the government sets a minimum price on a product or service,
But that is not what happens here. The price is set by the distributor, not the government. The regulation in place simply puts limits on things like bulk sales, volume discounts, etc.
The government doesn't determine the price. What it does do is ascertain that the price (whatever it is) is the same for everyone.
The "regulation" about book prices is not what you'd usually associate with the term. Specifically, it is a fixed-price model, which says that books can not be sold at discount except under certain circumstances. That is the main reason Germany still has thousands of small bookstores with employees that actually know something about books, instead of large discount chains that work on the WalMart principle. Second, the tax on books is lower than on other consumer articles (same discounted tax rate as for food, for example).
As an owner of the FingerWorks TouchStream (the keyboard/mousepad multitouch combo product), I disagree with your assessment. The reasons the keyboard failed are many. One of the most important ones, I think, was that it was too early. Yes, it had multi-touch, but no application supported multi-touch. So the only thing you could use it for is a virtual keyboard. The keyboard was good, but lacked haptic feedback, thus making touch-typing very difficult.
If applications would support multi-touch, a product like the TouchStream could be a success, because now it gives you an advantage over a conventional keyboard.
I'd certainly love a game that adapts to my style of play if that means when I sneak and use stealth, it'll give me more opportunities to do so, while when I shoot everything that moves, it'll throw more enemies to kill at me.
But if the game adapts so far that it gives me only that which I'm good at, then the challenge is gone. If it modifies the level of difficulty to exactly my abilities (instead of slightly above them, as it should), then it'll be boring.
Once more, it's a technology. Some game designers will use it to improve the game. A lot will tack it on to the next cheaply produced crapware just to make sure a so-so idea is ruined completely.
And I want a 20 pounds keyboard running an 8 year old windos version for what, exactly? So I can watch YouTube on a tiny, cheap screen instead of a good display?
I dig an OLED keyboard with software-reprogrammable keys. Cool thing - switching to a foreign language or Dvorak in software.
But a screen in the keyboard just eludes me. Why would I want to look at the keyboard - again, after spending a few years learning to touch-type?
Agree in parts. Yours truly (creator of the game mentioned) is an old/. reader and I missed my own game being mentioned on the front page due to it being "hidden" in a "Linux Games" article (me == Mac user, thus I only skimmed it).
So if it helps you sleep, now you at least know it wasn't the dev people who slashvertised it.
Oh, I see. It's not that people choose a PC because they want a machine that has windows on it, it's because Microsoft forces them! Thanks for clearing that up. It's clear from the evidence that 99% of PC users really want a Linux system, and Bill Gates has been keeping them from it. Are you serious?
Yes, I am, with my words, not your twistings of them.
Fact of the matter is that say 90% of the computer buyers "choose" windos, because they aren't even aware of alternatives, and because what alternatives once existed were driven out of business. The "choice" isn't really one. If you can choose the blue pill or the red pill or the green pill, you may think you have a choice, but in fact you have to choose a pill. Your "choice" is limited to colour. It's a trick used extensively by stage magicians, btw.
I've met people who believe that Linux must be a windos program, because everything on a computer runs in windos, right?
That is the actual damage done. Yes, people "choose" a windos PC - because they choose between a Dell machine (with windos pre-installed), an HP machine (with windos pre-installed) or some cheap no-name brand (with windos pre-installed).
Fallacious nonsense. The U.S. has more regional and bi-lateral free trade agreements than any nation on earth.
True, but misleading.
The U.S. has been the world-wide impetus for free trade for over 25 years, while continental Europe has had to be dragged along kicking and screaming.
True to a point, though as a matter of fact, the UK was the inventor of globalisation. But then again, it's not usually counted in with continental Europe.
However, there's a reason Europe had to be "dragged along". As the western superpower, the US has benefited from free trade. European nations not so. Yes, Germany was the world's #1 exporter for many years (fighting with Japan, now overtaken by China). But we also lost a lot of jobs to cheaper overseas competitors. And let's not forget that the whole neo-liberal "free trade über alles" doctrine is what brought about the current economic crisis. The countries with the strictest non-free banking control systems (like Australia) are the ones who are weathering the storm the best.
