If you depend on licencing the songs from the music industry, you have to give them reasonable terms or they just won't come to the table.
You make it sound as though Apple could just strong-arm them. Apple are big in the computer world, but until the iTMS were nothing much in the music world.
So they implemented about the weakest DRM and sold the concept. It's almost trivial to circumvent the iPod DRM (but not so much the file DRM). The onus is on the users, not the hardware.
If your choice is either: * No iTunes Music Store * iTunes Music Store with weak DRM... which do you go for?
I'm writing a game. Off and on. For the last five years I've been mulling through the ideas around characters in an RPG who have emotional reactions to things, and those reactions change their actions. Eventually they get back to normal, and their actions are unaffected by unusual or heightened emotional states.
My goal is to make a game with characters who behave more realistically, and who seem to have deeper lives.
That bit's all true. I'm so far from done it's not funny, but let's enter Hypothetical-World.
I decide one day (after a severe blow to the side of my head) that I want to patent my ideas on emotional-character interaction. They seem pretty unique to me, and I can't see why I shouldn't. After all, physics libraries are popping up (eg Havok), so why not an emotions library? I can see uses and all sorts of things. Maybe I can even make money! Maybe not though.
Let's take a chance.
To patent it, I have to spend lots of money. I can't afford that, so I need to either present my work to someone else (eg Electrogames Are-us, or 'EA' as I'll call them from here) and work for them, or develop it, licence it then patent it as quickly as possible.
Both options are risky, but I decide on a third route. I go to EA and show them what I've got. I say that I'll licence to them, thinking that with the money I get I'll be able to patent.
EA seem interested but decline the idea. I'm a bit stumped so I look into selling assets because I'm convinced this can be a success.
Six months later I go to file, but the concepts have just been patented by EA! I read the documents and see all my own work patented by someone else.
What are my options then?
Under first-to-invent I should be able to appeal. Under first-to-file I lose, and years of my own work are lost. I can't even continue working on them, because anything I release will then be a patent violation. Of course under the new laws I can force EA to licence to me, but then I'm paying to use my own ideas.
Back in the Real World (patent pending) I can see this happening more and more. In fact, a company can even file a bunch of speculative patents on software methods and then later on worry about developing them safe in the knowledge that no-one else can use those ideas.
Is this going to encourage good invention? Is this going to spread wealth more evenly than the present system? Are small businesses or individuals protected from predatory companies under the new laws?
Disclaimer: No patents were hurt or abused during the writing of this post. I believe that software patents can work, but only when we consider the vast array of prior work up to now, and when we also consider what an obvious method is. 'Electrogames Are-us' is wholly ficticious and any perceived similarities to existing companies is wholly your own issue. Read at your own risk. In fact, reading to the bottom of this statement legally transfers all your IP to the author. And your firstborn child, unless they're whiny little turds.
I've been using computers since 1981 (ZX-Spectrum), and I've seen stuff come and go. I have used PCs since DOS, Macs since 1985, Amigas, Atari-STs, CP/M machines and many, many others.
I can run pretty much any computer and OS on the market and do what's required to keep everything up-to-date and working smoothly. It's not hard, but I just can't be bothered.
I want a computer that has the apps I need, works well and doesn't require me to spend my days keeping it running.
For me, a Mac is exactly that. I don't want to have total control over my computer. I'm happy to let the OS do things for me, and I'm happy to have Apple arrange things to suit how I work.
Is it perfect? No. Is it better than spending my time managing the computer? Absolutely.
...not using Windows is not an option. The reasons are numerous and well-documented and only the idiot zealots try to deny them.
Good way to set up your post - "X is true, and only idiots could try to deny it"
But you don't give any evidence of your initial assertion, which makes me wonder how true it really is. If it was so obvious, couldn't you posit a few indisputable reasons?
I'm a Mac user and haven't found Windows to be 'required' for my life. I use Office, PhotoShop Elements and all sorts of other apps. I managed to get by okay. Maybe I'm one of those idiot zealots you talk about?
Recently I built a PC to get SQL Server at home (for work). It's nice enough, with all sorts of speed and buzzwords, but I still use my iBook for everything and the PC for work (and Dawn of War). It's not absolutely required - I could do the same stuff in MySQL I suppose - but it's an easier option.
even then it doesn't quite feel like a real PC FPS
Yes it does!
