Why isn't that reasonable? T hey are, as you said, expensive toys. If people are willing to pay the price - either directly or through 2-year contracts - then by definition it's not unreasonable.
Why do they retain this information? Because it is valuable to collect information whether they know what to do with it or not. I think the risks for abuse are scary and NOT worth it. But, they don't care. Not until something bad happens and they get hoards of angry customers.
They keep this information so that they can come after your non-paying behind when you default on the contract, and so they can submit updates to credit reporting for the same reason.
... someone trying to talk themselves into thinking that the market is different than it is.
ith more people gravitating toward mobile and wireless technology, consumers want smaller laptops â" and most of those people would prefer doing more than surfing the Web, which the no-frills netbooks now excel at....
Not really. Because when you're looking at smaller laptops, you are by necessity looking at smaller screens. Smaller screens - no matter how fast the processor behind them - are not going for doing involved tasks beyond writing documents (if the keyboard suits) and surfing the web. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to finish up some work over SSH on my Blackberry.
Used BluRay at blockbuster. $10-15, and you return them if they have any issues. Pretty sweet deal, though admittedly you don't get quite as large a selection.
One of the benefits of proper capitalism is that you are free to set up your own business, hire only US workers, and advertise that you do so. You may even be able to produce at lower cost than those companies you resent so much. You are also free to "boycott companies who outsource."
Once the larger companies have reached a certain critical mass, none of this matters. It is impossible to compete in an area in which they have decided to be dominant. The percentage of the population who cares about principles over expense is vanishingly small. As long as that remains true (ie, forever, it's human nature when talking about humans in aggregate), you'll never see a company challenge the Microsofts of the world.
This isn't good or bad, it's just the nature of the beast. People want to save money. To save money, they have to spend less. To spend less, they need to purchase goods and services from the places that provide them at the lowest cost. The places that provide them at the lowest cost will be the largest established companies in most cases -- both because of efficiency due to size (not an oxymoron in spite of sounding like one), and because of their ability to run at a loss indefinitely, until they exterminate any competition.
I've worked with some of the largest offshore vendors, and I would say about 60-70% of the software developers/do/ fall into your generalization above. Another 20% are as good as anyone else I've worked with, and about 10% are above-average.
I recall reading somewhere that in a basic programming concepts class, during the time when everyone was hopping on the comp sci bandwagon for easy money, there will be about half the people who come out of it simply unable to grasp such simple concepts as control structures and variables in any meaningful way -- no matter how good the instruction. The problem as I've come to see it is in India, your actual aptitude for programming isn't really relevant to whether you get into the training. I don't know why this is, because in theory this is tested for ahead of time.
The difference I see is that in the US, most people without such aptitude will change their majors. In India, it's no deterrent -- this is often the only way out of abject poverty and so they will understandably fight tooth and nail to complete their training and enter the workforce. This in turn heavily weights the available pool of developers in the direction of "incompetent".
It's not that the people of India are as a whole any less likely to have the ability to succeed in computer-related careers than anywhere else in the world population -- but desperation drives a disproportionately large percentage of unqualified people into this career path.
Whether you agree with the outcome or not, foreign labor has helped to reduce the price of many of the goods and services that westerners rely on every day.
Yeah, and the reason we need cheaper goods? Because we aren't fucking paid enough, maybe?
Quite the opposite - the IT profession in the US is quite overpaid. That is what has created the market for them thar Indians stealin' all our jobs.
On a more serious note, well said. People are often quick to complain about the accent, or the quality of service, or myriad other things -- but the vast majority will feel that they've done their part after having complained, and continue to use the same products and services because they/are/ cheaper. The adage "you get what you pay for" may be overused, but it also happens to be true in most cases.
Yes, because the visual representation of a number totally determines your ability to calculate with it. That's why people using a abacus are so slow, and why binary computers are so bad at maths.
Indeed, the Romans are famous for their advancement of calculus and trigonometry.
This is exactly why I don't understand the fuss over non-removable batteries. You get better battery life, and if you need extra power you've always been able to buy external battery packs [batterygeek.net].
The fuss is that batteries have a finite number of charge/discharge cycles. So when your non-removable battery drops to such a short cycle duration as to be a joke, you're pretty much screwed.
Mm. Perhaps GP should have said: "but we're in a deep recession here and now isn't the most appropriate time to start spending billions that don't exist". It doesn't take an economics professor to see that spending money you don't have at a time when you're suffering for being massively in debt is a Bad Idea.
...And if your job is to revise these laws of course no one would ever go see what is out there to see if its really that bad. No not anyone.
