By all means, accountability is great. But saying the developer is at fault is ridiculous. It opens the door for companies to mismanage projects as per usual, and clueless HR departments to hire people who don't know what they're doing, and fire people arbitrarily every time they have a complaint from someone that the software doesn't work. Start the responsibility with the company. If the company sends a flawed product and are to be made accountable, then the organisation needs to prove:
* It has proper QA processes in place to test the product, and that the staff are suitably qualified. * The project management was performed to allow for proper specification, design and development within the normal working hours of a day, taking holidays and time lost due to usual unforeseen circumstances. * Training, or self learning time is allocated to enable staff to keep current with developments and issues with languages/compilers/methods they use.
If you're going to hold a developer responsible, then it should be absolutely certain that everyone in the dependancy chain for that person is responsible. Did HR hire someone who wasn't fit for purpose? Their job is to ensure that doesn't happen. They're the start of the problem chain. Did management provide the logistics necessary to complete the job to a quality? If not, they should be liable. Did the sales team (if it's bespoke software) make impossible promises (if so, and developer opinion was overturned such that a 'broken' system was arrived at from spec, then the salesman should be accountable). Did the producer of the spec introduce a design flaw that resulted in the error? If it wasn't the developer, then the specifier/designer was at fault. Pretty much whichever way you look at it, management and HR should carry the can first, leaking down to the developer, if you're going to be sensible about it. If a place is well run, well managed then sure, have developer liability, but expect to have raised costs to cover developer's professional liability insurance.
Well, from my side, I'm one of the people who buys the product (or doesn't bother with it; I don't pirate but increasingly choose not to purchase based on DRM intrusiveness). So, to an extent, I do say how much companies are allowed to make. As does everyone. We allow them to make as much as we feel like paying for what they provide. If everyone decides that their product is crap, or that the downsides (DRM) outweigh the bonus (entertainment), then we agree that they're allowed to make nothing by not purchasing the game.
Rather than concentrate on how much pirating goes on, they need to work out how the decisions they make affect their paying base. If the paying base reduces, they're doing something wrong.
Alas, that works well when people "play by the rules".
What you're paying for is their time, plus what experience they say they they have.
I've run a lot of interviews in my time, and the amount of pure charlatans you get who claim to know all about the latest tech, and be experts in it, is frankly worrying. Unless you have years in the business, plus a strong technical background, you'd believe them. Even when absolutely caught out they still keep speaking with that unshakable confidence and assertion that they're right.
One guy that really sticks in the mind that came to interview claimed on the CV that he was an MVP, had years of experience, and checking the CV against the passport (which we do, for validating that someone is who they say they are), his professional programming career at a large financial allegedly started when he was 13. He blatantly kept on saying that this was correct, and he was just a prodigy. When asked if he knew of a spurious development paradigm (one we'd made up for interviews to see how people responded), he claimed years. When told it was spurious (yes, we'd checked to definitely confirm there was no such thing before using it as an interview strategy) he blithely kept on saying how he used it to better his skills.
He didn't know the detail of the basics, let alone the more advanced techniques the role was being posted for, but the sheer confidence he put forth, along with a whole stream of technical sounding buzzwords (and some that were pure bullshit, but still sounded technical) would have got him hired at a whole raft of places I know that have a PHB or a clueless HR department who put ticks in boxes, and then ask people not qualified to make the choice to pick the next candidate for a technical role.
Yes, he's an extreme example, but there are an awful lot out there who play buzzword bingo to get a job with no real knowledge of what they're doing. Sadly, a lot of them make it into positions and play politics from there to pass the blame round teams, and screw up products by ineptitude.
I really don't mind paying the top dollar for the good people, but sheesh.. Half the problem out there is that unless you know enough to do the job yourself, it's all too easy to get hoodwinked by someone claiming to know what they're doing more than you do.. Most management don't know that, and HR departments certainly don't..
The "You're allowed to say anything with no legal recourse" works nicely until the head of governement turns round and says you've done a lot of really bad things, fiddle with children and animals, and you're plotting to blow things up. Of course, it's a lie. However, try telling that to the vigilante mob that turns up at your door baying for blood, as you have no legal recourse. Everything needs balances to make sure fair play is taken into account. When one side takes it too far, the other needs to react; life's a struggle, always has been.. It's just the things we struggle for have changed.
Yes, though in humanity, I suspect it's only got a few generations left (if that). The reason females are protected and males are expendable is the gestation period. You have to protect females though that time, and they can only support so many childbirths in a lifetime. Childbirth itself being problematic. Then there's the nurturing time while the parent (in mammals anyway) suckles the child, with males being unable to perform this.
One male can sire countless children in a lifetime, if necessary. A species can survive with a small number of males. However, if the situation is reversed, things get far more difficult.
Humanity has a huge population, and as such is in no danger, so it can afford to treat females as expendable too. As this becomes more the case, women will do more and more jobs that have historically been male (and will then also start to realise what it's like to be expendable; there are downsides)..
Quick question; does that text cover non-verbal communication and drive? In competition for limited resources (and finance is limited), in general, the system favours equal candidates who also seem to have the drive and ruthlessness to close a deal. Business can be (and frequently is in a competitive environment) very cut throat (I speak from experience on that). Again, going back to generalisations (there are of course significant exceptions to every rule), men are conditioned at an instinctual level to be more aggressive than women. This makes for a more aggressive stance on obtaining the limited resources.
The option, of course, is to alter the structure of western business such that drive and ruthlessness are removed from the equation, and lesser resources are allocated to each business (i.e. not enough to actually meet what the business plan says is necessary to fund the business to a successfull running point from start) as a result. End point being the ruthless have to become more so.
Again, of interest, did the chap who wrote that book actually sit with front line business bankers, and ask why the judgements were made in the way they were, or was it all down to the paper business plans and statistics (hint for you, a large part of the loan process, certainly for startup sums, is done outside the world of paper; the business plan is a checkbox to make sure you've actually thought about what you're doing. The rest is the banker making a judgement of whether they believe you have the drive and ruthlessness to make money from their gamble).
Also, is there a statistical deviation for age? Finance (and business by and large) are wary of the fact that a large portion of women want a family. A statistically significant portion of these have their outlook on life changed by having a child, and are more likely to want to hold a job that lets them spend more time with the child/family, rather than a high tech job that eats time like no other.
Another thing: Trends analysis. What do the trends show as far as women in these roles are concerned? Growing slowly by and large (with the odd few trend bucks when resources get extra tight)? That's evolution. A stable society will alter over the course of generations. For some reason, everyone expects this to level out to an even split (which it will never do, unless, of course, you want to dissuade women from doing the types of roles that women actually seem to prefer, such as nursing, medical, biotech, and other more historically female oriented roles. That's the only way to free up enough of the population to make things 'equal', as statistically, you only have a portion of people to be in one area that haven't already chosen something else. If they've already chosen something else, then with equal chance, there's going to be a significant statistical bias in set population).