I dare say it was European colonialism that ruined South America and continues to ruin Africa today.
I will agree entirely with Africa, though disagree with the "today" part. Colonialism has certainly put Africa in a position where it'll take at least a century or so to recover and become a continent with full functional states. Though let's not forget that the US was the #1 slave trader from Africa, and that has left its impact also (many of the states around the ivory coast were arbitrarily drawn on a map surrounding slave trade centers).
South America? Nope, no win. Show me where you can put the blame on colonialism there. Sure, the Mayas and Inkas were not exactly treated very friendly and all that. But today's problems? Colonialism? I don't see a link there. I do see a lot of links north, though. The Contra affair, CIA drug trade, several coup de etat's financed and supported by the US, should I go on?
Does Microsoft force people to buy PCs, or it is the fact that they are eminently superior to the "competition?"
Neither. Your non sequitor is so primitive, it hurts. MS does force people who buy a PC to also buy windos, through its OEM tie-ins. And it forces people who buy a PC with windos to also have IE delivered with it. The "superiority" strawman is ridiculous and I won't be repeating the argument, you can find a million or so rebukes on/. by using the search function.
The US has, by far, the most liberal trade policies in the world.
As long as it suits them, yes. I remember they are strong on copyright as well. Funny how that changed, they used to be the largest piracy nation in the world when it was british books, not american movies, that were the most wanted product on the entertainment market.
The stories of the US forcing US-friendly trade policies on foreign nations are legion, if you just open your eyes. In fact, they're one of the primary reasons half of south america hates you. The other half hates you because you helped overthrow their democratically elected governments and installed a more US-friendly dictatorship that then went on to terrorize its people.
And you'd think the head of the friggin FBI knows a little more than that. Maybe he should go and talk with his friends at the NSA?
There's a straightforward solution to this so simple that it hurts. Don't mix media. I have a bookmark for my online banking. If I ever receive a mail from my bank with some "important information about my account", I will click on that bookmark, never on the link in the e-mail, and if the info is real, it'll be there in my online banking message box.
Same with PayPal, Amazon, ebay and any other site. It really is so simple, I think I could explain it to my grandma, and she's demented.
If you had witnessed the past eight years from outside the US, you would be wondering how anyone in the world can possibly not hate everything american.
Hint: If you behave like the biggest asshole in the room, don't be surprised if people start treating you like that.
You probably missed the many cases where they've put three-digit-million fines on european companies. Let me guess, since those weren't american companies, they were never reported in american media. Understandable, but not very helpful in creating an unbiased picture.
No, it is not. It is an administrative body. The important difference is that it is not subject to the whims and changing tides of political climate. That's what I meant when I said it's not so easy to buy out. The US antitrust action ended very quickly when Bush Jr. was elected. A change in government will not affect the EU antitrust commission.
EU forced Microsoft to distribute browsers built by their competitors, regardless of merit or customer desire.
Cry me a river. Look, MS started the game, by forcing its users to accept their own browser, regardless of merit or customer desire.
Amazon (free shipping declared illegal at the behest of French bookstores)
Check your facts. Was this really the EU? Because I just put a few orders on Amazon, and not all for books, and they all included free shipping. And Germany is certainly part of the EU.
And, of course, the EU has no problems with huge Airbus subsidies, now declared illegal by the WTO. I hope that the US Government will find its gonads and slap EADS with huge tariffs and penalties. Then, maybe, the EU will be a little less eager to meddle with US companies.
Yeah, because nothing like that has ever happened the other way around. Please.
The EU antitrust body is a beast with teeth, and a lot more difficult to buy out than the US equivalent. Their power comes in large part by their demonstrated ability to battle and win against even the largest multinational corporations. They will not risk losing that reputation, and their fight with MS is being watched by players outside the software industry.
I don't think they'll allow MS to play them for fools. If Balmer tries (and yes, I'm as certain as you that he will), they will smack him up fast and hard, because they know everyone they'll have to fight in the next 10 years is watching.
If it already starts with confusion between user and household, it can't possibly be a worthwhile study. With Mac's being the minority, it is very probable that in a household of several people, not everyone will own a Mac. A lot more probable than vice versa. And the news is?
