No, because those scratches don't represent irreversible damage to a core function, and it's not due to a known defect in the product.
There are numerous cases of auto companies being legally required to make good on defects post-market.
In the case of the Nano, there is a defect that the manufacturer knew about, that affects a core function, that they chose to ignore and not disclose. Implied warranty was broken.
It's not just about prettyness. Most fantasy RPG players identify more with the "good guys"... even with Blood Elves going to Horde, they'll still be outnumbered heavily.
The whole reason Horde characters are overpowered is to
(1) encourage people to play them
(2) give them a leg up in massive PvP, so they can actually compete.
"With ¾ of the business they should also get some commission on their work."
They don't generate ¾ of the business, they process the orders for ¾ of the business. Yes, IT depts can have a huge influence on purchases -- but it's not nearly the same as commission-based sales, where one person is individually responsible for generating x revenue. Instead, the collective efforts of the IT team support the entire online sales function.
So, commissions in this case would be more like profit-sharing. And with fuel prices and disposable income on their current trends, I'm not sure I'd want to profit-share... the airline might take money out of his check to cover their losses;)
RTFA, maybe spend 1 minute with Google, and you'd know the answer to your question.
Knowingly releasing a defective item is not legal, when the defect in question results in irreparable damage to a core function of the product or presents an undisclosed hazard to consumers. There are implied warranties with any product that goes to market, that have the full force of law behind them.
Take2/Rockstar went public a couple years ago, they are beholden to the same market misconceptions that drive business practices in tons of industries... quarterly earnings reports.
Given some of the legal expenses Take2 has had over the past couple of years, it's no wonder that they rush games to market to get positive earnings reports... they need good news to offset speculation of lawsuits, etc.
Re:Go ahead and try it, Sid
on
Sid Meier Responds
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
He doesn't own the IP anymore, Take2 does.
And Take2, like any big publisher, will move to quash clone developers when they become a threat.
It's a business. It's not there to promote independent developers, it's there to make money.
We should be happy that Sid & Take2 are continuing to develop games, to improve the Civ franchise, instead of sitting back and slapping lawsuits on anyone who tries to copy older games.
Disclaimer: I do not work for Take2, but I'm in the same building as them.
Well, if I were to buy a game for myself, I would research it to find out if it's worth buying, of interest to me, the kind of game I'd like, etc.
My kid, however, will let me know that he wants the game -- I just need to determine whether I and my wife will agree that he can handle it.
Unfortunately, a couple of screenshots may not tell me enough about the context of the violence. And for questionable games, a single review usually doesn't give me enough information. So I'll end up checking IGN, Gamespot, and googling for a while to check it out.
"I'm not sure of the precise toxicologic mechanism, but it is possible that the paralysis of cilia by smoking contributes to deep penetration of the fibers into the lungs."
I wish it were just paralysis of the cilia. Smoking causes the ciliated cells of the respiratory tract to be replaced by squamous epithelial cells, which lack cilia. This is one of the major causes of smoker's cough. Also, the incidence of cancer in squamous epithelial cells is higher than that of the reticulated cells that normally line the respiratory tract.
Between the decrease in healthy mucous production, and the inability to move that mucous out of the lungs, I would imagine that one of the major reasons the synergy is so profound is that the asbestos stays in the lung much longer.
" I'm a developer and errors/holes in my code are my fault.""
Yes, but fault != financial responsibility for the consequences of the errors. Who is taking the financial risk by publishing the software? It's the same entity that will be reaping the rewards of sales of that software, or of other revenue streams derived from distribution of that software.
"Even if I identified the hole and my boss told me to skip it, I still published flawed code"
Not really. You wrote it, but your company published it. It was the decision of the company to release the code into the wild; without that decision, the damages would not have occurred. It was also your company, not you, who entered into an agreement with the purchaser of the software (whether through a distributor or not).
By observation by people who maintain Wikipedia. They know it's not all/.ers. It's probably some of the same people who endlessly troll here.
