You know the Romans said the same thing about their business model and their civilization.
And people nowadays say the same thing about their jobs being outsourced, wanting laws passed to protect them. Revolutionary change is frightening to those who have something to lose; It's human nature to try and maintain the status quo in those cases.
No original ideas... sequal after sequal, rehash of the same game ten different ways. How many ways can you fight WWII or demons on mars?
Original ideas typically don't sell better than established franchises.
"According to data from the NPD Group, a market research firm, the only games released this year to make the Top 10 list through last month have been the new Madden football game and Gran Turismo 4 for PlayStation 2 and Pokemon Emerald for the Game Boy Advance"
Only 3 games of 2005 that broke into the top 10 are all from long established franchises
1 - Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas - PS2 - Take II Interactive
2 - Halo 2* - XBX - Microsoft
3 - Madden NFL 2005* - PS2 - Electronic Arts
4 - ESPN NFL 2K5 - PS2 - Take II Interactive
5 - Need For Speed: Underground 2 - PS2 - Electronic Arts
6 - Pokemon Fire Red W/ Adapter - GBA - Nintendo of America
7 - NBA Live 2005 - PS2 - Electronic Arts
8 - Spider-Man: The Movie 2 - PS2 - Activision
9 - Halo - XBX - Microsoft
10 - ESPN NFL 2K5 - XBX - Take II Interactive
1 - MADDEN NFL 2004 - PS2 - ELECTRONIC ARTS
2 - POKEMON RUBY - GBA - NINTENDO OF AMERICA
3 - POKEMON SAPPHIRE - GBA - NINTENDO OF AMERICA
4 - NEED SPEED: UNDERGROUND - PS2 - ELECTRONIC ARTS
5 - ZELDA: THE WIND WAKER - GCN - NINTENDO OF AMERICA
6 - GRAND THEFT AUTO: VICE - PS2 - ROCKSTAR GAMES
7 - MARIO KART: DOUBLE - GCN - NINTENDO OF AMERICA
8 - TONY HAWK UNDERGROUND - PS2 - ACTIVISION
9 - ENTER THE MATRIX - PS2 - ATARI
10 - MEDAL HONOR RISING - PS2 - ELECTRONIC ARTS
Notice a Trend?
My money is spent much better elsewhere.
Big companies aren't targetting you (I'm assuming you are a hardcore gamer); they want the much larger casual audience, people who don't check out video game reviews, parents who ask the guy at the store what the "hot" game is, etc. This is the main reason I gave up on consoles and stick with the PC market. Developers have more flexibility, and can make the huge block buster, or niche games for more hardcore gamers.
Besides the cheesier scripts, how is a television show which takes place in a post-atomic wasteland of the 22nd century supposed to work in product placement?
I mean, wouldn't you guys like it if commercials were cut down signifigantly?
Not at the price of hurting the actual show. I can buy DVDs and not worry about commercials, or just go get food during commercial breaks. Product placement doesn't give you those options.
China has nowhere near as many IP lawyers protecting their "valuable intellectual property" as the USA.
Notice how Powerbooks say "Designed in California", notice how IBM sold off their laptop business. That's because the bulk of the profit for goods is coming from IP and services, not hardware. Many semiconductor companies use the model of designing chips, having them manufactured cheaply at a foundry, then selling a finished product. The greatest value is in the design, not the actual fabrication.
That's an interesting point and all, but I could just as easily say would you rather sell 100 copies at $60 or 300 copies at $30;)
The problem is it costs more to sell more copies, shelfspace, shipping, boxing, tracking, marketing.
Look at the film industry, they charge an average of $20 per DVD or $10 or less for theatre tickets, but it costs them much much more money to produce their films than it does to create a game.
That's because they have a much larger market to spread their fixed costs across, as well as a more robust infrastructure to market and distribute their film.
Gran Turismo was novel not because it was a racing game, but because of it's meticulous emphasis on real cars and physics. It may not have been a ludicrous and unheard of idea, but it was a novel enough departure from the existing market that the idea was repeatedly passed on by game producers until Yamauchi built up enough credibility in the company that he couldn't be refused
Actually that is probably the least novel of ideas. The licensed car market existed with "Test Drive", long before Grand Turismo. The fact that management passed on GT, was most likely because racing car games were saturated (it would be difficult to differentiate a product to make it sucessful). Ultimately when it was published it was successful not because of new ideas, but that it executed existing ideas so well it set itself apart from the competition.