Also, since Boot Camp, most Macs also are a windos PC, blurring the line even more.
Apparently, we agree that the label attached to something does not change what the thing is. Calling dog poop a souffle doesn't make it one. Calling a war a police action doesn't make it one. I take from this that both you and me believe that the proper direction is the other way around - labels are attached to things, and which label is the correct one depends on the attributes of the thing in question. A brown, soft mass that came out of the aft end of a dog is not usually called a souffle.
Now regarding Vietnam, there is a long list of attributes that it has in common with other things that we usually call a war. Definitions:
War is a reciprocated, armed conflict, between two or more non-congruous entities, aimed at reorganising a subjectively designed, geo-politically desired result.
Wikipedia or
State of conflict, generally armed, between two or more entities.
It is characterized by intentional violence on the part of large bodies of individuals organized and trained for that purpose
Encyclopedia Britannica
As I see it, the Vietnam "event" satisfies these conditions. Even the definition of Merriam-Webster:
a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations
Where you could hang a semantic argument about it not legally being a war due to lack of legally correct declaration, softens that part with "usually".
Another item that, in my view, shatters the "police action" line is that police forces are usually considered to be internal, not international forces. More importantly, when sent internationally, a cooperation between the involved states is the usual norm. Calling a foreign military operation a "police action" is only ever used by those who believe that the rightful borders of their nation encompass the entire world, and indicates a mindset that believes the conquest of another country is the same thing as the pacification of an unrest in a troublesome city district.
All the best to our australian friends. For those who didn't follow the news: The Pirate Party has reached a newsworthy 2.1% here in Germany in our general election last sunday.
It's great to see that we're becoming an international movement, and the support we're gathering is considerable.
Do you want a part of this delicious caviar souffle I made? Yes, I know it looks and smells like dog poop, but it really is a delicious caviar souffle - it says so right here on the label I attached to it.
It's called a wiki, but from what I've seen I don't see any wiki functionality at all. It looks a lot more like a blog, or rather the comment section of a blog to me.
Why do the call it wiki when I can leave a comment, but not participate in a kind of "review of this page" site? Basically, when it is not a wiki?
There are non-revocable systems as well. It's all a matter of mathematics, in the end. If you haven't read Applied Crypography, and you have the slightest interest in crypto, do it. It'll open your eyes to a world of possibilities you never thought about.
Vietnam wasn't a war, it was a police action -- big difference. Burying your head in the sand and pretending something didn't happen or doesn't exist doesn't make you better, it just raises a new generation of ignorant citizens.
Calling things improperly is any better?
Claiming Vietnam wasn't a war is amongst the worst insults I can imagine, towards the population of Vietnam as well as towards the US and allied soldiers who died their and their families. Police forces don't go into situations expecting to die or become life-long cripples. It can happen (and does), but it's nowhere nearly as likely as in a war.
What nonsense. If the government were afraid of that, they'd put much harsher penalties on displaying nazi symbols, don't you think?
Not that I give them much credit, after all they do use that same argument to justify their Internet censorship laws (and I'm not joking nor exaggerating. At least one of the responsible politicians is on record for claiming that seeing child pornography could turn you into a pedophile.)
But one has to use the proper criticism, and this isn't it. The law is in place to make sure nazi symbolism is and stays "dishonoured" and keeping it on the record that we don't want to see the stuff again. Not even in a game where you're shooting at it.
What's done here detracts from immersion while serving absolutely no purpose
I used to think so. Then I played a couple of WW2 games where they simply replaced the nazi symbols with other, fitting ones. Like the eagly of the german army, etc.
Know what? Immersion was perfect to me. I don't need nazi symbols anymore than I need the "real" US marines uniform. In games as in all art, it's not about making a perfect real-world copy. "Feel like it" is more important, and often easier to accomplish through straying from perfect copying, than "be like it".
Slashdot Mirror
the government sets a minimum price on a product or service,
But that is not what happens here. The price is set by the distributor, not the government. The regulation in place simply puts limits on things like bulk sales, volume discounts, etc.
The government doesn't determine the price. What it does do is ascertain that the price (whatever it is) is the same for everyone.
