I wonder how hard it would be to get in that "pact" if your company manages to go beyond the start-up designation.
More than be mad you didn't post links, I'm surprised that you didn't post under Anonymous Coward (even if you claim is untrue).
There is one thing. I own a computer. I can download Python. Python has tutorials and documentation that can allow me how to do stuff in python. The thing is, unless I want to do anything beyond Read File, do some regex magic, write file, I'm going to have to spend some time learning. Doing what I just described is the equivalent of composing music at an amateur level: I can put together some chords, add a "simple" melody and be done with it. I probably don't need to learn much to do it. Of course, in the case of music, you are expected to know how to use the instrument (tool). In the case of programming, I'm learning Python (the tool itself) and what I can do with it (the chord) at the same time.
I think we can all agree that knowing Python (both the tool and what I can do with it) is about as hard as knowing how to play the guitar very well, which is in both cases beyond the scope of an amateur and tends towards the professional side.
Perhaps, the biggest issue is one of perception: writing a simple piece of software that reads a file, does something, and writes the result is usually not considered programming, but that's probably one of the most basic tasks you can do. And, given instructions/documentation/tutorials, you can pick it up really fast.
Disclaimer: I say this as somebody who can't do programming beyond what's specified, nor compose anything worth listening, and whose ability with musical instruments is not worth of mention.
In the given example (steam), there is barely anything from most third world countries. At the very least, game companies tend to be based on first world countries and hire first world citizens.
Now, I do agree with you that if you reduce cost, then either you lower prices or you can't complain when someone else sells a competing product for cheaper. But before asking for X country's prices, I would beg for a close examination to actual costs of production and transport. I would also beg for a close examination of what is being sold in X country and yours. Say, imagine that a cheap smartphone is being sold in X. You see it and think damn that's cheap. Here in Y it costs more. Question: do you get the same benefits they do as a consumer? Is the quality standard the same? Things like that matter.
But how do you solve the competition problem in the video game space when what people wants is Call of Duty [latest installment] or GTAV?
It is very hard to do anything resembling competition in video game space. Battlefield and Call of Duty, two high-profile shooters, don't really compete with each other. And there is barely any other Call of Duty-esque game that is anything around the required size (in terms of reach/popularity). Furthermore, all it takes is for the games to be released with a year between them (or even less) to simply not compete in terms of sales.
My other question would be how do you ensure those rights are not abused? By enforcing a single price worldwide (along with same-date release date please)? I'm convinced whoever that the seller is simply going to select US/EU prices. I might be wrong, though. What do you think?
Oh, of course there is also the "how about we just improve the living standards in x countries so that different prices don't make sense", but that's beyond what we can effectively do.
Sadly, that last sentence defines a huge part of our social interactions.
I heard a nice argument supporting region locking on steam. While I personally would love that there just wasn't a difference in price, the argument was actually reasonable.
It goes like this: some areas in the world get a cheaper price because these are areas where there may be lower income for the population (it makes no sense to charge 50€ for a game in a region where minimum wage is something like 100€, for example). To give you an example, it would make no sense to try to sell games in Venezuela under the same price as everywhere else because the market would be too small. If you lower the prices in that country, you can (potentially) have more costumer (even if they pay you less) instead of them being forced to buy it from outside the country or just plain pirate it.
IIRC, the same happens with the region Russia is located in. At least, that was the argument I read.
Would you have a list or know some of those? It might be something relevant for TFS.
To be honest, it should be handled by a court or an entity empowered to do so by the government, and not a private company. And yes, she would probably have to tell the people working at that place why she wants it removed, preferably with proof, so that they know she isn't trying to wipe her slate clean. Because, yes, they should err on the side of not removing. Just as the US Justice system requires people to prove their claim instead of assuming it's true (the defendant is guilty).
But this isn't what this law is about. At least, that's not what I understand it to be about. For this given example, there should be a very specific law designed to handle it properly. This is more about forgetting things that you did (and somebody wrote on the internet), and not cases where you are a victim of a crime. At least, that's what I understand it to be for.
Companies should be legally required to provide evidence of such claims. Not saying things is not Photoshopping their public persona. It's just not showing all of their public persona. If they encouraged news sources to hide/delete/not report that information, then yes, they would be.
photoshopping is a misused term anyway. We should be using manipulation. Photoshopping, as
A long time ago I made the decision to live with my actions online. I say this as somebody who grew up being told to never publish anything that might ID me online. As such, I've tried my very best to: not publish something I don't want to remain on record for eternity; and if I do write something I later find... regrettable, not ask for it's deletion or it's inclusion. If somebody finds it, I hope they are capable of understanding that people change. If they aren't, I'm okay with not interacting with them (or I'll deal with it).
I can understand, however, that people do not share my stance. For them, there should be a process where the information is hidden (there needs to always be a backup, in case a later ruling/decision says there was a mistake) only if there is a good reason to do so (or, in the case of dumb things while drunk, there can't be a good reason to keep it).
Also, newspapers and other news sources should be exempt of it as long as they contain verified, true facts and only facts. As far as we know, we don't strike from history books what we don't agree with or find no longer relevant (okay, maybe we do show what we want, but that's wrong and it shouldn't be like that).
I think it would be best if we disclosed that her husband has been beating her up to the police. However, in the land of imperfect solutions, not disclosing that information is good starting point. But instead of a "right-to-be-forgotten", shouldn't that be something along the lines of screaming "fire" in a full theater (or otherwise enclosed space with lots of people)?
But then, with a technically perfect system, isn't it better to simply change the input(equalize as needed) to suit your tastes instead the equipment for something that produces a sound you enjoy more yet isn't perfect?
I do agree with you: at the end of the day, what matters is whether we enjoy the sound of it or not. Regardless of price.
Can you explain to me why you claim that the worst components are my ears?
So what Google is doing here is saying: this license we had isn't good enough for us anymore, we now want an extended license that also allow us to use your content on an audio streaming service, except they want everything or nothing.
An aggressive move, yes. I can understand people disliking that they didn't try to renegotiate the deal as opposed to scrap the old one and get a new one (the only way they would end up in a situation that would require them to block content they don't have a license to). The problem isn't, as was the focus of TFA, that they are blocking the videos (if they no longer have a license and they know it, I assume it's safest to simply block such content until a new license is issued OR it is clear that they won't have a new license; thus avoiding legal issues) of independent labels. The problem is that Google decided to go for a "double or nothing", in which the labels are always the losers: either because the terms are bad, or because they just are not in Youtube.
At least, that's what I think. Did I miss anything or made any mistakes in my thought process? Is there any assumption that's impairing my analysis of the situation?