...but we can assume that they were fired for being incompetent, not for being evil. All this proves is that there is a baseline level of incompetence which is unacceptable even for the RIAA. I wondered how low they'd be able to go.
Any sufficiently complex heuristic computer program is indistinguishable from intelligence.
This strongly depends on your definition of intelligence, of course, but is a good point. You do well to remind us that intelligence is not necessarily a mystical property, but rather a sum of parts that can, in fact, be put together.
An interesting post to be sure, but it proves nothing. You simply offer a list of alternative possible explanations, many of which are unlikely to hold in conjunction with the others. Allow me to suggest that it is perfectly possible to postulate other explanations, none of which could be remotely considered proof, which do not support your suggestion that there is no intelligent designer.
What this research suggests, but not proves, is that there is a non-intelligent system at work in the formation of intelligence. Personally, I think it would be a lovely twist if this non-intelligent system turned out to have been set up by an intelligent designer.
I suppose it would be not so very different to a heuristic computer program, in that respect.
In the 1960s many scientists believed that speech synthesis and speech recognition were just a few short years away. This was an example of progress in a field, and a new, exciting conceptual overview of a field, leading many to believe that the hard work had already been done.
As people who work with computers, we already know that the hard work is never done. What we often forget is that new, exciting changes in our field, whilst just stepping stones, are progress nonetheless.
I wouldn't make any big predictions for the future of our understanding, I think it's many years further off than we all hope. But I am always heartened to hear of progress, and optimism, in the field of scientific advancement.
I am feeling particularly uncynical today. Let's enjoy each new step.
Doesn't not purchasing poorly made hardware on the grounds that it is poorly made, even if that means going without, demonstrate to your kids that they should not be consumer whores and demand a certain amount of quality, no matter how much or how little the item costs?
Personally, I think this attitude that the grandparent should buy an Xbox to appease his kid or to allow his kid to be a (IMNSHO) whiny game nerd anyway just so he doesn't miss out is far less valuable. It would simply reinforce the consumerist idea that "I gotta have it... everyone has one, so what if it sucks
I'll comment on this one, because you raise good points. I was, naively, a little surprised by the sheer number of comments accusing me of being a pro-MS fanboy. A lot of them were hypocrisy incarnate - flimsy faux-impartial fanboyisms dressed up as rebukes. As someone who owns pretty much all the consoles, and certainly all from this generation, I'm in a good position to be more objective than most. The point I wanted to make, but probably didn't make well enough, is that the Xbox 360 is the one to own, so far in this generation, just precisely NOT because of the hardware - which is terrible - but because of the titles.
I don't give a rats ass about the hardware, I care about the games. If I was picking on hardware, I'd go for the mystique and sturdiness of the PS3 every time. But the games aren't there. If I had to swear allegiance to one company or another in order to enjoy games titles, I would have quit playing a long time ago. Sony, MS, even goldenboy Nintendo, have all commited heinous corporatisms at one time or another.
All this is meant to suggest that the hardware is a less important concern (provided that you are protected financially from its flaws) than questions about whether or not to have a console at all, or which games you would like to be able to play. Those judgements should all be made on their own merits, but the hardware situation should be as transparent as possible.
Yes, utterly, Microsoft should be held to account for poor hardware - they will be, and have been, and no bad thing. It's cost them a fortune, which serves them right. Consumers SHOULD demand quality. But the point is that you can't simply scratch one console off the list due to poor hardware and go buy another instead unless you don't care about what you're going to be doing with that console in the first place. And to me, that's a lot more like the behaviour of a consumer whore.
Now to add to this, I have yet another reason not to ever buy one. And I'll print out a copy of the page and attach it to the wall in my son's room. He's not going to like it but thats the breaks.
You can find any number of reasons to justify or not justify a purchase of an Xbox 360. If you can't afford it, then sure, those are the breaks. That's one thing all kids have to come to terms with. But it sounds like you're trying to clutch for something else to give as a reason, because you simply don't want this hardware product in your house.
Unfortunately the PC games market is in a major decline, the wii is a gimmick, and the PS3 is a stark disappointment. If your son is going to play modern console games, and interact socially with his peers on that level, not to mention play online with them, he's going to want this console - and it won't be about the hardware, it will be about the titles.
