How strange. Parts of both my degrees involved logic; from them, I found that it is as interesting to know that some conditions cannot exist as it is to prove they do. Based on what you're attempting to prove/achieve, you prove that certain events/conditions do occur, or that they do not/cannot (basic example, though mathematically tortuous, take finding the conditions where 1+1=7 in base 10). I believe that's easier to prove that the condition where that is true does not exist, than to prove that it does.
True, all that we understand now does not point to a higher being. However, it also doesn't preclude that (thus some very logical, and very bright physicists are also religious, and find absolutely no contradiction, as they understand that what they know now will likely be considered about as primitive as we consider cavemen using sparks to light fire, which was the height of technology back then).
Again, wholeheartedly with you on the big question being the nature of the universe. A person that denies what is observed by relying on "a book/person told me that is not true, so it is not true despite evidence" is, quite simply, wrong. Possibly deluded. Highly likely scared. However, if there is a question for which we have no answer, and cannot answer (with the best of our technical ability), and has no bearing on every day life, apart from to influence being happy, then by all means, choose what you believe (or don't believe). Saying you know better is simply not true. You believe otherwise based on your perceptions.
Just a note to you, assuming that someone else is ignorant, because they don't subscribe to your point of view is both rude, and closed minded. You seem pretty well educated, and quite bright, and I honestly think that attitude is beneath you. I agree with some of what you say, disagree with other parts. Can see the way your arguments flow, and believe that you're employing some spurious logic of your own in there. You just spoiled what could otherwise be a decent discussion with off handed rudeness. *Shrug* I suspect you are quite likely right in the atheistic view, but rather hope you're not. I choose to say "I don't know". Which is entirely correct.
Legs don't really work at the microscopic level. Which puts it in the "highly unlikely" level. Specific pigmentation.. Unlikely again, due to the size.. And as for proof, you only need to prove it does exist if you hypothesize that it does. You only need to disprove it if you hypothesize that it doesn't. If you think that the question of it existing is entirely irrelevant (which is, as things stand at the moment for humanity), the only sane thing to do is entirely avoid trying to answer the question at all. If it helps you sleep at night, you're quite at liberty to believe that it does. And I defy anyone to prove (with current technology) that it specifically does NOT exist. That's the point of science. You get a clear cut answer without bias.
As for agnosticism not being good enough in your books, then, I'm afraid that makes you a zealot in your beliefs. If you choose to believe that there is no god, then fine. That's your choice. But really, I want to see some hard evidence (not just saying 'the bible has inaccuracies, therefore there is no god', as that really is not a logical conclusion, for the same reason it can't be used for the proof of existence of a god). Go for it. Mathematical proof and/or full experimental workings. I know that the best I can do will neither prove, nor disprove the matter. The best of the scientists we have on the planet can neither prove nor disprove. To me, that makes the matter unsolvable by science, therefore it remains an article of belief, which is not subject to science or logic, therefore, it's not something I want to spend forever getting hung up over, or have fights about.
Personally, I find agnosticism to be the most satisfying path. If the atheists are correct, then they never get to tell me "I told you so". If the religious are correct, then one small group of people get to thumb their noses at the rest of the world and go "nyah nyah" for eternity, as they were the only ones that got the right god. Which would be distinctly embarrassing for most. Especially if it was a fringe cult that had only a handful of members that got it right. As an agnostic, I just get to say "Phew, that's a relief. Oblivion for sentience is a kinda harsh thing to truly take on board without needing something to shore up a damaged psyche".
No, science is not at odds with religion, it is complementary. Science states that given a set of conditions, experimentation gives certain answers. What it does not do is say that given a set of conditions that we do not yet know about, certain things will occur. Science, at that point simply says "There is not enough information to draw a conclusion". Anything in that area is conjecture and belief. Humanity is still a scarily primitive race (barely off the planet, with so much barely understood, and so much yet to discover), that science cannot yet even begin to answer some questions. In the meantime, if science can't give the answer, why not let people gain comfort from a belief? Now, if they try and foist that belief on you as fact, but all means shred it apart if it doesn't fit your view, or beliefs about the things that are unknown. Me, I'm an agnostic. I know that I don't know, and can't either prove or disprove a deity, so I'll let the existence of it, or non-existence carry on happily as it has since the beginning of time. I'll just get on with having a life as happy as I can make it, and spread a little of the good cheer where I can. After all, if there is a god, isn't that what all the texts say to do anyway? If there isn't, at least I've had a good time while I've been breathing, and so have other people around me, if I can help it!
I'd love to know your statistical source of information on that, as most of the people I know who have studied evolution are either religious, or agnostic (with a few atheists in there for luck). In the Europe, where evolution is taught as science, and creationism/ID fits squarely in Religious Education lessons, there is a high percentage of the population that are religious. Which squarely debunks your argument that teaching evolution promotes atheism.
Now, atheism is not strictly speaking a religion, as it has no firm set of beliefs, or common practices. It is just the belief that there is no deity. And before you start ranting away that science just promotes this, that is entirely incorrect. The most scientifically correct approach would be agnosticism, where you're not sure if there is a god or not. Atheism is a belief, in the same sense that a religion is a belief. There is no evidence for it, and it can neither be proved nor disproved. In other words, it is just plain NOT science. Agnosticism covers the inability to know if there is a god. It is the absence of belief in either direction.