I finally caved in and bought the Lik-Sang adaptor to plug in my PC keyboard and mouse, and it plays just like every FPS I've played on my Mac or my PC.
I spent a few hours enjoying the feel of not looking wildly about, running out of control or tagging plasma grenades on my feet in a moment of panic.
Interesting question, but you're asking it far too early.
The truth seems to be that we just don't know what Apple's long term strategy on OS X is. They may indeed go for software only sales on standard boxes, or they may go for locked-down software only for their boxes.
The immediate strategy seems to be the latter. Will that still be the case in two years? Who knows?
We *do* know that this is not an issue of a legitimately bought copy being installed on commodity hardware. It's an issue of illegal copies being installed in direct infringement of Apple's IP rights. Not a single copy has been sold, legitimately or otherwise. Even the developer boxes are leased out, being still Apple property in both hardware and software.
The core issue is that people are pirating software. Unless Apple want to lose their IP rights through inaction, they must respond, even if only to crucify the developers responsible and shut down the torrents as much as possible.
You *are* dead wrong, and you really should have picked up the Apple stock when it was at $5. It's been up to $60 since, then split and risen again. You would have made a lot of money.
There were rumours about Sun, just like there were rumours about Disney, Sony and pretty much everyone taking Apple over.
They were rumours.
Microsoft did not bail Apple out. Look it up if you don't believe me. They put in a tiny fraction of Apple's cash on hand.
Where do you people get this information? Obviously not from any real source like the WSJ or NASDAQ. Is there somewhere in fantasy-land that these things are thought of as true?
Like it or not, you're wrong. The facts are different to your bizarre business fantasy.
Apple were never close to bankrupcy, and Microsoft put in $250M as a good faith gesture. It was non-voting stock, and all since long sold off (check NASDAQ and you won't see MS in the top 100 shareholders).
At the time, Apple had about $6B in the bank, so the $250M was a gesture. Nothing more.
You make the common error of stating that Apple are controlling the hardware of third party providers.
As far as I'm aware, Apple have not stopped ATi or nVidia bringing out any card they like. The interface is standard and open.
The truth is that ATi and nVidia themselves limit what cards they sell on the Mac platform. They do this because they see the platform as not viable for their full range, but viable for a subset.
Are there fewer options for Mac GPUs? Yes. Is this Apple's fault? Not unless they make the decisions for ATi and nVidia.
The one point you can score here is in Apple's BTO options. There are even several choices there. Certainly not zero.
The APIs are open and well-documented, but that doesn't equate to failing to control the experience. Users don't experience much at the API level anyway.
You need to look up Apple's developer docs, which are freely available on their website. Everything you need to write a device driver for any piece of hardware you can plug into a Mac is documented.
Does that somehow remove control from Apple?
No. Why would it? They control the APIs, after all, and their kernel interfaces with the hardware. I can't see your final point as logical, unless your definition of an API is something that allows you to access hardware directly (which no modern OS should allow).
Au contraire Datamonstar. I was telling that person that to understand what it's like to relate to a character, they should go out and read a book. Books generally have much more accessible characters, and after reading one or two, you can see how it's possible to relate to a character without having experienced their life.
My post didn't boil down to "go out and read instead." More like "go out and read and when you come back you can appreciate the games more."
Unless players are into mindless violence, well fleshed-out characters can help drive the game forward.
I receive it and watch it, but I don't fork over any money to do so.
Bringing up product marketing clouds this issue. I have no problem with advertising in free mediums, or even in mediums such as newspapers (although I don't much like it, the cost of getting the paper would soar without the ads).
My issue is with advertising on something you've paid for. PayTV with commercials, cinema ads that you have no choice but to sit through, ads in games, ads on clothes.
Microsoft... I have heard of them. Didn't they lock in vendors to their products in an illegal use of their monopoly power, as found in court and later in the appeals?
And aren't they in trouble in Japan right now for something very similar?
Yes, Apple should try to compete with a company that has a proven track record of being not only ruthless, but also seems to regard legal issues as secondary to profit.
And considering they're around twenty times larger than Apple, it's bound to be a fair competition!
That's actually quite a good example. I think most people have either had a CD or floppy fail in some way, or they know someone who's had it happen to them.
If you own the original, who loses when you download a copy?
