Customer submitts ad to credit card company and initias a charge back
Since the ad would probably contain fine print listing the 5% surcharge for this exact reason the credit card company would have to tell the customer that everything was correct.
Probably in more ways than most people realize, I've seen retailers with signs saying they won't accept credit cards because the 5% transaction fee cuts too deep into their margins. Well, they ARE cheaper than other retailers that do acccept credit cards...
I don't neglect it because I believe that is just an empty threat. If offshoring was so great all jobs would already have migrated. This is just an excuse employers have found to put pressure on employees that could get another job easily. It's just FUD like terrorism.
RE4 was meant for the Cube and as such obviously didn't try to add features that would have to be cut for the GC release.
AFAIK the video quality in most EA multiplatform games that involved them was a lot worse on the GC (e.g. in the LotR games). Personally I don't play many multiplatform games but I'm sure most of the games that would have to take cuts on the GC weren't released on it anyway. If you're making a multiplatform game you have to make sure it works on those platforms and not exceeding the GC disc size by too much is probably considered then. GTA 3, VC and SA weren't released on the GC and AFAIK (word from the developer) they use the disc capacity pretty much completely. That wouldn't fit on one GC disc and it wouldn't work on multiple.
Dreamcast's failure had little to do with the storage medium as many games released for PS2 were also released for dreamcast. (Not every game USES the full capacity of the medium)
Really? Remember, the first few games on a system are rarely using the full ressources of the system. What the PS2 got when the DC was still around was all very early stuff. The games grew in size as developers got used to the larger storage capacity and these days you're often seeing cutbacks for the GC version of a multiplatform game simply because the GC's discs are lower capacity than the PS2's (and yet they store about twice as much as DC discs). Lower texture resolutions, lower video quality, fewer music tracks, cutting extras, etc. Other games were multi-disc on the GC while being on a single disc on other consoles.
I wouldn't bet on game developers actually using those upgrades, though. The additional testing effort will also result in even higher devcosts for the PS3. Well, okay, Kutaragi also said they'll allow patches to cut down on the time you have to spend on debugging pre-release. I think he wants that platform to turn into an unmitigated desaster.
I think it's a case of "It sucks, to me it doesn't exist" that fans of a series often employ on the part that jumped the shark. Can't blame them, Prince of Persia 3D really wasn't that hot.
I think Slashdot is too heterogenous to be accused of any specific bias (especially since many accuse the users of having one specific oppinion). We have everything from anarchists to fundies. For any point of view you'll see some post representing it. Granted, some are more common than others but few issues have an equal distribution of oppinions on the country average. The editors are often flamebaiting to increase discussion (especially Zonk likes to do that) which is when the extreme viewpoints come into play.
Unions are only common in jobs where the number of suitable employees greatly exceeds the number of available positions. In such situations the employee has a very low chance of finding a new job if he quits his old one and employers tend to use that. The industrial revolution had companies treating employees as disposable since there were fewer jobs than people willing to fill them and the employer could dictate the terms (since "you can go somewhere else" would mean no job at all and starving). That's why unions were formed so employers would have a harder time of finding someone who submits to their unreasonable demands and the workers had some bargaining power.
You'll notice that jobs like IT where suitable candidates aren't abundant and as such have quite some bargaining power the presence of unions is a lot smaller. With an increasing number of low skill jobs being displaced by machines and high skill jobs being created to build and maintain them unions may be a thing of the past a few decades from now unless humans on average get a LOT smarter so the pool of qualified workers grows a lot (many people simply aren't smart enough to pass university and even fewer make good employees).
IIRC the judge in the Blizzard vs. BNetD case ruled that EULAs are valid since you know that software comes with EULAs these days and as such it's not a shrinkwrap license or a contract formed under duress (i.e. the option to either sign it or having thrown away fifty bucks). If that wasn't the case it was another one but the target was an individual, not a company.
I see more posts complaining about Slashdot's anti-Windows and anti-capitalism bias than posts actually acting out such a bias. Never mind the large number of complaints about the "liberal bias" Slashdot has, which is equivalent to a pro-capitalist bias.
Union demands that make seniority or another objective factor the only one for pay, employment, etc are there to prevent any attack vectors through which to pressure the employees into unreasonable demands. Remember the EA Spouse spectacle? The company threatened employees who wouldn't subject themselves to unreasonable overtime demands (this was not the case in all EA branches but in some it was). Without unions they can threaten to fire. With unions but no strict objective pay rules the employer could misreport any subjective criteria for e.g. payrises to put employees they don't like at a disadvantage. An employee fails to bow to your unreasonable demands? Simply claim he's underperforming and don'T give him any further pay rises.