You don't seem to get it. The truth doesn't matter when it comes to the child porn hunts. It is most definitely a case of "guilty until proven innocent" -- and even once you produce that evidence of innocence, you're still screwed for life.
It seems she was kind of screwed either way - so why not be the poster child. From what I've read, there wasn't much she could hope for in terms of having been found not responsible... might have gotten a lesser dollar amount, but it's very likely that $100,000 is just as out of reach as $1,000,000.
Seems like a pretty huge gamble to not only saddle your client with a huge unpayable debt but also set precedence for future cases just on the hope that it would stir public opinion enough to overcome the powerful RIAA lobby and get favorable legislative action on the issue, meanwhile hoping you can somehow get the ruling reversed on appeal (maybe due to ineffective counsel?)
If my lawyer tried a tactic like that, they would be fired well before the trial.
You'd have to assume that if it was done, it was done with Thomas's knowledge and consent... perhaps even her idea.
E: None of the above matter, as the government has no say-so in whether or not we can carry large amounts of cash with us. (At least as far as I know... )Nor should they, it's none of their business.
Here's another way of looking at it - maybe it'll work better in the context of slashdot: Sir that laptop looks very expensive. Where did you get it? Do you have a receipt? If you don't answer me, maybe you want to answer the DEA. Or police. Or both.
Hm. To answer this further: I don't think film is different. The mechanics of the process - projecting light through a negative image - are not art. They're mechanics - artistic decisions can be made about them, but they are fundamentally not artistic.
I see this as comparable to most (but not all) games - the mechanics of combat.
But this is not exclusive to what you've said either. The assets of the game can be extremely artistic -- models, animations and rigging, music composition, even the way scenes are constructed. But when you look at the larger view: no matter how artistically beautiful the gore splatters are, virtualized killing of zombies isn't art.
Smoothness, context switching, detail of non-focus objects, ambience, these all have artistic elements to them, and are colorations of the overall experience.
They can have artistic elements, but are often handled as a matter of mechanics. There are games that do use all of that, and genuinely present themselves as art -- though I personally haven't seen any. Far more common will be art in specific assets -- body language, texturing, shaping.
(not replying to the rest as I essentially agree with it - though no experience with wii to say from experience whether it does)
Sorry to be all McLuhanistic on you, but there is the medium, and the message.
The medium, or dev platform, enables differing kinds of user interaction.
The content (story line, user interactions, group play, value and weighting of scoring dynamics) is something else entirely.
I think that's my point if I'm following. The game is a vehicle that delivers content - the content itself can be very artistic (though sometimes is not - as always, it's a subjective thing). But rarely will you find that things like gameplay mechanics, overall gameplay themes, etc are artistic.
Think of the game as a gallery -- no artistic value, but it puts on display things of [subjective] beauty and wonder.
Can't the Louvre or the Uffizi be thought of as works of art in themselves? I agree that games are mostly thought to be mere entertainment, but I think it's not unreasonable to say that sometimes (if seldom) games are art.
I agree - my generalization is for "most but not all".
that most people who make video games are technicians rather than artists. I think that the few people who overlap creativity in the story telling or avaunt guard space, rarely overlap with coders or the middle management corporate structure that herds them. So you get Doom->Quake->Wolfenstien->Doom->Quake games that are just excuses to kill shit with rocket launchers as a development platform.
Well said. Games most often contain things of high artistic value (tell any 3d modeler that what he's doing isn't art, and then duck!) but seldom is the game itself art. Think of the game as a gallery -- no artistic value, but it puts on display things of [subjective] beauty and wonder.
And before anyone can say "but that does not give you the right to steal" I have to say "so fucking what?!" Look. Fighting against "wrongness" in any way available is how the USA gained its independence. Some colonials wanted to stay connected to the crown of England and didn't want any part of it. Sounds like the "no right to steal" crowd.
I'm sorry, are you really drawing parallels between the American Revolution and your petty downloading? Please.
therefore the problem must be Java, which - surprise - is a resource hog and doesn't like direct hardware access....
Ah, ok - that was the link that I wasn't inferring. Thing is, Java isn't nearly as much of a resource hog as people tend to think -- and even less so in the embedded space. It can be stripped down to be pretty damned light - and allow direct hardware acceleration. For the former, cf. any blackberry made in the last four or five years. For the latter - reference M3D API.
The only problem with Java here is that they (for some reason) chose not to implement standard mobile java -- instead branching off into a completely custom JVM and set of supporting libraries. THis ensures both that apps made for Android can only be run on Android; and that the vast library of existing J2ME apps won't run on Android. Really bad move.