So, I'm not against creationism, or ID. I'm just entirely against them being treated as science. I firmly think that if people keep trying to get ID put in science classes (where it really does NOT belong, as it really is NOT science), then legally, religious studies classes and churches must be obligated to put the belief of the 'creation event' to scientific scrutiny, and widely spread the word. In other words, the process that has allowed us to progress, and build a society that spans the globe, has enabled us to leap into space, and look farther away into the universe would be turned on a belief, and would give the answer "There is no evidence for this". And with science, you can choose to ignore the conclusions (ignoring it is just willful ignorance), or attempt to disprove it (if you can absolutely prove something with evidence based on experimentation, then you win, and get to amend the theories so that they take this evidence into account. Congratulations, your view is science!). Belief is not science. Science does not care what anyone believes, it only considers what can be shown to occur time after time, observably and reliably. Evolution meets these criteria, ID and creationism don't.
Yes, they do.. However, most have not explicitly been told by a Judge to write the documentation so that it is fit for purpose, on pain of some very nasty sanctions due to anti-trust litigation. Being blase about that really isn't a very good tactic, and either reeks of rank stupidity, or sheer insolence. And I don't happen to believe for a moment that Microsoft, as an entity, is stupid.
Maybe with the possibility of having to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to bail out the financial sector, governmental offices are at long last waking up to the fact that they need to balance the books on behalf of the taxpayer. It's all very nice having campaign contributions from industry, but if there's no money in the coffers, winning the election will be a poisoned chalice. Already, there's no money in the coffers, but being seen to shell out more taxpayer money to support industry, with no return to the taxpayer, is pretty much political suicide in today's climate. For the last god alone knows how many years, the basic taxpayer has been quiescent, going about the daily work, with the odd grumble or two, and the government has been able to get away with the odd outcry now and then. At the moment, a lot of people are looking long and hard at where every penny they pay goes. Not quite civil unrest, but certainly large scale discontent that could easily escalate.
I'm on death row. The death is irritating, but at least they're not using the electric chair.
Somewhere along the line, you've missed the point; This DRM cripples your rights to resell a game (if it stinks, you can sell it on and recoup some of your losses, if it's not one you want to hold on to and play again and again, you can resell it). It cripples your ability to do anything with it that you'd normally expect to do with something you buy (you can lend a book to your mate; CD in the drive protection allows you to do this with a game, DRM doesn't). There is a whole historic section of law that guarantees the purchasor's rights to do what they want with items they have bought. Software companies, and DRM in particular have been trying VERY hard these last few years to work their way around the law, so that technically, you do still have the right to sell on the game (you can put the install DVD on Ebay or whatever), but it will be useless to the person who purchases it, making your legal rights useless. In other words, yes, these companies are effectively stealing from you (yes, exactly what they're saying pirates do to them). They are deliberately killing the resale market, ensuring you have no ability to recoup any of the money you spent on the item (or donating it to charity in the way of charity bookshops etc.), in any way the law says you should be able to do with such an item (as it was fair to be able to do such a thing). Yes, I know the first sale doctrine is confused because the software companies say that software is 'licensed'. The day they turn round and say that they'll replace all media once it's broken, and allow perpetual updates, and not tie it to any particular machine, and vastly reduce the cost, then I may think twice (actually, I use Steam, as it lets me do most of that). As it stands, the companies are way too greedy and grasping, feeling quite at home screwing over their customers in the attempt to create larger sales. The sooner this ends, and a 'fair' market resumes (in the same way it happened with books and such) the better.
Then very fast, word would get out, and voila, you'd be a target. The next guy, and the next, and the next wouldn't let you know. They'd pull the data from under your feet, and sell it. And if they were malicous, they'd (anonymously) let your bosses know they'd done it, and you were too crap to prevent it.
Me, I'm a sysadmin, and I have no illusions that I can cover all the necessary security points, as I can't. If someone dropped me a note to say "I broke in, this is how I did it, and this is how you cure it.", I'd probably offer to buy the guy a beer. Note to self, this guy can outwit me in this area. He's useful to know, and seems to want to do the honorable thing (legal, illegal, that's irrelevant; they actively want to do what's right).
Yeah, I'd be upset about being 'caught out' like that. And somewhat scared. But that's life, and the world is a harsh and scary place. Live with it. Find allies where you can, and people that can be cultivated to guard your back by giving them a little leeway, and guard theirs.
I may be wrong, but it sounds like you're happy in your ignorance; the emperor's new clothes and all that. As long as nobody tells you there's a problem and points out that you're not the greatest thing since sliced break, all's good. Personally, I'd prefer to seem the fool than be one. And at the place I work, this approach has led people to consider that I'm neither.
Had to laugh at (seemingly) being called a kid when I'm pushing 40.. Made my day I'll tell ya! I'll try and avoid your lawn, but not quite sure where it is (seeing as the world's a reasonably sizable place, I'll hazard a bet that I'll be reasonably successful), I can't guarantee it..
1) Steal the public domain 2) Divert tax money to support your thieving (that's the copyright cops) 3) Steal the hardware of the public by accusation of theft by the public 4) Profit!
Honestly, all the talk I hear of IP theft from the entertainment industry, and so few yell that they have effectively stolen the WHOLE of the public domain (which was supposed to be there to allow culture to be accessible by all, and to help it grow!).
Not so sure it would. It's one of those that I bought and played, and about halfway through just ended up thinking "Meh, this is standard fodder". There was nothing groundbreaking, or innovative about it. Standard platform style, with story borrowed from a mashup of mythology.
The audio, good, if the music is your cup of tea. Video? Good, as was just about every other game around then. Gameplay? Interesting, but sometimes frustrating. Nothing different there. It's a fair enough implementation of a formula, but not anything that I'd call a classic.
