It's what they always do to neutralize opposition in politics. They'll FORGE dirt and they'll use it.
FTFY.
Smell like a... (WoW edition)
on
Smell Like An Orc
·
· Score: 2, Funny
You can do this yourself! You don't need a perfume factory! Smell like a...
Tauren: Worchestershire sauce
Forsaken: "biology experiment" in the 8-month-old milk carton
Gnome: Fukashina (BOO! BOO! TOO SOON!)
Blood Elf: Hairspray. More hairspray. More hairspray than that. Gnarly.
Murloc: Yesterday's sushi
Night Elf: lavender and rose buds, such a horrible scent they be
Worgen: wet dog
Draenei: wet goat
Goblin: newly-minted roll of quarters
Dwarf: sacramental whisky, splashed behind the ears
Troll: ganja! I mean, oregano
Human: plain nonfat unflavored watered down yogurt
Blizz GM: capacitor electrolyte
Greenpeace is no longer an attack upon pollution. It is an attack upon the concept of wealth.
Greenpeace has a problem with Internet energy use only when it doesn't serve Greenpeace, its political activities, and its ability to indulge in the great human urge to tell others what to do. Greenpeace, like the Sierra Club ('wilderness is for rich people only") and PETA ("let's get naked and pipe-bomb universities"), has become an embarrassment and a liability to the concepts of environmentalism and conservation. They help the cause of environmentalism about as much as a parade of drag queens dressed in rubber nun outfits masturbating each other whenever the traffic lights turn red help obtain gay rights.
There was a time, long ago, when I supported Greenpeace. But now... they ARE the problem. You can't make changes by alienating the mainstream, no matter how much of "I'm a rebel!" gives you a hard-on when you look in the mirror.
As far as I know, Apple isn't the phone company and shouldn't be in the business of tracking its users from cell tower to cell tower or Wi-Fi to Wi-Fi.
Google Maps uses cell phone tower info to provide a rough location until GPS information allows precise locations. This is sent to Google in order to obtain the map-segments you will need, and that is done through Apple's APIs. It doesn't surprise me that there is a file where this information is cached pending retrieval of the needed info; the bug may simply be that this buffer isn't being flushed as anticipated (echo location >> file instead of echo location > file). Now, if that info is being used for other things (by Apple which has demonstrable need for the info local to the phone, or by Google which has demonstrable need for the info at their map-servers), or by third parties (who don't have legitimate need, in which case this is an Apple security bug, but the "spy on you" piece of evil intent goes to the third party NOT Apple), that's news. The fact that the info is there at all? Not news.
Capability does not prove intent. That's important. If any of you ever draw jury duty, you'd bloody well better hold that concept to be holy, in which case I'd ask why is okay to abandon that concept elsewhere?
Owaitslashdotnevermind.
Secondary question: is there a similar location cache on Android? If so, the screech should be just as loud outside of Google's offices and every cell provider's offices. If it's evil for Apple to do, it is equally evil for Google to do, and you either call out both of them or neither of them. Selecting just one reveals the color of one's kneepads.
What if Toyota or GM or Ford started tracking the users of its cars? How freaky would that be?
I'd rather have 10% of a market with a 50% profit margin than 50% of a market with a 5% profit margin. And so, apparently, would Apple. Mind you, 90% of a market with 50% profit margin is even better... owaitiPad.
Steve Ballmer = Fail at math + fail at marketing + fail at research + fail at DEVELOPERS! YEAH!!!! + balding sales hack with armpit sweatstains. The sooner MSFT gets rid of him, the sooner they can try to actually participate in the mobile revolution.
If sugar is so prevalent, and so incredibly deadly, our life expectancy should be dropping as refined sugars become more available. Let's see if that's true:
Pirates are not "customers", even on the very best games the market has to offer. Perfect example: World of Goo. Depending upon who you talk to and how you calculate it, its piracy rate is between 82 and 90 percent. That's right, only one in ten gamers are honest. The rest? You shouldn't leave your wallet alone in the same room with them, and you certainly shouldn't believe a word they say. "Free advertising"? Do people seriously believe that software pirates are doing developers a favor and should be praised for it?
