Its pretty obvious that this was authorized, just cut from the final version. But instead of removing all of the content, they blocked it from being accessible from within the game. The mod does little more than unblocking the minigame.
The problem with your solution is that the people in consideration didn't just own the copy, they gave it away freely. Therefore, if the fine was to fit the crime it would have to be proportional to the number of copies those people gave away. Since that number is not quantifiable in most cases, an arbitrary dollar value must be set. $200k is the equivalent of 4,000 copies or so. Is that too high? I think so. But value what isn't?
Anyone could have found that way to cripple the system... Microsoft had just told the world about it a few weeks before! All it really took was reading up on the problem they fixed as re-creating it.
She is my great-grandmother, David's grandmother. Only met her once or twice; I was too young to remember. It's great that David wrote this, I feel so proud!
There is a pretty good chance that the game-maker WANTED you to think this way, that they WANTED outrage over their game. If that is the case, you are playing right into their hands.
I for one enjoy violent games. What I do not enjoy, however, is being manipulated. The aformentioned situation is not unlike religious nuts voting for Bush on a stance that will never come to frutition.
My thoughts on the game? If its good, I might buy it. But I won't buy it just because some stupid assholes are all in a tizzy over it. With that reasoning, I'd smoke crack, turn gay, or move to France.
He never said that it was less morally reprehensible... I took it as they should give as much attention to games where ANYBODY is killed. Who cares if its cops, gangsters or nazis?
Not necessarily conservatives, though. I used to live a guy in the navy who was republican because 'it is voting for your boss'. Republicans want to put money into the military, so the military is made up of primarily republicans.
The silent bomb plant is illegal in some leagues, along with other CS glitches. Sure, the other team can do it too, but doing so has a big effect on that team's chance of winning. How is it fun to have the side the glitch is on win every time?
Microsoft, on the other hand - is a business. Not a Human Rights organization or Advocacy group. I do NOT believe that they have any business either advocating or going against any political ideas - including Free Speech in China. That's not their job, nor why they exist.
They ARE advocating Chinese political ideas by censoring free speech. If Chinese law said that to do business in your country you had to rape or murder a child in order to do business there, you'd be just fine with Microsoft doing that too. Maximization of profits by acting is a morally wrong fashion (stripping people of fundamental rights) is what makes big corporations EVIL.
Read some of the other comments in this thread. The whole point is that even though Microsoft is following the letter of the law, they shouldn't be. In Rwanda, the letter of the law was 'Kill all the Tutsi's'. Are you saying anyone was justified in doing so? Are you saying Afghanistan was justified in forcing women to hide themselves and brutally punishing them if they didn't obey their draconian laws? I, and many others like myself, don't think so.
The bottom line is this: we can't change these morally wrong laws in other countries. But when someone (or some company) supports them, they are sending the message that they agree with them. If they didn't agree with them, and weren't forced to agree with them, then they wouldn't support them. Its plain as day to me. Microsoft supports the suppression of free speech, as long as they profit from it. The only reason they wouldn't do it here, is because it is against the law. But they would if they could. Are you OK with this?
Yes that is exactly what you said, everything. Why don't you clarify your argument instead of calling everyone's replies to your mistake 'straw man' arguments?
Your point is that Microsoft should contribute to the violation the US Constitution as long as it is not in the US, and makes them money. Is it not? Our point is, that if its OK to violate the US Constitution, why shouldn't it be OK to violate child-pornography, murder, or other laws, as long as they are not laws in the country you do them in?
You quote, "Therefore, they have a responsibility to their shareholders to try to do everything they can to do business there." The definition of the word everything
blah blah bicker blah, why don't you say how what you said is different!?!
China has HUGE porift potential for Microsoft. Therefore, they have a responsibility to their shareholders to try to do everything they can to do business there.
You said everything, and the person is right in equating anything you meant to everything, because that is what you said.
His point is as follows: when should the line be drawn when a business says, 'No, we won't do that, even though it makes us money.'? Your argument stated that the company should do everything, meaning no matter at what cost. If you actually meant everything within moral reason, where does that line get drawn? For me and this other person, it is when such means violate the US Constitution.
How will this make the game better? How will this help advance HL2's story?
It makes the game better by adding more realistic lighting, increasing the sense of immersion. The new level content MAY make the story better.
How will it help this other, more pressing graphics problem that plagues today's games, namely repetitive textures and models?
This problem is a designer one; the more time one has to put into a level/model, the better/less repetitive it becomes. However, by adding the realistic lighting, levels can become less repetitive by simply adding varied lights, which is infinitely easier to do as opposed to creating and applying new textures or complex world geometry. Models end up looking more 3-dimensional and realistic with the lighting as well.
Slashdot Mirror
...which involved taking a dump on her chest...
Its pretty obvious that this was authorized, just cut from the final version. But instead of removing all of the content, they blocked it from being accessible from within the game. The mod does little more than unblocking the minigame.
