If you sincerely believe that requiring signed drivers in a 64 bit OS is comparable to Nazis requiring Jews to where stars, you really, really, really need to get some perspective.
He's not comparing them in the level of impact they had on people, obviously. He's noting a comparison in the methods used, namely of taking such small steps toward the ultimate goal, that nobody notices where they're going until it's too late. You'd have to be pretty dense not to understand the point of the argument there.
'The thing is, art is something that radiates the artist, the person who creates that piece of art. If 100 people walk by and a single person is captivated by whatever that piece radiates, it's art. But videogames aren't trying to capture one person. A videogame should make sure that all 100 people that play that game should enjoy the service provided by that videogame."
Seems to me that he just said that video games should live up to a much higher standard than art. So damn near anything can be art, but a video game, well, it should actually be good.
Windows, properly set up and configured, is NOT the BSOD nightmare it used to be.
The article doesn't say anything about BSODing. It discusses real problems that most people installing and using Windows XP have run into. It compares these to some Linux distros. It notes where Linux comes out on top, and where it doesn't. Yes, the article can be called biased since it was written by a Linux user, but that just makes it much the same as all those Linux reviews written by Windows users. Sometimes the view from the outside is better.
Assuming that this production process is not that much more expensive (disc production, after all, is not a significant part of the purchase price), I'm hoping that Blu-ray discs become the norm.
The only reason I can think of that they would be willing to sell Blu-ray discs for about the same as DVDs is that they want another shot at the DRM thing. DVDs can be copied all day long. They don't like that, so I can see that as the only real incentive they have for pushing out the new discs at about the same price point.
Sorry to reply to myself, but I forgot one other thing. Time-limited games. I fucking HATE time-limited games. Oops, your time is up, please deposit another $1.50 to continue. Screw that.
"Lame-o" games didn't kill arcades, the cost of playing at an arcade did (when you can play it at home with people around the world).
Aside from the fact that arcade game variety had dwindled, it was the fact that it had begun to cost a dollar a game or more that really put me off arcades. I used to spend a lot of time and money in them too. But the fact was that we could play more interesting games as much as we wanted at home for less money overall. So really, consoles and the Internet killed the arcade.
I thought this was deemed illegal in the past. IIRC Microsoft was busted for kickback payments to system vendors who did their bidding, i.e. wouldn't bundle competing products on Windows installed computers. A "Coupon" wouldn't make it any different, it's an anti-competitive practice.
Yes, and while Microsoft has been to court over such things, there has never been any kind of real penalty for their actions in the past. They've always gotten off with the proverbial slap on the wrist. Why should they be deterred?
However, I could see the Bluetooth Qualification Administrator going after any products that call themselves bluetooth compatible without passing a test or paying the fee or whatever. If you don't like the standard or who controls it, then use something else.
That's not what was going on here. If they tried to label their products with the Bluetooth name and symbol, saying that they are certified, that would be one thing. In that case, they should go after the product maker. This is a case of simply stating facts. Something works with Bluetooth or it doesn't. There is absolutely nothing illegal about that. Companies were calling their PCs "IBM Compatible" for years with no repercussions. It's simply stating a fact.
Bluetooth is a propietary technology; standardisation is being worked upon (IEEE 801.15). There are several patents involved on the technology, therefore companies that wish to use it sign a licensing agreement. I can't get a hand on the exact terms, though I read that it's royalty free.
AFAIK, you don't need a license to talk about something on your website, even if it's patented or trademarked or what have you. I think the complaint was a bunch of hand-waving threats that unfortunately had the intended effect without having any legal weight behind it.
It's just like the GPL, you only have the right to distribute if you comply with certain terms. If I make an appliance that uses Linux internally and I refuse to provide the source code to the kernel isn't that illegal also? Still a dumb law in your mind?
In what way is your example anything at all like publishing a list of compatible hardware?
If you want better access, you could consider offering to donate time to your local political office, and field letters for them on technical areas. You would have to get over the fact that you would be required to respond with the elected official's viewpoints rather than your own, but it would allow you to potentially help influence the congressperson's views on the topic.
Also, a single letter on a particular subject is not important to them, nor should it be. They represent their entire constituency, and what matters is when they get many letters on the same topic. I believe they do listen when there is significant feedback. They tally the pro and con feedback, and try to get a sense of the public mood. I'm sure they also save all the letters, and eventually a staff member will scan over them and provide a summary of the points raised and perhaps a count of how many times each point was made by a different person. This information will then be used to help form the official position.
Right. I could do that. Or I could donate 10 grand and get to have dinner with the guy and explain face-to-face. Which do you think is more effective? I think my point was made. Money buys you attention, and given the poor understanding that almost all congresspeople have of technology, it makes it pretty easy to sway them to your side. That doesn't even consider that they were probably halfway there based on your donations. Oh, and by the way, they do have plenty of time to go over the letters. It usually takes a few months to get a response from them.
The letter ended with a rational request, yet many will jump to the same irrational (but understandable) conclusion and ignore the offer to discuss.
