I logged in for the first time in a year just to agree with you. There was a survey a few years back (sorry I couldn't find the link) suggesting that many business owners regret going public and losing control of their company, despite the cash they made.
I realize Four Square's case isn't the same as going public, but it's similar. If you love what you do and already make good money, why ruin it? And for the record, you can pay everyone's salary and still make zero profit, so "unprofitable" doesn't mean that the people working there aren't making good money.
I used to love the fact that the first game in every Apogee trilogy was a shareware title, and after I got a good feel for the game I could decide to buy the next two in the series.
I always had a rough time with find too. If the author happens to be reading the comments, try:
find . -type f -name "file_name_here" -print
It's a complicated command that can do a lot, but that basic example will work for the majority of your simple file searches. From there it might be easier to branch out and fuss with other options (such as -mtime 1 would search for a file modified in the last day) but this should hopefully get you started.
With a few notable exceptions, I typically don't reread my fiction. I buy it for two reasons, first, I take very good care of my books. I don't want to sound strange but when I read a book that has writing, underlining, highlighting, dog-earing, etc etc I get way off track. Suddenly instead of following the flow of a book I'm caught up in an evaluation of some other reader's thought process (why did they underline that? is it really important? I don't think so, etc etc). This really disrupts my reading experience and I'll happily pay a few dollars to avoid it. Second, I tend to give or lend some of my books to friends who I believe would enjoy the read but are far too lazy to go track the book down themselves (yet stuffing a copy in their hand tends to make them actually read it).
And as far as the topic goes, I'd consider myself incredibly well read. I read 40+ works of fiction last year (at least half of which weren't total trash) and stacks of academic publications. All told I visited the library zero times. Academic publications are typically easier to get online and my stacks of fiction are cheap to buy.
I read that too, but it's a poor editor to blame for the lack of clarity rather than misattributing the work. If you read the article in context, the "game adaptation of his seminal novel" is referring to Neuromancer.
The de facto censoring, however, is on the retail end of the system, and not the ratings end of the system.
How exactly do you see that as differing from the MPAA? An NC-17 movie can still be released just as an AO game can be released. Neither de facto censoring is the "ratings end of the system" saying "oh no, this game cannot be released."
I believe that the raters do the right thing, in general, rating what they're given.
I can't see how that conclusion was reached on your part. Was it because you played an "M" game and thought to yourself, "ah yes, this feels 'M' rated to me!" The problem with saying you agree with their ratings in this context is that you don't have a full information set. You don't know exactly what was submitted to the ESRB, and what was cut and edited out to reach their subjective standards. Further we don't have anything else to really compare the ESRB's ratings to, as mentioned in This Film, "Sure compared to nothing it's a step up, but that doesn't mean it's good" [I've paraphrased the quote to the best of my ability to recall].
Frankly, it makes them harder to intimidate, bully, or bribe.
I can't possibly buy that as an argument. If I was a crooked rater I could easily approach a game producer on my own, "Hey, want an 'M' rating?". As for intimidation and bullying do you honestly believe that the game publisher is going to start threatening these raters? Or do you believe it's the crazed fans that will hunt down the raters? If it's the later I submit to you that Jack Thompson is still alive and well as evidence that gamers do not tend to turn violent in these matters. Rather I see that as a great line to feed people "oh of course we can't reveal their identity, that could compromise the system!" Isn't that the exact rational that is attacked on/. with some frequency when it comes from a software vendor?
If anyone hasn't seen This Film is not yet Rated which the Gamasutra article's title alludes to I would recommend it as an eye opening look into the ratings process.
Just like the MPAA the ESRB is using an anonymous group of individuals with no clearly defined lines between ratings to effectively censor content (since many consoles will not even play AO content similar to many major studios refusing to release NC-17 content).
And here's the quote that the summary should have included in my opinion:
Do raters apply their own moral standards (on subjects like violence, substance abuse, and sexuality) to guide their rating recommendations? Or, are they merely to apply a standard that the ESRB has set out for them?
PV: It's really a combination of both. Rating games is an inherently subjective practice in the sense that content is always going to be interpreted in different ways by different people. So part of the equation is the raters' own views on content, but as I said, parity and consistency play important roles as well.
Possibly because it was slated for consoles as well as a PC release. I am aware that other consoles such as the Wii do have a download distribution method, but I believe there's still the matter of hard drives on consoles and other such concerns to be aware of.
Plus, to be honest, while it may have had a lot of press from this, I'm certain that a ton of folks are still unaware of it. When they don't see it sitting on a shelf, I doubt they'll think to go looking for it.