Maybe you will be one of those that fondly loads up an emulator in 10-20 years and plays sections the game with that feeling of nostalgia (I get that feeling with Pong, the first arcade game I ever played).. But I think you'll be one of a select few.
I honestly never thought I'd be on the side of disagreeing with you, but in this, I'd be more inclined to say on the side of general fair play, I'd land on the Judge's side with this. I absolutely hate the way copyright is going with its eternal extension, forever putting the public domain just out of reach, but there is definitely a point that you need to say an author has control over their works. 10-20 years is one of those "feel good" points for me, in that most will have made their money after that time (if they're going to, and I believe there have been the odd few studies that've mathematically put sweet spots on the time limits of Copyright too). From what I've read so far (and I daren't read raw judgements; they'll mean as much to me as trying to read it in Latin. Yes I can do it, it'll just sink way too much of my life away to make it worthwhile), JK allows pretty much verbatim sections to be put online in Lexicons for free (and there are more than a few companies that'd hop all over that for damages due to copyright infringement). What she objects to is someone putting substantial amounts of what she wrote, verbatim, in a book and getting paid for it (with the addition of some notes). Not objecting to discourses on her books, or other analyses, just that there was rather too much of her verbatim work in a book that was due to be published.
If the chap had just asked the agents at the start of the work (knowing it to be heavily reliant on large passages of JKs work) to contact JK (or her agents), and ask her how much of her work she'd be happy with in his Lexicon, perhaps this could have been more amicable at the start (and hey, he may have come away with either a joint project, or at least an officially blessed version, which would have been worth hard cash to have that on the cover). Would delay things a little, but would have ended up much happier.
This, as I mentioned is just my opinion, based on what I've read in various sources, and I may be missing an entirely relevant section due to not understanding all the legal technicalities at play here; just from a layman's side, it does seem fair. And much as it must be rather frustrating to have to put in plain terms what comes as second nature to someone in the profession, could you do the honours, and just put in simple terms why it is that the Judge screwed up, and why protecting a work that's a smidge over 11 years old (that's still shiny, for all those that love car analogies) is such a despicable act?
Actually, it changed the world a lot.. The world used to believe that the US actually had shreds of decency and fairness left in its legal system, and hoped that perhaps the people had a say in their Government, rather than it being owned by the Corporates.
I'd disagree a little about your comment on engineers being horrified at the amount of imprecision going on in software. True software engineers, on truly critical systems (think avionics, medical etc) put a lot of precision and calculation into the designs and testing, and are every bit as rigorous as a chemical, civil, mechanical or electronic engineering project. Many more of the people with CS degrees out there in the big wide world or work are also fully capable of putting that kind of rigor into a project.
What just isn't happening though is management seeing that this needs to happen. All the other branches of engineering have some big edifice, or contraption that stands in front of someone, looking shiny, and people think "I can see where that money went!".. With software (in general), all people see is a set of forms, a word processor.. Some pretty graphics.. And to most, it's simple.. Magic.. You wave a wand, and there it is. After all, how difficult can it be to make a button appear on a screen and do the right thing (they had VB to play with, and it's so hard to explain that VB is to Software Engineering what Lego is to Civil Engineering to a management type)?
At the moment, there's far too much acceptance at the consumer level of bad software.. After all, it can be spun by the company as 'features' and denied (as usual). People tend to be far more accepting of dodgy software than they are of poorly made bridges. The "pro" to this is that there is a plethora of software, weird, wacky and wonderful. When IT "grows up", there will probably be far less of this idiosyncratic stuff, and most things will be shiny virtual edifices that people look at and go "ooo.. Now we see where the money went!".
You already have the right to do that. However, you don't have the right to expect support for it (unless there's an official port), and you'll need the emulation tools to make it work. However, you do still have the 'right'.
Actually, what I'd expect is a thorough roughing up, put under watch, and hear about all the security detail on the base facing court martial. If I managed to wander into a US base, say.. Rummage around the files for UFO evidence, then leave the base, but leave enough evidence to point back to me.. And I'd returned by flight to my own country, I'd expect a thorough kicking from my own government for causing a diplomatic incident, and to be put on a list that stopped me EVER entering the US again. What I wouldn't expect would be being extradited. Especially to a country that refused to sign up to its side of the bargain! Would you be happy going into a car showroom, purchasing the shiny toy of your choice for a few grand, then being told to sod off because the vendor didn't feel like giving you the car after all? I'd be getting the money back sharpish! Shame the UK lackwit government doesn't have the nuts to do that.
Precis: This guy deserves a thorough drubbing for causing a diplomatic incident. And certainly to be tracked by intelligence services to make sure he complies with being "a good boy" (or maybe teaches them a thing or two about security!). He doesn't deserve to be praised, as, lets face it, he was pretty naughty. But, the punishment should fit the crime. This just harks back to days of old where they'd chop off the hands of a thief, or hang them. Completely over the top and barbaric.
Yep, I work in a hospital at the moment, with a 'front line' tech staff of about 20 (including managers and internal software developers). Staff, circa 3.500. They do the whole 'outsourcing' via buying in applications that the development dept. don't have resource to write, at a yearly licensing cost about on par with what it would take to develop it internally in developer time. All the apps come with "vendor supported" so that it doesn't (in theory) take up IT time. In reality, the vendors (apart from one or two out of the many) never have staff available to do the work when things go wrong, or find a myriad other ways to get out of it, so in reality, it's all IT supported. There simply aren't enough staff to cope with this; in the NHS in the uk, the 'outsourcing' is very broken in most instances. I have ideas that I keep presenting that may help with this; to date, the heirarchy isn't listening. Yet.