If you spend a minute or two with Google, you'll see that at least one person posted instructions on/. for easy vandalism of Wikipedia. I'm not going to post the link to that, and if anyone does find it, please don't post it, and please don't follow the instructions and vandalize Wikipedia.
Other people have posted on/. the reasons why they vandalize Wikipedia.
In a community of this size, there will be some bad eggs. And Wikipedia having a warning that there is a correlation between/. links to them, and false or vandalized information... well, that's just good policy.
Ahh, yes, because all parents have access to the internet. And all parents would rather spend hours researching games then spending that time with their children.
But would good parents allow their child to spend 50 hours playing a video game? That's more than 7 weeks of playing a game EVERY DAY for an hour.
I work. I commute. I coach sports teams that my child is on. I do housework and yardwork. I pay bills and track household expenses. I cook dinner half the time. Every month or so, I even get to socialize with some of my friends, or some of my wife's friends. I play with my kid, I help him with his homework.
And that's just me. What about single parents? Or parents who have to work two or three jobs just to keep a roof over their head, food on the table, and provide clothing for their family?
Some bad parents need instant ratings. Some good parents also benefit from instant ratings.
"Cut down on the symbology and the choice, parents just want to know if a particular game is reasonably appropriate for a kid the age of theirs. Or not. One simple answer."
No, good parents want to know if a game is suitable for the maturity level of their child. Not a child of the same age, but specifically, their child.
Yes, symbology gets in the way of this. But a blanket "13" does no good. Detail. A listing of the questionable content and the frequency it appears in-game. Then I can decide if my child is mature enough to handle a particular game.
I'm sorry, "Sexual Themes," "Strong Sexual Content," and "Nudity" are the only descriptors for sex? They are too vague.
I'd prefer a scale. Because "Strong Sexual Content" can vary widely across games, and some I would consider appropriate for a 13-year-old, and some I would not.
First, how does he propose to fund a system that is more expensive than the current system? Who pays, and how does that make his idea independent?
Second, he decries the ESRB system as being too vague. Yes, it would be useful to rate PSV separately. But, c'mon, Red/Yellow/Green as the ranking? What is that, None, Some, a Lot? Who gets to determine where the line is between yellow and red?
How about this: details on the cover. Ranking on a meaningful scale that at least gives us an fair idea of what's in the box.
No matter what, I'm going to make sure I'm aware of what games my kid is playing, and what's in those games. But I'd hate to shell out $60, bring the game home, watch the kid get all excited, and then realize that it's too mature for him. Take the game away, and then go back to the store to get a refund.
And, I'm sorry, but I don't have the time to research every game on the internet for half an hour... I'd rather spend that time interacting with my child.
FTA: "What I mean by that is: the largest number of registered users, the largest number of voice minutes, the largest number of developers who develop the platform, the best product... that users are willing and want to pay for." (emphasis mine)
Yes, the 'winner' will be the company with the best product and the highest market share. Nothing about how this justifies purchasing Skype (other than the number of active customers they have now)... which was the point of the release, since eBay has taken so much heat for the purchase.
Notice also that TFA states that per-minute costs will approach zero... says nothing about subscription fees. We're already seeing per-minute costs approach zero -- unlimited plans are available for traditional telephone as well as VOIP and cell phones.
Besides, isn't GooglePhone better poised to take over the zero-cost telephony market? Oh wait, that's next month's press release...
Slashdot Mirror
No, because those scratches don't represent irreversible damage to a core function, and it's not due to a known defect in the product.
There are numerous cases of auto companies being legally required to make good on defects post-market.
In the case of the Nano, there is a defect that the manufacturer knew about, that affects a core function, that they chose to ignore and not disclose. Implied warranty was broken.
Not referring to appearance of the case -- Display is a core function. You lose much functionality if you can't read what's on the screen.
It's not just about prettyness. Most fantasy RPG players identify more with the "good guys"... even with Blood Elves going to Horde, they'll still be outnumbered heavily.
The whole reason Horde characters are overpowered is to
(1) encourage people to play them
(2) give them a leg up in massive PvP, so they can actually compete.