You can create great games without inspirational ideas, by simply polishing an existing genre. Doom polished Wolfenstein 3D, C&C/Warcraft polished Dune 2, GT polished racing car sims (and not by providing 100% realism).
The success of a piece of entertainment often has a great deal to do with how novel it is, not how faithful it is to past forms.
Most of the biggest hit games tend to not be groundbreakers, but rather great implementations of something that has already existed.
Super Mario Bros - platformer game like Donkey Kong (market existed) Pac Man - Maze game Rally-X came out same year (market existed) The Sims - Novel GTA Vice City - 3rd person action/adventure (market existed) Tetris - Tile puzzle game (Market existed, just not on computers) Doom - FPS Wolfenstein 3D (market existed) Civilization - God/strategy Game (market existed) Myst - Point + Click adventure ala *-quest (market existed for a long time) Gran Turismo - Racing car game (market existed for a long time)
The key to the success of these games was not that they brought something completely new to the table, but they added great new ideas, characters, and/or implementations. These titles excited the already existing market, and extended the appeal, but they did not necessarily create completely new markets.
They introduced Hi-MD, which is 1GB storage MD, the players can now do MP3 and download songs onto the MD. They were very popular in Japan, however, I think the new breed of high capacity MP3 players are starting to take over. There are some great deals out there for MD players as their popularity is declining.
I think he expected to be treated like a trustworthy, normal human being. No one likes being treated like a criminal; people are not liabilities.
It's not necessarily that he's being treated like a criminal, it's that he's being treated as unnecessary (which is probably a blow to his ego). Basically the company wants to move on, and from a risk/reward standpoint it doesn't make much sense to keep somebody around for 2 weeks. First how much knowledge can you really pass on, how many loose ends could you, or are even motivated enough to complete? Now compare that to how many problems you could cause, not even necessarily maliciouly. The group dynamic needs to reform, people need to get used to being without your expertise, and the sooner the better.
If you truly want to bow out gracefully, and work at a good company with a good boss, talk to your manager about your future plans several months ahead. 2 weeks notice is usually due to some level of unhappniess.
I know people at my company who gave 2 weeks notice, and they got released immediately, I also know one person who was going to attend grad school full time once she graduated from night classes. She worked with her manager several months ahead to plan her transition out. The key difference was, in one scenario the person was leaving within a short time; the other scenario was a long planned transition where it was clear the reason wasn't unhappiness but rather a clear non-competitive opportunity.
Each citizen gets a "free punch" once a year. You can punch someone and as long as you have your free punch still there can be no lawsuits or jailtime.
I think this plan is in testing(called Jr. High). Unfortunately everybody punches the geeks, since their punch back would hardly result in any damage.
So, to review, we have a market for a commodity that isn't scarce, with a single seller, artificially fixing prices based on volume alone. Where's the market force in this?
It's 100% demand driven market, essentially the way monopolies work. The supply line is vertical, so as demand increases prices increase.
Commodity pricing is based on the idea that supplies are limited. Likewise with stocks, as there are a finite number of shares of any given company in circulation. Even if every person with a computer on planet Earth bought a copy of the same song, it would not be in short supply.
The problem with your (and the dozen other posters) assertion, is that supply != number of copies possible, supply also includes availability! If there are limited outlets which can make something available for use, then supply is limited. For example if only 1 store can sell a digital song, because it is the only store it is available at the price increases. People are forced to pay the higher price because although there are infinite copies there are no alternative distribution channels to access them.
The idea that prices for digital music drop to 0 the more popular they get works in the P2P realm. Where as the popularity increases the availability also increases. Hence you might donate to get access to a song that is unpopular because it is hard to find, but the latest pop hit would be free because it is available everywhere.
At risk of being very trollish, I'd also like to point out that the above are all reasons why the Rest Of The World don't want American culture to invade their countries. Most of us simply don't want your brand of Freedom, as we're quite happy with our own.