Due to their incredible screwups, MS offer a reasonable out of the box warranty with 360s. The hardware is not a concern. If you son treats it like crap, that's his bag. If you can't afford it, man up and say so. If you simply don't want to buy him one, let him know that. Maybe he'll think you're being an ass. I'm not sure you're not, seems like a valid opinion to me. Honesty will bear you out, though.
"I'm glad that Slashdot restores the truth with accurate headlines"
I don't know why such bullshit gets through the slashdot filters, frankly. If you look at the tags on any given article it's clear that most of the slashdot community knows exactly what is going on, even despite attempts to get us up in arms over another misleading headline, or half-baked no-facts 'story'.
Why not just start serving your audience, instead of begging for hits with false, misleading, overblown or just plain stupid headlines.
If you want me to buy "Megagame 2" but don't want me to sell my copy of "Megagame 1" in case it creates competition for your Megagame 2 sales, then offer me a voucher for my copy of Megagame 1 (you only need to match or slightly better the price places like Gamestop would pay me). Said voucher to to be used when purchasing Megagame 2 )or another of your product line).
Then when you have my copy of Megagame 1, you can destroy it so it never threatens your future sales again.
This was actually done by Epic, during that period of time before they started assfucking PC gamers for fun and profit.
If you bought UT 2003, and wanted UT2004 (which basically included all of the content of UT 2003, in what can only be described as a bargainous adventure into consumer value) you could send them back your 'Play' disc from UT2003 and get a rebate on UT2004. I think it was about 10 bucks, but it was still a nice thing to do!
When was the last game that worked out of the box? I don't even remember it.
The 'everything's fucked, so you don't deserve anything better' argument doesn't hold water with me, or with the law. Thanks for putting a pro-consumer angle on things, though.
You didn't pay them for a 'complete, working product'. You paid them for a game that works well enough. All games for the last decade have been that way. You're lucky they -bother- to patch. They could just start working on their next game and ignore that one and it wouldn't hurt their sales hardly at all. They lose money fixing those bugs.
This is just a diabolically stupid argument. I can't imagine how anyone could possibly come up with this and seriously place it on slashdot for consideration. I would offer a counterpoint, but looking back I see that I already did in my parent post, and you chose to dispute that.
I don't know how well it has been tested in court, but I think these days you pay for a CD/DVD in a box that contains some software that you have been sold a limited license to use.
With the current state of legal affairs relating to software - DRM, unconscionable EULAs, patent trolling and what, to my mind, constitutes outright fraud with the banning of online accounts for trivial TOS violations (if anything) - I'm not sure we need to see cases testing. I'm starting to feel like we need new laws, written by sensible people, for the benefit of the consumers, not corporations.
I know that in my country, the UK, there are many sensible laws written for the benefit of the people. I am starting to wonder when this all stopped happening.
So they chose to release a patch that would lesson the problem while they work on a true solution, and people just bitch about it as if they did nothing. Seriously, they're working on it. Give them a break.
They get a break when they release software that does what it's meant to do out of the box.
They don't get a break during the interminable time it takes them to fix the problem, after that ship date. They shipped it, and it doesn't work. Any patience at all is a gift to them from the unnecessary goodness of our consumer hearts. Watching them meet us halfway is no satisfaction when they have ALL our money. Maybe if we got half of it back, we could talk patience. Good will is not owed to these people - they do what they do for a profit, and they fucked it up.
Just because there are a bunch of companies out there that would say 'Fuck the patch', take the money and run, does not mean that we should be grateful when a company doesn't do that, or that we owe them anything. We paid them for a complete, working product. They owe US. They have a responsibility to us, and they need to live up to that.
Regardless of its legality this is truly self-destructive and silly. I can understand how people want to get stuff for free, even though I fundamnetally disagree with piracy. What I do NOT understand is why those peole cannot see that if everyone does what they do, no new content will be produced.
What browser are you using? The way I see it, either you're using Firefox, and therefore wrong, Q.E.D.
Or you're using I.E., and therefore of inconsequential opinion.
Can't we stop it with using the term pirate? Yes, it might be a humurous label amongst us geeks, but by going along with it, instead of actively resisting it, we help to fuel in the minds of those who only hear one side of the story, that people who violate copyright law are bad evil pirates. Let's try using more accurate terms like copyright infringers, or something that doesn't have so much obvious bias in it.