Yes, mostly because I'm tired of writing to my congresspeople, only to get a form letter in response that has almost nothing to do with the letter I sent them. They apparently match up a few keywords and toss it in a pile to get some boilerplate reply. They don't listen unless you're throwing money at them!
And this is why new companies show up every year that compete just fine with the big guys? Where was google on the map 10 years ago? Oh, they weren't.
I don't recall anyone saying that there was a high barrier to entry to creating a website. Building telecom infrastructure is a bit more expensive than building software.
If someone sells me access to "the Internet" and blocks ports defined in RFCs then it isn't "the Internet" it is something else.
Which is why they won't sell you access to "the Internet", they'll sell you access to "the Internet*". And then you get to go read the 3-page footnote that tells you that you'll be allowed to access content owned by the ISP and its partners, and they'll even throw in a bazillion ads for free.:)
Again for people that will actually spend money on a new High Definition DVD player, the choices are between one evil empire and the other. One is Microsoft and the other is Sony. Who would you pick?
Personally, I'd prefer to go with the one that is most likely to screw it up. I think Microsoft has the better track record in that department. If enough people get pissed off at DRM problems, then maybe we'll end up with something less restrictive in the end.
Government should NEVER dicate what file formats people are allowed to use.
Which is exactly why ODF should be the standard. Then people can turn it into any format they like, and they aren't forced to buy MS software just to interact with their government.
I have one of these pieces of very low tech, and unlike a battery torch it can safely be refuelled while still burning. Now try having your only battery powered torch start to die on you and try to find the batteries in the dark.
Presumably, you would go find new batteries before the battery powered torch went out, just like you would find the fuel and refill the kerosene lamp before it went out.
So evolution works as long as a species doesn't evolve far enough to develop the abilities to thwart it? You're still not looking at the big picture though. What if our thwarting evolution is only a speed bump along the way. Maybe it will be our downfall, and we'll be replaced by a species that knows better than to fuck with mother nature. Too soon to say IMO.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, when you come up with evidence supporting your criminal charge, I'll stand behind you 100%. Until then all the accusations are meaningless.
Ok, let's tap his phone and get that evidence!
If you sincerely believe that requiring signed drivers in a 64 bit OS is comparable to Nazis requiring Jews to where stars, you really, really, really need to get some perspective.
He's not comparing them in the level of impact they had on people, obviously. He's noting a comparison in the methods used, namely of taking such small steps toward the ultimate goal, that nobody notices where they're going until it's too late. You'd have to be pretty dense not to understand the point of the argument there.
'The thing is, art is something that radiates the artist, the person who creates that piece of art. If 100 people walk by and a single person is captivated by whatever that piece radiates, it's art. But videogames aren't trying to capture one person. A videogame should make sure that all 100 people that play that game should enjoy the service provided by that videogame."
Seems to me that he just said that video games should live up to a much higher standard than art. So damn near anything can be art, but a video game, well, it should actually be good.
just to nitpick, Wendy's calls it a Jr. Bacon Cheeseburger, not Bacon Jr. Cheeseburger.
Windows, properly set up and configured, is NOT the BSOD nightmare it used to be.
The article doesn't say anything about BSODing. It discusses real problems that most people installing and using Windows XP have run into. It compares these to some Linux distros. It notes where Linux comes out on top, and where it doesn't. Yes, the article can be called biased since it was written by a Linux user, but that just makes it much the same as all those Linux reviews written by Windows users. Sometimes the view from the outside is better.
Assuming that this production process is not that much more expensive (disc production, after all, is not a significant part of the purchase price), I'm hoping that Blu-ray discs become the norm.
The only reason I can think of that they would be willing to sell Blu-ray discs for about the same as DVDs is that they want another shot at the DRM thing. DVDs can be copied all day long. They don't like that, so I can see that as the only real incentive they have for pushing out the new discs at about the same price point.
Sorry to reply to myself, but I forgot one other thing. Time-limited games. I fucking HATE time-limited games. Oops, your time is up, please deposit another $1.50 to continue. Screw that.
"Lame-o" games didn't kill arcades, the cost of playing at an arcade did (when you can play it at home with people around the world).
Aside from the fact that arcade game variety had dwindled, it was the fact that it had begun to cost a dollar a game or more that really put me off arcades. I used to spend a lot of time and money in them too. But the fact was that we could play more interesting games as much as we wanted at home for less money overall. So really, consoles and the Internet killed the arcade.
It's an idiom and assumes knowledge of the metadata to make sense of it.
Heh. I bet 90% of the people that use that phrase couldn't tell you the full version. So it apparently it assumes too much.
I thought this was deemed illegal in the past. IIRC Microsoft was busted for kickback payments to system vendors who did their bidding, i.e. wouldn't bundle competing products on Windows installed computers. A "Coupon" wouldn't make it any different, it's an anti-competitive practice.
Yes, and while Microsoft has been to court over such things, there has never been any kind of real penalty for their actions in the past. They've always gotten off with the proverbial slap on the wrist. Why should they be deterred?