Slashdot Mirror
Why isn't that reasonable? T hey are, as you said, expensive toys. If people are willing to pay the price - either directly or through 2-year contracts - then by definition it's not unreasonable.
Why do they retain this information? Because it is valuable to collect information whether they know what to do with it or not. I think the risks for abuse are scary and NOT worth it. But, they don't care. Not until something bad happens and they get hoards of angry customers.
They keep this information so that they can come after your non-paying behind when you default on the contract, and so they can submit updates to credit reporting for the same reason.
The RIAA will not disappear until artists stop using their services, which may happen one day.
I would put that day at about 90 years after the last artist stops using their services. If they don't get another extension by then.
ith more people gravitating toward mobile and wireless technology, consumers want smaller laptops â" and most of those people would prefer doing more than surfing the Web, which the no-frills netbooks now excel at. ...
Not really. Because when you're looking at smaller laptops, you are by necessity looking at smaller screens. Smaller screens - no matter how fast the processor behind them - are not going for doing involved tasks beyond writing documents (if the keyboard suits) and surfing the web. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to finish up some work over SSH on my Blackberry.
Used BluRay at blockbuster. $10-15, and you return them if they have any issues. Pretty sweet deal, though admittedly you don't get quite as large a selection.
We care.
Signed,
The Movie Studios
One of the benefits of proper capitalism is that you are free to set up your own business, hire only US workers, and advertise that you do so. You may even be able to produce at lower cost than those companies you resent so much. You are also free to "boycott companies who outsource."
Once the larger companies have reached a certain critical mass, none of this matters. It is impossible to compete in an area in which they have decided to be dominant. The percentage of the population who cares about principles over expense is vanishingly small. As long as that remains true (ie, forever, it's human nature when talking about humans in aggregate), you'll never see a company challenge the Microsofts of the world.
This isn't good or bad, it's just the nature of the beast. People want to save money. To save money, they have to spend less. To spend less, they need to purchase goods and services from the places that provide them at the lowest cost. The places that provide them at the lowest cost will be the largest established companies in most cases -- both because of efficiency due to size (not an oxymoron in spite of sounding like one), and because of their ability to run at a loss indefinitely, until they exterminate any competition.
I recall reading somewhere that in a basic programming concepts class, during the time when everyone was hopping on the comp sci bandwagon for easy money, there will be about half the people who come out of it simply unable to grasp such simple concepts as control structures and variables in any meaningful way -- no matter how good the instruction. The problem as I've come to see it is in India, your actual aptitude for programming isn't really relevant to whether you get into the training. I don't know why this is, because in theory this is tested for ahead of time.
The difference I see is that in the US, most people without such aptitude will change their majors. In India, it's no deterrent -- this is often the only way out of abject poverty and so they will understandably fight tooth and nail to complete their training and enter the workforce. This in turn heavily weights the available pool of developers in the direction of "incompetent".
It's not that the people of India are as a whole any less likely to have the ability to succeed in computer-related careers than anywhere else in the world population -- but desperation drives a disproportionately large percentage of unqualified people into this career path.
Yeah, and the reason we need cheaper goods? Because we aren't fucking paid enough, maybe?
Quite the opposite - the IT profession in the US is quite overpaid. That is what has created the market for them thar Indians stealin' all our jobs.
On a more serious note, well said. People are often quick to complain about the accent, or the quality of service, or myriad other things -- but the vast majority will feel that they've done their part after having complained, and continue to use the same products and services because they /are/ cheaper. The adage "you get what you pay for" may be overused, but it also happens to be true in most cases.
Yes, because the visual representation of a number totally determines your ability to calculate with it. That's why people using a abacus are so slow, and why binary computers are so bad at maths.
Indeed, the Romans are famous for their advancement of calculus and trigonometry.
Oh, wait.
This is exactly why I don't understand the fuss over non-removable batteries. You get better battery life, and if you need extra power you've always been able to buy external battery packs [batterygeek.net].
The fuss is that batteries have a finite number of charge/discharge cycles. So when your non-removable battery drops to such a short cycle duration as to be a joke, you're pretty much screwed.
Mm. Perhaps GP should have said: "but we're in a deep recession here and now isn't the most appropriate time to start spending billions that don't exist". It doesn't take an economics professor to see that spending money you don't have at a time when you're suffering for being massively in debt is a Bad Idea.
...And if your job is to revise these laws of course no one would ever go see what is out there to see if its really that bad. No not anyone.
You don't seem to get it. The truth doesn't matter when it comes to the child porn hunts. It is most definitely a case of "guilty until proven innocent" -- and even once you produce that evidence of innocence, you're still screwed for life.