No. none of the masks are illegal. Nor are the balaclavas, as they show about as much as the average Burqa. And the wearing of Burqas about the street has been shown to be legal in the UK (on the grounds that banning it would be religious discrimination, despite there being nothing about it being mandatory wear in the religious texts).
Wonder what would happen if they changed the balaclava for a burqa in the box??
Actually, they DO need to consider returns. If you buy a game, and it just plain won't work on a PC due to some problem or another (and yes, it happens!), then the company needs to take that into account, and take the damn game back. If I buy a DVD, and it doesn't work in my player, you can guarantee I'll take it back. And I'll make sure the shop refunds me the money. And you know what? They do.
Now, I've taken a game back in the past, where the install CD was absolutely blank. No tracks burned on it.. Nada. I took it back to the store, and they simply said "We don't do refunds on games". I had to drag that right back to their head office with a legal threat under the consumer protection legislation before they deigned to offer me a refund. I've also had games that plain just bombed out as soon as I started to run them. Not playable. And you try getting a shop to take them back. Software is the one product these days that shops will absolutely refuse to take back and refund for. Which for me, makes me far less likely to buy, as I have no faith in their need to produce something of quality. If they're not confident that something will work, then I'm not going to part with hard earned money in faith that I'll be getting something of merchantable quality. Put DRM into the mix too.. Which I consider breaks a product, then I'm really not going to buy.
I'm an ex EVE player, and have to admit, I loved the universe, the trading and a little bit of risk of building things up. In year or so that I played (pretty casually), I came across the odd pirate or two. Interestingly, in the earlier days, the pirates were a challenge. When geared up, it was a tossup who would win (with odds in favour of the pirates usually, but some chance to escape). That's what got the adrenaline pumping, the chance to slug it out with an actual opponent, and have a battle of wits to try and fight through. When the pirates won, they'd loot up (and from the hard fought battles, you knew they'd make use of the cash/gear). There's a few times when I've even sent a tell to the ambusher to congratulate them on winning a hard fought fight! It can be as fun to lose to a sportsman as it is to win. You learn something.
In the latter days there, I found the majority had shifted to extremely well armed ships popping up in pretty secure space, and simply toasting anyone they could find. No pirating of the ships. No real money to be made. Not enough profit to really interest them (the equivalent to using a military navy prototype battlecruiser to hold a pensioner's outing riverboat to ransom). They simply turned up, blew people away with vastly superior firepower, and after a few hours, moved to the next system to do just the same. End result: Most of the newbies had their days ruined. No chance of escape (and none offered), just simple griefing. They frequently ended up podding people too (extra cost, extra inconvenience, and honestly, just plain nasty). Nothing to be learned, except that there are people out there who just want to piss you off.
When it got to that point, I simply cancelled my account and walked away. I don't mind a hard fight. I don't mind a challenge. It's just no fun to have people just come along to cause grief. None of the posts on here that say "The players ARE the game" make me feel better about that, as honestly, those kind of people I can do without. They don't create fun. They don't give you a challenge. All you get to do when you encounter those groups is sit and watch for a few seconds as your ship is systematically shut down to a a crawl, and then your shields and hull tick down to nothing. You can't dent them. Can't scratch the paintwork even. Your only option (once you respawn at your clone location) is to head elsewhere in your backup ship and hope that they don't follow (which, inevitably, someone just like them will do soon enough).
In short, challenge is good and fun. If I want to keep getting assholes trying to ruin my day, I can get that for free just by going into a rough pub on a Saturday night.
BattleCruiser 3000AD was the one that felt that way to me.. Coupled with trying to run the whole ship.. It was certainly a hard work game, but realistic for all that!
Depends on the model. For a tech that's happy to fix all their own issues, and do tweaking of config files in an editor and really get under the hood, then the cost of software is going to approach zero. However, for almost everyone else, they want to know there's someone out there to phone when things to wrong, who is knowledgeable enough about the product to fix the issue. That's part of the cost you pay in Software, the 'maintenance lifecycle' part. Your software will slowly be improved, or fixed.
Really, more akin to saying "The cost of car maintenance is going to approach zero simply because it can". If you're a mechanic, sure. If you know nothing about cars, and don't want to, there will always be support costs (some which are built into the cost of providing a warranty of the car, if you're on the 'upgrade cycle').
There will always be 'pay for' software, and there will always be free software, which is as things should be. It maintains a diverse ecosystem, which is far more resilient and flexible than a monoculture.
Bear in mind obsolescence and market saturation times as well. Patents were developed with a long time to market and market saturation time (i.e. several years to ramp up production, then about 10-15 years to get a market using this as almost a standard), which ate up about half of the patent time. So you had about the same time again to enjoy the benefits of a stable market before the floodgates were opened, and everyone could make it.
In the software world, a technique can have the development time of hours. Market saturation can happen in weeks/months.
If software were to be patentable in its current form, I'd say 5 years would be a good ballpark figure. Like all things, this would have to be hashed out sensibly, so it'll likely never be implemented in a workable form.
Yep, those will be the guys taking up the support. Those that just want to play probably won't be reading the source. Besides, when was the last time one of the big games didn't have walkthroughs of all the quests within the first couple of weeks anyway?
Slashdot Mirror
How strange. Parts of both my degrees involved logic; from them, I found that it is as interesting to know that some conditions cannot exist as it is to prove they do.
