I think the fact that one of their specific complaints is that it would "open up businesses to [...] costly lawsuits" is the exact reason to allow this piece of legislation to move forward.
If these companies are doing shit with our personal information that is so shady that it would immediately cause a flood of lawsuits once this bill brought those things to light (which everyone pretty much already knows), this seems like legislation we should have had long ago.
There aren't only two parties to choose from. They are all politicians and they are on their own side. The people of our country base their political opinions on partisan media sources that tell them what they want to hear or antiquated family indoctrinations into the 'side that doesn't lie to you' but ultimately we are kept so divided by this idiocy that we can't find a middle-ground ANYWHERE.
Every intelligent, responsible individual in this country should register non-partisan and make their own decisions just based upon principle alone. This country was founded in that light and everyone seems to forget that we don't have to go one way or the other...we don't have to be part of a club. Everyone is so terrified of being wrong and everyone has such a desperate need for someone to point the finger at but ultimately we should be looking in a fucking mirror. Our politicians serve as an extension of the people and I don't blame them anymore for being conniving, self-interested liars and thieves...we made them this way by accepting and SUPPORTING their behavior.
If we even got a fraction of the country to separate themselves from their ideologies for a moment and to really think things through without trying to find a way to justify their opinion while disregarding any contrary thoughts or evidence, the political structure of our country would shift drastically. In the end, as long as we can turn on Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, etc. and hear exactly what we want to hear, we are all perfectly fine with fighting each other and doing nothing. High five America.
This is unequivocally true for a significant portion of women through a large span of their lives. You don't necessarily need the tokens to get to the eventual goal of sexy time but they can help significantly. This is also true for most men although the tokens are not usually required...just some beer and attention.
Ultimately if you are looking for a relationship, tokens don't work out well for anything meaningful. If you are just looking for something warm and squishy, however, tokens can be your best resource if you are making no progress without them. When it comes down to it, a combination of confidence and tokens yields the highest result because without any of the confidence part of the equation, the tokens only work on those women whose profession requires accepting those tokens.
You are saying that in four years the quality of patent submissions has increased by at least 20% but the case you quoted terminated in 2006 which was at least 3 years before the trend has changed and there was no trending change in patent approvals vs submissions in that interim period. The submissions approval process should have shown that changing trend 1-2 years after the completion of the KSR v Teleflex ruling had been handed down that in some way follows a progression to today or at least to 2010 when Obama increased funding.
Another reason the backlog of patents has declined is that the USPTO is better funded, and has hired many more patent examiners. In 2005, there were about 7300 examiners. Today, there are more than 9500.
It seems to me that we need to compare the numbers here. So looking at 2005 as you mentioned, there were 417,508 patents filed. That means a per-examiner average of 57.19 patents. Fast forward to today, in 2012 there were 576,763 patents filed which gives us a per-examiner average of 60.71 patents. Instead of showing a decrease in the average patents indicating a more acceptable workload for examiners, we instead find that the opposite is the case. Given even the budget increase that provided for additional examiners, the workload on each examiner has been increased by ~6.4% since 2005 which should indicate that the approval rate should be in the same ballpark as it has trended to in the past. I can see no way to account for the 20% increase in patent approvals when the workload has also increased.
I browse the USPTO approved patents occasionally just for fun because seeing what gets approved is laughable sometimes. Ultimately I haven't seen any difference in quality of those approved at all but I do not evaluate a significant enough subset of the total approved patents to say with certainty that this is the case. I find it very hard to believe, however, that in the face of increased workload the quality of overall submissions has improved so drastically in 3 years that 20% more patents are being approved. With such massive datasets, a huge trend change like this almost never occurs. You can't tell me that out of 276,788 approved patents 55,358 of them just suddenly got better than previous years when the ruling in KSR v Teleflex that should have spurred these changes happened ~4 years earlier. Again, there should be a trend to the changes that shows an upward swing in approvals rather than this:
Ultimately, just looking at the numbers comparisons, it is almost as though every additional patent to the total number of patents since 2009 has been approved. For example, in 2010 there were 37,306 more patents than 2009 but there are !!52,414!! more approved patents. Taking the same comparison but going 2011 vs 2009 (because this is the year that shows the marked trend change), we have 52,317 more patents and 55,786 more approved patents. Finally, in 2012 vs 2009, we have 93,982 more patents and 84,861 approved patents (the first time since 2009 there have been less approved patents than the increase of actual submissions). What intrigues me most about these numbers is that we see a huge increase in the number of submitted patents during 2010 and on...I have heard through the grapevine that this is because of the slackening in standards at the USPTO to bolster the agency's numbers which has spurred the patent trolls but IANAPL (patent lawyer) so I wouldn't know anything about whether this is reality or not.
How about direct employee perspectives: http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Electronic-Arts-Reviews-E1628.htm
Also, while you work for a competitor and don't really know what conditions are like in the many divisions of EA, I have two friends who do work for them in separate divisions and both say that the working environment is one of extreme stress, constant worry about your job, and requires that you work between 60 and 80 hours a week non-stop without overtime. If you complain about the hours, tough titty...you want to keep your job. While this may not necessarily be a real sweatshop as in children assembling shoes for $1/day for 12 hours (it's called a metaphor), even working for a competitor you have to pity those studios who have been bought up and absorbed into the giant shit machine that is EA. Talk about a night and day paradigm shift.
