Without copyright, when everything cool is reproduced by others, watch the "registration organizations" pop up, who for a fee certify that you had X idea, song, invention on Y date. If someone else claims to be the inventor, you can point to your earlier date. Watch insurance companies team with lawyers to provide "prior thought insurance" to help you sue for false advertising when someone claims to be the visionary who came up with your latest idea. Of course, so long as they don't make that claim, there's nothing you can do.
That said, the market for PHYSICAL PRODUCTS would be harmed greatly. Imagine an inventor, investing every dime in a new idea, only to have a large company's scout pass one to a reverse engineering lab, who makes a "better" version. (Maybe faster, more durable, more colorful, less sharp edges) The large company then mass produces the "better" version and the inventor can't sell any more.
It's not just more money, but a fundamental shift in society. We're now a generic people where no matter what your parents do, if you're not kept out of public school you can get a scholership to a college, then get a job doing almost anything. Years ago, you did what your father did. The town needed a smith, who else would carry on? You had a head start growing up around it, you're the logical choice.
In today's age of anyone can ATTEMPT to do anything, then fall back on a more standard job if their dream doesn't pay out, those who like making music are right to at least TRY.
So long as it's possible to support yourself with music, whether it'll make you rich or not, you'll have thousands or more of aspiring musicians, willing to do it for love of what they do, for the attention of being on the stage, for the thrill of being able to tocuh so many people etc. Less profit may reduce #s, but without a near-complete economic collapse, musicians will remain a popular field.
I forget where I read this, I'm thinking Scott or Douglas Adams, though the closest I can find online attributes it to a "Bill Bryson", but one posted a funny way of predicting the future with a "which is more likely" game. For aliens, which is more likely, that they travelled many many light years to get here and shove probes up our rears, without making diplomatic contact, or that they're here all the time and we don't know about them.
The author then goes on to point out how we'd recognize such an advanced species, the world's best chocolate, neutral in all wars, the trains always run on time and very secretive. The upshot is that the Swiss our the aliens, once a year putting on lederhosen and inviting people in for festivals to keep the misdirection going.
This is a very good point. While I have a PDA that I could use to play MP3s, I'd still rather buy a new, cheap, disposable (if needed, accidents happen) MP3 player that should something happen to it, no big deal. Nintendo figures if you're interested in X, Y or Z non-game application, you probably already have it, and don't need a watered down version. (How much do you REALLY want to browse the Web on a device without a GOOD keyboard?)
Also, on the Wii vs PS3. Assuming the PS3 is worth EVERY PENNY, in some ways it's like a solid gold toilet. The gold in it may be worth 3x what you paid for it, but unless you had LOTS of spare money, would you bite? (For any reason besides melting down and reselling?)
Wii vs mere specs one-ups-man-ship was a win. Games being a hobby, whatever looks neat will be most popular. Nintendo successfully bet that more people would be excited by new interaction than a graphical upgrade that in most cases still didn't perfectly mirror real life.
If Nintendo makes a phone, expect a near-invisible-headset/normal-looking-watch combo. A few quick taps will speed dial anyone, and you'll NEVER have to fumble with it. Maybe you'll spin a wheel to QUICKLY get to the number you want. (Or perhaps they'll perfect voice recognition and drop the watch)
For a parent concerned about their kids, prank calls etc, the idea of a handicapped phone for their kids is great. With the DS phone for kids, they kids woldn't dial at all. They'ed click a button to dial the friend of choice. At any point, you could conference another person in... who was already on one kids list.
The Virtual Boy and Super Game Boy were great IDEAs.
The virtual boy meant 3D. Everyone wanted 3D. (Look at the popularity of 1st person dungeon crawlers, Wolf 3D etc) What stunk on the VB was implementation and follow-through. There should have been some BIG games ready at launch, a new Super Mario (not just Mario clash), standard Metroid or Zelda. Mario Clash had a nice idea, adding 3D gameplay, but given it was only a 3D version of the original Mario Brothers... it wasn't that special.
After the dismal launch, (what % was returned the next day?) it was understandable that no more were made.
As for the Super Game Boy, it added a little something special to the game. (Changing palettes, not just green! A bigger screen at least when you're home!) Many gamers want to play ALL games that interest them and didn't like havng to deal with portables that you needed certain light to see or that ate batteries. Using the TV speakers was also nice.
It was such a good idea that it was repeated. The Game Boy Advance was seen as worth a retread before the zapper was. (And we probably wouldn't have a Wii Zapper now if it cost signficantly to make) If not for DDR, the power pad idea would be as dead as the U-Force and the Power Glove. (Although part of the idea of the power glove lives on in the WiiMote, with similar problems such as the having to keep the controller in a certain area, you can't put your WiiMote behind your back to keep playing when your cat hops in your lap.)
A better example would be the 32X. For Sega of America to develop a machine that wasn't going to have much or any Japanese support... The Neo Geo Pocket Color with very few buttons, after several supoerior consoles had been defeated by the green-screen Game Boy. The Jaguar long after most gave up on Atari. The Zodiac given that people who chose all-in-one devices (consoles) over PC based gaming do it for a reason. (Complete lack of cpmpatibility worries)
I'd have called the DSs mic ill-advised, how useful is it really? It's more forced on users than a useful mechanic. All too often, the same is true of the touch screen, although the toch screen is perfect for all the games that used to be a pain without a mouse. (Shadowgate etc) The stylus can be great for RPGs, add path-finding so you can use the d-pad a little less. The stylus can be used in those games for easy one hand control. Too bad it seems the idea at Nintendo seems to be "for every forced use of the mic or touch screen where normal controls would suffice, everyone gets a gold star!" The removal of normal control schemes (the latest Zelda) I maintain is STILL ill-advised.
That said, I've heard Nintendo wasn't ever REALLY behind the Virtual Boy. Supposedly it was the dream project of the man who created the Game Boy, so it got forced through an otherwise unwilling company by his clout. After it flopped he left the company. (I'm not sure exactly how willing the departure was) If Nintendo was really behind it, there'd have been better launch titles.
If you believe the odds of life starting are astronomical, it makes sense that it's probably descended from a single ancestral line. If you believe it doesn't take much for life to form, it's hard to say. Perhaps something popped up last week, perhaps it pops up ever 3 million years of so and the last one has been out-competed into extinction already.
