Sure it's acceptable. People die. I can only know so many people personally, and the ones that I don't know personally don't matter terribly much to me. That's human nature - you can't empathize with 200 million people that you don't know, and when some of them die, why should you feel anything in particular? I suppose intellectually I have some regret that the world lost a good adventurer perhaps, but that's about it.
For steam, I think you need to get an interview with Valve (I assume so that they can be sure it's something that will actually sell), and I have no idea for Xbox Live Arcade.
Steam allows independence, unlike a traditional publisher. For any of us that want to sell our games, things like Steam and Xbox Live let us put games out there without having to accept the poisoned apple that is publisher funding.
Depends on how much attention you need to spare for a particular task, I'd theorize. Complicated traffic requiring much more attention than boring traffic seems fairly obvious.
He's right to exaggerate, as it gives a sense as to how much *crap* wikipedia stores on certain topics, simply because they're close to the heart of the fanboy's among editors.
FANBOY EDITOR 1: "My god, they want to add math proofs to Wikipedia?! Someone needs to tell these fools that Wikipedia has strict limits on what we put in it, and math proofs simply aren't reputable enough for a page of any sort. DELETED!"
FANBOY EDITOR 2: "Hey, do you think that we really need a list all the names of these characters from *RANDOM OBSCURE ANIME* series and everything that they did?"
FANBOY EDITOR 1: "You're questioning the notability of minor characters from *RANDOM OBSCURE ANIME* series?? How did they let you be an editor?! I think I'll mention this to the boss and we'll see how long you make crazy talk like this!"
It most likely was an inside job. A little while back, I was working for a company that was installing some VoIP phones for CI Host and the list of employee phone numbers kept changing from visit to visit - "Oh that guy? No, he doesn't work here any more."
A friend of mine that used to work there said that "being in jail was a fairly common excuse for missing work there". The employees seemed to hate working there, to put it mildly.
And the cokehead that owned the company loved to fire employees at a moment's notice, left and right. I highly doubt there's any employee loyalty there.
So in short, you've got highly unhappy employees that get fired at an amazing rate, with some seriously negative employee loyalty and they're surprised when stuff gets stolen?
Er... Regarding #3, isn't the outside pressure *lower* the higher you are in the atmosphere? One would think that the doors would be easier to open up at a high altitude, if anything.
"Else what the hell's the point of having a representative democracy in the first place? The whole idea of electing a representative to speak and vote on your behalf is rather lost is the representative then goes and votes on the basis who whoever promises them more money on each piece of legislation!"
Because in effect, the genie is already out of the bottle. There's no going back. Bribes that are semi-public are much better than deals no one knows about.
If the rules for winning change in a game, you adjust your strategy. Of course, this is if you value winning over all else. One can argue from a high position of ethical authority that 'but this isn't the way things SHOULD be!!'. However, notice the fact that the statement admits that things have changed. They're not going to change back without some amazingly compelling reason to do so. And money wins out over a sound ethical position any day.
The trick is to simply minimize the damage (of corruption) and come up with the best strategy that puts your interests on top. If it involves soft bribes (aka 'Lobbying'), so be it. Having the ethical high ground is of no real use aside from the warm fuzzies it generates.
I always wondered how it could ever be free will with a stick like Hell behind it.
To expand, you've got a deity that says "Serve me, but only out of your free will. Aaaannnnd if you don't, you'll suffer for all eternity. Just saying."
I've gotta say, for a guy who theoretically is all for free will, he stacks the deck to the point where free will no longer exists.
"And with that the entire market for people trying to sell dirt goes down the drain. The value of dirt is not defined by its scarcity (as it has none). Its value is determined by a) how much it will help you and b) and cost of digging, moving, infrastructure, salaries, etc.
If you want dirt then it has value to you. If something has value to you then you are willing to barter for it or will take (misspelled 'duplicate'?) it. Your morals will dictate which path you choose."
There. Fixed that for ya.
