i think the best cutscene option would be this...
on
Gaming Usability 101
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
1) allow cutscenes to be paused. i hate it when the phone rings in the middle of one and i can't pause it. who knows how many phone calls from hot women i may have missed when i chose to watch the cutscene instead =P
2) allow cutscene skipping BUT don't make it so easy to skip. i hate when i accidentally hit a button and skip a cutscene and all of the sudden i'm in a situation that leaves me with a "wtf?" expression on my face. i think it was one of the xenosaga movies, i mean games, that when you paused the cutscene a little note at the top said "press x to skip" or something of that nature.
i know many people want to be able to skip it very quickly, but you don't want to punish the ones the game was targeted at (those who want the story line). if you want, you could go as far as making it an in-game option to allow quick-skipping or forcing the pause plus an extra button to skip. I think this would satisfy everybody. everybody could set it to what they want.
on a different note, i think saving should be allowed at *any* point in the game. sometimes you just *have* to stop playing but hate it cause you'll lose like an hour's worth of work just because you haven't reached a savepoint yet.
historical evidence of a lot of people don't exist. that doesn't mean they didn't exist. absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. keep in mind we're also talking about a guy who people of power (if the stories are to be believed) tried to erase from this world INCLUDING his teachings and therefore it is quite possible they could have destroyed works involving him. PLUS last i checked, the surviving records from that time aren't exactly what i'd call complete, would you? i'm just saying, there is evidence of people who *may* have been him. thats all. personally, i don't think he existed, but that doesn't mean i'm going to agree with terrible arguments trying to persuade others of that idea.
whats the possibility they use many billions on something very high risk, entirely just google service, with just googles phones(it would be usa only, little intrest from any other manufacturers)?
i can answer that. the possibility is zero since they're the ones trying to get the frequency to carry all those rules along with it, such as making it open, use any type of phone, license it to anybody who can pay the price (and the price has to be the same for everybody), etc. they said they wouldn't even bid unless it was open. so i highly doubt they'd bid on it and make it entirely google only. they'll provide google service over it, but others will want to license it. and if they do, they couldn't restrict what phones get used on it. so yea, even if they just OWN the frequency, it can cause change, let alone offering people a service that isn't restricted by contracts, etc. if they make it so you choose to watch ads and it ads credits to your phone or time or has a money equivalent value or package1 - watch x ads this month or it will be disabled next month, then maybe it won't be so bad. it stops it from being too intrusive because you choose when to watch it.
though it seems unfair to use this as proof he did not exist. i would say there's reasonable doubt to disproving it, therefore i don't find it irrational to believe he did in fact exist. thats all i'm trying to point out. a historical account of a man or men who this is based on. whether the stories are embellished isn't what i'm concerned about, but the idea that its at least not complete myth. since it is relatively difficult to prove anyone existed from that time, it seems unfair that this argument should be used as definitive proof that he didn't exist. for a man who various people have power supposedly tried to erase from existence, including destroying his teachings, it doesn't seem out of the question that this could explain his absence of mention from his contemporaries. plus, timelines aren't too exact either and it could be an offset slightly as well.
seeing as how i was replying to a comment about the existence of the man, i don't see the point of your post. please, when reading a comment, see what the poster is replying to before making a statement. he commented about the historical evidence of an individual named jesus, so did i. that was the entire purpose of the post.
logically speaking, this can only be said to at least duplicate the experiences on the "user's" end of a religious experience. this does *not* disprove the existence of God. it doesn't prove it either. i just dislike people misusing various observations and coming up with ill-formed arguments.
there's plenty of circumstantial evidence to propose the idea that a higher power could possibly exist. physics still can't prove mass exists, but we see reasons to believe it does all around us, but there is yet any proof (hopefully the LHC will shed some light on the 'God' particle as its been nicknamed). for a long time, science could provide no reason as to how a bee could fly. only relatively recently did they finally figure it out. people see things all the time without evidence. you have no evidence that anybody other than yourself truly exists, but you accept that they do. You're given enough circumstantial evidence and start to make assumptions. People arrive at different assumptions from different observations.
I still believe organized religion is total bs though. it may have had its roots in something meaningful, but it has since lost it.
