TAR for compression? I woulda thought you were trolling if you didn't have LHA up there. Too bad you're anonymous, you'll never get to find out how unqualified you are for participating in this discussion.
Re-read the writeup. Its pretty clear that it was a wrongful arrest, and that the charges didn't (or at the least, were not going to) stick. As for consent: I disagree, although its more an issue of whether you think that forcing their hand to get a warrant is more likely to cause them to want to stick you with something you didn't do. I have a hard time believing that wrongful convictions are not sometimes the result in non-cooperative suspects. If they had a warrant, you have no choice, but in your scenario, you're still just as likely to win the 'wrong place, wrong time' lottery since presumably the reason for wrongful arrest and possibly conviction was not known to you to begin with.
Why don't we reward the teachers that do go above and beyond? Companies give raises to their top performers every year.
If you can say that without squirting milk though your nose, I envy your naiveté. Grow up. Especially with the 'unions are inherently evil' comment at the end. The world is not a meritocracy, nor is it an anti-meritocracy. How are you going to fix this? Magically convince all the 'best' teachers that 'unions are evil'? Your post is like a 3 page math proof where all the axioms are anything but. Your proof revolves around a math teacher you used to have. If that isn't a LOL, I don't know what is.
His favourite colour, lest your were curious is, "While many of us agree with your assertion than the term 'unreleased' is often a misnomer due to the general lack of marketing appeal, you're a pompus nimrod."
Nevermind the legal mumbo jumbo; if you knew you were innocent, why wouldn't you comply? If you were a judge looking at this, I think you'd have a hard time not thinking the accused was doing everything he possibly could to comply and not waste taxpayer dollars. Willingness to co-operate is a massive shortcut in the world of conflict resolution. If its a truely volountary act on the defence side, I cannot see how that wouldn't score points in judgement if it ultimately ends up in court. If the hard drive checks out, then the RIAA has even less reasons to believe that they can waste public money. Rights should not be flaunted, they should be used when you need them. In this case, since the RIAA would have to pick up the tab given lack of probable cause, whats the harm in giving them the non-smoking smoking gun? I would imagine it would just mitigate everyone wasting their time.
What kind of person argues for the existance of copyright, a government granted legal monopoly (whose existence I support, but whos terms and legal strengths of protection are at the crux of our disagreement here,) with a free-market hand-job? Not to be outdone, you then goes on to cite a company that has been found, by the very same body who enforces copyright, to have violated compeition laws, thereby hindering the forces that need to be at work in order to sustain a healthy free market?
The fact that you're arguing as if I'm against copyright (which is clearly not the case in my original post,) rather than questioning what kinds of legal techniques a copyright holder can use to protect his invement in the creation of his work, speaks volumes. You're blindly striking out against some strawman while the rest of us rational folks are standing aside discussing the nuts and bolts of a system you're too fanatical about to discuss unemotionally.
But those guys usually don't go on to do great things.
Congress didn't decide. Copyright law is over 400 years old. I suggest that you look into the history of it, as well as learn the concept of the 'general will'.
I'm not sure if you have a CS degree, but there is a reason that engineers must do social science courses to earn their degree. Its so they learn not only how to do what they're doing, but why. You lack so much perspective that you place the individuals right to earn money at any cost above all other social considerations; you're historically wrong, legally wrong, and technically wrong.
In any case Congress has already decreed that creators have rights above and beyond those who are merely users, and that of course is the right to profit from their creations.
That statement is moot unless we talk about for how long creators have had that right, what legal protections they have, and what the role of the law is with respect to the advancement of society, technology, and culture. Tell me what those rights are. Tell me in the details. Tell me what those rights were 300 years ago, and tell me what they are now, and tell me how they've changed, and tell me why they've changed, and tell me why those laws were enacted in the first place in the Statute of Anne in 1710. Congress writes the laws because people vote them in there. The laws exist for a social reason, not because its codified in the laws of thermodynamics since the big bang. If you don't understand what the laws are, and why they exist, and why they change, then you've got pretty much zero ability to back up an argument because you don't understand the reason those laws exist.
You're forgetting that its a performance measurethat is also important for motivating repeat business. In this case, selling the 'drive' once is not exacly a sustainable success.
I guarantee, the cost of this public relations snafu is gonna be way more than that.
I hate to burst your bubble, but email me in 6 months with the "I told you so" if you're right. This is the cost of doing business, and whatever flak they take from this will pale in comparison to financially ruining people who didn't even violate the law in the first place months ago. And those actions are taken under the "cost of doing business" reasoning to begin with. This is a really nit-picky kind of story if you're trying to make a case against the absurdity of copyright law and how the RIAA and the MPAA are running amok.