The one thing you shouldn't expect is multiple, close by similar organisms. If life began with a single self-replicating molecule, it probably ate all convenient materials out of whatever pool it started in fairly quickly. Anything requiring the same resources as it would be starved out. (Assuming it takes say, months or years for such a molecule to arise and that once such a molecule comes into existance, it fills its pool in minutes or days, why would a blind chemical reaction move through one medium in spurts?)
Considering we've had vast bodies of water for so long, and water-living life for so long, anything that spread through water was likely to find its way darn near everywhere that wasn't an "extreme" environment. Even so, what's more likely to produce life in the extreme environment? A from scratch new organism, or a variation on an existing creature? In one case you have to solve all the problems of life, in the other just kinks.
Given the variability of what life we do know of, and our belief that it's hard for life to arise from nothing, it makes sense to think that once the 1st life took hold, it very quickly adapted to every possible situation. (That it could reach without extreme means, such as larger migratory organisms that can travel the environmental gaps they by themselves can't cross. A normal flea might be stuck in Asia, a flea on a larger animal might be able to cross to North America.)
Odd alien conspiracy theory. If life slowly breaks down energy to less concentrated forms. (Entropy) Could we have been seeded by aliens who created our planet as a means to prevent it from self destructing, by letting the pressure out of all possible energy buildups?
Nintendo has already used a phone adaptor in Japan to let you play pokemon against someone else remotely.
Still, I can see Nintendo taking a wait and see approach. Let someone else make a phone plug-in, if there's really the demand, someone will approach them about it.
Still, do we want to go from taco talking on the N-Gage to talking into the block (holding it in front of your face?) We SURE don't want it built in, randomly interrupting our games, causing us to lose context and face a cheap death when we return to gameplay.
You can't really game and talk at the same time on the same resources if the system isn't pre-built for it. Voice chat on an FPS between people in the same match is one thing. Would you want to have random loud shrill rings as you play? (Or ANY distraction on a rythym game?)
Heh, we want to restrict kids' usage now. Kids ring up too large bills and don't sleep when talking to each other. Do we want to make this worse?
If Nintendo made a phone, I'm thinking they'ed make one of the best straight out convenient phones you've ever seen... that did absolutely nothing non-phone related.
This seperation can be needed for some. Consider the difficulty of a point-and-click adventure game, broken into levels vs not. With the no levels game, a head scratcher is a LOT worse. This makes it easier because there's less square footage to roam over clicking randomly around for the as yet uncollected object, perhaps a pair of tweezers you didn't recogize was important for some obscure and vaguely sickening purpose.
Also bragging rights. Level is the "other" score for some games. (Arcade / Atari especially) and is a convenient way of comparing notes with friends in other games. (I'm only in 5-2 on Super Mario Brothers) In Super Mario Brothers 3 world-level is far more convenient than trying to describe the level you're interested in.
> A testament that not even megacorps can always buy/use laws against the people.
Nope, every so often you actually have to look pro-citizen as opposed to f-the-consumer. Bush didn't get in on "let me turn this into a police state", but on "I'll protect you, those guys will let the terrorists sneak in at night and give your dog peanut butter sandwiches".
The fact that someone with a partly missing military record could pull this off, in one case against someone with accomplishments to tout, without people asking "Wait a minute, why would they want to specifically target us, when we're so far away" astounds. I used to wonder how people could buy utter propaganda, but from the debates I've picked with various people, the root problem is NOT shrewd rhetoric.
People WANT to believe in something, desperately. It can be religion, politics or save-the-whales, but once many people mentally invest in something, direct evidence in their face often isn't enough to convince them to change their minds. The reason politicians can walk away from anything with a blanket denial in the face of undisputable proof is because their voters are willing to dismiss anything negative as FUD spread by the other party.
The executives of the music companies were trained to believe firmly in "business as usual". They see technology as a tool or a toy, by which I mean something of minor importance and capability. The net is potentially 2-3 new types of cd player to sell music in, perhaps one per computer platform. Under ideal circumstances, they would astro-turf music formats, re-selling music as it moves between protected versions of mp3, ogg vorbis and other formats. Until now, technology has been on THEIR side. What consumer could afford professional grade equipment? What consumer could build the equipment to rip them off? With the advent of a large enough # of users who can created "devices" like WinAmp and a means to spread this to those who can't make it themselves, suddenly the consumer is making the technology to THEIR specs! THIS isn't supposed to happen!
Technology is safe because the peons buying can't do anything to change it, and those who can build something can't afford to mass produce. Many more businesses than the music industry bought into this, if only because of the belief that they were too big to be stopped.
If the music industry that exists today crumbles, it will do so with many of the higher ups in denial, unable to concieve of how anything so large could be taken down.
> The PSP, much like the PS3, is an albatross. Sony got locked into the idea that all that people wanted was more of the same but with better graphics...
In some ways I prefer my PSP. Nintendo got the idea that I wanted innovative new controls, such as shouting at my games, blowing into the mic till I'm lightheaded and trying to move my character around with a stylus, so that my own hand blocks my view of the game.
The DS is a great system with nice stereo sound, a decent control scheme (2 extra buttons make it much improved over the GBA) and great load times.
The PSP on the other hand, doesn't have any new controls for someone to ram down my throat. The PSP's one big screen also trumps two smaller screens with a gap between them for smooth movement. The PSP's speaker is a bit too easily blocked though...
As for the rise in the popularity of the PSP, compare the # of must-have DS games vs must-have PSP games. The DS has the PSP firmly for now, but the PSP is starting to build a decent collection. 3 Final Fantasies, 2 Mega Mans, promising looking tactics games, Katamari Damacy etc.
> Sony got locked into the idea that all that people wanted was more of the same
We do. We buy similar sports games over and over. There's a REASON there's so many Sonic, Zelda, FF, MM, DW games. With the news that Metroid would move to 3d or that Link would be cell shaded, Nintendo was torn to shreds. (Then people loved the end results... but it explains why Nintendo doesn't like giving out details, out of context details seemingly only make bad PR)
Consider how many fundamentally-identical FPSs are out there. How many platformers and space shooters were near-identical before that. How many Tetris and Columns rip-offs there are. (Earthbound, loved as it is, mechanics-wise is VERY generic, saved mostly by the ability to play one-handed, quirk, a few good jokes and nice music.)
