That's an extremely risky method of business. It's similar to what's seen in hedge funds, you hear about the couple percent that do hugely well while ignoring the 90%+ that fail miserably and disappear without notice. And so conclude that hedge funds are a great investment. Even though they're significantly less likely to do well than a standard balance portfolio.
Same here except that most of the studios will go out of business or sell out to the ones that are thriving and the value of the name for the successes ultimately goes down the toilet when people start to catch on. This sort of maneuvering worked a lot better prior to the internet. These days you can find out if a movie sucks within hours of it coming out, games aren't going to get any more mercy than movies or albums do.
But these days they charge for Betas. I mean with the standard huge number of required patches that so many games require, it's hard for me to imagine how much more betaish they could get and still expect to leave a good impression. For some games like Fallout 3 it's somewhat understandable, immense world, many complex eventualities, but most games aren't even a fraction that size or complexity and still have serious bugs when released.
You may believe that, but the goal is to cut down on T bone accidents. Even if there's a one to one conversion, it's still a worthwhile practice as vehicles have much better protection for the occupants in rear end collisions than when T Boned.
Additionally WA has laws on the books that place blame in most instances for a rear end collision on the car that hits the car ahead of it. There would be no danger at all were vehicles to keep their proper couple seconds of spacing when headed down the roads. Ultimately you can't fix stupid, but you can give people the best chance possible of walking away from the accident alive and in one piece.
Yes and no, many of the traffic laws are set by the states, however a lot of the relevant regulation is done at the federal level and is published in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). That's where information about how signs are displayed, lanes may be marked and most of the other bits which ensure that individuals driving in different states aren't completely confused and disoriented.
The yellow light exists as a convenience. They could just as well do away with it completely and have a period of time where all directions have a red light. The yellow light is there to reduce the likelihood of accidents. You have a small margin of error in case the idiot behind you is in your tail gate, not so that you can try and get one last car through.
I can't recall what the law is here, but I do recall being specifically warned in drivers' ed not to speed up to try and get through on yellow. Illegal or not it's just not worth the possibility of ending up crushed like a beer can.
That would be correct, the way that's supposed to work is that the person trying to make their left is supposed to be make their turn prior to the light turning red. As in they're supposed to be able to make it while the light is still green, and while the light is yellow if absolutely necessary. In cases where one is likely to need to make the turn on red, one isn't supposed to entire the intersection at all.
Intersections where people regularly have to turn left on red to move traffic are supposed to be fixed, re-timed or in some fashion resolved to eliminate that sort of dangerous situation.
True, however you're supposed to stop when the light turns yellow unless you can't do so safely. The yellow light is just meant as a margin of error before the traffic starts going in the other direction. You're most certainly not supposed to count on the length of the yellow to clear the intersection before the red light.
The main weak spot in this type of enforcement is that you don't necessarily know if the person who gets caught was able to safely stop prior to going through the light. Accuracy and practical challenges aside.
In the US, that's the preferred way to murder people. It can be a pain in the ass to get them to cross the street at the right time, but the penalties for doing so are much less.
It's probably the fact that unlike smug Europeans, we in the US know that it's more than 13 km from Italy to China. That would be walkable in less than a day.
Not necessarily, it depends how it was permitted. If they shut down the road for small bits while they drive through then there wouldn't be any traffic to drive through. Likewise if they just use the roads during off hours. At any rate they wouldn't want to drive in traffic anyways since other drivers would cause all sorts of problems for the test.
Right, that's the bigger issue. And really the only cure is going with a solution which allows for the user to export the data to an alternative. Admittedly it's not something you just do at the drop of a hat, but knowing that you can take the data with you even if it's a bit of a pain makes a real difference.
If a security vulnerability that you consider to be very serious crops up and the vendor doesn't want to fix it, you can at least take your data and play elsewhere, even if it takes several months of serious work and expense. At least you know that you can be free of them in the foreseeable future. Even just being able to threaten to leave brings with it a degree of protection. Some exploits are genuinely worth paying millions to avoid.
Find? No, it's not really the finding that's the problem it's that Flash is frequently the problem and Adobe doesn't seem to care enough to fix it. It's amazing how seldom Firefox crashes without some sort of plug in assist. Perhaps Adobe should just skip a step and just release a "crash the browser, annoy the user" plug in rather than wast time pretending that people want Flash.