Pirates are also not "prospective customers". The conversion from dishonest to honest is, from the same source as above, a "very small percentage". The "I try before I buy" thing is an excuse. There may be a very small percentage who do, but the overwhelming majority do not, and by the act of piracy this handful of "prospective customers" loses any right to complain or claim moral certainty, regardless of whether they buy later. Someone may assuage their guilt by later paying for what they illegitimately took, but that doesn't justify the original act, or future illegitimate acts. Contrition is not just in making good on the "original sin", it includes "and sin no more".
Therefore, the opinion of pirates on what should and shouldn't be done with DRM should be ignored, in the same way that we don't ask shoplifters what the penalties for petty theft should be. Whether a shopkeeper endures pilferage is entirely up to the shopkeeper, and the shoplifter has no say in whether they are excused, fined or jailed. Similarly, any attempt by a pirate to justify their behavior should be met with "shut up, boy, the adults are talking", especially when the talk is about what to do to punish pirates. The only people whose opinions count are potential customers, publishers and developers, and dear friends, pirates are nowhere on that list.
If a game is functional on a paying customer's system but is unusable on a pirate's system (whether intentionally or not), who cares? Don't like it? DON'T PIRATE.
By your own admission you've devoted half a lifetime or more to developing computer skills. Should everybody have to do that? Are people who don't devote half a lifetime specifically to computing skills "stupid' and "fearful"?
This is just a form of elitism. I'm not even going to call it intellectual elitism, as preferring CLIs is no more a demonstration of superiority or intellect than preferring GUIs is a demonstration of inferiority or stupidity.
For me, no. The value of what I do, the requirements and qualifications needed to do the work, and my employability elsewhere are not reduced by telecommuting (or lack thereof). Telecommuting is a perk, not compensation... and if it's the only way to get the job done (i.e. the employer is a "virtual office"), then it's just part of the circumstances of employment (and therefore still is not compensation).
If the same amount of work gets done, the same amount of salary gets paid. If someone else views telecommuting as a part of compensation or salary, fine for them, but I won't allow an employer to claim that for me.
This explains the huge pop I saw in incoming spam to my personal account that started on March 31 and which is continuing.
Yet another reason to avoid Capital One: they sell your email to barely-legal spammers err... "marketing partners" at every opportunity, despite asking for opt-out.
Yeah, this is a bizarre argument. Ferrari has no obligation to sell its cars for $15,000, no matter the fact that most people can't afford them at $400,000, or that they're stolen frequently. Nor does Ferrari have an obligation to sell its cars in Botswana for $15,000 while charging US customers $600,000.
And you're not going to talk someone who has no obligation to engage in software-welfare to lower prices by demonizing them. People need to realize that just because they want something cheap or free, they're not entitled to it. Who is greedier, people who demand to be paid for their work, or people who demand to never have to pay for others' work?
How much of Android is GPL-licensed? Does Google have a choice? I'm pretty sure they have no choice on the kernel itself and anything GNU-derived. What portions of Android are not subject to GPL disclosures?
I choose to believe my CFI over you. He's the one with the instructor's license, I'm the one with the pilot's license, and you... what, exactly, are your flight qualifications again?
It's true for all international operations. Local operations may be in the local language, but as of 1 January 2008 all international operations have an English language requirement, and air crews and controllers serving those operations must demonstrate proficiency in English. Please refer to the ICAO discussion of Amendment 164 to Annex I for details.
> Air traffic control is ALWAYS in English.
Not so. Pilots and controllers are also allowed to communicate in the language of the country in which airspace they are. You think they speak English when Air France lands in Paris?
Yes. They are required to. Annex I, section 164. International operations.
Therefore, pilots on international flights shall demonstrate language proficiency in either English or the language used by the station on the ground. Controllers working on stations serving designated airports and routes used by international air services shall demonstrate language proficiency in English as well as in any other language(s) used by the station on the ground.
Once on the ground, local languages may apply, but English is the language used in air-to-ATC communications, and all required phraseology for air operations is in English. This is the requirement for any airport engaging in international operations and all international flights.
A good summary is at this site, which specializes in training to the required proficiency.
Which ultimately begs the question as to why ALL aircraft transmissions (civilian or otherwise) aren't encrypted.
Legacy.