However, I could see the Bluetooth Qualification Administrator going after any products that call themselves bluetooth compatible without passing a test or paying the fee or whatever.
If you don't like the standard or who controls it, then use something else.
That's not what was going on here. If they tried to label their products with the Bluetooth name and symbol, saying that they are certified, that would be one thing. In that case, they should go after the product maker. This is a case of simply stating facts. Something works with Bluetooth or it doesn't. There is absolutely nothing illegal about that. Companies were calling their PCs "IBM Compatible" for years with no repercussions. It's simply stating a fact.
Bluetooth is a propietary technology; standardisation is being worked upon (IEEE 801.15). There are several patents involved on the technology, therefore companies that wish to use it sign a licensing agreement. I can't get a hand on the exact terms, though I read that it's royalty free.
AFAIK, you don't need a license to talk about something on your website, even if it's patented or trademarked or what have you. I think the complaint was a bunch of hand-waving threats that unfortunately had the intended effect without having any legal weight behind it.
It still doesn't make sense though. You refered to Bluetooth in your post and I'm guessing you didn't ask Bluetooth for permission to do that.
He isn't trying to sell his post.
The Linux BlueZ site wasn't selling anything either.
It's just like the GPL, you only have the right to distribute if you comply with certain terms. If I make an appliance that uses Linux internally and I refuse to provide the source code to the kernel isn't that illegal also? Still a dumb law in your mind?
In what way is your example anything at all like publishing a list of compatible hardware?
If you want better access, you could consider offering to donate time to your local political office, and field letters for them on technical areas. You would have to get over the fact that you would be required to respond with the elected official's viewpoints rather than your own, but it would allow you to potentially help influence the congressperson's views on the topic.
Also, a single letter on a particular subject is not important to them, nor should it be. They represent their entire constituency, and what matters is when they get many letters on the same topic. I believe they do listen when there is significant feedback. They tally the pro and con feedback, and try to get a sense of the public mood. I'm sure they also save all the letters, and eventually a staff member will scan over them and provide a summary of the points raised and perhaps a count of how many times each point was made by a different person. This information will then be used to help form the official position.
Right. I could do that. Or I could donate 10 grand and get to have dinner with the guy and explain face-to-face. Which do you think is more effective? I think my point was made. Money buys you attention, and given the poor understanding that almost all congresspeople have of technology, it makes it pretty easy to sway them to your side. That doesn't even consider that they were probably halfway there based on your donations. Oh, and by the way, they do have plenty of time to go over the letters. It usually takes a few months to get a response from them.
The letter ended with a rational request, yet many will jump to the same irrational (but understandable) conclusion and ignore the offer to discuss.
Yes, mostly because I'm tired of writing to my congresspeople, only to get a form letter in response that has almost nothing to do with the letter I sent them. They apparently match up a few keywords and toss it in a pile to get some boilerplate reply. They don't listen unless you're throwing money at them!
And this is why new companies show up every year that compete just fine with the big guys? Where was google on the map 10 years ago? Oh, they weren't.
I don't recall anyone saying that there was a high barrier to entry to creating a website. Building telecom infrastructure is a bit more expensive than building software.
If someone sells me access to "the Internet" and blocks ports defined in RFCs then it isn't "the Internet" it is something else.
:)
Which is why they won't sell you access to "the Internet", they'll sell you access to "the Internet*". And then you get to go read the 3-page footnote that tells you that you'll be allowed to access content owned by the ISP and its partners, and they'll even throw in a bazillion ads for free.
I've always been a fan of Zuma.
I actually prefer Luxor to Zuma. It just feels like it's more polished and plays smoother.
Again for people that will actually spend money on a new High Definition DVD player, the choices are between one evil empire and the other. One is Microsoft and the other is Sony. Who would you pick?
Personally, I'd prefer to go with the one that is most likely to screw it up. I think Microsoft has the better track record in that department. If enough people get pissed off at DRM problems, then maybe we'll end up with something less restrictive in the end.
Government should NEVER dicate what file formats people are allowed to use.
Which is exactly why ODF should be the standard. Then people can turn it into any format they like, and they aren't forced to buy MS software just to interact with their government.
I have one of these pieces of very low tech, and unlike a battery torch it can safely be refuelled while still burning. Now try having your only battery powered torch start to die on you and try to find the batteries in the dark.
Presumably, you would go find new batteries before the battery powered torch went out, just like you would find the fuel and refill the kerosene lamp before it went out.
This is the internet, you don't need to be a hot girl.
But it sure helps a lot.
So evolution works as long as a species doesn't evolve far enough to develop the abilities to thwart it? You're still not looking at the big picture though. What if our thwarting evolution is only a speed bump along the way. Maybe it will be our downfall, and we'll be replaced by a species that knows better than to fuck with mother nature. Too soon to say IMO.
You can't define a faith based argument in scientific terms, or a scientific argument in faith based terms. The two countermand each other.
Which is why we don't teach faith in science class. Faith didn't build the computer that I'm typing this on.