And Aristotle beat her to it by more than 2,000 years:
Eudaimonia
Most things are desired for the sake of something else (e.g., we desire food because we want to be healthy), but Aristotle argued that there must be something desired only for its own sake. This he identified as happiness, well-being or flourishing (Greek eudaimonia literally "having a good guardian spirit"). When asked "Why do you desire this?" and then "Well, why do you desire that?" in response to each answer, many people will eventually stop at "in order to be happy." Eudaimonia is not a means to an end, but an end in itself--in fact, Aristotle argued that it was commonly recognized as the ultimate goal of life (Book I, Ch. 4).
This line of reasoning, imho, didn't become interesting again until Kant took a swing at it by considering a priori reasoning. I'll now bow out of this as I'm not sure how fruitful a philosophic/. conversation is going to be;)
I don't mean to sound disagreeable, but I did read my own quote. It outlines specific activities that can and cannot be done. This is *not* a license to exist, I do *not* need to show one on demand save the special cases listed.
Just because the totality of the potential of this "license to exist" groundwork hasn't been finished doesn't mean now isn't the time to start resisting it. They've learned to phase things in gradually, a la "boiling the frog".
Then for the sake of honesty, why not put that in your first post rather than claiming it's a license to exist? I'm quite alright with that sentiment, but I *also* get annoyed as heck when I feel someone is trying to misrepresent an idea.
The Real ID Act, passed by Congress in 2005 and signed by President Bush, requires all U.S. residents without a passport to obtain a new state-issued type of driver's license or ID card in order to board commercial airplanes, enter federal buildings, get Social Security benefits or get into other federal government programs, starting next May.
As I read that, I can freely walk down the street without carrying an ID and not fear being detained. You may argue that it may grow into something more in the future, but at present, it is *not* a license to exist. Just thought I'd clarify that as I feel it's an important distinction.
Please also note, I'm not *for* the ID, but I'd like to try and blame the bill for what it actually does rather than what it doesn't do.
Or maybe, it just shows that you can compare anything to anything, if you carefully choose only the aspects that sorta superficially support your idea, do a lot of sophistry to make them look even more supportive, and keep your fingers crossed that noone notices all else you've ignored.
Allow me to start by mentioning my bias, I liked the book, took classes from Steve Levitt, and worked for him for a while during and after college. It may help to know that those gimmicky "comparisons" really were not a part of Levitt's academic papers which the book is based on. Here's a bit of background on Freakonomics, basically Levitt writes a ton of clever papers that win him some recognition. Dubner took these papers and simplified them to try and make them accessible to the non-economic public. Sure, stylistically, there's issues that I have with it as well (and these are issues I have with virtually every pop-science book out there). But I feel as if you've belittled the book's content based on some style choices designed to draw the reader in.
Perhaps I've misunderstood your point, but gimmicky comparisons aside, there's a lot of well thought out content to that book that shouldn't be outright dismissed or characterized badly due to some tasteless introductory paragraphs.
But one distribution is much, much cheaper and reaches almost all of their audience.
Not that WotC has a great history of passing that savings on to their consumer. They typically sell their online content for the same price as their physical content (a policy that extends all the way from Magic:tG to D&D). I think it has to do with their staunch support of brick and mortar stores. They're afraid of damaging the sales of those stores and hence loosing a physical venue where people can play/learn about their games.
I'm actually quite surprised (given their history) to see them move to an online distribution method that lacks a physical counterpart.
But none of the products could stop the doomsday weapon, which is to burn an Ubuntu Linux CD and boot from that, bypassing any security software installed under Windows.
But if you're really that afraid of your kids, you can stop that for free, right? Just password your BIOS setup at boot and disable boot from cd/disk. Then, later, if you need to boot from CD/disk for some reason, you have the password to re-enable it.
Every country which has ratified the UN declaration on human rights (and followed through on their obligations, for example the UK) has equal free-speech to the USA. We just have different bugbears to you (in Europe, this is mainly we-hate-Nazis instead of we-hate-Terrorists).
I know this is touching on a political nerve, so I'm hesitant to say much, but regardless of those who ratified the UN declaration, the USA has a better track record than others.
Let's start with looking at the declaration. I believe the relevant section is article 19:
Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Sounds good. Now I'm going to use Canada as an example as I'm more familiar with them (being that they are in close proximity to the US so more of their news makes it to me). Wikipedia mentions the following:
Due to section 1 of the Charter, the so-called limitation clause, Canada's freedom of expression is not absolute and can be limited under certain situations. Section 1 of the Charter states:
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
This section is double edged. First it implies that a limitation on freedom of speech prescribed in law can be permitted if it can be justified as being a reasonable limit in a free and democratic society. Conversely, it implies that a restriction can be invalidated if it cannot be shown to be a reasonable limit in a free and democratic society. The former case has been used to uphold limits on legislation which are used to prevent hate speech and obscenity.