That I've seen, much of what's on the DS game-wise has been more of the same, excepting for the use of the new controls which are a mixed bag. The DS has had the advantage of volume though. If only 10% of its titles are worthwhile, that's still a LOT to choose from.
Overall, give me a cartridge based PSP. Usable controls and no annoying load-times. Adding in the OPTION of new controls is nice, but Zelda showed that while the player can get accustomed to it, it's a mistake to FORCE the controls on the player. Zelda sold the touch-screen, NOT the other way around.
In many prior versions of Windows there were Easter Eggs for showing off the development teams. Of course this left out many people, but consider what Windows is. (Largely recycled) The scale of the project makes crediting everyone accurately a difficult, if not impossible project. Sure, each person can record what they did, but their managers can record otherwise, with people attempting to steal credit. Rather than hire clerks for the sole purpose of knowing who does what, it's easier to say "no personal credit for anything" and be done with it.
Consider that MS also uses work bought from other companies, with who knows what origin. MS claims Linux uses some of their code. MS probably uses code from a dozen other OSes just from random evolution of the code. (Consider that Windows, now competing with *nix started as DOS, a CP/M derivitave shoving in Unix features as quick as it could.) The core of the original DOS was bought. VB was bought. Many of the other successes of MS were bought. How much documentation was available for each product probably varies wildly.
On the flip side, if yo did a bad job (because of management not LETTING you do a good job, forcing corner-cutting etc) do you want to be associated with a steaming pile? Would you want to be recognized as the guy who made Clippy "work"? Sure your boss made you do it over your objections, but he public doesn't care. YOU'RE the jerk who did it to them, no matter where the orders came from.
Beat Mega Man 2 and watch the credits. Fish Man, Yuukican's Papa and 2M03CM Man FTW! The credits also provide a nice undistracted place to add another great piece of gaming music, or toss in a little more story with sprites bouncing around the screen. (FF3/6)
Opening credits do NOT beling in video games, but think they should be available (perhaps soundless) from the main menu for those interested, and in some enhanced form when you win.
In game advertising COULD work out well. Make it OPTIONAL to watch the Super Bowl commercials in high quality on the following year's release and watch the sales. Sure some parents might complain about Budweiser... but it's not like they sent the kids out of the room when the same commercial came on TV. Also, anything that spreads the cat herders and other valid arguments FOR commercials that are entertaining enough to have you WANT to watch them over the standard, change-the-channel-NOW! is a plus.
The company that forces "watch 30 seconds of commercials periodically" will create the market for the next game genie, built around skipping said commercials. If they secretly are running that company, and the advertising takes off, they'll make a mint.
It's too late to stop in game ads now though, they've been around since the NES, TMNT2 had Pizza Hut ads, Dominos had a Noid game and Kool-Aid Man was on the 2600.
Personally, I don't mind billboards in a game that takes place in city, although I'd really rather something funny like a Pets Overnight ad grace them.
TV style commercials should NOT be tolerated, and if added, the user SHOULD be paid to watch them. The game maker might be liable for false advertising, selling you a commercial rather than a game depending on how bad the ads are.
One other are serverely messed up in advertising. The Wii. Maybe it was different when it launched, but when I hooked mine up, the only game commercial available was Metroid. The 360 has LOTS of game ads availabe ON DEMAND. MS got it right with making ads you might want available without forcing them down your throat.
> The game industry needs to learn from the movie industry, where art and special effects need to be combined to produce a real hit. Games that are only about violence, or sex, or horror by themselves may cater to a niche market, but true blockbusters come from a combination of different elements.
And thus did a romance get added to Transformers. It'll sell, but it'll be broken, like Mission Impossible, or Garfield. (Didn't see the 2nd, the 1st seemed to be more an attempt to make "Odie" a star than anything else.) While I'll be the 1st to admit that Soundwave was at times hilarious in Transformers, I didn't go to the theater in search of the next Mars Attacks. (Where he seems to have been borrowed from)
But wait, games have been like this for YEARS! Over and over games have made a brutal mockery of the TV series, or movie they're meant to cash in on! Was the Super Mario Brothers movie another generic Hollywood mistake, or revenge?
Is rehashing bad? People don't like hopping to Vista because they don't know where everything is. XP had the same problem, so did 95. "More of the same" is good in the eyes of people afraid of paying $40-50 for something they might not be able to control. People pay how much per month to watch more of the same on TV shows? How much do sports themselves change throughout the years? Change is what the movies are demonized FOR. We want bigger and better, but bigger and better SAME. The Simpsons was a good example. Perhaps there's a new character here and there... they aren't the stars pushing those the fans came to see into the background. People like knowing what they're paying for. The "this isn't at all what you wanted, but really, it's better, trust me!" attitude is much of what's wrong with movies. If people had wanted different but better than what they paid for, they wouldn't have gone to see it, waiting instead for the different, better thing to come along.
Of course, in game advertising COULD work out well. Make it OPTIONAL to watch the Super Bowl commercials in high quality on the following year's release and watch the sales. Sure some parents might complain about Budweiser... but it's not like they sent the kids out of the room when the same commercial came on TV. Also, anything that spreads the cat herders and other valid arguments FOR commercials that are entertaining enough to have you WANT to watch them over the standard, change-the-channel-NOW!
> There is also a basic concept that seems to have escaped most game developers, and that is the majority of game players are over the age of 18, yet most games target teenagers. This
I don't know that this is the mistake of the game companies.
There is also a basic concept that seems to have escaped many busy-bodies, and that is the majority of game players are over the age of 18, yet most aformentioned busybodies target any game not sanitized to a PG level and create huge PR backlashes against any company that dares to offer what the market demands.
I wonder which backlash was more hurtful, that over Hot Coffee, or that over the Sony rootkit? I expect unthinking parents are probably a more powerful (and consistent) demographic that "activast geeks".
> For that price, they'll be able to poke through, say, the first 100 issues of Stan Lee's 1963 creation "Amazing Spider-Man" at their leisure
A local paper started including old Spiderman comics on Sundays not too long ago. (Either SC's "The State" or Augusta, GA's "The Chronicle") The comics spend as much time patting themselves on the back as developing plot. We don't care that you think Spider-Man is the coolest thing ever, you're the writer, and hearing it from you is as obnoxious as the co-worker who has to tell you every detail of her kids' lives in gory detail.
