I think it's interesting that you are using power lines as you example, but I'll stick with it. To extend your analogy, without network neutrality the power company can charge your appliance manufacturer a surcharge for use, and if they decide not to pay it then your refrigerator and washer/dryer gets a tiny trickle of electricity and is reduced to near-worthlessness.
You clearly don't understand the situation, like most people who come out against network neutrality. The companies who are pushing this did not create the internet, did not create it's standards, and do not own the land that they are using to bring the internet to you. The internet is a "common area", not a market. There is no "free market" here unless you want to make it truly free, in which case I will charge Verizon $400 for the FIOS line they just ran under my property, payable immediately and monthly. Also Charter, you owe me another $400, pay up. Then these two companies can then negotiate with every single other homeowner in the city as well. But wait, we don't allow that (and rightly so) because it would ensure that no one ever gets broadband and stifle innovation. Instead, we grant Verizon a local monopoly and allow them to use our easements; in return they are supposed to stay away from doing exactly what they are proposing, which is using their power to bone us out of features because we have no choice (hey it's them or the cable company, that's hardly a free market).
Also, power lines are a bad example because they work just fine for their intended purpose and are regulated.
It seems we have a bit of a misunderstanding here. I watch the Daily Show and Colbert report every day, and think that pundits are poisoning journalism. You are recanting your original post; you originally said that the media was undermining government and are now saying that they are alternatly playing sides. I don't really know how to respond to that; if the government was not top-to-bottom corrupt then there would be nothing to "get"; anyway I see far more cozying up to power by the media then I do relentless muckraking. Thanks for the response.
The biggest problem is that we have two generations of reporters that believe their job is to undermine the government, and that that is an example of freedom of the press.
Well, it may cost me my karma, but I am simply not going to allow you to get away with saying this. It is complete nonsense.
It is not the press's responsibility to glad-hand or enable the government. It is the press's responsibility to ask questions and report the facts of the situation. Inevitiably, there will be bias. A story can consist of many facts, and which ones you choose to omit or include and on what basis of relevance can be considered bias. If, by some miracle, you can include all the facts, then the order in which you state them becomes the bias. There is ALWAYS bias. That is why it is so important to have a free speach, where all voices and all sides of the issue can be heard.
After 9/11, the press completely failed in these duties and, for all intents and purposes, gave a free pass to this government. In hindsight, our reasons for getting into Iraq have all been proven to be specious and false; at the time however the press was willing to give the administration the benefit of the doubt. In hindsight, we have learned about the HUGE gaps and red flags in the intelligence and fact-presentation of the rational in going to war with Iraq that were present at the time and went unreported because the press didn't want to seem unpatriotic. We have an American citizen being tortured and reduced to a "piece of furniture" in direct violation of our sacred Constitution. We have a President that is UNCONSTITUTIONALLY and ILLEGALLY spying on Americans and has gutted 1,000 years of legal process with his Military Commision Act and only a small handful in the media are seriously questioning it. We are in a huge mess, with our troops being killed and our treasury being drained, because the media didn't have the balls to question this President and his illegal administration. Even now, the media are still aiding this government by burying horrendous stories of Department of Homeland Security negligence.
So you'll forgive me if I don't believe your ridiculous assertion that we have two generations of reporters who believe that undermining the government is a part of their job. As a matter of fact, that is such a ludicrous outlook that I am simply apalled that you can write it in seriousness. Not only is it factually false, it's an excercise in intellectual dishonesty. A just and effective government would have NOTHING to fear from questioning. A government that governed by logic (as opposed to "faith" or "from the gut") would have NOTHING to fear from self-examination. Your statement does not reflect a conservative or liberal viewpoint (conservatives believe in limited government and appreciate a free press to keep it in check; liberals believe in personal freedoms and thus welcome freedom of the press.) Rather, your viewpoint is a fascist one and not supported by the Constitution. Your right to speak your views, however, are.
You are literally lying your pants off here. Net neutrality has nothing to do with pricing AT ALL -- AT&T can charge a dollar for internet access, or they can charge one hundred dollars, and there's nothing the government can do about it.
What Net Neutrality actually is -- well, it's a regulation on internet carriers that prevents them from deprioritizing packets based on what they contain. So AT&T cannot degrade my Xbox360 Live packets while letting PS3 packets through at lightspeed because Sony and AT&T have some shady backroom deal or AT&T wants to charge me a "gamer's fee" of 10 dollars on top of my internet access. BTW, I picked a deliberately ficticious example, but it's far more likely that AT&T would kill competing Voice-Over-IP systems rather than affect gaming - but you never know. What if they decide they want a piece of Amazon, or your online business? Prepare to fork over some cash.
