So much time wasted over such an abtract, and mostly useless concept.
I know it's instant mod points to call copyright law bullshit, but come on.
These images have value. It is not trivial to shoot a commercial photograph. Photographers, models, art directors have to be paid and locations, props and equiptment have to be bought and rented. To obtain an original image of the equivalent quality would have cost this person far more than the license fee.
It's a shame that he got popped for it and I do hope it can be resolved painlessly, but they have a right to protect their product.
...most of these comments can be taken as snide remarks by those in older generations who are simply inequiped to evaluate a new art form...
You're absolutely correct.... It takes a while for a new form to become "art", and the old guard rarely accepts it. That's just the way it is. Additionally, no product becomes "art" without writers who champion the cause (and explain exactly what makes this thing so "great.") There's no point in bickering with detractors, better to put the energy into creating new forms of criticism to explain exactly why video games should be seen as art. Write intelligent commentary about specific games, what makes them "great", and the cultural signifigance these games have. "The Escapist" is a pretty good example of this. And then stop worrying so much if it's "art" or not, the important thing is simply to have the medium taken seriously. History will sort it all out, anyway...
Oh... And one more thing that occured to me, there is something else that makes it difficult for games to "rise above"-- a human face* needs to be attached as creator much, much more often than it does. To call something "art", you need an "artist"; this is just basic human nature. We want to recognize genius, and we have no respect for greatness by collaboration. So If you were to call Half Life 2 "great art" then who is the artist? Valve software?
* Or a creative team, such as a band in music, a writer/director team in film, etc.
Seeing as how this is the winter with the two coldest 3-week periods (in Anchorage, Alaska) in history - where are you getting the above statement? The US does include Alaska you know...
I always thought the biggest mistake in the "Global Warming" movement was using the term "Warming." It gives easy ammunition to anyone trying to discredit it by pointing out freak snowstorms and cold spells. Think how triumphant the Fox News pundits and Drudge Report headlines are when they point out "It's the coldest day in recorded history", as if that proves Global Warming is a sham-- when it should be raising warning flags itself...
They should have called it "Global Climate Change" or "Global We're All Fucked." You may think I'm kidding but that one simple word-- "Warming"-- has allowed doubt to be planted in our collective buzzword-addled minds and basically handed detractors the easiest possible way to shut down any legitimate argument. Remember what a good laugh they had when Al Gore gave a lecture on "Global Warming" on what turned out to be the coldest day of the year?
The last few new Dells I've dealt with had a bare minimum of crap installed, Google Desktop was pretty much all there was.
Where they bought through the "Home" or "Business" sections of Dell's site?
Because (and this is no secret, and not limited to Dell) the computers sold to "home" and "student" users are the ones loaded with garbage. The business models are pretty much clean, for obvious reasons. And the deals are usually better, too...
I agree; I understand that this is an informal interview and the editor is trying to present it as such, but you are doing neither yourself nor your subject a favor by presenting it "warts and all." It's expected, if not obligatory, for a transcript like this to be cleaned up a bit for publication and not doing so makes both parties seem amateurish and awkward.
In addition there are some points where I don't believe the transcript is even accurate; key words are mis-transcribed.
For example:
That case, from our end, is closed. I mean, we've done all the investigation, we know it was only one person and not the whole company like some like to believe, and ahh there's nothing more that we feel can be done, um it was just an unfortunate case, and in the overall scheme of things it didn't affect the game in that like some people like to thing.
A real journalist would "translate" this for publication as something along the lines of:
"The case, from our end, is closed. We've done the investigation, we know it was only one person and not the whole company as some would like to believe, and there's nothing more that we feel can be done. It was just an unfortuate case, and in the overall scheme of things it didn't affect the game like some people like to think."
(Yes, he says think, not "thing.")
I know you're trying for realism or accuracy but really, it's only fair to smooth it out a bit for public consumption. This man is doing you a favor by granting an interview and by including every awkward pause you make him seem inarticulate and unprofessional.
You're an editor, Zonk. That means you should, you know, um, ah, edit.
. Internet cafes are ubiquitous in many parts of the world. I think you overestimate your need for a laptop.
It should be mentioned that the machines in internet cafes are often riddled with viruses, keylogging programs and worse. Not that wireless is all that safe, of course, but it's much more so to have your own machine than one you share with the local Ebay scammer*.
Also wireless connections can be found in hotel lobbies, train stations etc. of even the most third-world of cities; they're usually available 24/7 (so you won't be scrambling to find a cafe that's still open when your train pulls into a small-town station at 11pm.)
Not to mention there will be quite a bit of time spent in transit. As great as "roughing it" sounds, a computer would still be a great thing to have on a nine-hour flight or Eurorail ride.
For those who say you don't "need" a computer; no, you don't, but being able to access Wikitravel or Lonely Planet or the local expat site can be extremely helpful when you arrive in a new city with no idea where to go or what to do. Not to mention Craigslist; you may be able to find, for example, a short-term rental on an apartment for less than a cheap hotel or hostel. It's extremely useful, much more so than having to lug around a Let's Go book or two. Oh, and if you need to call home frequently VOIP can save you a fortune...