Now do you see how much sense your argument makes? My favorite bit is where you try to make an appeal to morals at the end, and the kindergarten-level error in confusing duplication with theft is a pretty amusing one too. Got anything better than that? That, maybe holds water?
You should focus on your philosophical understanding of the concepts of 'value' and 'scarcity'.
Maybe if you had some level of education, you could understand why it is problematic to put value on something based on scarcity when such does not exist in the world of software.
As soon as you sold the first "copy", you started digging your grave, metaphorically speaking. I'm not saying your product is bad (or good, I could hardly know). Nor am I challenging the notion that your put long hard hours of labor into it.
However, what if I toiled away hours on end trying to sell something that had no value based on its level of scarcity? Would you say I was foolish?
No one forced you to try and sell something that was worth next to nothing. If I tried to sell dirt and then blame people for making me starve when they say 'dirt isn't exactly a scarce item', how much sympathy do you think my complaints would garner?
If I sell a painting, the money people pay me is based on scarcity - if anyone could do the same thing in the same manner, my work wouldn't be worth anything. If my painting was perfectly copyable, well... I'd be Thomas Kinkade. And look at the worth of his paintings.
You can put a ton of labor into making something, but that is no guarantee of it being worth anything. And if your product can be perfectly duplicated for close to no cost at all? It's worth exactly the same.
Well, yes, but audiophiles and videophiles are on crack. For the average consumer, DVD is the better solution in every way that matters.
While I am a bit of a closet audiophile, I suffer from no delusions that the CD and MP3 have killed vinyl as a audio format. Who still uses it? DJ's, audiophiles, and kids that like "antique things". When that's the user base of a product, it is dead in every way that matters.
Doctors used to think that if you cut the nerve to something, you wouldn't feel anything from that area because your brain wouldn't get a signal from that area.
As it turns out, it's nowhere near that simple. You can't just transect a nerve to make someone with a really damaged body stop feeling pain in that area, and for the same reason, amputees still get sensations from limbs that aren't there and nerves that aren't connected to anything.
The brain doesn't recognize pain based on polling a nerve for pain signals and determining whether there's pain if the nerve is being triggered or if it is not being triggered. Rather, it's a contextual thing. The brain recognizes a certain kind of amalgamation of signals as pain, and the lack of pain as a different collection of signals.
So if you just cut the nerve, it doesn't feel a lack of pain - without any signal telling it that there's no pain, it just tends to try and match what input it can to the signals it previously had from that limb. This results in all sorts of strange sensations in a limb you don't even have! A lot of times, the brain will try and model sensory information on the closest thing to the absent limb - if you're missing your right leg, it checks input from the left as a guide to what it should be feeling.
Doctors used to think people were crazy for feeling pain in limbs that they didn't have. Now they know better. And much of this knowledge was gained from experiments that involved amputating limbs and digits from monkeys, so don't let anyone tell you there's no point to animal testing (they used anesthesia, so it wasn't too bad for the monkey).
Well, that and that it's far more an artists tool than a photographers tool. The majority of photographers that use DSLRs aren't going to be doing art prints. And in situations like fashion photography, a medium format film camera simply isn't a viable option for obvious reasons. Digital cameras beat film cameras in every category that matters to the majority of the people that buy pro-level cameras. That's why the film field is dying out as fast as it is. For the top.0000001% of photographers who are artists to the point where digital would hold them back - Ansel Adams and the like, in other words, film is the best. But that's very, very, very few people. If you're lucky enough to be one of them, awesome. But for everyone else? Digital makes the most sense in the final argument.
Slashdot Mirror
You said it better than I did. Pretending to be emotionally involved with the death of someone you've never known personally is slightly disturbing.
Sure it's acceptable. People die. I can only know so many people personally, and the ones that I don't know personally don't matter terribly much to me. That's human nature - you can't empathize with 200 million people that you don't know, and when some of them die, why should you feel anything in particular? I suppose intellectually I have some regret that the world lost a good adventurer perhaps, but that's about it.
It'd be cool if it did exist though! Imagine the stories that'd be written!