Based on what you're attempting to prove/achieve, you prove that certain events/conditions do occur, or that they do not/cannot (basic example, though mathematically tortuous, take finding the conditions where 1+1=7 in base 10).
I believe that's easier to prove that the condition where that is true does not exist, than to prove that it does.
True, all that we understand now does not point to a higher being. However, it also doesn't preclude that (thus some very logical, and very bright physicists are also religious, and find absolutely no contradiction, as they understand that what they know now will likely be considered about as primitive as we consider cavemen using sparks to light fire, which was the height of technology back then).
Again, wholeheartedly with you on the big question being the nature of the universe. A person that denies what is observed by relying on "a book/person told me that is not true, so it is not true despite evidence" is, quite simply, wrong. Possibly deluded. Highly likely scared.
However, if there is a question for which we have no answer, and cannot answer (with the best of our technical ability), and has no bearing on every day life, apart from to influence being happy, then by all means, choose what you believe (or don't believe). Saying you know better is simply not true. You believe otherwise based on your perceptions.
Just a note to you, assuming that someone else is ignorant, because they don't subscribe to your point of view is both rude, and closed minded.
You seem pretty well educated, and quite bright, and I honestly think that attitude is beneath you.
I agree with some of what you say, disagree with other parts. Can see the way your arguments flow, and believe that you're employing some spurious logic of your own in there.
You just spoiled what could otherwise be a decent discussion with off handed rudeness. *Shrug*
I suspect you are quite likely right in the atheistic view, but rather hope you're not. I choose to say "I don't know". Which is entirely correct.
Legs don't really work at the microscopic level. Which puts it in the "highly unlikely" level. Specific pigmentation.. Unlikely again, due to the size..
And as for proof, you only need to prove it does exist if you hypothesize that it does. You only need to disprove it if you hypothesize that it doesn't.
If you think that the question of it existing is entirely irrelevant (which is, as things stand at the moment for humanity), the only sane thing to do is entirely avoid trying to answer the question at all.
If it helps you sleep at night, you're quite at liberty to believe that it does. And I defy anyone to prove (with current technology) that it specifically does NOT exist. That's the point of science. You get a clear cut answer without bias.
As for agnosticism not being good enough in your books, then, I'm afraid that makes you a zealot in your beliefs. If you choose to believe that there is no god, then fine. That's your choice. But really, I want to see some hard evidence (not just saying 'the bible has inaccuracies, therefore there is no god', as that really is not a logical conclusion, for the same reason it can't be used for the proof of existence of a god). Go for it. Mathematical proof and/or full experimental workings.
I know that the best I can do will neither prove, nor disprove the matter. The best of the scientists we have on the planet can neither prove nor disprove. To me, that makes the matter unsolvable by science, therefore it remains an article of belief, which is not subject to science or logic, therefore, it's not something I want to spend forever getting hung up over, or have fights about.
Personally, I find agnosticism to be the most satisfying path. If the atheists are correct, then they never get to tell me "I told you so". If the religious are correct, then one small group of people get to thumb their noses at the rest of the world and go "nyah nyah" for eternity, as they were the only ones that got the right god. Which would be distinctly embarrassing for most. Especially if it was a fringe cult that had only a handful of members that got it right. As an agnostic, I just get to say "Phew, that's a relief. Oblivion for sentience is a kinda harsh thing to truly take on board without needing something to shore up a damaged psyche".
No, science is not at odds with religion, it is complementary.
Science states that given a set of conditions, experimentation gives certain answers.
What it does not do is say that given a set of conditions that we do not yet know about, certain things will occur.
Science, at that point simply says "There is not enough information to draw a conclusion". Anything in that area is conjecture and belief.
Humanity is still a scarily primitive race (barely off the planet, with so much barely understood, and so much yet to discover), that science cannot yet even begin to answer some questions.
In the meantime, if science can't give the answer, why not let people gain comfort from a belief? Now, if they try and foist that belief on you as fact, but all means shred it apart if it doesn't fit your view, or beliefs about the things that are unknown.
Me, I'm an agnostic. I know that I don't know, and can't either prove or disprove a deity, so I'll let the existence of it, or non-existence carry on happily as it has since the beginning of time. I'll just get on with having a life as happy as I can make it, and spread a little of the good cheer where I can. After all, if there is a god, isn't that what all the texts say to do anyway? If there isn't, at least I've had a good time while I've been breathing, and so have other people around me, if I can help it!
I'd love to know your statistical source of information on that, as most of the people I know who have studied evolution are either religious, or agnostic (with a few atheists in there for luck).
In the Europe, where evolution is taught as science, and creationism/ID fits squarely in Religious Education lessons, there is a high percentage of the population that are religious. Which squarely debunks your argument that teaching evolution promotes atheism.
Now, atheism is not strictly speaking a religion, as it has no firm set of beliefs, or common practices. It is just the belief that there is no deity. And before you start ranting away that science just promotes this, that is entirely incorrect.
The most scientifically correct approach would be agnosticism, where you're not sure if there is a god or not.
Atheism is a belief, in the same sense that a religion is a belief. There is no evidence for it, and it can neither be proved nor disproved. In other words, it is just plain NOT science.
Agnosticism covers the inability to know if there is a god. It is the absence of belief in either direction.
So, I'm not against creationism, or ID. I'm just entirely against them being treated as science. I firmly think that if people keep trying to get ID put in science classes (where it really does NOT belong, as it really is NOT science), then legally, religious studies classes and churches must be obligated to put the belief of the 'creation event' to scientific scrutiny, and widely spread the word.