Don't bring the Macbook Pro, though. I would consider getting a "disposable" laptop. Something a few years old, less desirable to thieves (in fact it wouldn't hurt to "dirty it up", with ugly stickers or whatever) and won't be missed if it's lost. A used G3 ibook can be found for $200 (though the original airport card for the early ibooks can cost almost as much as the machine.) Or find a six-year-old Thinkpad off a business lease, they can be bought for nearly nothing. I can't speak for other brands but the Apple power adaptor seems to be able to handle whatever weird power supply you feed it... And, add an extra battery, you'll be glad you did.
* This is probably obvious, but you should have a separate email account solely for this trip and never use it for anything sensitive. If you do end up using a few dozen internet cafes you can pretty much assume one of those machines will be compromised.
They're hard to find, which means they are generally sparsely populated. And worse, they attract those who are not willing to pay for game and are predisposed to using hacks, aimbots etc... After all the location of these private servers is often found on warez/cheats sites.
Of course you could have a private server where everyone knows each other, but really how often will something like that successfully come together?
"Social Networking Site" is a buzzword, not a legal categorization. What would make MySpace a target for this law, and Slashdot exempt? The fact that you can have a page of your own (Slashdot has journals), add friends (Friends, Freaks and Foes) or send private messages (on Slashdot your email can be publicly visible?)
Unless the law specifically named the sites to be restricted (which of course would not be possible) or they figure out a way to specify exactly what separates MySpace or Facebook from, say, a forum for a Warcraft guild (which would be possible, I suppose, but probably not by anyone fool enough to come up with such a law) then no site will be safe from the repurcussions.
Considering their combined install base is still a fraction of what it could be, I doubt the price of a subscription will go up any time soon. They're still trying to attract customers after all. They're also trying to hold on to the customers they do have, many of whom are somewhat lukewarm-- I couldn't quote the numbers but I know that a large perentage of new subscribers are new car buyers (meaning satellite comes with the car, and the buyer says "what the hell, I'll subscribe." ) That's not exactly a fanatical base who will stick by any price increase.
Additionally, their competition was never just "each other." They may now be the only satellite radio game in town, but they still have to compete with free AM and FM as well as those who would just listen to their iPod.
First, commercial speech is censored. Next, it will be political speech under the guise that it is "fraudulent". The original statement is correct. Either speech is free or it isn't, no matter what convenient label you want to put it under. It is the listener's responsibility to investigate whether it's fraudulent.
If commercial speech is not regulated (and by regulated, I mean a corporation has do prove their product is safe and does what is claimed) then what's to stop the corporation from tainting the listener's ability to investigate? If they can get enough planted websites with made-up reviews and dummy news articles to show up in the first page or two of Google hits the average consumer would have quite a bit of trouble sorting out what is the truth or what isn't.
"Commercial speech" simply does not exist. There is no correlation to political or personal freedom to express opinions. A corporation exists to sell you a product, end of story, and any speech is solely in service of getting you to buy their product. Limitations must be placed because they WILL be deceptive and duplicitous, and this is a matter of regulation of trade (and consumer safety) not the press.
Should a drug manufacturer be able to advertise their product as a cure for everything from cancer to AIDS, even if the pill is nothing but sugar? Should they be allowed to air a television commercial on Fox news that looks just like a Fox news report about what a miracle this drug is? Or, should this company be allowed to use the same tactics to claim their competitors products have horrible (and completely made-up) side effects?
This is not about freedom of the press or individual expression. It's about keeping advertisers in check, to make sure their products do exactly what they claim- and to keep them from slandering their competitors with complete untruths. There's a good reason these laws exist; they didn't for the much of the twentieth and most of the nineteenth centuries and advertisers lied, fought dirty, made impossible claims, bought articles in the newspapers and laughed all the way to the bank. A reasonable amount of consumer protection is something a society should expect from their government, because the alternative is never knowing if that pill was tested, or what exactly is in that package of food...
There is no "slippery slope" where protecting you from corporate snake-oil salesmen will take away your personal freedom to express your opinion. This law regulates commerce, not speech.
Is Slashdot going to have a story for every candidate who is running for President and discusses something having to do with energy dependence, stem cell research, and investment in science (which every candidate will have some opinion on)?
Probably. The election is eighteen months away, after all.
Or is Obama getting his own story due to editorial preferences?
Probably. So what? This isn't the New York times, it's a discussion board, and the job of the editors is to pick articles that will spark discussion-- and yes, the editors tend to pick stories that share their own biases, but so what? There is no claim or obligation of journalistic neutrality here-- after all this is a place where the music labels and Microsoft are the devil, DRM can never be a positive or useful thing, and Linux can do no wrong.
I haven't seen a story for John McCain or Hillary Clinton. Why Obama?
Because "News For Nerds" tag aside, this is not a news outlet and there is not an obligation to give every candidate equal time. On the other hand if you think a McCain story warrants discussion there is nothing stopping you from submitting one.
Maybe the guy was on his way out anyway (unwillingly or willingly) and this provides the perfect cover/excuse to do so. Assuming he was an otherwise successful CEO, it seems strange to have to resign over something like this. Or perhaps the insanity that's infected Boston has now seeped in Cartoon Network.
He's the CEO of Cartoon Network, but Cartoon Network is a susidiary of Time Warner. He has bosses, too.
Most likely he was given an opportunity to resign with some grace instead of being fired; this would be (in a way) mutually beneficial as he can be the martyr who accepts all of the blame (which is actually a prized trait in a CEO and may help him find another position) and allows his superiors to remain pretty much invisible.
