Am I, a regular, human woman, about to become yesterday's biotech? I hope a community of "retro-daters" develops so I still have something to do on a Friday night.
Well, Jon, you seem like a sweet guy, and I hate to criticize anyone's first post, but while agree with certain portions of your post, realistically, commercials and advertising costs big bucks. Linux releases have a hard enough time finding funding for the developers, and often can't, relying on people to donate time and effort. Where is the money going to come from for the graphic designers, advertising execs, and air time necessary for a commercial campaign to get the word out to the level of Microsoft? Seriously, now...
Let me begin by saying I don't like Microsoft products. I think it's an evil, opportunistic company that is likely funded by Nazi gold, but....
Microsoft itself is not the real culprit here. If the cost to the industry is really 10 billion, then the threshold for establishing a monopoly should be met. The problem is no real enforcement of the Sherman Act or any of the other federal "calls to arms" against monopoly.
Like it or not, in capitalist society the message sent to business is to be as nasty as profitable and permitted. As long as consumers keep buying (maybe because they feel like they don't have a choice, and there is some argument there) and the government doesn't enforce its own laws (which is probably why consumers feel they have no choice), Microsoft can't be blamed overmuch.
In short (too late!), the problem isn't really the 300 lb. gorilla. It's just doing what gorillas do. The problem is the federal prosecutor with the tranq gun taking a nap.
You know, some of us on/. are actual attorneys. I'm finishing up law school now and at least three of my teachers are avid readers. So maybe some of those opinions are worth paying a little attention to....
the ridiculous premiums doctors have to pay in malpractice insurance as the court system does virtually nothing to stem the tide of bogus malpractice claims.
Seriously, I think this is great, but the government needs to do a bit more to help our medical professionals as certain states (like WV) are having to close down trauma centers because doctors can't meet the $200,000 a year insurance premiums
There seems to be a lot of misconception about non-competition clauses, so I'm going to do my best to set this to rights.
A non-competition clause limits future employment with direct competitors for a limited amount of time. Generally, never longer then 18 months, most of the time a year. The employee is not frozen out of the field. They are free to work in another geographical area or for the government or in the same field in a position that would not place them in direct competition with their old employer.
Now, choice of law is important and complex here. Judges are allowed to apply whatever law they see most closely connected to the controversy. Here, I think Washington law makes sense as it is the place the original contract was negotiated and signed, but there is a good argument for CA still as the alleged violation could be argued to have occurred there. It really matters here as one state would hold the clause unenforceable while the other would not.
Finally, non-competition clauses are beneficial in many ways, not just to the Corp. holding the contract. They encourage a greater investment in employees as they are more likely to be there longer. They allow for greater exchange of "trade secret" type information over multiple levels of employees. This, in turn, allows for greater innovation in general and keeps our boxes running faster and cooler with the fruits of the free exchange of information. If we didn't have them, our courts would likely be flooded with employers accusing past employees of leaking "company information" to their new bosses. This still happens, but much less.
It helps, but it doesn't end things. Choice of law is pretty complex and can based on where the companies are incorporated, their principal places of business (which is rarely the same), place of negotiation, etc..
More than likely, Microsoft has a choice of law provision in the original contract (probably Delaware law as it is friendliest to big corps.). However, as Google is not party to the contract, they have plenty of room to argue that CA law should apply, which would get them off the hook.
Also, everywhere in America courts are reluctant to apply tort to contract law. Bad intent and knowledge are both required (and hard to prove). Although "mistake of law" (misunderstanding what is or is not illegal) is not generally an acceptable defense, it can be used to rebut knowledge and intent. Google may escape liability by explaining they thought CA would apply and the contract provision is void under such law, so they never thought there was a valid contract they were encouraging the employee to violate.
Just run a silent system. No bells or chimes to signal when new email comes in. Have your phone light up, not ring. I never IM, as it annoys the hell out of me in general, so my distractions rarely, if ever, register enough to take me away from my work.
Also, the same studies that say you need eight minutes to charge up say that your brain is only good for about twenty minutes at a clip, and then processing effectivness takes a big dive. Therefore, you can surface every half hour or so to check up on what you've missed.
