The "Bushism" I refer to is your mixing/butchering of metaphors, which is one of his trademark failings. It has nothing to do with any quote from Cheney.
Then, when it was pointed out, you brushed off as if it were a change in the language, thus trying to excuse a plain old mistake with a flat-out lie. You can attack me all you like, but it won't change the facts.
I seriously doubt you're going to find any answers here that haven't been more completely thought out, and more accurately answered than at www.sloperama.com Tom Sloper has been a professional game designer for more years than some of the readers here have been alive...and he has graciously (mostly) put together a tremendously large FAQ to address just the kind of question you ask...including why your question is a poorly worded one.
The things you ask are about being a developer, not a designer. Which one are you interested in?
Part of the concept of commerce or trade is "mutual agreement", which is completely missing in a case of piracy. People insist on calling piracy theft because when you pirate my work, you get the benefit -of- my work, without any agreement on my part. It may not precisely qualify as theft, but you should be glad we refer to it as that, and not as slavery (taking someone's work without any agreement on their part).
#1 is the exact situation the OP was referring to, is it not? The company has -already- written custom software...how expensive it was is irrelevant, the point was that they only wrote it because having it offered some advantage over the competition. A level playing field is a step backwards then, and a poor choice. If the custom software is -worse- than some COTS or OS software, then we're looking at a different story...but that's not what we were told here.
As for #3, and your collaborators not being competitors...if it's open source, you -are- giving it to your competitors, plain and simple. It doesn't matter whether they are actively collaborating or not. It's open source, they -will- find it sooner or later. That's sort of the point, isn't it?
What Open Source does is to liberate a little of this 90%, the bits which other organisations might find useful and can easily adopt into their IT systems. The companies that release it get: feedback, bug fixes and enhacements. The guys who receive/use the software send their patches back because doing so is less (long term) work than putting the patches into each new release that comes out. And here's the part that the open-source fanbois always seem to overlook. Software that is "useful" to a business is, by definition, a competitive advantage. Releasing it to your competitors is just giving up an edge. No matter how much better it can be made by feedback, bug fixes, and enhancements, you've still given away an advantage.
It's rather like playing tennis on a grass court...your opponent's side of the court is bumpy, making it difficult for him to predict how the ball will bounce (and thus, difficult to get in position to return it). You have steamrolled your side flat, providing for a reliable, predictable bounce of the ball. If you share this process with him, even if he shows you how to get it even flatter, you -lose- the edge you had. It's simply not a good choice to make...unless you're not competing with anyone, or the software doesn't offer any benefit (in which case you should dump it entirely, not make it open-source).
Honestly, if you can't come up with material yourself, you shouldn't call yourself an artist.
If you can't be bothered to ask the originator if she minds if you reuse her work, you can't call yourself respectful.
If you can't honor the wishes of the originator when he says he doesn't want you reusing his work, you shouldn't call yourself honest.
All in all, the only way in which I'd miss the recyclers is in the lack of easy targets for mockery.
That's not the normal definition of "artificial insemination". Rather, the definition you give is that of in-vitro fertilization. Artificial insemination never removes the egg from the female, it simply injects sperm via a syringe, rather than directly from a penis.
To call Star Wars "one of the better sci-fi stories told" really exposes a tremendous lack of familiarity with the good science authors over the last 50 years. Star Wars is, and was even in the first movie, nothing but space opera (and not even very GOOD space opera), full of bad or non science, and deus ex machina plot devices.
Read some good science fiction, and you'll quickly see the difference...I highly recommend trying some Robert L. Forward, some C.S. Friedman, some Vernor Vinge, or some Stephen Baxter. If you swing more for the adventure side, check out some of the true classics: Robert A Heinlein, Poul Anderson, Charles Sheffield, Isaac Asimov (for science, not for characters), or John Brunner.
>
That may well be what the article calls an evolutionary process...but there's nothing evolutionary about that process. Where's the equivalent of "natural selection" that assures the next generation tends to be more "fit"? For that matter, where's the next generation at all? Wikipedia is more like a war than evolution, with many unending battles being fought over control of the same hill(s)...
Evolution isn't just anything that has a lot of small changes, you know...that's only one small part of the package.