Americans in general are happy with their own version. What you describe are cultural in nature not politcal. It isn't our brand of freedom from a government structure, it is who we are as a society. I wouldn't expect other countries to be the same, since the people are different.
The people you describe in La Jolla, probably could have a better life elsewhere in the country, but chose to live in a popular beach area where the cost of living is high. These are people living out of the back seat of a Mercedes. There are professionals who do the same in the San Francisco bay area, who have good paying jobs, but can't afford to purchase a home. They don't need a social system to protect them, they are making a choice, and are free to trade the comforts of a home for the enjoyment of living in an area they prefer.
As for Americans travelling to other places and seeing people more relaxed, it's true. Again this is a reflection of the culture. The US culture is one of hard work and consumerism. Most other cultures of the world are more relaxed, enjoying alot more time to hike, go on vacation, enjoy life. While in the US, it's a "Work hard, play hard" approach. You work 60-80 hours a week, drive home in your SUV and watch your new plasma TV.
Please don't tar people who are good at their job and have a passion for what they do by calling them zealots.
By the same token don't think people who would rather do something else are always just phoning it in. The zealots I am talking about are those people who love computers, but suck at programming, or aren't able to be managed effectively (eg they'd rather make the software do something far beyond scope, and go over budget or schedule).
"Why does software have to be 'inspired,' it just has to function," I would stop, kindly thank you for your time, and ask you to leave. An attitude like that means you're just phoning it in; that your life begins at 5; that you don't understand the passion driving the co-workers around you.
Not every bit of code you write has to be inspired, not everything artists draw is a masterpiece. There are instances where the lightbulb of brilliance goes off, and you create something great. The time constraints of business means that you don't always have the opportunity to make that breakthrough, sometimes you need to get the program working, and revisit the great ideas at another time. At the end of the day, the most important thing is the program works.
But having other interests and writing inspired software are hardly mutually exclusive.
I agree, that was the issue I had with the great grandparent post. There are in fact people who just want to go home and watch football, who write great code and have brilliant ideas.
Take Google, for example: "Google engineers all have '20 percent time' in which they're free to pursue projects they're passionate about." And it's worked for them: "This freedom has already produced Google News, Google Suggest, AdSense for Content, and Orkut - products which might otherwise have taken an entire start-up to launch."
What is great about that is Google is harnessing the diversity of the employees. If everybody is "Geek culture" oriented, as the great grandparent poster wants, it reduces the effectiveness of such programs. Do you think somebody totally into computers thought of mapping bike trails on Google maps?
Really great programmers, the kind who want software to be "inspired," are worth their weight in gold
The great programmers aren't just passionate, they posess leadership, organization, and other skills which most people don't have. For every great programmer there are many passionate ones who aren't able to translate that passion into anything useful.
All engineering requires persistent learning and reinvention.
Yes, persistent learning should be part of everybody's (not just engineer's) work development. Dedication to improving at your trade doesn't mean a person has to immerse themselves in their job. Participating in computer related activities in your free time, does not necessarily mean that experience can directly apply to your specific job. If somebody is always working with computers they may have an edge over somebody who prefers to go mountain biking; but the influence of external activities on an individual's ability to perform a specific task tends to be minimal compared to things like leadership, creativity, discipline, organization, etc.
There are those who are passionate about computers and programming, but aren't organized, or focused enough, or just don't care about the specific project to be sucessful. You know the guy who knows "everything," so he feels that the assignment you need him to work on is beneath him. I'd rather have somebody who can complete tasks on schedule and then goes out to play golf on the weekend, than a computer geek who hacks away all day and night and can't meet a deadline because he's adding in one more killer feature.
Some people approach a project understanding things like scope and deadlines. Not as a chance to reinvent programming, to create the most amazing interface ever devised, or write their PhD thesis on. Sometimes a person who tries to create something "inspirational," loses focus on the objectives, and ends up unfinished or with a half-assed solution because they spent too much time trying something new, or on un-needed bells and whistles. You can care about your job, without it consuming your life. People will work 16 hours a day, 6 days a week, and prefer to spend their free time rock climbing, than doing computer related things.