But the people stopping by... There's now way to fix that, except maybe not showing or begin collecting rare cheeses.
Of course he followed the joke with a long metaphor about how some people's brains are healthy and beautiful and could be sliced and served like sushi, while other people's brains need a little medicinal "poaching" to be edible, and still others, like him, had the kind of brain you mince, deep-fry, and hope for the best.
I know someone that has gone through traditional electroshock twice and there seems to be very little positive effect when weighed against the side effects. He lost a lot of his memory and right after treatment would commonly get caught in little loops (telling the same joke, story, etc. over and over).
The only good thing is that he would mildly stabilize a few weeks after treatment and the effects would seem to subside (right in time for another round, incidentally). However, if these shocks were continual, then the side effects may be too, rendering it pretty useless.
Battlefield is just one of those games that you should never even open if you have a personality that allows you to get even slightly addicted to games. Hours can go by without even registering with me.
Personally, I like that there are few frills in this game. Simplicity is key in games like this. The depth and dimension comes from playing with other people.
The only thing I disagree with is that people are reluctant to use voicechat with strangers. Maybe this is more the reviewer's phobia coming through than an actual phenomenon. Sure, the first couple times you play with someone you only met through the game may be less conversational, but people remember good players and end up playing with the same "strangers," which erases this effect, if it ever existed in the first place.
The original GTA comments may have indeed been a straw-man argument, but there exists one that is not.
You're right, there is a long history here. It began in the late 90's, early 2000 when people were complaining that video games had pretty much a blank check to do anything and everything the developers thought of while other forms of entertainment targeting young adults, like movies, were heavily regulated. People bristled at the injustice in the disparity.
The response came in events like those you noted, the election discussions, the ESRB rating system and so on. It seemed, at least to me, the medias were back on a level playground with parents equipped with ample ammunition to get whatever job they wanted to do done.
Now, however, we've overshot our mark and come full circle and then some in some twisted fashion. Now it's the video games that get the harsher hand. A rating that says 17+ for movies allows just about anything the filmmaker can thing of (NC-17 being today's "X"), while a 17+ rating for video games seems to do nothing to insulate it from charges of corrupting the youth. Warning should be enough. It is for movies.
This should provide some really useful numbers for those looking into e-publishing and those looking to how much impact an electronic release could have on paper-publishing profits.
If there is not a large amount of interest in the electronic format when the books are free, then it will send a strong signal that we may not be receptive to the medium yet. Particulary as these are both books whose readership would be more likely than the average reader to be open to electronic format (I wouold guess, not facts to back this up.)
Alternatively, if both books sell poorly in the paper format, but do pretty well on the electronic release, it could give publishers some idea of what kind of impact e-books could have on the market should whatever security measure they implement be cracked (because they usually are). However, as this target audience is probably more e-friendly that others, the data may unrealistically inflate the prospective damage.
I personally spend far too much time staring at my screen already. Give me the paper version any day.
Come on, in this day and age a "scientific" study cannot possibly think it's going to say anything meaningful about wasting time at work if it considers "the internet" as one thing. Clearly, it needs to be subcategorized into meaningful elements. Maybe something like webmailers, on-line magazines, interactive discussion groups, etc. That way the researchers could seperate the waste from the worthy.
I mean, to study people wasting time on the internet is tantamount to studying people wasting time on computers.
DnD (of course); Call of Cthulhu; Paranoia; On the Edge; Shadowrun; Some stuff from Whitewolf that I refuse to name (in the used-to category); Rifts; And so on...
Trust me, I eat like mad. I'm also eating a ridiculous amount of pasta these days. (I happen to be in Italy right now, and yes, I'm still checking slashdot.)
I see two issues that will probably render this very expensive piece of macherinery fairly ineffective.
First, it is designed to view scads of people at once on video screens. Pinpointing just which person in a mass is the one carrying the "questionable object" may be difficult, particularly during hours of peak use.
Second, after this quote...
