The ending kinda sucked. I love the visuals, it was fun playing it, but the ending just wasn’t worth my time.

The thing that kinda bothers me the most about the ending is POP usually has multiple endings. Every other Prince of Persia I’ve played had different endings, and I’ve beaten them so I could see the endings.

Oh well it was a beautiful game. I give it 3 out of 5 stars. Rent it, don’t buy it.

When you read a lot of creepypasta you begin to discover the dynamics of fear.  What makes you scared, what snaps you back,  what makes you laugh, and what makes it worse. You also discover how something that’s really scary can be turned into nothing due to bad writing.  Hopefully this will not turn into one of those.

The best time to read the pasta is between 3am-5am when all the psychic static is low.  According to a Jewish acquaintance of mine it’s also the best time to read the Tora (first 4 books of the Bible.) It’s also the best time to code.

Maybe it’s because all the angels whispering in people’s ears are taking breaks from their usual ward.  After all they are asleep.  Nothing is going to happen to them.

So the angels will wander the neighbourhood looking for people who are awake, and whisper something in their ears.  Sometimes the angels loose track of time, watching what awake people are doing.  After all their ward is just laying in bed no need to guard them now.

This is where your nightmares come from.  You know the one with the shadow man standing over you.  You can’t move, you can’t scream, you wake up in your dream only to discover you’re in a dream.   Apparently your angel was taking an extended break watching the hacker down the street.  It’s also the reason why you feel like something is standing over your shoulder right now because all the angels are staying with their wards tonight.

Now usually I’m ok with these people. I’ll listen to their pitch, and then decide what to do next, today was a different story.

Let’s lay the background for the scene that I was about to play a part of.

When I get hungry, I get a really short fuse, add sleep deprivation and I can go from pleasant to enraged in a few seconds.

Now that we have that out of the way, let’s start with the presentation.

The doorbell rings, and I go upstairs. Wondering who it could be. I don’t get visitors, and I’m wondering who wants to be my friend, and how much do I have to pay them. I figured it was a door to door salesman on my trek to the front door. Who else is it going to be, maybe it’s a neighborhood kid wanting to mow my lawn.  That would be awesome.

So I open the door, and step outside lest the dogs/kids get out.

He hands me this travel pack of Kleanex, and being half out of it from lack of sleep I stand there like an idiot. There was this little voice inside my head that was screaming “drop it go back in.” So I’m standing there watching him bring a box up to the door.

I’m freaking out of it. Wondering what the flying flip is going on.

He mumbles something about a spot just inside the door.

I then mention to him, my wife works grave yards. Drifting in and out of coherency.

After that I let him in. Screw it I don’t get many visitors, the house is a mess, and I was wondering what he was selling.

The dude then begins to produce a kirby. I hate kirby. They are useful for anchors and that’s about it. In the realm of over priced vacuums I’ve only seen one that I liked, which is the tristar. I’ve never seen a rainbow, but it’s #1 in the do-not-buy-this-ever vacuum category, because you’ll end up getting a mold spore, the #2 is kirby. They are crap.

I before he even started I asked him “bottom line how much is it?” I believe I asked him twice, however I was tired, I could have thought it once, then asked him once. Who knows.

I know I asked him “I don’t suppose you’re going to tell me what the bottom line is before we get started?” Point being I wanted to know the cost before I started building value.  If I would have known the price ahead of time I could have saved us both an unpleasant experience.

Throughout the entire demonstration he keeps vacuuming the same 3×3 area of the carpet. Which he kept bringing up dirt, which tells me that no matter what vacuum you use there is going to leave dirt. The fact that he was using it on the same spot told me also that it wasn’t that great.

I noticed he had an outline of a pack of smokes, I was starting to get loopy, and thought a smoke would help. I was craving something, but it wasn’t sleep, it was food. However due to the lack of sleep, I wasn’t paying attention, and it’s rude to eat in front of guests.

We went out to the garage to smoke, and I told him I wasn’t going to buy it today. I told him we were planning a trip, and needed the cash for the trip. I also mentioned that I used to sell vacuums. Electrolux and tri-star. (I like the tri-star much much more.) He asked me what happened? I told him that I took the day off, and got fired, because I thought I was an independent contractor. I guess not.

Just before I snapped my wife walks out in the hall, and I inform her that someone selling vacuums is there. She went back in the room.