I open this by personally claiming I do *not* believe in Jesus the Son of God. However, there is enough circumstantial evidence for me to accept the possibility Jesus the man *did* in fact exist. There are a few accounts (though all are in question) that a man named Jesus walked the earth around the time. These accounts are all in question mainly because so many things from that time period are in question (disputes of translation, authenticity, age, etc.). I am more inclined to believe or at least that the accounts are all about various individuals are brought into one person. Either way, there is a physical entity to which all of it is tied. Though, I can't see how I can view a cult from thousands of years ago any different from one today. The proof of divine ability is far more in question then his existence. *That* is found in fewer (if any) non-religiously-biased documents (the Bible would be a religiously-biased document, as are various Gospels, whether or not accepted by various Churches).
the problem is the trial software. users aren't aware that after the subscription is up, it no longer works effectively. most users aren't aware of the subscription based model. they feel that if they pay for it once, it should work forever. whether or not you agree with the model, this is the standard model for security software (aside from the various free ones available). i think it'd be best to not put trial software, but instead a more annoying warning from the OS that no anti-virus is installed. anti-virus & anti-spyware are two software suites that not only benefit the user, but everybody else on the internet. i don't care how annoyed they are by the messages. installing those two things shouldn't really be a simple choice of "yes," or "no," but more like "yes," or "no, but i'm going to annoy the hell out of you." computers are catering too much to the computer illiterate. while business-wise, this makes sense, from an internet-safety point of view, its not. too many vulnerabilities are introduced when trying to make something easier to use. add on top of that, clueless users and you have problems. seeing as how computers pretty much come with a connection to the internet, you can no longer look at them as just isolated products. most of the time, they will connect to the internet and effect the overall effectiveness in a negative manner. Why are computers the only high-tech piece of equipment that EVERYBODY is allowed to use. Scientific instruments can cost a few thousand, yet they're treated like sacred objects (in places that care about their investments), yet the computer is not.
maybe this goes to show how the neurotic leaders of ages past came to such power. some of the roman emperors were not known for being the most stable minds.
no, accounts of a man named Jesus from that time period do exist. whether the claims that other people have made about him are true is a completely different question. A man named Jesus from that region and time likely did exist. It's extremely difficult to prove *any* specific person definitively existed due to a lack of a heavily recorded history, so its only very probable that he existed. The fact that any record seems to indicate he existed at least goes to show he made some sort of impact at the time. Whether it was walking on water or just that people thought he was crazy is unknown. This doesn't prove he's the son of God, however.
it wasn't. and its not a matter of whether he really suffered. some people don't value money the same way others do. the more you value money, the more suffering you'll be willing to put up with. it sounds like you may value money more than he does. you'd be willing to put up with a lot more to make the extra buck. that doesn't mean its better. its just he values other things. different priorities for different people.
i think he responded the way he did when you said what he was doing was wrong. he stated beforehand that he wasn't out to get rich. he stated he only had a small circle of clients. you then said he was 'wrong, very wrong'. i think thats kind of what set him off. normally people don't like being told they are wrong, when in reality its actually that they have a different belief system and different goals and different ideas. both of what you guys are talking about is called "opinion." neither of you are wrong. some people will agree with the other guy. some people will agree with you. both will have good points and both will have bad points. he thinks it immoral to charge for time spent trying to fix something that he couldn't actually fix. you think its immoral to not charge for the time spent doing anything. the thing with morals is that they're all different. his business plan is completely sound, maybe not scalable, but still sound. he may get more quality customers, a better return rate, and less dealing with ignorant people then someone who always charges for their time, takes on more customers, and in the end may look at their job as more of a hassle. its all about what really matters to the person performing the job. nothing is wrong about either viewpoints other than actually calling one of them wrong.
i know someone (not a tech mind you, but just your everyday "i have no clue what i'm doing" kinda guy) who put a USB plug into a PS/2 port. Regular use of logic doesn't seem to be used by people when they use computers.
multiple computers The thief (singular) walked away with multiple computers? That requires multiple trips into the office. The security is bad no matter how you look at it. Either
A) One guy makes multiple trips back and forth to carry all this stuff... unless he's superman and can carry multiple computers.
B) A group of guys gets past security. One guy getting past I can see, but an entire group getting past should make it easier to catch them.
Has anyone given any thought to this being a publicity stunt? I mean, the information has yet to be leaked and for $2000, I would bet plenty of people would have found a way to get into contact with this guy and purchase it for themselves.