I was ready to flame but have ultimately decided that its the same thing. Culture sees it as a minor violation because the current legal definition of copyright is unenforcable. Its a minor problem precisely because going after every violater leads to two conclusions: its rights granted by current copyright law are too strong, and most people know somebody that should be locked up for violating it.
Its pretty much the same thing. My original post was more about saying that if, as an individual, you don't violate it, you might as well suggest that it'd be okay if wearing green coloured shirts were illegal because you don't own any green shirts. The fact is that peopel violate copyright law all the time, and if we had some magical transporter that put all these folks into jail right this minute, society would cease to function.
would be quite a nice near zero cost competitor for Windows.
I hate windows as much as the next/. user, but zero cost is rediculous. That would take a vast amount of work, and from my end, most of the value of beOS is in the internals, not the UI. What exactly would you gain if you just took the windowing layer of beOS? Not very much.
the donation of the Lotus office products suite
Donation of Lotus? Do people 'donate' gonorrhea? Lotus notes should die and burn in hell. It would take me about 3 months to replace what Lotus does for our organization in PHP, were I in information services rather than being an actual programmer, and it would cost us 3 months of my salary and not a dime more. Lotus should be killed, over and over and over again.
Sorry for the attacks. beOS was awesome, in my books, and I wish it didnt join the massive list of decent OSes that have bitten the dust just because governments can't afford to piss off the supplier of their IT infrastructure, and companies can't afford to convince users to experience some short term pain for long term free market gain.
IBM (and MS, for crying out loud) was behind OS2, and operating system I saw quite regularly running cell phone switch centers only 4 or 5 years ago, and they got slaughtered in the desktop market for reasons which have absolutely nothing to do with technological advantages. I can't imagine that if Linux got beOSs tits and ass, but none of the brains, that it would have any significant imprint on the OS world. Linux doesn't need a beOS windowing toolkit (if you like the graphics, just download the appropriate theme for your window manager), Linux needs a social or economic angle that makes individuals willing to feel the pain for the gain.
Thats pretty much the state of the industry right now, and I totally agree with you.
I played through Ico last year, and thats exactly the sort of game that makes you want to smash your head on your desk when convention-seeking game designers equate the number of enemies on screen with the awesomeness of the game.
Thats not the issue really. The issue is that strict copyright law is basically unenforcable. This isn't 10 rich guys and 30 lawers going, "Muwhahaha", this is some web team figuring that they're no different from the thousands of other coders like us that break the occasional license unbeknownst to our bosses.
If anything, this is like the futility to pointing out that MPAA or RIAA heads' family members pirate content. At the end of the day, what are people against the copyright lobby fighting for? Some say downright incorrect prosecution, which obviously happens, but underneath it all, its the result of a lack leniancy and less strict laws. The only reason that breaking a "Linkware" license is news is because of it highlites that copyright laws are, in the end, only selectively enforced, not because of some organizational hypocricy. The hypocricy basically is unintentional, and to me, thats really what the problem is. Its not some blatent flogging, its just the old adage of the impractibility of ensuring that those around you practise what you preach. Getting onto that soapbox and being adamant about how you live your life is in no way an argument against an organzation that is hypocritical for the very reason that it is not one single person but a large organization of people. Its like some company saying that j-walking in all cases, always, everytime, hurts their bottom line; it'd take you less than 10 minutes if you had full access to everyone at a company to spot apparent hypocricy, but that wouldn't be the time to point out, "Hey, *I* don't j-walk." Its not revelent, because at some point, the eagerness of enforcement is more relevant than the actual law.
You got me there. But I do work at said company that developed it, so I'm not throwing out numbers here, I'm just miscommunicating them despite it being obvious what I meant.
Advertising isn't wrong, its what you advertise, the deals you make, the concessions you make, and what you give up.
Before somebody hits me with the predicable Bill Hicks quote, everyone uses google, and they have advertising. They've just chosen to keep it more tasteful and less intrusive than others. The problem with the amount of specialization in our society is that people are hired because they have a really really really good hammer. The challenge is keeping people in an organzation from making decisions when every looks like a nail to them. So, you hire people who view their jobs and kills and imporant, but not the answer.
That is the ideal marketing employee. He/she knows his/her role, and he knows when being successful at it interferes with the bigger picture. Your job shouldn't be a church, it should be one of the positions on a baseball team. I have not a shred of a problem with wikipedia advertising; I have a problem when they have an employee who views that the service that wikipedia provides is less important than making money to keep it afloat. Anything less is saying you'd rather drink the bathwater than raise the baby.
