No, it makes perfect sense. It's just that you and whomever wrote the article can't figure out what the reason for it is. So instead of investigating they try to flame Apple. Great piece of journalism.
For example, Iceland is NOT richer than Vietnam. Per capita it is but in raw numbers the communist state wins by almost an order of magnitude. Of course, for apple neither number matters. Market size versus localization cost might but only among many other factors. Of course, if the author didn't misrepresent basic facts he'd need to do actual work which is hard.
It's also not like you can't buy the product, yo just can't buy it on the apple store website. Did you know that despite not having an apple store local version there was an official iPhone launch in Poland? Amazing that a single website does not fully describe what a company is doing. But there pops up that whole journalism, research and work issue. Hard to masturbate for 20 hours straight if you have to go out and do any of that stuff.
Different laws and higher costs are suggestions people are making for why apple is doing this. You know, the thing that a journalist should have done before writing this sort of article?
There's tons of other ones including local business contracts, lack of local knowledge and so on.
Just because Apple doesn't sell it from their website in a country does nothing to keep companies from importing it or even from apple selling it locally. Hell, there's a Polish version of the itunes store but not of the apple store. Official iphone launch there and all.
Apple does not even make proprietary Verizon or Sprint iPhones to serve the US cell market of 3 overlapping monopolies, they run on AT&T only in the US because it's the only US carrier that is compatible with the world.
Hahahaha. The iPhone is only on ATT because ATT paid apple the most for the privilege. T-Mobile also uses GSM but like Sprint they're too small to pay the proper bribes. but by the time the ATT contract runs out with Apple I'm sure Verizon will have ponied up the right payoff to get the iphone on their network.
Apple even sells power adapters that are worldwide-compatible. They have a "World Travel Adapter Kit" which is simply a set of various international plugs. You simply pull the US plug off your MacBook, iPad, iPhone, or iPod adapter and plug on the correct plug for where you are and it just works.
Is there any other US corporation that is so internationally-minded?
Every company in the world? Go look at most any power adapter one day. Know what it says? 100-240V, 50/60hz. Yes, even the one that came with the dubious Chinese toy that's likely to set your house on fire one day. $10 plug converter set and it'll work anywhere in the world.
Or you can pay apple $40 for it.
So yes, apple is very internationally minded. They know exactly how to milk the idiots across all international divides for their money. Enjoy.
Also, to add to what another reply mentioned. You're doing the equivalent of looking at the top grossing movies and then claiming no movies are good because you only like silent foreign movies. Of course you never actually look for silent foreign films specifically. Get over yourself.
I'm sure you can find plenty of games that better fit whatever odd criteria you have. Of course you also apparently want the games to have the budget of Modern Warfare behind them and advertisements in every newspaper. They won't. What you want and what 95% of gamers want don't agree. That budget means the game must cater to that 95%. That silent foreign film may have a very deep story but it won't have special the effects of Avatar.
Polish != good. The Modern Warfare games were shined to an inch of their lives and complete crap because they were stereotypical and over simplified. There was not challenge in playing Modern Warfare.
That's your opinion. Half Life 2 is linear even by FPS standards and it's considered a great game and even a work of art by many. People want that sort of thing. I know I do.
Secondly, this is the Hollywood paradox, crap movies sell so lets make more crap movies. This is only true when Hollywood is an enforced monopoly.
Again, you're apparently incapable of understand the purpose of entertainment. It's to entertain you. A great action movie may have a rather shallow story but it may still be a great action movie. Passing, drama, action scenes and all that adding together to a great experience. A deeper story could very well make it a worse movie by detracting from the other elements.
Fortunately games wont suffer the Hollywood problem for very much longer because Eastern Europe is positively kicking our arse. The many of the best games I can name of recent times were made in the Ukraine (S.T.A.L.K.E.R.) and Bulgaria (Tropico 3).
No, those are the game YOU found the best. Amazingly, you're not the center of the world and most people aren't like you. I hope that doesn't shatter your worldview.