Somewhere I told him, can we hurry this up? I could have sworn I told him we need to be quiet she works grave yards again, and please don’t turn it on again.

After this the turn of events get really hazy, because I freaking snap. I don’t know if it’s because I told him my wife works graves, I saw the price, and went into shock.

So he shows me the price, I’m freaking snapped $2700? Ok $2695 or something like that. Still way too much for me.

I think somewhere that I point out that price is enough to make the house payment, car payment, pay all the bills and buy groceries for a month. WAY TOO MUCH.

I believe at this point I told him something along the lines that we worked really hard to get out of debt. A car, a house that’s acceptable debt. A freaking vacuum, well I’d rather send the money to a third world country and give it to them than buy a luxury item like that. I could buy a server with that money.

There is a LOT of crap I would buy for $2700 before I even considered a vacuum.

Guy brings out the shampoo, and I’m thinking to myself that’s he just turned that on again, after I told him not to. What part of my wife works graves doesn’t he understand? That’s 1.

I’m thinking to myself “maybe I should tell him my wife beats me and not to turn on the vacuum again because she’ll hurt me.”  I opt out of saying that because it’d be a lie.

He goes into the “math” segment. I’m a little peeved. You want me to spend enough money to buy a half way decent car on a vacuum?!

I know the “Math” spiel. It’s BS. Total BS. They are going to work the price of that dang thing down to the price of a gallon of milk for 5 years. He starts telling me every 2 years you have change your mattress BS, and that it’s illegal to buy used mattresses. Even though I point out to him I can buy one from good will. I can buy a gallon of milk every day, but the thing is if I forget to buy a gallon of milk 1 day, it gets repossessed, and my credit goes to crap, and let’s face it. I don’t buy a gallon of milk a day, and never will. Even with 2 kids in the house I’ve never bought that much milk.  I would be throwing out a lot of milk if I bought a gallon of milk a day.  Personally paying that much for that thing would have been just as sensible as buying a gallon of milk a day to me. He never went into a math speil. I told him, oh the math segment, so you’re going to work the price down to .25 a day or something now.

He turns on the monstrosity again. I snap tell him to turn it off, and get out of my house. I said something along the lines of “If you would have told me what the price was before you started I wouldn’t have wasted your time.” Which is totally true. He said something about calling his boss, so he could make it affordable. I told him no you may not use my phone. Get your crap and get out of here. him:”can I call” me:”no get your crap out of here.” Listen man I have a medical condition, I’m hungry when I get hungry I get angry. Just ask him (pointing to my son) what happens when I get like this. Can I use your sink to wash this out. No there’s a hose on the side of the house use that. Him:”can I call” me:”Do you want me to call the cops?!”

At some point, you stop being nice, and you start to yell just to get the dang result you want. Screw pleasantries, you’re in my house. I told you I can’t afford it, and I’m not going to buy it. You could knock $1000 off the top and I’d still wouldn’t buy it. I told him in the garage I wasn’t going to buy it today, and dang it I’m not going to buy it today. I already decided I would pay $1000 max for the thing. (That’s still way too much.)

He tells me I’m something else.

He starts packing his stuff, and things are quiet. He’s going pretty slow.

I came down from my angry rush/price shock, and told him I was sorry several times before he left. I mentioned that I was tired, and had been up since 2. Hopefully he realized it was 2am, and not 2pm. Told him I was sorry again.

He was going to try and pick up the dirt pads (which in my mind I was expecting to just leave them to spite me.) “you’ve done enough already.” is what I said in response to his query.

I offer him the phone at this point, he calls his boss, no answer.

He gets his crap outside, and starts to use the hose. I start sweeping up the dirt pads, and because the kitchen trash was full, I was taking the dustpan to the trash outside.

Then I took out the full kitchen trash.

I offered him the phone at this point, he gets a hold of him. Then he said “I’ll tell you about it later.”

The weather wasn’t the greatest, and I told him I was about ready to give him a coat.

I guess we both learned something yesterday. Never ever EVER go into anyones house who has a person who works the grave yard, and is sleeping.

Looking back at the whole experience I really wish I would have handed the packet of kleenex back and told him my wife works grave yards, come back tomorrow at 9am, when she’s awake and I’ll be more than happy to watch your demonstration.

However because I didn’t I ended up snapping, and giving him a story that he will never forget, and hopefully he can find a better job.