Of course the other option would be for all parties to resume business as usual, considering this already seems like yesterday's news and the incident will be quickly forgotten, but the corporate world doesn't work like that...
Do you honestly think the RIAA gives a damn? They would rather win, yes, but this isn't about the relatively trivial (to them) judgements and legal costs. This was a P.R. campaign. They wanted parents to stop their kids from downloading gig upon gig from Kazaa. They wanted colleges to monitor what their students were up to on the networks. They wanted the average user to always have a nagging fear every time they went to Limewire.
I think it's pretty despicable*, but it was (unfortunately) very effective, much more so (and probably cheaper than) a typical ad campaign. Yes, there are other ways they could have done it, I am not saying it was right; but to think any legal setback (other than something extremely catastrophic, such as ordering them to pay ALL legal fees for all past cases plus emotional distress or something like that) will make them consider the campaign a failure is just foolish. If they lose a case there is nothing to stop them from filing more; it's the front-page news alerts that another thousand have been served that they are after, not the judgements themselves.
And anyway, even if they were to stop tomorrow, they could do so comfortably knowing that they already won-- "piracy" has been stygmatized, and casual users are afraid.
* I would go so far as to say no corporation should be able to sue an individual under any circumstances, but that is a different discussion.
Seriously, jack them up. That way, when less CDs fly off the shelves, they'll start making some good decisions on how to run the industry and actually attract customers. Throwing us tons of garbage every week for a "good price" doesn't mean they are doing us any favors.
More likely the "garbage" would be all that's left, as the labels would be much less likely to take chances on anything but sure things and American Idol winners. Meaning all (instead of most, as it is now) CD's would be geared towards fourteen year old girls, and old Slashdot coots will suffer in silence (punctuated by an occasional shout for the neighbor kids to get off their lawn.)
It may have cost them $2 million, but the amount of coverage (read: free advertising) they got for the upcoming ATHF movie is almost immeasurable.
Seems to me they'll need an immeasurable amount of publicity for the movie, since it doesn't seem like one single person in Boston was able to recognize an ATHF character.
It's not that someone couldn't develop a portable console that could compete with the Nintendo DS. It's that nobody seems to have the sense to do it right. Nokia doesn't have a history in game development, which is a huge deficiency if they intend on entering the console market. If they could establish a tight-knit relationship with some developer that may help, but that's very unlikely.
Everyone seems to miss a very obvious point... The N-Gage is not competing with the DS. It's a phone that plays games, not a game machine with a phone. It does not need to be a runaway success as a game machine, it only needs to survive in the cutthroat mobile phone market-- which is one thing Nokia does understand. "Success" will be measured by how many units are sold vs. similarly priced phones, and how many long-term contracts are sold.
After viewing the PSP blog, I would like to say this to every soul on the planet: If you are instant messaging/on a chat room/any other real time communication method that involves typing, by all means, do type crap like u instead of you. If you are not, than DO NOT use that AOL pseudo-leet garbage.
This was obviously a thirty-something copywriter trying to write like a fourteen year old. Of course he missed two points; one is that most modern fourteen year olds don't actually write that way outside of IM or WOW, the other is that to really write like a fourteen year old the entries would have to be filled with profanity and lame racist jokes.
By the way... Who uses "AOL pseudo-leet" anymore? Isn't that kind of, well, 1998? I don't think modern teens would even get the reference...
I'm running 10.5 on a 7-year-old G4, among other systems. It is in the same configuration as when it was purchased (dual-500 g4's, 1 GB Ram) except that the hard drive has been replaced (40 GB -> 60 GB).
Assuming you bought it the day it came out, the computer is more like six and a half years old (http://www.lowendmac.com/ppc/g4mp.html)
And you're running 10.4, unless you're an Apple developer. 10.5 isn't available to the consumer until Spring 2007.
It might have been a large machine when it was purchased, but it wasn't all that unusual for a Mac. It might not be the fastest computer but it will run the OS faster than it ran the OS it came with (or any other since).
This was the most powerful Powermac you could buy at the time, retailing at $3500. I'd say it's a very unusual machine.
Let's see you run Vista on a 7-year-old Dell.
Let's see you run 10.5 on a typical machine from 2000-- a 400mhz imac g3 (http://www.lowendmac.com/imacs/400.shtml), a 500mhz Pismo Powerbook (http://www.lowendmac.com/pb2/pismo.shtml), or even single processor G4. Only the Powermac G4 will even be supported (meaning you can install without a third-party hack like XPostFacto) and regardless it will be too sluggish for most users, to say the least.
Additionally I'd argue the switch to Vista is about as substantial as the switch to OSX. 10.2/Jaguar (which most would say was the first version of OSX that was useful enough to run without dual booting into OS 9) certainly did not support computers with less than a G3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X_v10.2), and the earliest G3 dates back to November 1997 (http://www.lowendmac.com/ppc/g3.shtml.)
That's about four and a half years of legacy support. If that, I'm being generous as even the first versions of OS X required a G3 and 10.2 itself really required something beyond a beige-box 233/266 G3. This is pretty par for the course for Apple, five years or so is about average with higher end machines surviving longer (for example they seem to be dropping all G3 support with Leopard.) Yes, some machines will be able to be updated longer but others will be obselete in just four years-- for example, a G3 ibook purchased in 2003 will likely not be able to run Leopard at all.
