Why is stealing equivalent to murder and thus deserves death? That does not make sense. Stealing does not threaten my life. I can replace things that are stolen. A person that is killed cannot. What if the circumstances were such that a person was stealing out of necessity because of hunger? Does that deserve death? What if a person took something they were given permission to that you did not know about and you killed the person? I would think you should fry.
Where does a person become certified to decide if a situation is a lethal threat? Wouldn't it be deliciously ironic if you were shot by an individual because they misinterpreted your actions? Be careful what you ask for.
Maybe because any situation is not seen only through your experience. I guess you believe you should be able to harness the power of judge, jury and executioner. I am not sure why we bother with a court system since we all have better judgment. If we could only clone you so every situation could be judged through your divine sense of things.
Can you name any substantial evidence that shows that an armed citizenry is effective in deterring crime? Why do we have police if it is the case that this is a more effective solution than paramilitary? I haven't read many front page stories about Joe Hero saving the day because he has a gun.
You have problems. Might as well retreat to the woods or Michigan to leave society. You are the one making society more dangerous - not less. How do I know that you can keep your firearm away from the criminal that may be more than happy to use it? How do you know that you can properly assess a situation that may call for a firearm? I only trust police to have this judgment and I do not extend it to Joe Anonymous. In addition, the police screw this responsibility up enough that I do not want you involved in situations that call for a firarm.
Come on. There are freaks in our society that do not feel safe. Do you listen to people that suffer from paranoia?
If we look at this statistically, in a year, there could only be 365 people that were murdered on the front page. There are over 300 million people in the US. So, you tell me if it is that dangerous?
It is the people that carry firearms that endanger the rest of us. Do you think, because you carry a firearm, you are mentally prepared for a situation that calls for a firearm? I doubt it and giving guns to people that suffer from this sort of fantasy are even more dangerous. Would you leave it to this person to correctly identify a dangerous situation? All situations may warrant a firearm to this person.
And because an IP can't be traced back to a person committing an act, only an IP committing an act, that is the weakness in the argument forwarded by the content owners. For instance, how do you know that the IP in question is not hijacked? How do you know the IP is not just a public IP and hides a network of PCs behind it, any of which could be a perp? It is sort of like holding a city responsible for crimes committed by their citizens because you can't identify the citizen that committed the crime.
I like how you suggest the movie studios are the authority we need to cater to in defining useful tools. You must be from Australia. Leave the dumbasses of democracy and freedom down under. Go ahead and criminalize your populace as I am sure that does not have an economic impact. What happened to individual responsibility or people having to make their case in court based on evidence - not some statistical model? I want to live in Australia because I can be a victim.
I still got chatted up left and right (don't guys check for rings anymore?) and I really don't like it.
I did not know that chatting up a female gendered human was sexual harassment. Maybe that is part of the problem. But it sounds rather isolating to become a married woman now that men can't talk with you. I did not know chit-chat's only purpose is courtship.
The "OMFG BOOBS! Let's go talk to them" effect...
Do you know that this actually exists or are you projecting your feelings? I suspect it is the latter since the other way would presuppose you know what the people around you are thinking/feeling. Can I speak for your thinking/feelings? Nope.
How does the rest of the world feel about this? After all, it is not Americas moon - it is the world's moon and America is considering crashing something into it because they do not have the budget. Too bad - get the budget.
that software can be resold? If I buy a copy of spore, I expect to play it.
I think this is a problematic solution and indicative of the old way of thinking of software.
Do piracy solutions really make companies more money? After all, the honest person will not be able to play it, but the pirate will get around this eventually. Thus, piracy prevention just becomes annoying to those that have acquired the game legally.
but the facts are not quite right. Brett Glass, of Lariat from Wyoming, was at the hearing representing the issues of ISPs. He runs a small rural ISP providing service to people in Wyoming that might not ordinarily have service. That quite a bit different than the person that wrote the story saying only one side was available. And let me tell you, he is quite the adversary and his arguments are compelling and spot on from his position supporting network management. I happen to be of the other persuasion, but I respect what he has to say as both sides have valid points. Comcast, Verizon, et al do not need to be at hearings as the logic presented by Brett stands on its own and does not need multi-billion dollar companies to echo his arguments to give them strength. But then again, maybe the person that submitted the story is bedazzled by Rolexes and sees branding as legitimizing arguments and people. I have no other explanation as to why he was glossed over.