I think the main question is what makes a game a spiritual successor. You answer that and you've got most of the trouble worked out. I'd say that the big thing is not so much the game play, as the atmosphere and the philosophy. You have to be careful how you do it, but there's typically a lot of room within that to make something that's fresh and non-infringing. Provided you don't choose something that lacks the complexity and sophistication to allow for it.
I don't think that Google can do that for a couple reasons. Firstly there's no reason why money coming in from Chrome is any better for Google than money coming in from Firefox. Secondly antitrust, if Google were to try that it's almost certain that they'd get smacked for antitrust violations. Now that they're the dominant game in town for adverts, they have to be really careful about doing things which unfairly damage competing companies.
Google's interest in Chrome is primarily to pressure things in a way that's useful for their ends, not to destroy the competition. Think things like HTML5 and having adverts load quickly enough that they don't bother most people.
What's wrong with that? Part of the problem has been that these works aren't being distributed at all in any sort of legal sense. Meaning that for a bunch of them, even if one is willing to pay for a copy, one might well be out of luck because they're not being sold.
Sometimes there are legitimate reasons for this, but there needs to be some balance and if somebody isn't trying to make money off the idea, then perhaps it should go into the public domain.
That's not true, it varies quite a bit state to state. Here in WA, kids get the right to make all their health decisions, including abortion, at age 13 and at 16 they reach the age of majority for sex related things. 18 brings in most of the rest of the rights except drinking.
I think what you mean is that as a business grows larger, the tinkering doesn't scale as well as the business management does. You can add a much larger number of employees per business manager than you can tinkerer. Each additional engineer you bring on somewhat reduces the impact of guys like Woz. Not that it's a failing on his part, just that the technical issues always hit a point where you need a large number of employees unless you deliberately curtail your growth.
The only alternative is to have the technical guy become some sort of manager, and if you're point is tinkering, that's not likely to work very well.
Re:Like Woz didn't move on a LONG time ago?
on
The Apple Two
·
· Score: 1
They don't really have much choice in the matter. Once a company grows to a certain point, the only way they can attract and keep investors is by looking for new opportunities. Sure they can pay out a handsome dividend, but patents and IP are vitally important for the purposes of defending one's company against other companies. Apple hasn't really strayed that far from what they were doing originally. They're still primarily a hardware company that sells software to support the hardware side of things.
The main change is that they now sell the software whereas in the 80s and earlier it was common to sell the hardware and give away the software as a means of getting customers for the hardware. And really, companies would've been doing that early on if they thought that they could get away with it.
That's not analogous at all. We know, and have known for some time, that a huge number of attacks come out of China and Russia. While we don't specifically know that the Russian or Chinese government is sponsoring it, we do know pretty reliably that they don't seem to care about it as long as the crimes are being addressed over seas. That's completely different than the claim that the Iraqi government owned and controlled weapons of mass destruction something which was never substantiated following the formal dismantling of those after the first gulf war.
At the end of the day, the argument you make is disturbingly similar to: because Neo-Nazis just post the details of people they want assassinated that they aren't themselves responsible, when it's almost certain that given and address and a motive somebody will follow through.
And no, I'm not being as extreme with the examples as it might appear, there's any number of electronic devices which could cause that level of trouble. Ever imagine what would happen if somebody were to screw with the communications infrastructure? It's not that hard to believe that people could die as a result. Especially if done in conjunction with a suspected terrorist attack.
Because they're over there and we're over here. Google has a substantially larger user base and operation here than in China. Pulling out of China is likely to cause them less loss of revenue than trying to pull out of the US. Assuming they could even do so. With most of the work being done stateside as well as a lot of the communications gear, it's questionable as to whether or not saying no would even make a difference.
Not that that makes it OK, it just suggests that if they don't play ball then the laws can be changed. Admittedly we do have Democratic control of 2 out of 3 branches, but SCOTUS has shown itself to be somewhat less than impressed with things like the constitution in recent years if it doesn't please conservatives. If SCOTUS can justify overturning the DC handgun ban without citing precedence or any case law, I can only imagine what kind of consideration this sort of thing will get.
Most other people don't know and don't really care about it. Admittedly, they might care, but without the tools to notice they won't be banging on their representatives' doors for a legislative fix.