Because those kind of people create crappy, uninspired software. The last thing I want to hear from a coworker is "Man, I don't even OWN a computer. When I go home, it's all about watching the football game and rock climbing!".
Why because they have a balanced life? Why does software have to be "inspired," it just has to function. Zealots can spend too much time including nice-to-have features than accomplishing the main objectives on schedule. You don't need to think about computers 24/7 to do a good job.
And, that's the biggest complaint I've got about how the "IP" laws are worded- the rich are the only ones that can actually use it or defend against spurious uses thereof. If you're a rights holder, you only have as much protection for your "IP" as you have cash to burn defending your rights. If you're not and aren't really infringing on things, you only have as much defense against unreasonable claims as you've got cash to burn defending your rights.
It's like that for all laws. Criminal law it's you against the resources of "The People of the State of California" or whatever jurisdiction you are being prosecuted in. Yes the law for the rich is different from that of the poor, but you won't be able to change that through the legal system. It has to be done in the legislative arena, but that would require people to actually care and vote.
Rails have far higher capacity than roads and they use only a small fraction of the fuel of roads.
Rail was used extensively for moving materials in previous wars. Rail is good as a backbone, for constantly moving large amounts of materials through secured terrain (eg heavy equipment from the midwest to coastal harbors). Rail does not give you the flexibility of motor transport, requires constant control (two trains on the same track = bad), and an existing secure infrastructure (you need trucks on the front lines).
Both rail and road are moderately vulnerable to enemy bombing.
Rail is far more vulnerable to enemy bombing/sabatoge. With roads, vehicles can move off the road if needed to get around an obstacle, if rail is damaged, you can't move off the rail for a short stretch, the rail has to be repaired.
Reading closely, the Army (milltia) belongs to the states, but congress can call them as needed
Looking at clause 12 and 15 there is a distinction made between the Army and militia. I think this is where the National Guard (state militias) fall in.
An army may be funded, but only for 2 years at a time.
Funded does not mean maintained. Essentially what is called upon is for Congress to review the need for an army every two years. The appropriations for supporting the military must be renewed every 2 years, that doesn't mean the Army can only be maintained for 2 years then stand down.
Congress sets treaties here, not laws to be enforced by the military.
"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States"
Also for defending against offense ON OUR SOIL. This clause reminds me how unconstitutional our military is, on top of the FBI.
It does not specify "on our soil", it gives authority to "execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions," without instructions on how it should be done. Further the Constitution specifies:
"To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations"
Late 20th century, US foreign policy is based on the premise that instability in other parts of the world can eventually impact the US homeland. You can disagree with it (especially Bush's interpretation), but it is Constitutional.
Lincoln campaigned for a stronger central government and the South threatened to secede if he won (they knew he would tax them in order to build his empire).
As was demonstrated by the failure of the Articles of Confederation, and the US Civil war, without strong central government the US would fall apart.
Lincoln hated blacks and had no opinion on slavery.
I agree, slavery served as a pawn in his plan to strengthen the federal goverment.
Regulating the states means making sure no state attempts to prevent trade between themselves and another. It doesn't mean taking over what two states could normally accomplish together (and often do).
No, regulation means regulation. The ability to establish uniform codes, create a common currency, control how states trade with each other, establish laws governing trade which no state individually can address.
Kidnapping should be handled by private investigators paid for by insurance companies, not federal thug who rarely solve the crimes anyway. I'm shocked that citizens today really feel safer with the FBI breathing down our necks.
What about wire fraud, identity theft, tax evation, Enron, bribery. There are alot of crimes across state lines that cannot be addressed by individual state laws. And for the most part citzens get into problems with local and state authorities, rather than the FBI, so I would hardly describe them as "breathing down our necks".
Slashdot Mirror
You know the Romans said the same thing about their business model and their civilization.
And people nowadays say the same thing about their jobs being outsourced, wanting laws passed to protect them.
Revolutionary change is frightening to those who have something to lose; It's human nature to try and maintain the status quo in those cases.
No original ideas... sequal after sequal, rehash of the same game ten different ways. How many ways can you fight WWII or demons on mars?
