Remember however, google does not consider this wrong in general.
The ultimate goal of google is to show you whatever it is you want to see. When searching for simply the word "failure", that page is what people are expecting to see now and searching for. Why should google artificially alter that?
Make the game worth keeping. Either lower the price, up the replayability, or simply accept that some people will sell their game no matter what you do.
You've been able to rent movies for a massive amount of time. Why do people still buy them?
Mal did NOT hang up because the bad guy could get a trace. He was stating a fact. He physically could not trace the call(regardless of technical logic, Mal stated he could not be traced, so I'm taking that as fact)
Mal hung up because he got his idea from what the operative said and didn't feel a need to continue talking to him. And the characters dying was a good thing in my mind, I really hate all the people claiming "blah blah that ruined the movie for me." If (second character) had not died, I would NOT have been concerned about the survival of our big damn heroes in the finale.
You're fooling yourself however if you don't think they knew, or at least think they knew, what their target market was and aimed for that at every step. It doesn't mean "rip off competitors" or "rip off previous ideas" it means figure out who you expect to play your game(boys, girls, small kids or adults, etc) and cater to THEM. For example, you wouldn't make an adults only Mickey Mouse game. I mean, that's an extreme examble, but everyone knows that would be a bad plan...
*note I'm aware mario bros, pac man, and tetris might have had no thought to such things given.
They're cutting out a person, maybe microsoft doesn't let you make a profit on 50 dollar games if you aren't them right now?
I don't know how much the liscense costs, but what if they're charging people higher than they did before, thus the publishers either make a *lot* less money, or charge more for games? Doesn't bother microsoft made games.
In his defense, anyone getting the lesser Xbox is a moron(or hasn't done any research at all, which in my mind also makes them amoron.)
After you pay 40 bucks for the ability to save(which is more or less required), you'll only have saved 60 bucks and now you have a *vastly* inferior product. That's one game. ONE. And amusingly, the backwards compatibility and downloadable arcade(I think, I might be wrong here) games only work for the expensive system, despite being features that casual gamers would enjoy more I'd think....
I would tend to think he more means both the crime and public opinion is widespread.
What percentage of the public do you think supports car thefts or murder? The only problem with things like this is you also have to admit only knowledgable people are viable to voice an opinion, many if you polled randomly would be unaware of the issue.
Ah well, not like anyone cares what the public thinks now anyway.
Is it wrong to assume there is some method of testing/supervision for new programmers and reviews for old to avoid that very situation happening?
I don't give a rats ass if a person is stoned, hyper on caffine or buzzed if they accomplish what they attempt, always. If there isn't a method to see if a person is capable for this mission critical software, THAT is the problem.
Considering the only reason that software could exist is so people can get the real version later to sell stuff, whatever you learn has no legal requirements later, does it?(aside from the original theft, which is insignificant if you aren't selling anything made with it)
Yes, aside from the first sentence. I know I wouldn't want to explain any of that stuff to a kid, but that(and lack of human contact) is why I'm not a parent. I really can't justify why Americans "hate" sex, I suppose it's just because it got started that way and no one wants to change it...
I've seen a problem like this before. Makes the answer less obvious to use a different amount of weights. You can't just divide by 4 thrice times and realize that might be the reason.
He specified that you'd pay your court costs/legal fees(as you do now) plus the costs of their lawyers or your lawyers, whichever is lower. That way at worst, you get tagged with doubled legal fees.
To translate: Executives/Client can arbitrarily end development(ship date) before the software is fully done. Kinda leaves developers not responsible. The company or the person demanding the software early could be held responsible reasonably however.
Not when the budget is fairly low(and no stars) and DVD sales were far more expected than a blockbuster movie.
People hoped it would make more, but no one was disillusioned into thinking it wasn't a cult film. It is. It'll sell plenty of DVD's compared to tickets.
Remember, that's just the ORIGINAL contract. If another station wants it to happen very much, they could do it most likely by negotiating with fox.
Contracts are nearly always mutable if both parties agree(if not always, I'm not a lawyer).
And MY understanding is that there is virtually no intent to do a series until a trilogy of movies have happened. If that doesn't happen, then a series is virtually impossible. If that does happen, well, it'll have been a good 5-7 years since the series, so the contract will be the least of their problems.
Slashdot Mirror
Remember however, google does not consider this wrong in general.
The ultimate goal of google is to show you whatever it is you want to see. When searching for simply the word "failure", that page is what people are expecting to see now and searching for. Why should google artificially alter that?
Fortunetly, someone fixed that mistake. Thanks for pointing it out!
Make the game worth keeping. Either lower the price, up the replayability, or simply accept that some people will sell their game no matter what you do.