Personally, I'm behind anyone of any sex (and there are several listed in the medical status) doing whatever role they'd like to do. They just need to prove they're good at it, and over time, you'll see the demographics shift of their own accord to new equilibriums (check the population in medical, for example; it's becoming quite female weighted these days as far as doctors go). Don't expect to wave a magic wand, and set quotas for female loans and so on, as that'll only set up for a backlash (and in the interim make for a wasteful use of resources, as being held to a lower standard due to quotas, you won't necessarily make best use of money).
Really, from being in the world of business for some time, and seeing how things are changing at the small business end, sure, keep taps for real abuses of the system, but let them evolve. Society shapes its own boundaries, but it's never a fast process. Watch the changes, and follow to see where the trends are pointing.
Oh, and a last point, the "old boys networks" aren't that hard to get into. Usually, you need a good few solid wins behind you, and they're canny enough to know they'd kinda like you on side, so they talk to you... If you go chasing after them, it can be notoriously difficult (unless, again, you get those wins on your side).
I'll definitely check that out. Thanks for the reference.. But was hoping for a little more than a documentary (you get ones that have proof pro and proof con). Maybe that'll have some meat in it (if I can get hold of it)..
Interesting.. But would be good to see some good hard evidence behind that.
Thather got in on the back of the Winter of Discontent.
When she left power, the economy was in a lot better state than it was when she entered power; there was a rough ride to achieving stability, and a heavy social price was paid.
As to how she created a broken economy when England was actually going to the IMF for over £2 billion before she took the reins of government is quite beyond me. It was thoroughly broken when she got there.
By all means, dislike her, and follow whatever political path you want, but I'm finding your post heavy on rhetoric, low on fact. Now, I can be persuaded by showing proofs of this, and evidence, but not by screaming "bullshit" and claiming incompetence.
And me, a fundamentalist? Oh boy! That did give me a chuckle.
Lordy Mandy is one of the more infamous characters of our Labour government. Several times he's been fired/forced to resign over corruption (taking bribes) and effectively fraudulent behaviour. Each time, he keeps getting hired back by the government when they think most people will have forgotten. He's shown himself to out only for his own personal profit, with flagrant disregard for the public, though a side effect is he also feathers the beds of his political allies in his bargains.
Much of what Labour have brought in during their 12 years in power has been something the governmental organisations in Orwell's 1984 would have been proud of. Still, every election, they bleat about "beware the Tories because they're evil". No real evidence, just their usual "it's that way because we say it is". The political system bugs the hell out of me. On the one hand, we have the Tories who actually know how to put a country on a sound economic track. They like a light footprint of government, and let people get on with making money and jobs. However a lot of their social track record (though John Major, the last tory PM was a big change on that) is not so hot. They make the hard decisions. Labour, on the other hand, are the real "protect the underdog", to the extend of actually oppressing the majority to achieve this end. Somewhere in the middle of all this is the sweet spot, though the 'middle of the road' party we have isn't balanced by the extremes, but seems to try to muddle along without actually making any hard decisions one way or the other.
The hard decision in this one is "how do we best benefit society to allow ourselves the flexibility to foster creativity at a fundamental level so we can compete globally in the future?". Hint. It's not to chase file sharers. It's probably more along the lines of reorganising the copyright system from the ground up to fit what we need to achieve as a society, not to prop up the business models of huge corporations. The upcoming economies that will in a generation or so surpass the existing economic powers will, while they're growing fast, play fast and loose with this. If the existing powers remain inflexible, and try to hide behind the old rules, they'll fall. History is full of things like this (Agincourt, American War of Independance etc.). Rules of engagement change, yet the 'old powers' try to hold onto them. They fail eventually and are superseded by a more flexible structure (until that structure ossifies under the pressure of internal greed).
One day, we'll have organisational structures that strike the proper balance over extended periods, but I think that's a long way off. We're a primitive species still trying to struggle with its own success. A lot of this can be marked down to the pains of growing up. Doesn't mean we should be complacent. There are many structures that can govern, and many of them unpleasant. Come back the old "democracy" where at the end of the year, you voted on someone to exile for the year. HAve them living in penury and social isolation. That, methinks, could serve as a useful tool for those in the limelight.. Let them know there are consequences to actions..
Often, it's down to the consultant. I've been to see one or two for various things, and they just haven't been interested, and I've seen some who pull out all the stops. If you have no result from the consultant you've seen (having the condition marked as ideopathic), and you know that the problem is ongoing or worsening, as to be referred to another more senior consultant. If they refuse, to and talk to the Patient Liaison service (ask at the front desk of the hospital; they're a good avenue to follow to make a complaint of that nature).
The chances are that although your hospital has an opthalmology department, and a neurology department, they're not research/specialist places (you'll find that there are some hospitals that have real specialities; ask for a referral to another hospital with a research department in that area). The patient Liaison service would again be a good place to check out to see what can be done about that. Alternatively, you could ask the GP for a referral to a specialist hospital. If you really want to go to town, do a little research of your own to find out which hospital has the closest speciality match to your condition, and use "choose and book" to your preferred choice.
I may be telling you things you already know, so rather than keep posting here, I'll drop you a line on the details mentioned on your blog, and start communications properly. I'll see if I can leverage any channels in the hospital where I am to find out the best methods of getting you to where you need to be..
Demographically, most people have a mobile phone. Now, you have a nice, efficient, easy way to get a big win with about 90% or more of the population that could help stave off a lot of resource being spent in treatment down the line, and you gripe that it doesn't cover 100% of the population? Wow.
Being part of the NHS in the uk, I get to see a lot of initiatives rolled out. Some politically driven, and they're frequently not so great. Some well thought out. There's always discussion on who gets left out, or missed, and how they can be brought into the system effectively. There's a (much derided) program that has a web, and phone presence that gives you the general idea of whether or not you should go see a GP, or head to the hospital (or in some cases, take a paracetamol, and wait for a day to see what happens). Though it's not the greatest system, in the majority of cases, it does the job. Now, for this, you need an internet access point, or a telephone. If you don't have either of those, then you can't use the service, and have to go to see your General Practitioner to see if you have a problem.
This isn't a "you take this service, or you have no support", it's a method of aleviating the load on the system by offering a lightweight alternative that you can use if you have the resources to use it, having a low cost on both sides (provider and client), rather than much higher resource cost (time and/or money) otherwise.