Original ideas typically don't sell better than established franchises.
"According to data from the NPD Group, a market research firm, the only games released this year to make the Top 10 list through last month have been the new Madden football game and Gran Turismo 4 for PlayStation 2 and Pokemon Emerald for the Game Boy Advance"
Only 3 games of 2005 that broke into the top 10 are all from long established franchises
Look at 2004
1 - Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas - PS2 - Take II Interactive
2 - Halo 2* - XBX - Microsoft
3 - Madden NFL 2005* - PS2 - Electronic Arts
4 - ESPN NFL 2K5 - PS2 - Take II Interactive
5 - Need For Speed: Underground 2 - PS2 - Electronic Arts
6 - Pokemon Fire Red W/ Adapter - GBA - Nintendo of America
7 - NBA Live 2005 - PS2 - Electronic Arts
8 - Spider-Man: The Movie 2 - PS2 - Activision
9 - Halo - XBX - Microsoft
10 - ESPN NFL 2K5 - XBX - Take II Interactive
and 2003
1 - MADDEN NFL 2004 - PS2 - ELECTRONIC ARTS
2 - POKEMON RUBY - GBA - NINTENDO OF AMERICA
3 - POKEMON SAPPHIRE - GBA - NINTENDO OF AMERICA
4 - NEED SPEED: UNDERGROUND - PS2 - ELECTRONIC ARTS
5 - ZELDA: THE WIND WAKER - GCN - NINTENDO OF AMERICA
6 - GRAND THEFT AUTO: VICE - PS2 - ROCKSTAR GAMES
7 - MARIO KART: DOUBLE - GCN - NINTENDO OF AMERICA
8 - TONY HAWK UNDERGROUND - PS2 - ACTIVISION
9 - ENTER THE MATRIX - PS2 - ATARI
10 - MEDAL HONOR RISING - PS2 - ELECTRONIC ARTS
Notice a Trend?
My money is spent much better elsewhere.
Big companies aren't targetting you (I'm assuming you are a hardcore gamer); they want the much larger casual audience, people who don't check out video game reviews, parents who ask the guy at the store what the "hot" game is, etc.
This is the main reason I gave up on consoles and stick with the PC market. Developers have more flexibility, and can make the huge block buster, or niche games for more hardcore gamers.
Besides the cheesier scripts, how is a television show which takes place in a post-atomic wasteland of the 22nd century supposed to work in product placement?
"In the future all restaurants are Taco Bell"
I mean, wouldn't you guys like it if commercials were cut down signifigantly?
Not at the price of hurting the actual show. I can buy DVDs and not worry about commercials, or just go get food during commercial breaks. Product placement doesn't give you those options.
wikipediOWNED!
/.
UGH, it's wikipediPWNED! I'm so sick and tired of poor spelling on
China has nowhere near as many IP lawyers protecting their "valuable intellectual property" as the USA.
Notice how Powerbooks say "Designed in California", notice how IBM sold off their laptop business. That's because the bulk of the profit for goods is coming from IP and services, not hardware.
Many semiconductor companies use the model of designing chips, having them manufactured cheaply at a foundry, then selling a finished product. The greatest value is in the design, not the actual fabrication.
That's an interesting point and all, but I could just as easily say would you rather sell 100 copies at $60 or 300 copies at $30 ;)
The problem is it costs more to sell more copies, shelfspace, shipping, boxing, tracking, marketing.
Look at the film industry, they charge an average of $20 per DVD or $10 or less for theatre tickets, but it costs them much much more money to produce their films than it does to create a game.
That's because they have a much larger market to spread their fixed costs across, as well as a more robust infrastructure to market and distribute their film.
Gran Turismo was novel not because it was a racing game, but because of it's meticulous emphasis on real cars and physics. It may not have been a ludicrous and unheard of idea, but it was a novel enough departure from the existing market that the idea was repeatedly passed on by game producers until Yamauchi built up enough credibility in the company that he couldn't be refused
Actually that is probably the least novel of ideas. The licensed car market existed with "Test Drive", long before Grand Turismo. The fact that management passed on GT, was most likely because racing car games were saturated (it would be difficult to differentiate a product to make it sucessful). Ultimately when it was published it was successful not because of new ideas, but that it executed existing ideas so well it set itself apart from the competition.