So, basically, I'm saying you're using a very extreme and certainly a very unusual example. Meanwhile XP's range is just as good if not better, Vista will run on a six-and-a-half year old Dell if it was likely the Ferrari of its day and Linux beats them both.
Maybe their threat of a lawsuit is a form of coercive message to other workers that they had better stay... or else!!
If this actually happened the way OP described I would guess the VP of Sales (which in my experience isn't all that high of a position in management, and certainly not one to initiate a lawsuit on behalf of the company, but I could be wrong) was just being an ass. Threats of lawsuit are pretty common in this country, and most remain just that-- idle threats. Perhaps the VP of Sales heard the CEO say "I ought to sue him for leaving" in the heat of the moment and took it literally; that kind of thing happens all the time.
Except...
The "anonymous reader" was thoughtful enough to name his former employer in the link, in effect smearing the company's name on a website read by hundreds of thousands of people (many in their industry) daily. Assuming this wasn't made up to begin with, the identity of the "anonymous reader" should be easy for the company to discover. If they weren't going to sue before, this may make them angry enough to do so now-- and they might have a better case.
US refused to pass any copyright laws in the publishing industry till the time there were enough US authors whose rights needed to be protected. When Charles Dickens visited the US, he saw his books sold legally all over the place & he wasn't getting a penny out of these sales. He complained to the US Govt repeatedly but of no avail.
There were thousands of American publications (from newspapers to almanacs to novels) and tens of thousands of professional writers. Do you think the printing industry did not exist in the U.S. before Dickens? Have you heard of (for example, of course) Ben Franklin?
Copyright law was firmly in place in the United States before the war of independance. An international copyright agreement with Britain did not exist until the 1890's, but remember relations between the countries until (pretty much) the first world war were lukewarm at best, if not downright hostile on many occasions. When Dickens visited America and lodged his complaints the war of 1812 was a recent memory, there were constant flare-ups re. territory with British-held Canada, and the U.S. was in a major depression in which it defaulted hundreds of millions to British investors. Add to this the fact that the concept of international copyright itself was relatively novel (and impractical, considering most powers were constantly on the verge of war.)
No, international copyright did not exist between the US and Britain... But it's not because America lacked notable writers.
I think Tower Records suffered from the big boxes like Walmart and Best Buy flexing their corporate muscle more than online piracy.
I'd say that's only partially the case. Tower had a huge presence in very hip urban areas (like 4th and Broadway in NY, North Beach in San Francisco, Sunset Strip in LA.) The customer base in these areas did not opt to shop at Best Buy instead. I would say in these cases it was a mix of things that caused the business to drop, such as customers discovering Amazon (particularly for used and/or harder to find CDs), iTunes, the store itself being seen as "uncool" and replaced by trendier stores like Kim's and Amoeba, and, yes, SOME piracy.
Yes, I said SOME. The RIAA makes it sound much worse than it is, but it is a factor. There are a lot of people who download music they otherwise might have bought at full price. The current generation of teens-to-twentysomething don't buy AS MUCH as the last few. I realize that if you're against the RIAA's tactics it's common to say piracy is not a factor, but it is. This is not a black-and-white issue.
I would maybe buy piracy as an excuse if suddenly Best Buy or Target or whomever suddenly decided CDs were no longer worth selling, but that hasn't seemed to happen.
Best Buy and Target make enough of a profit to keep selling CD's... but they don't take up that much more space than TVs or luggage. The business HAS changed, and it is increasingly difficult for a chain to ONLY sell music. The days of the large "record store" with a huge selection and back catalog, and that offer more than the current top 100 are indeed ending.
The @googlemail addresses are too long and clumsy. I made use of a US based proxy when I signed up for my account to ensure I'd get the more succinct gmail version. Bloody Germans.
Yeah damn the Kraut for having the name first, as well as a legitimate trademark and a business in full operation. Don't blame Google for failing to do their homework, or for assuming "the little guy" would let himself be bought out for a relatively trivial sum ($250,000; yes it's a large number but the "gmail" name is worth many times that.)
Get ready to see your own videos reposted by others in their name. Of course, that's what "piracy" essentially is, so get ready to see the contenet industry filing a lot of lawsuits.
Also... If there's a substantial profit to be made from a "viral video" or whatever you can bet there's going to be battles between the budding "stars" and "directors" (and possibly directed towards GoogleTube themselves; no matter what their agreement with the uploader states, if a person IN the film didn't consent to the upload they could have a real case.)
People want HD content, but are not willing to get hosed in the process by greedy corporations trying to win an unnecessary format war.
What people REALLY want is for the DVD player they feel like they just bought last year (though it may have really been 2001) to play High Def movies on their fancy new TV. Obviously that is not going to happen, of course. So in the mean time they'll settle for what they have.
Yes, Hi-Def TV's are starting to sell. But people are, in general, used to watching low-def content on their high-def screens. Many shows have made the switch, but there's still a hell of a lot of programming that hasn't. Not to mention re-runs of anything made before last year or so, which will never be Hi-Def. That includes movies; though they were shot on film and could be transferred to hi-def most stations will not have hi-def masters to run for a very long time.
Sooner or later a Hi-Def disc player will be available that plays both formats and people will start to buy them. I have the feeling there won't be a rush on the devices as a brand new and must have item; rather it will be a gradual switch as those who were going to buy a new DVD player anyway will opt for the HD version.