The cost of avionics is extremely high when those avionics go into a commercially-built aircraft; every piece of avionics must be certified for use in a specific aircraft model and revision. A VHF radio transceiver going into a home-built "experimental" aircraft can be less than half the price as that going into a Cessna 172, even though it is identical, new production. That approval-sticker is one expensive bit of paper and adhesive.
It gets far worse for passenger-carrying commercial aircraft. Not only does the equipment have to be certified for use in-type; when you change out the equipment, you have to update the aircraft's MEL (minimum equipment list) you also have to refresh your training regimen, and conduct that retraining and certification for any flight deck crew that might end up flying that plane, The expense would be very high, some carriers and private owners couldn't afford it, and it would involve downtime. It would certainly be a windfall for the likes of Bendix-King, but for commercial and private aircraft operators, a new avionics mandate that doesn't grandfather existing equipment is ruinous.
General aviation is already expensive enough and pilot shortages are happening. With the military turning out fewer and fewer pilots (they're paid well and with military air fleets becoming smaller and more expensive, there are fewer of them), with four-year aviation programs costing as much as Ivy League schools but with starting pay less than 40,000 a year, general aviation is critical for producing charter and airline pilots. General aviation is already in trouble, with new aircraft costing as much as a house, the existing fleet aging, and fuel and maintenance costs pushing operation of even a little 172 to near a hundred dollars per engine-hour. Adding a new five-figure-per-aircraft mandate is simply not possible.
As for open transmissions... that's a hard requirement, by treaty. Everyone has to be able to listen in on everyone else and be able to talk to everyone on a moment's notice. The aforementioned 172 is on the same frequencies as the 747s when they're in the same airspace. There's even a rule about language. Air traffic control is ALWAYS in English. Yeah yeah yeah cultural imperialism cry me a river. Everyone must understand everyone, or planes slam into each other.
I'm a private pilot; every time I fly I'm reminded that I could be digested by a Boeing Buzzard. Whenever I go near Class B or Class C airspace, ATC is constantly in communication with everyone asking "Do you see that 737? Good. Do you have visual on that Beechcraft? No? Descend 1000 feet." And in minor airports without an air traffic controller, the pilots perform their own control, by speaking to each other on a common frequency and following established procedures and calls at checkpoints. Set 122.7 Unicom. "Cessna 53614 inbound South County runway 31, on the 45 at the golf course. Cessna 53614 downwind, South County runway 31. Cessna 53614 on base, South County runway 31. Cessna 53614 on final, South County runway 31. Cessna 53614, clear of active runway." The guys I'm talking to, like me, are flying 40-year-old (or older!) aircraft with analog gauges, no on-aircraft radar, and a few don't even have transponders.
An example of why this is critical from my own experience. I was a student pilot at the aforementioned South County, practicing takeoffs and landings. Round and round touch-and-go, solo flights. There were four others doing the same. Everything was going like clockwork (well, counterclockwork, the pattern was counterclockwise), until... I had just taken off, climbing out on the "upwind" leg of the pattern. 65 knots, best climb rate, about 500 feet above ground level, when I saw an inbound aircraft aimed straight at me. The bastard was going the wrong way, and apparently on the wrong frequency. Slam the yoke forward, turn to the right.
I would bet dollars to donuts that if someone with "authority" (whomever that might be in this case) said "This game here, this is great art. It's amazing art. The best ever." suddenly games would be art.
It all boils down to the fact that many/most people don't even understand why a game would be great, art wise vs one that's just fun to play. Ebert et al. simply don't understand what makes a game great art, not that some games aren't great art. Those of us who are more attune to what makes a game great and what simply makes it good are far more qualified to judge if a game is art or not. But it is absolutely ludicrous to say that at least some games are not great art, simply because you don't understand what great art in the realm of games truly is. Chances are, you don't know what great art is in other areas, either - but it's there, too.
This is the heart of the argument: "says who, says why". Until that's defined (if it can be defined at all), the rest of the argument is meaningless.
For retail games, three months IS old. By that point, the vast majority of income from a game has already been received, and people are buying the new shiny thing and ignoring the old.
Yeah and the only reason why Valve could afford to do such a discount was because they had already made back all of their money back and then some by that point so they had a greater incentive to cut huge discounts on an older title with flat sales. If you think Valve would ever do that for a new game, you'd be kidding yourself.
Portal I: 20 bucks, and bundled in Orange Box.
Portal II: 60 bucks.