Have a look at the religion to immigration statistics for the UK. The indiginous population has a phenomenally small fraction of Muslims. The predominant religion is Christianity (primarily Church of England, then Catholicism). A secular stance is being take by an increasing proportion of the population (primarily indiginous). The increase in Muslim faith is by the huge part from immigrants within the last 30-40 years (1 generation). As was stated, nice straw man. Use one set, and ignore that to the large extent this is part of the other set that is being talked about. Read the stats, do a quick analysis for yourself, and answer your own question rather than phrase it as being unrelated, which undermines your own basis of argument.
Interestingly, Sharia isn't a sign of extremism. It's a religious body that many do live under. Sharia doesn't stand apart from UK law. Some things that UK law doesn't rule for, Sharia does. If people live in the community that accept Sharia, then they abide by these ruling as well as anything in UK Law. UK law doesn't accept that a punishment meted by Sharia that is deemed illegal by the law of the land may be accepted (and a person meting judgement under Sharia may be prosecuted under UK legislation). If people want to accept a religious restriction as well as a secular one (standard UK law) then by all means. As long as it's done in the scope of the law as stands. However, Sharia cab restrict a lot of freedoms (especially for women), so there is a lot of friction on the subject as Sharia can be seen in cases as being incompatible with Human Rights legislation.
If, however, it was found to be 40% of the Muslim population that were radicalised, and actively plotting to topple the society that gives them freedom, then why shouldn't deportation be an option, if they are indeed immigrants? Sedition isn't something that's treated lightly. Treason even less so.
A lot of the original post points out that with these observed statistics, a lot of the Muslim populace seems to want to isolate itself from the culture of the land, yet receive all the benefits and protections of that culture. England is supposed to be a melting pot of cultures, yet many refuse to integrate towards the culture of the land (good luck with doing that the other way round in the middle east). This is perceived (rightly or wrongly, and nobody has an absolute answer on that; it's all a matter of perspective) by a growing number of people to be a threat to their way of life and their long standing culture. Unless this is dealt with, the original post posits tha the growing popularity of the radical organisations will continue at an increasing rate. Radicalisation on one side is almost invariably balanced by radicalisation on another (social structures obey laws of physics rather well really; equal and opposite reaction). The original post points out that this increasing (and observable) reaction needs to be nipped in the bud before things become truly unpleasant (a radicalised majority will really tear into minorities in a truly unpleasant way). However, your response was to effectively accuse him of being unfair (using spurious logic) and next thing to a nazi. With no true reasoned statistical, or observable basis. Nice rhetoric, but it won't fix anything. In a perfect world, your viewpoint would be very laudable. It's not a perfect world. And to balance an imperfect world, you sometimes need to make hard decisions early to avoid terrible effects later.
Ok, I think the broken teeth from having the face smashed into a wall, the scars on the forehead from having a half brick thrown at me, and the scars on my torso and arms from sharp objects (broken glass, usually) used to slice me count as bullying. My social skills were fine. I could pick up on the "non verbal cues" very accurately, and to this day, I'm considered highly adept at that. Basically, this research is saying "We'll find ways to make sure you follow the crowd", rather than being a little different (hey, I read Lord of the Rings at 5 years old, and loved physics and cosmology; yes, I was "different"). What happened with all this bullying? Well, the do gooders simply said "You have to understand them; they come from a deprived background. They're having a hard time at home". Bzzt. Wrong answer. This attitude got me a nervous breakdown by the time I was 11 amidst all the school's hand wringing over how they could improve the lot of a bunch of yobs who wanted to do nothing more than talk about football all day, and beat up anyone who didn't want to do that.
Interestingly, I once had a client who'd worked out a way to pretty much cut bullying out. He was an explorer, who'd settled for a while in England and set up a company. This company used the knowledge he'd picked up across a goodly many expeditions, and allowed him to set up a whole host of challenges in 'adventure grounds', so there were the rope bridges, rope climbs, climbing walls etc; all the stuff to challenge the physically oriented kids, who went out and proved how physically gifted they were, and got real respect for achieving something. Places that contracted him to install the grounds had an 80%+ reduction in bullying across the board, and classroom results had a marked improvement. However, in the early 2000s, Health and Safety got their teeth into this, and said the ground were "too risky", and disallowed further installations, while shooting up the insurance premiums on schools that had them. End result, the grounds were removed from places that had them, bullying went up and grades went down. But it was cheaper.
There are those that bully because they need to prove themselves, and grounds like that will cater to them. And there are those that bully because they're nasty. Those need to be weeded out and taught hard lessons early. It is NOT due to some kid not picking up on non-verbal clues. We pride ourselves on being an enlightened and accepting society, so why is it that some kid who may be far brighter than the rest (I've noticed that those tend to act and perceive the world in a different way) needs to suddenly understand the ways of kids far less enlightened? Why not hold the lowest denominator to higher standards?
The trial is an obvious example. Then there's the merc's quest, letting various side characters go.. The huge choices are right at then end, where I get the suspicion you can completely alter the way things go.. The choices you make with Legion's quest.. The side missions you can find in the uncharted areas.. What it seems is that Bioware have come to the conclusion that they can have a huge, epic storyline. A game that on its own would be absolutely phenomenally long. Instead of trying to produce it in one with DLC making small increments, they can tell a book's worth of story per game, with major 'checkpoint' resolutions, and massively expand the world, or at least the area that'll tell the story, in the next 'volume'.
On the DAO front, I quite enjoy the isolating options away from you if you make a choice. If a character appeals to you for particular reasons, then play them. To hell with 'optimum choice'. Life isn't optimum choices, it's getting by with what works, and trying to strike a good balance of compromise. Really, I like the concept of putting "consequence" in the world. In reality, you can make yourself a pretty powerful person. The cost is that a lot of people will be marking a target on your back. You can gain the far more subtle power of having a group loyalty where many people will guard your back for you, making life easier and more efficient, but you'll not stand out as "The Big I Am". You choose.
These games are now starting to be about the story you tell, not about some linear no-consequence mish mash. Just like life, if you make certain choices, you deny yourself certain 'content'. Date person A, and you deny yourself Person B. Though if you choose both A and B, word may get around at a later date that means C won't date you. I like the choice, and freedom to choose what I accept, and what I reject. Choose what you want, and live with the consequence.
Why the dislike of taking responsibility for consequence in a game?
It's not unlimited, merely highly efficient (won't run out on a mission, though may need a service in the armoury between trips). If you can't dump the heat from it, I suspect it'll be like running your car with no oil or water. Two shots, and it jams to a useless mass. That's what I inferred from the explanations.. Maybe just one shot would do that. Guess they could put a 'risk' option in there with a chance of jamming your weapon for the mission, but allowing say one shot every 2 minutes with no heatsink.