Slashdot Mirror
So much time wasted over such an abtract, and mostly useless concept.
I know it's instant mod points to call copyright law bullshit, but come on.
These images have value. It is not trivial to shoot a commercial photograph. Photographers, models, art directors have to be paid and locations, props and equiptment have to be bought and rented. To obtain an original image of the equivalent quality would have cost this person far more than the license fee.
It's a shame that he got popped for it and I do hope it can be resolved painlessly, but they have a right to protect their product.
You're absolutely correct.... It takes a while for a new form to become "art", and the old guard rarely accepts it. That's just the way it is. Additionally, no product becomes "art" without writers who champion the cause (and explain exactly what makes this thing so "great.") There's no point in bickering with detractors, better to put the energy into creating new forms of criticism to explain exactly why video games should be seen as art. Write intelligent commentary about specific games, what makes them "great", and the cultural signifigance these games have. "The Escapist" is a pretty good example of this. And then stop worrying so much if it's "art" or not, the important thing is simply to have the medium taken seriously. History will sort it all out, anyway...
Oh... And one more thing that occured to me, there is something else that makes it difficult for games to "rise above"-- a human face* needs to be attached as creator much, much more often than it does. To call something "art", you need an "artist"; this is just basic human nature. We want to recognize genius, and we have no respect for greatness by collaboration. So If you were to call Half Life 2 "great art" then who is the artist? Valve software?
* Or a creative team, such as a band in music, a writer/director team in film, etc.
Seeing as how this is the winter with the two coldest 3-week periods (in Anchorage, Alaska) in history - where are you getting the above statement? The US does include Alaska you know...
I always thought the biggest mistake in the "Global Warming" movement was using the term "Warming." It gives easy ammunition to anyone trying to discredit it by pointing out freak snowstorms and cold spells. Think how triumphant the Fox News pundits and Drudge Report headlines are when they point out "It's the coldest day in recorded history", as if that proves Global Warming is a sham-- when it should be raising warning flags itself...
They should have called it "Global Climate Change" or "Global We're All Fucked." You may think I'm kidding but that one simple word-- "Warming"-- has allowed doubt to be planted in our collective buzzword-addled minds and basically handed detractors the easiest possible way to shut down any legitimate argument. Remember what a good laugh they had when Al Gore gave a lecture on "Global Warming" on what turned out to be the coldest day of the year?
The last few new Dells I've dealt with had a bare minimum of crap installed, Google Desktop was pretty much all there was.
Where they bought through the "Home" or "Business" sections of Dell's site?
Because (and this is no secret, and not limited to Dell) the computers sold to "home" and "student" users are the ones loaded with garbage. The business models are pretty much clean, for obvious reasons. And the deals are usually better, too...
I agree; I understand that this is an informal interview and the editor is trying to present it as such, but you are doing neither yourself nor your subject a favor by presenting it "warts and all." It's expected, if not obligatory, for a transcript like this to be cleaned up a bit for publication and not doing so makes both parties seem amateurish and awkward.
In addition there are some points where I don't believe the transcript is even accurate; key words are mis-transcribed.
For example:
That case, from our end, is closed. I mean, we've done all the investigation, we know it was only one person and not the whole company like some like to believe, and ahh there's nothing more that we feel can be done, um it was just an unfortunate case, and in the overall scheme of things it didn't affect the game in that like some people like to thing.
A real journalist would "translate" this for publication as something along the lines of:
"The case, from our end, is closed. We've done the investigation, we know it was only one person and not the whole company as some would like to believe, and there's nothing more that we feel can be done. It was just an unfortuate case, and in the overall scheme of things it didn't affect the game like some people like to think."
(Yes, he says think, not "thing.")
I know you're trying for realism or accuracy but really, it's only fair to smooth it out a bit for public consumption. This man is doing you a favor by granting an interview and by including every awkward pause you make him seem inarticulate and unprofessional.
You're an editor, Zonk. That means you should, you know, um, ah, edit.
. Internet cafes are ubiquitous in many parts of the world. I think you overestimate your need for a laptop.
It should be mentioned that the machines in internet cafes are often riddled with viruses, keylogging programs and worse. Not that wireless is all that safe, of course, but it's much more so to have your own machine than one you share with the local Ebay scammer*.
Also wireless connections can be found in hotel lobbies, train stations etc. of even the most third-world of cities; they're usually available 24/7 (so you won't be scrambling to find a cafe that's still open when your train pulls into a small-town station at 11pm.)
Not to mention there will be quite a bit of time spent in transit. As great as "roughing it" sounds, a computer would still be a great thing to have on a nine-hour flight or Eurorail ride.
For those who say you don't "need" a computer; no, you don't, but being able to access Wikitravel or Lonely Planet or the local expat site can be extremely helpful when you arrive in a new city with no idea where to go or what to do. Not to mention Craigslist; you may be able to find, for example, a short-term rental on an apartment for less than a cheap hotel or hostel. It's extremely useful, much more so than having to lug around a Let's Go book or two. Oh, and if you need to call home frequently VOIP can save you a fortune...
Don't bring the Macbook Pro, though. I would consider getting a "disposable" laptop. Something a few years old, less desirable to thieves (in fact it wouldn't hurt to "dirty it up", with ugly stickers or whatever) and won't be missed if it's lost. A used G3 ibook can be found for $200 (though the original airport card for the early ibooks can cost almost as much as the machine.) Or find a six-year-old Thinkpad off a business lease, they can be bought for nearly nothing. I can't speak for other brands but the Apple power adaptor seems to be able to handle whatever weird power supply you feed it... And, add an extra battery, you'll be glad you did.
