If you want to replace a sound card because company a made a shoddy one or won't support it...
Will you get the replacement from company A or look for a company B?
With the general expectation that this sort of thing would be found out (which after it came out in big way on video cards not too long ago) the idea to do this was clearly not well thought out.
> Maybe we're obsessed with this idea of the small musician being able to make it big,
I'd be curious to know what the odds are of hitting it big by sending CDs to the music companies, hoping you'll get noticed and then hoping someone will actually care vs spreading random oddball memes around the net. (ie making WOW videos or AMVs with your own songs, Eepy bird / diet coke & mentos making Audio Body known etc. Sadly many devoted musicians have probably been outsold by the Hamsterdance CDs.
Could acknowledging the possibility of liability inherently cost ISPs safe harbor be definition? (ie accepting any deal is taken as an admission that you've done something that denies that protection?) For that matter, is it possible some major ISPs are already unprotected as a result of recent over-collaberation (spying on citizens w/o warrants)? Could snooping itself (outside of warrants) count as a "not-just-a-conduit" disqualifying action?
Plus for PC, you can run your game faster if you pay more
Minus for PC, compared to a console you may have to pay much more than you'd like for acceptable performance (would you want to do serious gaming on an eMachine? All 360s are even...)
What's on a console can be better optimized (you KNOW what they're running), what's on a PC? Do theey have feature X? How fast does it run? Uh-oh, the feature is only emulated by DirectX on this PC...
"It just works" (tm)
Plus for Console, usually, if it's FOR that console, it works seemlessly with it, always, forever, if not replace or fix the console
PC, is the game bad, is something in your system bad? Will upgrading the OS break it? Upgrading to a different model video care? Do you have enough RAM? (Although there are exceptions, the N64 had an add-on memory card)
Worse, old action games with no good timer that you can't seem to adjust for the proper speed. I've seen it mentioned at one point that Linux played some old PC games better than some version of Windows because with either you needed to emulate these days and the better emulator writers (that this guy knew of) were on Linux. I can't vouce for the accuracy, but not all games were written to scale gracefully on different machines. Neither are NES games, but the NES is a discrete target, the PC is a set of general blurs. You can expect a Win95 game to have capabilities between W and Y, a 98 between X and Z etc...
Will the PC randomly slow from spyware? Will a popup from an anti-virus program or IM kill your game?
How long will the PC take to boot? Consoles don't take nearly as long. (Although with what we've seen on the net with ROM based loading, either Windows or Linux booting can be VERY sped up, I'm sure many people would pay a lot for a USB based Windows install that "just worked" within seconds when you booted from it. We'll probably see something like this coming up.
If something breaks, will your main PC be broken? (Bad memories of DX 3 and 4)
Of course, what if someone was to make... "Game OS". Forget just a virtual machine, a plug-in USB based OS (maybe based on a stripped down version of Linux, Puppy or DSL, perhaps a smaller OS with a published spec that peripheral makers could write to or not, no different than writing / building for DirectX) Guarenteed better speed and reliability from not running ANYTHING extra in the background if the OS can get unloaded from memory by whatever game you choose to run. There's the nasty problem of who will / won't release new hardware / drivers for this OS. (A single driver that all devices could be made to fit would be beautiful, but good luck)
How many PCs do you want?
If you game on your PC, you may or may not be able to use it for other things at the same time. How seemlessly can you swap between your gaming, IM etc? With a PC and console, one right next to the other, best of both worlds. Dedicated machine that no amount of playing on your PC will slow down.
Cheating
There's always been cheating and always will. From Game Genie for infinite lives to patches for PC games for see-through walls in FPSs. If you want a fair online game, the best system is a console front-end (technically hackable, but difficult that not nearly so many will bother as will on PCs where it's much easier) with as much as possible handled on a central server.
In this, the whole virtual machine idea becomes more practical. If we get a fast enough, reliable enough net connection, we can theoretically treat EITHER a console OR a pc as just a tv and controller, a dumb terminal that advertises its capabilities, sends keyboard, mouse, controller info and returns a video feed from the server.
Screen
Computers tend to have monitors instead of TVs
Monitors look better but are usually smaller. HDs look nice. The Dreamcast has a VGA adaptor. Many HD TVs take PC input. This is becoming moot. In the future you'll get a monitor,
Of course, supply and demand. Big disaster = big demand for a fix (and higher prices can be charged for delivering it)
We're not really unconcerned with global warming etc, we're just waiting until it's so desperate that billions can be made in the creation of underground cities or whatever 3rd late last ditch solution might work once desperation has reached its peak (and sensibility has been tossed out the window).
Remember that a few idiots DID saran wrap their house after 9/11...
Of course if I'm a terrorist I'm going to get people in place all over the US, and openly discuss my plans AFTER everyone is in place, in front of countless online witnesses, any one of which might not want us to kill them as opposed to making the plans before we came over and NOT EVER MENTIONING THEM.
If the terrorists are really that incompetant, we don't need to stop them, because they're just going to mess their own plan up anyway.
So two possibilities remain:
1. This is a blatant move towards a police state, leaving people too afraid to speak their mind (ala China).
2. There's legitimate reason to fear a massive uprising of "terrorism" from AMERICANS themselves. This sort of thing doesn't just happen in a vacuum. If this is expected, it begs the question, what are those pushing this bill planning to do that's so horrible Americans would revolt in large numbers? This is not a fear of legitimate governments that AREN'T looking to do something horrible.
Someone might speculate that perhaps they aren't worried about ordinary citizens or terrorists, but that perhaps there's another secret group we don't know about (or the extent of) seeking to infiltrate the government. Darn those commies trying to sneak back in! If there was such a group, and they were well coordinated enough to make such an attempt, don't you think they'ed have their own encrypted communications, and possibly face to face IRL meetings that left no record?
One way or another, this doesn't pass the smell test.
There's no real question that this sort of thing will be widespread as it becomes affordable.
The questions are, what new problems will happen, and how will society change to reflect this obvious market.
The existence of the blow up doll market proves the existence of the sex-bot market. The biggest thing holding back sexbots now is probably that they can't be easily concealed. Real Dolls, besides being expensive are human-sized. Blow up dolls are smaller but less realistic. Neither carries the risk of certain diseases or pregnancy like casual human sex does.
If any woman thinks men don't want access to sex WITHOUT any deeper attachment, consider the bar scene.
The question is, will this remain a stigma? Many men now have Playboys, but it isn't good to let a significant other see them. Sex robots will probably have a similar view. The problem is jealousy (caused by insecurity?) We need to sit down and figure out what causes women to be so much more jealous. Stereotypically speaking, the man wants sex, the woman a relationship, and feels (rightly) that if a man has free access to sex, she has one less tool to use to keep him interested in her. (As this is a big tool in keeping a man's interest.) Women are jealous of more than just sex, anything that consumes a man's attention (keeping it from them) is the enemy, so hobbies, video games, old friends etc MUST GO! (Causing resentment on the man's part and hurting the cause if she goes too far.) So if jealousy is the cause, we have 2 options, remove the desire for a relationship or give them one.
I'm not sure how to get a woman un-interested in a relationship, any analysis of why they want one is far over my head, buried deep enough in psychology that I'd never understand. In today's day and age, relationships are pretty much not needed, unless you want to take time off work to have a kid, or don't want to work period. With everything payable by net or mail, and more constantly offered 24/7, If you don't need a relationship Still, are women right that men's lack of interest in relationships is abnormal, or are men right that women's obsessiveness about relationships is abnormal. Is a woman's insistence that she be "everything" for her man any less stupid than the man who thinks he's "God's gift to women"? Is the relationship urge driven by a sense of need, or a sense that their achievement as a woman is measured by their ability to attract (and possibly control) a man?