Now there is always some free market nutjob who butts in at this point with some pithy line about how, "it's their internet, and they can do whatever they want". But the problem is that this is BS for a couple of reasons. The first is that it's not a free market; most people have 2 broadband providers IF THEY ARE LUCKY and they are both essentially local monopolies: the phone company, and the cable company. They don't have competition and can screw you blue if we lose Net Neutrality. The second thing is that it's not the free market, because you - as a taxpayer - have already subsidized the infrastructure of these companies. The government has granted the telecoms huge amounts of money to build infrastructure for the internet. You have granted them the use of right-of-way through your property to lay their cable and "make improvements". (A side note: Verizon is putting FIOS into my neighborhood, and they messed up the edge of my front lawn to do it; there's absolutely nothing I can do about it as this is considered an easement with the city that I still magically pay propery taxes on, of course.)
I believe in the power of the free market to solve many issues but the issue here is that we are talking about Net Neutrality, which deals with data. That data is the "currency" of the free market that is the internet and needs to be kept fluid and neutral.
Honestly? The presentation is better, WAY better. The way the notes are presented seems much more natural and "guitary". But, most importantly, the track listing is very, very good and has something for everyone as well as some "overlooked gems". Guitar Freaks and the others have bubblegum J-Pop that, let's just face it, no one outside of Japan and the hardcore otaku care about. I'll take "Sharp Dressed Man", thanks.
You mean like, having their own Saturday morning cartoon show (which they did) and their own comic book?
Sorry that your plumbercentric view keeps you from enjoying the characters from other franchises.
Honestly, the "Playstation Brand" has been the only real justification for predicting any kind of Playstation3 success ever since Sony had their lackluster E3 2006 press briefing.
Now, this is just personal experience speaking, but myself and three other close friends have all purchased Xbox360s over the last five months, ever since Sony's premium price was announced. These were all people (including myself) who had a strong interest in the Playstation brand but were immediately turned off by the pricing vs. features, lack of an online plan, and general corporate behavior. And while my personal experience by no means constitutes a trend, I have no doubt that others feel the same way. I think that Sony's in bad shape.
There's no doubt that Blu-Ray may appeal to a subset of consumers. I wonder if those same consumers will enjoy paying 30 dollars or more for the Blu-Ray titles - a 50 percent premium over DVDs. This is something that no one talks about and I don't see why not. Until the price of the disks come down you, Blu-Ray and HD-DVD will be a no-go no matter how you slice it. You could put a Blu-Ray player in every home and it still wouldn't sell because the media is simply too expensive for cost vs. performance. So, at this point Sony is essentially selling a media playing format at a loss - and no one will want to pay the premium to get that media, because they either a) don't want to spend the money, or b) literally don't have the equipment to properly display high-def signal (look at the fury over Dead Rising). That's a losing proposition to me.
I think this is probably the most interesting generation of console releases ever, and I've seen them all. What is interesting to me is that Nintendo is poised to walk away in second place (worst case scenario) or even get to first place if they manage to cross that mystical boundry that seperates "gamers" from the game-playing public. A few games have managed to do this; The Sims and Myst being the two most notable examples. If you can make a fun, easy-to-use system with a TRUE wide variety of appeal then you will become the king of the living room. But even if you can't get the casuals, Nintendo's low price and unique controller basically guarantees that it will become the second console of choice to the hardcore gamer crowd who wants either a different kind of game or something more tactile and accessible to rope in their casual friends. I also think that pro-Wii Nintendo fans, who will buy the console for Nintendo's franchises, have not yet realized the impact of buying a slightly-upgraded Gamecube down the line. In two or three years, when a game is released for Xbox360 or PS3 that really blows away the public (and it will happen, as it has happened in every generation) Wii owners are going to want to get in on that. At that point, their console's anemic power might be a liability. A port might not be technically feasible, in which case, they will then have to make a choice: Xbox360 or PS3? Which leaves us with the distinct possibility that Nintendo might get a Wii into the majority of gamer's homes (and at a profit, too!) and also appeal to the casual audience.
Microsoft and Sony are not so lucky. By pricing their consoles expensively and having similiar technical specs, Microsoft and Sony have turned their segment into an "all or nothing" proposition. They will either take first place or die.
There are, of course, other factors, but they rely on games, mindshare, game franchises, and online play...not console branding. Final Fantasy and Metal Gear may move units, but niether game will appeal to anyone beyond it's already hardcore fan groups. What's hilarious is that a simple look back through the history of consoles shows that console-branding means jack squat. Atari was king, but bad games let the crown slip to Nintendo. Nintendo built an almost insurmountable lead with the NES, was chipped away at by the Genesis (and how was that accomplished? GAMES! The product was inferior technically), crushed by the Playstation (also an inferi
I know it's not recommended to feed the trolls, but I can't help myself.