This is the only article i've ever read that they imply the wii doesn't need to expand its fan and therefore they can't understand why they released this game. The article questions why the Wii would carry such a game. If that's fair, then, whatever. To me, thats not fair. It puts the game in a negative light. The only positive, fair comments come from the people being quoted. So, overall, the story may be balanced, in that it gives both sides, but the author is obviously somewhat against it in some form.
They claim its so they can stop sites that would be damaging to their name if they were associated with it. An example (while I don't know if they'd use the rule in this scenario) is if they were involved in hosting or providing services to a racial-hate site, they could cancel or suspend that account. However, no matter what way they slice it, its still censorship. Maybe they don't intend to use it to censor badmouthing the company, but its still censorship. If its not illegal, but they don't allow it, its censorship. If this was really their intention, it makes sense for them to leave the clause open like this. HOWEVER, they should add an additional clause that exempts badmouthing the company from that previous clause. They should realize that if it caused such a clamor, they should have dealt with it to assuage people's fears about possibly getting their account canceled if they complain about their service. Instead, they give the equivalent of "we don't want to or intend to do that... but we still can." I can understand keeping the clause open, however, I don't understand at least shutting down that loophole if they really never intend to use it. Its as of everybody said, "well if you don't intend to use it as such, put in a clause saying you never will," and them saying no.
So not only can that clause only be used for censorship (whether or not its about company criticism), but they also won't outright deny that they can use it to shutdown criticism. So, they're hypocritical AND only giving lip service to real fears and questions.
i don't think its a matter of storing data (or at least large amounts). thats never what spreadsheets were for. they were based more around displaying data and processing data. yes, they can be used for large amounts, but they never really were meant as storage in the same way a database was. they're just saying these spreadsheets could start serving some of the same purposes.
In my opinion, fewer original games are coming out. Episodic content for great games is fine. Half-Life is an example of this. However, I think thats an exception in an ongoing trend in video games. I think fewer and fewer games are coming out that are even worthwhile purchasing as opposed to renting. There just aren't that many games that are coming out that are newsworthy. Bio-shock and Halo 3 are some examples of games worth buying. PS3 hasn't had any yet in my opinion (and if they don't real soon, they might as well go the way of sega). Even Wii doesn't have that many (It's doing so well just because of the gameplay, but when it comes down to it, it just has a bunch of games that are fun, but not that many that are as engrossing as Bio-shock or to name a classic, Final Fantasy VII.)
It just seems like gaming has gone the same route as movies. Yea, some sequels are decent, but a majority of the ones that come out are never as great as the original. Then on top of that, there are fewer and fewer movies being made that are worth seeing more than once. yea, they're entertaining the first time, but no replay value.
Unfortunately, I think we've hit a downward slope in terms of games as an art.
I think they need to get to more original content. yea, some people might be upset because some of these continuing stories are really great, but I can't see anyone ever keeping that up. Eventually they'll start making bad ones because only so much can happen in a storyline that is exciting. Writers eventually run out of ideas. Then the franchise is ruined and everybody will complain. Its better leaving on a high note, then dragging it out until no one wants it.
Hopefully I got my point across. Kind of tired and I may have rambled a bit. =P
More often than not, they sell the full album for $9.99 (unless its a brand new release, in which case you wouldn't find it for $9.99 anywhere else in the physical world either in most cases) and anyway, nowhere in my area could I buy a CD for under $15. Beyond that, there really is paying for convenience. $.99 per song may sometimes be more, but you're being forced to buy the entire bundle. It's akin to "Buy all of these, save x amount!" Sometimes I only want one song. Buying individual items has ALWAYS carried a premium. Bags of candy versus the individual candy bar, six packs of beer versus cases of 20... its always cheaper if you buy in bulk. They may have to charge more per song because nobody is paying for every song anymore. Maybe we are getting a short end of the stick, but definitely not if you use your reasoning. I don't think we're getting the short end of the stick, I think the artists are. I'm fine with paying $.99. I feel its a reasonable price, despite what I may or may not have paid in the past. Yea, I wouldn't mind it being cheaper, but at this point, I say its relatively fair to us as consumers at least. Fair to the artist not so much. Too much to the labels, definitely so. But Apple isn't making that much money off of iTunes. It's a loss-leader to sell the iPods. thats why the labels are upset. The music is being used to make Apple money, but indirectly and therefore the labels aren't seeing "their fair share." Apple is doing tremendously well in this market due to great business moves. You may consider them unethical, but nonetheless, it's working quite well. Now, their software updates killing unlocked iPhones... *THATS* unethical.