The government wants smoking gone. It wanted alcohol gone once too, and tried a flat ban. That didn't work well. Adults have the means to easily circumvent a ban, so an effective ban isn't possible. Children have limited means compared to adults, so while it may not be possible to prevent children from smoking altogether, you can over-all reduce the amount. (Or so it is thought.) If you can prevent a child from smoking until after you've drummed it into their head how horrible it is, maybe they won't start, and without impacting the freedom of adults who can fight back, you've eliminated a future smoker.
A good thought if a: you can prevent kids from smoking long enough to get in your arguments before they get their first chance to smoke b: the kids won't automatically dismiss everything you say as being more hypocritical adult nonsense (adults never want us to do anything fun! no spray-painting, no sex under 18, no playing with explosives...) c: you consider a child's right's moot, which if you consider them incapable of making decisions makes some sense, at least on the surface
The problem with kids and decision making ISN'T that kid's can't make good decisions based on facts, but that the facts they have to work with are less than what an adult has to work with (good logic + missing data = ?) and that the kids are in a boy who cried wolf mode. All their lives the kids have been told NO to all manner of small harmless things by adults being overcautious. The kids come to expect a buffer after a while, anything an adult says is bad, is probably not REALLY bad, just bad if it gets out of control and the adult is clearly too lazy to define the issue. Kids know things aren't black and white, and resent the monolithic NO. Not only do kids not have enough data, but they have good reason to adjust the data they do have in the less-caution side. At what point do the kids learn where issues really stand? It varies, but you can expect logic errors from kids, without ANY lack of intelligence on their part.
Personally I think having lived a year on your own, from your own paychecks, budgeting and not relying on others ought to be the marker. If you can survive without handouts for a year, meeting some objective fiscal test (perhaps with adjustments allowed based on unexpected medical reasons) you can be considered to have proven yourself mature enough to be considered an adult. Perhaps criminal activities would count against this. You'd always be free to try again and one success would be enough.
Though when is this going to happen? For the most part, once you're out of school and can devote yourself to self-support, probably 17-18 or 21-22ish depending on whether you go to college.
Perhaps this is already implicitly meant in the selection of 18 as the primary age of adulthood, the age at which you can be considered to know everything an adult is supposed to know, per the educational system.
Is the infringement each download that occurs, or each time it is downloaded? This could make a huge difference. Watch them get a law passed that says "making available" is ok in their case, and once that is done, all responsibility is on the downloader who didn't know it wasn't the record company's music.
Does Iran want nukes, or just for us to think they're really close to them? Once they have nukes, they have something that takes incredible resources to protect, because who knows what terrorist group / cult will think it can use the weapon better than Iran's government and try to take it? Iran can't use a nuke until it has a plan to keep us form using ours, or the prophecy falls apart when the whole of their country gets nuked, without us bothering to put in a single soldier to be shot. Being wink wink nudge nudge riiiight on the edge gives the benefit of "better not mess with us or we'll put in an all-nighter and you'll be sorry" but without increasing internal security problems.
> they want it in order to be able to continue running the state as a theocratic dictatorship without risking external intervention
The fact that they think they need it tells us something. Iran probably believes an invasion is eminent to be making this much noise. Saddam made all the same noises to keep us out. Iran isn't going to make a full out assault on us until AFTER they get rid of Israel. They may hate us, but we won't be the focus unless we MAKE ourselves the focus. Strategically, Israel is right there, requiring fewer resources to approach, and they'll need lots of conquered lands under their control before they have access to the resources to take us on.
> I would agree with you that most people who complain do not actively participate in their government, and thus don't have a right to complain.
While I agree with this, this wasn't a point I made. Did you mean to reply to a different post?
I was just being snarky in response to the FSM reference and noting that it's not accurate that the government had done NOTHING good that affects us, but acknowledging that the one good thing I mentioned might not have been for us.
> The worst bit is that they can screw their constituents and look good doing it through deceptive naming and phrasing of bills/laws, by including commercial interest pork in a bill whose intent is completely unrelated, etc.
This goes 2 ways. What's merely pork in one area might be filling a desperate need for jobs in another where a large industry went under. The service economy is not self-supporting, particularly when we want to move as many of those jobs overseas as possible.
> Unfortunately, American Idol is far more entertaining than following politics (I suppose that's debatable at this point too), so the people care more about who gets the $1 Million dollar recording contract than who's adding $300 Million in spending for an unneeded bridge to nowhere.
Is there such a thing as a congressional lame list other than setting/. to politics or yro? Perhaps an equal opportunity site dragging both major parties through the mud so badly, with links to the votes cast the wrong way (with simplified explanations of why the vote was wrong) so that no party's followers could be allowed to think their party was peaches and cream would help.
We can get behind hating a congressman wanting to do bad things in a bathroom, so I'd think we could rally behind other things, if there was a convenient place to get it in sound bite or bulleted text format.
The problem is, even if people are disgusted with both major parties, who will they turn to? How many people actually know what their political stance is? Most conservatives probably don't want disband-the-public-school-system conservatism. I see a number of fake grassroots parties being created, to sponsor people who will keep on doing the same thing, perhaps "swapping party alliances" mysteriously on election.
The problem with putting on such a TV show (independent / local channels would likely eat it up, even if networks hated it) is I can see it getting sued for slander, with or without merit (even if every accusation can be proven from the congressional record) and the case being deliberately held up in court long enough to bankrupt the person putting on the show.
> Flying Spaghetti Monster I cant wait until our government acts with our best interests in mind... hell I'd be happy to see it happen just once before I die.
How about the do not call list?
You've got your wish, now roll over, die and come home to the beer volcano and experienced stripper factory, you're not getting any more handouts from your wise and benevolent Congress who is acting in your best interest whether you know it or not. Remember, being miserable builds character!
With blocked phone numbers, Congressmen probably got more calls from telemarketers than constituents on the numbers they personally answered. While we can't convince Congress to behave based on what the people want, perhaps we could somehow annoy them when they do great wrong until they quit messing with us so much?
