If you are turning, it is solely your responsibility to avoid obstructing legal oncoming traffic. If you hit someone doing the speed limit, you fucked up. That's it. There aren't ifs and buts about it. If it's hard to see, try harder. If you don't have much time, make the turn quickly when you commit to it. If the way isn't clear to proceed as soon as you turn, make the turn immediately. Whatever: it's your job to figure it out. If you can't figure it out, you don't get to drive.
I will never for the life of me understand why so many video game players are so insistent that video games must be art. Why does it matter?
For what it's worth, I don't think that video games can be art for reasons that are far too lengthy for the scope of a comment on here. But that doesn't mean video games can't be good things. I also like sport, newspaper articles, and good beer. Cultural artefacts don't have to be art to be good.
I don't understand either of the polar sides of the 'are video games art?'
'Art' is just a description, no more. No promise of quality, no conferred legitimacy. There is plenty of really crap art out there, that no-one will claim is not art. Every argument I've seen for the 'is not art' camp does some pretty torturous semantic weaving. And articles like this for the other camp that say 'art is shit, who wants that' are equally unenlightening.
I would say that creating video games in general is more of a craft than an art, but there is definitely art involved in getting to the final product.
edit: ugh, I didn't pick that the article was satire. shame on me.
If you're not a game designer, it doesn't really matter that much. But the approach you take to something changes when you decide your creation is a piece of art; there's an aspiration that comes with such a decision. The idea isn't so much that video games must be art, but that they can be art.
Not at all. As the article says, it's perfectly legal to rent out a room in your apartment, provided that you are also living in the apartment. The fact that some people use AirBnB illegally is neither here nor there.
Currently, if you're applying for an H1-B visa for someone from the UK (don't remember 100% if it is the same for all countries, though I believe it is), you're applying for them to arrive late in 2013 (IIRC - we may even be onto the next cycle now).
For a lot of companies, this is just an intolerable delay. Needs might change too much in that time.
> "Presumption of innocence" is not a principle that extends outside of US borders so its always difficult to contextualize police action in other countries to Americans who take their constitution for granted.
Sorry, what? Within America, that principle ultimately derives from English common law (from which the legal systems of most former colonies are derived). Moreover, it is a specific part of the European Convention on Human Rights, to which all EU members are party.
Of course it doesn't necessarily apply everywhere in the world (though it'd be foolish to expect any legal doctrine to apply universally, although in this case the doctrine is part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which makes it about as close to universal law as is possible) - but it clearly extends beyond the borders of the US (and in fact, the notion of it 'extending beyond the borders' is pretty offensive, as it suggests the US as the origin of the principle).
Its actually better this is happening out side the US. Simply possessing CP in any format, with or without knowledge or consent is illegal. A handful of smart people have written about the situation (and its been featured on HN in the past). In the US, he would likely be far worse off.
> "Simply possessing CP in any format, with or without knowledge or consent is illegal."
From a recent New York State supreme court decision , citing federal law on page 12: "to possess the images in the cache, the defendant must, at a minimum, know that the unlawful images are stored on a disk or other tangible material in his possession". And on page 14, "a
defendant cannot knowingly acquire or possess that which he or she does not know exists".
Variations of the word "know" appear over and over again in the decision, particularly in the line "knowing the character and content thereof." All three judges concurred on this point -- possession requires knowledge.
I think you mean 'uninterested'. Pet peeve, sorry.
But I wholly agree with the substance. This article feels like a justification for an unnecessarily long process that was a poor use of everybody's time. It reflects badly on a person if they're sufficiently desperate to expend so much time on the whims of a particular company, and it reflects badly on a company that would expect and encourage it.
To be clear - if you don't get a response, reaching out again to follow up is a really good thing. Being persistent is a good thing. But I think you really need to have a stronger sense of your own value than Amar displayed. When a company is that cool on you, it's probably better to move on.
But the bigger problem, really, is just that it all seems so inefficient. With all due respect, Amar sold himself really badly in the emails shown. That puts you on the back foot from the outset, and it bodes especially badly for a marketing oriented role.