You've been able to rent movies for a massive amount of time. Why do people still buy them?
Mal did NOT hang up because the bad guy could get a trace. He was stating a fact. He physically could not trace the call(regardless of technical logic, Mal stated he could not be traced, so I'm taking that as fact)
Mal hung up because he got his idea from what the operative said and didn't feel a need to continue talking to him. And the characters dying was a good thing in my mind, I really hate all the people claiming "blah blah that ruined the movie for me." If (second character) had not died, I would NOT have been concerned about the survival of our big damn heroes in the finale.
If you don't preview and use the default option, it removes line breaks that you may have seen in the comment box.
You're fooling yourself however if you don't think they knew, or at least think they knew, what their target market was and aimed for that at every step. It doesn't mean "rip off competitors" or "rip off previous ideas" it means figure out who you expect to play your game(boys, girls, small kids or adults, etc) and cater to THEM. For example, you wouldn't make an adults only Mickey Mouse game. I mean, that's an extreme examble, but everyone knows that would be a bad plan...
*note I'm aware mario bros, pac man, and tetris might have had no thought to such things given.
They're cutting out a person, maybe microsoft doesn't let you make a profit on 50 dollar games if you aren't them right now?
I don't know how much the liscense costs, but what if they're charging people higher than they did before, thus the publishers either make a *lot* less money, or charge more for games? Doesn't bother microsoft made games.
It's 3 cores, not CPU's.
In his defense, anyone getting the lesser Xbox is a moron(or hasn't done any research at all, which in my mind also makes them amoron.)
After you pay 40 bucks for the ability to save(which is more or less required), you'll only have saved 60 bucks and now you have a *vastly* inferior product. That's one game. ONE. And amusingly, the backwards compatibility and downloadable arcade(I think, I might be wrong here) games only work for the expensive system, despite being features that casual gamers would enjoy more I'd think....
I would tend to think he more means both the crime and public opinion is widespread.
What percentage of the public do you think supports car thefts or murder? The only problem with things like this is you also have to admit only knowledgable people are viable to voice an opinion, many if you polled randomly would be unaware of the issue.
Ah well, not like anyone cares what the public thinks now anyway.
Is it wrong to assume there is some method of testing/supervision for new programmers and reviews for old to avoid that very situation happening?
I don't give a rats ass if a person is stoned, hyper on caffine or buzzed if they accomplish what they attempt, always. If there isn't a method to see if a person is capable for this mission critical software, THAT is the problem.
I'm not sure if you flipped that on purpose or not...
Or Xena's modern day cloning episode!
Considering the only reason that software could exist is so people can get the real version later to sell stuff, whatever you learn has no legal requirements later, does it?(aside from the original theft, which is insignificant if you aren't selling anything made with it)
Seems like a ripoff to me still.
You sure it was the less computer time?
Yes, aside from the first sentence. I know I wouldn't want to explain any of that stuff to a kid, but that(and lack of human contact) is why I'm not a parent. I really can't justify why Americans "hate" sex, I suppose it's just because it got started that way and no one wants to change it...
He *might* mean him personally. And sex is evil, it makes you explain things to your kids. You just have to wait for a pet to die for violence!
As long as they do the same for movies.
I've seen a problem like this before. Makes the answer less obvious to use a different amount of weights. You can't just divide by 4 thrice times and realize that might be the reason.
He specified that you'd pay your court costs/legal fees(as you do now) plus the costs of their lawyers or your lawyers, whichever is lower. That way at worst, you get tagged with doubled legal fees.
You're good with metaphors I see.
To translate: Executives/Client can arbitrarily end development(ship date) before the software is fully done. Kinda leaves developers not responsible. The company or the person demanding the software early could be held responsible reasonably however.
It also gives developers a good chance to talk to people who work for a company. That may not be the primary intent, but it is quite a nice effect.
He could make it illegal, as he did with games. That's the point. How the hell can you not comprehend that?
Not when the budget is fairly low(and no stars) and DVD sales were far more expected than a blockbuster movie.
People hoped it would make more, but no one was disillusioned into thinking it wasn't a cult film. It is. It'll sell plenty of DVD's compared to tickets.
Remember, that's just the ORIGINAL contract. If another station wants it to happen very much, they could do it most likely by negotiating with fox.
Contracts are nearly always mutable if both parties agree(if not always, I'm not a lawyer).
And MY understanding is that there is virtually no intent to do a series until a trilogy of movies have happened. If that doesn't happen, then a series is virtually impossible. If that does happen, well, it'll have been a good 5-7 years since the series, so the contract will be the least of their problems.