Happy-Feet, the Ps2 game had over 1,000,000 million pre-orders, before it was released; the game rated below 5.0 on both IGN and gamespot, and didn't cost that much to make (I'm not at liberty to discuss numbers.)
Do the math. Sure, there is cross-over, but there is overwhelming evidence that if you're in the market for money alone, you should be chasing WB licenses, not hardcore gamers.
How would you propose handling these situations, exactly.
By investigating the bomb threat, of course.
Are you under the assumption that charging two lackeys for a marketing campaign that failed to alarm anyone else in many other major cities over 3 weeks time constitutes 'taking a bomb threat seriously'?
Taking it seriously involves checking to see if its a bomb, not turning your correct "Take a bomb threat seriously," mandate into a public lynching. We're talking about ruining two lives potentially because you didn't ignore a bomb threat. Turn it around; should every person who is responsible for the object(s) subject of a bomb threat be put in jail?
I assume justice will work itself out, but my conclusion of the aftermath is just tourist advertising for the simple minded for Chicago at the cost of dragging two simpletons through the mud. I don't think thats fair.
The difference is, in the private sector, the inefficient and stupid are weeded out (except for where overreaching employment laws prevent hte market from working).
Actually, just as in the private sector, the inefficient and stupid are kept afloat by those who work hard. You speak as if an employee is an island, judged soley upon his or her proficiency or ability as opposed to those who make up for them. This just isn't true. Jesus, you even hedge your "I'm meeting you halfway" cedation with a slam on employment laws.
I worked for a publicly listed company that employed the inept person I have ever met. In my life. He was 40. With 15 years experience. I have met 12 year olds who were more proficient at his profession than him. He made 90 grand a year. He had no degree. We were publicly listed. He didn't speak english very well. He was also a good friend, but I in no way felt he was fit for his job, nevermind deserving of a 90 grand salary. Reudctionist logic says, "Well, he should have been fired." Why wasn't he? The manager above him, in his own words to me, told me he didn't want to make himself look bad by admitting that after employing him for 7 years, that he was useless. The company? Happily chugging along, profitable, publicly listed. I repeat. Making money, maintaing shareholder confidence. And they have a few others, tho not as bad, working there as well. I left, because it was pretty demoralizing. This company is still making money. It is profitable. The market approves, because a few make it work, not because their a lean, mean, innovation machine. No laws, no regulation. Just good old fashioned retardation within one of the many companies I've worked at where the few carry along the many. So what is the flaw of those companies.. they havn't taken over the universe yet?
I don't go around saying that the private market is god, and governments suck. With all due respect, individual public sector workers are hired and fired for pretty much most of the same reasons and under teh same pressures that private workers are. If you enjoy the freedom to let go to 2000 workers not because they're inept, but because you need to remain profitable, its because you make cars or golf balls, cold medicines or television shows; you're not providing law enforcement, the stability of the judicial system, urban planning, drinkable water, drivable roads, trade laws, There's no competition, there's a federal employees union that makes the teamsters blush, and there's an institutional opposition to firing that simply doesn't exist in the public sector (see this).
I assume you meant "exist in the private sector". All I could gather from that article is that geez, its hard to fire people. Yes; yes it is, and it should be. Firing somebody has implications not only on the person you fire, but those who've worked with him; his family, who ironically, may be comprised of people you may ultimately find would have been valuable additions. Plus, generally, you'd want to replace them. That costs money too. And theres no garauntee you'll end up with somebody who isn't worse. Christ, we're talking about humans here, not D&D characters with easily ledgible character sheets. That guy who made 90 grand who was useless? I dont begrudge him. I have no issue with the private sector. It works in harmony with the public sector. They both co-exist to make the world a better place. I dont trust the government - to make good toothpaste. I don't trust the private sector - to spend the next 10 years figuring out what the best kind of cement compound is for buildings at a financial loss.
As managers contemplate firing an employee, they face disincentives that can make the task seem impossible, or can eclipse its benefits. These may include time constraints, confusion about the process, lack of support from superiors, the possibility of an appeal or complaint, burdensome agency policies, uncertainty about whether the resulting vacancy will be filled, unpleasant emotional confrontati
Government employees are the lowest common denominator in the best case
Look, I'm no champion of socialism or whatever, but that is so incredibly reductionist, that it harbours on stupidity. I dont know if you have friends who work for government, but my experience is that inefficient stupidity, let alone absolute financial failure is by no means the domain of the public sector. The difference between the public and private sector is really not as big as you think. Still, given the past 500 years of history in which we include the social will of society into the big picture, and the thousands of years before that, I think that painting such a broad brush over the government employee is exactly the kind of low standard setting bullshit that inspired the quote, "The people get the government they deserve."