The summary is a little unfair, I think.
The "regulation" about book prices is not what you'd usually associate with the term. Specifically, it is a fixed-price model, which says that books can not be sold at discount except under certain circumstances. That is the main reason Germany still has thousands of small bookstores with employees that actually know something about books, instead of large discount chains that work on the WalMart principle. Second, the tax on books is lower than on other consumer articles (same discounted tax rate as for food, for example).
As an owner of the FingerWorks TouchStream (the keyboard/mousepad multitouch combo product), I disagree with your assessment. The reasons the keyboard failed are many. One of the most important ones, I think, was that it was too early. Yes, it had multi-touch, but no application supported multi-touch. So the only thing you could use it for is a virtual keyboard. The keyboard was good, but lacked haptic feedback, thus making touch-typing very difficult.
If applications would support multi-touch, a product like the TouchStream could be a success, because now it gives you an advantage over a conventional keyboard.
As all things, it depends on how you use it.
I'd certainly love a game that adapts to my style of play if that means when I sneak and use stealth, it'll give me more opportunities to do so, while when I shoot everything that moves, it'll throw more enemies to kill at me.
But if the game adapts so far that it gives me only that which I'm good at, then the challenge is gone. If it modifies the level of difficulty to exactly my abilities (instead of slightly above them, as it should), then it'll be boring.
Once more, it's a technology. Some game designers will use it to improve the game. A lot will tack it on to the next cheaply produced crapware just to make sure a so-so idea is ruined completely.
And I want a 20 pounds keyboard running an 8 year old windos version for what, exactly? So I can watch YouTube on a tiny, cheap screen instead of a good display?
I dig an OLED keyboard with software-reprogrammable keys. Cool thing - switching to a foreign language or Dvorak in software.
But a screen in the keyboard just eludes me. Why would I want to look at the keyboard - again, after spending a few years learning to touch-type?
Agree in parts. Yours truly (creator of the game mentioned) is an old /. reader and I missed my own game being mentioned on the front page due to it being "hidden" in a "Linux Games" article (me == Mac user, thus I only skimmed it).
So if it helps you sleep, now you at least know it wasn't the dev people who slashvertised it.
Oh, I see. It's not that people choose a PC because they want a machine that has windows on it, it's because Microsoft forces them! Thanks for clearing that up. It's clear from the evidence that 99% of PC users really want a Linux system, and Bill Gates has been keeping them from it. Are you serious?
Yes, I am, with my words, not your twistings of them.
Fact of the matter is that say 90% of the computer buyers "choose" windos, because they aren't even aware of alternatives, and because what alternatives once existed were driven out of business. The "choice" isn't really one. If you can choose the blue pill or the red pill or the green pill, you may think you have a choice, but in fact you have to choose a pill. Your "choice" is limited to colour. It's a trick used extensively by stage magicians, btw.
I've met people who believe that Linux must be a windos program, because everything on a computer runs in windos, right?
That is the actual damage done. Yes, people "choose" a windos PC - because they choose between a Dell machine (with windos pre-installed), an HP machine (with windos pre-installed) or some cheap no-name brand (with windos pre-installed).
Fallacious nonsense. The U.S. has more regional and bi-lateral free trade agreements than any nation on earth.
True, but misleading.
The U.S. has been the world-wide impetus for free trade for over 25 years, while continental Europe has had to be dragged along kicking and screaming.
True to a point, though as a matter of fact, the UK was the inventor of globalisation. But then again, it's not usually counted in with continental Europe.
However, there's a reason Europe had to be "dragged along". As the western superpower, the US has benefited from free trade. European nations not so. Yes, Germany was the world's #1 exporter for many years (fighting with Japan, now overtaken by China). But we also lost a lot of jobs to cheaper overseas competitors. And let's not forget that the whole neo-liberal "free trade über alles" doctrine is what brought about the current economic crisis. The countries with the strictest non-free banking control systems (like Australia) are the ones who are weathering the storm the best.
I dare say it was European colonialism that ruined South America and continues to ruin Africa today.