Slashdot Mirror
That's an extremely risky method of business. It's similar to what's seen in hedge funds, you hear about the couple percent that do hugely well while ignoring the 90%+ that fail miserably and disappear without notice. And so conclude that hedge funds are a great investment. Even though they're significantly less likely to do well than a standard balance portfolio.
Same here except that most of the studios will go out of business or sell out to the ones that are thriving and the value of the name for the successes ultimately goes down the toilet when people start to catch on. This sort of maneuvering worked a lot better prior to the internet. These days you can find out if a movie sucks within hours of it coming out, games aren't going to get any more mercy than movies or albums do.
But these days they charge for Betas. I mean with the standard huge number of required patches that so many games require, it's hard for me to imagine how much more betaish they could get and still expect to leave a good impression. For some games like Fallout 3 it's somewhat understandable, immense world, many complex eventualities, but most games aren't even a fraction that size or complexity and still have serious bugs when released.
What they fail to mention is that it's a desktop running Windows Vista.
You may believe that, but the goal is to cut down on T bone accidents. Even if there's a one to one conversion, it's still a worthwhile practice as vehicles have much better protection for the occupants in rear end collisions than when T Boned.
Additionally WA has laws on the books that place blame in most instances for a rear end collision on the car that hits the car ahead of it. There would be no danger at all were vehicles to keep their proper couple seconds of spacing when headed down the roads. Ultimately you can't fix stupid, but you can give people the best chance possible of walking away from the accident alive and in one piece.
Yes and no, many of the traffic laws are set by the states, however a lot of the relevant regulation is done at the federal level and is published in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). That's where information about how signs are displayed, lanes may be marked and most of the other bits which ensure that individuals driving in different states aren't completely confused and disoriented.
The yellow light exists as a convenience. They could just as well do away with it completely and have a period of time where all directions have a red light. The yellow light is there to reduce the likelihood of accidents. You have a small margin of error in case the idiot behind you is in your tail gate, not so that you can try and get one last car through.
I can't recall what the law is here, but I do recall being specifically warned in drivers' ed not to speed up to try and get through on yellow. Illegal or not it's just not worth the possibility of ending up crushed like a beer can.
That would be correct, the way that's supposed to work is that the person trying to make their left is supposed to be make their turn prior to the light turning red. As in they're supposed to be able to make it while the light is still green, and while the light is yellow if absolutely necessary. In cases where one is likely to need to make the turn on red, one isn't supposed to entire the intersection at all.
Intersections where people regularly have to turn left on red to move traffic are supposed to be fixed, re-timed or in some fashion resolved to eliminate that sort of dangerous situation.
True, however you're supposed to stop when the light turns yellow unless you can't do so safely. The yellow light is just meant as a margin of error before the traffic starts going in the other direction. You're most certainly not supposed to count on the length of the yellow to clear the intersection before the red light.
The main weak spot in this type of enforcement is that you don't necessarily know if the person who gets caught was able to safely stop prior to going through the light. Accuracy and practical challenges aside.
Years? How long would it take to optimize it into something good?
In the US, that's the preferred way to murder people. It can be a pain in the ass to get them to cross the street at the right time, but the penalties for doing so are much less.
It's probably the fact that unlike smug Europeans, we in the US know that it's more than 13 km from Italy to China. That would be walkable in less than a day.
Not necessarily, it depends how it was permitted. If they shut down the road for small bits while they drive through then there wouldn't be any traffic to drive through. Likewise if they just use the roads during off hours. At any rate they wouldn't want to drive in traffic anyways since other drivers would cause all sorts of problems for the test.
Right, that's the bigger issue. And really the only cure is going with a solution which allows for the user to export the data to an alternative. Admittedly it's not something you just do at the drop of a hat, but knowing that you can take the data with you even if it's a bit of a pain makes a real difference.
If a security vulnerability that you consider to be very serious crops up and the vendor doesn't want to fix it, you can at least take your data and play elsewhere, even if it takes several months of serious work and expense. At least you know that you can be free of them in the foreseeable future. Even just being able to threaten to leave brings with it a degree of protection. Some exploits are genuinely worth paying millions to avoid.
Find? No, it's not really the finding that's the problem it's that Flash is frequently the problem and Adobe doesn't seem to care enough to fix it. It's amazing how seldom Firefox crashes without some sort of plug in assist. Perhaps Adobe should just skip a step and just release a "crash the browser, annoy the user" plug in rather than wast time pretending that people want Flash.