This old chestnut, frankly the old "why don't you do it" though terminating cloche is tired and ineffective.
No, that was a segue into a quick thought experiment on what goes into making a game. Your inability to understand that points grave doubt on your ability to comprehend written language.
It is a poor justification for accepting inferior quality when you know that things can be made at a much greater quality if they were simply allowed to.
Except that's not the case no matter how much your delusional mind says it is. Games have trade offs since in the real world things like budgets exist. Multiple paths means each path has less effort put into it.
It's like saying Silence of the Lambs should have been a slasher flick because it would have been guaranteed to earn more money at the time.
No, it's like saying that if your only audience likes slasher movies than you won't make them any happier by spending half your budget on writing a deep story for your slasher movie. Silence of the Lambs had a relatively low budget and made a killing. They focused on the story and not special effects. So no, the makers knew quite well what they were doing and movies have historically backed them on such a decision.
Congratulations on proving the original posters point. Ideas are easy. You just demonstrated it.
Now try making such a game. Try going through all the choices, all the little details, all the possibilities, all the art and so on. And then make it so that every path is fun to play, has depth, is different, has impact. Now balance that with the need to pay for development, art and so on. Remember that modern games involve a lot more detail than older games.
Then realize that you'll sell a tenth the copies, or even less, than if you'd focused all your efforts of polishing one game path to perfection. You know why? Because games are entertainment. That's it. They're to relax to rather than to live by. The later group hasn't been the main game buying demographic for a long time now.
So as has been said before, ideas are easy but worthless.
I like the idea of leasing in principle (granted, $2+ billion a year seems amusingly high) but practically it may not work. Hell, practically black market auctions probably won't work either.
Changing ip ranges is apparently very expensive to do for large entities, almost as expensive to do so once as moving to ip6. With selling there's a way of offsetting the costs of such a move and no one is forced to change their use.
I don't think you understand. The stuff has already been allocated, that's the whole problem.
The black market auctions are to fix the allocation mess that was already created. Get a time machine if you want to fix that mess, the rest of us have already shrugged and moved on.
We allow people to play the lottery, but no-one is suggesting that a lottery would be the best way to, for example, allocate corporate support contracts, or rail franchises. What is OK on a small scale for individuals isn't necessarily OK for the world as a whole.
Well congratulations, what do you think is the point of having black market auctions? The lottery has already happened. A landlocked farmer in Wisconsin just won an oil tanker and it's rusting in a harbor. Now we're onto the point of him selling that piece of floating iron to someone who can profit from it.
Not that it may even matter, it's unlikely the cost of selling ips will be worth the cost of changing ip ranges.
So if I found a now rare coin in my attic that my great granddad got from a bank than you say it's bad for me to sell it? If I bought a stock that then went up is it wrong for me to sell it at a profit? Or is it only evil when it's a method in which YOU can't make money yourself?
What's a better solution? IP4s are a limited resource, a market would allocate them in the most efficient manner possible. They're a valuable resource as well which means people are both willing and will pay for it. You can try to regulate that away but it won't work, my parents bought many things in the soviet union by trading in their alcohol allotments on the black market.
I don't think you really understand the reasons for corporations. See, there are some people who have money and some people who need money to start a business. The former group decides to give the money to the later group in exchange for profits through partial ownership of the business. Ownership can of course be exchanged, sold and bought like anything else. Extend it to everyone and not just a small group of very rich people and you get a stock market. Stock market or not, this mechanism has been fueling our progress for many centuries.
So you know why corporations exist? Because they're efficient at what they do.
You can do whatever you want but if your solution is inefficient enough, as co-ops would be, then you know what will happen? China, India, Europe and soon South America will take over. In thirty years the US will be a third world nation and it won't matter. And you know what the average person will be doing if they can afford it? Importing items from those international corporations because they're better or cheaper. You know what all those co-ops will be doing? Importing things from abroad.