Maybe not. China has all the money to invest in research, and they're copying the "brain drain" that made the US pre-eminent in research by making a very cushy life for people that head to China to perform research. What could so very easily happen is that China leverages its huge resources, targets them at research into energy, and gets "first past the post" on fusion. Then patents it. As the US has been very into all its legalities and IP agreements on a worldwide basis, it'd find that the only way to obtain Fusion would be to contract the Chinese companies to do the work. Or license it at a huge fee.
Probably because they are. By "insufficient evidence" they usually mean "we've not heard enough to convince us". Which means "Someone was telling us stuff, but we don't really understand the field that they were trying to explain about. Instead of trying to understand the stuff we don't understand, we prefer to play nice with the money, because that tells us it's all good.". The prime qualifications in Labour are history, classics, and a few Lawyers, advertising and marketing. Not really anyone with any solid scientific skills. So, rather than work out the hard stuff, and make scientific dispassionate decisions which will make the country stronger and genuinely safer, they prefer to use rhetoric and assume that things work by fiat (we say the world works that way, ergo it does, because we say, which is why it lost pretty much the core of its drugs advisory group because the scientific advice of some highly qualified and internationally renowned people was completely ignored, and the opposite decision was made as policy, AND the politician hounded the scientist for not backing him up and twisting scientific results to fit into what he wanted things to be like). I don't trust 'em as far as I can spit 'em. They need to understand scientific method, not empty rhetoric.
They need a driving license. Something that says they're able to drive the vehicle without it going awry. You're talking more about needing a PhD to be able to homeschool (in the bad analogy trend).
Personally, I believe someone photographing a kid naked is not always a problem It's been going on for as long as cameras have been around. This is what people don't understand. Naked does not always equal erotic and pornographic. Again, it's open to context as to people taking photos of your kid without your permission. If that happens, then you start following the path of "everything is denied unless explicitly granted", and nobody is free; there's a world of difference between someone taking a quick photo of your kid without permission, and someone stalking you or your kid and taking repeated photos over a period of time. The issue I have with the whole legal system is it says "There is no context. Do not think for yourself, because we don't trust you to think. We know better. Trust the system. The system is your friend. Do not think. Trust us, not your neighbours and peers.". Law works to become a system of Justice if there is context. Without context, there cannot be Justice. If there is no justice, there is only blind oppression. I also think this whole "think of the children" and no photographs, and campaign against "rude imagery" thing is just a puritannical cycle. In another 50-100 years, people will look back on it and say "How bloody stupid. Worse than the victorians! How were people supposed to grow up in that environment without developing major hangups?".
Actually, China and India are stepping into the gap nicely. I believe they're both investing massively in space programs at the moment. Russia's also looking quite strongly in that direction also. With China expected to surpass the US in a decade or two as far as tech goes, I think they'll probably have a program that actually gets there and delivers the goods. So, no extinction event for humanity. As a species, we'll go on, but for a fair while, it may be on the terms of the Chinese outlook.
Possibly as it may have been used to fund criminal activity? Quite a few of the things Wikileaks publish aren't legal in many countries that they are active in (i.e. membership lists of the BNP with the menbers' home addresses). If they're up to something and paying for the info, and it's falling foul of legal departments, then it could well be under investigation.. Either that or it's a normal screwup.. But in the WikiLeaks world of doing quite clandestine things, I'd be surprised if they weren't under investigation now and then.
Actually, Internet play for me in most games (apart from those I can choose to solo in, such as Guild Wars) is a null factor. I honestly don't care for it, and if the game is 'multiplayer internet only', then no.. Not for me.. Yes, I'm sociable, but the amount of griefers, and people who consider that just because they're behind some anonymous screen makes them able to shout whatever kind of abuse they want, and play people around however they want (after all, it's just 'make a new character, use a new name') put me off this ages ago. Plus the cheating that usually ends up rampant. I enjoy a good story, so DLC, plus the ability to mod, and choose the mods you apply to suit your tastes and the story.. Definitely.. For scriptable, you just can't beat tabletop RPG.. Not in the near or medium term (perhaps in the long future it'll catch up),`so for story and script, I'll stick with tabletop.. Open ended.. DLC and mods help there.. DLC for extra chapters, as they usually have the same voice actors and a real feeling of continuity and extended story.. Player ranking, I never really got on with. There are too many issues with that. One being the aforementioned cheating (find a cheat, shoot up the rankings). Either that, or it's all grind (spend your life behind the keyboard and you'll wend your way up this chart). Neither appeal to me (and actually, I find them detrimental to my experience). I don't think an enduring game has any reliance on internet play at all. An enduring game is one which the developers built properly in the first place, one with engaging gameplay, a good engine, probably a good story that has the 'episodic' content that can reuse the engine, and support modding, along with being damn good fun to play. Most of the games I still go back to are things like Diablo, Final Fantasy, Ratchet and Clank, Baldur's Gate, Descent, Starcraft and so on. All pretty much non-internet.. They were just good fun to play! One truly enduring one is NetHack (and Angband).. Been playing those for a little over 20 years now, which I think counts as an enduring game..
The public domain is there for a reason. Cultural advancement, which is what the whole of copyright law is supposed to be about (protection for a limited time to protect the creators of cultural works, then dissemenation of this as a work of culture to the general populace to partake of how they wish). When the work becomes public domain, it is supposed to be freely available. If you happen to hold the physical media that the only copy is on, you are its guardian, not its owner. It's your responsibility to make sure you're protecting this cultural artifact, and that it is transitioned to be viewable by everybody that has a RIGHT to view it. Where someone has offered, free and gratis, to aid CBS in its duty to provide and guard these 'artifacts', for them to turn round and say "it's too much hassle for us to maintain our side of the bargain", which is a legal contract of copyright that on expiry it enters the public domain, they should rightfully be charged with theft, as they are indeed stealing what is rightfully everbody's. This is the edge of copyright that's not often talked on: When you infringe copyright, you infringe copyright, you do not steal. Yes, both are illegal, but they are indeed different. When somebody prevents everybody else obtaining what is rightfully theirs, that is theft (removal of the ability to utilise what is rightfully theirs). So, here's a great example of a large company doing in fact what they accuse (falsely) copyright infringers of doing, but on a much wider scale. Now, stealing from everybody is how many instances of theft? They have a contract (copyright) that legally gives them lots of breathing space and profit. They need to live up to their end of the bargain.
Slashdot Mirror
By all means, accountability is great.
But saying the developer is at fault is ridiculous. It opens the door for companies to mismanage projects as per usual, and clueless HR departments to hire people who don't know what they're doing, and fire people arbitrarily every time they have a complaint from someone that the software doesn't work.