I will agree entirely with Africa, though disagree with the "today" part. Colonialism has certainly put Africa in a position where it'll take at least a century or so to recover and become a continent with full functional states. Though let's not forget that the US was the #1 slave trader from Africa, and that has left its impact also (many of the states around the ivory coast were arbitrarily drawn on a map surrounding slave trade centers).
South America? Nope, no win. Show me where you can put the blame on colonialism there. Sure, the Mayas and Inkas were not exactly treated very friendly and all that. But today's problems? Colonialism? I don't see a link there. I do see a lot of links north, though. The Contra affair, CIA drug trade, several coup de etat's financed and supported by the US, should I go on?
Does Microsoft force people to buy PCs, or it is the fact that they are eminently superior to the "competition?"
Neither. Your non sequitor is so primitive, it hurts. MS does force people who buy a PC to also buy windos, through its OEM tie-ins. And it forces people who buy a PC with windos to also have IE delivered with it. The "superiority" strawman is ridiculous and I won't be repeating the argument, you can find a million or so rebukes on /. by using the search function.
The US has, by far, the most liberal trade policies in the world.
As long as it suits them, yes. I remember they are strong on copyright as well. Funny how that changed, they used to be the largest piracy nation in the world when it was british books, not american movies, that were the most wanted product on the entertainment market.
The stories of the US forcing US-friendly trade policies on foreign nations are legion, if you just open your eyes. In fact, they're one of the primary reasons half of south america hates you. The other half hates you because you helped overthrow their democratically elected governments and installed a more US-friendly dictatorship that then went on to terrorize its people.
Liberal trade policies, my ass.
And you'd think the head of the friggin FBI knows a little more than that. Maybe he should go and talk with his friends at the NSA?
There's a straightforward solution to this so simple that it hurts. Don't mix media. I have a bookmark for my online banking. If I ever receive a mail from my bank with some "important information about my account", I will click on that bookmark, never on the link in the e-mail, and if the info is real, it'll be there in my online banking message box.
Same with PayPal, Amazon, ebay and any other site. It really is so simple, I think I could explain it to my grandma, and she's demented.
If you had witnessed the past eight years from outside the US, you would be wondering how anyone in the world can possibly not hate everything american.
Hint: If you behave like the biggest asshole in the room, don't be surprised if people start treating you like that.
The US antitrust action ended very quickly when Bush Jr. was elected.
My bad. It should, of course, read "elected" (with quotation marks).
You probably missed the many cases where they've put three-digit-million fines on european companies. Let me guess, since those weren't american companies, they were never reported in american media. Understandable, but not very helpful in creating an unbiased picture.
It is, first and foremost, a political body,
No, it is not. It is an administrative body. The important difference is that it is not subject to the whims and changing tides of political climate. That's what I meant when I said it's not so easy to buy out. The US antitrust action ended very quickly when Bush Jr. was elected. A change in government will not affect the EU antitrust commission.
EU forced Microsoft to distribute browsers built by their competitors, regardless of merit or customer desire.
Cry me a river. Look, MS started the game, by forcing its users to accept their own browser, regardless of merit or customer desire.
Amazon (free shipping declared illegal at the behest of French bookstores)
Check your facts. Was this really the EU? Because I just put a few orders on Amazon, and not all for books, and they all included free shipping. And Germany is certainly part of the EU.
And, of course, the EU has no problems with huge Airbus subsidies, now declared illegal by the WTO. I hope that the US Government will find its gonads and slap EADS with huge tariffs and penalties. Then, maybe, the EU will be a little less eager to meddle with US companies.
Yeah, because nothing like that has ever happened the other way around. Please.
Actually, I'm not too sure.
The EU antitrust body is a beast with teeth, and a lot more difficult to buy out than the US equivalent. Their power comes in large part by their demonstrated ability to battle and win against even the largest multinational corporations. They will not risk losing that reputation, and their fight with MS is being watched by players outside the software industry.
I don't think they'll allow MS to play them for fools. If Balmer tries (and yes, I'm as certain as you that he will), they will smack him up fast and hard, because they know everyone they'll have to fight in the next 10 years is watching.