Then I reached this one, and it wanted to send me a file. No big deal why not … I’m protected I’m running linux. You have to chmod +x <filename> to make it executable, and the extension wasn’t .desktop.

So I opened it up with less:

From rms@gnu.ai.mit.edu  Tue May  2 02:36:22 1995
Received: from mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu by iris3.carb.nist.gov via SMTP (920330.SGI/920502.SGI)
	for ram id AA19490; Tue, 2 May 95 02:36:22 -0400
Received: by mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12GNU) id CAA07516; Tue, 2 May 1995 02:37:30 -0400
Date: Tue, 2 May 1995 02:37:30 -0400
Message-Id: <199505020637.CAA07516@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
From: Richard Stallman 
To: ram
In-Reply-To: <9505020440.AA19150@iris3.carb.nist.gov>
	(ram@iris3.carb.nist.gov)
Subject: Re: etc
Status: RO

Here's a proposal for another way to support musicians.
This way would not do the job for software, because users
need to be able to change software as well as copy it.
But users don't have much use for modifying phonorecords,
so music is a simpler problem, and this way seems sufficient.

                       The Right Way to Tax DAT

                          Richard M. Stallman

   Record company magnates don't like the digital audio tape recorder
(DAT), which can make perfect copies of musical recordings.  They fear
that customers will copy music themselves, and stop buying prerecorded
music.

   Threatening lawsuits, they have obtained from the manufacturers of
DATs an agreement to pay a fee for each DAT unit and each DAT tape sold
to consumers.  This fee is to be divided among various participants in
the music business: musicians, composers, music publishers and record
companies.  In addition, DAT manufacturers have agreed to cripple DAT
units so that they cannot make a copy of a copy of a prerecorded piece.

   Now the record companies have asked Congress to enact a law turning
this fee into a tax and prohibiting manufacture of DAT tapedecks that
function without imposed limitations.

   The stated purpose of the tax is to "compensate" musicians for
copying done by individuals using DATs.  However, 57 percent of the
funds collected would go to record companies and music
publishers--leaving less than half to the people who participate in the
creative process.  Most of these remaining funds would go to musical
superstars, and thus would do little to encourage musical creativity.
Meanwhile, DAT users would be unable to make full use of the power of
DAT technology.

   Here is a proposal for a different system for taxing DATs and DAT
tape--one designed to support music rather than cater to vested
interests.

   * Collect funds with a tax on DAT machines and DAT tapes, as the
     current proposal provides.

   * Use a survey system to measure the extent of copying of each
     musical piece.

   * Distribute these funds entirely to the people who create music.

   * Adjust each contributor's share so that it increases more slowly
     per copy as it gets larger.  This spreads the funds more widely to
     support a larger number of musicians adequately.

   * Make no restrictions on the functioning of DATs.

What is the purpose of copyright?
=================================

   The record industry presents its proposal as a way to "compensate"
musicians, assuming that they are entitled to be paid for any copy made.
Many Americans believe that copyright law reflects a natural right of
authors or musicians--that these are entitled to special consideration
from public policy.  However, any lawyer specializing in the field knows
this is a misunderstanding, a view rejected by the American legal
system.

   The stated purpose of copyright, given in the U.S. Constitution, is
to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts".  Progress in
music means new and varied music for the public to enjoy: copyright is
supposed to promote a public good, not a private one.

   Yet copyright is often thought of as a natural right by laymen and
politicians, which often leads to wrong decisions about copyright
policy.  Even courts, defining the details of the copyright system,
often let this thought creep back implicitly even though it is supposed
to be excluded.  This is a conceptual error because it mistakes a means
(copyright) to a larger end (progress) for an end in itself.

   Promoting progress in the arts does not inherently justify the idea
that authors are entitled to any particular sort of copyright, or even
that copyright should exist at all.  Copyright is justified if the
benefits of progress exceeds the burden that copyright imposes on
everyone except the copyright holder.

   How do we make this cost/benefit comparison?  It depends partly on
facts (how does a particular law affect musical activity and music
users) and partly on our value judgements about those results.

   Let's assume that it is worth paying a DAT tax if the result is a
significant increase in musical activity, and investigate how we should
arrange the details of this tax in order to maximize the benefit.  But
first, let's review basic principles and facts which have a bearing on
the inquiry.