In other words, the process that has allowed us to progress, and build a society that spans the globe, has enabled us to leap into space, and look farther away into the universe would be turned on a belief, and would give the answer "There is no evidence for this". And with science, you can choose to ignore the conclusions (ignoring it is just willful ignorance), or attempt to disprove it (if you can absolutely prove something with evidence based on experimentation, then you win, and get to amend the theories so that they take this evidence into account. Congratulations, your view is science!). Belief is not science. Science does not care what anyone believes, it only considers what can be shown to occur time after time, observably and reliably.
Evolution meets these criteria, ID and creationism don't.
Yes, they do.. However, most have not explicitly been told by a Judge to write the documentation so that it is fit for purpose, on pain of some very nasty sanctions due to anti-trust litigation.
Being blase about that really isn't a very good tactic, and either reeks of rank stupidity, or sheer insolence. And I don't happen to believe for a moment that Microsoft, as an entity, is stupid.
Maybe with the possibility of having to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to bail out the financial sector, governmental offices are at long last waking up to the fact that they need to balance the books on behalf of the taxpayer. It's all very nice having campaign contributions from industry, but if there's no money in the coffers, winning the election will be a poisoned chalice. Already, there's no money in the coffers, but being seen to shell out more taxpayer money to support industry, with no return to the taxpayer, is pretty much political suicide in today's climate.
For the last god alone knows how many years, the basic taxpayer has been quiescent, going about the daily work, with the odd grumble or two, and the government has been able to get away with the odd outcry now and then. At the moment, a lot of people are looking long and hard at where every penny they pay goes. Not quite civil unrest, but certainly large scale discontent that could easily escalate.
Hmm.. This is a copy paste of the post made by Sasayaki (earlier in the thread). Or is it the other way around?
I'm on death row. The death is irritating, but at least they're not using the electric chair.
Somewhere along the line, you've missed the point; This DRM cripples your rights to resell a game (if it stinks, you can sell it on and recoup some of your losses, if it's not one you want to hold on to and play again and again, you can resell it). It cripples your ability to do anything with it that you'd normally expect to do with something you buy (you can lend a book to your mate; CD in the drive protection allows you to do this with a game, DRM doesn't).
There is a whole historic section of law that guarantees the purchasor's rights to do what they want with items they have bought. Software companies, and DRM in particular have been trying VERY hard these last few years to work their way around the law, so that technically, you do still have the right to sell on the game (you can put the install DVD on Ebay or whatever), but it will be useless to the person who purchases it, making your legal rights useless.
In other words, yes, these companies are effectively stealing from you (yes, exactly what they're saying pirates do to them).
They are deliberately killing the resale market, ensuring you have no ability to recoup any of the money you spent on the item (or donating it to charity in the way of charity bookshops etc.), in any way the law says you should be able to do with such an item (as it was fair to be able to do such a thing).
Yes, I know the first sale doctrine is confused because the software companies say that software is 'licensed'. The day they turn round and say that they'll replace all media once it's broken, and allow perpetual updates, and not tie it to any particular machine, and vastly reduce the cost, then I may think twice (actually, I use Steam, as it lets me do most of that).
As it stands, the companies are way too greedy and grasping, feeling quite at home screwing over their customers in the attempt to create larger sales. The sooner this ends, and a 'fair' market resumes (in the same way it happened with books and such) the better.
Then very fast, word would get out, and voila, you'd be a target. The next guy, and the next, and the next wouldn't let you know. They'd pull the data from under your feet, and sell it. And if they were malicous, they'd (anonymously) let your bosses know they'd done it, and you were too crap to prevent it.
Me, I'm a sysadmin, and I have no illusions that I can cover all the necessary security points, as I can't. If someone dropped me a note to say "I broke in, this is how I did it, and this is how you cure it.", I'd probably offer to buy the guy a beer.
Note to self, this guy can outwit me in this area. He's useful to know, and seems to want to do the honorable thing (legal, illegal, that's irrelevant; they actively want to do what's right).
Yeah, I'd be upset about being 'caught out' like that. And somewhat scared. But that's life, and the world is a harsh and scary place. Live with it. Find allies where you can, and people that can be cultivated to guard your back by giving them a little leeway, and guard theirs.
I may be wrong, but it sounds like you're happy in your ignorance; the emperor's new clothes and all that. As long as nobody tells you there's a problem and points out that you're not the greatest thing since sliced break, all's good.
Personally, I'd prefer to seem the fool than be one. And at the place I work, this approach has led people to consider that I'm neither.
Had to laugh at (seemingly) being called a kid when I'm pushing 40.. Made my day I'll tell ya!
I'll try and avoid your lawn, but not quite sure where it is (seeing as the world's a reasonably sizable place, I'll hazard a bet that I'll be reasonably successful), I can't guarantee it..
1) Steal the public domain
2) Divert tax money to support your thieving (that's the copyright cops)
3) Steal the hardware of the public by accusation of theft by the public
4) Profit!
Honestly, all the talk I hear of IP theft from the entertainment industry, and so few yell that they have effectively stolen the WHOLE of the public domain (which was supposed to be there to allow culture to be accessible by all, and to help it grow!).
Not so sure it would. It's one of those that I bought and played, and about halfway through just ended up thinking "Meh, this is standard fodder". There was nothing groundbreaking, or innovative about it.
Standard platform style, with story borrowed from a mashup of mythology.
The audio, good, if the music is your cup of tea. Video? Good, as was just about every other game around then. Gameplay? Interesting, but sometimes frustrating. Nothing different there.