Slashdot Mirror
Without copyright, when everything cool is reproduced by others, watch the "registration organizations" pop up, who for a fee certify that you had X idea, song, invention on Y date. If someone else claims to be the inventor, you can point to your earlier date. Watch insurance companies team with lawyers to provide "prior thought insurance" to help you sue for false advertising when someone claims to be the visionary who came up with your latest idea. Of course, so long as they don't make that claim, there's nothing you can do.
That said, the market for PHYSICAL PRODUCTS would be harmed greatly. Imagine an inventor, investing every dime in a new idea, only to have a large company's scout pass one to a reverse engineering lab, who makes a "better" version. (Maybe faster, more durable, more colorful, less sharp edges) The large company then mass produces the "better" version and the inventor can't sell any more.
It's not just more money, but a fundamental shift in society. We're now a generic people where no matter what your parents do, if you're not kept out of public school you can get a scholership to a college, then get a job doing almost anything. Years ago, you did what your father did. The town needed a smith, who else would carry on? You had a head start growing up around it, you're the logical choice.
In today's age of anyone can ATTEMPT to do anything, then fall back on a more standard job if their dream doesn't pay out, those who like making music are right to at least TRY.
So long as it's possible to support yourself with music, whether it'll make you rich or not, you'll have thousands or more of aspiring musicians, willing to do it for love of what they do, for the attention of being on the stage, for the thrill of being able to tocuh so many people etc. Less profit may reduce #s, but without a near-complete economic collapse, musicians will remain a popular field.
I forget where I read this, I'm thinking Scott or Douglas Adams, though the closest I can find online attributes it to a "Bill Bryson", but one posted a funny way of predicting the future with a "which is more likely" game. For aliens, which is more likely, that they travelled many many light years to get here and shove probes up our rears, without making diplomatic contact, or that they're here all the time and we don't know about them.
The author then goes on to point out how we'd recognize such an advanced species, the world's best chocolate, neutral in all wars, the trains always run on time and very secretive. The upshot is that the Swiss our the aliens, once a year putting on lederhosen and inviting people in for festivals to keep the misdirection going.
They don't mind so much when it means they're wildly successful. Hormel wasn't so fond of the new meaning of "spam".
This is a very good point. While I have a PDA that I could use to play MP3s, I'd still rather buy a new, cheap, disposable (if needed, accidents happen) MP3 player that should something happen to it, no big deal. Nintendo figures if you're interested in X, Y or Z non-game application, you probably already have it, and don't need a watered down version. (How much do you REALLY want to browse the Web on a device without a GOOD keyboard?)
Also, on the Wii vs PS3. Assuming the PS3 is worth EVERY PENNY, in some ways it's like a solid gold toilet. The gold in it may be worth 3x what you paid for it, but unless you had LOTS of spare money, would you bite? (For any reason besides melting down and reselling?)
Wii vs mere specs one-ups-man-ship was a win. Games being a hobby, whatever looks neat will be most popular. Nintendo successfully bet that more people would be excited by new interaction than a graphical upgrade that in most cases still didn't perfectly mirror real life.
If Nintendo makes a phone, expect a near-invisible-headset/normal-looking-watch combo. A few quick taps will speed dial anyone, and you'll NEVER have to fumble with it. Maybe you'll spin a wheel to QUICKLY get to the number you want. (Or perhaps they'll perfect voice recognition and drop the watch)
For a parent concerned about their kids, prank calls etc, the idea of a handicapped phone for their kids is great. With the DS phone for kids, they kids woldn't dial at all. They'ed click a button to dial the friend of choice. At any point, you could conference another person in... who was already on one kids list.
The Virtual Boy and Super Game Boy were great IDEAs.
The virtual boy meant 3D. Everyone wanted 3D. (Look at the popularity of 1st person dungeon crawlers, Wolf 3D etc) What stunk on the VB was implementation and follow-through. There should have been some BIG games ready at launch, a new Super Mario (not just Mario clash), standard Metroid or Zelda. Mario Clash had a nice idea, adding 3D gameplay, but given it was only a 3D version of the original Mario Brothers... it wasn't that special.
After the dismal launch, (what % was returned the next day?) it was understandable that no more were made.
As for the Super Game Boy, it added a little something special to the game. (Changing palettes, not just green! A bigger screen at least when you're home!) Many gamers want to play ALL games that interest them and didn't like havng to deal with portables that you needed certain light to see or that ate batteries. Using the TV speakers was also nice.
It was such a good idea that it was repeated. The Game Boy Advance was seen as worth a retread before the zapper was. (And we probably wouldn't have a Wii Zapper now if it cost signficantly to make) If not for DDR, the power pad idea would be as dead as the U-Force and the Power Glove. (Although part of the idea of the power glove lives on in the WiiMote, with similar problems such as the having to keep the controller in a certain area, you can't put your WiiMote behind your back to keep playing when your cat hops in your lap.)
A better example would be the 32X. For Sega of America to develop a machine that wasn't going to have much or any Japanese support... The Neo Geo Pocket Color with very few buttons, after several supoerior consoles had been defeated by the green-screen Game Boy. The Jaguar long after most gave up on Atari. The Zodiac given that people who chose all-in-one devices (consoles) over PC based gaming do it for a reason. (Complete lack of cpmpatibility worries)
I'd have called the DSs mic ill-advised, how useful is it really? It's more forced on users than a useful mechanic. All too often, the same is true of the touch screen, although the toch screen is perfect for all the games that used to be a pain without a mouse. (Shadowgate etc) The stylus can be great for RPGs, add path-finding so you can use the d-pad a little less. The stylus can be used in those games for easy one hand control. Too bad it seems the idea at Nintendo seems to be "for every forced use of the mic or touch screen where normal controls would suffice, everyone gets a gold star!" The removal of normal control schemes (the latest Zelda) I maintain is STILL ill-advised.
That said, I've heard Nintendo wasn't ever REALLY behind the Virtual Boy. Supposedly it was the dream project of the man who created the Game Boy, so it got forced through an otherwise unwilling company by his clout. After it flopped he left the company. (I'm not sure exactly how willing the departure was) If Nintendo was really behind it, there'd have been better launch titles.
If you believe the odds of life starting are astronomical, it makes sense that it's probably descended from a single ancestral line. If you believe it doesn't take much for life to form, it's hard to say. Perhaps something popped up last week, perhaps it pops up ever 3 million years of so and the last one has been out-competed into extinction already.