"We can solve the modesty issue by overlaying the body with graphics except for the area which causes concern."
The terrorists now all know just where to carry bombs to remain undetected!
Ok. This is actually a relatively complex thing to explain in a few paragraphs, but I'll take a whack.
It's true that there is nothing explicitly in the Copyright Act granting the right for personal copies to be made of music or media. Actually, copying is an exclusive right of the copyright holder alone (according to section 106), so , yes, it is still a violation of the copyright act to do so.
Betamax granted the right to make a tape copy of broadcast transmission for the purpose of later viewing (timeshifting). It found this falls under the exception known as "fair use" (section 107 of the act, I believe). This is the narrowest way to look at the ruling, some courts have tried to expand it, some narrow, courts have also spent years picking and choosing among the rationales used in the Betamax case to decide what is "fair use" in other cases.
The end of the legislative mess is that it is generally held to be fair use to make one archival copy.
There are a lot of holes in this theory that even a layman can see at twenty paces (the size != density thing, the small sample sizes of the underlying studies, etc,), so why would anyone publish or even try to publish such a thing?
One may say, "Who cares, more fodder for the wise-acres on Slashdot," but I think crap studies like this can do real damage. No theory can ever be "proven" absolutely. Therefore, all the weight science has in our lives and how we think is all based on faith in the process that guides the practitioners. Every "scientist" touting phrenology, faking cold fusion, or toting around a tape measure and a IQ test chips away at the foundation of that faith.
Look at how lax standards have affected the public's faith in statistics. If these practices continue and continue to be published one day you may hear someone say, "Yeah, there's lies, damn lies, and physics."
Slashdot Mirror
Am I, a regular, human woman, about to become yesterday's biotech? I hope a community of "retro-daters" develops so I still have something to do on a Friday night.
I'm already on too many shit-lists to worry ;)
Well, Jon, you seem like a sweet guy, and I hate to criticize anyone's first post, but while agree with certain portions of your post, realistically, commercials and advertising costs big bucks. Linux releases have a hard enough time finding funding for the developers, and often can't, relying on people to donate time and effort. Where is the money going to come from for the graphic designers, advertising execs, and air time necessary for a commercial campaign to get the word out to the level of Microsoft? Seriously, now...
Let me begin by saying I don't like Microsoft products. I think it's an evil, opportunistic company that is likely funded by Nazi gold, but....
Microsoft itself is not the real culprit here. If the cost to the industry is really 10 billion, then the threshold for establishing a monopoly should be met. The problem is no real enforcement of the Sherman Act or any of the other federal "calls to arms" against monopoly.
Like it or not, in capitalist society the message sent to business is to be as nasty as profitable and permitted. As long as consumers keep buying (maybe because they feel like they don't have a choice, and there is some argument there) and the government doesn't enforce its own laws (which is probably why consumers feel they have no choice), Microsoft can't be blamed overmuch.
In short (too late!), the problem isn't really the 300 lb. gorilla. It's just doing what gorillas do. The problem is the federal prosecutor with the tranq gun taking a nap.
ACYou know, some of us on /. are actual attorneys. I'm finishing up law school now and at least three of my teachers are avid readers. So maybe some of those opinions are worth paying a little attention to....
This smells a little like flame-bait to me.
the ridiculous premiums doctors have to pay in malpractice insurance as the court system does virtually nothing to stem the tide of bogus malpractice claims.
Seriously, I think this is great, but the government needs to do a bit more to help our medical professionals as certain states (like WV) are having to close down trauma centers because doctors can't meet the $200,000 a year insurance premiums
There seems to be a lot of misconception about non-competition clauses, so I'm going to do my best to set this to rights.
A non-competition clause limits future employment with direct competitors for a limited amount of time. Generally, never longer then 18 months, most of the time a year. The employee is not frozen out of the field. They are free to work in another geographical area or for the government or in the same field in a position that would not place them in direct competition with their old employer.