I'm constantly amazed at the bashing that government employees get, as if, somehow, history has proven there is a better way of providing safety for private property and an environment under which capitalist companies can thrive. It sounds a little hollow coming from the most economically and militarily dominant country in the world, you know what I mean? It sounds like, "Jeez, just imagine if we had the tiny government of Burma! MAN, would that be awesome, cause I swear, those that were left in government would be sworn to protect my private property.. you know, just like in Burma!"
You either have to believe in the superiority of your race or nationalism or whatever, because the overwhelming evidence is that a strong institutional system, even if its packed to the gills with the inefficiency and failure that the private sector is, contributes to the safety and wellbeing of the citizens in one of the most successful first world nations in recent history.
As for attacking Boston itself: why destroy your launch-pad to attack the rest of the US?
Fuck, why even bother attacking any more; do you honestly think that those that plan terrorist attacks are more interested in the body count than the scale of provokation and the ensuing international loss of credibility? Sure, the foot soldiers think the body count is important. Anyone who plans this kind of thing, those who do the logistics and provide the connections is just looking to make their enemy look silly, like the guy who goads a giant into a fight that is logically impossible to win. The 9/11 terrorists might as well have provoked America into the War on Sawdust. "Terrorism" is as old as history itself, and a great number of attacks that occurr these days have nothing to do with the US. If the US wants to win the "war on terror", they'd have to engage in so many conflicts, they'd have every citizen fighting abroad. What is unfortunate is that the attack was so incredibly front, center and brazen, it blinds people who even despite the attacks are reluctant to acknowledge the extent of violence on the planet today. It's like trying to win the war on snowballs by throwing snowballs.
If we took that attitude, next thing you know, you'd be getting shredded by a Hello Kitty full of C4 and nails.
I was never suspicious of a Hello Kitty doll, but now that I've chosen to be suspicious of it, I'm doing my part! In fact, cars explode on the streets of Iraq every day, so now I call 911 everytime I see a parked car. Yet, for some reason, I'm being blamed with clogging the system full of rhetoric and empty false alarms. I just don't get it. Cars explode way more often than Hello Kitty dolls, but my vigilent attitude is not being appreciated!
I love Americans, truely, but this is one particular case wher I am absolutely thrilled that I live in a country in which you can't score political points for making a mountain out of a mole hill. Its getting to the point where you can make yourself look good by selling creative, tangential, and obtuse terrorist threats rather than workmanlike every day global occurances that kill and maim dozens to hundreds of people at a time.
You really have to give the 9/11 atrocity commiters some credit. Crash a few planes, and inspire scenarios of exploding C4-laden Hello Kitty dolls. I mean what the fuck, even domestic bombers know that letters, pipes, and cars is really all you need to be successful. If you want to kill lots of people, creativity is the domain of comic books, not reality.
Cmon, that was a challenge. Okay, so we admit it was never on the back of the box, and of course, at one time, it was a feature, for those 'in the know'. Just like any advance in graphics technology or anything you could do with increased power from newer hardware. But why shouldn't that be a feature. Its now something you can do which, properly used, can increase the level of immersion and/or make the game look prettier.
I will launch into my own diatribes about amateur photoshop that abuse lens flare and emboss filters to produce posters for community plays. I think there is nothing wrong with those filters. They just can be abused. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
In that respect, its better to actually champion the use of a good lense flare rather than dismiss it outright. This thread resulted in a massive hate-down on bloom, but the greater point is, if a programmer or designer or texture artist or modeler can't do a lense flare or bloom simply because they think that in 5% of the games they see it in, it really sucks, they are doing themselves a professional diservice.
So to go back to your original post, maybe we can suggest that alphas were too high on lots of lens flares. Also, alot of games dont randomize the alpha and the scaling of the flare textures in order to properly simulate the real effect. Plus, a lot of texture makers don't get how to make it nice, so the flare sprites end up either not looking very realistic, or kick you in the face because they're just way too round and white.
Its all good tho; what are you interested in doing, in games?
Slashdot Mirror
TAR for compression? I woulda thought you were trolling if you didn't have LHA up there. Too bad you're anonymous, you'll never get to find out how unqualified you are for participating in this discussion.