The problem with your solution is that the people in consideration didn't just own the copy, they gave it away freely. Therefore, if the fine was to fit the crime it would have to be proportional to the number of copies those people gave away. Since that number is not quantifiable in most cases, an arbitrary dollar value must be set. $200k is the equivalent of 4,000 copies or so. Is that too high? I think so. But value what isn't?
Anyone could have found that way to cripple the system... Microsoft had just told the world about it a few weeks before! All it really took was reading up on the problem they fixed as re-creating it.
Is this legal?
oops. Sounds like I need to RTFB.
She is my great-grandmother, David's grandmother. Only met her once or twice; I was too young to remember. It's great that David wrote this, I feel so proud!
He's my mom's cousin, and a great guy. Haven't seen him bald though... he looks a lot older!
Combine this with bayesian learning techniques and the machine will infer what factors in the raw data correlate with its advantage in the game world.
PS3: Hmmm... If I lower the performance of the graphics unit 99% and amplify the sound as much as possible I suddenly have a tremendous advantage!
There is a pretty good chance that the game-maker WANTED you to think this way, that they WANTED outrage over their game. If that is the case, you are playing right into their hands.
I for one enjoy violent games. What I do not enjoy, however, is being manipulated. The aformentioned situation is not unlike religious nuts voting for Bush on a stance that will never come to frutition.
My thoughts on the game? If its good, I might buy it. But I won't buy it just because some stupid assholes are all in a tizzy over it. With that reasoning, I'd smoke crack, turn gay, or move to France.
He never said that it was less morally reprehensible... I took it as they should give as much attention to games where ANYBODY is killed. Who cares if its cops, gangsters or nazis?
Not necessarily conservatives, though. I used to live a guy in the navy who was republican because 'it is voting for your boss'. Republicans want to put money into the military, so the military is made up of primarily republicans.
...or he was able to access a database full of them.
This is truly awesome. I want it.
The silent bomb plant is illegal in some leagues, along with other CS glitches. Sure, the other team can do it too, but doing so has a big effect on that team's chance of winning. How is it fun to have the side the glitch is on win every time?
...Like making it sound like you do drugs with your mom.
how humans love you
You own Microsoft stock, don't you?
Microsoft, on the other hand - is a business. Not a Human Rights organization or Advocacy group. I do NOT believe that they have any business either advocating or going against any political ideas - including Free Speech in China. That's not their job, nor why they exist.
They ARE advocating Chinese political ideas by censoring free speech. If Chinese law said that to do business in your country you had to rape or murder a child in order to do business there, you'd be just fine with Microsoft doing that too. Maximization of profits by acting is a morally wrong fashion (stripping people of fundamental rights) is what makes big corporations EVIL.
I can't see how that's relevant.
Read some of the other comments in this thread. The whole point is that even though Microsoft is following the letter of the law, they shouldn't be. In Rwanda, the letter of the law was 'Kill all the Tutsi's'. Are you saying anyone was justified in doing so? Are you saying Afghanistan was justified in forcing women to hide themselves and brutally punishing them if they didn't obey their draconian laws? I, and many others like myself, don't think so.
The bottom line is this: we can't change these morally wrong laws in other countries. But when someone (or some company) supports them, they are sending the message that they agree with them. If they didn't agree with them, and weren't forced to agree with them, then they wouldn't support them. Its plain as day to me. Microsoft supports the suppression of free speech, as long as they profit from it. The only reason they wouldn't do it here, is because it is against the law. But they would if they could. Are you OK with this?
Yes that is exactly what you said, everything. Why don't you clarify your argument instead of calling everyone's replies to your mistake 'straw man' arguments?
Your point is that Microsoft should contribute to the violation the US Constitution as long as it is not in the US, and makes them money. Is it not? Our point is, that if its OK to violate the US Constitution, why shouldn't it be OK to violate child-pornography, murder, or other laws, as long as they are not laws in the country you do them in?
The true outlaws, the government who made the laws.
You sir, are an idiot.
You quote, "Therefore, they have a responsibility to their shareholders to try to do everything they can to do business there."
The definition of the word everything
blah blah bicker blah, why don't you say how what you said is different!?!
China has HUGE porift potential for Microsoft. Therefore, they have a responsibility to their shareholders to try to do everything they can to do business there.
You said everything, and the person is right in equating anything you meant to everything, because that is what you said.
His point is as follows: when should the line be drawn when a business says, 'No, we won't do that, even though it makes us money.'? Your argument stated that the company should do everything, meaning no matter at what cost. If you actually meant everything within moral reason, where does that line get drawn? For me and this other person, it is when such means violate the US Constitution.
How will this make the game better? How will this help advance HL2's story?
It makes the game better by adding more realistic lighting, increasing the sense of immersion. The new level content MAY make the story better.
How will it help this other, more pressing graphics problem that plagues today's games, namely repetitive textures and models?
This problem is a designer one; the more time one has to put into a level/model, the better/less repetitive it becomes. However, by adding the realistic lighting, levels can become less repetitive by simply adding varied lights, which is infinitely easier to do as opposed to creating and applying new textures or complex world geometry. Models end up looking more 3-dimensional and realistic with the lighting as well.