Please see this link for Brett's comments since the person that wrote this article failed to take notice at the hearing:
http://www.brettglass.com/remarks.html
then get out of the kitchen. ISO needs nerds with spines.
ISO created their own mess that allowed the vote to be packed for OOXML. Now, they can suffer for their stupidity and lack of foresight.
In any case, the call for a cease fire should energize those that are making ISO sweat. It is obviously working and exposing the fact that ISO can be bought.
The only place for ISO now is history as they have allowed MS to soil their reputation. No one can trust them to do the right thing. Once a dog bites a person, we destroy it because it has demonstrated the propensity to attack a human. ISO has exposed its political side and there is no reason to not think that ISO will not be hijacked in the future.
What I have found is that most of the IT organizations I have worked for are dysfunctional. I prefer to stay in an organization I know as opposed to the thinking that the grass is greener somewhere else.
And how do we not know that the engineers that leave departments are not because they are stellar, of which there are probably a very small percentage, but because they are uppity and sophomoric. These guys are making 100k+ and it goes to their heads. Go work a restaurant or other unskilled job and see how much you appreciate getting paid 100k. Most of the people I have worked with in IT have never had a job aside from their current IT job. It seems to me it is a matter of the spoiled child then it is that talented engineers leave.
Boohoo! I guess the adoption of the standard around the world speaks for itself and the political motivations to have two document standards. How do they reason that there needs to be 2. And while they are at it, they should make a third and a fourth and a fifth. Obviously, when it comes to standards, diversity matters.
The brain already stores much of this information. Maybe they should work on an app that supplements the brain and uses a information life cycle paradigm to offload old memories into physical storage. Disaster recovery is a nice application too - just in case.
Why don't the ISPs pay for their own hardware? I am not getting how it is the content creator or customer that pays for buying new hardware that an ISP owns. If an ISP is not able to pass on the cost of new hardware and stay competitive with service and price, then I guess that ISP goes obsolete. I think that is how the market is supposed to work, right? After all, it is the ISPs and bandwidth wholesalers that screwed the pooch by building networks and a pricing model that was asymmetrical because they thought the Internet was all web based.
The old breed of ISPs should go out of business if they can't compete and a new generation of ISPs will emerge with a better business model. There is demand and it is not going away so there is money to be made. If they cannot adapt, then too bad.
By the way, nice fallacy that P2P apps are designed to use maximum bandwidth. What evidence do you have to back this up? It sounds more anecdotal than anything. Not all P2P apps are created equal and are designed to file share.
Patent documents are legal documents. Language needs to be explicit. How else will you evaluate the patent without being able to interpret the words for what they are - not what they clandestinely mean? For instance, do you think you would be allowed to write a legal document with substituted words and then argue that the words really mean something else? This would establish a bad precedent as now words can be generalized beyond their original intent.
On point #2 - Yes, I guess I and all my friends are statistically insignificant. So, who is right? Neither of ut makes this decision or the developer? I assume it is the business that is asking for the latest since developers should not be doing much independs, but you made the assertion with your limited pool of sample points. So, prove it.
On point #3 - I concur with your point on hardware. But is it a bug if I write my code to an API and the hardware does not implement the API correctly. I am not sure if that is a bug, but it also doesn't help the poor consumer that has hardware that does not support the API fully. If you are wondering which API, and I am guessing you are not, but directX. It is not the developers job to test all hardware combinations. That is why Windows has a certification lab - well, to certify hardware and make lots of money with the label/brand.
On point #4 - Again, you are making an anecdotal assertion. "It results in a fixation by developers on pushing the envelope in terms of graphics, sound, etc, and results in less emphasis on game play, story, etc." Is it the business analayst/marketer that is creating requirements for the latest or independent thinking by the developer? I am guessing it is a business requirement and not a developer that decided to use a new feature of an API. This can be a costly decision for a developer to make because they should understand the total cost of the feature and the ROI.
In any case, the last time I remember this being an issue was when DVD came out. It seemed like this unlocked "live footage" so many games seemed to incorporate this and gameplay was impacted. I am not so much aware of an issue these days. I am still using my Radeon 9500 with an AMD 1800+, which is years old, and it still works with the latest WOW and Civilization(not games that push the envelope.) Soon, my hardware will be obsolete, but not yet. So, where did I lose gameplay in favor of technology if I am using years old technology? However, with my PC, I have the opportunity of upgrading and I can get the benefits of more recent technology. This is not the case with any console at this point. And yes, I would say you are getting a much more bleeding edge game with a current PC over a console that is 6 years old. Take the 360 versus 1st gen XBox. The 360 is akin to upgrading your PC, but your argument seems to maintain that the superiority of the current console is debatable versus the older console gameplay. I would agree to a degree because Donkey Kong was the bomb, but I would not argue that it is "better" by today's standards.