Yup. If Valve thought they could make more money over the lifetime of Portal II by starting cheap, they would do it. Deep discounting pulls more money in over the "long tail" of a game, but most of a game's income is in the first few months of its release.
This is why publishers apply DRM even though they know that eventually it will be cracked. DRM does not have to hold forever; all it has to do is to hold long enough for the critical first few weeks of a game's release. By the start of the third month, the game has made most of the money it ever will, and if DRM breaks and the game becomes widely available to pirates, it's less of an issue. The other thing is that most DRM technology, such as SecuROM and (ugh) Starforce are licensed per copy shipped; newly produced boxed games will quietly start shipping without DRM to save the DRM cost.
So as long as the DRM scheme slows piracy for as little as two months, it makes financial sense to have DRM. At least, that is the perspective of game publishers... and when AAA titles are costing up to 9 figures to produce, they'll do almost anything to protect the ability to recover those extreme development costs. Their ability to get investors on a project, or get licenses for things like songs or other endorsement often comes with a contractual "you will have DRM or you can't include our music" requirement. There are a lot of forces at work here, and it can't be reduced to bumper-sticker-grade simple-minded slogans.
Giving the benefit of "is this a serious question":
The Complete Book of Scriptwriting by J. MIchael Straczynski (the Babylon 5 guy). The book is almost entirely about the business of being a writer in Hollywood, what you can expect, how you can avoid being screwed, where you can't avoid being screwed (so suck it up), what the Screenwriter's Guild is and is not good for, how to get an agent, etc. Now, this might not be exactly what you're looking for in that you're talking about completed work (which will be its own issue... was your show made with union/guild stagehands? Actors? Electricians? Musicians? If not, some studios or distributors won't touch it because of union retaliation), but the chapters on how to pitch a show will be directly relevant.
Cable-only networks are much easier to directly pitch to than majors like ABC, Universal, Warner, Discovery, etc. These tend to be very niche, which means small dedicated audiences. You have a much better chance of getting contact with the programming director of Logo than HBO. And you might be able to avoid a fistfight with Russel Crowe or getting puked on by David Hasselhoff, too.
They can. The military is executive branch, not legislative. Congress is not in their chain of command.
I used to live a few miles from Beale Air Force Base (location of one of the PAVE-PAWS installations) back during the early 80's, when the Cold War was still very real. I had a military ID (surviving son of an officer who died in uniform) which allowed me access to the base for medical and PX privileges; I also had a couple of friends on base who were MPs (military police). They told me about a senator who had visited the base at one point and was curious about that big ol' building with the 200-foot-high "stop signs" on the side. Around that building on the tarmac is a yellow painted line and a red painted line. If you cross the yellow line without permission you can be arrested. If you crossed the red line without permission you can be shot, right there on the spot (PAVE-PAWS was just barely below Cheyenne Mountain in importance for missile detection and defense). Said senator started strolling that direction, right over the yellow line. He was told to get back on the other side; he responded with "it's okay, I'm a senator". Then he walked across the red line.
Yes, the MPs would have been within their rights to shoot him, right then and there, with no further warning or need for permission from their superiors. Their standing orders allow for that. They would not have been prosecuted. Instead they physically dragged him back across the line and held him at gunpoint and lectured him about the reality of civilians (and yes, a senator IS a civilian) on a military base and that they had meant it when they had briefed the senator about the red lines.
Now, the above story is hearsay, but the MPs in question were not the kind of people to tell fish-stories, and other base personnel whom I knew confirmed that there had been a ruckus during the senator's visit that had something to do with PAVE-PAWS. But the point is that the military DOES have certain prerogatives, and operation of PAVE-PAWS is pretty damned high on the list. Essentially, stripping the military of 435MHz would be a cabinet-level thing, as an awful lot of national defense and air traffic monitoring depends upon that band. The phrase "for national defense" as a way to do an end run around normal process is overused, but in the case of ballistic missile defense (and North Korea having demonstrated nuclear weapons and very close to achieving orbit), I understand why the military would strenuously object to anything that interfered with that mission.
Slashdot Mirror
It's what they always do to neutralize opposition in politics. They'll FORGE dirt and they'll use it.
FTFY.
You can do this yourself! You don't need a perfume factory! Smell like a...