I just wanted to say that your comments about CliffyB are entirely inaccurate. He's the nicest guy I have ever met at any show ever; I met him at E3 (he was dressed in a pimptabulous red suit) and he actually took half an hour of his time to talk to me. Please note that I am a complete dork and had nothing to offer him - I do not work in the games industry and am not a media persion. Cliff just took the time to talk to me as a human being and fellow fan. The man is a gamer's gamer who enjoys just about every genre and is totally enthusiastic about making games. He's worked hard, made his own 2d platformer, been a level designer, and clawed his way up to a lead design position. All without any stupid smack talk or any of the other bombastic crap that "gaming celebrities" engage in.
I think CliffyB is pretty cool and if his game is good (and I don't see why it shouldn't be; the man "gets" games) then I hope it meets with a lot of success.
The problem is not that the game is downloadable. The problem is not the price -- it is actually fairly reasonable for a puzzle game. No, the problem is the semantics used. The game is listed as "Unlock the Full Game", not "Unlock Mission Mode and a Few Trial Modes". This sets the expectation that the player will have access to ALL of those locked modes that you see in the trial version of the game, not a handful.
Furthermore, the developer's assertion that he is allowing the player to "download and customize the game" is pure hogwash. If he is, where is the granualarity? There is, at present, the "Full Game" (really just a "base game"), a future skin pack, and an additional pack of mode unlocks. That's hardly "customization". Since Microsoft pushed the microtransaction model so hard, why isn't this company taking advantage of it and offering individual skin download or genre packs for a small discount?
The fact is that this is a simple example of publisher greed and comes very close to a bait-and-switch method of dealing with gamers. Microsoft needs to step into this as a consumer advocate and offer a refund in MS Points (and a corresponding revocation of the ability to play the game) to anyone who feels shorted by this situation.
That's interesting that you say that the 360 is a nightmare to work with...because John Carmack is on record as saying that it has the best IDE and programatic support of any console he has ever seen.
I think I will take Mr. Carmack's opinion over that of an anonymous coward, no offense.
Slashdot Mirror
I think it's interesting that you are using power lines as you example, but I'll stick with it. To extend your analogy, without network neutrality the power company can charge your appliance manufacturer a surcharge for use, and if they decide not to pay it then your refrigerator and washer/dryer gets a tiny trickle of electricity and is reduced to near-worthlessness.
You clearly don't understand the situation, like most people who come out against network neutrality. The companies who are pushing this did not create the internet, did not create it's standards, and do not own the land that they are using to bring the internet to you. The internet is a "common area", not a market. There is no "free market" here unless you want to make it truly free, in which case I will charge Verizon $400 for the FIOS line they just ran under my property, payable immediately and monthly. Also Charter, you owe me another $400, pay up. Then these two companies can then negotiate with every single other homeowner in the city as well. But wait, we don't allow that (and rightly so) because it would ensure that no one ever gets broadband and stifle innovation. Instead, we grant Verizon a local monopoly and allow them to use our easements; in return they are supposed to stay away from doing exactly what they are proposing, which is using their power to bone us out of features because we have no choice (hey it's them or the cable company, that's hardly a free market).
Also, power lines are a bad example because they work just fine for their intended purpose and are regulated.
It seems we have a bit of a misunderstanding here. I watch the Daily Show and Colbert report every day, and think that pundits are poisoning journalism. You are recanting your original post; you originally said that the media was undermining government and are now saying that they are alternatly playing sides. I don't really know how to respond to that; if the government was not top-to-bottom corrupt then there would be nothing to "get"; anyway I see far more cozying up to power by the media then I do relentless muckraking. Thanks for the response.
The biggest problem is that we have two generations of reporters that believe their job is to undermine the government, and that that is an example of freedom of the press.
Well, it may cost me my karma, but I am simply not going to allow you to get away with saying this. It is complete nonsense.
It is not the press's responsibility to glad-hand or enable the government. It is the press's responsibility to ask questions and report the facts of the situation. Inevitiably, there will be bias. A story can consist of many facts, and which ones you choose to omit or include and on what basis of relevance can be considered bias. If, by some miracle, you can include all the facts, then the order in which you state them becomes the bias. There is ALWAYS bias. That is why it is so important to have a free speach, where all voices and all sides of the issue can be heard.