iTunes is pretty decent. Yea people can complain about the media not working on the iPod, but I have an iPod (whether or not you think its the best or worst). But when it comes down to pricing, $.99 for a song isn't half bad. Some people may argue for lower prices, but when it comes down to it, its cheaper than some candy bars and honestly, I get more enjoyment from a song than a candy bar. Sometimes they price new albums somewhat high, especially if they don't have a lot of tracks. It's always nice to see like a 16 track album going for $9.99 (price of 10 & 1/11 songs). (Now, if only eBook stores would do similar pricing, that'd be awesome.) Digital media SHOULD be a HELL of a lot more inexpensive than the physical media. iTunes does the distribution, storage, and virtually everything else involved with selling those songs. The record labels AREN'T DOING ANYTHING anymore. They don't have a right to the lion's share of the profit. Beyond that, they sell the music licenses to Apple, so Apple should be able to charge whatever they want. If Apple wants to charge more, its their right (though it'd be a bad move) and it's also their right to keep the rest of the profit. Now, chances are, the profits are probably in percentages and not flat dollar values and that's probably what is pissing the record labels off... Apple is selling them cheaply, so they're not making as much money. Apple isn't really making that much money off of iTunes either, so the labels shouldn't complain.
Freedom = dangerous. You will never be absolutely free and absolutely safe and secure. I'd rather be free than secure. The terrorists WANT this to become a police state. They WANT life to be miserable. By giving up our freedoms, the terrorists win. That's why people who try to justify giving up freedoms for more security are ignorant. By reacting to the terrorists, *YOU* are letting the terrorists take away our freedoms. *YOU* have already lost the war on terror. I'm still fighting and would appreciate it if you stopped trying to drag me down with you.
I shouldn't waste my time with this because I'm fairly certain its flamebait, but I'm bored, so I'll bite. There are things people want private that aren't actually illegal. If you had a crush on a friend and didn't want them to know, that's something you'd want to keep private, but its obviously not illegal. There are various things worth hiding that aren't illegal. Beyond that, its not a matter of if its worth hiding, its a matter that its your right to begin with. And with your second sentiment, thats the exact reason why you can't give up any privacy at all. It starts with a little bit and you keep on justifying losing a little bit more privacy in the name of security. People actually really believe what you just stated (I'm under the assumption that you're brighter than that and just feel like annoying people). Its these people that don't deserve freedom OR privacy, to paraphrase Jefferson or Franklin or whoever made that statement.
When it comes to sensitive data and other's rights and privacy, the companies are expected to play the doubting thomas and hold out until they actually know for sure that they have to give in. Google didn't give in when the DoJ wanted information. They were officers of the law. They had official-looking documents. If they were tricked, they should still be sued because they didn't hold up their part of the bargain and follow rules. However, they could just sue in return those that tricked them. Your analogy is completely flawed and I'll give you a new one. A cop comes to your house, says he wants to search it. You stop him and say, "not without a warrant."
Until the telcos show that they were tricked, they should have NEVER gotten past that "not without a warrant" step.
Slashdot Mirror
1) allow cutscenes to be paused. i hate it when the phone rings in the middle of one and i can't pause it. who knows how many phone calls from hot women i may have missed when i chose to watch the cutscene instead =P
2) allow cutscene skipping BUT don't make it so easy to skip. i hate when i accidentally hit a button and skip a cutscene and all of the sudden i'm in a situation that leaves me with a "wtf?" expression on my face. i think it was one of the xenosaga movies, i mean games, that when you paused the cutscene a little note at the top said "press x to skip" or something of that nature.
i know many people want to be able to skip it very quickly, but you don't want to punish the ones the game was targeted at (those who want the story line). if you want, you could go as far as making it an in-game option to allow quick-skipping or forcing the pause plus an extra button to skip. I think this would satisfy everybody. everybody could set it to what they want.
on a different note, i think saving should be allowed at *any* point in the game. sometimes you just *have* to stop playing but hate it cause you'll lose like an hour's worth of work just because you haven't reached a savepoint yet.