You can't legislate away human nature because in the end someone who understands it will kick your backside. The Soviets realized it the hard way. China has known it for decades and is acting to cushion the effect. India took a few decades longer to see the light but once it did it's been doing quite well. You can play games, cushion effects, mitigate effects but if you go too far you end up economically screwed.
It's not supposed to, as I said in the first part capitalism has nothing to do with any of what he wrote so his point has no foundation. We've been decimating nature long before modern corporations and we do it quite well in large parts of the world without their help. Capitalism simply fuels progress and progress is what lets us find all new sorts of ways to be short sighted.
The point of what you quoted was to note that you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want progress than you must also accept what human nature will do with that progress. Also, to show that the poster himself was just as bound by human nature as most everyone else.
There is no such requirement except in the delusions of people who need reasons to dislike capitalism. Don't like what the CEO is doing? Appoint a new board of directors who pushes for the agenda you want.
If a company is amoral than you know what that means? That the shareholders don't give a damn. They want their profit and that's it. The profit is very close to them while the ill effects are very far. Basic human nature ingrained by millions of years of evolution. The tribe over the hill doesn't have your genes so their deaths don't matter. Just like you don't really care about all the poor kids dying in Africa and so you're not donating all your money to helping them.
Congratulations, you've noticed that humans are selfish short thinking bastards. Capitalism just lets them be that way more efficiently. Of course, Soviet and Chinese Communism are the kings of destroying the environment.
Of course, the computer you're on is the direct result of centuries of environment destroying progress that wouldn't have existed without capitalism. Actually you'd probably be dead without all the medical advanced it helped to come to pass. Granted, hypocrisy seems to be the staple of zealots.
If you think eye tracking makes the road safer than you know how you can save lives on highways? Never ever drive a car again since you evidently are a disaster waiting to happen.
See, anyone who knows how to drive spends a lot of time not looking directly in front of them. You usually know what's in front of you. The danger comes from the sides or from behind. If you want to avoid it you better keep an eye out for it.
Sure the policy can get you fired. You broke the rules and can face the consequences of that. Your job was to follow the written policy and you clearly failed to do it.
It can also perfectly well keep you from getting fired. You alert those who made the policy of the situation and then it's up to them to review the case.
Trunk of your car, god you're incompetent and shouldn't have a work laptop. Hell, you should be fired on the stop for such gross negligence. Do you know how trivial it is for someone to open your trunk while breaking into the front of your car? One little lever and it pops right open. Do you know how often cars are broken into nowadays? Doubt there's a car thief around who doesn't know people store the valuable stuff in the trunk.
Putting a movie together is art, just as putting a cutscene together in a game is art.
You're missing my point, why is putting a movie together from it's individual elements art? What fundamentally makes that different from it's elements? Why is what holds a video game together any different? A video game is put together via gameplay just like a movie is put together by a director. Are you arguing that the experience of a video game is not influenced by the gameplay? Are you arguing that the gameplay is not designed to evoke some emotional response in the player?
Nobody would say that the rules of checkers are art, even if the board and pieces may be.
I'd bet you money that if someone wrote a new set of rules for checkers with some specific goal (show the bleakness of X or whatever else they use to explain such stuff, use the rules to evoke some response in anyone who plays the game) it'd have a decent chance of being called art.
When playing a game, art may perhaps be created on-the-fly, but does that make the gameplay itself inherently art? I'm not sure myself..
Why would the gameplay need to be art on it's own? Do you say a painting is not art because the paint used isn't on it's own art? Would you consider an oil painting be the same work of art if it was done in watercolor?
For example, suppose I hand out flyers on the street, urging people to do certain things. Eventually, random people will walk around in certain ways, creating a large, intricate pattern visible in Google Earth. Are the rules I handed out art?
The whole thing could be considered art. If those rules didn't exists would it have occurred? Of course not. They are an integral part of the art as much as anything else.