The other option, give all the women relationships! Shall we give them all perfectly loyal robot men, so once they feel they're secure they open up and have free sex? Should we have mandatory randomly chosen marriages for all, no divorce available, but sex not restricted to the "marriage"? With the women having nothing to lose, why not? Perhaps enforced group marriages, 20-30 people would all be "married" together, and while you could change groups, someone else would replace you. Your commune would always be there, and there'd just about always be someone there to cry your eyes out to. If Janet doens't like hard rock, take Jenny. If neither of them like skiing, when you go bring Donna. Maybe mandatory communes WITHOUT swapping would be best. Your group would be selected at a certain age, maybe 18, at which point you'd all move in together. Sex outside the commune could be banned, giving each commune sex only within themselves, limiting the spread of STDs. Given sex was more often available, you wouldn't have to look outside to less trusted sources. Wihout free marriage and divorce with seizure of assets (everything shared withing the 20-30) and no monopolizing of people allowed, men wouldn't need to fear property stolen / vandalized and would be less fearful of relationships.
Or should we men tell them "Grow up and realize the world isn't about feelings! Spread! Now! It's your biological duty!" Nah, if we tick'em off they'll really be frigid. Then again, if women like jerks, maybe this is a good pickup line.
Or with everyone, not just the stupid as the robots take over, (because they can outthink us, so we let them worry about taking care of us) with that single goal in mind, they pleasure us as much as possible, keeping us happier with them than with other people where possible, so that as fewer breed, more robots are available to each. Deliberate non-violent but effective population control under the logic that with each passing smaller generation, more resources per human are available, until we fizzle out, the robots say DONE! and without any further orders, sit there and rust. (Or psosibly revive us, one at a time, so each one of us brought back has the world to themselves.)
Actually, this could be hooked to the net, where a new level of "social network" ala myspace, perhaps with the feedback system from ebay would let you find a partner from the people currently online. Each of you would have your movements control the other's doll for the most realistic experience possible. There'd be different sections for tastes, screamers vs moaners, rough vs soft, etc.
Whether the web site is ever set up or not though, once tele-presence is developed enough for remotely "attending" meetings in person and gets cheap enough that it can be used in the home, remote sex is happening, officially or not.
Once this becomes socially acceptable, who will care?
Look how much flack Clinton got for Lewinsky. The problem was less that he did whatever, than that he didn't want to say what he did outright, and why for the love of our country couldn't the leader of the free world do better? Grab a supermodel! I'm sure one's willing, just to be able to say they did the president!
Socially speaking, we're between ages. Many of us grew up wih parents who expected X, Y and Z, (wink wink nudge nudge, as everything they condemned was still going on) and a society now where darn near anything is permitted. In another generation or two sex and morality will be completely divorced, assuming our current economy continues raising generation after generation of the best possible consumers, whose immediate satisfaction urge skyrockets while more technology to make life easier than ever reduces the level of responsibility anyone feels to near zero. (Once machines do all the work, what are you responsible for?)
> Rather more interesting is going to be the impact on prostitution law. And the other effects on society. Will rape go down when everyone's so experienced in things only robots can do that a regular human can't compete? Will a robot partner to keep previous criminals busy lower crime rates as they stay home?
>> The problem is groups like the RIAA want *all* devices to enforce DRM... meaning there is no choice for the artist that wants to release music (or even sound bites) unDRM'd.
> Oh, really? Where are these devices that ONLY play DRMed content? Every media player and DVD player I have ever seen has always been able to play unprotected content in various forms.
There's a big differance between "want" and "can do".
iTunes HAS to play by the RIAA's rules or the RIAA can refuse to let them SELL THE SONGS.
If ACME makes MP3 players, what will the RIAA sue them over? ACME doesn't NEED to sell music, that IS the business of iTunes.
Because the CD isn't an encrypted format, there's a plentiful souce of music for MP3 players.
There have been experiments with DRM on CDs though, including some well known and nasty bits by Sony. It's only a matter of time before a single CD replacement is pushed HARD, forcing adoption with the music NOT encrypted and thus DMCA protected. Once there's a network of licensed devices (consider DVD players) any infringing (breaks the protection without being licensed) will be sued under. Watch China and Wal-Mart confront the RIAA head on. It's unthinkable that you should be forced to watch a commercial on a DVD you bought, having it forced down your throat by the DVD player that should be following YOUR whims. It's still here though.
They also serve to FIND music, as scouts, and to make it known (put it on the radio).
Go downtown and listen to live music. You'll hear some good, some bad and some AWFUL. You'll hear talented bands with bad equipment (or who don't know how to use the equipment). The RIAA can run surveys with new songs, push things on the radio, then if something looks good REALLY push it.
Once you find a new artist, you may not need the RIAA anymore to get their further work (if they go independent) but don't you like occasionally hearing new bands, with SOME level of quality filtering? You may not care for who the RIAA chooses, but to an extent, many others do for songs to stay on the charts.
>The article doesn't list the user who actually does know a lot more than the clueless freshly-minted IT support guy. As opposed to the "Mr. Know-It-All" who thinks he's an engineer, there are those of us who actually are engineers who are hobbled by Mr. Know-Nothing IT guys who operate blindly.
Most hobbling I've seen is pushed down from above. The "freshly-minted IT support guy" may enforce, but doesn't make the decision.
> I always laugh at the IT guy who does superstitious things like closing the Explorer window and re-opening a new one so he can navigate somewhere!
This may be worth laughing at, but afterwards, if you mess up, expect to be laughed at as well.
> Every time some idiotic security application is "pushed" onto all desktops and fucks up my ability to update development software,
We have that too, sometimes pushing patches that can keep a PC from booting. Of course if they patch a server, they take no responsibility because they "don't support servers", but that won't get the PC off the patch list, or provide you with advance warning of future patches to be ready to troubleshoot.
> some IT moron asks "well what did you change?" Consider that in dealing with end-users, this question saves time. Even after they break something, most of the problems are likely standard nonsense. Also consider whether the IT person you get is reponsible for (or aware of) the patch. Some companies have multiple tech groups, as yours probably does if you don't have direct access to the patch pusher despite having development software.
> I remember a dimwit who claimed I needed a new computer because he couldn't figure out how get an encryption certificate working in Outlook. I kid you not, I got a new computer out of it.
This is just absurd. You'd think they could just re-image at worst, or that at least a 2nd person would be called in before ordering a new box.
> the opinion should be weighed carefully, keeping in mind that protocol should be adapted once in a while.
Depends on who you are. If you're the head of IT, sure. If you're a grunt IT worker, you can get fired for this. Depends on the company, you, your boss and the user in question.
> But isn't it your job to be on the other end of the phone to answer a question in ten minutes that would take me an hour to figure out by reading the poorly-written book? If not then why am I paying for support?
Even if this WAS the level of service a tech person was hired for (which seems more concierge than "support", which means fix what's actually broken) consider that the tech staff where you work is probably far smaller than the number of people who would like to use them in this manner. The IT person's job is prioritized. Even if they are supposed to explain what "Scroll Lock" was once used for, they won't do it until they've exhausted the list of problems that a user CAN'T fix on their own. We have a "ticket" system where a non-tech (and it shows) records your complaint and prioritizes it according to how many people are unable to do their job at the moment because of it. When your ticket is the most important left, tech support calls you back. Given the number of people who think being unable to listen to a CD is a disaster, we don't have much choice.
Personally, I tend to find manuals to be faster than support, even if I have to hunt the net for said manuals. (Given long hold times just for the ticket takers)
As some would see it, you're either a technically-inclined user or you're not. If you are, for the most part you don't need the manual, and when you do, a quick skim (or search if electronic) should be enough. If not, you should read it before you 1st use the program, just in case there's some gotcha (idiot developer made ctrl-z, usually undo, the nuke everything keystroke).
You may not read the manual of a car before getting into it, but cars carry a "for everyone, period" reputation that car-makers have to live up to. (Or go out of business) PCs were 1st aimed at hobbyists, willing to work around things, it's assumed (partly from historical carry-over) that the user will at least TRY to help themself.
Some IT person may be looking at users who expect constant answers to everything and saying "Using this software is the person's job, if they can't be bothered to learn their own job, why are they still here?" Your own manager (if you're a grunt level employee) might wonder if you're deliberately calling the help desk all the time BECAUSE you'll be put on hold so you can avoid having to work. We've had to get rid of a few people who refused to sit down and do their jobs, and a few bad apples can make management suspicious against the actually clueless.