Tauren: Worchestershire sauce
Forsaken: "biology experiment" in the 8-month-old milk carton
Gnome: Fukashina (BOO! BOO! TOO SOON!)
Blood Elf: Hairspray. More hairspray. More hairspray than that. Gnarly.
Murloc: Yesterday's sushi
Night Elf: lavender and rose buds, such a horrible scent they be
Worgen: wet dog
Draenei: wet goat
Goblin: newly-minted roll of quarters
Dwarf: sacramental whisky, splashed behind the ears
Troll: ganja! I mean, oregano
Human: plain nonfat unflavored watered down yogurt
Blizz GM: capacitor electrolyte
Greenpeace is no longer an attack upon pollution. It is an attack upon the concept of wealth.
Greenpeace has a problem with Internet energy use only when it doesn't serve Greenpeace, its political activities, and its ability to indulge in the great human urge to tell others what to do. Greenpeace, like the Sierra Club ('wilderness is for rich people only") and PETA ("let's get naked and pipe-bomb universities"), has become an embarrassment and a liability to the concepts of environmentalism and conservation. They help the cause of environmentalism about as much as a parade of drag queens dressed in rubber nun outfits masturbating each other whenever the traffic lights turn red help obtain gay rights.
There was a time, long ago, when I supported Greenpeace. But now... they ARE the problem. You can't make changes by alienating the mainstream, no matter how much of "I'm a rebel!" gives you a hard-on when you look in the mirror.
As far as I know, Apple isn't the phone company and shouldn't be in the business of tracking its users from cell tower to cell tower or Wi-Fi to Wi-Fi.
Google Maps uses cell phone tower info to provide a rough location until GPS information allows precise locations. This is sent to Google in order to obtain the map-segments you will need, and that is done through Apple's APIs. It doesn't surprise me that there is a file where this information is cached pending retrieval of the needed info; the bug may simply be that this buffer isn't being flushed as anticipated (echo location >> file instead of echo location > file). Now, if that info is being used for other things (by Apple which has demonstrable need for the info local to the phone, or by Google which has demonstrable need for the info at their map-servers), or by third parties (who don't have legitimate need, in which case this is an Apple security bug, but the "spy on you" piece of evil intent goes to the third party NOT Apple), that's news. The fact that the info is there at all? Not news.
Capability does not prove intent. That's important. If any of you ever draw jury duty, you'd bloody well better hold that concept to be holy, in which case I'd ask why is okay to abandon that concept elsewhere?
Owaitslashdotnevermind.
Secondary question: is there a similar location cache on Android? If so, the screech should be just as loud outside of Google's offices and every cell provider's offices. If it's evil for Apple to do, it is equally evil for Google to do, and you either call out both of them or neither of them. Selecting just one reveals the color of one's kneepads.
What if Toyota or GM or Ford started tracking the users of its cars? How freaky would that be?
Like OnStar?
* cocks hammer * Go ahead, splint my bone.
I'd rather have 10% of a market with a 50% profit margin than 50% of a market with a 5% profit margin. And so, apparently, would Apple. Mind you, 90% of a market with 50% profit margin is even better... owaitiPad.
Steve Ballmer = Fail at math + fail at marketing + fail at research + fail at DEVELOPERS! YEAH!!!! + balding sales hack with armpit sweatstains. The sooner MSFT gets rid of him, the sooner they can try to actually participate in the mobile revolution.
There's an app for that... the World of Warcraft Remote Armory.
iOS: so usable, a Night Elf hunter can figure it out. *bounce bounce jiggle derp*
If sugar is so prevalent, and so incredibly deadly, our life expectancy should be dropping as refined sugars become more available. Let's see if that's true:
Life expectancy in the United States, the most sugar-fortified country on Earth, for the past 200 years (click "play")
NO.
Pirates are not "customers", even on the very best games the market has to offer. Perfect example: World of Goo. Depending upon who you talk to and how you calculate it, its piracy rate is between 82 and 90 percent. That's right, only one in ten gamers are honest. The rest? You shouldn't leave your wallet alone in the same room with them, and you certainly shouldn't believe a word they say. "Free advertising"? Do people seriously believe that software pirates are doing developers a favor and should be praised for it?
