I'm not sure what this "groupthink" is you're speaking of, but that's a topic for another day.
I suppose the issue many have is that the "laws" you speak of, in a system putatively set up "of the people, by the people and for the people" do not seem to represent the interests of "the people". The OP describes a scenario in which "the people" aren't involved in the defining of the policies and laws that affect them, thus the resulting policies and laws are rather one-sided and tend to benefit a small group at the expense of "the people". That's what the big deal is about.
Using the built-in WiFi capabilities of the mobile phone and publicly accessible and open WiFi access points to torrent in a way that doesn't point to their home internet connection so they aren't part of the next RIAA/MPAA fishing expedition?
Now people simply stream once and have it forever in a perfect copy.
I doubt that. More like a "good enough" copy - if you think streamed video is perfect you haven't been watching closely enough. Ripping from a stream is more analagous to a radio-to-cassette or tv-to-vcr copy back in the day. Yeah it's better than those now, but still quite inferior to a pristine digital copy. Good enough for many, but not good enough for those who care. It's easy enough for the streaming providers to throw in enough artifacts or other subtle degradations into the stream that leave it watchable but still unacceptable for those who want a good copy to "keep forever". I think the rights holders should give up their fear of stream-ripping and just treat streaming as what it is: a modern version of radio or broadcast television. The opportunity to sell "perfect" copies to those who care via file download (with verifiable checksum) or physically via the latest memory card or stick still exists - the formula still works even if plastic disks aren't what people want to buy any more.
Granted, I don't know the proportion of users who use a given desktop environment in these distributions, so the OP may be accurate, but this seems a little presumptuous. I personally use KDE, and I know that many folks eshew both Gnome and KDE for lighter desktop environments. Quite a few users of these distributions won't notice this "major change" at all. Might I suggest something like: "The major change that will be most visible to Gnome users in each distro is an upgrade to Gnome 3.2. Users of other desktop environments will experience minor upgrades with little visible impact on user experience".
Or perhaps... just perhaps... the many of you that work professionally in the IT field got lazy. Really, really lazy. Rather than actually evaluating the merits of a new software release for yourselves (as one would expect an actual professional to do), you lazily shirked your responsibility and expected someone else to do your job for you. For software you very likely didn't pay for, because it was provided to you free of charge, with full source code, access to the entire history of the code repository, development mailing lists, a detailed changelog etc. It doesn't get more transparent than this.
I'm not sure how "running it in the browser" is supposed to magically erase all the problems that in years past were associated with running in multiple operating systems. The more power and control is given to the browser, the more complex they become, and the less likely it is that different browsers will be able to provide the same experience.
This isn't "browser wars", this is "Operating System Wars, The Sequel". The more things change, the more they stay the same.
If you want perfection, use the real games and the actual hardware, preferably with an RGB mod and a CRT display
It's possible you didn't read the TFA thoroughly, because the author discusses this point. One of the reasons to strive for perfect emulation is preservation (of the original gaming experience) as the (abundant, for now) hardware becomes scarce. At some point, very few people will have the actual working hardware. What then?
From TFA:
Take a look at Nintendo's Game & Watch hardware. These devices debuted in 1980, and by now most of the 43 million produced have failed due to age or have been destroyed. Although they are still relatively obtainable, their scarcity will only increase, as no additional units will ever be produced. This same problem extends to any hardware: once it's gone, it's gone for good. At that point, emulators are the only way to experience those old games, so they should be capable of doing so accurately.
It might have something to do with being extremely and consistently productive for several decades, on a project that has had an effect on a planetary scale. I'm referring to the project called "Lin-ux" (and clearly not called "93 Escort Wagon-ux").
No offense intended, but... STFU until you give us some sort of good reason to care about *your* opinion.
As things stand now, I dismiss your opinion out of hand, whether it has merit or not. Linus, on the other hand, gets the benefit of the doubt and while I won't accept his opinions blindly, I'll happily give it some thought and decide whether I agree.