Now, choice of law is important and complex here. Judges are allowed to apply whatever law they see most closely connected to the controversy. Here, I think Washington law makes sense as it is the place the original contract was negotiated and signed, but there is a good argument for CA still as the alleged violation could be argued to have occurred there. It really matters here as one state would hold the clause unenforceable while the other would not.
Finally, non-competition clauses are beneficial in many ways, not just to the Corp. holding the contract. They encourage a greater investment in employees as they are more likely to be there longer. They allow for greater exchange of "trade secret" type information over multiple levels of employees. This, in turn, allows for greater innovation in general and keeps our boxes running faster and cooler with the fruits of the free exchange of information. If we didn't have them, our courts would likely be flooded with employers accusing past employees of leaking "company information" to their new bosses. This still happens, but much less.
With a name like Longhorn, they were kind of asking to be re-"branded"
It helps, but it doesn't end things. Choice of law is pretty complex and can based on where the companies are incorporated, their principal places of business (which is rarely the same), place of negotiation, etc..
More than likely, Microsoft has a choice of law provision in the original contract (probably Delaware law as it is friendliest to big corps.). However, as Google is not party to the contract, they have plenty of room to argue that CA law should apply, which would get them off the hook.
Also, everywhere in America courts are reluctant to apply tort to contract law. Bad intent and knowledge are both required (and hard to prove). Although "mistake of law" (misunderstanding what is or is not illegal) is not generally an acceptable defense, it can be used to rebut knowledge and intent. Google may escape liability by explaining they thought CA would apply and the contract provision is void under such law, so they never thought there was a valid contract they were encouraging the employee to violate.
Just run a silent system. No bells or chimes to signal when new email comes in. Have your phone light up, not ring. I never IM, as it annoys the hell out of me in general, so my distractions rarely, if ever, register enough to take me away from my work.
Also, the same studies that say you need eight minutes to charge up say that your brain is only good for about twenty minutes at a clip, and then processing effectivness takes a big dive. Therefore, you can surface every half hour or so to check up on what you've missed.
But the people stopping by... There's now way to fix that, except maybe not showing or begin collecting rare cheeses.
No harm done. He made the same joke.
Of course he followed the joke with a long metaphor about how some people's brains are healthy and beautiful and could be sliced and served like sushi, while other people's brains need a little medicinal "poaching" to be edible, and still others, like him, had the kind of brain you mince, deep-fry, and hope for the best.
I know someone that has gone through traditional electroshock twice and there seems to be very little positive effect when weighed against the side effects. He lost a lot of his memory and right after treatment would commonly get caught in little loops (telling the same joke, story, etc. over and over).
The only good thing is that he would mildly stabilize a few weeks after treatment and the effects would seem to subside (right in time for another round, incidentally). However, if these shocks were continual, then the side effects may be too, rendering it pretty useless.
AC
Battlefield is just one of those games that you should never even open if you have a personality that allows you to get even slightly addicted to games. Hours can go by without even registering with me.
Personally, I like that there are few frills in this game. Simplicity is key in games like this. The depth and dimension comes from playing with other people.
The only thing I disagree with is that people are reluctant to use voicechat with strangers. Maybe this is more the reviewer's phobia coming through than an actual phenomenon. Sure, the first couple times you play with someone you only met through the game may be less conversational, but people remember good players and end up playing with the same "strangers," which erases this effect, if it ever existed in the first place.
The original GTA comments may have indeed been a straw-man argument, but there exists one that is not.
You're right, there is a long history here. It began in the late 90's, early 2000 when people were complaining that video games had pretty much a blank check to do anything and everything the developers thought of while other forms of entertainment targeting young adults, like movies, were heavily regulated. People bristled at the injustice in the disparity.
The response came in events like those you noted, the election discussions, the ESRB rating system and so on. It seemed, at least to me, the medias were back on a level playground with parents equipped with ample ammunition to get whatever job they wanted to do done.
Now, however, we've overshot our mark and come full circle and then some in some twisted fashion. Now it's the video games that get the harsher hand. A rating that says 17+ for movies allows just about anything the filmmaker can thing of (NC-17 being today's "X"), while a 17+ rating for video games seems to do nothing to insulate it from charges of corrupting the youth. Warning should be enough. It is for movies.