If it already starts with confusion between user and household, it can't possibly be a worthwhile study. With Mac's being the minority, it is very probable that in a household of several people, not everyone will own a Mac. A lot more probable than vice versa. And the news is?
Also, since Boot Camp, most Macs also are a windos PC, blurring the line even more.
At least you know your dialectics.
Apparently, we agree that the label attached to something does not change what the thing is. Calling dog poop a souffle doesn't make it one. Calling a war a police action doesn't make it one. I take from this that both you and me believe that the proper direction is the other way around - labels are attached to things, and which label is the correct one depends on the attributes of the thing in question. A brown, soft mass that came out of the aft end of a dog is not usually called a souffle.
Now regarding Vietnam, there is a long list of attributes that it has in common with other things that we usually call a war. Definitions:
War is a reciprocated, armed conflict, between two or more non-congruous entities, aimed at reorganising a subjectively designed, geo-politically desired result.
Wikipedia
or
State of conflict, generally armed, between two or more entities.
It is characterized by intentional violence on the part of large bodies of individuals organized and trained for that purpose
Encyclopedia Britannica
As I see it, the Vietnam "event" satisfies these conditions. Even the definition of Merriam-Webster:
a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations
Where you could hang a semantic argument about it not legally being a war due to lack of legally correct declaration, softens that part with "usually".
Another item that, in my view, shatters the "police action" line is that police forces are usually considered to be internal, not international forces. More importantly, when sent internationally, a cooperation between the involved states is the usual norm. Calling a foreign military operation a "police action" is only ever used by those who believe that the rightful borders of their nation encompass the entire world, and indicates a mindset that believes the conquest of another country is the same thing as the pacification of an unrest in a troublesome city district.
All the best to our australian friends. For those who didn't follow the news: The Pirate Party has reached a newsworthy 2.1% here in Germany in our general election last sunday.
It's great to see that we're becoming an international movement, and the support we're gathering is considerable.
And the difference between my souffle/poop and your police-action/war is what, exactly?
Oh yeah, the semantics.
Do you want a part of this delicious caviar souffle I made? Yes, I know it looks and smells like dog poop, but it really is a delicious caviar souffle - it says so right here on the label I attached to it.
It's called a wiki, but from what I've seen I don't see any wiki functionality at all. It looks a lot more like a blog, or rather the comment section of a blog to me.
Why do the call it wiki when I can leave a comment, but not participate in a kind of "review of this page" site? Basically, when it is not a wiki?
There are non-revocable systems as well. It's all a matter of mathematics, in the end. If you haven't read Applied Crypography, and you have the slightest interest in crypto, do it. It'll open your eyes to a world of possibilities you never thought about.
Which, of course, is a good argument for extending election periods... ;-)
Vietnam wasn't a war, it was a police action -- big difference. Burying your head in the sand and pretending something didn't happen or doesn't exist doesn't make you better, it just raises a new generation of ignorant citizens.
Calling things improperly is any better?
Claiming Vietnam wasn't a war is amongst the worst insults I can imagine, towards the population of Vietnam as well as towards the US and allied soldiers who died their and their families. Police forces don't go into situations expecting to die or become life-long cripples. It can happen (and does), but it's nowhere nearly as likely as in a war.
What nonsense. If the government were afraid of that, they'd put much harsher penalties on displaying nazi symbols, don't you think?
Not that I give them much credit, after all they do use that same argument to justify their Internet censorship laws (and I'm not joking nor exaggerating. At least one of the responsible politicians is on record for claiming that seeing child pornography could turn you into a pedophile.)
But one has to use the proper criticism, and this isn't it. The law is in place to make sure nazi symbolism is and stays "dishonoured" and keeping it on the record that we don't want to see the stuff again. Not even in a game where you're shooting at it.
What's done here detracts from immersion while serving absolutely no purpose
I used to think so. Then I played a couple of WW2 games where they simply replaced the nazi symbols with other, fitting ones. Like the eagly of the german army, etc.
Know what? Immersion was perfect to me. I don't need nazi symbols anymore than I need the "real" US marines uniform. In games as in all art, it's not about making a perfect real-world copy. "Feel like it" is more important, and often easier to accomplish through straying from perfect copying, than "be like it".