There already is, run FreeBSD. After all something can't crash that isn't available.
I think the main question is what makes a game a spiritual successor. You answer that and you've got most of the trouble worked out. I'd say that the big thing is not so much the game play, as the atmosphere and the philosophy. You have to be careful how you do it, but there's typically a lot of room within that to make something that's fresh and non-infringing. Provided you don't choose something that lacks the complexity and sophistication to allow for it.
I don't think that Google can do that for a couple reasons. Firstly there's no reason why money coming in from Chrome is any better for Google than money coming in from Firefox. Secondly antitrust, if Google were to try that it's almost certain that they'd get smacked for antitrust violations. Now that they're the dominant game in town for adverts, they have to be really careful about doing things which unfairly damage competing companies.
Google's interest in Chrome is primarily to pressure things in a way that's useful for their ends, not to destroy the competition. Think things like HTML5 and having adverts load quickly enough that they don't bother most people.
What's wrong with that? Part of the problem has been that these works aren't being distributed at all in any sort of legal sense. Meaning that for a bunch of them, even if one is willing to pay for a copy, one might well be out of luck because they're not being sold.
Sometimes there are legitimate reasons for this, but there needs to be some balance and if somebody isn't trying to make money off the idea, then perhaps it should go into the public domain.
That's not true, it varies quite a bit state to state. Here in WA, kids get the right to make all their health decisions, including abortion, at age 13 and at 16 they reach the age of majority for sex related things. 18 brings in most of the rest of the rights except drinking.
I think what you mean is that as a business grows larger, the tinkering doesn't scale as well as the business management does. You can add a much larger number of employees per business manager than you can tinkerer. Each additional engineer you bring on somewhat reduces the impact of guys like Woz. Not that it's a failing on his part, just that the technical issues always hit a point where you need a large number of employees unless you deliberately curtail your growth.
The only alternative is to have the technical guy become some sort of manager, and if you're point is tinkering, that's not likely to work very well.
They don't really have much choice in the matter. Once a company grows to a certain point, the only way they can attract and keep investors is by looking for new opportunities. Sure they can pay out a handsome dividend, but patents and IP are vitally important for the purposes of defending one's company against other companies. Apple hasn't really strayed that far from what they were doing originally. They're still primarily a hardware company that sells software to support the hardware side of things.
The main change is that they now sell the software whereas in the 80s and earlier it was common to sell the hardware and give away the software as a means of getting customers for the hardware. And really, companies would've been doing that early on if they thought that they could get away with it.
That's not analogous at all. We know, and have known for some time, that a huge number of attacks come out of China and Russia. While we don't specifically know that the Russian or Chinese government is sponsoring it, we do know pretty reliably that they don't seem to care about it as long as the crimes are being addressed over seas. That's completely different than the claim that the Iraqi government owned and controlled weapons of mass destruction something which was never substantiated following the formal dismantling of those after the first gulf war.
At the end of the day, the argument you make is disturbingly similar to: because Neo-Nazis just post the details of people they want assassinated that they aren't themselves responsible, when it's almost certain that given and address and a motive somebody will follow through.
And no, I'm not being as extreme with the examples as it might appear, there's any number of electronic devices which could cause that level of trouble. Ever imagine what would happen if somebody were to screw with the communications infrastructure? It's not that hard to believe that people could die as a result. Especially if done in conjunction with a suspected terrorist attack.
Because they're over there and we're over here. Google has a substantially larger user base and operation here than in China. Pulling out of China is likely to cause them less loss of revenue than trying to pull out of the US. Assuming they could even do so. With most of the work being done stateside as well as a lot of the communications gear, it's questionable as to whether or not saying no would even make a difference.
Not that that makes it OK, it just suggests that if they don't play ball then the laws can be changed. Admittedly we do have Democratic control of 2 out of 3 branches, but SCOTUS has shown itself to be somewhat less than impressed with things like the constitution in recent years if it doesn't please conservatives. If SCOTUS can justify overturning the DC handgun ban without citing precedence or any case law, I can only imagine what kind of consideration this sort of thing will get.
Most other people don't know and don't really care about it. Admittedly, they might care, but without the tools to notice they won't be banging on their representatives' doors for a legislative fix.
Sure it does, you just have one person be Mario and everybody else gets to be a Gumba, Buzzy Bullet or if they're supremely lucky Bowser.