This is something I can offer some anecdotal evidence on as well. There's a website called The Smoking Gun that publishes police reports/mug shots/random documents from celebrity arrests and other amusing news in the United States. One of their reports eachyear is a list of porn from the US that is prohibited in their country... a testament to more permissive US laws regardless of the prevailing public opinion of such matters in the US.
More shocking to me (and I do apologize for this being anecdotal only) was a friend who visited Canada and had his computer's hard drive inspected by customs. He asked what they were looking for and was told "hate speech literature, etc". You may not believe it, but as a US resident I've never had to worry about the political contents of my computer. Further, I do have a number of Muslim friends. While some of them have voiced a concern to me that they fear government inspection in their lives (which is I believe what you were mentioning in your post) none of them actually fear imprisonment. They're more concerned with their loss of privacy and/or time wasted explaining to the government officials that they're not a problem. Now is that opinion prevailing in the US Muslim community? That I don't know and I've never seen a good poll on the subject.
Again, I'm not trying to ruffle any feathers, and I'm certainly not trying to absolve the USA of its many wrongs and problems, but free speech is something that they actually have a very good track record on. I think a lot of the XXX political "discussion" has been more posturing and catering to voters than politicians actually trying to effect change. This may sound odd, but in the US, we have many many policy decisions brought up that politicians *know ahead of time* will never come to be, how
Slashdot Mirror
I logged in for the first time in a year just to agree with you. There was a survey a few years back (sorry I couldn't find the link) suggesting that many business owners regret going public and losing control of their company, despite the cash they made.
I realize Four Square's case isn't the same as going public, but it's similar. If you love what you do and already make good money, why ruin it? And for the record, you can pay everyone's salary and still make zero profit, so "unprofitable" doesn't mean that the people working there aren't making good money.
So they hired one guy to watch the network. I'm guessing most universities spend 10x that on gardening alone... why is the writer up in arms?
I doubt this will get read, but honestly, 99% of the stupid comments and bickering could have been avoided with a better summary.
/., I enjoy it here, but honestly can the editors learn their lesson and write better summaries so we can have better discussions?
Not to rag on
You know, I read it and kept thinking mobile phones rather than handhelds. You're right, it won't happen.
I used to love the fact that the first game in every Apogee trilogy was a shareware title, and after I got a good feel for the game I could decide to buy the next two in the series.
Including congressional elections, 50%
I always had a rough time with find too. If the author happens to be reading the comments, try:
find . -type f -name "file_name_here" -print
It's a complicated command that can do a lot, but that basic example will work for the majority of your simple file searches. From there it might be easier to branch out and fuss with other options (such as -mtime 1 would search for a file modified in the last day) but this should hopefully get you started.
Peace.
With a few notable exceptions, I typically don't reread my fiction. I buy it for two reasons, first, I take very good care of my books. I don't want to sound strange but when I read a book that has writing, underlining, highlighting, dog-earing, etc etc I get way off track. Suddenly instead of following the flow of a book I'm caught up in an evaluation of some other reader's thought process (why did they underline that? is it really important? I don't think so, etc etc). This really disrupts my reading experience and I'll happily pay a few dollars to avoid it. Second, I tend to give or lend some of my books to friends who I believe would enjoy the read but are far too lazy to go track the book down themselves (yet stuffing a copy in their hand tends to make them actually read it).
And as far as the topic goes, I'd consider myself incredibly well read. I read 40+ works of fiction last year (at least half of which weren't total trash) and stacks of academic publications. All told I visited the library zero times. Academic publications are typically easier to get online and my stacks of fiction are cheap to buy.
I read that too, but it's a poor editor to blame for the lack of clarity rather than misattributing the work. If you read the article in context, the "game adaptation of his seminal novel" is referring to Neuromancer.
It's a pity, I almost had a new way to dispose of my w's in scrabble. Now I'm boned.
If only... I could finally stop documenting my Java code as a "cost savings mechanism" for the company to avoid paying out royalties to /.
The de facto censoring, however, is on the retail end of the system, and not the ratings end of the system.
/. with some frequency when it comes from a software vendor?
How exactly do you see that as differing from the MPAA? An NC-17 movie can still be released just as an AO game can be released. Neither de facto censoring is the "ratings end of the system" saying "oh no, this game cannot be released."