It is more like why more PC gamers are not using Linux. I am a PC gamer and I would love to migrate to Linux, which would make me a Linux user. I do not want to pay a MS tax to play PC games.
The main problem is lack of DX API in Linux. If you haven't noticed, video hardware certifies itself against DX API and games are written to DX, not openGL. If MS would extend their library and charge a fair royalty to the development shops, then Linux gaming will be a reality. However, I am sure MS has thought about this and it must be worth it to lock gamers in to a platform as opposed to building out the DX market.
One last comment: there is a fallacy floating around in this thread. If a user has a free OS as a platform, that means they want everything open sourced or free. This is not the case and I would say you would be hard pressed to prove that.
Point 2 is moot. I have not had driver issues for years now. I am still using a Athlon 1800+, which is pretty old and I have not had to update drivers for years.
Point 3 is a don't care. Bugs are not isolated to just PC games. Console games have bugs too. Why would development for consoles be of better quality? This does not make sense.
Point 4 - PCs will always be ahead of the curve with hardware. Therefore, games that push technological limits will be PC games because hardware jumps every 6 months. How often are consoles updated - every few years? After the first year of a console, the PC is outpacing it with the latest hardware. In other words, console users will be playing games on years old technology while a PC gamer has the option of using the latest with the right budget.
What evidence do you have that, "the wonderful thing about it is that the days are numbered?" The business of magazines is to get sponsors to advertise. The way magazines do that is to create compelling content that creates an audience. Sponsors are the ones with the big bucks, they are the ones that invested in a product, and they are the ones that will make sure their product is successful. If that means using leverage like pulling an advertising spot on a review site/magazine, then I am sure they will and it will always continue.
Slashdot Mirror
Why is stealing equivalent to murder and thus deserves death? That does not make sense. Stealing does not threaten my life. I can replace things that are stolen. A person that is killed cannot. What if the circumstances were such that a person was stealing out of necessity because of hunger? Does that deserve death? What if a person took something they were given permission to that you did not know about and you killed the person? I would think you should fry.
Where does a person become certified to decide if a situation is a lethal threat? Wouldn't it be deliciously ironic if you were shot by an individual because they misinterpreted your actions? Be careful what you ask for.
Maybe because any situation is not seen only through your experience. I guess you believe you should be able to harness the power of judge, jury and executioner. I am not sure why we bother with a court system since we all have better judgment. If we could only clone you so every situation could be judged through your divine sense of things.
Can you name any substantial evidence that shows that an armed citizenry is effective in deterring crime? Why do we have police if it is the case that this is a more effective solution than paramilitary? I haven't read many front page stories about Joe Hero saving the day because he has a gun.
Loser. And how often does this happen? You are paranoid.
You have problems. Might as well retreat to the woods or Michigan to leave society. You are the one making society more dangerous - not less. How do I know that you can keep your firearm away from the criminal that may be more than happy to use it? How do you know that you can properly assess a situation that may call for a firearm? I only trust police to have this judgment and I do not extend it to Joe Anonymous. In addition, the police screw this responsibility up enough that I do not want you involved in situations that call for a firarm.
Come on. There are freaks in our society that do not feel safe. Do you listen to people that suffer from paranoia?
If we look at this statistically, in a year, there could only be 365 people that were murdered on the front page. There are over 300 million people in the US. So, you tell me if it is that dangerous?
It is the people that carry firearms that endanger the rest of us. Do you think, because you carry a firearm, you are mentally prepared for a situation that calls for a firearm? I doubt it and giving guns to people that suffer from this sort of fantasy are even more dangerous. Would you leave it to this person to correctly identify a dangerous situation? All situations may warrant a firearm to this person.
IS pretty much a magical piracy device, it's just used also for legal content.
Dumbass. I guess we should have made those devices illegal too according to your anecdotal assertion.
And because an IP can't be traced back to a person committing an act, only an IP committing an act, that is the weakness in the argument forwarded by the content owners. For instance, how do you know that the IP in question is not hijacked? How do you know the IP is not just a public IP and hides a network of PCs behind it, any of which could be a perp? It is sort of like holding a city responsible for crimes committed by their citizens because you can't identify the citizen that committed the crime.