Diminishing returns
===================

   The law of diminishing returns is a general principle of economics.
It states that each additional increment of efforts or funds spent on a
given goal typically produces a smaller and smaller increment in the
results.  There are exceptions to this law, but they are local; if you
keep on increasing the inputs, you eventually leave the exceptions
behind.

   For example, you can make traffic flow more smoothly by improving
roads.  Adding one lane to 20 miles of congested roads in a city might
increase the average traffic speed by 15 miles an hour.  Adding a
second lane to those roads will not give the same improvement; this
might increase the average speed by only 5 more miles an hour.  The
next additional lane might make no noticeable difference if the traffic
jams are already gone.  Yet each successive lane will cause greater
dislocation as more and more buildings must be torn down to make room.

   When applied to the activities of musicians, diminishing returns
tells us that each successive increase in the income of musicians will
have a smaller effect on the amount of creativity in music.

   Diminishing returns is the first reason to reject the idea that any
use of music "should" be covered by copyright.  There is nothing to gain
by trying to guarantee owners control of every possible aspect of the
use of music or to give them a financial stake in every possible
aftermarket.  Extending copyright can only "promote progress" up to a
certain point.  Further extensions merely increase what the public pays
to the owners for what they will do anyway.  Extending copyright beyond
that point is certainly undesirable.

Trade-offs
==========

   Those with a vested interest in extending copyright start the
discussion by claiming that copyright "should" be extended as far as it
can go.  But the principle of diminishing returns renders this claim
implausible.  So they fall back on the position that copyright should
be extended to maximize the rate of progress.  But this too is wrong,
because it ignores the existence of other trade-offs.  Copyright
imposes costs and burdens on the public, like any other government
project.  The benefit may not be worth the price.

   Government fills many important functions, but few would say that any
one of these functions should be expanded to maximize output.  For
example, governments build roads, and this is very useful.  But few
leaders would advocate building every road that could be built.  Road
construction is expensive, and citizens have other uses for their money.
Too much concentration on building roads means that other social and
individual needs will be unmet.

   The same considerations apply to individual decisions.  By spending
more money, you can buy a bigger and fancier house.  Most people would
prefer the more expensive house, all else being equal.  But given
finite resources, at some point spending more on a house becomes a poor
allocation of them.

   Copyright does not directly spend public funds, but it does impose a
cost--a loss of freedom--on every citizen.  The wider the scope of
copyright, the more freedom we pay.  We might prefer to exercise some of
our freedoms rather than trade them away.  We must judge any decision in
copyright policy by comparing the benefits with the costs.

*Incentive* is the wrong concept
================================

   The idea of providing a monetary incentive for making music is based
on a misunderstanding.  Musicians hope primarily for other kinds of
reward; they must.  Very few musicians get rich from their music; a
talented person whose primary goal is wealth would seek it in other
ways.

   In fact, psychological studies show that the desire for an extrinsic
reward (such as profit) generally hampers creative activities such as
writing music.  The people who can do them well are usually those who do
them mostly for their own sake.

   This is not to say that musicians don't care about being paid.  Most
hope to make a living from music so they will be free to devote their
time to it.  As long as they earn enough to live, they will make music
as best they can.  We might wish them to earn somewhat more than just
enough, so they can live as well as most Americans.  But to offer them
wealth beyond this gains the public little--it is a matter of
diminishing returns.

   With this understanding, let's consider how a tax on DAT tape could
be designed to serve the intended purpose of copyright.

Who should get the funds
========================

   If the purpose of the DAT tax is to better reward musicians and
composers, then all the money collected should go to them--not just 43
percent.  The musicians and composers are the ones who truly create the
music.  In principle, we could do without record companies entirely.

   Record companies do provide a useful service: they distribute
prerecorded copies of music, usually of high quality.  This service is
widely used, and will probably remain so.  And it is right that the
purchasers of prerecorded copies should pay for this service.  But
listeners making copies for themselves or their friends do not consume
this service; they use only the work of the musicians and composers.
The record companies contribute only incidentally and their role is not
essential.

Dividing the funds
==================

   What share of the tax revenues should each musician or composer get?
The record company proposal would divide the money in proportion to
record sales.

   It makes sense to distribute the funds based on how much that
musician's work is copied, more or less.  But strict proportionality is
not the best apportionment.  If each musician gets a share in strict
proportion to the amount of copying of his or her music, then a large
share will go to make a few superstars even richer than they are now.
This won't do much to promote musical culture or diversity.