You can create great games without inspirational ideas, by simply polishing an existing genre. Doom polished Wolfenstein 3D, C&C/Warcraft polished Dune 2, GT polished racing car sims (and not by providing 100% realism).
The success of a piece of entertainment often has a great deal to do with how novel it is, not how faithful it is to past forms.
Most of the biggest hit games tend to not be groundbreakers, but rather great implementations of something that has already existed.
Super Mario Bros - platformer game like Donkey Kong (market existed)
Pac Man - Maze game Rally-X came out same year (market existed)
The Sims - Novel
GTA Vice City - 3rd person action/adventure (market existed)
Tetris - Tile puzzle game (Market existed, just not on computers)
Doom - FPS Wolfenstein 3D (market existed)
Civilization - God/strategy Game (market existed)
Myst - Point + Click adventure ala *-quest (market existed for a long time)
Gran Turismo - Racing car game (market existed for a long time)
The key to the success of these games was not that they brought something completely new to the table, but they added great new ideas, characters, and/or implementations. These titles excited the already existing market, and extended the appeal, but they did not necessarily create completely new markets.
Seriously, people who are serious about their data use more redundant, longer lasting(and by extension usually more expensive) media.
I for one accept nothing less than archiving my data on stone tablets.
What ever happened to those things anyway?
They introduced Hi-MD, which is 1GB storage MD, the players can now do MP3 and download songs onto the MD. They were very popular in Japan, however, I think the new breed of high capacity MP3 players are starting to take over.
There are some great deals out there for MD players as their popularity is declining.
Yeah, and why can't they call him the night before and tell him "don't bother coming in tommorrow?"
Marge: The plant called and said if you don't come in on Friday, don't bother coming in on Monday.
Homer: WooHoo! Four day weekend!
I think he expected to be treated like a trustworthy, normal human being. No one likes being treated like a criminal; people are not liabilities.
It's not necessarily that he's being treated like a criminal, it's that he's being treated as unnecessary (which is probably a blow to his ego). Basically the company wants to move on, and from a risk/reward standpoint it doesn't make much sense to keep somebody around for 2 weeks.
First how much knowledge can you really pass on, how many loose ends could you, or are even motivated enough to complete? Now compare that to how many problems you could cause, not even necessarily maliciouly. The group dynamic needs to reform, people need to get used to being without your expertise, and the sooner the better.
If you truly want to bow out gracefully, and work at a good company with a good boss, talk to your manager about your future plans several months ahead. 2 weeks notice is usually due to some level of unhappniess.
I know people at my company who gave 2 weeks notice, and they got released immediately, I also know one person who was going to attend grad school full time once she graduated from night classes. She worked with her manager several months ahead to plan her transition out. The key difference was, in one scenario the person was leaving within a short time; the other scenario was a long planned transition where it was clear the reason wasn't unhappiness but rather a clear non-competitive opportunity.
Each citizen gets a "free punch" once a year. You can punch someone and as long as you have your free punch still there can be no lawsuits or jailtime.
I think this plan is in testing(called Jr. High). Unfortunately everybody punches the geeks, since their punch back would hardly result in any damage.
So, to review, we have a market for a commodity that isn't scarce, with a single seller, artificially fixing prices based on volume alone. Where's the market force in this?
It's 100% demand driven market, essentially the way monopolies work. The supply line is vertical, so as demand increases prices increase.
Commodity pricing is based on the idea that supplies are limited. Likewise with stocks, as there are a finite number of shares of any given company in circulation. Even if every person with a computer on planet Earth bought a copy of the same song, it would not be in short supply.
The problem with your (and the dozen other posters) assertion, is that supply != number of copies possible, supply also includes availability!
If there are limited outlets which can make something available for use, then supply is limited. For example if only 1 store can sell a digital song, because it is the only store it is available at the price increases. People are forced to pay the higher price because although there are infinite copies there are no alternative distribution channels to access them.