By that definition movies aren't art either. They're just a punch of photographs and sound which is why people find it so idiotic of a viewpoint.
Just like a movie the art in a video game comes from putting all those pieces together. What you let a player do, what you don't let them do, how you draw them to certain actions, how you play with their emotions (think horror games) and so on.
It is as simple as I think unless you can back up your claims since every other source disagrees with you citation please.
Every source including the California courts via Edwards v. Arthur Andersen. You know the case where the company tried to argue exactly what you did and the court struck down their argument.
No, except for a couple very specific cases, none of which apply to regular employees, all non-competes are void in California. A company may put them in the contract but that doesn't make them valid.
To quote the California Business and Professions Code Section 16600:
Except as provided in this chapter, every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void.
The chapter lists three very specific exceptions all of which deal with more or less someone selling off their stake in a company that is being dissolved.
I'm sure a precious snowflake like you is inundated with job offers, but lots of people aren't so lucky.
You want job offers? You go look for them and you work at getting them. Granted you're in the UK it looks like which may make it harder due to as I understand it employee protection laws making companies paranoid about hiring anyone.
Last time I went on an SAP course it worked out at over 1000 quid per week. Then there's travel and accommodation. That would be more than some people's salaries.
And you go to them every week?
You're working for nothing during those additional hours. It's an unpaid second job.
I suppose if your attention span lasts less than a week it is but then you've got bigger problems to worry about. Salary in such cases makes sense only over the course of a significant period of time such as a year. So no, it's not a second unpaid job. Your one and only job just got extra hours added onto it and the per hour compensation went down accordingly. It's a simple concept really. Like unpaid overtime. Same deal there.
In summary: Learn to read. In extended summary: Learn to read because you apparently have no idea what the problem being discussed actually is. Please look into the possible definitions of Visualization and which one is actually being referred to.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it makes perfect sense. It's just that you and whomever wrote the article can't figure out what the reason for it is. So instead of investigating they try to flame Apple. Great piece of journalism.
For example, Iceland is NOT richer than Vietnam. Per capita it is but in raw numbers the communist state wins by almost an order of magnitude. Of course, for apple neither number matters. Market size versus localization cost might but only among many other factors. Of course, if the author didn't misrepresent basic facts he'd need to do actual work which is hard.
It's also not like you can't buy the product, yo just can't buy it on the apple store website. Did you know that despite not having an apple store local version there was an official iPhone launch in Poland? Amazing that a single website does not fully describe what a company is doing. But there pops up that whole journalism, research and work issue. Hard to masturbate for 20 hours straight if you have to go out and do any of that stuff.
Different laws and higher costs are suggestions people are making for why apple is doing this. You know, the thing that a journalist should have done before writing this sort of article?
There's tons of other ones including local business contracts, lack of local knowledge and so on.
Just because Apple doesn't sell it from their website in a country does nothing to keep companies from importing it or even from apple selling it locally. Hell, there's a Polish version of the itunes store but not of the apple store. Official iphone launch there and all.
Apple does not even make proprietary Verizon or Sprint iPhones to serve the US cell market of 3 overlapping monopolies, they run on AT&T only in the US because it's the only US carrier that is compatible with the world.
Hahahaha. The iPhone is only on ATT because ATT paid apple the most for the privilege. T-Mobile also uses GSM but like Sprint they're too small to pay the proper bribes. but by the time the ATT contract runs out with Apple I'm sure Verizon will have ponied up the right payoff to get the iphone on their network.
Apple even sells power adapters that are worldwide-compatible. They have a "World Travel Adapter Kit" which is simply a set of various international plugs. You simply pull the US plug off your MacBook, iPad, iPhone, or iPod adapter and plug on the correct plug for where you are and it just works.
Is there any other US corporation that is so internationally-minded?
Every company in the world? Go look at most any power adapter one day. Know what it says? 100-240V, 50/60hz. Yes, even the one that came with the dubious Chinese toy that's likely to set your house on fire one day. $10 plug converter set and it'll work anywhere in the world.