Start the responsibility with the company. If the company sends a flawed product and are to be made accountable, then the organisation needs to prove:
* It has proper QA processes in place to test the product, and that the staff are suitably qualified.
* The project management was performed to allow for proper specification, design and development within the normal working hours of a day, taking holidays and time lost due to usual unforeseen circumstances.
* Training, or self learning time is allocated to enable staff to keep current with developments and issues with languages/compilers/methods they use.
If you're going to hold a developer responsible, then it should be absolutely certain that everyone in the dependancy chain for that person is responsible. Did HR hire someone who wasn't fit for purpose? Their job is to ensure that doesn't happen. They're the start of the problem chain.
Did management provide the logistics necessary to complete the job to a quality? If not, they should be liable.
Did the sales team (if it's bespoke software) make impossible promises (if so, and developer opinion was overturned such that a 'broken' system was arrived at from spec, then the salesman should be accountable).
Did the producer of the spec introduce a design flaw that resulted in the error? If it wasn't the developer, then the specifier/designer was at fault.
Pretty much whichever way you look at it, management and HR should carry the can first, leaking down to the developer, if you're going to be sensible about it. If a place is well run, well managed then sure, have developer liability, but expect to have raised costs to cover developer's professional liability insurance.
Well, from my side, I'm one of the people who buys the product (or doesn't bother with it; I don't pirate but increasingly choose not to purchase based on DRM intrusiveness).
So, to an extent, I do say how much companies are allowed to make. As does everyone. We allow them to make as much as we feel like paying for what they provide.
If everyone decides that their product is crap, or that the downsides (DRM) outweigh the bonus (entertainment), then we agree that they're allowed to make nothing by not purchasing the game.
Rather than concentrate on how much pirating goes on, they need to work out how the decisions they make affect their paying base. If the paying base reduces, they're doing something wrong.
Alas, that works well when people "play by the rules". .
What you're paying for is their time, plus what experience they say they they have
I've run a lot of interviews in my time, and the amount of pure charlatans you get who claim to know all about the latest tech, and be experts in it, is frankly worrying. Unless you have years in the business, plus a strong technical background, you'd believe them. Even when absolutely caught out they still keep speaking with that unshakable confidence and assertion that they're right.
One guy that really sticks in the mind that came to interview claimed on the CV that he was an MVP, had years of experience, and checking the CV against the passport (which we do, for validating that someone is who they say they are), his professional programming career at a large financial allegedly started when he was 13. He blatantly kept on saying that this was correct, and he was just a prodigy. When asked if he knew of a spurious development paradigm (one we'd made up for interviews to see how people responded), he claimed years. When told it was spurious (yes, we'd checked to definitely confirm there was no such thing before using it as an interview strategy) he blithely kept on saying how he used it to better his skills.
He didn't know the detail of the basics, let alone the more advanced techniques the role was being posted for, but the sheer confidence he put forth, along with a whole stream of technical sounding buzzwords (and some that were pure bullshit, but still sounded technical) would have got him hired at a whole raft of places I know that have a PHB or a clueless HR department who put ticks in boxes, and then ask people not qualified to make the choice to pick the next candidate for a technical role.
Yes, he's an extreme example, but there are an awful lot out there who play buzzword bingo to get a job with no real knowledge of what they're doing. Sadly, a lot of them make it into positions and play politics from there to pass the blame round teams, and screw up products by ineptitude.
I really don't mind paying the top dollar for the good people, but sheesh.. Half the problem out there is that unless you know enough to do the job yourself, it's all too easy to get hoodwinked by someone claiming to know what they're doing more than you do.. Most management don't know that, and HR departments certainly don't..
The "You're allowed to say anything with no legal recourse" works nicely until the head of governement turns round and says you've done a lot of really bad things, fiddle with children and animals, and you're plotting to blow things up.
Of course, it's a lie. However, try telling that to the vigilante mob that turns up at your door baying for blood, as you have no legal recourse.
Everything needs balances to make sure fair play is taken into account. When one side takes it too far, the other needs to react; life's a struggle, always has been.. It's just the things we struggle for have changed.
Yes, though in humanity, I suspect it's only got a few generations left (if that). The reason females are protected and males are expendable is the gestation period. You have to protect females though that time, and they can only support so many childbirths in a lifetime. Childbirth itself being problematic. Then there's the nurturing time while the parent (in mammals anyway) suckles the child, with males being unable to perform this.
One male can sire countless children in a lifetime, if necessary. A species can survive with a small number of males. However, if the situation is reversed, things get far more difficult.
Humanity has a huge population, and as such is in no danger, so it can afford to treat females as expendable too. As this becomes more the case, women will do more and more jobs that have historically been male (and will then also start to realise what it's like to be expendable; there are downsides)..
Quick question; does that text cover non-verbal communication and drive?
In competition for limited resources (and finance is limited), in general, the system favours equal candidates who also seem to have the drive and ruthlessness to close a deal. Business can be (and frequently is in a competitive environment) very cut throat (I speak from experience on that).
Again, going back to generalisations (there are of course significant exceptions to every rule), men are conditioned at an instinctual level to be more aggressive than women. This makes for a more aggressive stance on obtaining the limited resources.
The option, of course, is to alter the structure of western business such that drive and ruthlessness are removed from the equation, and lesser resources are allocated to each business (i.e. not enough to actually meet what the business plan says is necessary to fund the business to a successfull running point from start) as a result. End point being the ruthless have to become more so.
Again, of interest, did the chap who wrote that book actually sit with front line business bankers, and ask why the judgements were made in the way they were, or was it all down to the paper business plans and statistics (hint for you, a large part of the loan process, certainly for startup sums, is done outside the world of paper; the business plan is a checkbox to make sure you've actually thought about what you're doing. The rest is the banker making a judgement of whether they believe you have the drive and ruthlessness to make money from their gamble).
Also, is there a statistical deviation for age? Finance (and business by and large) are wary of the fact that a large portion of women want a family. A statistically significant portion of these have their outlook on life changed by having a child, and are more likely to want to hold a job that lets them spend more time with the child/family, rather than a high tech job that eats time like no other.
Another thing: Trends analysis. What do the trends show as far as women in these roles are concerned? Growing slowly by and large (with the odd few trend bucks when resources get extra tight)? That's evolution. A stable society will alter over the course of generations. For some reason, everyone expects this to level out to an even split (which it will never do, unless, of course, you want to dissuade women from doing the types of roles that women actually seem to prefer, such as nursing, medical, biotech, and other more historically female oriented roles. That's the only way to free up enough of the population to make things 'equal', as statistically, you only have a portion of people to be in one area that haven't already chosen something else. If they've already chosen something else, then with equal chance, there's going to be a significant statistical bias in set population).