You don't like their games? Don't buy them. You don't like the games my employer makes? Don't buy them. But sweatshops are sweatshops. I strive to be a great developer on great games for people that love games, but the sanctimoniousness tone of gamers these days with an outside perspective on how our industry really ticks makes it increasingly more difficult.
I have a fair perspective on how the industry ticks and I'm saying, without sanctimony, that working for EA (maybe not in all divisions) sucks ass - from the mouth of the employees themselves. You may make awesome games...I'm not insulting you.
And don't worry, you shouldn't have illusions about your boycott - there are enough folks like you who paint massive companies or countries or organizations with broad brushes that they actually do have an impact. So you can be happy your scatterbombs do impact the performances of games and get well meaning studios closed and reopened elsewhere (rebranded, because apparently, this is very confusing for people like you.) You might not take down EA, but you can be glad you'll probably be very very slightly responsible for an EA studio here and there to get shutdown for under performing just because of the monolithic brand they were operating under even though you wanted to play such and such a game.
Wait...didn't you just say to not buy their games if i don't like them? I'm pretty sure that's exactly what I said I'm already doing. You want to blame me for getting studios shut down because they are part of a giant mismanaged corporate entity?? Who's being sanctimonious now? Ultimately it is probably better for them because they can find a job at another developer like yours where they have a good work environment, can make some money, and can take pride in what they do as you do. As I said, and you reconfirmed - I have no illusions that my impact on their sales means a damn thing. The whole reason I don't purchase their games is because each one that I've tried in the last ~6 years has been garbage or riddled with issues regardless of how excited I was to play it or how much I wanted to like it.
I just think it's fucking retarded to claim you're into games and think that railing against EA as a whole will lead to some kind of corporate meritocracy in the industry. You think you're playing games? You're the one who's being played.
Again, I have no illusions that some meritocracy will form out of my protest. I'm didn't claim I was pulling a Gandhi and going on a hunger strike dude...I have been disappointed with their games repeatedly and so I don't buy their games anymore. I said, in a nutshell, that it was their mismanagement of their giant corporate machine that kills their games and that it would take their developers leaving for greener pastures to force some real change at the company. Your last statements are just silly but I have this to say: If you think that the conditions at EA are just something that you have to deal with to be a developer in your industry, and if your employer treats you like EA does its employees, then you work in a soulless environment that saps all of your creative drive and you are the one being played my friend.
Your analogy is a straw man and does not apply. Airbags were not tested thoroughly with child seats and therefore when they killed children, of course they were liable. In this case, the guy was holding the trigger of the gun down, pointing it at someone, and flipped the safety off thereby intentionally disabling the safety feature intended to protect from accidental discharge. The gun did not misfire, the safety did not fail, the guy disabled it while doing the only thing you're not supposed to do when the gun is off safe.
The only way your argument is comparable to this scenario is if you were to say that someone was driving with their child in their safety seat with the airbag disabled for safety purposes and then re-enabled the airbag just before an impact which then caused the airbag to deploy, killing the child. In this ridiculous scenario, the manufacturer would also not be held liable because the vehicle operator disabled the safety mechanism that was specifically designed to keep the airbag from killing their child.
No mod points but completely agreed. I'm not even pissed at EA anymore because I don't buy their games and give them enough of a chance to piss me off.
I'll admit, it is a bit depressing seeing games that I would love to play (like Sim City) released under the EA banner and it is sometimes hard to resist buying them to just give them a chance. However, while I might love to play them, I am certain that I would hate playing them as EA products and that turns my depression into simple disappointment.
Ultimately nothing will change until their developers start to leave them due to the sweatshop style working conditions . I have no illusions that my boycott of EA's games will have any impact on their business...there are too many people who love the 'idea' of their titles and will try them repeatedly and get disappointed repeatedly. It does make me a happier person knowing that I'm not wasting my money, though. If conditions improve, Origin is destroyed, and releases improve in quality I would be willing to try again someday (after a SHIT-TON of positive reviews and a month or so break-in period) for a special title but until that day comes, fuckem.
I disagree with your assertion that the manufacturer was at fault because this was a standard safety feature. While the safety was engaged, it was preventing the hammer from striking the bullet. Only when it was disengaged did it allow the hammer to strike the bullet as the trigger was still depressed. In this instance, the slide is designed purposely to lock while the safety is engaged so that it cannot be racked and somehow accidentally strike the hammer. Additionally the safety blocks the sear so that the hammer cannot strike and therefore fire the bullet providing a secondary countermeasure.
The reason these many of these strange/different safety features exist and function the way they do is due to the fact that legislators who are not educated in standard operation of firearms and safety features come up with senseless rules that manufacturers must follow in order to sell these weapons in the state to anyone but a LEO. Almost every non-standard safety configuration has been forced by legislation.
A representative government is supposed to fulfill the will of the people who elected those representatives. Our government only fulfills the personal goals of the representatives that are elected and around election time they just have to pander a bit to the masses to pretend that they were doing *something* that wasn't akin to raping their constituents best interests over a table.