While we are at it, why don't we get rid of education because it can be used by criminals to commit crime? Dumbass.
I like how you suggest the movie studios are the authority we need to cater to in defining useful tools. You must be from Australia. Leave the dumbasses of democracy and freedom down under. Go ahead and criminalize your populace as I am sure that does not have an economic impact. What happened to individual responsibility or people having to make their case in court based on evidence - not some statistical model? I want to live in Australia because I can be a victim.
I still got chatted up left and right (don't guys check for rings anymore?) and I really don't like it.
I did not know that chatting up a female gendered human was sexual harassment. Maybe that is part of the problem. But it sounds rather isolating to become a married woman now that men can't talk with you. I did not know chit-chat's only purpose is courtship.
The "OMFG BOOBS! Let's go talk to them" effect...
Do you know that this actually exists or are you projecting your feelings? I suspect it is the latter since the other way would presuppose you know what the people around you are thinking/feeling. Can I speak for your thinking/feelings? Nope.
How does the rest of the world feel about this? After all, it is not Americas moon - it is the world's moon and America is considering crashing something into it because they do not have the budget. Too bad - get the budget.
that software can be resold? If I buy a copy of spore, I expect to play it.
I think this is a problematic solution and indicative of the old way of thinking of software.
Do piracy solutions really make companies more money? After all, the honest person will not be able to play it, but the pirate will get around this eventually. Thus, piracy prevention just becomes annoying to those that have acquired the game legally.
but the facts are not quite right. Brett Glass, of Lariat from Wyoming, was at the hearing representing the issues of ISPs. He runs a small rural ISP providing service to people in Wyoming that might not ordinarily have service. That quite a bit different than the person that wrote the story saying only one side was available. And let me tell you, he is quite the adversary and his arguments are compelling and spot on from his position supporting network management. I happen to be of the other persuasion, but I respect what he has to say as both sides have valid points. Comcast, Verizon, et al do not need to be at hearings as the logic presented by Brett stands on its own and does not need multi-billion dollar companies to echo his arguments to give them strength. But then again, maybe the person that submitted the story is bedazzled by Rolexes and sees branding as legitimizing arguments and people. I have no other explanation as to why he was glossed over.
Please see this link for Brett's comments since the person that wrote this article failed to take notice at the hearing: http://www.brettglass.com/remarks.html
then get out of the kitchen. ISO needs nerds with spines.
ISO created their own mess that allowed the vote to be packed for OOXML. Now, they can suffer for their stupidity and lack of foresight.
In any case, the call for a cease fire should energize those that are making ISO sweat. It is obviously working and exposing the fact that ISO can be bought.
The only place for ISO now is history as they have allowed MS to soil their reputation. No one can trust them to do the right thing. Once a dog bites a person, we destroy it because it has demonstrated the propensity to attack a human. ISO has exposed its political side and there is no reason to not think that ISO will not be hijacked in the future.
Where is the evidence?
What I have found is that most of the IT organizations I have worked for are dysfunctional. I prefer to stay in an organization I know as opposed to the thinking that the grass is greener somewhere else.
And how do we not know that the engineers that leave departments are not because they are stellar, of which there are probably a very small percentage, but because they are uppity and sophomoric. These guys are making 100k+ and it goes to their heads. Go work a restaurant or other unskilled job and see how much you appreciate getting paid 100k. Most of the people I have worked with in IT have never had a job aside from their current IT job. It seems to me it is a matter of the spoiled child then it is that talented engineers leave.
Boohoo! I guess the adoption of the standard around the world speaks for itself and the political motivations to have two document standards. How do they reason that there needs to be 2. And while they are at it, they should make a third and a fourth and a fifth. Obviously, when it comes to standards, diversity matters.
The brain already stores much of this information. Maybe they should work on an app that supplements the brain and uses a information life cycle paradigm to offload old memories into physical storage. Disaster recovery is a nice application too - just in case.
Why don't the ISPs pay for their own hardware? I am not getting how it is the content creator or customer that pays for buying new hardware that an ISP owns. If an ISP is not able to pass on the cost of new hardware and stay competitive with service and price, then I guess that ISP goes obsolete. I think that is how the market is supposed to work, right? After all, it is the ISPs and bandwidth wholesalers that screwed the pooch by building networks and a pricing model that was asymmetrical because they thought the Internet was all web based.