This should provide some really useful numbers for those looking into e-publishing and those looking to how much impact an electronic release could have on paper-publishing profits.
If there is not a large amount of interest in the electronic format when the books are free, then it will send a strong signal that we may not be receptive to the medium yet. Particulary as these are both books whose readership would be more likely than the average reader to be open to electronic format (I wouold guess, not facts to back this up.)
Alternatively, if both books sell poorly in the paper format, but do pretty well on the electronic release, it could give publishers some idea of what kind of impact e-books could have on the market should whatever security measure they implement be cracked (because they usually are). However, as this target audience is probably more e-friendly that others, the data may unrealistically inflate the prospective damage.
I personally spend far too much time staring at my screen already. Give me the paper version any day.
ACCome on, in this day and age a "scientific" study cannot possibly think it's going to say anything meaningful about wasting time at work if it considers "the internet" as one thing. Clearly, it needs to be subcategorized into meaningful elements. Maybe something like webmailers, on-line magazines, interactive discussion groups, etc. That way the researchers could seperate the waste from the worthy.
I mean, to study people wasting time on the internet is tantamount to studying people wasting time on computers.
ACSure! To name a few I play or have played:
DnD (of course);
Call of Cthulhu;
Paranoia;
On the Edge;
Shadowrun;
Some stuff from Whitewolf that I refuse to name (in the used-to category);
Rifts;
And so on...
Trust me, I eat like mad. I'm also eating a ridiculous amount of pasta these days. (I happen to be in Italy right now, and yes, I'm still checking slashdot.)
Ah, not exactly...
26;
Charisma of 16;
Attractive? who knows?
All Caucasian
Exactly 5' 7"
115 lbs.
Alas, only a B cup.
Guess if those are your search terms, I do not register as a valid selection.
also so does every reply in this forum decrease one's chances of ever having sex?
For me, as I'm a girl, I think it seriously increases my chances.Now, are they chances I actually want to take....
I see two issues that will probably render this very expensive piece of macherinery fairly ineffective.
First, it is designed to view scads of people at once on video screens. Pinpointing just which person in a mass is the one carrying the "questionable object" may be difficult, particularly during hours of peak use.
Second, after this quote...
"We can solve the modesty issue by overlaying the body with graphics except for the area which causes concern."
The terrorists now all know just where to carry bombs to remain undetected!
"Hmm BBC 3 is hardly comedy central.."
This is the nicest thing you could possibly say about BBC 3. Aside form the Daily Show, Comedy Central hardly presents innovative material these days.
Ok. This is actually a relatively complex thing to explain in a few paragraphs, but I'll take a whack.
It's true that there is nothing explicitly in the Copyright Act granting the right for personal copies to be made of music or media. Actually, copying is an exclusive right of the copyright holder alone (according to section 106), so , yes, it is still a violation of the copyright act to do so.
Betamax granted the right to make a tape copy of broadcast transmission for the purpose of later viewing (timeshifting). It found this falls under the exception known as "fair use" (section 107 of the act, I believe). This is the narrowest way to look at the ruling, some courts have tried to expand it, some narrow, courts have also spent years picking and choosing among the rationales used in the Betamax case to decide what is "fair use" in other cases.
The end of the legislative mess is that it is generally held to be fair use to make one archival copy.
There are a lot of holes in this theory that even a layman can see at twenty paces (the size != density thing, the small sample sizes of the underlying studies, etc,), so why would anyone publish or even try to publish such a thing? One may say, "Who cares, more fodder for the wise-acres on Slashdot," but I think crap studies like this can do real damage. No theory can ever be "proven" absolutely. Therefore, all the weight science has in our lives and how we think is all based on faith in the process that guides the practitioners. Every "scientist" touting phrenology, faking cold fusion, or toting around a tape measure and a IQ test chips away at the foundation of that faith. Look at how lax standards have affected the public's faith in statistics. If these practices continue and continue to be published one day you may hear someone say, "Yeah, there's lies, damn lies, and physics."