I can't speak for BrokenHalo, but perhaps "value" is the wrong (though telling) descriptor. I'd choose something like "benefit" instead. So in "there, fixed that for you" fashion:
I'm not saying I disagree, but what's the *benefit* you see in this depth?
The benefit is probably similar to what's supposed to happen when taking a vacation. Re-energizing and reconnecting with the world by reducing the frenetic flow of information to a pace we find more natural, and dealing with actual real people rather than one-dimensional (and oftentimes dysfunctional) network personae. Doing something physical and interesting, perhaps, that energizes the body *and* the mind, rather than just the mental thrill of consuming info at internet speed. Stress relief might be another benefit.
My daughter has been attending a summer camp that includes 5 days away from home per session and doesn't permit personal electronics or communication with home outside of snailmail or printouts of emails we send. No facebook, twitter, youtube, texting, phonecalls etc. Lots of activities, though, like swimming, archery, crafts etc. She thought it would be a torture to be disconnected, but after the first week she said she hadn't missed it at all. In fact she didn't even get on the web the first day back - just fired up her ereader and read a book. She was calm and happy until after she got back on the computer and spent half the day doing the usual stuff, then she got more withdrawn and somewhat crabby. I can only conclude that some aspects of being online a lot are stressful and tiring to us, and we don't really notice until we stop for awhile.
Seriously, the only proper solution here is to boycott the game and NOT pirate it. period. Am I the only one who understands that this is the only reasonable solution?
No, you're not the only one. To this day I haven't played a single second of (as one example of many) Bioshock. Didn't buy the game, didn't pirate it, just ignored it. The same holds true for every other game that contains DRM. Didn't buy, didn't pirate. Only DRM-free games run on my system.
You are very perceptive, and this might indeed be the case.
The question is, what happens once that happens? With DVD mailings, it was at least possible to rip the DVDs temporarily and watch them when you decided to. With streaming, you are totally at the whim of the provider. If they decide to remove something from the streaming queue, that's that. Gone - instantly. This actually happened to me in the middle of watching a film. I was watching it in short segments each day, and suddenly it vanished from the instant queue and I was stuck without seeing the conclusion. I would have been more happy to have seen the entire film (in time increments that fit my schedule) to it's conclusion than to have it arbitrarily taken away because the provider (or content providers) decided it was no longer available. More control in the hands of either netflix or content creators is not what I wish for.
Perhaps they are trying to send a message to the MPAA studios?
No, they are trying to shift everyone to streaming only, which is less costly than mailing DVDs (because of the postage, plus handling of the physical media). Once they have eliminated that cost and shifted everyone to streaming, then the plans will get much more costly. You had better hope that this move stimulates the DVD mailing industry so you have other services to fall back on. Otherwise your choices will soon be limited to "pay up, beyotch" ($150/mo *plus* your providers metered bandwidth plan) or go without.
Everyone is whining because they are merely pawns in a game of epic brinksmanship.
The thing about Netflix was that they offered just about the right price point for content on a monthly subscription basis. Maybe even a little bit less. That's how they grew their subscriber base.
Now, however, they are dancing very close to the line where content is once again overpriced, and since quite a lot of people still have cable subscriptions, they may just cancel their Netflix subs and live with cable as they have for the last few decades. That could be very disastrous for them.
Because they totally won't raise the price of streaming once they have choked out the alternatives. You are sooo smart, the way you play right into their hands.
What should happen is that everyone cancels their streaming subs and jumps back on the DVD plans (which allegedly cost more for Netflix as a company to provide). A little bit of that and more reasonable plans would re-surface. But that's just fantasy.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure what this "groupthink" is you're speaking of, but that's a topic for another day.
I suppose the issue many have is that the "laws" you speak of, in a system putatively set up "of the people, by the people and for the people" do not seem to represent the interests of "the people". The OP describes a scenario in which "the people" aren't involved in the defining of the policies and laws that affect them, thus the resulting policies and laws are rather one-sided and tend to benefit a small group at the expense of "the people". That's what the big deal is about.
The fact that scrolls (content on a single scrolling medium) predate books (content in paginated format) suggests you might be wrong.