I saw it, I just figured most /.ers wouldn't bother reading your follow-up... should've referenced it in my post.
"With ¾ of the business they should also get some commission on their work."
;)
They don't generate ¾ of the business, they process the orders for ¾ of the business. Yes, IT depts can have a huge influence on purchases -- but it's not nearly the same as commission-based sales, where one person is individually responsible for generating x revenue. Instead, the collective efforts of the IT team support the entire online sales function.
So, commissions in this case would be more like profit-sharing. And with fuel prices and disposable income on their current trends, I'm not sure I'd want to profit-share... the airline might take money out of his check to cover their losses
" I got a ridiculous amount of hits to my blog posting from a couple of weeks ago where I cleaned the scratches off my nano with Brasso"
Just don't polish with Brasso too often, or you'll end up without a casing at all.
RTFA, maybe spend 1 minute with Google, and you'd know the answer to your question.
Knowingly releasing a defective item is not legal, when the defect in question results in irreparable damage to a core function of the product or presents an undisclosed hazard to consumers. There are implied warranties with any product that goes to market, that have the full force of law behind them.
Take2/Rockstar went public a couple years ago, they are beholden to the same market misconceptions that drive business practices in tons of industries... quarterly earnings reports.
Given some of the legal expenses Take2 has had over the past couple of years, it's no wonder that they rush games to market to get positive earnings reports... they need good news to offset speculation of lawsuits, etc.
He doesn't own the IP anymore, Take2 does.
And Take2, like any big publisher, will move to quash clone developers when they become a threat.
It's a business. It's not there to promote independent developers, it's there to make money.
We should be happy that Sid & Take2 are continuing to develop games, to improve the Civ franchise, instead of sitting back and slapping lawsuits on anyone who tries to copy older games.
Disclaimer: I do not work for Take2, but I'm in the same building as them.
Well, if I were to buy a game for myself, I would research it to find out if it's worth buying, of interest to me, the kind of game I'd like, etc.
My kid, however, will let me know that he wants the game -- I just need to determine whether I and my wife will agree that he can handle it.
Unfortunately, a couple of screenshots may not tell me enough about the context of the violence. And for questionable games, a single review usually doesn't give me enough information. So I'll end up checking IGN, Gamespot, and googling for a while to check it out.
"I'm not sure of the precise toxicologic mechanism, but it is possible that the paralysis of cilia by smoking contributes to deep penetration of the fibers into the lungs."
I wish it were just paralysis of the cilia. Smoking causes the ciliated cells of the respiratory tract to be replaced by squamous epithelial cells, which lack cilia. This is one of the major causes of smoker's cough. Also, the incidence of cancer in squamous epithelial cells is higher than that of the reticulated cells that normally line the respiratory tract.
Between the decrease in healthy mucous production, and the inability to move that mucous out of the lungs, I would imagine that one of the major reasons the synergy is so profound is that the asbestos stays in the lung much longer.
" I'm a developer and errors/holes in my code are my fault.""
Yes, but fault != financial responsibility for the consequences of the errors. Who is taking the financial risk by publishing the software? It's the same entity that will be reaping the rewards of sales of that software, or of other revenue streams derived from distribution of that software.
"Even if I identified the hole and my boss told me to skip it, I still published flawed code"
Not really. You wrote it, but your company published it. It was the decision of the company to release the code into the wild; without that decision, the damages would not have occurred. It was also your company, not you, who entered into an agreement with the purchaser of the software (whether through a distributor or not).
"How did slashdotians get that rep? "
/.ers. It's probably some of the same people who endlessly troll here.
/. for easy vandalism of Wikipedia. I'm not going to post the link to that, and if anyone does find it, please don't post it, and please don't follow the instructions and vandalize Wikipedia.
/. the reasons why they vandalize Wikipedia.
/. links to them, and false or vandalized information... well, that's just good policy.