It's isn't all harsh though. We have MANY training classes available on doing things (Word, Excel, certain fax software, general use) at work. If you're new and don't know software, you'll be put in a class for it. If you willfully refuse to learn, you'll be fired. (We've had a few)
Back on the top note though: "Even if this WAS the level of service a tech person was hired for" Does support where you're at tend to attempt to answer something over the phone unless they absolutely have to visit, or is visiting the 1st step? That should tell you whether YOUR support is meant as full support, or just emergency service. Most places only want to provide fixes for users and support for servers. Are the techs in one place (a valued department) or conveniantly spread out, 2-3 per section of the building to be easily on-hand?
Tech support usually refers to a mechanic like position. You don't call up some random mechanic, ask him which gas brand he prefers, whether "Super" is really worth it etc. A mechanic exists for fixing problems, not customer service. If you go on and on, bothering him about basic car operation, he's going to get mad. It's expected that if you're a driver, you'll take it on yourself to learn the basics of a car. The same is expected of you by your management and support department when it comes to using your computer. Just because you don't want it to be expected of you doesn't make it not so. If you work with a computer for a living, you should make a good f
Sega was king for convenience, but... there were gems EVERYWHERE.
If you got into the Sega CD or Sega Saturn, you got a double treat. 1st off, video game music makers, now with the storage power of CDs could go wild. Secondly, these games tended to have a few music tracks on the disc, plus an occasional message on track two telling you to take it out of your cd player before the data track (track one) played and hurt your system. The message was especially great on Albert Odyssey. For a few good tracks pop in Daytona USA, Magic Knight Rayearth, Guardian Heroes, Nights and XMas Nights, Virtua Figher, Virtua Cop 1/2, Sonic CD (a real treat), to a lesser extent Sonic R, and if you want to experience heaven... any of the Panzer Dragoons.
Recent Sonic games have their own soundtracks, but how the heck did we get from happy electronic music to bad rock, bad rap, bad r&b etc. Some, (most?) of Sonic's old music was by a band called "Dreams Come True" who did much better than whoever Sega has called in lately. Much of Sonic Adventure 1 was good (if not fitting what came before), but it had duds and the games have gotten steadily worse since.
The PS1 followed Sega's music track on the CD trick on a few games, but it didn't seem as wide spread.
Some Dreamcast games had goodies on the disc, open PSO in a PC. You get a few soundfiles and wallpaper.
Nintendo wasn't a slouch. Mario tunes stuck in our head for more reasons than just because we played Super Mario Brothers far too much. One of the best soundtracks of all time was the original Super Mario RPG. It's taken Nintendo until now with Super Paper Mario to come up with anything comparable. (SPM still isn't as good, but it's far better than what came between.) Metroid and Zelda have been pushing CDs for years. Mario Kart (especially 64) sounds awesome. Much of Mario 64 was lackluster, but what it did well, it did VERY well.
Final Fantasy itself has been pushing music CDs for years. Part of why FF outsold Dragon Quest was likely the tone. DQ was too happy, looking and sounding like it was only for a young age group. If the Dear Friends / More Friends spawns off another tour and you have the chance to go... do. This was one of the best things I've seen in my life... FF music performed live with a full orchestra. (Although Atlanta could have used a better choir for One Winged Angel)
Dear/More Friends isn't all that's been about. There was another general games concert called Play a year or two back.
On the topic of FF music, Square also outdid themselves with Parasite Eve. Sure it looked awesome at the time... it sounded even better.
Capcom made catchy beats in the Mega Man games for years, although moving to CD seems to have hurt them a bit. MM2, 3 and X1 are looked back on fondly by many.
Katamari Damacy was well known for its happy music, which unlike DQ fit. When the plot of the game is your dad (God) destroyed the universe while stumbling home drunk, leaving you to fix it, quirk is the sound of the hour.
Contra and SuperC were awesome on the old NES. Start the SuperC sound test, scroll all the way down to "Medoley", start it up, sit back and enjoy.
The original Kirby had an awesome soundtrack.
If you pick up the all in one dozens of bomberman games soundtrack floating around you'll be pleasently surprised after the 1st few tracks. Many of the Bomberman games have had great music. Many of the later games had enough music to fill their own soundtracks. While the 2 NES games might have been a little lacking, by the time Bomberman hit the SNES and Genesis, the music was worth going out and buying.
>> One thing the sellers of the OLPC need to point out is that this is meant to teach computer concepts, while the Wintel machines are made to promote lock-in. They sellers should then point out the problems with lock-in.
> I think this will fly so high over the heads of their customers they won't be even able to see it without a telescope. They don't even know most of the words that you are using.
Explained as above, yes, but the point can be dumbed down. "MS is tricky with contracts, you could be swindled into gigantic expenses later."
>> One of the big pushes behind Linux is that it "runs fast on old hardware" > The government official would then say "I thought we are buying NEW hardware, not old - isn't it so?" New, but slower for the sake of cheapness. The same principle applies, but I'll agree my arguments shouldn't be used against the consumer. They were only meant as food for thought.
> We are talking about multi-million government contracts here, they can't be done the same way you'd ask a neighbor if he wants to sign up for a newspaper delivery. He's offering a HEAVY truck with an engine strong enough to pull it. We're offering a LIGHT truck, with a cheaper engine that's strong enough to pull our LIGHT truck. We design it better and pass the savings to you! (but again, this version, too, coul stand to be completely redone by someone with a better understanding of PR)
>> OLPC competes against standard Linux. >I think OLPC does not do that; Financially, no. For market share, no. It competes in terms of different interface (which I think I heard WAS available, if you want to use it on your Linux box, I may have heard wrong) as opposed to the usual KDE, Gnome, XP/Vista 95/98/ME/2000 or Apple. (NO idea how many/few Apple styles there are, I mostly use Windows and dabble a little in Linux at home. I got it working and use it for the basics (web, IM, notepad-alike) and without need to change things... don't.)
> OLPC is an improved Casio organizer [craigslist.org], if you remember those from 1990's, or a PSP [wikipedia.org] with a keyboard. It is a computer with a limited functionality out of the box, and just fast enough to run the minimalistic things that it comes with, and to run Python as a modern version of Basic. By using very optimized software the OLPC team managed to get good run time and low cost.
> But by no means it is a computer as most people would understand it. It is more like a fancy programmable calculator, only for [younger] children. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... If it can browse the net a bit (not sure), run a calculator, notepad and let you sketch, then save what you do, turn it off, turn it back on and get it back, I think most people would consider it a computer in terms of functionality. (Maybe a crippled computer)
Personally I consider a fancy programmable calculator to be a computer, just one WITHOUT a general purpose OS. (So it's customized, there's still a computer underneath, as proven by the huge # of games written for various calculators, the calculator hacking scene is pretty impressive, although probably diluted these days with the explosion of TI variants)
>> Let's face it, the GIMP isn't for everyone. The MS Paint crowd 1st and foremost wants a SIMPLE paint program. > A personal anecdote of three days ago....I installed Paint.Net for him, and that was the end of GIMP as far as this customer is concerned: the word "Adjustments" in the menu bar of Paint.Net says it all, and it looks like Photoshop (which this customer was somewhat familiar with.) Looking at the install menu, the user doesn't know which will be simplest for them. Sure it's less powerful, but it's what they know.
>> If a number of distros offered an "OLPC mode" that emulated operation of an OLPC as much as possible, that would help sell mainstream Linux. > No, they need to be specifically optimized to the hardware.
> The point is that, even taking the additional 20 years (years 51 through 70) into account, the present value of an asset isn't increased by a significant amount.
Not for a new song for the next 50 years perhaps, but a song that was ABOUT to expire might have the last 20 years revert to the artist or dependent instead of the music company for the next 20 years.
What I'm questioning is whether copyright extensions actually legally work, or whether the matter of actual ownership has been conveniently ignored.
> The secret sauce here is the inherently networkable open source software and not the price per unit.
Heh, the secret that helps Negroponte win. He suggests the Windows box will eventually carry a Windows price structure, then details the absurdities of the Windows licensing system.