I believe that the raters do the right thing, in general, rating what they're given.
I can't see how that conclusion was reached on your part. Was it because you played an "M" game and thought to yourself, "ah yes, this feels 'M' rated to me!" The problem with saying you agree with their ratings in this context is that you don't have a full information set. You don't know exactly what was submitted to the ESRB, and what was cut and edited out to reach their subjective standards. Further we don't have anything else to really compare the ESRB's ratings to, as mentioned in This Film, "Sure compared to nothing it's a step up, but that doesn't mean it's good" [I've paraphrased the quote to the best of my ability to recall].
Frankly, it makes them harder to intimidate, bully, or bribe.
I can't possibly buy that as an argument. If I was a crooked rater I could easily approach a game producer on my own, "Hey, want an 'M' rating?". As for intimidation and bullying do you honestly believe that the game publisher is going to start threatening these raters? Or do you believe it's the crazed fans that will hunt down the raters? If it's the later I submit to you that Jack Thompson is still alive and well as evidence that gamers do not tend to turn violent in these matters. Rather I see that as a great line to feed people "oh of course we can't reveal their identity, that could compromise the system!" Isn't that the exact rational that is attacked on
If anyone hasn't seen This Film is not yet Rated which the Gamasutra article's title alludes to I would recommend it as an eye opening look into the ratings process.
Just like the MPAA the ESRB is using an anonymous group of individuals with no clearly defined lines between ratings to effectively censor content (since many consoles will not even play AO content similar to many major studios refusing to release NC-17 content).
And here's the quote that the summary should have included in my opinion:
Do raters apply their own moral standards (on subjects like violence, substance abuse, and sexuality) to guide their rating recommendations? Or, are they merely to apply a standard that the ESRB has set out for them?
PV: It's really a combination of both. Rating games is an inherently subjective practice in the sense that content is always going to be interpreted in different ways by different people. So part of the equation is the raters' own views on content, but as I said, parity and consistency play important roles as well.
From Wordnet:
# S: (n) quarrel, wrangle, row, words, run-in, dustup (an angry dispute) "they had a quarrel"; "they had words"
They use it constantly on the BBC website.
Possibly because it was slated for consoles as well as a PC release. I am aware that other consoles such as the Wii do have a download distribution method, but I believe there's still the matter of hard drives on consoles and other such concerns to be aware of.
Plus, to be honest, while it may have had a lot of press from this, I'm certain that a ton of folks are still unaware of it. When they don't see it sitting on a shelf, I doubt they'll think to go looking for it.
And Aristotle beat her to it by more than 2,000 years:
/. conversation is going to be ;)
Eudaimonia
Most things are desired for the sake of something else (e.g., we desire food because we want to be healthy), but Aristotle argued that there must be something desired only for its own sake. This he identified as happiness, well-being or flourishing (Greek eudaimonia literally "having a good guardian spirit"). When asked "Why do you desire this?" and then "Well, why do you desire that?" in response to each answer, many people will eventually stop at "in order to be happy." Eudaimonia is not a means to an end, but an end in itself--in fact, Aristotle argued that it was commonly recognized as the ultimate goal of life (Book I, Ch. 4).
This line of reasoning, imho, didn't become interesting again until Kant took a swing at it by considering a priori reasoning. I'll now bow out of this as I'm not sure how fruitful a philosophic
Read your own quote. Without a RealID...
I don't mean to sound disagreeable, but I did read my own quote. It outlines specific activities that can and cannot be done. This is *not* a license to exist, I do *not* need to show one on demand save the special cases listed.
Just because the totality of the potential of this "license to exist" groundwork hasn't been finished doesn't mean now isn't the time to start resisting it. They've learned to phase things in gradually, a la "boiling the frog".
Then for the sake of honesty, why not put that in your first post rather than claiming it's a license to exist? I'm quite alright with that sentiment, but I *also* get annoyed as heck when I feel someone is trying to misrepresent an idea.
FTA:
The Real ID Act, passed by Congress in 2005 and signed by President Bush, requires all U.S. residents without a passport to obtain a new state-issued type of driver's license or ID card in order to board commercial airplanes, enter federal buildings, get Social Security benefits or get into other federal government programs, starting next May.
As I read that, I can freely walk down the street without carrying an ID and not fear being detained. You may argue that it may grow into something more in the future, but at present, it is *not* a license to exist. Just thought I'd clarify that as I feel it's an important distinction.
Please also note, I'm not *for* the ID, but I'd like to try and blame the bill for what it actually does rather than what it doesn't do.