After 9/11, the press completely failed in these duties and, for all intents and purposes, gave a free pass to this government. In hindsight, our reasons for getting into Iraq have all been proven to be specious and false; at the time however the press was willing to give the administration the benefit of the doubt. In hindsight, we have learned about the HUGE gaps and red flags in the intelligence and fact-presentation of the rational in going to war with Iraq that were present at the time and went unreported because the press didn't want to seem unpatriotic. We have an American citizen being tortured and reduced to a "piece of furniture" in direct violation of our sacred Constitution. We have a President that is UNCONSTITUTIONALLY and ILLEGALLY spying on Americans and has gutted 1,000 years of legal process with his Military Commision Act and only a small handful in the media are seriously questioning it. We are in a huge mess, with our troops being killed and our treasury being drained, because the media didn't have the balls to question this President and his illegal administration. Even now, the media are still aiding this government by burying horrendous stories of Department of Homeland Security negligence.
So you'll forgive me if I don't believe your ridiculous assertion that we have two generations of reporters who believe that undermining the government is a part of their job. As a matter of fact, that is such a ludicrous outlook that I am simply apalled that you can write it in seriousness. Not only is it factually false, it's an excercise in intellectual dishonesty. A just and effective government would have NOTHING to fear from questioning. A government that governed by logic (as opposed to "faith" or "from the gut") would have NOTHING to fear from self-examination. Your statement does not reflect a conservative or liberal viewpoint (conservatives believe in limited government and appreciate a free press to keep it in check; liberals believe in personal freedoms and thus welcome freedom of the press.) Rather, your viewpoint is a fascist one and not supported by the Constitution. Your right to speak your views, however, are.
You are literally lying your pants off here. Net neutrality has nothing to do with pricing AT ALL -- AT&T can charge a dollar for internet access, or they can charge one hundred dollars, and there's nothing the government can do about it.
What Net Neutrality actually is -- well, it's a regulation on internet carriers that prevents them from deprioritizing packets based on what they contain. So AT&T cannot degrade my Xbox360 Live packets while letting PS3 packets through at lightspeed because Sony and AT&T have some shady backroom deal or AT&T wants to charge me a "gamer's fee" of 10 dollars on top of my internet access. BTW, I picked a deliberately ficticious example, but it's far more likely that AT&T would kill competing Voice-Over-IP systems rather than affect gaming - but you never know. What if they decide they want a piece of Amazon, or your online business? Prepare to fork over some cash.
Now there is always some free market nutjob who butts in at this point with some pithy line about how, "it's their internet, and they can do whatever they want". But the problem is that this is BS for a couple of reasons. The first is that it's not a free market; most people have 2 broadband providers IF THEY ARE LUCKY and they are both essentially local monopolies: the phone company, and the cable company. They don't have competition and can screw you blue if we lose Net Neutrality. The second thing is that it's not the free market, because you - as a taxpayer - have already subsidized the infrastructure of these companies. The government has granted the telecoms huge amounts of money to build infrastructure for the internet. You have granted them the use of right-of-way through your property to lay their cable and "make improvements". (A side note: Verizon is putting FIOS into my neighborhood, and they messed up the edge of my front lawn to do it; there's absolutely nothing I can do about it as this is considered an easement with the city that I still magically pay propery taxes on, of course.)
I believe in the power of the free market to solve many issues but the issue here is that we are talking about Net Neutrality, which deals with data. That data is the "currency" of the free market that is the internet and needs to be kept fluid and neutral.
Honestly? The presentation is better, WAY better. The way the notes are presented seems much more natural and "guitary". But, most importantly, the track listing is very, very good and has something for everyone as well as some "overlooked gems". Guitar Freaks and the others have bubblegum J-Pop that, let's just face it, no one outside of Japan and the hardcore otaku care about. I'll take "Sharp Dressed Man", thanks.
You mean like, having their own Saturday morning cartoon show (which they did) and their own comic book? Sorry that your plumbercentric view keeps you from enjoying the characters from other franchises.
Honestly, the "Playstation Brand" has been the only real justification for predicting any kind of Playstation3 success ever since Sony had their lackluster E3 2006 press briefing.
Now, this is just personal experience speaking, but myself and three other close friends have all purchased Xbox360s over the last five months, ever since Sony's premium price was announced. These were all people (including myself) who had a strong interest in the Playstation brand but were immediately turned off by the pricing vs. features, lack of an online plan, and general corporate behavior. And while my personal experience by no means constitutes a trend, I have no doubt that others feel the same way. I think that Sony's in bad shape.