Using the built-in WiFi capabilities of the mobile phone and publicly accessible and open WiFi access points to torrent in a way that doesn't point to their home internet connection so they aren't part of the next RIAA/MPAA fishing expedition?
Now people simply stream once and have it forever in a perfect copy.
I doubt that. More like a "good enough" copy - if you think streamed video is perfect you haven't been watching closely enough. Ripping from a stream is more analagous to a radio-to-cassette or tv-to-vcr copy back in the day. Yeah it's better than those now, but still quite inferior to a pristine digital copy. Good enough for many, but not good enough for those who care. It's easy enough for the streaming providers to throw in enough artifacts or other subtle degradations into the stream that leave it watchable but still unacceptable for those who want a good copy to "keep forever". I think the rights holders should give up their fear of stream-ripping and just treat streaming as what it is: a modern version of radio or broadcast television. The opportunity to sell "perfect" copies to those who care via file download (with verifiable checksum) or physically via the latest memory card or stick still exists - the formula still works even if plastic disks aren't what people want to buy any more.
You totally forgot James Patterson. "He" puts your other examples to shame.
I've read enough of his articles and papers over the years. Doesn't really look like what I recognize as science.
Here's an old, but interesting essay that takes a critical look at this 'experimental science': http://www.fruitti.com/essay2.html
THIS. A thousand times this.
I don't know what else to say. My brain shut down after reading that phrase.
I'll second that. Been here longer than any other site on the web, and something about this site keeps me coming back.
I was thinking 103,000. :-)
Granted, I don't know the proportion of users who use a given desktop environment in these distributions, so the OP may be accurate, but this seems a little presumptuous. I personally use KDE, and I know that many folks eshew both Gnome and KDE for lighter desktop environments. Quite a few users of these distributions won't notice this "major change" at all. Might I suggest something like: "The major change that will be most visible to Gnome users in each distro is an upgrade to Gnome 3.2. Users of other desktop environments will experience minor upgrades with little visible impact on user experience".
Sounds to me like you're describing an agnostic. To me, "atheist" is no different than "strong atheist".
Yeah but,
1. It's science. Cheap, substandard equipment does not make for good science. Sucks to be NASA, I guess.
2. As FlyingGuy pointed out: NO ATMOSPHERE to get in the way, so the conditions are optimal for clarity.
Nobody has mentioned Sturgeon's Law yet, so I just did. Once again, it holds true.
Or perhaps ... just perhaps ... the many of you that work professionally in the IT field got lazy. Really, really lazy. Rather than actually evaluating the merits of a new software release for yourselves (as one would expect an actual professional to do), you lazily shirked your responsibility and expected someone else to do your job for you. For software you very likely didn't pay for, because it was provided to you free of charge, with full source code, access to the entire history of the code repository, development mailing lists, a detailed changelog etc. It doesn't get more transparent than this.
Quit whining. Seriously.
I'm not sure how "running it in the browser" is supposed to magically erase all the problems that in years past were associated with running in multiple operating systems. The more power and control is given to the browser, the more complex they become, and the less likely it is that different browsers will be able to provide the same experience.
This isn't "browser wars", this is "Operating System Wars, The Sequel". The more things change, the more they stay the same.
If you want perfection, use the real games and the actual hardware, preferably with an RGB mod and a CRT display
It's possible you didn't read the TFA thoroughly, because the author discusses this point. One of the reasons to strive for perfect emulation is preservation (of the original gaming experience) as the (abundant, for now) hardware becomes scarce. At some point, very few people will have the actual working hardware. What then?
From TFA:
Take a look at Nintendo's Game & Watch hardware. These devices debuted in 1980, and by now most of the 43 million produced have failed due to age or have been destroyed. Although they are still relatively obtainable, their scarcity will only increase, as no additional units will ever be produced. This same problem extends to any hardware: once it's gone, it's gone for good. At that point, emulators are the only way to experience those old games, so they should be capable of doing so accurately.
Good question.
It might have something to do with being extremely and consistently productive for several decades, on a project that has had an effect on a planetary scale. I'm referring to the project called "Lin-ux" (and clearly not called "93 Escort Wagon-ux").