Re-read the writeup. Its pretty clear that it was a wrongful arrest, and that the charges didn't (or at the least, were not going to) stick. As for consent: I disagree, although its more an issue of whether you think that forcing their hand to get a warrant is more likely to cause them to want to stick you with something you didn't do. I have a hard time believing that wrongful convictions are not sometimes the result in non-cooperative suspects. If they had a warrant, you have no choice, but in your scenario, you're still just as likely to win the 'wrong place, wrong time' lottery since presumably the reason for wrongful arrest and possibly conviction was not known to you to begin with.
Why don't we reward the teachers that do go above and beyond? Companies give raises to their top performers every year.
If you can say that without squirting milk though your nose, I envy your naiveté. Grow up. Especially with the 'unions are inherently evil' comment at the end. The world is not a meritocracy, nor is it an anti-meritocracy. How are you going to fix this? Magically convince all the 'best' teachers that 'unions are evil'? Your post is like a 3 page math proof where all the axioms are anything but. Your proof revolves around a math teacher you used to have. If that isn't a LOL, I don't know what is.
His favourite colour, lest your were curious is, "While many of us agree with your assertion than the term 'unreleased' is often a misnomer due to the general lack of marketing appeal, you're a pompus nimrod."
Yes, go ahead and write that on that neato space planet you live on.
Nevermind the legal mumbo jumbo; if you knew you were innocent, why wouldn't you comply? If you were a judge looking at this, I think you'd have a hard time not thinking the accused was doing everything he possibly could to comply and not waste taxpayer dollars. Willingness to co-operate is a massive shortcut in the world of conflict resolution. If its a truely volountary act on the defence side, I cannot see how that wouldn't score points in judgement if it ultimately ends up in court. If the hard drive checks out, then the RIAA has even less reasons to believe that they can waste public money. Rights should not be flaunted, they should be used when you need them. In this case, since the RIAA would have to pick up the tab given lack of probable cause, whats the harm in giving them the non-smoking smoking gun? I would imagine it would just mitigate everyone wasting their time.
Yeah, the real irony is that this is more your non-government employed neighbour propping up the oligarchy rather than "Teh Evil Government".
The private sector holds the influence, does the favours, and the government takes all the blame. Its the perfect oligarchy.
Just look at Vista and you'll see that Microsoft's overreliance on H1b labor and outsourcing has done the same thing to software.
I marvel at your skills of oversimplification.
What kind of person argues for the existance of copyright, a government granted legal monopoly (whose existence I support, but whos terms and legal strengths of protection are at the crux of our disagreement here,) with a free-market hand-job? Not to be outdone, you then goes on to cite a company that has been found, by the very same body who enforces copyright, to have violated compeition laws, thereby hindering the forces that need to be at work in order to sustain a healthy free market?
The fact that you're arguing as if I'm against copyright (which is clearly not the case in my original post,) rather than questioning what kinds of legal techniques a copyright holder can use to protect his invement in the creation of his work, speaks volumes. You're blindly striking out against some strawman while the rest of us rational folks are standing aside discussing the nuts and bolts of a system you're too fanatical about to discuss unemotionally.
But those guys usually don't go on to do great things.
Oh snap! Touche!
Congress didn't decide. Copyright law is over 400 years old. I suggest that you look into the history of it, as well as learn the concept of the 'general will'.
I'm not sure if you have a CS degree, but there is a reason that engineers must do social science courses to earn their degree. Its so they learn not only how to do what they're doing, but why. You lack so much perspective that you place the individuals right to earn money at any cost above all other social considerations; you're historically wrong, legally wrong, and technically wrong.
In any case Congress has already decreed that creators have rights above and beyond those who are merely users, and that of course is the right to profit from their creations.
That statement is moot unless we talk about for how long creators have had that right, what legal protections they have, and what the role of the law is with respect to the advancement of society, technology, and culture. Tell me what those rights are. Tell me in the details. Tell me what those rights were 300 years ago, and tell me what they are now, and tell me how they've changed, and tell me why they've changed, and tell me why those laws were enacted in the first place in the Statute of Anne in 1710. Congress writes the laws because people vote them in there. The laws exist for a social reason, not because its codified in the laws of thermodynamics since the big bang. If you don't understand what the laws are, and why they exist, and why they change, then you've got pretty much zero ability to back up an argument because you don't understand the reason those laws exist.
You seem totally lost, bro.
You're forgetting that its a performance measurethat is also important for motivating repeat business. In this case, selling the 'drive' once is not exacly a sustainable success.
I guarantee, the cost of this public relations snafu is gonna be way more than that.