Even most idiots realize that things like this are fucking crazy...the representatives don't care, though, because they make the $$ and have the power. Oh wait, they make some of the $$ and have some of the power but they have corporate puppeteers to answer to that helped put them in office, hence legislation like this. Terms of Service as LAW??? Holy shit...that has media organizations written all over it. Pay no attention to the corporation behind the curtain!
They may not be 100% but they are something. Permanent silence vs being able to understand your family and friends or even your children again? I'll take some gray pads and disappointment with music.
I had a friend who lost his hearing and after 4 years of silence and one suicide attempt he had cochlear implants put in. Immediately after, his depression almost completely cleared and he was literally a different person. There are varying degrees at which implants do not make sense, also. For instance, my wife is deaf in one ear but to her, being able to hear in the one is enough (even though she can't tell where sounds are coming from or hear surround sound - I mess with her all the time of course) and she doesn't want an implant because of the specific reasons you quoted.
All in all, if you are completely deaf I think any hearing is better than no hearing. I wonder though...Beethoven was deaf and he composed some of the most incredible classical pieces of all time...if he had this technology available at the time, would he have given up on his musical talents because his pieces didn't sound the same anymore? I tend to think not but who knows.
Totally agree that the Open Source aspect should have been more heavily featured. I think the point is that they may be Open Source but initial development of the best physics engines is typically for the gaming world with other potential applications. Bullet and Newton definitely were developed with mostly gaming in mind and even ODE's creator specifically referenced gaming as one of the key areas that the engine would be used for.
I think it is accurate to say that instead of commonly, these are physics engines that are 'mostly' used for games which are finding other awesome uses as people discover their potential in other fields.
The terms of the store are not law. The doctrine of First Sale dictates that vendors cannot restrict the resale of products purchased for consumer use. As long as I can no longer use the product after I have transferred ownership post-sale (deleted it), it is protected by First Sale regardless of what the store's terms say. All they can do is ban you from using their service if you violate their terms and, in the case of the specific terms of each, as long as they allow you to make any copy, the argument can be made that as long as you delete all of your copies once the purchaser receives a their copy, no violation has occurred.
Keep in mind that I am well aware that it is much easier to retain a copy or to recover your deleted file after you have made the sale, however that has no bearing on the argument because as soon as you do that, you become a criminal. The point is that just because it is easier to copy, doesn't mean that it can't be resold. The consumer is not responsible for the fact that it is easy to illegally copy the product and is therefore only responsible for abiding by the law and transferring ownership in the event that the product is sold. This is also not a commercial use of the product as it is simply being resold.
A copy of the work was made to allow the purchaser to download it in the first place, hence the reason it is required for the use of the work. The copyright owner can copy it as many times as they want perfectly legally but as soon as it changes hands and the copy of the work is authorized for the use of the purchaser. If that copy is not able to be resold as a standard good under the doctrine of First Sale, technically nothing that anyone purchases should be allowed to be resold as the original design was copied and replicated en masse for resale in the same way as an MP3 is, albeit with much more work involved and typically a much lower profit margin.
Technically you can argue that the physical structure at the molecular level is different in each of the physical products, but if the molecular structure of the product is the key, then I can replicate and resell anything on the market without fear of repercussions. Ultimately just because MP3s are more easy to copy doesn't make them ineligible for First Sale protections. It is not the onus of the purchaser to ensure the product can't be easily copied, it is their responsibility only to legally purchase the product for personal use and, in the event that they wish to resell said product, transer ownership to the new purchaser legally under First Sale. With regard to digital sales, as long as the product is no longer usable or copyable by the original purchaser, I don't see a single bit of difference.
The copyright owner cannot be the owner of the files in question unless it is designated as a rental and sold as such. If they do not own the copy of the original that they sold, the purchaser owns that file or files and can therefore transfer that ownership to whomever they want.
The issue is that I have not been able to purchase more than 1 or 2 CDs in the last 15 years that hasn't been half trash, half the songs I want. Regardless of whether or not the CDs are affordable, if I am paying for half fluff and half what I actually want it becomes overpriced again.
The only circumstance in which CD sales make more sense than song by song sales anymore is if I am able to select the music I want to include on the album so that I am paying for what I want. In the case of digital downloads, the first sale doctrine should absolutely apply...people are misled into thinking they are purchasing something that they can use and resell if they want where they are actually getting a perpetual rental.
There may be a clear distinction between CDs and MP3s but Copyright law is designed to protect the initial sale of a product only. If a copy of the work is the only way to use the work in question, it is no longer controlled by Copyright, largely in part due to First Sale. The doctrine of First Sale was created specifically to protect consumers from copyright holders essentially owning the keys to the kingdom. As Zastai below points out, "The whole point of the first sale doctrine is that the original seller is not entitled to any special consideration once the sale completes."
I'm sure the music companies thought they had found a loophole to First Sale after they began adopting MP3 and that all they had to do now was combat piracy because every person had to own their own copy that could never be resold as any other good can. Ultimately, however, files can be sold and as long as the original owner does not retain a copy after the sale is complete, there is no Copyright violation. I'm not arguing against the fact that it is extremely difficult to prove the original owner does not still have a copy of the file, I'm arguing that this caveat has no bearing on whether or not an MP3 can be resold. It is a purchased good, not a 'rented' one.