Personally, I'm behind anyone of any sex (and there are several listed in the medical status) doing whatever role they'd like to do. They just need to prove they're good at it, and over time, you'll see the demographics shift of their own accord to new equilibriums (check the population in medical, for example; it's becoming quite female weighted these days as far as doctors go). Don't expect to wave a magic wand, and set quotas for female loans and so on, as that'll only set up for a backlash (and in the interim make for a wasteful use of resources, as being held to a lower standard due to quotas, you won't necessarily make best use of money).
Really, from being in the world of business for some time, and seeing how things are changing at the small business end, sure, keep taps for real abuses of the system, but let them evolve. Society shapes its own boundaries, but it's never a fast process. Watch the changes, and follow to see where the trends are pointing.
Oh, and a last point, the "old boys networks" aren't that hard to get into. Usually, you need a good few solid wins behind you, and they're canny enough to know they'd kinda like you on side, so they talk to you... If you go chasing after them, it can be notoriously difficult (unless, again, you get those wins on your side).
I'll definitely check that out. Thanks for the reference.. But was hoping for a little more than a documentary (you get ones that have proof pro and proof con). Maybe that'll have some meat in it (if I can get hold of it)..
Cheers..
Interesting.. But would be good to see some good hard evidence behind that.
Thather got in on the back of the Winter of Discontent.
When she left power, the economy was in a lot better state than it was when she entered power; there was a rough ride to achieving stability, and a heavy social price was paid.
As to how she created a broken economy when England was actually going to the IMF for over £2 billion before she took the reins of government is quite beyond me. It was thoroughly broken when she got there.
By all means, dislike her, and follow whatever political path you want, but I'm finding your post heavy on rhetoric, low on fact. Now, I can be persuaded by showing proofs of this, and evidence, but not by screaming "bullshit" and claiming incompetence.
And me, a fundamentalist? Oh boy! That did give me a chuckle.
Lordy Mandy is one of the more infamous characters of our Labour government. Several times he's been fired/forced to resign over corruption (taking bribes) and effectively fraudulent behaviour. Each time, he keeps getting hired back by the government when they think most people will have forgotten.
He's shown himself to out only for his own personal profit, with flagrant disregard for the public, though a side effect is he also feathers the beds of his political allies in his bargains.
Much of what Labour have brought in during their 12 years in power has been something the governmental organisations in Orwell's 1984 would have been proud of.
Still, every election, they bleat about "beware the Tories because they're evil". No real evidence, just their usual "it's that way because we say it is".
The political system bugs the hell out of me. On the one hand, we have the Tories who actually know how to put a country on a sound economic track. They like a light footprint of government, and let people get on with making money and jobs. However a lot of their social track record (though John Major, the last tory PM was a big change on that) is not so hot. They make the hard decisions.
Labour, on the other hand, are the real "protect the underdog", to the extend of actually oppressing the majority to achieve this end.
Somewhere in the middle of all this is the sweet spot, though the 'middle of the road' party we have isn't balanced by the extremes, but seems to try to muddle along without actually making any hard decisions one way or the other.
The hard decision in this one is "how do we best benefit society to allow ourselves the flexibility to foster creativity at a fundamental level so we can compete globally in the future?".
Hint. It's not to chase file sharers. It's probably more along the lines of reorganising the copyright system from the ground up to fit what we need to achieve as a society, not to prop up the business models of huge corporations. The upcoming economies that will in a generation or so surpass the existing economic powers will, while they're growing fast, play fast and loose with this. If the existing powers remain inflexible, and try to hide behind the old rules, they'll fall. History is full of things like this (Agincourt, American War of Independance etc.). Rules of engagement change, yet the 'old powers' try to hold onto them. They fail eventually and are superseded by a more flexible structure (until that structure ossifies under the pressure of internal greed).
One day, we'll have organisational structures that strike the proper balance over extended periods, but I think that's a long way off. We're a primitive species still trying to struggle with its own success. A lot of this can be marked down to the pains of growing up. Doesn't mean we should be complacent. There are many structures that can govern, and many of them unpleasant.
Come back the old "democracy" where at the end of the year, you voted on someone to exile for the year. HAve them living in penury and social isolation. That, methinks, could serve as a useful tool for those in the limelight.. Let them know there are consequences to actions..
Often, it's down to the consultant. I've been to see one or two for various things, and they just haven't been interested, and I've seen some who pull out all the stops.
If you have no result from the consultant you've seen (having the condition marked as ideopathic), and you know that the problem is ongoing or worsening, as to be referred to another more senior consultant. If they refuse, to and talk to the Patient Liaison service (ask at the front desk of the hospital; they're a good avenue to follow to make a complaint of that nature).
The chances are that although your hospital has an opthalmology department, and a neurology department, they're not research/specialist places (you'll find that there are some hospitals that have real specialities; ask for a referral to another hospital with a research department in that area). The patient Liaison service would again be a good place to check out to see what can be done about that. Alternatively, you could ask the GP for a referral to a specialist hospital. If you really want to go to town, do a little research of your own to find out which hospital has the closest speciality match to your condition, and use "choose and book" to your preferred choice.
I may be telling you things you already know, so rather than keep posting here, I'll drop you a line on the details mentioned on your blog, and start communications properly. I'll see if I can leverage any channels in the hospital where I am to find out the best methods of getting you to where you need to be..
Demographically, most people have a mobile phone.
Now, you have a nice, efficient, easy way to get a big win with about 90% or more of the population that could help stave off a lot of resource being spent in treatment down the line, and you gripe that it doesn't cover 100% of the population? Wow.
Being part of the NHS in the uk, I get to see a lot of initiatives rolled out. Some politically driven, and they're frequently not so great. Some well thought out. There's always discussion on who gets left out, or missed, and how they can be brought into the system effectively. There's a (much derided) program that has a web, and phone presence that gives you the general idea of whether or not you should go see a GP, or head to the hospital (or in some cases, take a paracetamol, and wait for a day to see what happens).
Though it's not the greatest system, in the majority of cases, it does the job. Now, for this, you need an internet access point, or a telephone. If you don't have either of those, then you can't use the service, and have to go to see your General Practitioner to see if you have a problem.
This isn't a "you take this service, or you have no support", it's a method of aleviating the load on the system by offering a lightweight alternative that you can use if you have the resources to use it, having a low cost on both sides (provider and client), rather than much higher resource cost (time and/or money) otherwise.