People on the whole are apathetic, don't know about the issues and don't research the products they purchase, especially for software like games.
It's probably more accurate to say that people are mostly unaffected by these products, than to say they're apathetic. I, for one, have never suffered any problems from SecuROM (or even from that ultimate evil, Starforce). If it's not hurting me, don't expect me to get all upset about it. I will vote with my wallet, by buying games that I enjoy. Should some copy protection scheme actually cause me grief, rest assured I'll not buy any more products that use it. Until then...well, I still won't buy the Sims, because I don't really enjoy it...but it won't be because some loudmouths claim there's a bad thing loaded on the DVD.
If we want to crack this image before our generation turns 50 and we finally get to see some power (somewhere in 15-25 years, I'd say), we have to tell our politicians that yes, we're gamers, yes, we are adults, yes, we buy games for ourselves and not for our kids and, mostly, YES, WE VOTE.
Unless you can convince a large number of voters that games are an issue worthy of being a "single-issue voter", you're wasting your time. And if you can convince a large number of people that getting some legal respect for games is one of the most important issues we face today, then god help us all...because we certainly can't depend on the voters to do so with any intelligence.
I mean, I work for an online gaming company, but even I have to say that there's simply no way that games are in any way deserving of even 20 minutes worth of legislative time. There are literally hundreds (or thousands) of more important issues to deal with first. While I understand the irritation it causes to get lumped in with the kids (I'm in my late 40s myself), let's not get carried away.
Your woeful ignorance of the concept of jury nullification not only bothers me, but it terrifies me.
And the fact that someone deems it acceptable to post legal advice as an anonymous source on the internet not only irritates the hell out of me, but it terrifies me that someone might actually believe you should be trusted.
>
You mean, "...put his foot down after he got his", right? I mean, he signed the frikkin contract, collected his benefits, and now he wants to stab the label in the back. The proper place to have put his foot down was before signing, not after. The man's clearly honorless scum, and nobody you'd want to do business with.
You mean, like a recording contract that gives the publishing authority to the record label? That kind of legally binding agreement?
I'm damned glad I've never done business with Reznor, given how clearly he's demonstrating his lack of integrity. Sign a contract, then turn around and stab the other party in the back...yeah, a great partner.
Just a reminder, integrity doesn't depend on who you're dealing with, it only depends on your actions.
IMHO, that's why Economics is regarded by some as little more than fortune-telling, because you can hardly isolate a single variable and experiment on it in the real world.
Economics is distinctly worse than fortune-telling! Fortune-tellers will generally agree on what to tell a chump, or at least converge on a few alternatives...economists seem far more likely to generate a minimum of one opinion per economist.
The OP doesn't want MS to open source its code, neither does s/he wanna know what they have patented. S/he wants to see the code in order to know what patents they are infringing... for a level playing field (after all, MS can see the FOSS code, can't they?).
Yes, we all know that "guilty until proven innocent" is the standard for Microsoft, never mind what the rules are for the rest of the world.
"...because they have developed a system whereby there is no challenge to their faith that they cannot nullify. No amount of inconsistency in their world view is going to sway them."
Sounds like a pretty good description of psychosis, doesn't it?
How can anyone possibly be surprised that the audience of a game targeted at griefers, might not set too many limits on their behavior. I mean, really, I'd have thought they would all be great sportsmen.::snicker::
It is precisely a rationalization when the only "considering" being done is by the consumer who wants to gain benefit of the creator's skill/time without getting the consent of the creator. Typically, the definition of trade requires consent from both parties...not just the consumer. It is just as black and white as that. If both parties don't consent, someone is getting ripped off.
As a software developer myself, I can assure you that if you choose to unilaterally take my work without my consent, I'll have no qualms or regrets in doing what I can to see you do some time. And I truly hope you enjoy Bubba's attentions. Don't want to do the time? Then restrict yourself to consensual trades (a redundant term to anyone with a brain, but apparently necessary here).
If you already have it, then kill yourself. why the hell would you want to just hold on and slowly watch the world crumble around you while you sit uselessly and smug in your knowledge that you HAVE it? explain the meaning of that?