historical evidence of a lot of people don't exist. that doesn't mean they didn't exist. absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. keep in mind we're also talking about a guy who people of power (if the stories are to be believed) tried to erase from this world INCLUDING his teachings and therefore it is quite possible they could have destroyed works involving him. PLUS last i checked, the surviving records from that time aren't exactly what i'd call complete, would you? i'm just saying, there is evidence of people who *may* have been him. thats all. personally, i don't think he existed, but that doesn't mean i'm going to agree with terrible arguments trying to persuade others of that idea.
i can answer that. the possibility is zero since they're the ones trying to get the frequency to carry all those rules along with it, such as making it open, use any type of phone, license it to anybody who can pay the price (and the price has to be the same for everybody), etc. they said they wouldn't even bid unless it was open. so i highly doubt they'd bid on it and make it entirely google only. they'll provide google service over it, but others will want to license it. and if they do, they couldn't restrict what phones get used on it. so yea, even if they just OWN the frequency, it can cause change, let alone offering people a service that isn't restricted by contracts, etc. if they make it so you choose to watch ads and it ads credits to your phone or time or has a money equivalent value or package1 - watch x ads this month or it will be disabled next month, then maybe it won't be so bad. it stops it from being too intrusive because you choose when to watch it.
and that still disproves nothing. my post was purely in response to someone saying historical evidence of a man named jesus did not exist.
though it seems unfair to use this as proof he did not exist. i would say there's reasonable doubt to disproving it, therefore i don't find it irrational to believe he did in fact exist. thats all i'm trying to point out. a historical account of a man or men who this is based on. whether the stories are embellished isn't what i'm concerned about, but the idea that its at least not complete myth. since it is relatively difficult to prove anyone existed from that time, it seems unfair that this argument should be used as definitive proof that he didn't exist. for a man who various people have power supposedly tried to erase from existence, including destroying his teachings, it doesn't seem out of the question that this could explain his absence of mention from his contemporaries. plus, timelines aren't too exact either and it could be an offset slightly as well.
seeing as how i was replying to a comment about the existence of the man, i don't see the point of your post. please, when reading a comment, see what the poster is replying to before making a statement. he commented about the historical evidence of an individual named jesus, so did i. that was the entire purpose of the post.
logically speaking, this can only be said to at least duplicate the experiences on the "user's" end of a religious experience. this does *not* disprove the existence of God. it doesn't prove it either. i just dislike people misusing various observations and coming up with ill-formed arguments.
there's plenty of circumstantial evidence to propose the idea that a higher power could possibly exist. physics still can't prove mass exists, but we see reasons to believe it does all around us, but there is yet any proof (hopefully the LHC will shed some light on the 'God' particle as its been nicknamed). for a long time, science could provide no reason as to how a bee could fly. only relatively recently did they finally figure it out. people see things all the time without evidence. you have no evidence that anybody other than yourself truly exists, but you accept that they do. You're given enough circumstantial evidence and start to make assumptions. People arrive at different assumptions from different observations.
I still believe organized religion is total bs though. it may have had its roots in something meaningful, but it has since lost it.
I open this by personally claiming I do *not* believe in Jesus the Son of God. However, there is enough circumstantial evidence for me to accept the possibility Jesus the man *did* in fact exist. There are a few accounts (though all are in question) that a man named Jesus walked the earth around the time. These accounts are all in question mainly because so many things from that time period are in question (disputes of translation, authenticity, age, etc.). I am more inclined to believe or at least that the accounts are all about various individuals are brought into one person. Either way, there is a physical entity to which all of it is tied. Though, I can't see how I can view a cult from thousands of years ago any different from one today. The proof of divine ability is far more in question then his existence. *That* is found in fewer (if any) non-religiously-biased documents (the Bible would be a religiously-biased document, as are various Gospels, whether or not accepted by various Churches).