Maybe you do, if you get caught, but it'd be a hard prosecution in a court that allows fair use or backups of media.
Hypocrisy is not restricted to crusaders. I see a lot of pirates who spin out lines such as "Well, I'd buy it if it was cheaper" and then miraculously fail to buy the software when it's in the bargain bins.
Generally, people at extreme ends of a debate aren't good role models. The rest of us are somewhere in the middle.
Although it seems obvious to most people, perhaps it bears saying in your case: relating to a character in fiction does not equate to living like them.
Think of the Master Chief in Halo. He's a hardened fighter, with experience in battling hordes of aliens. Can anyone relate to that?
Obviously not.
So the character is fleshed out a little. He makes pithy comments, other characters treat him in a certain way, in particular Cortana.
Can anyone relate to that?
Well, yes. A bit. He's not a very strong character, but then FPS tend to allow the player to project onto their character more than other games, so that makes sense.
You don't relate to his experiences, you relate to the way people treat him. maybe that's how you'd like to be treated, maybe that's interesting in some way. Maybe you can empathise in some way.
For most people, this is obvious. In your case, get out and rad a book. You know, those papery things with words in them. Even the weakest books have more character development than most games out there.
And yes, you can relate to the characters therein! Achilles, the Mayor of Castorbridge, Romeo, Anna Karenina... It's actually quite easy!
Motorways are designed for high-speed transit, with shallow curves, sweeping inlets and outlets and long-distance signage. You can make some sort of case there, although I'd say that people need to be better drivers here in Australia.
I live in Melbourne, home of the angry bastard talking on his mobile while turning corners in his 4WD with the pedestrian-killer bullbar. These fools can barely cope with the speed limits we have now.
Streets in most cities can't cope with people driving much past the speed limit. People need to slow and stop all the time, to turn corners, to give way, to slow for the person ahead who's also turning, that sort of thing.
So you believe that anyone with a high-performance car should be allowed to drive at whatever speed they like?
You should buy a car that better allows you to used it legally. If you buy something that can't be driven economically, then you're just going to have to suffer with it. No-one forced you to buy it, after all.
The speed limits are legal things, based on reaction times and safety margins. If you don't like them, get off the roads.
I'm a bit tired of fools speeding and then being whiny little bitches afterwards when they're caught. Breaking a law is still breaking a law. justify it in court.
That's one of the reasons I don't bother getting PayTV (as it's called here in Australia). I just hate the idea of paying for advertising.
I refuse to buy clothes with ads on them. That leads to mostly plain colours, but until someone pays me to wear their ad, I'd rather not encourage them.
If you get something for free, then ads are not so bad. When you pay for goods or services, then you shouldn't have to suffer through ads because the developers want more money.
What's next? The Nike Boots of Speed in WoW? Pizza Hut pizzas for health in Tomb Raider 37 ("The Search for the Zimmer Frame")? Smith and Wessons for blowing away police in GTA13 ("The Coffee Ho Strikes Back")?
Ads cheapen the entertainment value of the game, and weaken the game's own brand. If game publishers want more money, they need to focus on making better games.
The perception of piracy has caused the music and film industries to want more and more draconian forms of protection.
Whether the costs are real or not, the fact that it's easy to show a film or song is pirated heavily around the Internet is all the justification a business needs for DRM.
Maybe it would have been better if people pirated what they wanted, but shut the hell up about it. Screaming from the rooftops (via the Internet) only reinforces the corporate mindset that their stuff is being copied and their profits are threatened.
It's not just a paddle wheel moving a cursor through a linear list.
There is an acceleration curve and the menu interface itself.
It's not something that existed before the iPod, and it is a good, clean interface.
In abstract, perhaps you could consider it's like the Atari 2600 paddle wheel. But then you could also say that all software is basically just moving stuff about in memory and maybe including a calculation here and there, or that all beer is basically water anyway. Simplifying to that level doesn't help the point.
Interestingly, my father was raised in the 40's and 50's here in Australia, and his left-handedness was literally beaten out of him at school. Left-handers were forced to learn to write with their right hand.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course they did!
... which do you go for?
If you depend on licencing the songs from the music industry, you have to give them reasonable terms or they just won't come to the table.
You make it sound as though Apple could just strong-arm them. Apple are big in the computer world, but until the iTMS were nothing much in the music world.