I hate to burst your bubble, but email me in 6 months with the "I told you so" if you're right. This is the cost of doing business, and whatever flak they take from this will pale in comparison to financially ruining people who didn't even violate the law in the first place months ago. And those actions are taken under the "cost of doing business" reasoning to begin with. This is a really nit-picky kind of story if you're trying to make a case against the absurdity of copyright law and how the RIAA and the MPAA are running amok.
Chicken, meet egg.
I was ready to flame but have ultimately decided that its the same thing. Culture sees it as a minor violation because the current legal definition of copyright is unenforcable. Its a minor problem precisely because going after every violater leads to two conclusions: its rights granted by current copyright law are too strong, and most people know somebody that should be locked up for violating it.
Its pretty much the same thing. My original post was more about saying that if, as an individual, you don't violate it, you might as well suggest that it'd be okay if wearing green coloured shirts were illegal because you don't own any green shirts. The fact is that peopel violate copyright law all the time, and if we had some magical transporter that put all these folks into jail right this minute, society would cease to function.
would be quite a nice near zero cost competitor for Windows.
/. user, but zero cost is rediculous. That would take a vast amount of work, and from my end, most of the value of beOS is in the internals, not the UI. What exactly would you gain if you just took the windowing layer of beOS? Not very much.
I hate windows as much as the next
the donation of the Lotus office products suite
Donation of Lotus? Do people 'donate' gonorrhea? Lotus notes should die and burn in hell. It would take me about 3 months to replace what Lotus does for our organization in PHP, were I in information services rather than being an actual programmer, and it would cost us 3 months of my salary and not a dime more. Lotus should be killed, over and over and over again.
Sorry for the attacks. beOS was awesome, in my books, and I wish it didnt join the massive list of decent OSes that have bitten the dust just because governments can't afford to piss off the supplier of their IT infrastructure, and companies can't afford to convince users to experience some short term pain for long term free market gain.
IBM (and MS, for crying out loud) was behind OS2, and operating system I saw quite regularly running cell phone switch centers only 4 or 5 years ago, and they got slaughtered in the desktop market for reasons which have absolutely nothing to do with technological advantages. I can't imagine that if Linux got beOSs tits and ass, but none of the brains, that it would have any significant imprint on the OS world. Linux doesn't need a beOS windowing toolkit (if you like the graphics, just download the appropriate theme for your window manager), Linux needs a social or economic angle that makes individuals willing to feel the pain for the gain.
Thats pretty much the state of the industry right now, and I totally agree with you.
I played through Ico last year, and thats exactly the sort of game that makes you want to smash your head on your desk when convention-seeking game designers equate the number of enemies on screen with the awesomeness of the game.
Thats not the issue really. The issue is that strict copyright law is basically unenforcable. This isn't 10 rich guys and 30 lawers going, "Muwhahaha", this is some web team figuring that they're no different from the thousands of other coders like us that break the occasional license unbeknownst to our bosses.
If anything, this is like the futility to pointing out that MPAA or RIAA heads' family members pirate content. At the end of the day, what are people against the copyright lobby fighting for? Some say downright incorrect prosecution, which obviously happens, but underneath it all, its the result of a lack leniancy and less strict laws. The only reason that breaking a "Linkware" license is news is because of it highlites that copyright laws are, in the end, only selectively enforced, not because of some organizational hypocricy. The hypocricy basically is unintentional, and to me, thats really what the problem is. Its not some blatent flogging, its just the old adage of the impractibility of ensuring that those around you practise what you preach. Getting onto that soapbox and being adamant about how you live your life is in no way an argument against an organzation that is hypocritical for the very reason that it is not one single person but a large organization of people. Its like some company saying that j-walking in all cases, always, everytime, hurts their bottom line; it'd take you less than 10 minutes if you had full access to everyone at a company to spot apparent hypocricy, but that wouldn't be the time to point out, "Hey, *I* don't j-walk." Its not revelent, because at some point, the eagerness of enforcement is more relevant than the actual law.
You got me there. But I do work at said company that developed it, so I'm not throwing out numbers here, I'm just miscommunicating them despite it being obvious what I meant.
Advertising isn't wrong, its what you advertise, the deals you make, the concessions you make, and what you give up.
Before somebody hits me with the predicable Bill Hicks quote, everyone uses google, and they have advertising. They've just chosen to keep it more tasteful and less intrusive than others. The problem with the amount of specialization in our society is that people are hired because they have a really really really good hammer. The challenge is keeping people in an organzation from making decisions when every looks like a nail to them. So, you hire people who view their jobs and kills and imporant, but not the answer.