* This is probably obvious, but you should have a separate email account solely for this trip and never use it for anything sensitive. If you do end up using a few dozen internet cafes you can pretty much assume one of those machines will be compromised.
Two words... Private servers.
Have you ever tried a private server?
They're hard to find, which means they are generally sparsely populated. And worse, they attract those who are not willing to pay for game and are predisposed to using hacks, aimbots etc... After all the location of these private servers is often found on warez/cheats sites.
Of course you could have a private server where everyone knows each other, but really how often will something like that successfully come together?
"Social Networking Site" is a buzzword, not a legal categorization. What would make MySpace a target for this law, and Slashdot exempt? The fact that you can have a page of your own (Slashdot has journals), add friends (Friends, Freaks and Foes) or send private messages (on Slashdot your email can be publicly visible?)
Unless the law specifically named the sites to be restricted (which of course would not be possible) or they figure out a way to specify exactly what separates MySpace or Facebook from, say, a forum for a Warcraft guild (which would be possible, I suppose, but probably not by anyone fool enough to come up with such a law) then no site will be safe from the repurcussions.
Wonder when they will announce price increases?
Considering their combined install base is still a fraction of what it could be, I doubt the price of a subscription will go up any time soon. They're still trying to attract customers after all. They're also trying to hold on to the customers they do have, many of whom are somewhat lukewarm-- I couldn't quote the numbers but I know that a large perentage of new subscribers are new car buyers (meaning satellite comes with the car, and the buyer says "what the hell, I'll subscribe." ) That's not exactly a fanatical base who will stick by any price increase.
Additionally, their competition was never just "each other." They may now be the only satellite radio game in town, but they still have to compete with free AM and FM as well as those who would just listen to their iPod.
First, commercial speech is censored. Next, it will be political speech under the guise that it is "fraudulent". The original statement is correct. Either speech is free or it isn't, no matter what convenient label you want to put it under. It is the listener's responsibility to investigate whether it's fraudulent.
If commercial speech is not regulated (and by regulated, I mean a corporation has do prove their product is safe and does what is claimed) then what's to stop the corporation from tainting the listener's ability to investigate? If they can get enough planted websites with made-up reviews and dummy news articles to show up in the first page or two of Google hits the average consumer would have quite a bit of trouble sorting out what is the truth or what isn't.
"Commercial speech" simply does not exist. There is no correlation to political or personal freedom to express opinions. A corporation exists to sell you a product, end of story, and any speech is solely in service of getting you to buy their product. Limitations must be placed because they WILL be deceptive and duplicitous, and this is a matter of regulation of trade (and consumer safety) not the press.
Should a drug manufacturer be able to advertise their product as a cure for everything from cancer to AIDS, even if the pill is nothing but sugar? Should they be allowed to air a television commercial on Fox news that looks just like a Fox news report about what a miracle this drug is? Or, should this company be allowed to use the same tactics to claim their competitors products have horrible (and completely made-up) side effects?
This is not about freedom of the press or individual expression. It's about keeping advertisers in check, to make sure their products do exactly what they claim- and to keep them from slandering their competitors with complete untruths. There's a good reason these laws exist; they didn't for the much of the twentieth and most of the nineteenth centuries and advertisers lied, fought dirty, made impossible claims, bought articles in the newspapers and laughed all the way to the bank. A reasonable amount of consumer protection is something a society should expect from their government, because the alternative is never knowing if that pill was tested, or what exactly is in that package of food...
There is no "slippery slope" where protecting you from corporate snake-oil salesmen will take away your personal freedom to express your opinion. This law regulates commerce, not speech.
Is Slashdot going to have a story for every candidate who is running for President and discusses something having to do with energy dependence, stem cell research, and investment in science (which every candidate will have some opinion on)?
Probably. The election is eighteen months away, after all.
Or is Obama getting his own story due to editorial preferences?
Probably. So what? This isn't the New York times, it's a discussion board, and the job of the editors is to pick articles that will spark discussion-- and yes, the editors tend to pick stories that share their own biases, but so what? There is no claim or obligation of journalistic neutrality here-- after all this is a place where the music labels and Microsoft are the devil, DRM can never be a positive or useful thing, and Linux can do no wrong.
I haven't seen a story for John McCain or Hillary Clinton. Why Obama?
Because "News For Nerds" tag aside, this is not a news outlet and there is not an obligation to give every candidate equal time. On the other hand if you think a McCain story warrants discussion there is nothing stopping you from submitting one.
Maybe the guy was on his way out anyway (unwillingly or willingly) and this provides the perfect cover/excuse to do so. Assuming he was an otherwise successful CEO, it seems strange to have to resign over something like this. Or perhaps the insanity that's infected Boston has now seeped in Cartoon Network.
He's the CEO of Cartoon Network, but Cartoon Network is a susidiary of Time Warner. He has bosses, too.
Most likely he was given an opportunity to resign with some grace instead of being fired; this would be (in a way) mutually beneficial as he can be the martyr who accepts all of the blame (which is actually a prized trait in a CEO and may help him find another position) and allows his superiors to remain pretty much invisible.