So they implemented about the weakest DRM and sold the concept. It's almost trivial to circumvent the iPod DRM (but not so much the file DRM). The onus is on the users, not the hardware.
If your choice is either:
* No iTunes Music Store
* iTunes Music Store with weak DRM
Let's have a think about a sample case.
I'm writing a game. Off and on. For the last five years I've been mulling through the ideas around characters in an RPG who have emotional reactions to things, and those reactions change their actions. Eventually they get back to normal, and their actions are unaffected by unusual or heightened emotional states.
My goal is to make a game with characters who behave more realistically, and who seem to have deeper lives.
That bit's all true. I'm so far from done it's not funny, but let's enter Hypothetical-World.
I decide one day (after a severe blow to the side of my head) that I want to patent my ideas on emotional-character interaction. They seem pretty unique to me, and I can't see why I shouldn't. After all, physics libraries are popping up (eg Havok), so why not an emotions library? I can see uses and all sorts of things. Maybe I can even make money! Maybe not though.
Let's take a chance.
To patent it, I have to spend lots of money. I can't afford that, so I need to either present my work to someone else (eg Electrogames Are-us, or 'EA' as I'll call them from here) and work for them, or develop it, licence it then patent it as quickly as possible.
Both options are risky, but I decide on a third route. I go to EA and show them what I've got. I say that I'll licence to them, thinking that with the money I get I'll be able to patent.
EA seem interested but decline the idea. I'm a bit stumped so I look into selling assets because I'm convinced this can be a success.
Six months later I go to file, but the concepts have just been patented by EA! I read the documents and see all my own work patented by someone else.
What are my options then?
Under first-to-invent I should be able to appeal. Under first-to-file I lose, and years of my own work are lost. I can't even continue working on them, because anything I release will then be a patent violation. Of course under the new laws I can force EA to licence to me, but then I'm paying to use my own ideas.
Back in the Real World (patent pending) I can see this happening more and more. In fact, a company can even file a bunch of speculative patents on software methods and then later on worry about developing them safe in the knowledge that no-one else can use those ideas.
Is this going to encourage good invention? Is this going to spread wealth more evenly than the present system? Are small businesses or individuals protected from predatory companies under the new laws?
Disclaimer: No patents were hurt or abused during the writing of this post. I believe that software patents can work, but only when we consider the vast array of prior work up to now, and when we also consider what an obvious method is. 'Electrogames Are-us' is wholly ficticious and any perceived similarities to existing companies is wholly your own issue. Read at your own risk. In fact, reading to the bottom of this statement legally transfers all your IP to the author. And your firstborn child, unless they're whiny little turds.
Fair enough. Turning vehicles with the stock settings is painful.
Tweaking them yields good results though.
I think the parent post makes an excellent point.
I've been using computers since 1981 (ZX-Spectrum), and I've seen stuff come and go. I have used PCs since DOS, Macs since 1985, Amigas, Atari-STs, CP/M machines and many, many others.
I can run pretty much any computer and OS on the market and do what's required to keep everything up-to-date and working smoothly. It's not hard, but I just can't be bothered.
I want a computer that has the apps I need, works well and doesn't require me to spend my days keeping it running.
For me, a Mac is exactly that. I don't want to have total control over my computer. I'm happy to let the OS do things for me, and I'm happy to have Apple arrange things to suit how I work.
Is it perfect? No.
Is it better than spending my time managing the computer? Absolutely.
...not using Windows is not an option. The reasons are numerous and well-documented and only the idiot zealots try to deny them.
Good way to set up your post - "X is true, and only idiots could try to deny it"
But you don't give any evidence of your initial assertion, which makes me wonder how true it really is. If it was so obvious, couldn't you posit a few indisputable reasons?
I'm a Mac user and haven't found Windows to be 'required' for my life. I use Office, PhotoShop Elements and all sorts of other apps. I managed to get by okay. Maybe I'm one of those idiot zealots you talk about?
Recently I built a PC to get SQL Server at home (for work). It's nice enough, with all sorts of speed and buzzwords, but I still use my iBook for everything and the PC for work (and Dawn of War). It's not absolutely required - I could do the same stuff in MySQL I suppose - but it's an easier option.
even then it doesn't quite feel like a real PC FPS
Yes it does!
I finally caved in and bought the Lik-Sang adaptor to plug in my PC keyboard and mouse, and it plays just like every FPS I've played on my Mac or my PC.