It's a fair enough implementation of a formula, but not anything that I'd call a classic.
Maybe you will be one of those that fondly loads up an emulator in 10-20 years and plays sections the game with that feeling of nostalgia (I get that feeling with Pong, the first arcade game I ever played).. But I think you'll be one of a select few.
I honestly never thought I'd be on the side of disagreeing with you, but in this, I'd be more inclined to say on the side of general fair play, I'd land on the Judge's side with this.
I absolutely hate the way copyright is going with its eternal extension, forever putting the public domain just out of reach, but there is definitely a point that you need to say an author has control over their works.
10-20 years is one of those "feel good" points for me, in that most will have made their money after that time (if they're going to, and I believe there have been the odd few studies that've mathematically put sweet spots on the time limits of Copyright too).
From what I've read so far (and I daren't read raw judgements; they'll mean as much to me as trying to read it in Latin. Yes I can do it, it'll just sink way too much of my life away to make it worthwhile), JK allows pretty much verbatim sections to be put online in Lexicons for free (and there are more than a few companies that'd hop all over that for damages due to copyright infringement).
What she objects to is someone putting substantial amounts of what she wrote, verbatim, in a book and getting paid for it (with the addition of some notes). Not objecting to discourses on her books, or other analyses, just that there was rather too much of her verbatim work in a book that was due to be published.
If the chap had just asked the agents at the start of the work (knowing it to be heavily reliant on large passages of JKs work) to contact JK (or her agents), and ask her how much of her work she'd be happy with in his Lexicon, perhaps this could have been more amicable at the start (and hey, he may have come away with either a joint project, or at least an officially blessed version, which would have been worth hard cash to have that on the cover). Would delay things a little, but would have ended up much happier.
This, as I mentioned is just my opinion, based on what I've read in various sources, and I may be missing an entirely relevant section due to not understanding all the legal technicalities at play here; just from a layman's side, it does seem fair. And much as it must be rather frustrating to have to put in plain terms what comes as second nature to someone in the profession, could you do the honours, and just put in simple terms why it is that the Judge screwed up, and why protecting a work that's a smidge over 11 years old (that's still shiny, for all those that love car analogies) is such a despicable act?
Actually, it changed the world a lot.. The world used to believe that the US actually had shreds of decency and fairness left in its legal system, and hoped that perhaps the people had a say in their Government, rather than it being owned by the Corporates.
I'd disagree a little about your comment on engineers being horrified at the amount of imprecision going on in software.
True software engineers, on truly critical systems (think avionics, medical etc) put a lot of precision and calculation into the designs and testing, and are every bit as rigorous as a chemical, civil, mechanical or electronic engineering project.
Many more of the people with CS degrees out there in the big wide world or work are also fully capable of putting that kind of rigor into a project.
What just isn't happening though is management seeing that this needs to happen. All the other branches of engineering have some big edifice, or contraption that stands in front of someone, looking shiny, and people think "I can see where that money went!"..
With software (in general), all people see is a set of forms, a word processor.. Some pretty graphics.. And to most, it's simple.. Magic.. You wave a wand, and there it is. After all, how difficult can it be to make a button appear on a screen and do the right thing (they had VB to play with, and it's so hard to explain that VB is to Software Engineering what Lego is to Civil Engineering to a management type)?
At the moment, there's far too much acceptance at the consumer level of bad software.. After all, it can be spun by the company as 'features' and denied (as usual). People tend to be far more accepting of dodgy software than they are of poorly made bridges.
The "pro" to this is that there is a plethora of software, weird, wacky and wonderful. When IT "grows up", there will probably be far less of this idiosyncratic stuff, and most things will be shiny virtual edifices that people look at and go "ooo.. Now we see where the money went!".
You already have the right to do that. However, you don't have the right to expect support for it (unless there's an official port), and you'll need the emulation tools to make it work.
However, you do still have the 'right'.
Actually, what I'd expect is a thorough roughing up, put under watch, and hear about all the security detail on the base facing court martial.
If I managed to wander into a US base, say.. Rummage around the files for UFO evidence, then leave the base, but leave enough evidence to point back to me.. And I'd returned by flight to my own country, I'd expect a thorough kicking from my own government for causing a diplomatic incident, and to be put on a list that stopped me EVER entering the US again.
What I wouldn't expect would be being extradited. Especially to a country that refused to sign up to its side of the bargain!
Would you be happy going into a car showroom, purchasing the shiny toy of your choice for a few grand, then being told to sod off because the vendor didn't feel like giving you the car after all? I'd be getting the money back sharpish! Shame the UK lackwit government doesn't have the nuts to do that.
Precis: This guy deserves a thorough drubbing for causing a diplomatic incident. And certainly to be tracked by intelligence services to make sure he complies with being "a good boy" (or maybe teaches them a thing or two about security!).
He doesn't deserve to be praised, as, lets face it, he was pretty naughty.
But, the punishment should fit the crime. This just harks back to days of old where they'd chop off the hands of a thief, or hang them. Completely over the top and barbaric.
Yep, I work in a hospital at the moment, with a 'front line' tech staff of about 20 (including managers and internal software developers).
Staff, circa 3.500.
They do the whole 'outsourcing' via buying in applications that the development dept. don't have resource to write, at a yearly licensing cost about on par with what it would take to develop it internally in developer time. All the apps come with "vendor supported" so that it doesn't (in theory) take up IT time. In reality, the vendors (apart from one or two out of the many) never have staff available to do the work when things go wrong, or find a myriad other ways to get out of it, so in reality, it's all IT supported.
