What hole? Users still line up to buy their shit. EA execs know gamers will continue to fork over the cash for shit. As a gamer myself, I can't help but marvel at the stupidity that requires.

Watch; EA has control of star wars. I guarantee they pull the same shit with forthcoming SW games, and they'll make a mint regardless of the quality of the game itself, nor how the company chooses to abuse the consumer this time around. Oh, we'll all whine, bitch and moan. Then we'll turn around and buy the DLC and expansions.

Your point is valid, certainly. However, I would hope that any employer's code vetting process would account for a certain amount of reuse as well as possible copying of source. When you think about it, all web-oriented javascript/html/css on a public site is, effectively, public code.

Instead, replicate the work as best you can on your own servers. Heck, while you're at it, make those improvements you would have made after you wrote it originally.

If it's not on my own infrastructure, it doesn't go on my resume.

Hands up if you read that as Time Lord at first, followed immediately by the correction and disappointment.

All this tells me is that Australian politicians are fund raising, nothing more.

Agreed. At the end of the day, those who write the checks get what they want.. I was speaking more of the theory rather than the practical.

In those situations where I've recommended and warned against the functionality, and the user still demands it, I have considered it more my failure to communicate the risk than the user's failure. But, as you say, I wanted to get paid so I delivered what the user requested.

If your interface would allow a user to shoot themselves in the foot without proper precautions, then your user experience is, by definition, *not good*.

The goal of any application is to let the user perform a function FASTER than manipulating the data themselves, manually. If your UI enables the user to destroy a significant portion of that effort easily, then you have failed to achieve your goal.

Because the world is changing and it's no longer socially acceptable to just pay what's legal, it's considered inappropriate to pay less than what people would consider to be a fair amount. If you're paying $1 of tax on $1000 of earnings because you've cleverly nested your business assets overseas in a complex web of tax avoidance schemes, then most people would consider that unfair, even if it is legal.

I'm curious; how do you define "fair", and how would you go about forcing companies to "be fair" when they are not? Think about it for a bit. I think you'll find that's exactly what the law is intended to be, of which ( I'm guessing ) Apple is not in violation of. Our government setup this game, and now it is mad that someone dare play by the rules. Doesn't that seem hypocritical to you?

The problem isn't companies like apple. There will always been companies like Apple. They are a symptom of the underlying problem; government doesn't know how to make tax law.

Let me be the first to say, "Bullshit". I'm not in that interview chair because I enjoy the process. I'm not planning on working there because that's how I want to spend 9+ solid hours of my day ( although I do enjoy my work ). I'm there to earn a check.

Likewise, they aren't interviewing me because I'm an insightful and witty bastard ( although I am ). Neither are they going to hire me because looking at my pretty face is the highlight of their day. They want production out of me.

Now, that won't be the first thing out of my mouth, but I certainly will not hobble myself in an interview by letting them dictate what we talk about, when. Once I feel satisfied that I can do the work they want, and further, I think they feel satisfied I can do the work they want me to do, compensation becomes the next point of topic. If they don't bring it up, I will.

The risks I am referring to are that of game types, not payment models. Does your game REQUIRE online access? And I mean really require it; not a marketing directive to the programming team to hobble the game ( latest simcity )?

Because if you sold an online game, you can charge monthly access fees. While the F2P MMOs are doing well, the monthly access fee is still prominent enough as to be something people wouldn't mind paying for, if your game is worth it. Myself, I think there is a niche for both the F2P and the monthly access model. Sometimes I don't want to be hobbled with microtransactions to finish a game. Sometimes I don't mind 2 bucks here, 5 bucks there, to play a game.

But EA doesn't encompass the entirety of the gaming industry. And while yes, many larger software and hardware companies are following suit with the hostility to consumers, this creates an amazing environment for indie game development companies to flourish.

Which, frankly, is exciting. I'm tired of the same ol' crap from companies too scared to take risks.

Ala cart channel bundling? Great idea! No moronic sports blackouts? Another great idea. Making law to FORCE companies to do this? Horrible, horrible idea.

We like to pretend we believe in capitalism around here, then the "small government" party ( ahahahaha ) goes off and pulls something like this.

If the market hasn't provided for this capability yet, it's because people don't want it bad enough. Simple as that. And while many will point out how difficult it is for your average person to fight against this, I would point out that the barrier is lowering, and has been since the advent of the internet in everyday lives.

Not only that, but the certification carries implication in the private sector as well.

It's not just whether there are other civilizations out there. It's also whether either of us would develop technology that the other would be able to understand or recognize as signals AND broadcast them during the time when they could be received AND with sufficient power to be received.

Contrary to popular belief, we ( collectively ) have come to the point where we'll be pretty good at spotting intelligence. Or perhaps we should call it "purposeful manipulation of energy", as that's really what we're talking about. It's actually fairly easy. Remember, we're not talking about understanding it, nor are we talking about gauging how advanced it is ( not immediately ). Rather, just recognizing order against the chaotic background of the universe.

Once we identify purposeful manipulation of energy ( ie: TV signals, radio waves, gamma rays or WHATEVER are being used to to propagate information ), then it's just a matter of deciphering it. Which is the harder part, granted, but hardly beyond what our species is capable of.

Seriously, with as litigious as everyone is, who WOULDN'T patent every thing they could think of, if only to keep "the other guy" from litigating you to oblivion?

Not that I'm saying Samsung won't exploit such patents. I'm sure they can, and will. But that's how the game is played, so instead of getting riled at Samsung ( or Apple, or anyone else for that matter ) for suing everyone for absurd patents, shouldn't we, instead, be outraged at the system that allows and encourages such behavior?