I'd have to say my biggest pet peeve is the 'laser' guns in star trek and star wars. Seriously. Why don't they just call them some kind of 'energy' gun instead?? This at least would borrow on 'science' that's truly fictional instead of something we already have, everyone has seen, and everyone knows is faux.
For most of the disregard for accurate science in movies, I just take it for what it is.. a way to keep the movie interesting. I'd say the only ones that really need a thumbs down are the ones that are so bad even joe average and his dog know they're faux.
How about targeting the losers that are trashing Fair Use and what it was originally intended to be? Using 'copyrighted' music and/or videos in your own personal creations to show people for fun, where no one will be making money off it is no different than copying a page from a book to use in a public venue. No, it's not YouTube who's at fault, nor is it the users. It's also not really the fault of the labels or the artists. The people who are to blame for this whole mess are the ones who put in place things like the DMCA, DRM, and don't throw out stupid court cases that lawyers should be ashamed to even take to court in the first place.
Ok, so let me get this straight. They're spending millions of dollars to take down YouTube, when it's already obvious YouTube isn't worth even a fraction of the cost they'll spend suing them. And let's face it - there's no way on earth that the videos on YouTube are in any way costing them money. It's not like Napster was, where people were downloading copyrighted material in lieu of buying it. Any 'copyrighted' material you find on there is used in someone's original production. No one's going to say 'hey, I've just GOT to have that new jessica simpson music video/song so I'll just go find a video on you tube and watch it there!!'. If anything, YouTube is free advertising for whatever 'copyrighted' material gets used there. The only possible monetary gain UMG might see from this lawsuit is forcing new artists to sign through a label instead of being able to gain some notice on their own for free. But even anything they might gain through that would be pretty much negligible. So it's safe to say they're doing it purely for spite. What makes these big stupid companies like UMG or *AA look even more pathetic is when you realize all they're really accomplishing is to force anyone who wants to host this kind of site to do it overseas, where there's no laws to stop it and the governments really don't give a shit.
This kind of BS just really makes me mad. Screw UMG and screw the stupid justice system that let us get here in the first place.
If Microsoft really wants to make their software secure like it should be they're basically going to have to re-write it from the ground up. At this point, any 'security' they add is basically just more bandaids, and we've all seen how well those work in the form of their many patches.
The point I really want to make though is that it's pretty much irrelevant how good or bad their security apps are. The simple fact is that any such features that they include will most likely be used by most people who use their operating system. Just look at how many people use internet explorer over other browsers, and then look at how many more security issues IE has. This is not necessarily because IE is less secure than other browsers but since most people use IE, people who produce malware don't have to worry about finding security flaws in other browsers - all they need is to find them in IE. Plenty of computers will be affected. If MS includes their own security apps the same will apply, whether or not they allow third party security apps. Since most people will be using theirs instead of third party replacements for convenience's sake, there will be a lot more grief caused because of it. Finding secuirity flaws in one system is far easier than finding flaws in a dozen systems, and when you know that 90% of home computer owners are using the one system, your malware goal just got that much easier.
It doesn't have to be that expensive to build and maintain a PC. I've never spent $1200 on a PC. I spend $500 and upgrade piece by piece as needed. I always wait to buy upgrades until the stuff I'm buying is 'outdated' (but still plenty powerful enough to play games). So essentially for a hardware costs that's roughly 2-3x the cost of console hardware you get a machine that not only lets you play games, but also lets you browse the internet, send email, write letters, make spreadsheets or databases, file your taxes, download music and movies, buy pretty much anything you want online, etc. etc. etc. And the interesting thing is, pretty much the only thing you have to upgrade for gaming beyond what you'd want for general-purpose use is the graphics card. So to put it another way, basically what I spend on my PC to keep it in shape for gaming is buying a graphics card for $150 or so about every 2-3 years (less if you don't buy one with all the extra features I get with my All-In-Wonder). Since I need and use my machine for a plethora of other things every day (and no, a 1GHz machine is NOT fast enough for me for all those other things) I find PC gaming far less expensive than console gaming. I'm buying the hardware anyway, I may as well buy a couple games to play on it.
I distinctly remember a system that launched with about three games available, at a suggested retail price of $300 (or was it $400? something like that...). Supply was so scarce they sold on ebay for anywhere from $500-$2000. It's amazing what a launch right before christmas will do for you.