(Of course, this is silly "logic", but that's what most Americans in particular tend to be thinking)
How did this become about Americans? I am pretty sure that Global Warming detractors worldwide hold this opinion and I'm pretty sure that proponents of Global Warming from many countries also try to tie ridiculous occurrences that counter their argument in any way possible to the support of Global Warming.
Ultimately we need to discuss the REAL science, Climate Change, and we need informed opinions of educated people supported by facts on both sides to come to a consensus and create some real science without all the dick-waving people do because they cannot stand to be incorrect or modify their opinions. I'm not saying you are doing this because you didn't really delve into the discussion at all - I'm just saying your post makes you sound ignorant and self-important and, based upon your attitude, if you had an opinion on the matter you would probably just be a dick-waver.
The point seems to be that even though we know these things about carbon and its increased absorption rates of heat, popular opinion and most Global Warming "scientists" declare that this will lead to a warming trend globally. Many studies indicate that the exact opposite of what the article describes will happen and the article seems to be grasping at straws to tie it into the 'warming' debate.
Ultimately we are certainly impacting our climate in ways that it would not be impacted were we either not here or not as efficient at producing carbon. In the grand scheme of things, however, the climate changes all the time (hence the more scientific and respected term 'Climate Change' as opposed to Global Warming) and what needs to be understood is whether or not the impact we have on the climate's historic cycles of change is significant enough to cause those changes to happen sooner or later. From what I have seen and read, there is a consensus that there is an impact but even real scientists argue about whether or not the Earth or its' climate really give a damn.
Uneducated or uninformed people call Climate Change science 'Global Warming' and attempt to link anything counter-intuitive (as in this article) in some way to their argument so that they are not wrong. Other uneducated/uninformed people say Global Warming is a farce because of trends like the one this article is examining. Ultimately, people need to stop being obsessed with spewing out whatever retarded opinion Al Gore or his detractors have like it is fact and do some research themselves. Everyone is so certain that they are correct but what we need is informed people to come together from both sides of the Climate Change debate and figure out the science behind it so that we can understand the impact we have and how climate shifts occur, be it as a result of our actions or simple natural processes.
IMO, 'alen' to whom you responded actually presents a more compelling argument than you do because of the simple fact that he is exploring alternatives. Your argument is more along the Ancient Aliens line of reasoning - i.e. something remotely resembling an insect (or a rocket ship) is carved in stone thousands of years ago, therefore Aliens..DUH! Just because elevated levels of carbon are present in the atmosphere (which inevitably raises heat to some degree) doesn't mean that the entire Earth's climate is or will be impacted significantly enough to change things drastically. You are assuming WAY too much.
This is the first rational argument I've heard supporting electronics bans below 10k. Personally, my laptop can die in the fire if we crash for all I care, but I know a lot more people who would do exactly as you say and fumble around until they are dead because they are panicked and can't prioritize properly under stress. I think if the aviation industry took this approach and informed customers properly there would be more support.
Lying to customers about the magical wireless gremlins that will rip the plane from the sky just makes intelligent people disregard their instructions because it is well known that (other than the TDMS/GSM noise) modern electronics do not interfere with instruments or communications. No one likes getting treated like a child.
You may be on to something there...*checks over shoulder for boss-man*. Actually I work from home so that should be *checks over shoulder for boss-woman*.
There are generations of people from every nation on earth that have had to lower the effective age at which people had to work to support their families, even if the work is just around the house/farm to keep food in everyone's mouth. What happens when war decimates a population's adult male population? What happens when there is a vast famine as in the case of the Dust Bowl?
We have the advantage of sitting in our houses or apartments looking at pictures on the internet of the terrible conditions these people live in and we see children doing labor that adult men and women should do and we are rightfully sickened...the problem is that the GP is right in that sometimes this is for survival and there is no other way. Any time when there is this level of drive to simply survive, however, there are always pieces of shit willing to take advantage and those are the people really responsible for the "sweat shop" label. Those are the people who need to be stopped. I doubt mothers and fathers want their children working in factories very much but when their extra $ is what allows your family to get that extra heel of bread so that you can live, circumstances force people to mature from children to adults much quicker. Luckily none of us have ever had to experience a situation like this.
They do need work and in these countries it is critical to their family's well-being, however the issue is more with the whole 'Children can't defend themselves and demand fair wages or workdays' part that yanks most people's chain. Something about being children and getting taken advantage of or whatever..psh.
Seriously though, there are many companies in struggling countries that treat their labor force fairly whether they include children or not. The other side of that coin, however, is disgusting and if child labor is going to be allowed to any degree it needs to be highly regulated and, more importantly, enforced.
Unless you work in the advertising industry, I'm with you...that's a bit crazy. Apparently they like you getting dangly-carroted to death on a daily basis by flashing neon poker chips and penis enlargement pills...that doesn't distract from your work day at all! (I'm assuming you work in an industry where you utilize the internet for reference regularly of course.)