The idea that prices for digital music drop to 0 the more popular they get works in the P2P realm. Where as the popularity increases the availability also increases. Hence you might donate to get access to a song that is unpopular because it is hard to find, but the latest pop hit would be free because it is available everywhere.
At risk of being very trollish, I'd also like to point out that the above are all reasons why the Rest Of The World don't want American culture to invade their countries. Most of us simply don't want your brand of Freedom, as we're quite happy with our own.
Americans in general are happy with their own version. What you describe are cultural in nature not politcal. It isn't our brand of freedom from a government structure, it is who we are as a society. I wouldn't expect other countries to be the same, since the people are different.
The people you describe in La Jolla, probably could have a better life elsewhere in the country, but chose to live in a popular beach area where the cost of living is high. These are people living out of the back seat of a Mercedes. There are professionals who do the same in the San Francisco bay area, who have good paying jobs, but can't afford to purchase a home. They don't need a social system to protect them, they are making a choice, and are free to trade the comforts of a home for the enjoyment of living in an area they prefer.
As for Americans travelling to other places and seeing people more relaxed, it's true. Again this is a reflection of the culture. The US culture is one of hard work and consumerism. Most other cultures of the world are more relaxed, enjoying alot more time to hike, go on vacation, enjoy life. While in the US, it's a "Work hard, play hard" approach. You work 60-80 hours a week, drive home in your SUV and watch your new plasma TV.
Please don't tar people who are good at their job and have a passion for what they do by calling them zealots.
By the same token don't think people who would rather do something else are always just phoning it in. The zealots I am talking about are those people who love computers, but suck at programming, or aren't able to be managed effectively (eg they'd rather make the software do something far beyond scope, and go over budget or schedule).
"Why does software have to be 'inspired,' it just has to function," I would stop, kindly thank you for your time, and ask you to leave. An attitude like that means you're just phoning it in; that your life begins at 5; that you don't understand the passion driving the co-workers around you.
Not every bit of code you write has to be inspired, not everything artists draw is a masterpiece. There are instances where the lightbulb of brilliance goes off, and you create something great. The time constraints of business means that you don't always have the opportunity to make that breakthrough, sometimes you need to get the program working, and revisit the great ideas at another time. At the end of the day, the most important thing is the program works.
But having other interests and writing inspired software are hardly mutually exclusive.
I agree, that was the issue I had with the great grandparent post. There are in fact people who just want to go home and watch football, who write great code and have brilliant ideas.
Take Google, for example: "Google engineers all have '20 percent time' in which they're free to pursue projects they're passionate about." And it's worked for them: "This freedom has already produced Google News, Google Suggest, AdSense for Content, and Orkut - products which might otherwise have taken an entire start-up to launch."
What is great about that is Google is harnessing the diversity of the employees. If everybody is "Geek culture" oriented, as the great grandparent poster wants, it reduces the effectiveness of such programs. Do you think somebody totally into computers thought of mapping bike trails on Google maps?
Really great programmers, the kind who want software to be "inspired," are worth their weight in gold
The great programmers aren't just passionate, they posess leadership, organization, and other skills which most people don't have. For every great programmer there are many passionate ones who aren't able to translate that passion into anything useful.
All engineering requires persistent learning and reinvention.
Yes, persistent learning should be part of everybody's (not just engineer's) work development. Dedication to improving at your trade doesn't mean a person has to immerse themselves in their job. Participating in computer related activities in your free time, does not necessarily mean that experience can directly apply to your specific job. If somebody is always working with computers they may have an edge over somebody who prefers to go mountain biking; but the influence of external activities on an individual's ability to perform a specific task tends to be minimal compared to things like leadership, creativity, discipline, organization, etc.
There are those who are passionate about computers and programming, but aren't organized, or focused enough, or just don't care about the specific project to be sucessful. You know the guy who knows "everything," so he feels that the assignment you need him to work on is beneath him. I'd rather have somebody who can complete tasks on schedule and then goes out to play golf on the weekend, than a computer geek who hacks away all day and night and can't meet a deadline because he's adding in one more killer feature.
That comment kind of speaks for itself.