   We can promote music more effectively by making any one musician's
share of the tax revenues taper off as copies increase.  For example,
we could calculate an "adjusted number of copies" which, beyond a
certain point, increases more slowly than the actual number.

   The effect of tapering off will be to spread the money more widely,
supporting more musicians at an adequate standard of living.  This
encourages diversity, which is what copyright is supposed to do.

   The US government has already established a program to fund
diversity in the arts: the NEA.  However, NEA grants involve
discretionary power, which makes them a center for controversy,
sometimes because a few members of the public strongly dislike the
work, and sometimes because hardly anyone particularly likes it.
Spreading out DAT tax revenues will also have the effect of supporting
less popular musicians.  However, it will not support musicians whose
work nobody likes.  In addition, since it involves no discretion, no
arbitrary decisions, there is little room for objection on account of
any particular case.

Encouraging home copying
========================

   The record company proposal includes a requirement to make it
difficult for home listeners to make copies.  Specifically, it requires
that consumer DAT machines refuse to copy a copy that was made on a
consumer DAT machine.  The argument for this requirement is based on
the assumption that home copying is somehow unfair.

   In the past, many people have considered it unfair, because it
reduced the income of musicians.  The DAT tax makes this reason
obsolete.  Once home copying does contribute to the income of
musicians, through the DAT tax, the reason to discourage home copying
disappears.

   Therefore, if a DAT tax is adopted, the ability to copy DAT tapes
should not be restricted.  Home copying is more efficient than record
companies and record stores; music lovers should be encouraged to use
home copying as much as possible.

Measuring the use of each piece of music
========================================

   Today, nearly all the recorded music in the United States is
purchased in record stores; home copying is but a small fraction.  This
will probably remain true for a long time, because record stores offer a
place where a person can go to find a particular piece or to browse a
wide selection.  While this remains true, we can usually estimate the
audience of a given piece fairly well by counting record sales.

   Eventually, home copying may become so widespread that estimating its
extent from sales figures may be unsatisfactory.  This is already
unsatisfactory for musicians who distribute independently without the
help of record companies; and if any musicians need additional support,
these are the ones.  We need another way to estimate usage of any given
piece, in order to distribute the tax funds.

   We can make these estimates by survey.  From time to time, survey
staff would ask randomly chosen members of the public to show what
copies they have made of copyrighted music.  The citizens asked would
not be required to answer.  But no penalty and no guilt would attach to
having made copies, so most people will be glad to participate.  Fans
will hope to be chosen so that they can contribute to the count for
their favorite musical groups.

   To make the survey more efficient and broader-based (and thus more
accurate), it could be automated.  The survey bureau could mail
read-write memory cards to the chosen participants, who would connect
them momentarily to their DAT units and then mail them back.  With
proper design, the survey bureau would have no way of knowing who had
sent in any particular card, and thus no information about who had
copied what, but they would still have an accurate total.

Conclusion
==========

   The record companies have proposed an excellent scheme for taxing the
public to increase their own income, but this isn't a legitimate purpose
of copyright.  Through due attention to the ends of copyright rather
than past means, we can design a system which supports musicians while
giving citizens full freedom to copy music as they wish.

What You Can Do
===============

   Record company lobbyists are working hard to pass their form of DAT
tax.  There is little organized opposition, and little public debate.
Their bill has already been sent out of committee in the Senate.

   This article proposes an alternative to the record company plan.  In
order for this alternative, or any alternative, to have a chance, we
must first prevent the hasty adoption of the record company plan.  To
help accomplish this, please write letters to:

     Congressman Barney Frank
     437 Cherry St
     West Newton, MA 02165

     Senator Metzenbaum
     United States Senate
     Washington, DC 20510

     House Subcommittee on Intellectual Property
     House of Representatives
     Washington, DC 20515

   Urge Congress to reject the record company bill so that this and
other alternatives can be properly considered.  It takes just a few
minutes to write a short letter, but in combination with other people's
letters it can do a great deal of good.

   If you know any musicians, composers, or songwriters, give them
copies of this article.  Many musicians prefer this alternative to the
record company tax plan, and they are strongly motivated to act on their
concern.

     [Copyright 1992 Richard M. Stallman
     Verbatim copying in any medium is permitted without fee
     provided the copyright notice and this notice are preserved.]