Or maybe, it just shows that you can compare anything to anything, if you carefully choose only the aspects that sorta superficially support your idea, do a lot of sophistry to make them look even more supportive, and keep your fingers crossed that noone notices all else you've ignored.
Allow me to start by mentioning my bias, I liked the book, took classes from Steve Levitt, and worked for him for a while during and after college. It may help to know that those gimmicky "comparisons" really were not a part of Levitt's academic papers which the book is based on. Here's a bit of background on Freakonomics, basically Levitt writes a ton of clever papers that win him some recognition. Dubner took these papers and simplified them to try and make them accessible to the non-economic public. Sure, stylistically, there's issues that I have with it as well (and these are issues I have with virtually every pop-science book out there). But I feel as if you've belittled the book's content based on some style choices designed to draw the reader in.
Perhaps I've misunderstood your point, but gimmicky comparisons aside, there's a lot of well thought out content to that book that shouldn't be outright dismissed or characterized badly due to some tasteless introductory paragraphs.
But one distribution is much, much cheaper and reaches almost all of their audience.
Not that WotC has a great history of passing that savings on to their consumer. They typically sell their online content for the same price as their physical content (a policy that extends all the way from Magic:tG to D&D). I think it has to do with their staunch support of brick and mortar stores. They're afraid of damaging the sales of those stores and hence loosing a physical venue where people can play/learn about their games.
I'm actually quite surprised (given their history) to see them move to an online distribution method that lacks a physical counterpart.
Roman, not Greek. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pliny_the_Elder) Just had to mention that.
Until they reset the BIOS password with that magic jumper on the motherboard or pull out the battery....
Yes, but then they've left evidence of their activities. That's almost as good as preventing it from a certain angle.
But none of the products could stop the doomsday weapon, which is to burn an Ubuntu Linux CD and boot from that, bypassing any security software installed under Windows.
But if you're really that afraid of your kids, you can stop that for free, right? Just password your BIOS setup at boot and disable boot from cd/disk. Then, later, if you need to boot from CD/disk for some reason, you have the password to re-enable it.
Wouldn't that fix the issue?
Every country which has ratified the UN declaration on human rights (and followed through on their obligations, for example the UK) has equal free-speech to the USA. We just have different bugbears to you (in Europe, this is mainly we-hate-Nazis instead of we-hate-Terrorists).
I know this is touching on a political nerve, so I'm hesitant to say much, but regardless of those who ratified the UN declaration, the USA has a better track record than others.
Let's start with looking at the declaration. I believe the relevant section is article 19:
Article 19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Sounds good. Now I'm going to use Canada as an example as I'm more familiar with them (being that they are in close proximity to the US so more of their news makes it to me). Wikipedia mentions the following:
Due to section 1 of the Charter, the so-called limitation clause, Canada's freedom of expression is not absolute and can be limited under certain situations. Section 1 of the Charter states:
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
This section is double edged. First it implies that a limitation on freedom of speech prescribed in law can be permitted if it can be justified as being a reasonable limit in a free and democratic society. Conversely, it implies that a restriction can be invalidated if it cannot be shown to be a reasonable limit in a free and democratic society. The former case has been used to uphold limits on legislation which are used to prevent hate speech and obscenity.
This is something I can offer some anecdotal evidence on as well. There's a website called The Smoking Gun that publishes police reports/mug shots/random documents from celebrity arrests and other amusing news in the United States. One of their reports each year is a list of porn from the US that is prohibited in their country... a testament to more permissive US laws regardless of the prevailing public opinion of such matters in the US.
More shocking to me (and I do apologize for this being anecdotal only) was a friend who visited Canada and had his computer's hard drive inspected by customs. He asked what they were looking for and was told "hate speech literature, etc". You may not believe it, but as a US resident I've never had to worry about the political contents of my computer. Further, I do have a number of Muslim friends. While some of them have voiced a concern to me that they fear government inspection in their lives (which is I believe what you were mentioning in your post) none of them actually fear imprisonment. They're more concerned with their loss of privacy and/or time wasted explaining to the government officials that they're not a problem. Now is that opinion prevailing in the US Muslim community? That I don't know and I've never seen a good poll on the subject.
Again, I'm not trying to ruffle any feathers, and I'm certainly not trying to absolve the USA of its many wrongs and problems, but free speech is something that they actually have a very good track record on. I think a lot of the XXX political "discussion" has been more posturing and catering to voters than politicians actually trying to effect change. This may sound odd, but in the US, we have many many policy decisions brought up that politicians *know ahead of time* will never come to be, how
In case I'm not the only one unable to reach the article.