There simply aren't enough staff to cope with this; in the NHS in the uk, the 'outsourcing' is very broken in most instances.
I have ideas that I keep presenting that may help with this; to date, the heirarchy isn't listening. Yet.
No. none of the masks are illegal. Nor are the balaclavas, as they show about as much as the average Burqa. And the wearing of Burqas about the street has been shown to be legal in the UK (on the grounds that banning it would be religious discrimination, despite there being nothing about it being mandatory wear in the religious texts).
Wonder what would happen if they changed the balaclava for a burqa in the box??
Actually, they DO need to consider returns. If you buy a game, and it just plain won't work on a PC due to some problem or another (and yes, it happens!), then the company needs to take that into account, and take the damn game back.
If I buy a DVD, and it doesn't work in my player, you can guarantee I'll take it back. And I'll make sure the shop refunds me the money. And you know what? They do.
Now, I've taken a game back in the past, where the install CD was absolutely blank. No tracks burned on it.. Nada. I took it back to the store, and they simply said "We don't do refunds on games". I had to drag that right back to their head office with a legal threat under the consumer protection legislation before they deigned to offer me a refund.
I've also had games that plain just bombed out as soon as I started to run them. Not playable.
And you try getting a shop to take them back.
Software is the one product these days that shops will absolutely refuse to take back and refund for. Which for me, makes me far less likely to buy, as I have no faith in their need to produce something of quality.
If they're not confident that something will work, then I'm not going to part with hard earned money in faith that I'll be getting something of merchantable quality.
Put DRM into the mix too.. Which I consider breaks a product, then I'm really not going to buy.
I'm an ex EVE player, and have to admit, I loved the universe, the trading and a little bit of risk of building things up.
In year or so that I played (pretty casually), I came across the odd pirate or two. Interestingly, in the earlier days, the pirates were a challenge. When geared up, it was a tossup who would win (with odds in favour of the pirates usually, but some chance to escape). That's what got the adrenaline pumping, the chance to slug it out with an actual opponent, and have a battle of wits to try and fight through. When the pirates won, they'd loot up (and from the hard fought battles, you knew they'd make use of the cash/gear). There's a few times when I've even sent a tell to the ambusher to congratulate them on winning a hard fought fight!
It can be as fun to lose to a sportsman as it is to win. You learn something.
In the latter days there, I found the majority had shifted to extremely well armed ships popping up in pretty secure space, and simply toasting anyone they could find. No pirating of the ships. No real money to be made. Not enough profit to really interest them (the equivalent to using a military navy prototype battlecruiser to hold a pensioner's outing riverboat to ransom).
They simply turned up, blew people away with vastly superior firepower, and after a few hours, moved to the next system to do just the same.
End result: Most of the newbies had their days ruined. No chance of escape (and none offered), just simple griefing. They frequently ended up podding people too (extra cost, extra inconvenience, and honestly, just plain nasty). Nothing to be learned, except that there are people out there who just want to piss you off.
When it got to that point, I simply cancelled my account and walked away. I don't mind a hard fight. I don't mind a challenge. It's just no fun to have people just come along to cause grief.
None of the posts on here that say "The players ARE the game" make me feel better about that, as honestly, those kind of people I can do without. They don't create fun. They don't give you a challenge. All you get to do when you encounter those groups is sit and watch for a few seconds as your ship is systematically shut down to a a crawl, and then your shields and hull tick down to nothing. You can't dent them. Can't scratch the paintwork even. Your only option (once you respawn at your clone location) is to head elsewhere in your backup ship and hope that they don't follow (which, inevitably, someone just like them will do soon enough).
In short, challenge is good and fun. If I want to keep getting assholes trying to ruin my day, I can get that for free just by going into a rough pub on a Saturday night.
BattleCruiser 3000AD was the one that felt that way to me.. Coupled with trying to run the whole ship.. It was certainly a hard work game, but realistic for all that!
Depends on the model. For a tech that's happy to fix all their own issues, and do tweaking of config files in an editor and really get under the hood, then the cost of software is going to approach zero.
However, for almost everyone else, they want to know there's someone out there to phone when things to wrong, who is knowledgeable enough about the product to fix the issue. That's part of the cost you pay in Software, the 'maintenance lifecycle' part. Your software will slowly be improved, or fixed.
Really, more akin to saying "The cost of car maintenance is going to approach zero simply because it can". If you're a mechanic, sure. If you know nothing about cars, and don't want to, there will always be support costs (some which are built into the cost of providing a warranty of the car, if you're on the 'upgrade cycle').
There will always be 'pay for' software, and there will always be free software, which is as things should be. It maintains a diverse ecosystem, which is far more resilient and flexible than a monoculture.
Bear in mind obsolescence and market saturation times as well.
Patents were developed with a long time to market and market saturation time (i.e. several years to ramp up production, then about 10-15 years to get a market using this as almost a standard), which ate up about half of the patent time. So you had about the same time again to enjoy the benefits of a stable market before the floodgates were opened, and everyone could make it.
In the software world, a technique can have the development time of hours. Market saturation can happen in weeks/months.
If software were to be patentable in its current form, I'd say 5 years would be a good ballpark figure. Like all things, this would have to be hashed out sensibly, so it'll likely never be implemented in a workable form.
Yep, those will be the guys taking up the support.
Those that just want to play probably won't be reading the source.
Besides, when was the last time one of the big games didn't have walkthroughs of all the quests within the first couple of weeks anyway?