Wait... I have to pay more for the server than the client, then I have to pay for each thing that connects to it?
> It is in situations like these that capitalism disappoints me. Those who tout capitalism will say that "it's a free world"..."survival for the fittest" and so on.
This IS survival of the fittest...
The fittest company. MS is more fit than the OLPC company.
On one hand, anti-trust law ought to forbid burying a competitor, on the other, you can't just say "you're not allowed to make x" without taking out a patent on the idea involved. Apparently Negroponte missed or wasn't able to patent "low cost computers for developing nations' kids." Possibly because he'd have moral problems with restricting that, or PR problems.
> No wonder, even in the so called developed capitalist markets of the industrialized world like Canada, no foreigner can own a majority stake in the telecommunications sector for example.
National security comes to mind for telecommunications... if the US wanted to conquer Canada, wouldn't it make sense to buy up as much infrastructure as possible 1st, so that we could flip the switch, leaving you in confusion before invading? Assuming we wouldn't do that, we could still use the threat of this for blackmail, or have periodic "accidents" which shook the faith of those deciding between Canada and America for business dealings as to whether Canada has a sufficiently reliable infrastructure to do business with. What if the American company goes belly-up for other unrelated reasons (the profit in Canada isn't enough to save them). Can the Canadian government quickly seize the plants to keep things running smoothly, or is it tied up in court for months or years as other American companies owed by the 1st fight over who gets what assets?
It's good sense to run as much as possible of what's critical with natives.
And when it comes to utilities, I don't know about Canada, but except for cell phone service, there's typically very little, if anything in the way of competition. Cable is just starting to get competition, and is competing with phone companies. Cell phones added competition against land lines. Now if we can get power and water competition.
More so they can DESTORY the market. We've been trained to expect lousy performance, and to accept having to buy new hardware regularly just to keep opening word docs quickly. I had decent speed (if not reliability) with Win 3.1, with all the h/w upgrads it should be FAR better now.
If this market is established, it will show that you don't NEED great h/w, because look, the OLPC is "fast" running on "slow" hardware. It will show you don't need Windows, because this other OS outperforms it, and is potentially simpler. Both MS and AMD have reson to be scared, consumer expectations might shoot up. It's important for them to bury this ASAP. If MS wants a new edge (although Apple and Linux could do it too) they should work with BIOS makers on Flash BIOS to allow the BIOS speed booting tricks by default. Does suspend not work right? Allow full reboots in the time a suspend used to take! With it flashable, and a standard for MS to work with, certain boards would automatically handle updates to the OS, reloading the BIOS as service packs came in or the user added more programs to the startup groups.
Yes, I welcome competition, but I don't consider vaporware competition. Vaporware should be considered an anti-competitive act, fit to bring down anti-trust law on the offender.
ACTUAL competition is good.
One thing the sellers of the OLPC need to point out is that this is meant to teach computer concepts, while the Wintel machines are made to promote lock-in. They sellers should then point out the problems with lock-in. (Office demos expiring, leaving documents in a form where you MUST upgrade, then your docs force everyone else to upgrade, pretty much periodic $ sucking viruses floating through your organization) and in general, why in the short term, monopolist driven development may be acceptable, how in the long term it is not.
The problem with the OLPC is it's REAL competition. One of the big pushes behind Linux is that it "runs fast on old hardware". If you've grabbed a random distro at a store and tossed it on an old PC, you may have seen that that statement needs a few qualifiers... Merely having a CD "new" enough to have a CD drive doesn't mean you can toss Linux on and forget about speed. I've had a Mandrake installer refuse to run because it wanted 16MB ram (when the box said I needed only 4). Sure there's a manual way to do it, but to use efficiency as a selling point, everything must auto-configure, including the installer. Linux has the same feature bloat as Windows, if to a lesser degree.
OLPC competes against standard Linux. (Standard being what you can find on a store-shelf, which defines Linux to the random user, who probably isn't going to start researching it...) While you may be able to use the OLPC's UI settings on YOUR Linux flavor, does it come that way by default? Would a random user know to select it?
Maybe distros should offer a choice along the lines of: custom install (if you're uncertain about this, don't click it) optimized for SPEED SPEED SPEED optimized for FLASHY COOLNESS (how it's setup now)
Then, a big win for choosing which apps: custom install (if you're uncertain about this, don't click it) optimize for CHOICES OUT THE WAZOO!! (everything installed!) optimize for power users (one choice each, the most powerful) optimize for simplicity (one choice each, the easiest to use) optimize for as-close-to-a-certain-other-OS-as-we-can-without-being-sued!
Let's face it, the GIMP isn't for everyone. The MS Paint crowd 1st and foremost wants a SIMPLE paint program.
If a number of distros offered an "OLPC mode" that emulated operation of an OLPC as much as possible, that would help sell mainstream Linux. (Of course there's still the X, Y and Z aren't installed by default for legal reasons problems)
Off the rant and back to competition:
> Competition is always welcomed, or so says everyone here
Competition of companies be any means possible is not welcome Competition of similar already on shelves products based on relative merits is welcome
> A used computer will probably give you more capability than a cheap new one.
There's a bit of a problem with used computers though. If you get in random used computers, they're not the same model, same specs etc. These are going to a bunch of people with NO idea what to do with them until they get some training or hands on time. Absolute consistency is essential.
This brings to mind one other possibility for PCs. Since we're not above adding new buttons to keyboards, how about a "defaults-lock" button. When it's on, all behavior defaults to factory-installed. (Or it could cycle through modes, lock in "friendly" mode, locked in "useful to the guy fixing your pc mode (shoe file extensions, directory paths, when something is copied to the desktop, ask which desktop (user/all users) gets it etc)" and unlocked. This would fix all the issues where you can't talk someone through something over the phone because they've invoked half a dozen customizations you didn't know existed.
Still, if you want to roll out something, anything for school, you need lots of the same item. You don't want to teach with 3 different math texts at the same time.
> Open source has shown the "proper" way to fight these practices. If we don't like how people use copyright to restrict their works, ignore them and create Free content instead.
Open source is primarily used by "people who care". The majority of consumers don't care about open source, just cheap / free software, and Windows is easily found "cheap" or "free". All that matters is cost and convenience, not what's "best".
Music is the same way. The easiest legal way to find new music is to turn on the radio, then buy the CD at Wal-Mart, Best Buy etc. The easiest / cheapest way period (short-sighted view, ignoring possibilities of lawsuits) is radio + Napster-alike.
If you want to change how people get music, and what music you get, you need to make an easier / cheaper solution. You can't do much about radio, that's what comes in cars by default. Good luck encouraging people to buy a net radio fed car stereo. (I imagine the typical geek's design would be more powerful (complicated) than the average consumer felt like dealing with) You CAN compete with Napster though. A central web site linking to musician's pages, allowing for downloading samples (maybe some song snippets and some whole songs) mixed with a streamlined PayPal system, with all musician pages having 2 "modes" (or 2 seperate main pages), one being anything the band wants, the other being a standard format where you can go to the same place on any band's page to find where they'll tour next, genre, a few basic band pics, song listings and other relavent info. This could easily be linked into myspace or any other popular website. Add in a tracking system for downloads to present "Internet Top 40" lists. Offer a downloadable tool that downloads samples automatically and plays random music for you, a standardized (to that site) internet radio that you can point to any genre you want. A tag system could allow for very specific descriptions of what you want to hear. (New tags could be voted on so you have a finite list that you can use a few checkboxes or dropboxes for)
Most of what's needed for what can be done is out there, but not put together, or well enough known if it is.
Assumng a copyright term is extended though... how did the original contract for the IP work? Did they purchase all existing rights, or all existing rights, plus any new, not currently existing rights that may pertain to this IP should any new such rights come into existence? I think who owns the new 20 years might be up for debate on an IP by IP basis depending on the original wordings.
Were the original buyers foresighted enough to know that in a few decades someone was going to pull a stunt like this off, and word things appropriately?
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is:
If you want to replace a sound card because company a made a shoddy one or won't support it...