By observation by people who maintain Wikipedia. They know it's not all
If you spend a minute or two with Google, you'll see that at least one person posted instructions on
Other people have posted on
In a community of this size, there will be some bad eggs. And Wikipedia having a warning that there is a correlation between
"There were many non-student users at 'The Apocalyptic Cyber Coven' back then. Name the school and you get a cookie."
Ooh, ooh, a cookie! Can I have some Spam, too?
The ESRB labels don't list the frequency the content appears.
Ahh, yes, because all parents have access to the internet. And all parents would rather spend hours researching games then spending that time with their children.
But would good parents allow their child to spend 50 hours playing a video game? That's more than 7 weeks of playing a game EVERY DAY for an hour.
I work. I commute. I coach sports teams that my child is on. I do housework and yardwork. I pay bills and track household expenses. I cook dinner half the time. Every month or so, I even get to socialize with some of my friends, or some of my wife's friends. I play with my kid, I help him with his homework.
And that's just me. What about single parents? Or parents who have to work two or three jobs just to keep a roof over their head, food on the table, and provide clothing for their family?
Some bad parents need instant ratings. Some good parents also benefit from instant ratings.
Troll.
I don't make special trips to buy games. Usually, I'd be on another errand, or getting all my shopping done at once.
Also, I work in Manhattan. It's a short 2-block walk to the nearest game store.
Also, I'm not talking about games for me -- I'm talking about games for my kid.
Read my OP. Did I say that I prefered a 3-step scale?
"Cut down on the symbology and the choice, parents just want to know if a particular game is reasonably appropriate for a kid the age of theirs. Or not. One simple answer."
No, good parents want to know if a game is suitable for the maturity level of their child. Not a child of the same age, but specifically, their child.
Yes, symbology gets in the way of this. But a blanket "13" does no good. Detail. A listing of the questionable content and the frequency it appears in-game. Then I can decide if my child is mature enough to handle a particular game.
And, we need to tweak the current system.
I'm sorry, "Sexual Themes," "Strong Sexual Content," and "Nudity" are the only descriptors for sex? They are too vague.
I'd prefer a scale. Because "Strong Sexual Content" can vary widely across games, and some I would consider appropriate for a 13-year-old, and some I would not.
First, how does he propose to fund a system that is more expensive than the current system? Who pays, and how does that make his idea independent?
Second, he decries the ESRB system as being too vague. Yes, it would be useful to rate PSV separately. But, c'mon, Red/Yellow/Green as the ranking? What is that, None, Some, a Lot? Who gets to determine where the line is between yellow and red?
How about this: details on the cover. Ranking on a meaningful scale that at least gives us an fair idea of what's in the box.
No matter what, I'm going to make sure I'm aware of what games my kid is playing, and what's in those games. But I'd hate to shell out $60, bring the game home, watch the kid get all excited, and then realize that it's too mature for him. Take the game away, and then go back to the store to get a refund.
And, I'm sorry, but I don't have the time to research every game on the internet for half an hour... I'd rather spend that time interacting with my child.
"Inequity and Diversity in the Game Dev Sector"
Whoa... read that as "Iniquity and Diversity..."
For a second there, I thought the study may have been saying that Jack Thompson was really onto something -- that maybe game devs really are wicked.
Turns out they're just white males with a high incidence of mental illness (no surprise, considering what they go through on a regular basis).
FTA: "What I mean by that is: the largest number of registered users, the largest number of voice minutes, the largest number of developers who develop the platform, the best product ... that users are willing and want to pay for." (emphasis mine)
Yes, the 'winner' will be the company with the best product and the highest market share. Nothing about how this justifies purchasing Skype (other than the number of active customers they have now)... which was the point of the release, since eBay has taken so much heat for the purchase.
Notice also that TFA states that per-minute costs will approach zero... says nothing about subscription fees. We're already seeing per-minute costs approach zero -- unlimited plans are available for traditional telephone as well as VOIP and cell phones.
Besides, isn't GooglePhone better poised to take over the zero-cost telephony market? Oh wait, that's next month's press release...
"Sleep? That's where I get to be a mujadeen!"