I spent a few hours enjoying the feel of not looking wildly about, running out of control or tagging plasma grenades on my feet in a moment of panic.
In what way is it different?
Interesting question, but you're asking it far too early.
The truth seems to be that we just don't know what Apple's long term strategy on OS X is. They may indeed go for software only sales on standard boxes, or they may go for locked-down software only for their boxes.
The immediate strategy seems to be the latter. Will that still be the case in two years? Who knows?
We *do* know that this is not an issue of a legitimately bought copy being installed on commodity hardware. It's an issue of illegal copies being installed in direct infringement of Apple's IP rights. Not a single copy has been sold, legitimately or otherwise. Even the developer boxes are leased out, being still Apple property in both hardware and software.
The core issue is that people are pirating software. Unless Apple want to lose their IP rights through inaction, they must respond, even if only to crucify the developers responsible and shut down the torrents as much as possible.
You *are* dead wrong, and you really should have picked up the Apple stock when it was at $5. It's been up to $60 since, then split and risen again. You would have made a lot of money.
There were rumours about Sun, just like there were rumours about Disney, Sony and pretty much everyone taking Apple over.
They were rumours.
Microsoft did not bail Apple out. Look it up if you don't believe me. They put in a tiny fraction of Apple's cash on hand.
Where do you people get this information? Obviously not from any real source like the WSJ or NASDAQ. Is there somewhere in fantasy-land that these things are thought of as true?
Like it or not, you're wrong. The facts are different to your bizarre business fantasy.
Hilarious!
Apple were never close to bankrupcy, and Microsoft put in $250M as a good faith gesture. It was non-voting stock, and all since long sold off (check NASDAQ and you won't see MS in the top 100 shareholders).
At the time, Apple had about $6B in the bank, so the $250M was a gesture. Nothing more.
You make the common error of stating that Apple are controlling the hardware of third party providers.
As far as I'm aware, Apple have not stopped ATi or nVidia bringing out any card they like. The interface is standard and open.
The truth is that ATi and nVidia themselves limit what cards they sell on the Mac platform. They do this because they see the platform as not viable for their full range, but viable for a subset.
Are there fewer options for Mac GPUs? Yes.
Is this Apple's fault? Not unless they make the decisions for ATi and nVidia.
The one point you can score here is in Apple's BTO options. There are even several choices there. Certainly not zero.
The APIs are open and well-documented, but that doesn't equate to failing to control the experience. Users don't experience much at the API level anyway.
You need to look up Apple's developer docs, which are freely available on their website. Everything you need to write a device driver for any piece of hardware you can plug into a Mac is documented.
Does that somehow remove control from Apple?
No. Why would it? They control the APIs, after all, and their kernel interfaces with the hardware. I can't see your final point as logical, unless your definition of an API is something that allows you to access hardware directly (which no modern OS should allow).
Au contraire Datamonstar. I was telling that person that to understand what it's like to relate to a character, they should go out and read a book. Books generally have much more accessible characters, and after reading one or two, you can see how it's possible to relate to a character without having experienced their life.
My post didn't boil down to "go out and read instead." More like "go out and read and when you come back you can appreciate the games more."
Unless players are into mindless violence, well fleshed-out characters can help drive the game forward.
Well, based on my playing recently, it was either that or the '@' from Angband.
I don't find the time to play games these days.
No, I'm not paying for free-to-air TV at all.
I receive it and watch it, but I don't fork over any money to do so.
Bringing up product marketing clouds this issue. I have no problem with advertising in free mediums, or even in mediums such as newspapers (although I don't much like it, the cost of getting the paper would soar without the ads).
My issue is with advertising on something you've paid for. PayTV with commercials, cinema ads that you have no choice but to sit through, ads in games, ads on clothes.
Microsoft... I have heard of them. Didn't they lock in vendors to their products in an illegal use of their monopoly power, as found in court and later in the appeals?
And aren't they in trouble in Japan right now for something very similar?
Yes, Apple should try to compete with a company that has a proven track record of being not only ruthless, but also seems to regard legal issues as secondary to profit.
And considering they're around twenty times larger than Apple, it's bound to be a fair competition!
That's actually quite a good example. I think most people have either had a CD or floppy fail in some way, or they know someone who's had it happen to them.