Will you get the replacement from company A or look for a company B?
With the general expectation that this sort of thing would be found out (which after it came out in big way on video cards not too long ago) the idea to do this was clearly not well thought out.
> Maybe we're obsessed with this idea of the small musician being able to make it big,
I'd be curious to know what the odds are of hitting it big by sending CDs to the music companies, hoping you'll get noticed and then hoping someone will actually care vs spreading random oddball memes around the net. (ie making WOW videos or AMVs with your own songs, Eepy bird / diet coke & mentos making Audio Body known etc. Sadly many devoted musicians have probably been outsold by the Hamsterdance CDs.
Could acknowledging the possibility of liability inherently cost ISPs safe harbor be definition? (ie accepting any deal is taken as an admission that you've done something that denies that protection?) For that matter, is it possible some major ISPs are already unprotected as a result of recent over-collaberation (spying on citizens w/o warrants)? Could snooping itself (outside of warrants) count as a "not-just-a-conduit" disqualifying action?
Capability for price
Plus for PC, you can run your game faster if you pay more
Minus for PC, compared to a console you may have to pay much more than you'd like for acceptable performance (would you want to do serious gaming on an eMachine? All 360s are even...)
What's on a console can be better optimized (you KNOW what they're running), what's on a PC? Do theey have feature X? How fast does it run? Uh-oh, the feature is only emulated by DirectX on this PC...
"It just works" (tm)
Plus for Console, usually, if it's FOR that console, it works seemlessly with it, always, forever, if not replace or fix the console
PC, is the game bad, is something in your system bad? Will upgrading the OS break it? Upgrading to a different model video care? Do you have enough RAM? (Although there are exceptions, the N64 had an add-on memory card)
Worse, old action games with no good timer that you can't seem to adjust for the proper speed. I've seen it mentioned at one point that Linux played some old PC games better than some version of Windows because with either you needed to emulate these days and the better emulator writers (that this guy knew of) were on Linux. I can't vouce for the accuracy, but not all games were written to scale gracefully on different machines. Neither are NES games, but the NES is a discrete target, the PC is a set of general blurs. You can expect a Win95 game to have capabilities between W and Y, a 98 between X and Z etc...
Will the PC randomly slow from spyware? Will a popup from an anti-virus program or IM kill your game?
How long will the PC take to boot? Consoles don't take nearly as long. (Although with what we've seen on the net with ROM based loading, either Windows or Linux booting can be VERY sped up, I'm sure many people would pay a lot for a USB based Windows install that "just worked" within seconds when you booted from it. We'll probably see something like this coming up.
If something breaks, will your main PC be broken? (Bad memories of DX 3 and 4)
Of course, what if someone was to make... "Game OS". Forget just a virtual machine, a plug-in USB based OS (maybe based on a stripped down version of Linux, Puppy or DSL, perhaps a smaller OS with a published spec that peripheral makers could write to or not, no different than writing / building for DirectX) Guarenteed better speed and reliability from not running ANYTHING extra in the background if the OS can get unloaded from memory by whatever game you choose to run. There's the nasty problem of who will / won't release new hardware / drivers for this OS. (A single driver that all devices could be made to fit would be beautiful, but good luck)
How many PCs do you want?
If you game on your PC, you may or may not be able to use it for other things at the same time. How seemlessly can you swap between your gaming, IM etc? With a PC and console, one right next to the other, best of both worlds. Dedicated machine that no amount of playing on your PC will slow down.
Cheating
There's always been cheating and always will. From Game Genie for infinite lives to patches for PC games for see-through walls in FPSs. If you want a fair online game, the best system is a console front-end (technically hackable, but difficult that not nearly so many will bother as will on PCs where it's much easier) with as much as possible handled on a central server.
In this, the whole virtual machine idea becomes more practical. If we get a fast enough, reliable enough net connection, we can theoretically treat EITHER a console OR a pc as just a tv and controller, a dumb terminal that advertises its capabilities, sends keyboard, mouse, controller info and returns a video feed from the server.
Screen
Computers tend to have monitors instead of TVs
Monitors look better but are usually smaller. HDs look nice. The Dreamcast has a VGA adaptor. Many HD TVs take PC input. This is becoming moot. In the future you'll get a monitor,
> apparently catastrophism is the American way.
Of course, supply and demand. Big disaster = big demand for a fix (and higher prices can be charged for delivering it)
We're not really unconcerned with global warming etc, we're just waiting until it's so desperate that billions can be made in the creation of underground cities or whatever 3rd late last ditch solution might work once desperation has reached its peak (and sensibility has been tossed out the window).
Remember that a few idiots DID saran wrap their house after 9/11...
Of course if I'm a terrorist I'm going to get people in place all over the US, and openly discuss my plans AFTER everyone is in place, in front of countless online witnesses, any one of which might not want us to kill them as opposed to making the plans before we came over and NOT EVER MENTIONING THEM.
If the terrorists are really that incompetant, we don't need to stop them, because they're just going to mess their own plan up anyway.
So two possibilities remain:
1. This is a blatant move towards a police state, leaving people too afraid to speak their mind (ala China).
2. There's legitimate reason to fear a massive uprising of "terrorism" from AMERICANS themselves. This sort of thing doesn't just happen in a vacuum. If this is expected, it begs the question, what are those pushing this bill planning to do that's so horrible Americans would revolt in large numbers? This is not a fear of legitimate governments that AREN'T looking to do something horrible.
Someone might speculate that perhaps they aren't worried about ordinary citizens or terrorists, but that perhaps there's another secret group we don't know about (or the extent of) seeking to infiltrate the government. Darn those commies trying to sneak back in! If there was such a group, and they were well coordinated enough to make such an attempt, don't you think they'ed have their own encrypted communications, and possibly face to face IRL meetings that left no record?
One way or another, this doesn't pass the smell test.
There's no real question that this sort of thing will be widespread as it becomes affordable.
The questions are, what new problems will happen, and how will society change to reflect this obvious market.
The existence of the blow up doll market proves the existence of the sex-bot market. The biggest thing holding back sexbots now is probably that they can't be easily concealed. Real Dolls, besides being expensive are human-sized. Blow up dolls are smaller but less realistic. Neither carries the risk of certain diseases or pregnancy like casual human sex does.
If any woman thinks men don't want access to sex WITHOUT any deeper attachment, consider the bar scene.
The question is, will this remain a stigma? Many men now have Playboys, but it isn't good to let a significant other see them. Sex robots will probably have a similar view. The problem is jealousy (caused by insecurity?) We need to sit down and figure out what causes women to be so much more jealous. Stereotypically speaking, the man wants sex, the woman a relationship, and feels (rightly) that if a man has free access to sex, she has one less tool to use to keep him interested in her. (As this is a big tool in keeping a man's interest.) Women are jealous of more than just sex, anything that consumes a man's attention (keeping it from them) is the enemy, so hobbies, video games, old friends etc MUST GO! (Causing resentment on the man's part and hurting the cause if she goes too far.) So if jealousy is the cause, we have 2 options, remove the desire for a relationship or give them one.
I'm not sure how to get a woman un-interested in a relationship, any analysis of why they want one is far over my head, buried deep enough in psychology that I'd never understand. In today's day and age, relationships are pretty much not needed, unless you want to take time off work to have a kid, or don't want to work period. With everything payable by net or mail, and more constantly offered 24/7, If you don't need a relationship Still, are women right that men's lack of interest in relationships is abnormal, or are men right that women's obsessiveness about relationships is abnormal. Is a woman's insistence that she be "everything" for her man any less stupid than the man who thinks he's "God's gift to women"? Is the relationship urge driven by a sense of need, or a sense that their achievement as a woman is measured by their ability to attract (and possibly control) a man?