This total misconception is also what essentially his entire article is based on, and as a result really holds no water. He starts right off by saying "you have to upgrade everything every year." Sorry, but nope. ALL the parts in my system(except the extra hard drives I bought to hold all the OTHER stuff my PC is useful for) are 2+ years old (most are 3+). There's not a single game released to date that my system can't play. No, I can't play them all on max settings, but then with most games the minimum settings are better than similar games on consoles. Beyond that, every one of his 10 points is either outright false or at least flawed, but since other people have already pointed out that I won't bother. One thing I'll add though is that computer gamers don't use keyboard + mouse because they have to - it's because they want to. Gamepad choices for PCs abound, and most games will even detect which pad you have and have an intuitive default button setup. One of the saddest things about his whole article is how he missed one of the biggest reasons to own a console: split-screen multiplayer. For all the good multiplayer games and fun times PC games offer, there's nothing like sitting down to some hot 4-player action on a console (GoldenEye anyone?). Personally I play and enjoy both PC games and consoles, though more PC games of late.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd have to say my biggest pet peeve is the 'laser' guns in star trek and star wars. Seriously. Why don't they just call them some kind of 'energy' gun instead?? This at least would borrow on 'science' that's truly fictional instead of something we already have, everyone has seen, and everyone knows is faux. For most of the disregard for accurate science in movies, I just take it for what it is.. a way to keep the movie interesting. I'd say the only ones that really need a thumbs down are the ones that are so bad even joe average and his dog know they're faux.
How about targeting the losers that are trashing Fair Use and what it was originally intended to be? Using 'copyrighted' music and/or videos in your own personal creations to show people for fun, where no one will be making money off it is no different than copying a page from a book to use in a public venue. No, it's not YouTube who's at fault, nor is it the users. It's also not really the fault of the labels or the artists. The people who are to blame for this whole mess are the ones who put in place things like the DMCA, DRM, and don't throw out stupid court cases that lawyers should be ashamed to even take to court in the first place.
This kind of BS just really makes me mad. Screw UMG and screw the stupid justice system that let us get here in the first place.
The point I really want to make though is that it's pretty much irrelevant how good or bad their security apps are. The simple fact is that any such features that they include will most likely be used by most people who use their operating system. Just look at how many people use internet explorer over other browsers, and then look at how many more security issues IE has. This is not necessarily because IE is less secure than other browsers but since most people use IE, people who produce malware don't have to worry about finding security flaws in other browsers - all they need is to find them in IE. Plenty of computers will be affected. If MS includes their own security apps the same will apply, whether or not they allow third party security apps. Since most people will be using theirs instead of third party replacements for convenience's sake, there will be a lot more grief caused because of it. Finding secuirity flaws in one system is far easier than finding flaws in a dozen systems, and when you know that 90% of home computer owners are using the one system, your malware goal just got that much easier.
It doesn't have to be that expensive to build and maintain a PC. I've never spent $1200 on a PC. I spend $500 and upgrade piece by piece as needed. I always wait to buy upgrades until the stuff I'm buying is 'outdated' (but still plenty powerful enough to play games). So essentially for a hardware costs that's roughly 2-3x the cost of console hardware you get a machine that not only lets you play games, but also lets you browse the internet, send email, write letters, make spreadsheets or databases, file your taxes, download music and movies, buy pretty much anything you want online, etc. etc. etc. And the interesting thing is, pretty much the only thing you have to upgrade for gaming beyond what you'd want for general-purpose use is the graphics card. So to put it another way, basically what I spend on my PC to keep it in shape for gaming is buying a graphics card for $150 or so about every 2-3 years (less if you don't buy one with all the extra features I get with my All-In-Wonder). Since I need and use my machine for a plethora of other things every day (and no, a 1GHz machine is NOT fast enough for me for all those other things) I find PC gaming far less expensive than console gaming. I'm buying the hardware anyway, I may as well buy a couple games to play on it.
I distinctly remember a system that launched with about three games available, at a suggested retail price of $300 (or was it $400? something like that...). Supply was so scarce they sold on ebay for anywhere from $500-$2000. It's amazing what a launch right before christmas will do for you.
This total misconception is also what essentially his entire article is based on, and as a result really holds no water. He starts right off by saying "you have to upgrade everything every year." Sorry, but nope. ALL the parts in my system(except the extra hard drives I bought to hold all the OTHER stuff my PC is useful for) are 2+ years old (most are 3+). There's not a single game released to date that my system can't play. No, I can't play them all on max settings, but then with most games the minimum settings are better than similar games on consoles. Beyond that, every one of his 10 points is either outright false or at least flawed, but since other people have already pointed out that I won't bother. One thing I'll add though is that computer gamers don't use keyboard + mouse because they have to - it's because they want to. Gamepad choices for PCs abound, and most games will even detect which pad you have and have an intuitive default button setup. One of the saddest things about his whole article is how he missed one of the biggest reasons to own a console: split-screen multiplayer. For all the good multiplayer games and fun times PC games offer, there's nothing like sitting down to some hot 4-player action on a console (GoldenEye anyone?). Personally I play and enjoy both PC games and consoles, though more PC games of late.