Of course the other option would be for all parties to resume business as usual, considering this already seems like yesterday's news and the incident will be quickly forgotten, but the corporate world doesn't work like that...
Do you honestly think the RIAA gives a damn? They would rather win, yes, but this isn't about the relatively trivial (to them) judgements and legal costs. This was a P.R. campaign. They wanted parents to stop their kids from downloading gig upon gig from Kazaa. They wanted colleges to monitor what their students were up to on the networks. They wanted the average user to always have a nagging fear every time they went to Limewire.
I think it's pretty despicable*, but it was (unfortunately) very effective, much more so (and probably cheaper than) a typical ad campaign. Yes, there are other ways they could have done it, I am not saying it was right; but to think any legal setback (other than something extremely catastrophic, such as ordering them to pay ALL legal fees for all past cases plus emotional distress or something like that) will make them consider the campaign a failure is just foolish. If they lose a case there is nothing to stop them from filing more; it's the front-page news alerts that another thousand have been served that they are after, not the judgements themselves.
And anyway, even if they were to stop tomorrow, they could do so comfortably knowing that they already won-- "piracy" has been stygmatized, and casual users are afraid.
* I would go so far as to say no corporation should be able to sue an individual under any circumstances, but that is a different discussion.
Seriously, jack them up. That way, when less CDs fly off the shelves, they'll start making some good decisions on how to run the industry and actually attract customers. Throwing us tons of garbage every week for a "good price" doesn't mean they are doing us any favors.
More likely the "garbage" would be all that's left, as the labels would be much less likely to take chances on anything but sure things and American Idol winners. Meaning all (instead of most, as it is now) CD's would be geared towards fourteen year old girls, and old Slashdot coots will suffer in silence (punctuated by an occasional shout for the neighbor kids to get off their lawn.)
It may have cost them $2 million, but the amount of coverage (read: free advertising) they got for the upcoming ATHF movie is almost immeasurable.
Seems to me they'll need an immeasurable amount of publicity for the movie, since it doesn't seem like one single person in Boston was able to recognize an ATHF character.
It's not that someone couldn't develop a portable console that could compete with the Nintendo DS. It's that nobody seems to have the sense to do it right. Nokia doesn't have a history in game development, which is a huge deficiency if they intend on entering the console market. If they could establish a tight-knit relationship with some developer that may help, but that's very unlikely.
Everyone seems to miss a very obvious point... The N-Gage is not competing with the DS. It's a phone that plays games, not a game machine with a phone. It does not need to be a runaway success as a game machine, it only needs to survive in the cutthroat mobile phone market-- which is one thing Nokia does understand. "Success" will be measured by how many units are sold vs. similarly priced phones, and how many long-term contracts are sold.
After viewing the PSP blog, I would like to say this to every soul on the planet: If you are instant messaging/on a chat room/any other real time communication method that involves typing, by all means, do type crap like u instead of you. If you are not, than DO NOT use that AOL pseudo-leet garbage.
This was obviously a thirty-something copywriter trying to write like a fourteen year old. Of course he missed two points; one is that most modern fourteen year olds don't actually write that way outside of IM or WOW, the other is that to really write like a fourteen year old the entries would have to be filled with profanity and lame racist jokes.
By the way... Who uses "AOL pseudo-leet" anymore? Isn't that kind of, well, 1998? I don't think modern teens would even get the reference...
I'm running 10.5 on a 7-year-old G4, among other systems. It is in the same configuration as when it was purchased (dual-500 g4's, 1 GB Ram) except that the hard drive has been replaced (40 GB -> 60 GB).
Assuming you bought it the day it came out, the computer is more like six and a half years old (http://www.lowendmac.com/ppc/g4mp.html)
And you're running 10.4, unless you're an Apple developer. 10.5 isn't available to the consumer until Spring 2007.
It might have been a large machine when it was purchased, but it wasn't all that unusual for a Mac. It might not be the fastest computer but it will run the OS faster than it ran the OS it came with (or any other since).
This was the most powerful Powermac you could buy at the time, retailing at $3500. I'd say it's a very unusual machine.
Let's see you run Vista on a 7-year-old Dell.
Let's see you run 10.5 on a typical machine from 2000-- a 400mhz imac g3 (http://www.lowendmac.com/imacs/400.shtml), a 500mhz Pismo Powerbook (http://www.lowendmac.com/pb2/pismo.shtml), or even single processor G4. Only the Powermac G4 will even be supported (meaning you can install without a third-party hack like XPostFacto) and regardless it will be too sluggish for most users, to say the least.
Additionally I'd argue the switch to Vista is about as substantial as the switch to OSX. 10.2/Jaguar (which most would say was the first version of OSX that was useful enough to run without dual booting into OS 9) certainly did not support computers with less than a G3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X_v10.2), and the earliest G3 dates back to November 1997 (http://www.lowendmac.com/ppc/g3.shtml.)
That's about four and a half years of legacy support. If that, I'm being generous as even the first versions of OS X required a G3 and 10.2 itself really required something beyond a beige-box 233/266 G3. This is pretty par for the course for Apple, five years or so is about average with higher end machines surviving longer (for example they seem to be dropping all G3 support with Leopard.) Yes, some machines will be able to be updated longer but others will be obselete in just four years-- for example, a G3 ibook purchased in 2003 will likely not be able to run Leopard at all.