The reason the law prevents you from copying them is the same you're actually considering it: It's so damn easy. There's little to no cost to simply copy some medium containing copyrighted works and as such it's not possible to make a profit on them without a law restricting the copying. It simply wasn't necessary for other goods, who'd try to copy their toaster? The disparity between R&D and manufacturing costs isn't as big for any other good, there's little to no cost of entry into the copying market if you just copy other people's inventions and you aren't doing anything really productive for society while the inventor can't recoup his cost of developing the work. Sure, it's an artificial construct but it was the easiest way to implement the sale of ideas into the capitalistic system.
"Intellectual Property" is a legal term that refers to copyrighted works, trademarks and patents. That kind of stuff is recognized as property by the law and as such can be taxed and sold.
You are entitled to do whatever you damn well please with any copyrighted work you buy with the soul exception of commercial redistribution.
And non-commercial redistribution, copying for non-personal purposes (or other purposes that don't fall under the very limited scope of Fair Use), public performance and a few more things.
As I understand it judges have upheld EULAs as valid since you can be "reasonably expected" to know software comes with such a thing (yeah, right, like they teach that in schools. You don't know that until you have bought your first PC program). This justification fails to explain why any non-standard terms in an EULA (i.e. that go beyond the common ground present in all EULAs and as such aren't common sense anymore) still apply.
Additionally I do not see how a company can turn a sale into a licensing deal post sale. The sales contract predates the EULA, it did not make any mentioning of any licenses and it did not state that additional contracts are required to use the software. As such I'd argue that a piece of software sold without informing the customer of the required additional contract prior to the sale is fraudulent as the seller claimed the product was something it isn't (sale vs. license).
Furthermore I will not accept it as legal to use technical measures (DRM, installers, whathaveyou) to interfere with customer rights granted by the law. The law gave these rights to prevent companies from dictating terms through the vast imbalance of power (i.e. the contract is not negotiated and the company can dictate it any way they please, even worse if they and their competitors form an oligopoly through agreeing on using similarily exploitative terms and there is noone else to turn to), if a company was allowed to design a product to deny those rights that would undermine the whole purpose of the law. But then again I'm a proponent of making exploiting loopholes in a law a serious crime.
The European Union has a directive that severely limits the terms that can be present in a contract that is non-negotiable and presented by a large company. You could try proposing something comparable to your representative(s).
This may apply here: (e) requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation;
As a sidenote, many online gaming services (MMOs especially) fall afoul of this one by keeping any advance fees the customer paid when he is banned for any reason: (f) authorizing the seller or supplier to dissolve the contract on a discretionary basis where the same facility is not granted to the consumer, or permitting the seller or supplier to retain the sums paid for services not yet supplied by him where it is the seller or supplier himself who dissolves the contract;
It wasn't fine for people who can barely remember which button to press on a mouse. Try telling them the keyboard layout for Grim Fandango especially when you're not in an English country and as such the key names don't even make sense.
There's already more MMOs than the market can support and many are failing. But you know the games industry, everybody thinks that THEIR game will somehow be different from all the others.
Of course it would be even better if the stories didn't seem to be randomly pieced together from a series of clichees and didn't always end up with the world being demolished by some super powerful evil dude whom you have to defeat. But I guess having situations that come from diplomacy or strategy in a game isn't palatable to the Japanese mainstream gamer so they have to use supernatural enemies instead.
You make it sound like Mr. I-let-the-guy-I-fought-ten-times-already-just-run- past-without-ramming-my-sword-into-his-throat-so-I -can-fight-him-AGAIN aka Squall was any less idiotic.
I'm thinking that if you move past the collision point your grip on the saber gradually weakens, if you overdo it you drop it. Perhaps that could be combined with the test of strength, the more accurately you can make it mimic the actual position of your saber the more your grip stabilizes (should be a bit over time so you'd have to return for a second or two to regain full grip), by pushing into the enemy saber you use strength and push the sabers towards your opponent but your grip starts weakening and you have to trade speed for grip. If you push far enough your opponent loses his saber regardless of grip strength and you can get in a few free hits.
Slashdot Mirror
Customer submitts ad to credit card company and initias a charge back
Since the ad would probably contain fine print listing the 5% surcharge for this exact reason the credit card company would have to tell the customer that everything was correct.