The one thing you shouldn't expect is multiple, close by similar organisms. If life began with a single self-replicating molecule, it probably ate all convenient materials out of whatever pool it started in fairly quickly. Anything requiring the same resources as it would be starved out. (Assuming it takes say, months or years for such a molecule to arise and that once such a molecule comes into existance, it fills its pool in minutes or days, why would a blind chemical reaction move through one medium in spurts?)
Considering we've had vast bodies of water for so long, and water-living life for so long, anything that spread through water was likely to find its way darn near everywhere that wasn't an "extreme" environment. Even so, what's more likely to produce life in the extreme environment? A from scratch new organism, or a variation on an existing creature? In one case you have to solve all the problems of life, in the other just kinks.
Given the variability of what life we do know of, and our belief that it's hard for life to arise from nothing, it makes sense to think that once the 1st life took hold, it very quickly adapted to every possible situation. (That it could reach without extreme means, such as larger migratory organisms that can travel the environmental gaps they by themselves can't cross. A normal flea might be stuck in Asia, a flea on a larger animal might be able to cross to North America.)
Odd alien conspiracy theory. If life slowly breaks down energy to less concentrated forms. (Entropy) Could we have been seeded by aliens who created our planet as a means to prevent it from self destructing, by letting the pressure out of all possible energy buildups?
Nintendo has already used a phone adaptor in Japan to let you play pokemon against someone else remotely.
Still, I can see Nintendo taking a wait and see approach. Let someone else make a phone plug-in, if there's really the demand, someone will approach them about it.
Still, do we want to go from taco talking on the N-Gage to talking into the block (holding it in front of your face?) We SURE don't want it built in, randomly interrupting our games, causing us to lose context and face a cheap death when we return to gameplay.
You can't really game and talk at the same time on the same resources if the system isn't pre-built for it. Voice chat on an FPS between people in the same match is one thing. Would you want to have random loud shrill rings as you play? (Or ANY distraction on a rythym game?)
Heh, we want to restrict kids' usage now. Kids ring up too large bills and don't sleep when talking to each other. Do we want to make this worse?
If Nintendo made a phone, I'm thinking they'ed make one of the best straight out convenient phones you've ever seen... that did absolutely nothing non-phone related.
This seperation can be needed for some. Consider the difficulty of a point-and-click adventure game, broken into levels vs not. With the no levels game, a head scratcher is a LOT worse. This makes it easier because there's less square footage to roam over clicking randomly around for the as yet uncollected object, perhaps a pair of tweezers you didn't recogize was important for some obscure and vaguely sickening purpose.
Also bragging rights. Level is the "other" score for some games. (Arcade / Atari especially) and is a convenient way of comparing notes with friends in other games. (I'm only in 5-2 on Super Mario Brothers) In Super Mario Brothers 3 world-level is far more convenient than trying to describe the level you're interested in.
> A testament that not even megacorps can always buy/use laws against the people.
Nope, every so often you actually have to look pro-citizen as opposed to f-the-consumer. Bush didn't get in on "let me turn this into a police state", but on "I'll protect you, those guys will let the terrorists sneak in at night and give your dog peanut butter sandwiches".
The fact that someone with a partly missing military record could pull this off, in one case against someone with accomplishments to tout, without people asking "Wait a minute, why would they want to specifically target us, when we're so far away" astounds. I used to wonder how people could buy utter propaganda, but from the debates I've picked with various people, the root problem is NOT shrewd rhetoric.
People WANT to believe in something, desperately. It can be religion, politics or save-the-whales, but once many people mentally invest in something, direct evidence in their face often isn't enough to convince them to change their minds. The reason politicians can walk away from anything with a blanket denial in the face of undisputable proof is because their voters are willing to dismiss anything negative as FUD spread by the other party.
The executives of the music companies were trained to believe firmly in "business as usual". They see technology as a tool or a toy, by which I mean something of minor importance and capability. The net is potentially 2-3 new types of cd player to sell music in, perhaps one per computer platform. Under ideal circumstances, they would astro-turf music formats, re-selling music as it moves between protected versions of mp3, ogg vorbis and other formats. Until now, technology has been on THEIR side. What consumer could afford professional grade equipment? What consumer could build the equipment to rip them off? With the advent of a large enough # of users who can created "devices" like WinAmp and a means to spread this to those who can't make it themselves, suddenly the consumer is making the technology to THEIR specs! THIS isn't supposed to happen!
Technology is safe because the peons buying can't do anything to change it, and those who can build something can't afford to mass produce. Many more businesses than the music industry bought into this, if only because of the belief that they were too big to be stopped.
If the music industry that exists today crumbles, it will do so with many of the higher ups in denial, unable to concieve of how anything so large could be taken down.
I, for one, welcome our new neural-implant overlords!
> The PSP, much like the PS3, is an albatross. Sony got locked into the idea that all that people wanted was more of the same but with better graphics...
In some ways I prefer my PSP. Nintendo got the idea that I wanted innovative new controls, such as shouting at my games, blowing into the mic till I'm lightheaded and trying to move my character around with a stylus, so that my own hand blocks my view of the game.
The DS is a great system with nice stereo sound, a decent control scheme (2 extra buttons make it much improved over the GBA) and great load times.
The PSP on the other hand, doesn't have any new controls for someone to ram down my throat. The PSP's one big screen also trumps two smaller screens with a gap between them for smooth movement. The PSP's speaker is a bit too easily blocked though...
As for the rise in the popularity of the PSP, compare the # of must-have DS games vs must-have PSP games. The DS has the PSP firmly for now, but the PSP is starting to build a decent collection. 3 Final Fantasies, 2 Mega Mans, promising looking tactics games, Katamari Damacy etc.
> Sony got locked into the idea that all that people wanted was more of the same
We do. We buy similar sports games over and over. There's a REASON there's so many Sonic, Zelda, FF, MM, DW games. With the news that Metroid would move to 3d or that Link would be cell shaded, Nintendo was torn to shreds. (Then people loved the end results... but it explains why Nintendo doesn't like giving out details, out of context details seemingly only make bad PR)
Consider how many fundamentally-identical FPSs are out there. How many platformers and space shooters were near-identical before that. How many Tetris and Columns rip-offs there are. (Earthbound, loved as it is, mechanics-wise is VERY generic, saved mostly by the ability to play one-handed, quirk, a few good jokes and nice music.)