Slashdot Mirror
I think the fact that one of their specific complaints is that it would "open up businesses to [...] costly lawsuits" is the exact reason to allow this piece of legislation to move forward.
If these companies are doing shit with our personal information that is so shady that it would immediately cause a flood of lawsuits once this bill brought those things to light (which everyone pretty much already knows), this seems like legislation we should have had long ago.
There aren't only two parties to choose from. They are all politicians and they are on their own side. The people of our country base their political opinions on partisan media sources that tell them what they want to hear or antiquated family indoctrinations into the 'side that doesn't lie to you' but ultimately we are kept so divided by this idiocy that we can't find a middle-ground ANYWHERE.
Every intelligent, responsible individual in this country should register non-partisan and make their own decisions just based upon principle alone. This country was founded in that light and everyone seems to forget that we don't have to go one way or the other...we don't have to be part of a club. Everyone is so terrified of being wrong and everyone has such a desperate need for someone to point the finger at but ultimately we should be looking in a fucking mirror. Our politicians serve as an extension of the people and I don't blame them anymore for being conniving, self-interested liars and thieves...we made them this way by accepting and SUPPORTING their behavior.
If we even got a fraction of the country to separate themselves from their ideologies for a moment and to really think things through without trying to find a way to justify their opinion while disregarding any contrary thoughts or evidence, the political structure of our country would shift drastically. In the end, as long as we can turn on Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, etc. and hear exactly what we want to hear, we are all perfectly fine with fighting each other and doing nothing. High five America.
Oh if only I had mod points.
This is unequivocally true for a significant portion of women through a large span of their lives. You don't necessarily need the tokens to get to the eventual goal of sexy time but they can help significantly. This is also true for most men although the tokens are not usually required...just some beer and attention.
Ultimately if you are looking for a relationship, tokens don't work out well for anything meaningful. If you are just looking for something warm and squishy, however, tokens can be your best resource if you are making no progress without them. When it comes down to it, a combination of confidence and tokens yields the highest result because without any of the confidence part of the equation, the tokens only work on those women whose profession requires accepting those tokens.
Glad you were here to clear that up for everyone.
Another reason the backlog of patents has declined is that the USPTO is better funded, and has hired many more patent examiners. In 2005, there were about 7300 examiners. Today, there are more than 9500.
It seems to me that we need to compare the numbers here. So looking at 2005 as you mentioned, there were 417,508 patents filed. That means a per-examiner average of 57.19 patents. Fast forward to today, in 2012 there were 576,763 patents filed which gives us a per-examiner average of 60.71 patents. Instead of showing a decrease in the average patents indicating a more acceptable workload for examiners, we instead find that the opposite is the case. Given even the budget increase that provided for additional examiners, the workload on each examiner has been increased by ~6.4% since 2005 which should indicate that the approval rate should be in the same ballpark as it has trended to in the past. I can see no way to account for the 20% increase in patent approvals when the workload has also increased.
I browse the USPTO approved patents occasionally just for fun because seeing what gets approved is laughable sometimes. Ultimately I haven't seen any difference in quality of those approved at all but I do not evaluate a significant enough subset of the total approved patents to say with certainty that this is the case. I find it very hard to believe, however, that in the face of increased workload the quality of overall submissions has improved so drastically in 3 years that 20% more patents are being approved. With such massive datasets, a huge trend change like this almost never occurs. You can't tell me that out of 276,788 approved patents 55,358 of them just suddenly got better than previous years when the ruling in KSR v Teleflex that should have spurred these changes happened ~4 years earlier. Again, there should be a trend to the changes that shows an upward swing in approvals rather than this:
2007 - 484,955 Total Patents / 182,899 Approved Patents / 37.71% approval
2008 - 485,312 Total Patents / 185,224 Approved Patents / 38.17% approval
2009 - 482,871 Total Patents / 191,927 Approved Patents / 39.75% approval
2010 - 520,277 Total Patents / 244,341 Approved Patents / 46.96% approval
2011 - 535,188 Total Patents / 247,713 Approved Patents / 46.29% approval
2012 - 576,763 Total Patents / 276,788 Approved Patents / 48.99% approval
Ultimately, just looking at the numbers comparisons, it is almost as though every additional patent to the total number of patents since 2009 has been approved. For example, in 2010 there were 37,306 more patents than 2009 but there are !!52,414!! more approved patents. Taking the same comparison but going 2011 vs 2009 (because this is the year that shows the marked trend change), we have 52,317 more patents and 55,786 more approved patents. Finally, in 2012 vs 2009, we have 93,982 more patents and 84,861 approved patents (the first time since 2009 there have been less approved patents than the increase of actual submissions). What intrigues me most about these numbers is that we see a huge increase in the number of submitted patents during 2010 and on...I have heard through the grapevine that this is because of the slackening in standards at the USPTO to bolster the agency's numbers which has spurred the patent trolls but IANAPL (patent lawyer) so I wouldn't know anything about whether this is reality or not.
You don't like their games? Don't buy them. You don't like the games my employer makes? Don't buy them. But sweatshops are sweatshops. I strive to be a great developer on great games for people that love games, but the sanctimoniousness tone of gamers these days with an outside perspective on how our industry really ticks makes it increasingly more difficult.