3 people :D
For steam, I think you need to get an interview with Valve (I assume so that they can be sure it's something that will actually sell), and I have no idea for Xbox Live Arcade.
Steam allows independence, unlike a traditional publisher. For any of us that want to sell our games, things like Steam and Xbox Live let us put games out there without having to accept the poisoned apple that is publisher funding.
Depends on how much attention you need to spare for a particular task, I'd theorize. Complicated traffic requiring much more attention than boring traffic seems fairly obvious.
Damn spies, you can never get rid of them! Such backstabbers!
He's right to exaggerate, as it gives a sense as to how much *crap* wikipedia stores on certain topics, simply because they're close to the heart of the fanboy's among editors.
FANBOY EDITOR 1: "My god, they want to add math proofs to Wikipedia?! Someone needs to tell these fools that Wikipedia has strict limits on what we put in it, and math proofs simply aren't reputable enough for a page of any sort. DELETED!"
FANBOY EDITOR 2: "Hey, do you think that we really need a list all the names of these characters from *RANDOM OBSCURE ANIME* series and everything that they did?"
FANBOY EDITOR 1: "You're questioning the notability of minor characters from *RANDOM OBSCURE ANIME* series?? How did they let you be an editor?! I think I'll mention this to the boss and we'll see how long you make crazy talk like this!"
Nice to see that being a paranoid nutjob is still in style.
It most likely was an inside job. A little while back, I was working for a company that was installing some VoIP phones for CI Host and the list of employee phone numbers kept changing from visit to visit - "Oh that guy? No, he doesn't work here any more."
A friend of mine that used to work there said that "being in jail was a fairly common excuse for missing work there". The employees seemed to hate working there, to put it mildly.
And the cokehead that owned the company loved to fire employees at a moment's notice, left and right. I highly doubt there's any employee loyalty there.
So in short, you've got highly unhappy employees that get fired at an amazing rate, with some seriously negative employee loyalty and they're surprised when stuff gets stolen?
Er... Regarding #3, isn't the outside pressure *lower* the higher you are in the atmosphere? One would think that the doors would be easier to open up at a high altitude, if anything.
Yeah, I hate it when I get cyber-bullied. I wish there was some simple way of stopping it, like pulling out a ethernet cable or...
Wait...
"Else what the hell's the point of having a representative democracy in the first place? The whole idea of electing a representative to speak and vote on your behalf is rather lost is the representative then goes and votes on the basis who whoever promises them more money on each piece of legislation!"
Because in effect, the genie is already out of the bottle. There's no going back. Bribes that are semi-public are much better than deals no one knows about.
If the rules for winning change in a game, you adjust your strategy. Of course, this is if you value winning over all else. One can argue from a high position of ethical authority that 'but this isn't the way things SHOULD be!!'. However, notice the fact that the statement admits that things have changed. They're not going to change back without some amazingly compelling reason to do so. And money wins out over a sound ethical position any day.
The trick is to simply minimize the damage (of corruption) and come up with the best strategy that puts your interests on top. If it involves soft bribes (aka 'Lobbying'), so be it. Having the ethical high ground is of no real use aside from the warm fuzzies it generates.
What do you *have* in your ears? Nuclear waste? Trifluoromethanesulfonic acid?
I always wondered how it could ever be free will with a stick like Hell behind it.
To expand, you've got a deity that says "Serve me, but only out of your free will. Aaaannnnd if you don't, you'll suffer for all eternity. Just saying."
I've gotta say, for a guy who theoretically is all for free will, he stacks the deck to the point where free will no longer exists.
"And with that the entire market for people trying to sell dirt goes down the drain. The value of dirt is not defined by its scarcity (as it has none). Its value is determined by a) how much it will help you and b) and cost of digging, moving, infrastructure, salaries, etc.
If you want dirt then it has value to you. If something has value to you then you are willing to barter for it or will take (misspelled 'duplicate'?) it. Your morals will dictate which path you choose."
There. Fixed that for ya.