Or you can pay apple $40 for it.
So yes, apple is very internationally minded. They know exactly how to milk the idiots across all international divides for their money. Enjoy.
Also, to add to what another reply mentioned. You're doing the equivalent of looking at the top grossing movies and then claiming no movies are good because you only like silent foreign movies. Of course you never actually look for silent foreign films specifically. Get over yourself.
I'm sure you can find plenty of games that better fit whatever odd criteria you have. Of course you also apparently want the games to have the budget of Modern Warfare behind them and advertisements in every newspaper. They won't. What you want and what 95% of gamers want don't agree. That budget means the game must cater to that 95%. That silent foreign film may have a very deep story but it won't have special the effects of Avatar.
Polish != good. The Modern Warfare games were shined to an inch of their lives and complete crap because they were stereotypical and over simplified. There was not challenge in playing Modern Warfare.
That's your opinion. Half Life 2 is linear even by FPS standards and it's considered a great game and even a work of art by many. People want that sort of thing. I know I do.
Secondly, this is the Hollywood paradox, crap movies sell so lets make more crap movies. This is only true when Hollywood is an enforced monopoly.
Again, you're apparently incapable of understand the purpose of entertainment. It's to entertain you. A great action movie may have a rather shallow story but it may still be a great action movie. Passing, drama, action scenes and all that adding together to a great experience. A deeper story could very well make it a worse movie by detracting from the other elements.
Fortunately games wont suffer the Hollywood problem for very much longer because Eastern Europe is positively kicking our arse. The many of the best games I can name of recent times were made in the Ukraine (S.T.A.L.K.E.R.) and Bulgaria (Tropico 3).
No, those are the game YOU found the best. Amazingly, you're not the center of the world and most people aren't like you. I hope that doesn't shatter your worldview.
This old chestnut, frankly the old "why don't you do it" though terminating cloche is tired and ineffective.
No, that was a segue into a quick thought experiment on what goes into making a game. Your inability to understand that points grave doubt on your ability to comprehend written language.
It is a poor justification for accepting inferior quality when you know that things can be made at a much greater quality if they were simply allowed to.
Except that's not the case no matter how much your delusional mind says it is. Games have trade offs since in the real world things like budgets exist. Multiple paths means each path has less effort put into it.
It's like saying Silence of the Lambs should have been a slasher flick because it would have been guaranteed to earn more money at the time.
No, it's like saying that if your only audience likes slasher movies than you won't make them any happier by spending half your budget on writing a deep story for your slasher movie. Silence of the Lambs had a relatively low budget and made a killing. They focused on the story and not special effects. So no, the makers knew quite well what they were doing and movies have historically backed them on such a decision.
Congratulations on proving the original posters point. Ideas are easy. You just demonstrated it.
Now try making such a game. Try going through all the choices, all the little details, all the possibilities, all the art and so on. And then make it so that every path is fun to play, has depth, is different, has impact. Now balance that with the need to pay for development, art and so on. Remember that modern games involve a lot more detail than older games.
Then realize that you'll sell a tenth the copies, or even less, than if you'd focused all your efforts of polishing one game path to perfection. You know why? Because games are entertainment. That's it. They're to relax to rather than to live by. The later group hasn't been the main game buying demographic for a long time now.
So as has been said before, ideas are easy but worthless.
Scientists don't write newspapers, journalists do.
Exactly and journalists have an agenda of making people pay as much attention to them as possible.
http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1174
I like the idea of leasing in principle (granted, $2+ billion a year seems amusingly high) but practically it may not work. Hell, practically black market auctions probably won't work either.
Changing ip ranges is apparently very expensive to do for large entities, almost as expensive to do so once as moving to ip6. With selling there's a way of offsetting the costs of such a move and no one is forced to change their use.
I don't think you understand. The stuff has already been allocated, that's the whole problem.