I have a fair perspective on how the industry ticks and I'm saying, without sanctimony, that working for EA (maybe not in all divisions) sucks ass - from the mouth of the employees themselves. You may make awesome games...I'm not insulting you.
And don't worry, you shouldn't have illusions about your boycott - there are enough folks like you who paint massive companies or countries or organizations with broad brushes that they actually do have an impact. So you can be happy your scatterbombs do impact the performances of games and get well meaning studios closed and reopened elsewhere (rebranded, because apparently, this is very confusing for people like you.) You might not take down EA, but you can be glad you'll probably be very very slightly responsible for an EA studio here and there to get shutdown for under performing just because of the monolithic brand they were operating under even though you wanted to play such and such a game.
Wait...didn't you just say to not buy their games if i don't like them? I'm pretty sure that's exactly what I said I'm already doing. You want to blame me for getting studios shut down because they are part of a giant mismanaged corporate entity?? Who's being sanctimonious now? Ultimately it is probably better for them because they can find a job at another developer like yours where they have a good work environment, can make some money, and can take pride in what they do as you do. As I said, and you reconfirmed - I have no illusions that my impact on their sales means a damn thing. The whole reason I don't purchase their games is because each one that I've tried in the last ~6 years has been garbage or riddled with issues regardless of how excited I was to play it or how much I wanted to like it.
I just think it's fucking retarded to claim you're into games and think that railing against EA as a whole will lead to some kind of corporate meritocracy in the industry. You think you're playing games? You're the one who's being played.
Again, I have no illusions that some meritocracy will form out of my protest. I'm didn't claim I was pulling a Gandhi and going on a hunger strike dude...I have been disappointed with their games repeatedly and so I don't buy their games anymore. I said, in a nutshell, that it was their mismanagement of their giant corporate machine that kills their games and that it would take their developers leaving for greener pastures to force some real change at the company. Your last statements are just silly but I have this to say: If you think that the conditions at EA are just something that you have to deal with to be a developer in your industry, and if your employer treats you like EA does its employees, then you work in a soulless environment that saps all of your creative drive and you are the one being played my friend.
Your analogy is a straw man and does not apply. Airbags were not tested thoroughly with child seats and therefore when they killed children, of course they were liable. In this case, the guy was holding the trigger of the gun down, pointing it at someone, and flipped the safety off thereby intentionally disabling the safety feature intended to protect from accidental discharge. The gun did not misfire, the safety did not fail, the guy disabled it while doing the only thing you're not supposed to do when the gun is off safe.
The only way your argument is comparable to this scenario is if you were to say that someone was driving with their child in their safety seat with the airbag disabled for safety purposes and then re-enabled the airbag just before an impact which then caused the airbag to deploy, killing the child. In this ridiculous scenario, the manufacturer would also not be held liable because the vehicle operator disabled the safety mechanism that was specifically designed to keep the airbag from killing their child.
No mod points but completely agreed. I'm not even pissed at EA anymore because I don't buy their games and give them enough of a chance to piss me off.
I'll admit, it is a bit depressing seeing games that I would love to play (like Sim City) released under the EA banner and it is sometimes hard to resist buying them to just give them a chance. However, while I might love to play them, I am certain that I would hate playing them as EA products and that turns my depression into simple disappointment.
Ultimately nothing will change until their developers start to leave them due to the sweatshop style working conditions . I have no illusions that my boycott of EA's games will have any impact on their business...there are too many people who love the 'idea' of their titles and will try them repeatedly and get disappointed repeatedly. It does make me a happier person knowing that I'm not wasting my money, though. If conditions improve, Origin is destroyed, and releases improve in quality I would be willing to try again someday (after a SHIT-TON of positive reviews and a month or so break-in period) for a special title but until that day comes, fuckem.
I disagree with your assertion that the manufacturer was at fault because this was a standard safety feature. While the safety was engaged, it was preventing the hammer from striking the bullet. Only when it was disengaged did it allow the hammer to strike the bullet as the trigger was still depressed. In this instance, the slide is designed purposely to lock while the safety is engaged so that it cannot be racked and somehow accidentally strike the hammer. Additionally the safety blocks the sear so that the hammer cannot strike and therefore fire the bullet providing a secondary countermeasure.
The reason these many of these strange/different safety features exist and function the way they do is due to the fact that legislators who are not educated in standard operation of firearms and safety features come up with senseless rules that manufacturers must follow in order to sell these weapons in the state to anyone but a LEO. Almost every non-standard safety configuration has been forced by legislation.
A representative government is supposed to fulfill the will of the people who elected those representatives. Our government only fulfills the personal goals of the representatives that are elected and around election time they just have to pander a bit to the masses to pretend that they were doing *something* that wasn't akin to raping their constituents best interests over a table.
Even most idiots realize that things like this are fucking crazy...the representatives don't care, though, because they make the $$ and have the power. Oh wait, they make some of the $$ and have some of the power but they have corporate puppeteers to answer to that helped put them in office, hence legislation like this. Terms of Service as LAW??? Holy shit...that has media organizations written all over it. Pay no attention to the corporation behind the curtain!