You don't think that 'copyright infringers' sounds even more creepy and disturbing than pirates? I think we need a new term, frankly. I think Free Unauthorised Clone Copying is very appropriate - it's just unfortunate that the acronym is FUCC.
Gross commercial copyright infringers could be referred to as mother-FUCCers. Kids who copy each others games would be little FUCCers.
That's exactly what I wanted to see. This is a representative of the company (but likely not an employee) confirming accounts being disabled as a result of chargebacks.
That kind of behavior is simply reprehensible. I do agree that chargebacks should not be made flippantly, but if Valve have refused a refund on a dodgy product, that's getting a bit closer to the kind of reason I would use them.
Disabling accounts on the basis of chargebacks is like IKEA taking all of your furniture because you charged back on a broken wardrobe.
If you charge back you risk Valve shutting down your Steam account, apparently. The joys of someone else controlling access to games you've bought I guess.
Can you give any evidence of this at all? A forum post, a moderater comment, some vaguely worded threat in their FAQs? anything?
In regards to spreading Windows viruses yeah I feel bad for Windows users but I won't spend my own money and processor cycles on worrying about their systems. If they want to protect their systems then they should take steps to protect themselves. They could also dump Windows and get an operating system that isn't so ridden with viruses and malware. That's their own choice and problem, not mine.
To paraphrase: I'm one of those lucky people who's immune to AIDS. I just fuck anything. I mean, sure, I can carry AIDS, and I can pass it on. But since I can't get it, it's no problem of mine. The responsibility for that lies completely on the other side of the fence. Hey, but I've run out of posting time - another orgy to attend.
Slashdot Mirror
PWNED Mod me down, it was worth it :P
Point blank in the head, and he doesn't even manage to kill the guy. Can't blame THAT one on the lag.
it's not butter.
What? They couldn't be any more clear at this stage!
...but we can assume that they were fired for being incompetent, not for being evil. All this proves is that there is a baseline level of incompetence which is unacceptable even for the RIAA. I wondered how low they'd be able to go.
Any sufficiently complex heuristic computer program is indistinguishable from intelligence.
This strongly depends on your definition of intelligence, of course, but is a good point. You do well to remind us that intelligence is not necessarily a mystical property, but rather a sum of parts that can, in fact, be put together.
You might want to read this. I'll remind you later, since you'll probably forget. [mutters: senile old git]
Well I can see that you fully understand the concept of sarcasm.
whooooooooooooooooooooooosh guess what that sound is?
Hold tight, someone will be along to change your diaper soon.
I don't believe it would take a God to steer evolution; based on all available evidence, it would take a God to stop it.
Hence, the bible belt.
This proves that the Intelligent Designer:
An interesting post to be sure, but it proves nothing. You simply offer a list of alternative possible explanations, many of which are unlikely to hold in conjunction with the others. Allow me to suggest that it is perfectly possible to postulate other explanations, none of which could be remotely considered proof, which do not support your suggestion that there is no intelligent designer.
What this research suggests, but not proves, is that there is a non-intelligent system at work in the formation of intelligence. Personally, I think it would be a lovely twist if this non-intelligent system turned out to have been set up by an intelligent designer.
I suppose it would be not so very different to a heuristic computer program, in that respect.
As people who work with computers, we already know that the hard work is never done. What we often forget is that new, exciting changes in our field, whilst just stepping stones, are progress nonetheless.
I wouldn't make any big predictions for the future of our understanding, I think it's many years further off than we all hope. But I am always heartened to hear of progress, and optimism, in the field of scientific advancement.
I am feeling particularly uncynical today. Let's enjoy each new step.
Doesn't not purchasing poorly made hardware on the grounds that it is poorly made, even if that means going without, demonstrate to your kids that they should not be consumer whores and demand a certain amount of quality, no matter how much or how little the item costs? Personally, I think this attitude that the grandparent should buy an Xbox to appease his kid or to allow his kid to be a (IMNSHO) whiny game nerd anyway just so he doesn't miss out is far less valuable. It would simply reinforce the consumerist idea that "I gotta have it... everyone has one, so what if it sucks
I'll comment on this one, because you raise good points. I was, naively, a little surprised by the sheer number of comments accusing me of being a pro-MS fanboy. A lot of them were hypocrisy incarnate - flimsy faux-impartial fanboyisms dressed up as rebukes. As someone who owns pretty much all the consoles, and certainly all from this generation, I'm in a good position to be more objective than most. The point I wanted to make, but probably didn't make well enough, is that the Xbox 360 is the one to own, so far in this generation, just precisely NOT because of the hardware - which is terrible - but because of the titles.