Pirates are also not "prospective customers". The conversion from dishonest to honest is, from the same source as above, a "very small percentage". The "I try before I buy" thing is an excuse. There may be a very small percentage who do, but the overwhelming majority do not, and by the act of piracy this handful of "prospective customers" loses any right to complain or claim moral certainty, regardless of whether they buy later. Someone may assuage their guilt by later paying for what they illegitimately took, but that doesn't justify the original act, or future illegitimate acts. Contrition is not just in making good on the "original sin", it includes "and sin no more".
Therefore, the opinion of pirates on what should and shouldn't be done with DRM should be ignored, in the same way that we don't ask shoplifters what the penalties for petty theft should be. Whether a shopkeeper endures pilferage is entirely up to the shopkeeper, and the shoplifter has no say in whether they are excused, fined or jailed. Similarly, any attempt by a pirate to justify their behavior should be met with "shut up, boy, the adults are talking", especially when the talk is about what to do to punish pirates. The only people whose opinions count are potential customers, publishers and developers, and dear friends, pirates are nowhere on that list.
If a game is functional on a paying customer's system but is unusable on a pirate's system (whether intentionally or not), who cares? Don't like it? DON'T PIRATE.
By your own admission you've devoted half a lifetime or more to developing computer skills. Should everybody have to do that? Are people who don't devote half a lifetime specifically to computing skills "stupid' and "fearful"?
This is just a form of elitism. I'm not even going to call it intellectual elitism, as preferring CLIs is no more a demonstration of superiority or intellect than preferring GUIs is a demonstration of inferiority or stupidity.
For me, no. The value of what I do, the requirements and qualifications needed to do the work, and my employability elsewhere are not reduced by telecommuting (or lack thereof). Telecommuting is a perk, not compensation... and if it's the only way to get the job done (i.e. the employer is a "virtual office"), then it's just part of the circumstances of employment (and therefore still is not compensation).
If the same amount of work gets done, the same amount of salary gets paid. If someone else views telecommuting as a part of compensation or salary, fine for them, but I won't allow an employer to claim that for me.
Given the behavior I see in multiplayer games and forums, I'd say it's not violent content that destroys empathy.
It's anonymity and the lack of consequences for bad behavior.
This explains the huge pop I saw in incoming spam to my personal account that started on March 31 and which is continuing.
Yet another reason to avoid Capital One: they sell your email to barely-legal spammers err... "marketing partners" at every opportunity, despite asking for opt-out.
Yeah, this is a bizarre argument. Ferrari has no obligation to sell its cars for $15,000, no matter the fact that most people can't afford them at $400,000, or that they're stolen frequently. Nor does Ferrari have an obligation to sell its cars in Botswana for $15,000 while charging US customers $600,000.
And you're not going to talk someone who has no obligation to engage in software-welfare to lower prices by demonizing them. People need to realize that just because they want something cheap or free, they're not entitled to it. Who is greedier, people who demand to be paid for their work, or people who demand to never have to pay for others' work?
Educate me, please. I'm not in the loop on this.
How much of Android is GPL-licensed? Does Google have a choice? I'm pretty sure they have no choice on the kernel itself and anything GNU-derived. What portions of Android are not subject to GPL disclosures?
I choose to believe my CFI over you. He's the one with the instructor's license, I'm the one with the pilot's license, and you... what, exactly, are your flight qualifications again?
It's true for all international operations. Local operations may be in the local language, but as of 1 January 2008 all international operations have an English language requirement, and air crews and controllers serving those operations must demonstrate proficiency in English. Please refer to the ICAO discussion of Amendment 164 to Annex I for details.
> Air traffic control is ALWAYS in English. Not so. Pilots and controllers are also allowed to communicate in the language of the country in which airspace they are. You think they speak English when Air France lands in Paris?
Yes. They are required to. Annex I, section 164. International operations.
Please see the ICAO languages FAQ on the matter, and the ICAO discussion and adoption of Amendment 164. Quote:
Once on the ground, local languages may apply, but English is the language used in air-to-ATC communications, and all required phraseology for air operations is in English. This is the requirement for any airport engaging in international operations and all international flights.
A good summary is at this site, which specializes in training to the required proficiency.
Which ultimately begs the question as to why ALL aircraft transmissions (civilian or otherwise) aren't encrypted.
Legacy.