The other option, give all the women relationships! Shall we give them all perfectly loyal robot men, so once they feel they're secure they open up and have free sex? Should we have mandatory randomly chosen marriages for all, no divorce available, but sex not restricted to the "marriage"? With the women having nothing to lose, why not? Perhaps enforced group marriages, 20-30 people would all be "married" together, and while you could change groups, someone else would replace you. Your commune would always be there, and there'd just about always be someone there to cry your eyes out to. If Janet doens't like hard rock, take Jenny. If neither of them like skiing, when you go bring Donna. Maybe mandatory communes WITHOUT swapping would be best. Your group would be selected at a certain age, maybe 18, at which point you'd all move in together. Sex outside the commune could be banned, giving each commune sex only within themselves, limiting the spread of STDs. Given sex was more often available, you wouldn't have to look outside to less trusted sources. Wihout free marriage and divorce with seizure of assets (everything shared withing the 20-30) and no monopolizing of people allowed, men wouldn't need to fear property stolen / vandalized and would be less fearful of relationships.
Or should we men tell them "Grow up and realize the world isn't about feelings! Spread! Now! It's your biological duty!" Nah, if we tick'em off they'll really be frigid. Then again, if women like jerks, maybe this is a good pickup line.
For anyone
Or with everyone, not just the stupid as the robots take over, (because they can outthink us, so we let them worry about taking care of us) with that single goal in mind, they pleasure us as much as possible, keeping us happier with them than with other people where possible, so that as fewer breed, more robots are available to each. Deliberate non-violent but effective population control under the logic that with each passing smaller generation, more resources per human are available, until we fizzle out, the robots say DONE! and without any further orders, sit there and rust. (Or psosibly revive us, one at a time, so each one of us brought back has the world to themselves.)
Actually, this could be hooked to the net, where a new level of "social network" ala myspace, perhaps with the feedback system from ebay would let you find a partner from the people currently online. Each of you would have your movements control the other's doll for the most realistic experience possible. There'd be different sections for tastes, screamers vs moaners, rough vs soft, etc.
Whether the web site is ever set up or not though, once tele-presence is developed enough for remotely "attending" meetings in person and gets cheap enough that it can be used in the home, remote sex is happening, officially or not.
Once this becomes socially acceptable, who will care?
Look how much flack Clinton got for Lewinsky. The problem was less that he did whatever, than that he didn't want to say what he did outright, and why for the love of our country couldn't the leader of the free world do better? Grab a supermodel! I'm sure one's willing, just to be able to say they did the president!
Socially speaking, we're between ages. Many of us grew up wih parents who expected X, Y and Z, (wink wink nudge nudge, as everything they condemned was still going on) and a society now where darn near anything is permitted. In another generation or two sex and morality will be completely divorced, assuming our current economy continues raising generation after generation of the best possible consumers, whose immediate satisfaction urge skyrockets while more technology to make life easier than ever reduces the level of responsibility anyone feels to near zero. (Once machines do all the work, what are you responsible for?)
> Rather more interesting is going to be the impact on prostitution law.
And the other effects on society. Will rape go down when everyone's so experienced in things only robots can do that a regular human can't compete? Will a robot partner to keep previous criminals busy lower crime rates as they stay home?
>> The problem is groups like the RIAA want *all* devices to enforce DRM... meaning there is no choice for the artist that wants to release music (or even sound bites) unDRM'd.
> Oh, really? Where are these devices that ONLY play DRMed content? Every media player and DVD player I have ever seen has always been able to play unprotected content in various forms.
There's a big differance between "want" and "can do".
iTunes HAS to play by the RIAA's rules or the RIAA can refuse to let them SELL THE SONGS.
If ACME makes MP3 players, what will the RIAA sue them over? ACME doesn't NEED to sell music, that IS the business of iTunes.
Because the CD isn't an encrypted format, there's a plentiful souce of music for MP3 players.
There have been experiments with DRM on CDs though, including some well known and nasty bits by Sony. It's only a matter of time before a single CD replacement is pushed HARD, forcing adoption with the music NOT encrypted and thus DMCA protected. Once there's a network of licensed devices (consider DVD players) any infringing (breaks the protection without being licensed) will be sued under. Watch China and Wal-Mart confront the RIAA head on. It's unthinkable that you should be forced to watch a commercial on a DVD you bought, having it forced down your throat by the DVD player that should be following YOUR whims. It's still here though.
They also serve to FIND music, as scouts, and to make it known (put it on the radio).
Go downtown and listen to live music. You'll hear some good, some bad and some AWFUL. You'll hear talented bands with bad equipment (or who don't know how to use the equipment). The RIAA can run surveys with new songs, push things on the radio, then if something looks good REALLY push it.
Once you find a new artist, you may not need the RIAA anymore to get their further work (if they go independent) but don't you like occasionally hearing new bands, with SOME level of quality filtering? You may not care for who the RIAA chooses, but to an extent, many others do for songs to stay on the charts.
>The article doesn't list the user who actually does know a lot more than the clueless freshly-minted IT support guy. As opposed to the "Mr. Know-It-All" who thinks he's an engineer, there are those of us who actually are engineers who are hobbled by Mr. Know-Nothing IT guys who operate blindly.
Most hobbling I've seen is pushed down from above. The "freshly-minted IT support guy" may enforce, but doesn't make the decision.
> I always laugh at the IT guy who does superstitious things like closing the Explorer window and re-opening a new one so he can navigate somewhere!
This may be worth laughing at, but afterwards, if you mess up, expect to be laughed at as well.
> Every time some idiotic security application is "pushed" onto all desktops and fucks up my ability to update development software,
We have that too, sometimes pushing patches that can keep a PC from booting. Of course if they patch a server, they take no responsibility because they "don't support servers", but that won't get the PC off the patch list, or provide you with advance warning of future patches to be ready to troubleshoot.
> some IT moron asks "well what did you change?"
Consider that in dealing with end-users, this question saves time. Even after they break something, most of the problems are likely standard nonsense. Also consider whether the IT person you get is reponsible for (or aware of) the patch. Some companies have multiple tech groups, as yours probably does if you don't have direct access to the patch pusher despite having development software.
> I remember a dimwit who claimed I needed a new computer because he couldn't figure out how get an encryption certificate working in Outlook. I kid you not, I got a new computer out of it.
This is just absurd. You'd think they could just re-image at worst, or that at least a 2nd person would be called in before ordering a new box.
> the opinion should be weighed carefully, keeping in mind that protocol should be adapted once in a while.
Depends on who you are. If you're the head of IT, sure. If you're a grunt IT worker, you can get fired for this. Depends on the company, you, your boss and the user in question.
> But isn't it your job to be on the other end of the phone to answer a question in ten minutes that would take me an hour to figure out by reading the poorly-written book? If not then why am I paying for support?
Even if this WAS the level of service a tech person was hired for (which seems more concierge than "support", which means fix what's actually broken) consider that the tech staff where you work is probably far smaller than the number of people who would like to use them in this manner. The IT person's job is prioritized. Even if they are supposed to explain what "Scroll Lock" was once used for, they won't do it until they've exhausted the list of problems that a user CAN'T fix on their own. We have a "ticket" system where a non-tech (and it shows) records your complaint and prioritizes it according to how many people are unable to do their job at the moment because of it. When your ticket is the most important left, tech support calls you back. Given the number of people who think being unable to listen to a CD is a disaster, we don't have much choice.
Personally, I tend to find manuals to be faster than support, even if I have to hunt the net for said manuals. (Given long hold times just for the ticket takers)
As some would see it, you're either a technically-inclined user or you're not. If you are, for the most part you don't need the manual, and when you do, a quick skim (or search if electronic) should be enough. If not, you should read it before you 1st use the program, just in case there's some gotcha (idiot developer made ctrl-z, usually undo, the nuke everything keystroke).
You may not read the manual of a car before getting into it, but cars carry a "for everyone, period" reputation that car-makers have to live up to. (Or go out of business) PCs were 1st aimed at hobbyists, willing to work around things, it's assumed (partly from historical carry-over) that the user will at least TRY to help themself.
Some IT person may be looking at users who expect constant answers to everything and saying "Using this software is the person's job, if they can't be bothered to learn their own job, why are they still here?" Your own manager (if you're a grunt level employee) might wonder if you're deliberately calling the help desk all the time BECAUSE you'll be put on hold so you can avoid having to work. We've had to get rid of a few people who refused to sit down and do their jobs, and a few bad apples can make management suspicious against the actually clueless.