Whooosh! Right over your head... It's pretty obvious to any reader paying attention that the "it" he was referring to was "the chance to see if..." That chance, you already have. Which makes the rest of your rant more or less irrelevant and pointless.
Writing database-independent code is, to be blunt, in almost every case a stupid move. How often do you change databases in the real world? Almost never. Database independence is writing to the least common denominator, and really just ensures that you're never going to perform well on -any- database.
A far more useful approach is to write database-specific modules that perform well on the database they're written to support, and can be (if it's ever really necessary) swapped out with a module for your new database.
Slashdot Mirror
Dude, the Fairness Doctrine was abolished over twenty years ago. Maybe a clue before you rant would be a good idea.
You just can't admit to making a mistake, can you? I'm done wasting my time here, you've made yourself perfectly clear. You're -never- wrong.
The "Bushism" I refer to is your mixing/butchering of metaphors, which is one of his trademark failings. It has nothing to do with any quote from Cheney. Then, when it was pointed out, you brushed off as if it were a change in the language, thus trying to excuse a plain old mistake with a flat-out lie. You can attack me all you like, but it won't change the facts.
No, such Bushism's do not constitute "changing of the language"....they simply demonstrate the idiocy of the speaker.
I seriously doubt you're going to find any answers here that haven't been more completely thought out, and more accurately answered than at www.sloperama.com Tom Sloper has been a professional game designer for more years than some of the readers here have been alive...and he has graciously (mostly) put together a tremendously large FAQ to address just the kind of question you ask...including why your question is a poorly worded one. The things you ask are about being a developer, not a designer. Which one are you interested in?
Part of the concept of commerce or trade is "mutual agreement", which is completely missing in a case of piracy. People insist on calling piracy theft because when you pirate my work, you get the benefit -of- my work, without any agreement on my part. It may not precisely qualify as theft, but you should be glad we refer to it as that, and not as slavery (taking someone's work without any agreement on their part).
I get the impression that someone may not understand the meaning of the word "secretly"...
As for #3, and your collaborators not being competitors...if it's open source, you -are- giving it to your competitors, plain and simple. It doesn't matter whether they are actively collaborating or not. It's open source, they -will- find it sooner or later. That's sort of the point, isn't it?
It's rather like playing tennis on a grass court...your opponent's side of the court is bumpy, making it difficult for him to predict how the ball will bounce (and thus, difficult to get in position to return it). You have steamrolled your side flat, providing for a reliable, predictable bounce of the ball. If you share this process with him, even if he shows you how to get it even flatter, you -lose- the edge you had. It's simply not a good choice to make...unless you're not competing with anyone, or the software doesn't offer any benefit (in which case you should dump it entirely, not make it open-source).
Honestly, if you can't come up with material yourself, you shouldn't call yourself an artist.
If you can't be bothered to ask the originator if she minds if you reuse her work, you can't call yourself respectful.
If you can't honor the wishes of the originator when he says he doesn't want you reusing his work, you shouldn't call yourself honest.
All in all, the only way in which I'd miss the recyclers is in the lack of easy targets for mockery.
That's not the normal definition of "artificial insemination". Rather, the definition you give is that of in-vitro fertilization. Artificial insemination never removes the egg from the female, it simply injects sperm via a syringe, rather than directly from a penis.
To call Star Wars "one of the better sci-fi stories told" really exposes a tremendous lack of familiarity with the good science authors over the last 50 years. Star Wars is, and was even in the first movie, nothing but space opera (and not even very GOOD space opera), full of bad or non science, and deus ex machina plot devices.
Read some good science fiction, and you'll quickly see the difference...I highly recommend trying some Robert L. Forward, some C.S. Friedman, some Vernor Vinge, or some Stephen Baxter. If you swing more for the adventure side, check out some of the true classics: Robert A Heinlein, Poul Anderson, Charles Sheffield, Isaac Asimov (for science, not for characters), or John Brunner.
> That may well be what the article calls an evolutionary process...but there's nothing evolutionary about that process. Where's the equivalent of "natural selection" that assures the next generation tends to be more "fit"? For that matter, where's the next generation at all? Wikipedia is more like a war than evolution, with many unending battles being fought over control of the same hill(s)...