They may not be 100% but they are something. Permanent silence vs being able to understand your family and friends or even your children again? I'll take some gray pads and disappointment with music.
I had a friend who lost his hearing and after 4 years of silence and one suicide attempt he had cochlear implants put in. Immediately after, his depression almost completely cleared and he was literally a different person. There are varying degrees at which implants do not make sense, also. For instance, my wife is deaf in one ear but to her, being able to hear in the one is enough (even though she can't tell where sounds are coming from or hear surround sound - I mess with her all the time of course) and she doesn't want an implant because of the specific reasons you quoted.
All in all, if you are completely deaf I think any hearing is better than no hearing. I wonder though...Beethoven was deaf and he composed some of the most incredible classical pieces of all time...if he had this technology available at the time, would he have given up on his musical talents because his pieces didn't sound the same anymore? I tend to think not but who knows.
Damn fine point. We should do Zombie Apocalypse war games in S Korea.
Totally agree that the Open Source aspect should have been more heavily featured. I think the point is that they may be Open Source but initial development of the best physics engines is typically for the gaming world with other potential applications. Bullet and Newton definitely were developed with mostly gaming in mind and even ODE's creator specifically referenced gaming as one of the key areas that the engine would be used for.
I think it is accurate to say that instead of commonly, these are physics engines that are 'mostly' used for games which are finding other awesome uses as people discover their potential in other fields.
The terms of the store are not law. The doctrine of First Sale dictates that vendors cannot restrict the resale of products purchased for consumer use. As long as I can no longer use the product after I have transferred ownership post-sale (deleted it), it is protected by First Sale regardless of what the store's terms say. All they can do is ban you from using their service if you violate their terms and, in the case of the specific terms of each, as long as they allow you to make any copy, the argument can be made that as long as you delete all of your copies once the purchaser receives a their copy, no violation has occurred.
Keep in mind that I am well aware that it is much easier to retain a copy or to recover your deleted file after you have made the sale, however that has no bearing on the argument because as soon as you do that, you become a criminal. The point is that just because it is easier to copy, doesn't mean that it can't be resold. The consumer is not responsible for the fact that it is easy to illegally copy the product and is therefore only responsible for abiding by the law and transferring ownership in the event that the product is sold. This is also not a commercial use of the product as it is simply being resold.
A copy of the work was made to allow the purchaser to download it in the first place, hence the reason it is required for the use of the work. The copyright owner can copy it as many times as they want perfectly legally but as soon as it changes hands and the copy of the work is authorized for the use of the purchaser. If that copy is not able to be resold as a standard good under the doctrine of First Sale, technically nothing that anyone purchases should be allowed to be resold as the original design was copied and replicated en masse for resale in the same way as an MP3 is, albeit with much more work involved and typically a much lower profit margin.
Technically you can argue that the physical structure at the molecular level is different in each of the physical products, but if the molecular structure of the product is the key, then I can replicate and resell anything on the market without fear of repercussions. Ultimately just because MP3s are more easy to copy doesn't make them ineligible for First Sale protections. It is not the onus of the purchaser to ensure the product can't be easily copied, it is their responsibility only to legally purchase the product for personal use and, in the event that they wish to resell said product, transer ownership to the new purchaser legally under First Sale. With regard to digital sales, as long as the product is no longer usable or copyable by the original purchaser, I don't see a single bit of difference.
The copyright owner cannot be the owner of the files in question unless it is designated as a rental and sold as such. If they do not own the copy of the original that they sold, the purchaser owns that file or files and can therefore transfer that ownership to whomever they want.
The issue is that I have not been able to purchase more than 1 or 2 CDs in the last 15 years that hasn't been half trash, half the songs I want. Regardless of whether or not the CDs are affordable, if I am paying for half fluff and half what I actually want it becomes overpriced again.
The only circumstance in which CD sales make more sense than song by song sales anymore is if I am able to select the music I want to include on the album so that I am paying for what I want. In the case of digital downloads, the first sale doctrine should absolutely apply...people are misled into thinking they are purchasing something that they can use and resell if they want where they are actually getting a perpetual rental.
There may be a clear distinction between CDs and MP3s but Copyright law is designed to protect the initial sale of a product only. If a copy of the work is the only way to use the work in question, it is no longer controlled by Copyright, largely in part due to First Sale. The doctrine of First Sale was created specifically to protect consumers from copyright holders essentially owning the keys to the kingdom. As Zastai below points out, "The whole point of the first sale doctrine is that the original seller is not entitled to any special consideration once the sale completes."
I'm sure the music companies thought they had found a loophole to First Sale after they began adopting MP3 and that all they had to do now was combat piracy because every person had to own their own copy that could never be resold as any other good can. Ultimately, however, files can be sold and as long as the original owner does not retain a copy after the sale is complete, there is no Copyright violation. I'm not arguing against the fact that it is extremely difficult to prove the original owner does not still have a copy of the file, I'm arguing that this caveat has no bearing on whether or not an MP3 can be resold. It is a purchased good, not a 'rented' one.