the problem is the trial software. users aren't aware that after the subscription is up, it no longer works effectively. most users aren't aware of the subscription based model. they feel that if they pay for it once, it should work forever. whether or not you agree with the model, this is the standard model for security software (aside from the various free ones available). i think it'd be best to not put trial software, but instead a more annoying warning from the OS that no anti-virus is installed. anti-virus & anti-spyware are two software suites that not only benefit the user, but everybody else on the internet. i don't care how annoyed they are by the messages. installing those two things shouldn't really be a simple choice of "yes," or "no," but more like "yes," or "no, but i'm going to annoy the hell out of you." computers are catering too much to the computer illiterate. while business-wise, this makes sense, from an internet-safety point of view, its not. too many vulnerabilities are introduced when trying to make something easier to use. add on top of that, clueless users and you have problems. seeing as how computers pretty much come with a connection to the internet, you can no longer look at them as just isolated products. most of the time, they will connect to the internet and effect the overall effectiveness in a negative manner. Why are computers the only high-tech piece of equipment that EVERYBODY is allowed to use. Scientific instruments can cost a few thousand, yet they're treated like sacred objects (in places that care about their investments), yet the computer is not.
maybe this goes to show how the neurotic leaders of ages past came to such power. some of the roman emperors were not known for being the most stable minds.
no, accounts of a man named Jesus from that time period do exist. whether the claims that other people have made about him are true is a completely different question. A man named Jesus from that region and time likely did exist. It's extremely difficult to prove *any* specific person definitively existed due to a lack of a heavily recorded history, so its only very probable that he existed. The fact that any record seems to indicate he existed at least goes to show he made some sort of impact at the time. Whether it was walking on water or just that people thought he was crazy is unknown. This doesn't prove he's the son of God, however.
it wasn't. and its not a matter of whether he really suffered. some people don't value money the same way others do. the more you value money, the more suffering you'll be willing to put up with. it sounds like you may value money more than he does. you'd be willing to put up with a lot more to make the extra buck. that doesn't mean its better. its just he values other things. different priorities for different people.
i think he responded the way he did when you said what he was doing was wrong. he stated beforehand that he wasn't out to get rich. he stated he only had a small circle of clients. you then said he was 'wrong, very wrong'. i think thats kind of what set him off. normally people don't like being told they are wrong, when in reality its actually that they have a different belief system and different goals and different ideas. both of what you guys are talking about is called "opinion." neither of you are wrong. some people will agree with the other guy. some people will agree with you. both will have good points and both will have bad points. he thinks it immoral to charge for time spent trying to fix something that he couldn't actually fix. you think its immoral to not charge for the time spent doing anything. the thing with morals is that they're all different. his business plan is completely sound, maybe not scalable, but still sound. he may get more quality customers, a better return rate, and less dealing with ignorant people then someone who always charges for their time, takes on more customers, and in the end may look at their job as more of a hassle. its all about what really matters to the person performing the job. nothing is wrong about either viewpoints other than actually calling one of them wrong.
i know someone (not a tech mind you, but just your everyday "i have no clue what i'm doing" kinda guy) who put a USB plug into a PS/2 port. Regular use of logic doesn't seem to be used by people when they use computers.
A) One guy makes multiple trips back and forth to carry all this stuff... unless he's superman and can carry multiple computers.
B) A group of guys gets past security. One guy getting past I can see, but an entire group getting past should make it easier to catch them.
Has anyone given any thought to this being a publicity stunt? I mean, the information has yet to be leaked and for $2000, I would bet plenty of people would have found a way to get into contact with this guy and purchase it for themselves.
Something just seems unbelievable here.
This is the only article i've ever read that they imply the wii doesn't need to expand its fan and therefore they can't understand why they released this game. The article questions why the Wii would carry such a game. If that's fair, then, whatever. To me, thats not fair. It puts the game in a negative light. The only positive, fair comments come from the people being quoted. So, overall, the story may be balanced, in that it gives both sides, but the author is obviously somewhat against it in some form.
They claim its so they can stop sites that would be damaging to their name if they were associated with it. An example (while I don't know if they'd use the rule in this scenario) is if they were involved in hosting or providing services to a racial-hate site, they could cancel or suspend that account. However, no matter what way they slice it, its still censorship. Maybe they don't intend to use it to censor badmouthing the company, but its still censorship. If its not illegal, but they don't allow it, its censorship. If this was really their intention, it makes sense for them to leave the clause open like this. HOWEVER, they should add an additional clause that exempts badmouthing the company from that previous clause. They should realize that if it caused such a clamor, they should have dealt with it to assuage people's fears about possibly getting their account canceled if they complain about their service. Instead, they give the equivalent of "we don't want to or intend to do that... but we still can." I can understand keeping the clause open, however, I don't understand at least shutting down that loophole if they really never intend to use it. Its as of everybody said, "well if you don't intend to use it as such, put in a clause saying you never will," and them saying no.