That I've seen, much of what's on the DS game-wise has been more of the same, excepting for the use of the new controls which are a mixed bag. The DS has had the advantage of volume though. If only 10% of its titles are worthwhile, that's still a LOT to choose from.
Overall, give me a cartridge based PSP. Usable controls and no annoying load-times. Adding in the OPTION of new controls is nice, but Zelda showed that while the player can get accustomed to it, it's a mistake to FORCE the controls on the player. Zelda sold the touch-screen, NOT the other way around.
In many prior versions of Windows there were Easter Eggs for showing off the development teams. Of course this left out many people, but consider what Windows is. (Largely recycled) The scale of the project makes crediting everyone accurately a difficult, if not impossible project. Sure, each person can record what they did, but their managers can record otherwise, with people attempting to steal credit. Rather than hire clerks for the sole purpose of knowing who does what, it's easier to say "no personal credit for anything" and be done with it.
Consider that MS also uses work bought from other companies, with who knows what origin. MS claims Linux uses some of their code. MS probably uses code from a dozen other OSes just from random evolution of the code. (Consider that Windows, now competing with *nix started as DOS, a CP/M derivitave shoving in Unix features as quick as it could.) The core of the original DOS was bought. VB was bought. Many of the other successes of MS were bought. How much documentation was available for each product probably varies wildly.
On the flip side, if yo did a bad job (because of management not LETTING you do a good job, forcing corner-cutting etc) do you want to be associated with a steaming pile? Would you want to be recognized as the guy who made Clippy "work"? Sure your boss made you do it over your objections, but he public doesn't care. YOU'RE the jerk who did it to them, no matter where the orders came from.
Beat Mega Man 2 and watch the credits. Fish Man, Yuukican's Papa and 2M03CM Man FTW! The credits also provide a nice undistracted place to add another great piece of gaming music, or toss in a little more story with sprites bouncing around the screen. (FF3/6)
Opening credits do NOT beling in video games, but think they should be available (perhaps soundless) from the main menu for those interested, and in some enhanced form when you win.
In game advertising COULD work out well. Make it OPTIONAL to watch the Super Bowl commercials in high quality on the following year's release and watch the sales. Sure some parents might complain about Budweiser... but it's not like they sent the kids out of the room when the same commercial came on TV. Also, anything that spreads the cat herders and other valid arguments FOR commercials that are entertaining enough to have you WANT to watch them over the standard, change-the-channel-NOW! is a plus.
The company that forces "watch 30 seconds of commercials periodically" will create the market for the next game genie, built around skipping said commercials. If they secretly are running that company, and the advertising takes off, they'll make a mint.
It's too late to stop in game ads now though, they've been around since the NES, TMNT2 had Pizza Hut ads, Dominos had a Noid game and Kool-Aid Man was on the 2600.
Personally, I don't mind billboards in a game that takes place in city, although I'd really rather something funny like a Pets Overnight ad grace them.
TV style commercials should NOT be tolerated, and if added, the user SHOULD be paid to watch them. The game maker might be liable for false advertising, selling you a commercial rather than a game depending on how bad the ads are.
One other are serverely messed up in advertising. The Wii. Maybe it was different when it launched, but when I hooked mine up, the only game commercial available was Metroid. The 360 has LOTS of game ads availabe ON DEMAND. MS got it right with making ads you might want available without forcing them down your throat.
> The game industry needs to learn from the movie industry, where art and special effects need to be combined to produce a real hit. Games that are only about violence, or sex, or horror by themselves may cater to a niche market, but true blockbusters come from a combination of different elements.
And thus did a romance get added to Transformers. It'll sell, but it'll be broken, like Mission Impossible, or Garfield. (Didn't see the 2nd, the 1st seemed to be more an attempt to make "Odie" a star than anything else.) While I'll be the 1st to admit that Soundwave was at times hilarious in Transformers, I didn't go to the theater in search of the next Mars Attacks. (Where he seems to have been borrowed from)
But wait, games have been like this for YEARS! Over and over games have made a brutal mockery of the TV series, or movie they're meant to cash in on! Was the Super Mario Brothers movie another generic Hollywood mistake, or revenge?
Is rehashing bad? People don't like hopping to Vista because they don't know where everything is. XP had the same problem, so did 95. "More of the same" is good in the eyes of people afraid of paying $40-50 for something they might not be able to control. People pay how much per month to watch more of the same on TV shows? How much do sports themselves change throughout the years? Change is what the movies are demonized FOR. We want bigger and better, but bigger and better SAME. The Simpsons was a good example. Perhaps there's a new character here and there... they aren't the stars pushing those the fans came to see into the background. People like knowing what they're paying for. The "this isn't at all what you wanted, but really, it's better, trust me!" attitude is much of what's wrong with movies. If people had wanted different but better than what they paid for, they wouldn't have gone to see it, waiting instead for the different, better thing to come along.
Of course, in game advertising COULD work out well. Make it OPTIONAL to watch the Super Bowl commercials in high quality on the following year's release and watch the sales. Sure some parents might complain about Budweiser... but it's not like they sent the kids out of the room when the same commercial came on TV. Also, anything that spreads the cat herders and other valid arguments FOR commercials that are entertaining enough to have you WANT to watch them over the standard, change-the-channel-NOW!
> There is also a basic concept that seems to have escaped most game developers, and that is the majority of game players are over the age of 18, yet most games target teenagers. This
I don't know that this is the mistake of the game companies.
There is also a basic concept that seems to have escaped many busy-bodies,
and that is the majority of game players are over the age of 18, yet most aformentioned busybodies target any game not sanitized to a PG level and create huge PR backlashes against any company that dares to offer what the market demands.
I wonder which backlash was more hurtful, that over Hot Coffee, or that over the Sony rootkit? I expect unthinking parents are probably a more powerful (and consistent) demographic that "activast geeks".
On at least some, you aren't kidding.