It seems she was kind of screwed either way - so why not be the poster child. From what I've read, there wasn't much she could hope for in terms of having been found not responsible... might have gotten a lesser dollar amount, but it's very likely that $100,000 is just as out of reach as $1,000,000.
Seems like a pretty huge gamble to not only saddle your client with a huge unpayable debt but also set precedence for future cases just on the hope that it would stir public opinion enough to overcome the powerful RIAA lobby and get favorable legislative action on the issue, meanwhile hoping you can somehow get the ruling reversed on appeal (maybe due to ineffective counsel?) If my lawyer tried a tactic like that, they would be fired well before the trial.
You'd have to assume that if it was done, it was done with Thomas's knowledge and consent... perhaps even her idea.
E: None of the above matter, as the government has no say-so in whether or not we can carry large amounts of cash with us. (At least as far as I know... )Nor should they, it's none of their business.
Here's another way of looking at it - maybe it'll work better in the context of slashdot: Sir that laptop looks very expensive. Where did you get it? Do you have a receipt? If you don't answer me, maybe you want to answer the DEA. Or police. Or both.
Same thing, just a different asset.
Hm. To answer this further: I don't think film is different. The mechanics of the process - projecting light through a negative image - are not art. They're mechanics - artistic decisions can be made about them, but they are fundamentally not artistic.
I see this as comparable to most (but not all) games - the mechanics of combat.
But this is not exclusive to what you've said either. The assets of the game can be extremely artistic -- models, animations and rigging, music composition, even the way scenes are constructed. But when you look at the larger view: no matter how artistically beautiful the gore splatters are, virtualized killing of zombies isn't art.
So you're saying by virtue of its existence, a game is artistic?
Smoothness, context switching, detail of non-focus objects, ambience, these all have artistic elements to them, and are colorations of the overall experience.
They can have artistic elements, but are often handled as a matter of mechanics. There are games that do use all of that, and genuinely present themselves as art -- though I personally haven't seen any. Far more common will be art in specific assets -- body language, texturing, shaping.
(not replying to the rest as I essentially agree with it - though no experience with wii to say from experience whether it does)
Sorry to be all McLuhanistic on you, but there is the medium, and the message. The medium, or dev platform, enables differing kinds of user interaction. The content (story line, user interactions, group play, value and weighting of scoring dynamics) is something else entirely.
I think that's my point if I'm following. The game is a vehicle that delivers content - the content itself can be very artistic (though sometimes is not - as always, it's a subjective thing). But rarely will you find that things like gameplay mechanics, overall gameplay themes, etc are artistic.
Think of the game as a gallery -- no artistic value, but it puts on display things of [subjective] beauty and wonder.
Can't the Louvre or the Uffizi be thought of as works of art in themselves? I agree that games are mostly thought to be mere entertainment, but I think it's not unreasonable to say that sometimes (if seldom) games are art.
I agree - my generalization is for "most but not all".
that most people who make video games are technicians rather than artists. I think that the few people who overlap creativity in the story telling or avaunt guard space, rarely overlap with coders or the middle management corporate structure that herds them. So you get Doom->Quake->Wolfenstien->Doom->Quake games that are just excuses to kill shit with rocket launchers as a development platform.
Well said. Games most often contain things of high artistic value (tell any 3d modeler that what he's doing isn't art, and then duck!) but seldom is the game itself art. Think of the game as a gallery -- no artistic value, but it puts on display things of [subjective] beauty and wonder.
And before anyone can say "but that does not give you the right to steal" I have to say "so fucking what?!" Look. Fighting against "wrongness" in any way available is how the USA gained its independence. Some colonials wanted to stay connected to the crown of England and didn't want any part of it. Sounds like the "no right to steal" crowd.
I'm sorry, are you really drawing parallels between the American Revolution and your petty downloading? Please.
therefore the problem must be Java, which - surprise - is a resource hog and doesn't like direct hardware access....
Ah, ok - that was the link that I wasn't inferring. Thing is, Java isn't nearly as much of a resource hog as people tend to think -- and even less so in the embedded space. It can be stripped down to be pretty damned light - and allow direct hardware acceleration. For the former, cf. any blackberry made in the last four or five years. For the latter - reference M3D API.
The only problem with Java here is that they (for some reason) chose not to implement standard mobile java -- instead branching off into a completely custom JVM and set of supporting libraries. THis ensures both that apps made for Android can only be run on Android; and that the vast library of existing J2ME apps won't run on Android. Really bad move.