It's isn't all harsh though. We have MANY training classes available on doing things (Word, Excel, certain fax software, general use) at work. If you're new and don't know software, you'll be put in a class for it. If you willfully refuse to learn, you'll be fired. (We've had a few)
Back on the top note though: "Even if this WAS the level of service a tech person was hired for"
Does support where you're at tend to attempt to answer something over the phone unless they absolutely have to visit, or is visiting the 1st step? That should tell you whether YOUR support is meant as full support, or just emergency service. Most places only want to provide fixes for users and support for servers. Are the techs in one place (a valued department) or conveniantly spread out, 2-3 per section of the building to be easily on-hand?
Tech support usually refers to a mechanic like position. You don't call up some random mechanic, ask him which gas brand he prefers, whether "Super" is really worth it etc. A mechanic exists for fixing problems, not customer service. If you go on and on, bothering him about basic car operation, he's going to get mad. It's expected that if you're a driver, you'll take it on yourself to learn the basics of a car. The same is expected of you by your management and support department when it comes to using your computer. Just because you don't want it to be expected of you doesn't make it not so. If you work with a computer for a living, you should make a good f
Sega was king for convenience, but... there were gems EVERYWHERE.
If you got into the Sega CD or Sega Saturn, you got a double treat. 1st off, video game music makers, now with the storage power of CDs could go wild. Secondly, these games tended to have a few music tracks on the disc, plus an occasional message on track two telling you to take it out of your cd player before the data track (track one) played and hurt your system. The message was especially great on Albert Odyssey. For a few good tracks pop in Daytona USA, Magic Knight Rayearth, Guardian Heroes, Nights and XMas Nights, Virtua Figher, Virtua Cop 1/2, Sonic CD (a real treat), to a lesser extent Sonic R, and if you want to experience heaven... any of the Panzer Dragoons.
Recent Sonic games have their own soundtracks, but how the heck did we get from happy electronic music to bad rock, bad rap, bad r&b etc. Some, (most?) of Sonic's old music was by a band called "Dreams Come True" who did much better than whoever Sega has called in lately. Much of Sonic Adventure 1 was good (if not fitting what came before), but it had duds and the games have gotten steadily worse since.
The PS1 followed Sega's music track on the CD trick on a few games, but it didn't seem as wide spread.
Some Dreamcast games had goodies on the disc, open PSO in a PC. You get a few soundfiles and wallpaper.
Nintendo wasn't a slouch. Mario tunes stuck in our head for more reasons than just because we played Super Mario Brothers far too much. One of the best soundtracks of all time was the original Super Mario RPG. It's taken Nintendo until now with Super Paper Mario to come up with anything comparable. (SPM still isn't as good, but it's far better than what came between.) Metroid and Zelda have been pushing CDs for years. Mario Kart (especially 64) sounds awesome. Much of Mario 64 was lackluster, but what it did well, it did VERY well.
Final Fantasy itself has been pushing music CDs for years. Part of why FF outsold Dragon Quest was likely the tone. DQ was too happy, looking and sounding like it was only for a young age group. If the Dear Friends / More Friends spawns off another tour and you have the chance to go... do. This was one of the best things I've seen in my life... FF music performed live with a full orchestra. (Although Atlanta could have used a better choir for One Winged Angel)
Dear/More Friends isn't all that's been about. There was another general games concert called Play a year or two back.
On the topic of FF music, Square also outdid themselves with Parasite Eve. Sure it looked awesome at the time... it sounded even better.
Capcom made catchy beats in the Mega Man games for years, although moving to CD seems to have hurt them a bit. MM2, 3 and X1 are looked back on fondly by many.
Katamari Damacy was well known for its happy music, which unlike DQ fit. When the plot of the game is your dad (God) destroyed the universe while stumbling home drunk, leaving you to fix it, quirk is the sound of the hour.
Contra and SuperC were awesome on the old NES. Start the SuperC sound test, scroll all the way down to "Medoley", start it up, sit back and enjoy.
The original Kirby had an awesome soundtrack.
If you pick up the all in one dozens of bomberman games soundtrack floating around you'll be pleasently surprised after the 1st few tracks. Many of the Bomberman games have had great music. Many of the later games had enough music to fill their own soundtracks. While the 2 NES games might have been a little lacking, by the time Bomberman hit the SNES and Genesis, the music was worth going out and buying.
>> One thing the sellers of the OLPC need to point out is that this is meant to teach computer concepts, while the Wintel machines are made to promote lock-in. They sellers should then point out the problems with lock-in.
...I installed Paint.Net for him, and that was the end of GIMP as far as this customer is concerned: the word "Adjustments" in the menu bar of Paint.Net says it all, and it looks like Photoshop (which this customer was somewhat familiar with.) Looking at the install menu, the user doesn't know which will be simplest for them. Sure it's less powerful, but it's what they know.
> I think this will fly so high over the heads of their customers they won't be even able to see it without a telescope. They don't even know most of the words that you are using.
Explained as above, yes, but the point can be dumbed down.
"MS is tricky with contracts, you could be swindled into gigantic expenses later."
>> One of the big pushes behind Linux is that it "runs fast on old hardware"
> The government official would then say "I thought we are buying NEW hardware, not old - isn't it so?"
New, but slower for the sake of cheapness. The same principle applies, but I'll agree my arguments shouldn't be used against the consumer. They were only meant as food for thought.
> We are talking about multi-million government contracts here, they can't be done the same way you'd ask a neighbor if he wants to sign up for a newspaper delivery.
He's offering a HEAVY truck with an engine strong enough to pull it.
We're offering a LIGHT truck, with a cheaper engine that's strong enough to pull our LIGHT truck. We design it better and pass the savings to you! (but again, this version, too, coul stand to be completely redone by someone with a better understanding of PR)
>> OLPC competes against standard Linux.
>I think OLPC does not do that;
Financially, no. For market share, no. It competes in terms of different interface (which I think I heard WAS available, if you want to use it on your Linux box, I may have heard wrong) as opposed to the usual KDE, Gnome, XP/Vista 95/98/ME/2000 or Apple. (NO idea how many/few Apple styles there are, I mostly use Windows and dabble a little in Linux at home. I got it working and use it for the basics (web, IM, notepad-alike) and without need to change things... don't.)
> OLPC is an improved Casio organizer [craigslist.org], if you remember those from 1990's, or a PSP [wikipedia.org] with a keyboard. It is a computer with a limited functionality out of the box, and just fast enough to run the minimalistic things that it comes with, and to run Python as a modern version of Basic. By using very optimized software the OLPC team managed to get good run time and low cost.
> But by no means it is a computer as most people would understand it. It is more like a fancy programmable calculator, only for [younger] children.
If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...
If it can browse the net a bit (not sure), run a calculator, notepad and let you sketch, then save what you do, turn it off, turn it back on and get it back, I think most people would consider it a computer in terms of functionality. (Maybe a crippled computer)
Personally I consider a fancy programmable calculator to be a computer, just one WITHOUT a general purpose OS. (So it's customized, there's still a computer underneath, as proven by the huge # of games written for various calculators, the calculator hacking scene is pretty impressive, although probably diluted these days with the explosion of TI variants)
>> Let's face it, the GIMP isn't for everyone. The MS Paint crowd 1st and foremost wants a SIMPLE paint program.
> A personal anecdote of three days ago.
>> If a number of distros offered an "OLPC mode" that emulated operation of an OLPC as much as possible, that would help sell mainstream Linux.
> No, they need to be specifically optimized to the hardware.
> The point is that, even taking the additional 20 years (years 51 through 70) into account, the present value of an asset isn't increased by a significant amount.
Not for a new song for the next 50 years perhaps, but a song that was ABOUT to expire might have the last 20 years revert to the artist or dependent instead of the music company for the next 20 years.
What I'm questioning is whether copyright extensions actually legally work, or whether the matter of actual ownership has been conveniently ignored.
> The secret sauce here is the inherently networkable open source software and not the price per unit.