Now do you see how much sense your argument makes? My favorite bit is where you try to make an appeal to morals at the end, and the kindergarten-level error in confusing duplication with theft is a pretty amusing one too. Got anything better than that? That, maybe holds water?
You should focus on your philosophical understanding of the concepts of 'value' and 'scarcity'.
Maybe if you had some level of education, you could understand why it is problematic to put value on something based on scarcity when such does not exist in the world of software.
As soon as you sold the first "copy", you started digging your grave, metaphorically speaking. I'm not saying your product is bad (or good, I could hardly know). Nor am I challenging the notion that your put long hard hours of labor into it.
However, what if I toiled away hours on end trying to sell something that had no value based on its level of scarcity? Would you say I was foolish?
No one forced you to try and sell something that was worth next to nothing. If I tried to sell dirt and then blame people for making me starve when they say 'dirt isn't exactly a scarce item', how much sympathy do you think my complaints would garner?
If I sell a painting, the money people pay me is based on scarcity - if anyone could do the same thing in the same manner, my work wouldn't be worth anything. If my painting was perfectly copyable, well... I'd be Thomas Kinkade. And look at the worth of his paintings.
You can put a ton of labor into making something, but that is no guarantee of it being worth anything. And if your product can be perfectly duplicated for close to no cost at all? It's worth exactly the same.
Work smarter, not harder.
A phased plasma pulse-laser in the forty watt range...
That is indeed a very good answer heh. You are a scholar and a prince among men!
There surely has to be a better way than that...
I mean, if such an archaic and painful method is the solution to defragging for linux... What's the point?
That seems rather venomous. I mean, calling Variety a trite dilettante magazine is like saying microsoft doesn't care buggy code.
Oh.
Wait...
Well, yes, but audiophiles and videophiles are on crack. For the average consumer, DVD is the better solution in every way that matters.
While I am a bit of a closet audiophile, I suffer from no delusions that the CD and MP3 have killed vinyl as a audio format. Who still uses it? DJ's, audiophiles, and kids that like "antique things". When that's the user base of a product, it is dead in every way that matters.
So is VHS. Let's not be silly about it now.
Doctors used to think that if you cut the nerve to something, you wouldn't feel anything from that area because your brain wouldn't get a signal from that area.
As it turns out, it's nowhere near that simple. You can't just transect a nerve to make someone with a really damaged body stop feeling pain in that area, and for the same reason, amputees still get sensations from limbs that aren't there and nerves that aren't connected to anything.
The brain doesn't recognize pain based on polling a nerve for pain signals and determining whether there's pain if the nerve is being triggered or if it is not being triggered. Rather, it's a contextual thing. The brain recognizes a certain kind of amalgamation of signals as pain, and the lack of pain as a different collection of signals.
So if you just cut the nerve, it doesn't feel a lack of pain - without any signal telling it that there's no pain, it just tends to try and match what input it can to the signals it previously had from that limb. This results in all sorts of strange sensations in a limb you don't even have! A lot of times, the brain will try and model sensory information on the closest thing to the absent limb - if you're missing your right leg, it checks input from the left as a guide to what it should be feeling.
Doctors used to think people were crazy for feeling pain in limbs that they didn't have. Now they know better. And much of this knowledge was gained from experiments that involved amputating limbs and digits from monkeys, so don't let anyone tell you there's no point to animal testing (they used anesthesia, so it wasn't too bad for the monkey).
Well, that and that it's far more an artists tool than a photographers tool. The majority of photographers that use DSLRs aren't going to be doing art prints. And in situations like fashion photography, a medium format film camera simply isn't a viable option for obvious reasons. Digital cameras beat film cameras in every category that matters to the majority of the people that buy pro-level cameras. That's why the film field is dying out as fast as it is. For the top .0000001% of photographers who are artists to the point where digital would hold them back - Ansel Adams and the like, in other words, film is the best. But that's very, very, very few people. If you're lucky enough to be one of them, awesome. But for everyone else? Digital makes the most sense in the final argument.