The cost of avionics is extremely high when those avionics go into a commercially-built aircraft; every piece of avionics must be certified for use in a specific aircraft model and revision. A VHF radio transceiver going into a home-built "experimental" aircraft can be less than half the price as that going into a Cessna 172, even though it is identical, new production. That approval-sticker is one expensive bit of paper and adhesive.
It gets far worse for passenger-carrying commercial aircraft. Not only does the equipment have to be certified for use in-type; when you change out the equipment, you have to update the aircraft's MEL (minimum equipment list) you also have to refresh your training regimen, and conduct that retraining and certification for any flight deck crew that might end up flying that plane, The expense would be very high, some carriers and private owners couldn't afford it, and it would involve downtime. It would certainly be a windfall for the likes of Bendix-King, but for commercial and private aircraft operators, a new avionics mandate that doesn't grandfather existing equipment is ruinous.
General aviation is already expensive enough and pilot shortages are happening. With the military turning out fewer and fewer pilots (they're paid well and with military air fleets becoming smaller and more expensive, there are fewer of them), with four-year aviation programs costing as much as Ivy League schools but with starting pay less than 40,000 a year, general aviation is critical for producing charter and airline pilots. General aviation is already in trouble, with new aircraft costing as much as a house, the existing fleet aging, and fuel and maintenance costs pushing operation of even a little 172 to near a hundred dollars per engine-hour. Adding a new five-figure-per-aircraft mandate is simply not possible.
As for open transmissions... that's a hard requirement, by treaty. Everyone has to be able to listen in on everyone else and be able to talk to everyone on a moment's notice. The aforementioned 172 is on the same frequencies as the 747s when they're in the same airspace. There's even a rule about language. Air traffic control is ALWAYS in English. Yeah yeah yeah cultural imperialism cry me a river. Everyone must understand everyone, or planes slam into each other.
I'm a private pilot; every time I fly I'm reminded that I could be digested by a Boeing Buzzard. Whenever I go near Class B or Class C airspace, ATC is constantly in communication with everyone asking "Do you see that 737? Good. Do you have visual on that Beechcraft? No? Descend 1000 feet." And in minor airports without an air traffic controller, the pilots perform their own control, by speaking to each other on a common frequency and following established procedures and calls at checkpoints. Set 122.7 Unicom. "Cessna 53614 inbound South County runway 31, on the 45 at the golf course. Cessna 53614 downwind, South County runway 31. Cessna 53614 on base, South County runway 31. Cessna 53614 on final, South County runway 31. Cessna 53614, clear of active runway." The guys I'm talking to, like me, are flying 40-year-old (or older!) aircraft with analog gauges, no on-aircraft radar, and a few don't even have transponders.
An example of why this is critical from my own experience. I was a student pilot at the aforementioned South County, practicing takeoffs and landings. Round and round touch-and-go, solo flights. There were four others doing the same. Everything was going like clockwork (well, counterclockwork, the pattern was counterclockwise), until... I had just taken off, climbing out on the "upwind" leg of the pattern. 65 knots, best climb rate, about 500 feet above ground level, when I saw an inbound aircraft aimed straight at me. The bastard was going the wrong way, and apparently on the wrong frequency. Slam the yoke forward, turn to the right.
In my Steam login splash page, I saw it as a 59.99 USD preorder. I'll be waiting for it to hit 20. :)
I would bet dollars to donuts that if someone with "authority" (whomever that might be in this case) said "This game here, this is great art. It's amazing art. The best ever." suddenly games would be art.
It all boils down to the fact that many/most people don't even understand why a game would be great, art wise vs one that's just fun to play. Ebert et al. simply don't understand what makes a game great art, not that some games aren't great art. Those of us who are more attune to what makes a game great and what simply makes it good are far more qualified to judge if a game is art or not. But it is absolutely ludicrous to say that at least some games are not great art, simply because you don't understand what great art in the realm of games truly is. Chances are, you don't know what great art is in other areas, either - but it's there, too.
This is the heart of the argument: "says who, says why". Until that's defined (if it can be defined at all), the rest of the argument is meaningless.
For retail games, three months IS old. By that point, the vast majority of income from a game has already been received, and people are buying the new shiny thing and ignoring the old.
Yeah and the only reason why Valve could afford to do such a discount was because they had already made back all of their money back and then some by that point so they had a greater incentive to cut huge discounts on an older title with flat sales. If you think Valve would ever do that for a new game, you'd be kidding yourself.