I don't give a rats ass about the hardware, I care about the games. If I was picking on hardware, I'd go for the mystique and sturdiness of the PS3 every time. But the games aren't there. If I had to swear allegiance to one company or another in order to enjoy games titles, I would have quit playing a long time ago. Sony, MS, even goldenboy Nintendo, have all commited heinous corporatisms at one time or another.
All this is meant to suggest that the hardware is a less important concern (provided that you are protected financially from its flaws) than questions about whether or not to have a console at all, or which games you would like to be able to play. Those judgements should all be made on their own merits, but the hardware situation should be as transparent as possible.
Yes, utterly, Microsoft should be held to account for poor hardware - they will be, and have been, and no bad thing. It's cost them a fortune, which serves them right. Consumers SHOULD demand quality. But the point is that you can't simply scratch one console off the list due to poor hardware and go buy another instead unless you don't care about what you're going to be doing with that console in the first place. And to me, that's a lot more like the behaviour of a consumer whore.
Now to add to this, I have yet another reason not to ever buy one. And I'll print out a copy of the page and attach it to the wall in my son's room. He's not going to like it but thats the breaks.
You can find any number of reasons to justify or not justify a purchase of an Xbox 360. If you can't afford it, then sure, those are the breaks. That's one thing all kids have to come to terms with. But it sounds like you're trying to clutch for something else to give as a reason, because you simply don't want this hardware product in your house.
Unfortunately the PC games market is in a major decline, the wii is a gimmick, and the PS3 is a stark disappointment. If your son is going to play modern console games, and interact socially with his peers on that level, not to mention play online with them, he's going to want this console - and it won't be about the hardware, it will be about the titles.
Due to their incredible screwups, MS offer a reasonable out of the box warranty with 360s. The hardware is not a concern. If you son treats it like crap, that's his bag. If you can't afford it, man up and say so. If you simply don't want to buy him one, let him know that. Maybe he'll think you're being an ass. I'm not sure you're not, seems like a valid opinion to me. Honesty will bear you out, though.
The big downside is that you have to kill lots of the staff to get your bill to drop.
That only sounds bad until you realize that you were going to have to do that to pay for the meal anyhow.
You can get ten percent off by grinding rep. Of course, you have to kill six thousand members of staff at the restaurant next door for that.
Yeah, I believe the concept you're after is "Use It Or Lose It"
Great, that's just the argument I use to justify my furious mastur... I mean, complusive chess playing.
I don't know why such bullshit gets through the slashdot filters, frankly. If you look at the tags on any given article it's clear that most of the slashdot community knows exactly what is going on, even despite attempts to get us up in arms over another misleading headline, or half-baked no-facts 'story'.
Why not just start serving your audience, instead of begging for hits with false, misleading, overblown or just plain stupid headlines.
If you want me to buy "Megagame 2" but don't want me to sell my copy of "Megagame 1" in case it creates competition for your Megagame 2 sales, then offer me a voucher for my copy of Megagame 1 (you only need to match or slightly better the price places like Gamestop would pay me). Said voucher to to be used when purchasing Megagame 2 )or another of your product line). Then when you have my copy of Megagame 1, you can destroy it so it never threatens your future sales again.
This was actually done by Epic, during that period of time before they started assfucking PC gamers for fun and profit. If you bought UT 2003, and wanted UT2004 (which basically included all of the content of UT 2003, in what can only be described as a bargainous adventure into consumer value) you could send them back your 'Play' disc from UT2003 and get a rebate on UT2004. I think it was about 10 bucks, but it was still a nice thing to do!
When was the last game that worked out of the box? I don't even remember it.
The 'everything's fucked, so you don't deserve anything better' argument doesn't hold water with me, or with the law. Thanks for putting a pro-consumer angle on things, though.
