been, and never will be. While financial smarts are a factor in economic position, they aren't the only factor, and often aren't the primary deciding factor.
The thing I find most interesting is his discussion of relative speed, and what that does to the feel of the game. The Doom guy runs 50 scale miles per hour!
Another example of a similar problem - I know a number of people with dangerous health conditions, who, unable to afford coverage, waited until the problem became critical enough to require emergency care, and thus racked up huge medical debt. It's actually very common, particularly in states with worse than usual health care regulation (Arizona and Florida top the list, I believe).
Slashdot Mirror
And are the translations only for free games? No? Then he's more right than you. Sorry, but promotional freebies (or Freemium games, such as TF2) don't make Valve magically a charity.
Commenters also still own their own comments. If Slashdot was asserting copyright over them, rather than providing a place for user-owned comments/stories, it might be different.
We expect for-profit companies to pay for work. That's been a constant since, well, at least the 19th century, and it's not a bad thing.
And, for fuck's sake, I'm tired of this "they'll have to distribute costs to the consumers" bullshit. Costs can also come out of other parts of the operating budget, out of the initial profits from expanded sales - a company expanding its market into new areas doesn't necessarily have to be funded by a price-hike, and in many cases, shouldn't - like when a retailer largely competes on price. Which Valve most assuredly does.
Free fan translation that doesn't directly benefit (and isn't directly at the behest of) the corporation in question is pretty different than a company actively seeking and encouraging free translations and profiting from them.
Also, not everyone benefits (in a legal sense), and, given the much, much weaker quality control of most (not all, but most) free translations by amateurs, it's not a clear win in non-financial terms 100% of the time.
Read the first paragraph. http://www.dol.gov/elaws/esa/flsa/docs/volunteers.asp Employees includes anyone doing work that is not specifically excluded. Only listed exclusions are religious, non-profit, and public agencies.
Read the first paragraph. It clearly defines conditions under which people doing work are not considered employees - namely, people working for a religious, non-profit, or public institution.
Generic encouragement != specific request? Also, slashdot posts and comments are legally "worthless," as Slashdot's actual revenue is from Ad providers, not from selling the contributor's comments. If I remember correctly, also, Slashdot doesn't own your comments - they host them, but copyright and attribution remain property of the users.
Because they use volunteer labor to replace paid labor. Among other things, this tends to reduce the ability to the less wealthy to get jobs in that industry, regardless of talent. This is happening to a large extent in the publishing industry, with unpaid internships eating much of what used to be entry level positions. Free labor has consequences. Free labor for profit-seeking corporations is, at best, wrong-headed, and at worst, actively harmful to the economy by means of taking jobs out of the market.
Actually, if he accidentally breaks them, and then fails to pay for them in accordance with the wishes of the proprietor....
You see where this is going, I take it.
People sue the government all the goddamn time. They sometimes win, sometimes lose, on the merits of their cases and whatever other individual factors contribute to the individual actions.
What airline isn't going to want to take on an additional, non-income problem domain, which is universally publicly hated, NEVER historically a profitable area of service, and which belongs historically and logically to airport staff (pre-TSA) already? Pick one - none of them will want the hassle. There's zero appeal for an airline in being the one to run the security, and there's basically zero chance of the airport failing to handle physical security, given that the physical plant belongs to DURR-HOY the airport.
Seriously, how does your magical airline-run security handle the fact that different terminals handle multiple airlines, but security is (and must remain, due to huge amounts of existing physical infrastructure) handled at the entrance to terminals in most major airports?
I agree with every word here except "I think" and "partially."
Except that security isn't on a "by airline" basis, genius. And they still, by all accounts, won't be. Good job!
Yes, but the additional sunshine does mean that everything involvedis wonderful.
It has the Lesley Gore seal of approval!
I've got to say, it's a little sad that three people total seem to have gotten the joke.
Huh. Well I'll be damned.
Examples? Maybe I have just lucked out, but none of the printers I've bought (or even looked at purchasing) in the last 10 or 12 years have lacked PostScript support, and I've bought low-end, consumer-grade printers.
I don't know offhand - go on back to 1995 and ask someone? ;-)
Because Fluxbox is a pain in the ass to configure, doesn't match some people's UI habits or preferences, and has less functionality built in.
I say these things as a fan of Fluxbox - people have different levels of preference on the "features vs. leanness" tradeoff. Hell, I have different preferences at different times, depending on what resources are available, what activities I plan to engage in, and what mood I'm in.
Also, so it's chronic poverty now?
You've hijacked a discussion of unemployment benefits, which BY DEFINITION are temporary aid for people working at jobs which qualify for unemployment, and turned it into a screed on how poor people are financially incompetent.
So, I'm curious. Why do you assume that because I hold a different opinion from you, I haven't researched it or lived it? You know nothing about me. But I'm curious - exactly where is your huge experiential background in "Poor People Studies" coming from? Do you do huge amounts of outreach in poverty-stricken areas, all the while castigating everyone about how stupid they are about money? Do you live in a poor section of town, and routinely play poker with a group of homeless people? What's this magical daily contact with poor people in which you understand their innermost financial souls? Were you poor, at some point, and thus by definition "financially illiterate?"
Or are you talking out of your ass about something you only ever encounter tangentially or in abstract?
Also, I urge you to go to middle and upper class people, and talk to them. Ask them about their financial decisions - find out about the times they made bad financial decisions, but weren't hurt by them, because they had the starting capital to soak the damage.
Data on which point? I haven't found a study covering motivations and uses of specifically payday loans, but, again, nothing in the article you put up suggests that the motivation behind taking on the debt is different in kind from the motivations for taking on other debt. You're the one making a radical claim - that there's never been a case where medical necessity was the impetus for a payday loan - it's on you to back it up. I'm raising a possibility, backed by similar cases, but not by direct evidence, because, to the best of my knowledge, there isn't direct information, because payday loans are a much less common method of accruing debt than credit cards.
If you have a problem with my statement that credit card debt is largely made up of necessities, rather than frivolous items, I can point you to a number of sources. Or you can do your own research - it's pretty well established, and easily found with a cursory Google.
Frankly, I feel that this is a red herring. You've side-tracked the discussion into minutiae regarding one hypothetical and one type of loan, when the original point stands on its own - debt and other financial problems aren't solely matters of "financial I.Q." They never have been, and never will be. While financial smarts are a factor in economic position, they aren't the only factor, and often aren't the primary deciding factor.
There's an interesting article on FPS design, using Doom as the canonical example. http://vectorpoem.com/news/?p=74
The thing I find most interesting is his discussion of relative speed, and what that does to the feel of the game. The Doom guy runs 50 scale miles per hour!
I think I've never been made happier by an anonymous coward. God bless you, crazy-ass rasta supervillain. God bless.
Another example of a similar problem - I know a number of people with dangerous health conditions, who, unable to afford coverage, waited until the problem became critical enough to require emergency care, and thus racked up huge medical debt. It's actually very common, particularly in states with worse than usual health care regulation (Arizona and Florida top the list, I believe).