Probably in more ways than most people realize, I've seen retailers with signs saying they won't accept credit cards because the 5% transaction fee cuts too deep into their margins. Well, they ARE cheaper than other retailers that do acccept credit cards...
Plus we can have additional realism by pricing the properties at e.g. 399.95$ instead of 400$.
I don't neglect it because I believe that is just an empty threat. If offshoring was so great all jobs would already have migrated. This is just an excuse employers have found to put pressure on employees that could get another job easily. It's just FUD like terrorism.
RE4 was meant for the Cube and as such obviously didn't try to add features that would have to be cut for the GC release.
AFAIK the video quality in most EA multiplatform games that involved them was a lot worse on the GC (e.g. in the LotR games). Personally I don't play many multiplatform games but I'm sure most of the games that would have to take cuts on the GC weren't released on it anyway. If you're making a multiplatform game you have to make sure it works on those platforms and not exceeding the GC disc size by too much is probably considered then. GTA 3, VC and SA weren't released on the GC and AFAIK (word from the developer) they use the disc capacity pretty much completely. That wouldn't fit on one GC disc and it wouldn't work on multiple.
I won't stop calling it next gen until all three consoles are out and had some time to pick up games, i.e. are out of the early-adopter-only phase.
Dreamcast's failure had little to do with the storage medium as many games released for PS2 were also released for dreamcast. (Not every game USES the full capacity of the medium)
Really? Remember, the first few games on a system are rarely using the full ressources of the system. What the PS2 got when the DC was still around was all very early stuff. The games grew in size as developers got used to the larger storage capacity and these days you're often seeing cutbacks for the GC version of a multiplatform game simply because the GC's discs are lower capacity than the PS2's (and yet they store about twice as much as DC discs). Lower texture resolutions, lower video quality, fewer music tracks, cutting extras, etc. Other games were multi-disc on the GC while being on a single disc on other consoles.
I wouldn't bet on game developers actually using those upgrades, though. The additional testing effort will also result in even higher devcosts for the PS3. Well, okay, Kutaragi also said they'll allow patches to cut down on the time you have to spend on debugging pre-release. I think he wants that platform to turn into an unmitigated desaster.
I think it's a case of "It sucks, to me it doesn't exist" that fans of a series often employ on the part that jumped the shark. Can't blame them, Prince of Persia 3D really wasn't that hot.
Ironically, Dreamcast games still come out once in a while. So much for the Dreamcast/CD vs Playstation2/DVD.
PS2 games come out by the dozen each week, DC games are one or two a month. I don't think MS would want that.
I think Slashdot is too heterogenous to be accused of any specific bias (especially since many accuse the users of having one specific oppinion). We have everything from anarchists to fundies. For any point of view you'll see some post representing it. Granted, some are more common than others but few issues have an equal distribution of oppinions on the country average. The editors are often flamebaiting to increase discussion (especially Zonk likes to do that) which is when the extreme viewpoints come into play.
Unions are only common in jobs where the number of suitable employees greatly exceeds the number of available positions. In such situations the employee has a very low chance of finding a new job if he quits his old one and employers tend to use that. The industrial revolution had companies treating employees as disposable since there were fewer jobs than people willing to fill them and the employer could dictate the terms (since "you can go somewhere else" would mean no job at all and starving). That's why unions were formed so employers would have a harder time of finding someone who submits to their unreasonable demands and the workers had some bargaining power.
You'll notice that jobs like IT where suitable candidates aren't abundant and as such have quite some bargaining power the presence of unions is a lot smaller. With an increasing number of low skill jobs being displaced by machines and high skill jobs being created to build and maintain them unions may be a thing of the past a few decades from now unless humans on average get a LOT smarter so the pool of qualified workers grows a lot (many people simply aren't smart enough to pass university and even fewer make good employees).
uhm yes.
IIRC the judge in the Blizzard vs. BNetD case ruled that EULAs are valid since you know that software comes with EULAs these days and as such it's not a shrinkwrap license or a contract formed under duress (i.e. the option to either sign it or having thrown away fifty bucks). If that wasn't the case it was another one but the target was an individual, not a company.
Bubble fusion is what happens when you combine pop rocks and soda!
I see more posts complaining about Slashdot's anti-Windows and anti-capitalism bias than posts actually acting out such a bias. Never mind the large number of complaints about the "liberal bias" Slashdot has, which is equivalent to a pro-capitalist bias.