You didn't pay them for a 'complete, working product'. You paid them for a game that works well enough. All games for the last decade have been that way. You're lucky they -bother- to patch. They could just start working on their next game and ignore that one and it wouldn't hurt their sales hardly at all. They lose money fixing those bugs.
This is just a diabolically stupid argument. I can't imagine how anyone could possibly come up with this and seriously place it on slashdot for consideration. I would offer a counterpoint, but looking back I see that I already did in my parent post, and you chose to dispute that.
I don't know how well it has been tested in court, but I think these days you pay for a CD/DVD in a box that contains some software that you have been sold a limited license to use.
With the current state of legal affairs relating to software - DRM, unconscionable EULAs, patent trolling and what, to my mind, constitutes outright fraud with the banning of online accounts for trivial TOS violations (if anything) - I'm not sure we need to see cases testing. I'm starting to feel like we need new laws, written by sensible people, for the benefit of the consumers, not corporations.
I know that in my country, the UK, there are many sensible laws written for the benefit of the people. I am starting to wonder when this all stopped happening.
So they chose to release a patch that would lesson the problem while they work on a true solution, and people just bitch about it as if they did nothing. Seriously, they're working on it. Give them a break.
They get a break when they release software that does what it's meant to do out of the box.
They don't get a break during the interminable time it takes them to fix the problem, after that ship date. They shipped it, and it doesn't work. Any patience at all is a gift to them from the unnecessary goodness of our consumer hearts. Watching them meet us halfway is no satisfaction when they have ALL our money. Maybe if we got half of it back, we could talk patience. Good will is not owed to these people - they do what they do for a profit, and they fucked it up.
Just because there are a bunch of companies out there that would say 'Fuck the patch', take the money and run, does not mean that we should be grateful when a company doesn't do that, or that we owe them anything. We paid them for a complete, working product. They owe US. They have a responsibility to us, and they need to live up to that.
Anyway, I'm sure this will end up just like the COD4 DLC: Free for PC users!
Please, the escapist would have something wry to say about the DLC. Slashdot it's just a bullshit twitter advertisement.
Regardless of its legality this is truly self-destructive and silly. I can understand how people want to get stuff for free, even though I fundamnetally disagree with piracy. What I do NOT understand is why those peole cannot see that if everyone does what they do, no new content will be produced.
What browser are you using? The way I see it, either you're using Firefox, and therefore wrong, Q.E.D.
Or you're using I.E., and therefore of inconsequential opinion.
Can't we stop it with using the term pirate? Yes, it might be a humurous label amongst us geeks, but by going along with it, instead of actively resisting it, we help to fuel in the minds of those who only hear one side of the story, that people who violate copyright law are bad evil pirates. Let's try using more accurate terms like copyright infringers, or something that doesn't have so much obvious bias in it.
You don't think that 'copyright infringers' sounds even more creepy and disturbing than pirates? I think we need a new term, frankly. I think Free Unauthorised Clone Copying is very appropriate - it's just unfortunate that the acronym is FUCC.
Gross commercial copyright infringers could be referred to as mother-FUCCers. Kids who copy each others games would be little FUCCers.
Yes. They have the balls to call the rightful, legal recovery of your money 'payment fraud'.
That kind of behavior is simply reprehensible. I do agree that chargebacks should not be made flippantly, but if Valve have refused a refund on a dodgy product, that's getting a bit closer to the kind of reason I would use them.
Disabling accounts on the basis of chargebacks is like IKEA taking all of your furniture because you charged back on a broken wardrobe.
If you charge back you risk Valve shutting down your Steam account, apparently. The joys of someone else controlling access to games you've bought I guess.
Can you give any evidence of this at all? A forum post, a moderater comment, some vaguely worded threat in their FAQs? anything?
In regards to spreading Windows viruses yeah I feel bad for Windows users but I won't spend my own money and processor cycles on worrying about their systems. If they want to protect their systems then they should take steps to protect themselves. They could also dump Windows and get an operating system that isn't so ridden with viruses and malware. That's their own choice and problem, not mine.
To paraphrase: I'm one of those lucky people who's immune to AIDS. I just fuck anything. I mean, sure, I can carry AIDS, and I can pass it on. But since I can't get it, it's no problem of mine. The responsibility for that lies completely on the other side of the fence. Hey, but I've run out of posting time - another orgy to attend.