That is the ideal marketing employee. He/she knows his/her role, and he knows when being successful at it interferes with the bigger picture. Your job shouldn't be a church, it should be one of the positions on a baseball team. I have not a shred of a problem with wikipedia advertising; I have a problem when they have an employee who views that the service that wikipedia provides is less important than making money to keep it afloat. Anything less is saying you'd rather drink the bathwater than raise the baby.
The author of the article is seeing a trend.
Happy-Feet, the Ps2 game had over 1,000,000 million pre-orders, before it was released; the game rated below 5.0 on both IGN and gamespot, and didn't cost that much to make (I'm not at liberty to discuss numbers.)
Do the math. Sure, there is cross-over, but there is overwhelming evidence that if you're in the market for money alone, you should be chasing WB licenses, not hardcore gamers.
How would you propose handling these situations, exactly.
By investigating the bomb threat, of course.
Are you under the assumption that charging two lackeys for a marketing campaign that failed to alarm anyone else in many other major cities over 3 weeks time constitutes 'taking a bomb threat seriously'?
Taking it seriously involves checking to see if its a bomb, not turning your correct "Take a bomb threat seriously," mandate into a public lynching. We're talking about ruining two lives potentially because you didn't ignore a bomb threat. Turn it around; should every person who is responsible for the object(s) subject of a bomb threat be put in jail?
I assume justice will work itself out, but my conclusion of the aftermath is just tourist advertising for the simple minded for Chicago at the cost of dragging two simpletons through the mud. I don't think thats fair.
The difference is, in the private sector, the inefficient and stupid are weeded out (except for where overreaching employment laws prevent hte market from working).
.. they havn't taken over the universe yet?
Actually, just as in the private sector, the inefficient and stupid are kept afloat by those who work hard. You speak as if an employee is an island, judged soley upon his or her proficiency or ability as opposed to those who make up for them. This just isn't true. Jesus, you even hedge your "I'm meeting you halfway" cedation with a slam on employment laws.
I worked for a publicly listed company that employed the inept person I have ever met. In my life. He was 40. With 15 years experience. I have met 12 year olds who were more proficient at his profession than him. He made 90 grand a year. He had no degree. We were publicly listed. He didn't speak english very well. He was also a good friend, but I in no way felt he was fit for his job, nevermind deserving of a 90 grand salary. Reudctionist logic says, "Well, he should have been fired." Why wasn't he? The manager above him, in his own words to me, told me he didn't want to make himself look bad by admitting that after employing him for 7 years, that he was useless. The company? Happily chugging along, profitable, publicly listed. I repeat. Making money, maintaing shareholder confidence. And they have a few others, tho not as bad, working there as well. I left, because it was pretty demoralizing. This company is still making money. It is profitable. The market approves, because a few make it work, not because their a lean, mean, innovation machine. No laws, no regulation. Just good old fashioned retardation within one of the many companies I've worked at where the few carry along the many. So what is the flaw of those companies
I don't go around saying that the private market is god, and governments suck. With all due respect, individual public sector workers are hired and fired for pretty much most of the same reasons and under teh same pressures that private workers are. If you enjoy the freedom to let go to 2000 workers not because they're inept, but because you need to remain profitable, its because you make cars or golf balls, cold medicines or television shows; you're not providing law enforcement, the stability of the judicial system, urban planning, drinkable water, drivable roads, trade laws,
There's no competition, there's a federal employees union that makes the teamsters blush, and there's an institutional opposition to firing that simply doesn't exist in the public sector (see this).
I assume you meant "exist in the private sector". All I could gather from that article is that geez, its hard to fire people. Yes; yes it is, and it should be. Firing somebody has implications not only on the person you fire, but those who've worked with him; his family, who ironically, may be comprised of people you may ultimately find would have been valuable additions. Plus, generally, you'd want to replace them. That costs money too. And theres no garauntee you'll end up with somebody who isn't worse. Christ, we're talking about humans here, not D&D characters with easily ledgible character sheets. That guy who made 90 grand who was useless? I dont begrudge him. I have no issue with the private sector. It works in harmony with the public sector. They both co-exist to make the world a better place. I dont trust the government - to make good toothpaste. I don't trust the private sector - to spend the next 10 years figuring out what the best kind of cement compound is for buildings at a financial loss.
As managers contemplate firing an employee, they face disincentives that can make the task seem impossible, or can eclipse its benefits. These may include time constraints, confusion about the process, lack of support from superiors, the possibility of an appeal or complaint, burdensome agency policies, uncertainty about whether the resulting vacancy will be filled, unpleasant emotional confrontati
Government employees are the lowest common denominator in the best case
.. you know, just like in Burma!"