No offense intended, but ... STFU until you give us some sort of good reason to care about *your* opinion.
As things stand now, I dismiss your opinion out of hand, whether it has merit or not. Linus, on the other hand, gets the benefit of the doubt and while I won't accept his opinions blindly, I'll happily give it some thought and decide whether I agree.
That's why people care what Linus' opinion is.
Just sayin'
I can't speak for BrokenHalo, but perhaps "value" is the wrong (though telling) descriptor. I'd choose something like "benefit" instead. So in "there, fixed that for you" fashion:
I'm not saying I disagree, but what's the *benefit* you see in this depth?
The benefit is probably similar to what's supposed to happen when taking a vacation. Re-energizing and reconnecting with the world by reducing the frenetic flow of information to a pace we find more natural, and dealing with actual real people rather than one-dimensional (and oftentimes dysfunctional) network personae. Doing something physical and interesting, perhaps, that energizes the body *and* the mind, rather than just the mental thrill of consuming info at internet speed. Stress relief might be another benefit.
My daughter has been attending a summer camp that includes 5 days away from home per session and doesn't permit personal electronics or communication with home outside of snailmail or printouts of emails we send. No facebook, twitter, youtube, texting, phonecalls etc. Lots of activities, though, like swimming, archery, crafts etc. She thought it would be a torture to be disconnected, but after the first week she said she hadn't missed it at all. In fact she didn't even get on the web the first day back - just fired up her ereader and read a book. She was calm and happy until after she got back on the computer and spent half the day doing the usual stuff, then she got more withdrawn and somewhat crabby. I can only conclude that some aspects of being online a lot are stressful and tiring to us, and we don't really notice until we stop for awhile.
http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/6995033/mongo-db-is-web-scale
Seriously, the only proper solution here is to boycott the game and NOT pirate it. period. Am I the only one who understands that this is the only reasonable solution?
No, you're not the only one. To this day I haven't played a single second of (as one example of many) Bioshock. Didn't buy the game, didn't pirate it, just ignored it.
The same holds true for every other game that contains DRM. Didn't buy, didn't pirate. Only DRM-free games run on my system.
You are very perceptive, and this might indeed be the case.
The question is, what happens once that happens? With DVD mailings, it was at least possible to rip the DVDs temporarily and watch them when you decided to. With streaming, you are totally at the whim of the provider. If they decide to remove something from the streaming queue, that's that. Gone - instantly. This actually happened to me in the middle of watching a film. I was watching it in short segments each day, and suddenly it vanished from the instant queue and I was stuck without seeing the conclusion. I would have been more happy to have seen the entire film (in time increments that fit my schedule) to it's conclusion than to have it arbitrarily taken away because the provider (or content providers) decided it was no longer available. More control in the hands of either netflix or content creators is not what I wish for.
Perhaps they are trying to send a message to the MPAA studios?
No, they are trying to shift everyone to streaming only, which is less costly than mailing DVDs (because of the postage, plus handling of the physical media). Once they have eliminated that cost and shifted everyone to streaming, then the plans will get much more costly. You had better hope that this move stimulates the DVD mailing industry so you have other services to fall back on. Otherwise your choices will soon be limited to "pay up, beyotch" ($150/mo *plus* your providers metered bandwidth plan) or go without.
Everyone is whining because they are merely pawns in a game of epic brinksmanship.
The thing about Netflix was that they offered just about the right price point for content on a monthly subscription basis. Maybe even a little bit less. That's how they grew their subscriber base.
Now, however, they are dancing very close to the line where content is once again overpriced, and since quite a lot of people still have cable subscriptions, they may just cancel their Netflix subs and live with cable as they have for the last few decades. That could be very disastrous for them.
Right.
Because they totally won't raise the price of streaming once they have choked out the alternatives. You are sooo smart, the way you play right into their hands.
What should happen is that everyone cancels their streaming subs and jumps back on the DVD plans (which allegedly cost more for Netflix as a company to provide). A little bit of that and more reasonable plans would re-surface. But that's just fantasy.