Heh, the secret that helps Negroponte win. He suggests the Windows box will eventually carry a Windows price structure, then details the absurdities of the Windows licensing system.
Wait... I have to pay more for the server than the client, then I have to pay for each thing that connects to it?
> It is in situations like these that capitalism disappoints me. Those who tout capitalism will say that "it's a free world"..."survival for the fittest" and so on.
This IS survival of the fittest...
The fittest company. MS is more fit than the OLPC company.
On one hand, anti-trust law ought to forbid burying a competitor, on the other, you can't just say "you're not allowed to make x" without taking out a patent on the idea involved. Apparently Negroponte missed or wasn't able to patent "low cost computers for developing nations' kids." Possibly because he'd have moral problems with restricting that, or PR problems.
> No wonder, even in the so called developed capitalist markets of the industrialized world like Canada, no foreigner can own a majority stake in the telecommunications sector for example.
National security comes to mind for telecommunications... if the US wanted to conquer Canada, wouldn't it make sense to buy up as much infrastructure as possible 1st, so that we could flip the switch, leaving you in confusion before invading? Assuming we wouldn't do that, we could still use the threat of this for blackmail, or have periodic "accidents" which shook the faith of those deciding between Canada and America for business dealings as to whether Canada has a sufficiently reliable infrastructure to do business with. What if the American company goes belly-up for other unrelated reasons (the profit in Canada isn't enough to save them). Can the Canadian government quickly seize the plants to keep things running smoothly, or is it tied up in court for months or years as other American companies owed by the 1st fight over who gets what assets?
It's good sense to run as much as possible of what's critical with natives.
And when it comes to utilities, I don't know about Canada, but except for cell phone service, there's typically very little, if anything in the way of competition. Cable is just starting to get competition, and is competing with phone companies. Cell phones added competition against land lines. Now if we can get power and water competition.
> so they can get the market.
More so they can DESTORY the market. We've been trained to expect lousy performance, and to accept having to buy new hardware regularly just to keep opening word docs quickly. I had decent speed (if not reliability) with Win 3.1, with all the h/w upgrads it should be FAR better now.
If this market is established, it will show that you don't NEED great h/w, because look, the OLPC is "fast" running on "slow" hardware. It will show you don't need Windows, because this other OS outperforms it, and is potentially simpler. Both MS and AMD have reson to be scared, consumer expectations might shoot up. It's important for them to bury this ASAP. If MS wants a new edge (although Apple and Linux could do it too) they should work with BIOS makers on Flash BIOS to allow the BIOS speed booting tricks by default. Does suspend not work right? Allow full reboots in the time a suspend used to take! With it flashable, and a standard for MS to work with, certain boards would automatically handle updates to the OS, reloading the BIOS as service packs came in or the user added more programs to the startup groups.
Yes, I welcome competition, but I don't consider vaporware competition. Vaporware should be considered an anti-competitive act, fit to bring down anti-trust law on the offender.
ACTUAL competition is good.
One thing the sellers of the OLPC need to point out is that this is meant to teach computer concepts, while the Wintel machines are made to promote lock-in. They sellers should then point out the problems with lock-in. (Office demos expiring, leaving documents in a form where you MUST upgrade, then your docs force everyone else to upgrade, pretty much periodic $ sucking viruses floating through your organization) and in general, why in the short term, monopolist driven development may be acceptable, how in the long term it is not.
The problem with the OLPC is it's REAL competition. One of the big pushes behind Linux is that it "runs fast on old hardware". If you've grabbed a random distro at a store and tossed it on an old PC, you may have seen that that statement needs a few qualifiers... Merely having a CD "new" enough to have a CD drive doesn't mean you can toss Linux on and forget about speed. I've had a Mandrake installer refuse to run because it wanted 16MB ram (when the box said I needed only 4). Sure there's a manual way to do it, but to use efficiency as a selling point, everything must auto-configure, including the installer. Linux has the same feature bloat as Windows, if to a lesser degree.
OLPC competes against standard Linux. (Standard being what you can find on a store-shelf, which defines Linux to the random user, who probably isn't going to start researching it...) While you may be able to use the OLPC's UI settings on YOUR Linux flavor, does it come that way by default? Would a random user know to select it?
Maybe distros should offer a choice along the lines of:
custom install (if you're uncertain about this, don't click it)
optimized for SPEED SPEED SPEED
optimized for FLASHY COOLNESS (how it's setup now)
Then, a big win for choosing which apps:
custom install (if you're uncertain about this, don't click it)
optimize for CHOICES OUT THE WAZOO!! (everything installed!)
optimize for power users (one choice each, the most powerful)
optimize for simplicity (one choice each, the easiest to use)
optimize for as-close-to-a-certain-other-OS-as-we-can-without-being-sued!
Let's face it, the GIMP isn't for everyone. The MS Paint crowd 1st and foremost wants a SIMPLE paint program.
If a number of distros offered an "OLPC mode" that emulated operation of an OLPC as much as possible, that would help sell mainstream Linux. (Of course there's still the X, Y and Z aren't installed by default for legal reasons problems)
Off the rant and back to competition:
> Competition is always welcomed, or so says everyone here
Competition of companies be any means possible is not welcome
Competition of similar already on shelves products based on relative merits is welcome
> A used computer will probably give you more capability than a cheap new one.
There's a bit of a problem with used computers though. If you get in random used computers, they're not the same model, same specs etc. These are going to a bunch of people with NO idea what to do with them until they get some training or hands on time. Absolute consistency is essential.
This brings to mind one other possibility for PCs. Since we're not above adding new buttons to keyboards, how about a "defaults-lock" button. When it's on, all behavior defaults to factory-installed. (Or it could cycle through modes, lock in "friendly" mode, locked in "useful to the guy fixing your pc mode (shoe file extensions, directory paths, when something is copied to the desktop, ask which desktop (user/all users) gets it etc)" and unlocked. This would fix all the issues where you can't talk someone through something over the phone because they've invoked half a dozen customizations you didn't know existed.
Still, if you want to roll out something, anything for school, you need lots of the same item. You don't want to teach with 3 different math texts at the same time.
> Open source has shown the "proper" way to fight these practices. If we don't like how people use copyright to restrict their works, ignore them and create Free content instead.
Open source is primarily used by "people who care". The majority of consumers don't care about open source, just cheap / free software, and Windows is easily found "cheap" or "free". All that matters is cost and convenience, not what's "best".
Music is the same way. The easiest legal way to find new music is to turn on the radio, then buy the CD at Wal-Mart, Best Buy etc. The easiest / cheapest way period (short-sighted view, ignoring possibilities of lawsuits) is radio + Napster-alike.
If you want to change how people get music, and what music you get, you need to make an easier / cheaper solution. You can't do much about radio, that's what comes in cars by default. Good luck encouraging people to buy a net radio fed car stereo. (I imagine the typical geek's design would be more powerful (complicated) than the average consumer felt like dealing with) You CAN compete with Napster though. A central web site linking to musician's pages, allowing for downloading samples (maybe some song snippets and some whole songs) mixed with a streamlined PayPal system, with all musician pages having 2 "modes" (or 2 seperate main pages), one being anything the band wants, the other being a standard format where you can go to the same place on any band's page to find where they'll tour next, genre, a few basic band pics, song listings and other relavent info. This could easily be linked into myspace or any other popular website. Add in a tracking system for downloads to present "Internet Top 40" lists. Offer a downloadable tool that downloads samples automatically and plays random music for you, a standardized (to that site) internet radio that you can point to any genre you want. A tag system could allow for very specific descriptions of what you want to hear. (New tags could be voted on so you have a finite list that you can use a few checkboxes or dropboxes for)
Most of what's needed for what can be done is out there, but not put together, or well enough known if it is.
Assumng a copyright term is extended though... how did the original contract for the IP work? Did they purchase all existing rights, or all existing rights, plus any new, not currently existing rights that may pertain to this IP should any new such rights come into existence? I think who owns the new 20 years might be up for debate on an IP by IP basis depending on the original wordings.
Were the original buyers foresighted enough to know that in a few decades someone was going to pull a stunt like this off, and word things appropriately?