> For that price, they'll be able to poke through, say, the first 100 issues of Stan Lee's 1963 creation "Amazing Spider-Man" at their leisure
A local paper started including old Spiderman comics on Sundays not too long ago. (Either SC's "The State" or Augusta, GA's "The Chronicle") The comics spend as much time patting themselves on the back as developing plot. We don't care that you think Spider-Man is the coolest thing ever, you're the writer, and hearing it from you is as obnoxious as the co-worker who has to tell you every detail of her kids' lives in gory detail.
The government wants smoking gone. It wanted alcohol gone once too, and tried a flat ban. That didn't work well. Adults have the means to easily circumvent a ban, so an effective ban isn't possible. Children have limited means compared to adults, so while it may not be possible to prevent children from smoking altogether, you can over-all reduce the amount. (Or so it is thought.) If you can prevent a child from smoking until after you've drummed it into their head how horrible it is, maybe they won't start, and without impacting the freedom of adults who can fight back, you've eliminated a future smoker.
A good thought if
a: you can prevent kids from smoking long enough to get in your arguments before they get their first chance to smoke
b: the kids won't automatically dismiss everything you say as being more hypocritical adult nonsense (adults never want us to do anything fun! no spray-painting, no sex under 18, no playing with explosives...)
c: you consider a child's right's moot, which if you consider them incapable of making decisions makes some sense, at least on the surface
The problem with kids and decision making ISN'T that kid's can't make good decisions based on facts, but that the facts they have to work with are less than what an adult has to work with (good logic + missing data = ?) and that the kids are in a boy who cried wolf mode. All their lives the kids have been told NO to all manner of small harmless things by adults being overcautious. The kids come to expect a buffer after a while, anything an adult says is bad, is probably not REALLY bad, just bad if it gets out of control and the adult is clearly too lazy to define the issue. Kids know things aren't black and white, and resent the monolithic NO. Not only do kids not have enough data, but they have good reason to adjust the data they do have in the less-caution side. At what point do the kids learn where issues really stand? It varies, but you can expect logic errors from kids, without ANY lack of intelligence on their part.
Personally I think having lived a year on your own, from your own paychecks, budgeting and not relying on others ought to be the marker. If you can survive without handouts for a year, meeting some objective fiscal test (perhaps with adjustments allowed based on unexpected medical reasons) you can be considered to have proven yourself mature enough to be considered an adult. Perhaps criminal activities would count against this. You'd always be free to try again and one success would be enough.
Though when is this going to happen? For the most part, once you're out of school and can devote yourself to self-support, probably 17-18 or 21-22ish depending on whether you go to college.
Perhaps this is already implicitly meant in the selection of 18 as the primary age of adulthood, the age at which you can be considered to know everything an adult is supposed to know, per the educational system.
Is the infringement each download that occurs, or each time it is downloaded? This could make a huge difference. Watch them get a law passed that says "making available" is ok in their case, and once that is done, all responsibility is on the downloader who didn't know it wasn't the record company's music.
Does Iran want nukes, or just for us to think they're really close to them? Once they have nukes, they have something that takes incredible resources to protect, because who knows what terrorist group / cult will think it can use the weapon better than Iran's government and try to take it? Iran can't use a nuke until it has a plan to keep us form using ours, or the prophecy falls apart when the whole of their country gets nuked, without us bothering to put in a single soldier to be shot. Being wink wink nudge nudge riiiight on the edge gives the benefit of "better not mess with us or we'll put in an all-nighter and you'll be sorry" but without increasing internal security problems.
> they want it in order to be able to continue running the state as a theocratic dictatorship without risking external intervention
The fact that they think they need it tells us something. Iran probably believes an invasion is eminent to be making this much noise. Saddam made all the same noises to keep us out. Iran isn't going to make a full out assault on us until AFTER they get rid of Israel. They may hate us, but we won't be the focus unless we MAKE ourselves the focus. Strategically, Israel is right there, requiring fewer resources to approach, and they'll need lots of conquered lands under their control before they have access to the resources to take us on.
> I would agree with you that most people who complain do not actively participate in their government, and thus don't have a right to complain.
/. to politics or yro? Perhaps an equal opportunity site dragging both major parties through the mud so badly, with links to the votes cast the wrong way (with simplified explanations of why the vote was wrong) so that no party's followers could be allowed to think their party was peaches and cream would help.
While I agree with this, this wasn't a point I made. Did you mean to reply to a different post?
I was just being snarky in response to the FSM reference and noting that it's not accurate that the government had done NOTHING good that affects us, but acknowledging that the one good thing I mentioned might not have been for us.
> The worst bit is that they can screw their constituents and look good doing it through deceptive naming and phrasing of bills/laws, by including commercial interest pork in a bill whose intent is completely unrelated, etc.
This goes 2 ways. What's merely pork in one area might be filling a desperate need for jobs in another where a large industry went under. The service economy is not self-supporting, particularly when we want to move as many of those jobs overseas as possible.
> Unfortunately, American Idol is far more entertaining than following politics (I suppose that's debatable at this point too), so the people care more about who gets the $1 Million dollar recording contract than who's adding $300 Million in spending for an unneeded bridge to nowhere.
Is there such a thing as a congressional lame list other than setting
We can get behind hating a congressman wanting to do bad things in a bathroom, so I'd think we could rally behind other things, if there was a convenient place to get it in sound bite or bulleted text format.
The problem is, even if people are disgusted with both major parties, who will they turn to? How many people actually know what their political stance is? Most conservatives probably don't want disband-the-public-school-system conservatism. I see a number of fake grassroots parties being created, to sponsor people who will keep on doing the same thing, perhaps "swapping party alliances" mysteriously on election.
The problem with putting on such a TV show (independent / local channels would likely eat it up, even if networks hated it) is I can see it getting sued for slander, with or without merit (even if every accusation can be proven from the congressional record) and the case being deliberately held up in court long enough to bankrupt the person putting on the show.
> Flying Spaghetti Monster I cant wait until our government acts with our best interests in mind... hell I'd be happy to see it happen just once before I die.
How about the do not call list?
You've got your wish, now roll over, die and come home to the beer volcano and experienced stripper factory, you're not getting any more handouts from your wise and benevolent Congress who is acting in your best interest whether you know it or not. Remember, being miserable builds character!
With blocked phone numbers, Congressmen probably got more calls from telemarketers than constituents on the numbers they personally answered. While we can't convince Congress to behave based on what the people want, perhaps we could somehow annoy them when they do great wrong until they quit messing with us so much?