So, basically, I'm saying you're using a very extreme and certainly a very unusual example. Meanwhile XP's range is just as good if not better, Vista will run on a six-and-a-half year old Dell if it was likely the Ferrari of its day and Linux beats them both.
Maybe their threat of a lawsuit is a form of coercive message to other workers that they had better stay... or else!!
If this actually happened the way OP described I would guess the VP of Sales (which in my experience isn't all that high of a position in management, and certainly not one to initiate a lawsuit on behalf of the company, but I could be wrong) was just being an ass. Threats of lawsuit are pretty common in this country, and most remain just that-- idle threats. Perhaps the VP of Sales heard the CEO say "I ought to sue him for leaving" in the heat of the moment and took it literally; that kind of thing happens all the time.
Except...
The "anonymous reader" was thoughtful enough to name his former employer in the link, in effect smearing the company's name on a website read by hundreds of thousands of people (many in their industry) daily. Assuming this wasn't made up to begin with, the identity of the "anonymous reader" should be easy for the company to discover. If they weren't going to sue before, this may make them angry enough to do so now-- and they might have a better case.
US refused to pass any copyright laws in the publishing industry
till the time there were enough US authors whose rights needed
to be protected. When Charles Dickens visited the US, he saw his
books sold legally all over the place & he wasn't getting a penny
out of these sales. He complained to the US Govt repeatedly but
of no avail.
There were thousands of American publications (from newspapers to almanacs to novels) and tens of thousands of professional writers. Do you think the printing industry did not exist in the U.S. before Dickens? Have you heard of (for example, of course) Ben Franklin?
Copyright law was firmly in place in the United States before the war of independance. An international copyright agreement with Britain did not exist until the 1890's, but remember relations between the countries until (pretty much) the first world war were lukewarm at best, if not downright hostile on many occasions. When Dickens visited America and lodged his complaints the war of 1812 was a recent memory, there were constant flare-ups re. territory with British-held Canada, and the U.S. was in a major depression in which it defaulted hundreds of millions to British investors. Add to this the fact that the concept of international copyright itself was relatively novel (and impractical, considering most powers were constantly on the verge of war.)
No, international copyright did not exist between the US and Britain... But it's not because America lacked notable writers.
I think Tower Records suffered from the big boxes like Walmart and Best Buy flexing their corporate muscle more than online piracy.
I'd say that's only partially the case. Tower had a huge presence in very hip urban areas (like 4th and Broadway in NY, North Beach in San Francisco, Sunset Strip in LA.) The customer base in these areas did not opt to shop at Best Buy instead. I would say in these cases it was a mix of things that caused the business to drop, such as customers discovering Amazon (particularly for used and/or harder to find CDs), iTunes, the store itself being seen as "uncool" and replaced by trendier stores like Kim's and Amoeba, and, yes, SOME piracy.
Yes, I said SOME. The RIAA makes it sound much worse than it is, but it is a factor. There are a lot of people who download music they otherwise might have bought at full price. The current generation of teens-to-twentysomething don't buy AS MUCH as the last few. I realize that if you're against the RIAA's tactics it's common to say piracy is not a factor, but it is. This is not a black-and-white issue.
I would maybe buy piracy as an excuse if suddenly Best Buy or Target or whomever suddenly decided CDs were no longer worth selling, but that hasn't seemed to happen.
Best Buy and Target make enough of a profit to keep selling CD's... but they don't take up that much more space than TVs or luggage. The business HAS changed, and it is increasingly difficult for a chain to ONLY sell music. The days of the large "record store" with a huge selection and back catalog, and that offer more than the current top 100 are indeed ending.
The @googlemail addresses are too long and clumsy. I made use of a US based proxy when I signed up for my account to ensure I'd get the more succinct gmail version. Bloody Germans.
Yeah damn the Kraut for having the name first, as well as a legitimate trademark and a business in full operation. Don't blame Google for failing to do their homework, or for assuming "the little guy" would let himself be bought out for a relatively trivial sum ($250,000; yes it's a large number but the "gmail" name is worth many times that.)
Get ready to see your own videos reposted by others in their name. Of course, that's what "piracy" essentially is, so get ready to see the contenet industry filing a lot of lawsuits.
Also... If there's a substantial profit to be made from a "viral video" or whatever you can bet there's going to be battles between the budding "stars" and "directors" (and possibly directed towards GoogleTube themselves; no matter what their agreement with the uploader states, if a person IN the film didn't consent to the upload they could have a real case.)
People want HD content, but are not willing to get hosed in the process by greedy corporations trying to win an unnecessary format war.
What people REALLY want is for the DVD player they feel like they just bought last year (though it may have really been 2001) to play High Def movies on their fancy new TV. Obviously that is not going to happen, of course. So in the mean time they'll settle for what they have.
Yes, Hi-Def TV's are starting to sell. But people are, in general, used to watching low-def content on their high-def screens. Many shows have made the switch, but there's still a hell of a lot of programming that hasn't. Not to mention re-runs of anything made before last year or so, which will never be Hi-Def. That includes movies; though they were shot on film and could be transferred to hi-def most stations will not have hi-def masters to run for a very long time.
Sooner or later a Hi-Def disc player will be available that plays both formats and people will start to buy them. I have the feeling there won't be a rush on the devices as a brand new and must have item; rather it will be a gradual switch as those who were going to buy a new DVD player anyway will opt for the HD version.