Portal I: 20 bucks, and bundled in Orange Box.
Portal II: 60 bucks.
Yup. If Valve thought they could make more money over the lifetime of Portal II by starting cheap, they would do it. Deep discounting pulls more money in over the "long tail" of a game, but most of a game's income is in the first few months of its release.
This is why publishers apply DRM even though they know that eventually it will be cracked. DRM does not have to hold forever; all it has to do is to hold long enough for the critical first few weeks of a game's release. By the start of the third month, the game has made most of the money it ever will, and if DRM breaks and the game becomes widely available to pirates, it's less of an issue. The other thing is that most DRM technology, such as SecuROM and (ugh) Starforce are licensed per copy shipped; newly produced boxed games will quietly start shipping without DRM to save the DRM cost.
So as long as the DRM scheme slows piracy for as little as two months, it makes financial sense to have DRM. At least, that is the perspective of game publishers... and when AAA titles are costing up to 9 figures to produce, they'll do almost anything to protect the ability to recover those extreme development costs. Their ability to get investors on a project, or get licenses for things like songs or other endorsement often comes with a contractual "you will have DRM or you can't include our music" requirement. There are a lot of forces at work here, and it can't be reduced to bumper-sticker-grade simple-minded slogans.
Giving the benefit of "is this a serious question":
The Complete Book of Scriptwriting by J. MIchael Straczynski (the Babylon 5 guy). The book is almost entirely about the business of being a writer in Hollywood, what you can expect, how you can avoid being screwed, where you can't avoid being screwed (so suck it up), what the Screenwriter's Guild is and is not good for, how to get an agent, etc. Now, this might not be exactly what you're looking for in that you're talking about completed work (which will be its own issue... was your show made with union/guild stagehands? Actors? Electricians? Musicians? If not, some studios or distributors won't touch it because of union retaliation), but the chapters on how to pitch a show will be directly relevant.
Cable-only networks are much easier to directly pitch to than majors like ABC, Universal, Warner, Discovery, etc. These tend to be very niche, which means small dedicated audiences. You have a much better chance of getting contact with the programming director of Logo than HBO. And you might be able to avoid a fistfight with Russel Crowe or getting puked on by David Hasselhoff, too.
Good luck.
They can. The military is executive branch, not legislative. Congress is not in their chain of command.
I used to live a few miles from Beale Air Force Base (location of one of the PAVE-PAWS installations) back during the early 80's, when the Cold War was still very real. I had a military ID (surviving son of an officer who died in uniform) which allowed me access to the base for medical and PX privileges; I also had a couple of friends on base who were MPs (military police). They told me about a senator who had visited the base at one point and was curious about that big ol' building with the 200-foot-high "stop signs" on the side. Around that building on the tarmac is a yellow painted line and a red painted line. If you cross the yellow line without permission you can be arrested. If you crossed the red line without permission you can be shot, right there on the spot (PAVE-PAWS was just barely below Cheyenne Mountain in importance for missile detection and defense). Said senator started strolling that direction, right over the yellow line. He was told to get back on the other side; he responded with "it's okay, I'm a senator". Then he walked across the red line.
Yes, the MPs would have been within their rights to shoot him, right then and there, with no further warning or need for permission from their superiors. Their standing orders allow for that. They would not have been prosecuted. Instead they physically dragged him back across the line and held him at gunpoint and lectured him about the reality of civilians (and yes, a senator IS a civilian) on a military base and that they had meant it when they had briefed the senator about the red lines.
Now, the above story is hearsay, but the MPs in question were not the kind of people to tell fish-stories, and other base personnel whom I knew confirmed that there had been a ruckus during the senator's visit that had something to do with PAVE-PAWS. But the point is that the military DOES have certain prerogatives, and operation of PAVE-PAWS is pretty damned high on the list. Essentially, stripping the military of 435MHz would be a cabinet-level thing, as an awful lot of national defense and air traffic monitoring depends upon that band. The phrase "for national defense" as a way to do an end run around normal process is overused, but in the case of ballistic missile defense (and North Korea having demonstrated nuclear weapons and very close to achieving orbit), I understand why the military would strenuously object to anything that interfered with that mission.