(Of course, this is silly "logic", but that's what most Americans in particular tend to be thinking)
How did this become about Americans? I am pretty sure that Global Warming detractors worldwide hold this opinion and I'm pretty sure that proponents of Global Warming from many countries also try to tie ridiculous occurrences that counter their argument in any way possible to the support of Global Warming.
Ultimately we need to discuss the REAL science, Climate Change, and we need informed opinions of educated people supported by facts on both sides to come to a consensus and create some real science without all the dick-waving people do because they cannot stand to be incorrect or modify their opinions. I'm not saying you are doing this because you didn't really delve into the discussion at all - I'm just saying your post makes you sound ignorant and self-important and, based upon your attitude, if you had an opinion on the matter you would probably just be a dick-waver.
The point seems to be that even though we know these things about carbon and its increased absorption rates of heat, popular opinion and most Global Warming "scientists" declare that this will lead to a warming trend globally. Many studies indicate that the exact opposite of what the article describes will happen and the article seems to be grasping at straws to tie it into the 'warming' debate.
Ultimately we are certainly impacting our climate in ways that it would not be impacted were we either not here or not as efficient at producing carbon. In the grand scheme of things, however, the climate changes all the time (hence the more scientific and respected term 'Climate Change' as opposed to Global Warming) and what needs to be understood is whether or not the impact we have on the climate's historic cycles of change is significant enough to cause those changes to happen sooner or later. From what I have seen and read, there is a consensus that there is an impact but even real scientists argue about whether or not the Earth or its' climate really give a damn.
Uneducated or uninformed people call Climate Change science 'Global Warming' and attempt to link anything counter-intuitive (as in this article) in some way to their argument so that they are not wrong. Other uneducated/uninformed people say Global Warming is a farce because of trends like the one this article is examining. Ultimately, people need to stop being obsessed with spewing out whatever retarded opinion Al Gore or his detractors have like it is fact and do some research themselves. Everyone is so certain that they are correct but what we need is informed people to come together from both sides of the Climate Change debate and figure out the science behind it so that we can understand the impact we have and how climate shifts occur, be it as a result of our actions or simple natural processes.
IMO, 'alen' to whom you responded actually presents a more compelling argument than you do because of the simple fact that he is exploring alternatives. Your argument is more along the Ancient Aliens line of reasoning - i.e. something remotely resembling an insect (or a rocket ship) is carved in stone thousands of years ago, therefore Aliens..DUH! Just because elevated levels of carbon are present in the atmosphere (which inevitably raises heat to some degree) doesn't mean that the entire Earth's climate is or will be impacted significantly enough to change things drastically. You are assuming WAY too much.
This is the first rational argument I've heard supporting electronics bans below 10k. Personally, my laptop can die in the fire if we crash for all I care, but I know a lot more people who would do exactly as you say and fumble around until they are dead because they are panicked and can't prioritize properly under stress. I think if the aviation industry took this approach and informed customers properly there would be more support.
Lying to customers about the magical wireless gremlins that will rip the plane from the sky just makes intelligent people disregard their instructions because it is well known that (other than the TDMS/GSM noise) modern electronics do not interfere with instruments or communications. No one likes getting treated like a child.
You may be on to something there...*checks over shoulder for boss-man*. Actually I work from home so that should be *checks over shoulder for boss-woman*.
There are generations of people from every nation on earth that have had to lower the effective age at which people had to work to support their families, even if the work is just around the house/farm to keep food in everyone's mouth. What happens when war decimates a population's adult male population? What happens when there is a vast famine as in the case of the Dust Bowl?
We have the advantage of sitting in our houses or apartments looking at pictures on the internet of the terrible conditions these people live in and we see children doing labor that adult men and women should do and we are rightfully sickened...the problem is that the GP is right in that sometimes this is for survival and there is no other way. Any time when there is this level of drive to simply survive, however, there are always pieces of shit willing to take advantage and those are the people really responsible for the "sweat shop" label. Those are the people who need to be stopped. I doubt mothers and fathers want their children working in factories very much but when their extra $ is what allows your family to get that extra heel of bread so that you can live, circumstances force people to mature from children to adults much quicker. Luckily none of us have ever had to experience a situation like this.
They do need work and in these countries it is critical to their family's well-being, however the issue is more with the whole 'Children can't defend themselves and demand fair wages or workdays' part that yanks most people's chain. Something about being children and getting taken advantage of or whatever..psh.
Seriously though, there are many companies in struggling countries that treat their labor force fairly whether they include children or not. The other side of that coin, however, is disgusting and if child labor is going to be allowed to any degree it needs to be highly regulated and, more importantly, enforced.
Unless you work in the advertising industry, I'm with you...that's a bit crazy. Apparently they like you getting dangly-carroted to death on a daily basis by flashing neon poker chips and penis enlargement pills...that doesn't distract from your work day at all! (I'm assuming you work in an industry where you utilize the internet for reference regularly of course.)
FTFY - http://www.brownells.com/books-videos/books/gunsmithing-books/barrel-making-books/hand-rifling-a-muzzle-loading-rifle-barrel-at-home-prod15609.aspx
Agreed and after my experience in this scenario I did have my balance lowered to $1000 for this exact reason.