Union demands that make seniority or another objective factor the only one for pay, employment, etc are there to prevent any attack vectors through which to pressure the employees into unreasonable demands. Remember the EA Spouse spectacle? The company threatened employees who wouldn't subject themselves to unreasonable overtime demands (this was not the case in all EA branches but in some it was). Without unions they can threaten to fire. With unions but no strict objective pay rules the employer could misreport any subjective criteria for e.g. payrises to put employees they don't like at a disadvantage. An employee fails to bow to your unreasonable demands? Simply claim he's underperforming and don'T give him any further pay rises.
The reason the law prevents you from copying them is the same you're actually considering it: It's so damn easy. There's little to no cost to simply copy some medium containing copyrighted works and as such it's not possible to make a profit on them without a law restricting the copying. It simply wasn't necessary for other goods, who'd try to copy their toaster? The disparity between R&D and manufacturing costs isn't as big for any other good, there's little to no cost of entry into the copying market if you just copy other people's inventions and you aren't doing anything really productive for society while the inventor can't recoup his cost of developing the work. Sure, it's an artificial construct but it was the easiest way to implement the sale of ideas into the capitalistic system.
"Intellectual Property" is a legal term that refers to copyrighted works, trademarks and patents. That kind of stuff is recognized as property by the law and as such can be taxed and sold.
You are entitled to do whatever you damn well please with any copyrighted work you buy with the soul exception of commercial redistribution.
And non-commercial redistribution, copying for non-personal purposes (or other purposes that don't fall under the very limited scope of Fair Use), public performance and a few more things.
As I understand it judges have upheld EULAs as valid since you can be "reasonably expected" to know software comes with such a thing (yeah, right, like they teach that in schools. You don't know that until you have bought your first PC program). This justification fails to explain why any non-standard terms in an EULA (i.e. that go beyond the common ground present in all EULAs and as such aren't common sense anymore) still apply.
Additionally I do not see how a company can turn a sale into a licensing deal post sale. The sales contract predates the EULA, it did not make any mentioning of any licenses and it did not state that additional contracts are required to use the software. As such I'd argue that a piece of software sold without informing the customer of the required additional contract prior to the sale is fraudulent as the seller claimed the product was something it isn't (sale vs. license).
Furthermore I will not accept it as legal to use technical measures (DRM, installers, whathaveyou) to interfere with customer rights granted by the law. The law gave these rights to prevent companies from dictating terms through the vast imbalance of power (i.e. the contract is not negotiated and the company can dictate it any way they please, even worse if they and their competitors form an oligopoly through agreeing on using similarily exploitative terms and there is noone else to turn to), if a company was allowed to design a product to deny those rights that would undermine the whole purpose of the law. But then again I'm a proponent of making exploiting loopholes in a law a serious crime.
The European Union has a directive that severely limits the terms that can be present in a contract that is non-negotiable and presented by a large company. You could try proposing something comparable to your representative(s).
This may apply here:
(e) requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation;
As a sidenote, many online gaming services (MMOs especially) fall afoul of this one by keeping any advance fees the customer paid when he is banned for any reason:
(f) authorizing the seller or supplier to dissolve the contract on a discretionary basis where the same facility is not granted to the consumer, or permitting the seller or supplier to retain the sums paid for services not yet supplied by him where it is the seller or supplier himself who dissolves the contract;
It wasn't fine for people who can barely remember which button to press on a mouse. Try telling them the keyboard layout for Grim Fandango especially when you're not in an English country and as such the key names don't even make sense.
There's already more MMOs than the market can support and many are failing. But you know the games industry, everybody thinks that THEIR game will somehow be different from all the others.
Of course it would be even better if the stories didn't seem to be randomly pieced together from a series of clichees and didn't always end up with the world being demolished by some super powerful evil dude whom you have to defeat. But I guess having situations that come from diplomacy or strategy in a game isn't palatable to the Japanese mainstream gamer so they have to use supernatural enemies instead.
You make it sound like Mr. I-let-the-guy-I-fought-ten-times-already-just-run- past-without-ramming-my-sword-into-his-throat-so-I -can-fight-him-AGAIN aka Squall was any less idiotic.
I'm thinking that if you move past the collision point your grip on the saber gradually weakens, if you overdo it you drop it. Perhaps that could be combined with the test of strength, the more accurately you can make it mimic the actual position of your saber the more your grip stabilizes (should be a bit over time so you'd have to return for a second or two to regain full grip), by pushing into the enemy saber you use strength and push the sabers towards your opponent but your grip starts weakening and you have to trade speed for grip. If you push far enough your opponent loses his saber regardless of grip strength and you can get in a few free hits.