Evolution isn't just anything that has a lot of small changes, you know...that's only one small part of the package.
People on the whole are apathetic, don't know about the issues and don't research the products they purchase, especially for software like games.
It's probably more accurate to say that people are mostly unaffected by these products, than to say they're apathetic. I, for one, have never suffered any problems from SecuROM (or even from that ultimate evil, Starforce). If it's not hurting me, don't expect me to get all upset about it. I will vote with my wallet, by buying games that I enjoy. Should some copy protection scheme actually cause me grief, rest assured I'll not buy any more products that use it. Until then...well, I still won't buy the Sims, because I don't really enjoy it...but it won't be because some loudmouths claim there's a bad thing loaded on the DVD.
If we want to crack this image before our generation turns 50 and we finally get to see some power (somewhere in 15-25 years, I'd say), we have to tell our politicians that yes, we're gamers, yes, we are adults, yes, we buy games for ourselves and not for our kids and, mostly, YES, WE VOTE.
Unless you can convince a large number of voters that games are an issue worthy of being a "single-issue voter", you're wasting your time. And if you can convince a large number of people that getting some legal respect for games is one of the most important issues we face today, then god help us all...because we certainly can't depend on the voters to do so with any intelligence.
I mean, I work for an online gaming company, but even I have to say that there's simply no way that games are in any way deserving of even 20 minutes worth of legislative time. There are literally hundreds (or thousands) of more important issues to deal with first. While I understand the irritation it causes to get lumped in with the kids (I'm in my late 40s myself), let's not get carried away.
Your woeful ignorance of the concept of jury nullification not only bothers me, but it terrifies me.
And the fact that someone deems it acceptable to post legal advice as an anonymous source on the internet not only irritates the hell out of me, but it terrifies me that someone might actually believe you should be trusted.
> You mean, "...put his foot down after he got his", right? I mean, he signed the frikkin contract, collected his benefits, and now he wants to stab the label in the back. The proper place to have put his foot down was before signing, not after. The man's clearly honorless scum, and nobody you'd want to do business with.
You mean, like a recording contract that gives the publishing authority to the record label? That kind of legally binding agreement? I'm damned glad I've never done business with Reznor, given how clearly he's demonstrating his lack of integrity. Sign a contract, then turn around and stab the other party in the back...yeah, a great partner. Just a reminder, integrity doesn't depend on who you're dealing with, it only depends on your actions.
Yes, we all know that "guilty until proven innocent" is the standard for Microsoft, never mind what the rules are for the rest of the world.
Sounds like a pretty good description of psychosis, doesn't it?
How can anyone possibly be surprised that the audience of a game targeted at griefers, might not set too many limits on their behavior. I mean, really, I'd have thought they would all be great sportsmen. ::snicker::
It is precisely a rationalization when the only "considering" being done is by the consumer who wants to gain benefit of the creator's skill/time without getting the consent of the creator. Typically, the definition of trade requires consent from both parties...not just the consumer. It is just as black and white as that. If both parties don't consent, someone is getting ripped off.
As a software developer myself, I can assure you that if you choose to unilaterally take my work without my consent, I'll have no qualms or regrets in doing what I can to see you do some time. And I truly hope you enjoy Bubba's attentions. Don't want to do the time? Then restrict yourself to consensual trades (a redundant term to anyone with a brain, but apparently necessary here).
If you already have it, then kill yourself. why the hell would you want to just hold on and slowly watch the world crumble around you while you sit uselessly and smug in your knowledge that you HAVE it? explain the meaning of that? Whooosh! Right over your head... It's pretty obvious to any reader paying attention that the "it" he was referring to was "the chance to see if..." That chance, you already have. Which makes the rest of your rant more or less irrelevant and pointless.
Writing database-independent code is, to be blunt, in almost every case a stupid move. How often do you change databases in the real world? Almost never. Database independence is writing to the least common denominator, and really just ensures that you're never going to perform well on -any- database. A far more useful approach is to write database-specific modules that perform well on the database they're written to support, and can be (if it's ever really necessary) swapped out with a module for your new database.