Have a look at the religion to immigration statistics for the UK. The indiginous population has a phenomenally small fraction of Muslims. The predominant religion is Christianity (primarily Church of England, then Catholicism). A secular stance is being take by an increasing proportion of the population (primarily indiginous). The increase in Muslim faith is by the huge part from immigrants within the last 30-40 years (1 generation).
As was stated, nice straw man. Use one set, and ignore that to the large extent this is part of the other set that is being talked about. Read the stats, do a quick analysis for yourself, and answer your own question rather than phrase it as being unrelated, which undermines your own basis of argument.
Interestingly, Sharia isn't a sign of extremism. It's a religious body that many do live under. Sharia doesn't stand apart from UK law. Some things that UK law doesn't rule for, Sharia does. If people live in the community that accept Sharia, then they abide by these ruling as well as anything in UK Law.
UK law doesn't accept that a punishment meted by Sharia that is deemed illegal by the law of the land may be accepted (and a person meting judgement under Sharia may be prosecuted under UK legislation).
If people want to accept a religious restriction as well as a secular one (standard UK law) then by all means. As long as it's done in the scope of the law as stands. However, Sharia cab restrict a lot of freedoms (especially for women), so there is a lot of friction on the subject as Sharia can be seen in cases as being incompatible with Human Rights legislation.
If, however, it was found to be 40% of the Muslim population that were radicalised, and actively plotting to topple the society that gives them freedom, then why shouldn't deportation be an option, if they are indeed immigrants? Sedition isn't something that's treated lightly. Treason even less so.
A lot of the original post points out that with these observed statistics, a lot of the Muslim populace seems to want to isolate itself from the culture of the land, yet receive all the benefits and protections of that culture. England is supposed to be a melting pot of cultures, yet many refuse to integrate towards the culture of the land (good luck with doing that the other way round in the middle east). This is perceived (rightly or wrongly, and nobody has an absolute answer on that; it's all a matter of perspective) by a growing number of people to be a threat to their way of life and their long standing culture. Unless this is dealt with, the original post posits tha the growing popularity of the radical organisations will continue at an increasing rate. Radicalisation on one side is almost invariably balanced by radicalisation on another (social structures obey laws of physics rather well really; equal and opposite reaction).
The original post points out that this increasing (and observable) reaction needs to be nipped in the bud before things become truly unpleasant (a radicalised majority will really tear into minorities in a truly unpleasant way).
However, your response was to effectively accuse him of being unfair (using spurious logic) and next thing to a nazi. With no true reasoned statistical, or observable basis. Nice rhetoric, but it won't fix anything. In a perfect world, your viewpoint would be very laudable.
It's not a perfect world. And to balance an imperfect world, you sometimes need to make hard decisions early to avoid terrible effects later.
Ok, I think the broken teeth from having the face smashed into a wall, the scars on the forehead from having a half brick thrown at me, and the scars on my torso and arms from sharp objects (broken glass, usually) used to slice me count as bullying.
My social skills were fine. I could pick up on the "non verbal cues" very accurately, and to this day, I'm considered highly adept at that.
Basically, this research is saying "We'll find ways to make sure you follow the crowd", rather than being a little different (hey, I read Lord of the Rings at 5 years old, and loved physics and cosmology; yes, I was "different").
What happened with all this bullying? Well, the do gooders simply said "You have to understand them; they come from a deprived background. They're having a hard time at home".
Bzzt. Wrong answer. This attitude got me a nervous breakdown by the time I was 11 amidst all the school's hand wringing over how they could improve the lot of a bunch of yobs who wanted to do nothing more than talk about football all day, and beat up anyone who didn't want to do that.
Interestingly, I once had a client who'd worked out a way to pretty much cut bullying out. He was an explorer, who'd settled for a while in England and set up a company. This company used the knowledge he'd picked up across a goodly many expeditions, and allowed him to set up a whole host of challenges in 'adventure grounds', so there were the rope bridges, rope climbs, climbing walls etc; all the stuff to challenge the physically oriented kids, who went out and proved how physically gifted they were, and got real respect for achieving something. Places that contracted him to install the grounds had an 80%+ reduction in bullying across the board, and classroom results had a marked improvement.
However, in the early 2000s, Health and Safety got their teeth into this, and said the ground were "too risky", and disallowed further installations, while shooting up the insurance premiums on schools that had them. End result, the grounds were removed from places that had them, bullying went up and grades went down. But it was cheaper.
There are those that bully because they need to prove themselves, and grounds like that will cater to them. And there are those that bully because they're nasty. Those need to be weeded out and taught hard lessons early.
It is NOT due to some kid not picking up on non-verbal clues. We pride ourselves on being an enlightened and accepting society, so why is it that some kid who may be far brighter than the rest (I've noticed that those tend to act and perceive the world in a different way) needs to suddenly understand the ways of kids far less enlightened? Why not hold the lowest denominator to higher standards?
The trial is an obvious example. Then there's the merc's quest, letting various side characters go.. The huge choices are right at then end, where I get the suspicion you can completely alter the way things go.. The choices you make with Legion's quest.. The side missions you can find in the uncharted areas..
What it seems is that Bioware have come to the conclusion that they can have a huge, epic storyline. A game that on its own would be absolutely phenomenally long. Instead of trying to produce it in one with DLC making small increments, they can tell a book's worth of story per game, with major 'checkpoint' resolutions, and massively expand the world, or at least the area that'll tell the story, in the next 'volume'.
On the DAO front, I quite enjoy the isolating options away from you if you make a choice. If a character appeals to you for particular reasons, then play them. To hell with 'optimum choice'. Life isn't optimum choices, it's getting by with what works, and trying to strike a good balance of compromise. Really, I like the concept of putting "consequence" in the world.
In reality, you can make yourself a pretty powerful person. The cost is that a lot of people will be marking a target on your back. You can gain the far more subtle power of having a group loyalty where many people will guard your back for you, making life easier and more efficient, but you'll not stand out as "The Big I Am". You choose.
These games are now starting to be about the story you tell, not about some linear no-consequence mish mash. Just like life, if you make certain choices, you deny yourself certain 'content'. Date person A, and you deny yourself Person B. Though if you choose both A and B, word may get around at a later date that means C won't date you. I like the choice, and freedom to choose what I accept, and what I reject. Choose what you want, and live with the consequence.
Why the dislike of taking responsibility for consequence in a game?
It's not unlimited, merely highly efficient (won't run out on a mission, though may need a service in the armoury between trips).
If you can't dump the heat from it, I suspect it'll be like running your car with no oil or water. Two shots, and it jams to a useless mass. That's what I inferred from the explanations.. Maybe just one shot would do that.
Guess they could put a 'risk' option in there with a chance of jamming your weapon for the mission, but allowing say one shot every 2 minutes with no heatsink.