The old breed of ISPs should go out of business if they can't compete and a new generation of ISPs will emerge with a better business model. There is demand and it is not going away so there is money to be made. If they cannot adapt, then too bad. By the way, nice fallacy that P2P apps are designed to use maximum bandwidth. What evidence do you have to back this up? It sounds more anecdotal than anything. Not all P2P apps are created equal and are designed to file share.
Patent documents are legal documents. Language needs to be explicit. How else will you evaluate the patent without being able to interpret the words for what they are - not what they clandestinely mean? For instance, do you think you would be allowed to write a legal document with substituted words and then argue that the words really mean something else? This would establish a bad precedent as now words can be generalized beyond their original intent.
On point #2 - Yes, I guess I and all my friends are statistically insignificant. So, who is right? Neither of ut makes this decision or the developer? I assume it is the business that is asking for the latest since developers should not be doing much independs, but you made the assertion with your limited pool of sample points. So, prove it.
On point #3 - I concur with your point on hardware. But is it a bug if I write my code to an API and the hardware does not implement the API correctly. I am not sure if that is a bug, but it also doesn't help the poor consumer that has hardware that does not support the API fully. If you are wondering which API, and I am guessing you are not, but directX. It is not the developers job to test all hardware combinations. That is why Windows has a certification lab - well, to certify hardware and make lots of money with the label/brand.
On point #4 - Again, you are making an anecdotal assertion. "It results in a fixation by developers on pushing the envelope in terms of graphics, sound, etc, and results in less emphasis on game play, story, etc." Is it the business analayst/marketer that is creating requirements for the latest or independent thinking by the developer? I am guessing it is a business requirement and not a developer that decided to use a new feature of an API. This can be a costly decision for a developer to make because they should understand the total cost of the feature and the ROI.
In any case, the last time I remember this being an issue was when DVD came out. It seemed like this unlocked "live footage" so many games seemed to incorporate this and gameplay was impacted. I am not so much aware of an issue these days. I am still using my Radeon 9500 with an AMD 1800+, which is years old, and it still works with the latest WOW and Civilization(not games that push the envelope.) Soon, my hardware will be obsolete, but not yet. So, where did I lose gameplay in favor of technology if I am using years old technology? However, with my PC, I have the opportunity of upgrading and I can get the benefits of more recent technology. This is not the case with any console at this point. And yes, I would say you are getting a much more bleeding edge game with a current PC over a console that is 6 years old. Take the 360 versus 1st gen XBox. The 360 is akin to upgrading your PC, but your argument seems to maintain that the superiority of the current console is debatable versus the older console gameplay. I would agree to a degree because Donkey Kong was the bomb, but I would not argue that it is "better" by today's standards.
It is more like why more PC gamers are not using Linux. I am a PC gamer and I would love to migrate to Linux, which would make me a Linux user. I do not want to pay a MS tax to play PC games.
The main problem is lack of DX API in Linux. If you haven't noticed, video hardware certifies itself against DX API and games are written to DX, not openGL. If MS would extend their library and charge a fair royalty to the development shops, then Linux gaming will be a reality. However, I am sure MS has thought about this and it must be worth it to lock gamers in to a platform as opposed to building out the DX market.
One last comment: there is a fallacy floating around in this thread. If a user has a free OS as a platform, that means they want everything open sourced or free. This is not the case and I would say you would be hard pressed to prove that.
Insightful? Moderators must not be PC gamers.
Point 2 is moot. I have not had driver issues for years now. I am still using a Athlon 1800+, which is pretty old and I have not had to update drivers for years.
Point 3 is a don't care. Bugs are not isolated to just PC games. Console games have bugs too. Why would development for consoles be of better quality? This does not make sense.
Point 4 - PCs will always be ahead of the curve with hardware. Therefore, games that push technological limits will be PC games because hardware jumps every 6 months. How often are consoles updated - every few years? After the first year of a console, the PC is outpacing it with the latest hardware. In other words, console users will be playing games on years old technology while a PC gamer has the option of using the latest with the right budget.
Please explain your post.
What evidence do you have that, "the wonderful thing about it is that the days are numbered?" The business of magazines is to get sponsors to advertise. The way magazines do that is to create compelling content that creates an audience. Sponsors are the ones with the big bucks, they are the ones that invested in a product, and they are the ones that will make sure their product is successful. If that means using leverage like pulling an advertising spot on a review site/magazine, then I am sure they will and it will always continue.