Some people approach a project understanding things like scope and deadlines. Not as a chance to reinvent programming, to create the most amazing interface ever devised, or write their PhD thesis on. Sometimes a person who tries to create something "inspirational," loses focus on the objectives, and ends up unfinished or with a half-assed solution because they spent too much time trying something new, or on un-needed bells and whistles.
You can care about your job, without it consuming your life. People will work 16 hours a day, 6 days a week, and prefer to spend their free time rock climbing, than doing computer related things.
Because those kind of people create crappy, uninspired software. The last thing I want to hear from a coworker is "Man, I don't even OWN a computer. When I go home, it's all about watching the football game and rock climbing!".
Why because they have a balanced life? Why does software have to be "inspired," it just has to function. Zealots can spend too much time including nice-to-have features than accomplishing the main objectives on schedule. You don't need to think about computers 24/7 to do a good job.
And, that's the biggest complaint I've got about how the "IP" laws are worded- the rich are the only ones that can actually use it or defend against spurious uses thereof. If you're a rights holder, you only have as much protection for your "IP" as you have cash to burn defending your rights. If you're not and aren't really infringing on things, you only have as much defense against unreasonable claims as you've got cash to burn defending your rights.
It's like that for all laws. Criminal law it's you against the resources of "The People of the State of California" or whatever jurisdiction you are being prosecuted in. Yes the law for the rich is different from that of the poor, but you won't be able to change that through the legal system. It has to be done in the legislative arena, but that would require people to actually care and vote.
Rails have far higher capacity than roads and they use only a small fraction of the fuel of roads.
Rail was used extensively for moving materials in previous wars. Rail is good as a backbone, for constantly moving large amounts of materials through secured terrain (eg heavy equipment from the midwest to coastal harbors). Rail does not give you the flexibility of motor transport, requires constant control (two trains on the same track = bad), and an existing secure infrastructure (you need trucks on the front lines).
Both rail and road are moderately vulnerable to enemy bombing.
Rail is far more vulnerable to enemy bombing/sabatoge. With roads, vehicles can move off the road if needed to get around an obstacle, if rail is damaged, you can't move off the rail for a short stretch, the rail has to be repaired.
Reading closely, the Army (milltia) belongs to the states, but congress can call them as needed
Looking at clause 12 and 15 there is a distinction made between the Army and militia. I think this is where the National Guard (state militias) fall in.
An army may be funded, but only for 2 years at a time.
Funded does not mean maintained. Essentially what is called upon is for Congress to review the need for an army every two years. The appropriations for supporting the military must be renewed every 2 years, that doesn't mean the Army can only be maintained for 2 years then stand down.
Congress sets treaties here, not laws to be enforced by the military.
"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States"
Also for defending against offense ON OUR SOIL. This clause reminds me how unconstitutional our military is, on top of the FBI.
It does not specify "on our soil", it gives authority to "execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions," without instructions on how it should be done. Further the Constitution specifies:
"To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations"
Late 20th century, US foreign policy is based on the premise that instability in other parts of the world can eventually impact the US homeland. You can disagree with it (especially Bush's interpretation), but it is Constitutional.
Lincoln campaigned for a stronger central government and the South threatened to secede if he won (they knew he would tax them in order to build his empire).
As was demonstrated by the failure of the Articles of Confederation, and the US Civil war, without strong central government the US would fall apart.
Lincoln hated blacks and had no opinion on slavery.
I agree, slavery served as a pawn in his plan to strengthen the federal goverment.
Regulating the states means making sure no state attempts to prevent trade between themselves and another. It doesn't mean taking over what two states could normally accomplish together (and often do).
No, regulation means regulation. The ability to establish uniform codes, create a common currency, control how states trade with each other, establish laws governing trade which no state individually can address.
Kidnapping should be handled by private investigators paid for by insurance companies, not federal thug who rarely solve the crimes anyway. I'm shocked that citizens today really feel safer with the FBI breathing down our necks.
What about wire fraud, identity theft, tax evation, Enron, bribery. There are alot of crimes across state lines that cannot be addressed by individual state laws. And for the most part citzens get into problems with local and state authorities, rather than the FBI, so I would hardly describe them as "breathing down our necks".