If you own the original, who loses when you download a copy?
Maybe you do, if you get caught, but it'd be a hard prosecution in a court that allows fair use or backups of media.
Hypocrisy is not restricted to crusaders. I see a lot of pirates who spin out lines such as "Well, I'd buy it if it was cheaper" and then miraculously fail to buy the software when it's in the bargain bins.
Generally, people at extreme ends of a debate aren't good role models. The rest of us are somewhere in the middle.
Although it seems obvious to most people, perhaps it bears saying in your case: relating to a character in fiction does not equate to living like them.
Think of the Master Chief in Halo. He's a hardened fighter, with experience in battling hordes of aliens. Can anyone relate to that?
Obviously not.
So the character is fleshed out a little. He makes pithy comments, other characters treat him in a certain way, in particular Cortana.
Can anyone relate to that?
Well, yes. A bit. He's not a very strong character, but then FPS tend to allow the player to project onto their character more than other games, so that makes sense.
You don't relate to his experiences, you relate to the way people treat him. maybe that's how you'd like to be treated, maybe that's interesting in some way. Maybe you can empathise in some way.
For most people, this is obvious. In your case, get out and rad a book. You know, those papery things with words in them. Even the weakest books have more character development than most games out there.
And yes, you can relate to the characters therein! Achilles, the Mayor of Castorbridge, Romeo, Anna Karenina... It's actually quite easy!
Argh!
That's not insightful! That's ridiculous!
Speed limits are there for safety reasons.
Motorways are designed for high-speed transit, with shallow curves, sweeping inlets and outlets and long-distance signage. You can make some sort of case there, although I'd say that people need to be better drivers here in Australia.
I live in Melbourne, home of the angry bastard talking on his mobile while turning corners in his 4WD with the pedestrian-killer bullbar. These fools can barely cope with the speed limits we have now.
Streets in most cities can't cope with people driving much past the speed limit. People need to slow and stop all the time, to turn corners, to give way, to slow for the person ahead who's also turning, that sort of thing.
So you believe that anyone with a high-performance car should be allowed to drive at whatever speed they like?
You should buy a car that better allows you to used it legally. If you buy something that can't be driven economically, then you're just going to have to suffer with it. No-one forced you to buy it, after all.
The speed limits are legal things, based on reaction times and safety margins. If you don't like them, get off the roads.
I'm a bit tired of fools speeding and then being whiny little bitches afterwards when they're caught. Breaking a law is still breaking a law. justify it in court.
Ads on paid television are bad too!
That's one of the reasons I don't bother getting PayTV (as it's called here in Australia). I just hate the idea of paying for advertising.
I refuse to buy clothes with ads on them. That leads to mostly plain colours, but until someone pays me to wear their ad, I'd rather not encourage them.
If you get something for free, then ads are not so bad. When you pay for goods or services, then you shouldn't have to suffer through ads because the developers want more money.
What's next?
The Nike Boots of Speed in WoW?
Pizza Hut pizzas for health in Tomb Raider 37 ("The Search for the Zimmer Frame")?
Smith and Wessons for blowing away police in GTA13 ("The Coffee Ho Strikes Back")?
Ads cheapen the entertainment value of the game, and weaken the game's own brand. If game publishers want more money, they need to focus on making better games.
The suicide note might read
"Darwin made me do it"
In one sense, the crusaders are spot on.
The perception of piracy has caused the music and film industries to want more and more draconian forms of protection.
Whether the costs are real or not, the fact that it's easy to show a film or song is pirated heavily around the Internet is all the justification a business needs for DRM.
Maybe it would have been better if people pirated what they wanted, but shut the hell up about it. Screaming from the rooftops (via the Internet) only reinforces the corporate mindset that their stuff is being copied and their profits are threatened.
It's not just a paddle wheel moving a cursor through a linear list.
There is an acceleration curve and the menu interface itself.
It's not something that existed before the iPod, and it is a good, clean interface.
In abstract, perhaps you could consider it's like the Atari 2600 paddle wheel. But then you could also say that all software is basically just moving stuff about in memory and maybe including a calculation here and there, or that all beer is basically water anyway. Simplifying to that level doesn't help the point.
Interestingly, my father was raised in the 40's and 50's here in Australia, and his left-handedness was literally beaten out of him at school. Left-handers were forced to learn to write with their right hand.