The black market auctions are to fix the allocation mess that was already created. Get a time machine if you want to fix that mess, the rest of us have already shrugged and moved on.
We allow people to play the lottery, but no-one is suggesting that a lottery would be the best way to, for example, allocate corporate support contracts, or rail franchises. What is OK on a small scale for individuals isn't necessarily OK for the world as a whole.
Well congratulations, what do you think is the point of having black market auctions? The lottery has already happened. A landlocked farmer in Wisconsin just won an oil tanker and it's rusting in a harbor. Now we're onto the point of him selling that piece of floating iron to someone who can profit from it.
Not that it may even matter, it's unlikely the cost of selling ips will be worth the cost of changing ip ranges.
So if I found a now rare coin in my attic that my great granddad got from a bank than you say it's bad for me to sell it? If I bought a stock that then went up is it wrong for me to sell it at a profit? Or is it only evil when it's a method in which YOU can't make money yourself?
What's a better solution? IP4s are a limited resource, a market would allocate them in the most efficient manner possible. They're a valuable resource as well which means people are both willing and will pay for it. You can try to regulate that away but it won't work, my parents bought many things in the soviet union by trading in their alcohol allotments on the black market.
I don't think you really understand the reasons for corporations. See, there are some people who have money and some people who need money to start a business. The former group decides to give the money to the later group in exchange for profits through partial ownership of the business. Ownership can of course be exchanged, sold and bought like anything else. Extend it to everyone and not just a small group of very rich people and you get a stock market. Stock market or not, this mechanism has been fueling our progress for many centuries.
So you know why corporations exist? Because they're efficient at what they do.
You can do whatever you want but if your solution is inefficient enough, as co-ops would be, then you know what will happen? China, India, Europe and soon South America will take over. In thirty years the US will be a third world nation and it won't matter. And you know what the average person will be doing if they can afford it? Importing items from those international corporations because they're better or cheaper. You know what all those co-ops will be doing? Importing things from abroad.
You can't legislate away human nature because in the end someone who understands it will kick your backside. The Soviets realized it the hard way. China has known it for decades and is acting to cushion the effect. India took a few decades longer to see the light but once it did it's been doing quite well. You can play games, cushion effects, mitigate effects but if you go too far you end up economically screwed.
It's not supposed to, as I said in the first part capitalism has nothing to do with any of what he wrote so his point has no foundation. We've been decimating nature long before modern corporations and we do it quite well in large parts of the world without their help. Capitalism simply fuels progress and progress is what lets us find all new sorts of ways to be short sighted.
The point of what you quoted was to note that you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want progress than you must also accept what human nature will do with that progress. Also, to show that the poster himself was just as bound by human nature as most everyone else.
Never trust user input :)
What about the user input telling you to reboot?
There is no such requirement except in the delusions of people who need reasons to dislike capitalism. Don't like what the CEO is doing? Appoint a new board of directors who pushes for the agenda you want.
If a company is amoral than you know what that means? That the shareholders don't give a damn. They want their profit and that's it. The profit is very close to them while the ill effects are very far. Basic human nature ingrained by millions of years of evolution. The tribe over the hill doesn't have your genes so their deaths don't matter. Just like you don't really care about all the poor kids dying in Africa and so you're not donating all your money to helping them.
Congratulations, you've noticed that humans are selfish short thinking bastards. Capitalism just lets them be that way more efficiently. Of course, Soviet and Chinese Communism are the kings of destroying the environment.
Of course, the computer you're on is the direct result of centuries of environment destroying progress that wouldn't have existed without capitalism. Actually you'd probably be dead without all the medical advanced it helped to come to pass. Granted, hypocrisy seems to be the staple of zealots.
If you think eye tracking makes the road safer than you know how you can save lives on highways? Never ever drive a car again since you evidently are a disaster waiting to happen.