Look, I'm no champion of socialism or whatever, but that is so incredibly reductionist, that it harbours on stupidity. I dont know if you have friends who work for government, but my experience is that inefficient stupidity, let alone absolute financial failure is by no means the domain of the public sector. The difference between the public and private sector is really not as big as you think. Still, given the past 500 years of history in which we include the social will of society into the big picture, and the thousands of years before that, I think that painting such a broad brush over the government employee is exactly the kind of low standard setting bullshit that inspired the quote, "The people get the government they deserve."
I'm constantly amazed at the bashing that government employees get, as if, somehow, history has proven there is a better way of providing safety for private property and an environment under which capitalist companies can thrive. It sounds a little hollow coming from the most economically and militarily dominant country in the world, you know what I mean? It sounds like, "Jeez, just imagine if we had the tiny government of Burma! MAN, would that be awesome, cause I swear, those that were left in government would be sworn to protect my private property
You either have to believe in the superiority of your race or nationalism or whatever, because the overwhelming evidence is that a strong institutional system, even if its packed to the gills with the inefficiency and failure that the private sector is, contributes to the safety and wellbeing of the citizens in one of the most successful first world nations in recent history.
As for attacking Boston itself: why destroy your launch-pad to attack the rest of the US?
Fuck, why even bother attacking any more; do you honestly think that those that plan terrorist attacks are more interested in the body count than the scale of provokation and the ensuing international loss of credibility? Sure, the foot soldiers think the body count is important. Anyone who plans this kind of thing, those who do the logistics and provide the connections is just looking to make their enemy look silly, like the guy who goads a giant into a fight that is logically impossible to win. The 9/11 terrorists might as well have provoked America into the War on Sawdust. "Terrorism" is as old as history itself, and a great number of attacks that occurr these days have nothing to do with the US. If the US wants to win the "war on terror", they'd have to engage in so many conflicts, they'd have every citizen fighting abroad. What is unfortunate is that the attack was so incredibly front, center and brazen, it blinds people who even despite the attacks are reluctant to acknowledge the extent of violence on the planet today. It's like trying to win the war on snowballs by throwing snowballs.
If we took that attitude, next thing you know, you'd be getting shredded by a Hello Kitty full of C4 and nails.
I was never suspicious of a Hello Kitty doll, but now that I've chosen to be suspicious of it, I'm doing my part! In fact, cars explode on the streets of Iraq every day, so now I call 911 everytime I see a parked car. Yet, for some reason, I'm being blamed with clogging the system full of rhetoric and empty false alarms. I just don't get it. Cars explode way more often than Hello Kitty dolls, but my vigilent attitude is not being appreciated!
I love Americans, truely, but this is one particular case wher I am absolutely thrilled that I live in a country in which you can't score political points for making a mountain out of a mole hill. Its getting to the point where you can make yourself look good by selling creative, tangential, and obtuse terrorist threats rather than workmanlike every day global occurances that kill and maim dozens to hundreds of people at a time.
You really have to give the 9/11 atrocity commiters some credit. Crash a few planes, and inspire scenarios of exploding C4-laden Hello Kitty dolls. I mean what the fuck, even domestic bombers know that letters, pipes, and cars is really all you need to be successful. If you want to kill lots of people, creativity is the domain of comic books, not reality.
There was a time however when it was a "feature".
Cmon, that was a challenge. Okay, so we admit it was never on the back of the box, and of course, at one time, it was a feature, for those 'in the know'. Just like any advance in graphics technology or anything you could do with increased power from newer hardware. But why shouldn't that be a feature. Its now something you can do which, properly used, can increase the level of immersion and/or make the game look prettier.
I will launch into my own diatribes about amateur photoshop that abuse lens flare and emboss filters to produce posters for community plays. I think there is nothing wrong with those filters. They just can be abused. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
In that respect, its better to actually champion the use of a good lense flare rather than dismiss it outright. This thread resulted in a massive hate-down on bloom, but the greater point is, if a programmer or designer or texture artist or modeler can't do a lense flare or bloom simply because they think that in 5% of the games they see it in, it really sucks, they are doing themselves a professional diservice.
So to go back to your original post, maybe we can suggest that alphas were too high on lots of lens flares. Also, alot of games dont randomize the alpha and the scaling of the flare textures in order to properly simulate the real effect. Plus, a lot of texture makers don't get how to make it nice, so the flare sprites end up either not looking very realistic, or kick you in the face because they're just way too round and white.
Its all good tho; what are you interested in doing, in games?