There's no doubt that Blu-Ray may appeal to a subset of consumers. I wonder if those same consumers will enjoy paying 30 dollars or more for the Blu-Ray titles - a 50 percent premium over DVDs. This is something that no one talks about and I don't see why not. Until the price of the disks come down you, Blu-Ray and HD-DVD will be a no-go no matter how you slice it. You could put a Blu-Ray player in every home and it still wouldn't sell because the media is simply too expensive for cost vs. performance. So, at this point Sony is essentially selling a media playing format at a loss - and no one will want to pay the premium to get that media, because they either a) don't want to spend the money, or b) literally don't have the equipment to properly display high-def signal (look at the fury over Dead Rising). That's a losing proposition to me.
I think this is probably the most interesting generation of console releases ever, and I've seen them all. What is interesting to me is that Nintendo is poised to walk away in second place (worst case scenario) or even get to first place if they manage to cross that mystical boundry that seperates "gamers" from the game-playing public. A few games have managed to do this; The Sims and Myst being the two most notable examples. If you can make a fun, easy-to-use system with a TRUE wide variety of appeal then you will become the king of the living room. But even if you can't get the casuals, Nintendo's low price and unique controller basically guarantees that it will become the second console of choice to the hardcore gamer crowd who wants either a different kind of game or something more tactile and accessible to rope in their casual friends. I also think that pro-Wii Nintendo fans, who will buy the console for Nintendo's franchises, have not yet realized the impact of buying a slightly-upgraded Gamecube down the line. In two or three years, when a game is released for Xbox360 or PS3 that really blows away the public (and it will happen, as it has happened in every generation) Wii owners are going to want to get in on that. At that point, their console's anemic power might be a liability. A port might not be technically feasible, in which case, they will then have to make a choice: Xbox360 or PS3? Which leaves us with the distinct possibility that Nintendo might get a Wii into the majority of gamer's homes (and at a profit, too!) and also appeal to the casual audience.
Microsoft and Sony are not so lucky. By pricing their consoles expensively and having similiar technical specs, Microsoft and Sony have turned their segment into an "all or nothing" proposition. They will either take first place or die.
There are, of course, other factors, but they rely on games, mindshare, game franchises, and online play...not console branding. Final Fantasy and Metal Gear may move units, but niether game will appeal to anyone beyond it's already hardcore fan groups. What's hilarious is that a simple look back through the history of consoles shows that console-branding means jack squat. Atari was king, but bad games let the crown slip to Nintendo. Nintendo built an almost insurmountable lead with the NES, was chipped away at by the Genesis (and how was that accomplished? GAMES! The product was inferior technically), crushed by the Playstation (also an inferi
I know it's not recommended to feed the trolls, but I can't help myself.
I just wanted to say that your comments about CliffyB are entirely inaccurate. He's the nicest guy I have ever met at any show ever; I met him at E3 (he was dressed in a pimptabulous red suit) and he actually took half an hour of his time to talk to me. Please note that I am a complete dork and had nothing to offer him - I do not work in the games industry and am not a media persion. Cliff just took the time to talk to me as a human being and fellow fan. The man is a gamer's gamer who enjoys just about every genre and is totally enthusiastic about making games. He's worked hard, made his own 2d platformer, been a level designer, and clawed his way up to a lead design position. All without any stupid smack talk or any of the other bombastic crap that "gaming celebrities" engage in.
I think CliffyB is pretty cool and if his game is good (and I don't see why it shouldn't be; the man "gets" games) then I hope it meets with a lot of success.
The problem is not that the game is downloadable. The problem is not the price -- it is actually fairly reasonable for a puzzle game. No, the problem is the semantics used. The game is listed as "Unlock the Full Game", not "Unlock Mission Mode and a Few Trial Modes". This sets the expectation that the player will have access to ALL of those locked modes that you see in the trial version of the game, not a handful. Furthermore, the developer's assertion that he is allowing the player to "download and customize the game" is pure hogwash. If he is, where is the granualarity? There is, at present, the "Full Game" (really just a "base game"), a future skin pack, and an additional pack of mode unlocks. That's hardly "customization". Since Microsoft pushed the microtransaction model so hard, why isn't this company taking advantage of it and offering individual skin download or genre packs for a small discount? The fact is that this is a simple example of publisher greed and comes very close to a bait-and-switch method of dealing with gamers. Microsoft needs to step into this as a consumer advocate and offer a refund in MS Points (and a corresponding revocation of the ability to play the game) to anyone who feels shorted by this situation.
That's interesting that you say that the 360 is a nightmare to work with...because John Carmack is on record as saying that it has the best IDE and programatic support of any console he has ever seen. I think I will take Mr. Carmack's opinion over that of an anonymous coward, no offense.