Maybe not. China has all the money to invest in research, and they're copying the "brain drain" that made the US pre-eminent in research by making a very cushy life for people that head to China to perform research.
What could so very easily happen is that China leverages its huge resources, targets them at research into energy, and gets "first past the post" on fusion. Then patents it. As the US has been very into all its legalities and IP agreements on a worldwide basis, it'd find that the only way to obtain Fusion would be to contract the Chinese companies to do the work. Or license it at a huge fee.
Probably because they are.
By "insufficient evidence" they usually mean "we've not heard enough to convince us". Which means "Someone was telling us stuff, but we don't really understand the field that they were trying to explain about. Instead of trying to understand the stuff we don't understand, we prefer to play nice with the money, because that tells us it's all good.".
The prime qualifications in Labour are history, classics, and a few Lawyers, advertising and marketing. Not really anyone with any solid scientific skills.
So, rather than work out the hard stuff, and make scientific dispassionate decisions which will make the country stronger and genuinely safer, they prefer to use rhetoric and assume that things work by fiat (we say the world works that way, ergo it does, because we say, which is why it lost pretty much the core of its drugs advisory group because the scientific advice of some highly qualified and internationally renowned people was completely ignored, and the opposite decision was made as policy, AND the politician hounded the scientist for not backing him up and twisting scientific results to fit into what he wanted things to be like).
I don't trust 'em as far as I can spit 'em. They need to understand scientific method, not empty rhetoric.
They need a driving license. Something that says they're able to drive the vehicle without it going awry. You're talking more about needing a PhD to be able to homeschool (in the bad analogy trend).
Personally, I believe someone photographing a kid naked is not always a problem It's been going on for as long as cameras have been around. This is what people don't understand. Naked does not always equal erotic and pornographic.
Again, it's open to context as to people taking photos of your kid without your permission. If that happens, then you start following the path of "everything is denied unless explicitly granted", and nobody is free; there's a world of difference between someone taking a quick photo of your kid without permission, and someone stalking you or your kid and taking repeated photos over a period of time.
The issue I have with the whole legal system is it says "There is no context. Do not think for yourself, because we don't trust you to think. We know better. Trust the system. The system is your friend. Do not think. Trust us, not your neighbours and peers.".
Law works to become a system of Justice if there is context. Without context, there cannot be Justice. If there is no justice, there is only blind oppression.
I also think this whole "think of the children" and no photographs, and campaign against "rude imagery" thing is just a puritannical cycle. In another 50-100 years, people will look back on it and say "How bloody stupid. Worse than the victorians! How were people supposed to grow up in that environment without developing major hangups?".
Actually, China and India are stepping into the gap nicely. I believe they're both investing massively in space programs at the moment. Russia's also looking quite strongly in that direction also.
With China expected to surpass the US in a decade or two as far as tech goes, I think they'll probably have a program that actually gets there and delivers the goods.
So, no extinction event for humanity. As a species, we'll go on, but for a fair while, it may be on the terms of the Chinese outlook.
Possibly as it may have been used to fund criminal activity? Quite a few of the things Wikileaks publish aren't legal in many countries that they are active in (i.e. membership lists of the BNP with the menbers' home addresses). If they're up to something and paying for the info, and it's falling foul of legal departments, then it could well be under investigation..
Either that or it's a normal screwup.. But in the WikiLeaks world of doing quite clandestine things, I'd be surprised if they weren't under investigation now and then.
Actually, Internet play for me in most games (apart from those I can choose to solo in, such as Guild Wars) is a null factor. I honestly don't care for it, and if the game is 'multiplayer internet only', then no.. Not for me..
Yes, I'm sociable, but the amount of griefers, and people who consider that just because they're behind some anonymous screen makes them able to shout whatever kind of abuse they want, and play people around however they want (after all, it's just 'make a new character, use a new name') put me off this ages ago. Plus the cheating that usually ends up rampant.
I enjoy a good story, so DLC, plus the ability to mod, and choose the mods you apply to suit your tastes and the story.. Definitely..
For scriptable, you just can't beat tabletop RPG.. Not in the near or medium term (perhaps in the long future it'll catch up),`so for story and script, I'll stick with tabletop..
Open ended.. DLC and mods help there.. DLC for extra chapters, as they usually have the same voice actors and a real feeling of continuity and extended story..
Player ranking, I never really got on with. There are too many issues with that. One being the aforementioned cheating (find a cheat, shoot up the rankings). Either that, or it's all grind (spend your life behind the keyboard and you'll wend your way up this chart). Neither appeal to me (and actually, I find them detrimental to my experience).
I don't think an enduring game has any reliance on internet play at all. An enduring game is one which the developers built properly in the first place, one with engaging gameplay, a good engine, probably a good story that has the 'episodic' content that can reuse the engine, and support modding, along with being damn good fun to play. Most of the games I still go back to are things like Diablo, Final Fantasy, Ratchet and Clank, Baldur's Gate, Descent, Starcraft and so on. All pretty much non-internet.. They were just good fun to play!
One truly enduring one is NetHack (and Angband).. Been playing those for a little over 20 years now, which I think counts as an enduring game..
SipX does that, plus a whole host of other things too.. May be overkill for what you're looking for though.. That's your call to make..
The team behind "Duke Nukem Forever" must really love the game..
The public domain is there for a reason. Cultural advancement, which is what the whole of copyright law is supposed to be about (protection for a limited time to protect the creators of cultural works, then dissemenation of this as a work of culture to the general populace to partake of how they wish).
When the work becomes public domain, it is supposed to be freely available. If you happen to hold the physical media that the only copy is on, you are its guardian, not its owner. It's your responsibility to make sure you're protecting this cultural artifact, and that it is transitioned to be viewable by everybody that has a RIGHT to view it.
Where someone has offered, free and gratis, to aid CBS in its duty to provide and guard these 'artifacts', for them to turn round and say "it's too much hassle for us to maintain our side of the bargain", which is a legal contract of copyright that on expiry it enters the public domain, they should rightfully be charged with theft, as they are indeed stealing what is rightfully everbody's.
This is the edge of copyright that's not often talked on: When you infringe copyright, you infringe copyright, you do not steal. Yes, both are illegal, but they are indeed different. When somebody prevents everybody else obtaining what is rightfully theirs, that is theft (removal of the ability to utilise what is rightfully theirs).
So, here's a great example of a large company doing in fact what they accuse (falsely) copyright infringers of doing, but on a much wider scale.
Now, stealing from everybody is how many instances of theft? They have a contract (copyright) that legally gives them lots of breathing space and profit. They need to live up to their end of the bargain.