See, anyone who knows how to drive spends a lot of time not looking directly in front of them. You usually know what's in front of you. The danger comes from the sides or from behind. If you want to avoid it you better keep an eye out for it.
Sure the policy can get you fired. You broke the rules and can face the consequences of that. Your job was to follow the written policy and you clearly failed to do it.
It can also perfectly well keep you from getting fired. You alert those who made the policy of the situation and then it's up to them to review the case.
Trunk of your car, god you're incompetent and shouldn't have a work laptop. Hell, you should be fired on the stop for such gross negligence. Do you know how trivial it is for someone to open your trunk while breaking into the front of your car? One little lever and it pops right open. Do you know how often cars are broken into nowadays? Doubt there's a car thief around who doesn't know people store the valuable stuff in the trunk.
Putting a movie together is art, just as putting a cutscene together in a game is art.
You're missing my point, why is putting a movie together from it's individual elements art? What fundamentally makes that different from it's elements? Why is what holds a video game together any different? A video game is put together via gameplay just like a movie is put together by a director. Are you arguing that the experience of a video game is not influenced by the gameplay? Are you arguing that the gameplay is not designed to evoke some emotional response in the player?
Nobody would say that the rules of checkers are art, even if the board and pieces may be.
I'd bet you money that if someone wrote a new set of rules for checkers with some specific goal (show the bleakness of X or whatever else they use to explain such stuff, use the rules to evoke some response in anyone who plays the game) it'd have a decent chance of being called art.
When playing a game, art may perhaps be created on-the-fly, but does that make the gameplay itself inherently art? I'm not sure myself..
Why would the gameplay need to be art on it's own? Do you say a painting is not art because the paint used isn't on it's own art? Would you consider an oil painting be the same work of art if it was done in watercolor?
For example, suppose I hand out flyers on the street, urging people to do certain things. Eventually, random people will walk around in certain ways, creating a large, intricate pattern visible in Google Earth. Are the rules I handed out art?
The whole thing could be considered art. If those rules didn't exists would it have occurred? Of course not. They are an integral part of the art as much as anything else.
By that definition movies aren't art either. They're just a punch of photographs and sound which is why people find it so idiotic of a viewpoint.
Just like a movie the art in a video game comes from putting all those pieces together. What you let a player do, what you don't let them do, how you draw them to certain actions, how you play with their emotions (think horror games) and so on.
It is as simple as I think unless you can back up your claims since every other source disagrees with you citation please.
Every source including the California courts via Edwards v. Arthur Andersen. You know the case where the company tried to argue exactly what you did and the court struck down their argument.
Okay. Choose your own adventure books. Are they art? If not, then are books art? If so, when does the distinction come in?
No, except for a couple very specific cases, none of which apply to regular employees, all non-competes are void in California. A company may put them in the contract but that doesn't make them valid.
To quote the California Business and Professions Code Section 16600:
Except as provided in this chapter, every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void.
The chapter lists three very specific exceptions all of which deal with more or less someone selling off their stake in a company that is being dissolved.
I'm sure a precious snowflake like you is inundated with job offers, but lots of people aren't so lucky.
You want job offers? You go look for them and you work at getting them. Granted you're in the UK it looks like which may make it harder due to as I understand it employee protection laws making companies paranoid about hiring anyone.
Last time I went on an SAP course it worked out at over 1000 quid per week. Then there's travel and accommodation. That would be more than some people's salaries.
And you go to them every week?
You're working for nothing during those additional hours. It's an unpaid second job.
I suppose if your attention span lasts less than a week it is but then you've got bigger problems to worry about. Salary in such cases makes sense only over the course of a significant period of time such as a year. So no, it's not a second unpaid job. Your one and only job just got extra hours added onto it and the per hour compensation went down accordingly. It's a simple concept really. Like unpaid overtime. Same deal there.
In summary: Learn to read.
In extended summary: Learn to read because you apparently have no idea what the problem being discussed actually is. Please look into the possible definitions of Visualization and which one is actually being referred to.