So not only can that clause only be used for censorship (whether or not its about company criticism), but they also won't outright deny that they can use it to shutdown criticism. So, they're hypocritical AND only giving lip service to real fears and questions.
i don't think its a matter of storing data (or at least large amounts). thats never what spreadsheets were for. they were based more around displaying data and processing data. yes, they can be used for large amounts, but they never really were meant as storage in the same way a database was. they're just saying these spreadsheets could start serving some of the same purposes.
In my opinion, fewer original games are coming out. Episodic content for great games is fine. Half-Life is an example of this. However, I think thats an exception in an ongoing trend in video games. I think fewer and fewer games are coming out that are even worthwhile purchasing as opposed to renting. There just aren't that many games that are coming out that are newsworthy. Bio-shock and Halo 3 are some examples of games worth buying. PS3 hasn't had any yet in my opinion (and if they don't real soon, they might as well go the way of sega). Even Wii doesn't have that many (It's doing so well just because of the gameplay, but when it comes down to it, it just has a bunch of games that are fun, but not that many that are as engrossing as Bio-shock or to name a classic, Final Fantasy VII.)
It just seems like gaming has gone the same route as movies. Yea, some sequels are decent, but a majority of the ones that come out are never as great as the original. Then on top of that, there are fewer and fewer movies being made that are worth seeing more than once. yea, they're entertaining the first time, but no replay value.
Unfortunately, I think we've hit a downward slope in terms of games as an art.
I think they need to get to more original content. yea, some people might be upset because some of these continuing stories are really great, but I can't see anyone ever keeping that up. Eventually they'll start making bad ones because only so much can happen in a storyline that is exciting. Writers eventually run out of ideas. Then the franchise is ruined and everybody will complain. Its better leaving on a high note, then dragging it out until no one wants it.
Hopefully I got my point across. Kind of tired and I may have rambled a bit. =P
More often than not, they sell the full album for $9.99 (unless its a brand new release, in which case you wouldn't find it for $9.99 anywhere else in the physical world either in most cases) and anyway, nowhere in my area could I buy a CD for under $15. Beyond that, there really is paying for convenience. $.99 per song may sometimes be more, but you're being forced to buy the entire bundle. It's akin to "Buy all of these, save x amount!" Sometimes I only want one song. Buying individual items has ALWAYS carried a premium. Bags of candy versus the individual candy bar, six packs of beer versus cases of 20... its always cheaper if you buy in bulk. They may have to charge more per song because nobody is paying for every song anymore. Maybe we are getting a short end of the stick, but definitely not if you use your reasoning. I don't think we're getting the short end of the stick, I think the artists are. I'm fine with paying $.99. I feel its a reasonable price, despite what I may or may not have paid in the past. Yea, I wouldn't mind it being cheaper, but at this point, I say its relatively fair to us as consumers at least. Fair to the artist not so much. Too much to the labels, definitely so. But Apple isn't making that much money off of iTunes. It's a loss-leader to sell the iPods. thats why the labels are upset. The music is being used to make Apple money, but indirectly and therefore the labels aren't seeing "their fair share." Apple is doing tremendously well in this market due to great business moves. You may consider them unethical, but nonetheless, it's working quite well. Now, their software updates killing unlocked iPhones... *THATS* unethical.
iTunes is pretty decent. Yea people can complain about the media not working on the iPod, but I have an iPod (whether or not you think its the best or worst). But when it comes down to pricing, $.99 for a song isn't half bad. Some people may argue for lower prices, but when it comes down to it, its cheaper than some candy bars and honestly, I get more enjoyment from a song than a candy bar. Sometimes they price new albums somewhat high, especially if they don't have a lot of tracks. It's always nice to see like a 16 track album going for $9.99 (price of 10 & 1/11 songs). (Now, if only eBook stores would do similar pricing, that'd be awesome.) Digital media SHOULD be a HELL of a lot more inexpensive than the physical media. iTunes does the distribution, storage, and virtually everything else involved with selling those songs. The record labels AREN'T DOING ANYTHING anymore. They don't have a right to the lion's share of the profit. Beyond that, they sell the music licenses to Apple, so Apple should be able to charge whatever they want. If Apple wants to charge more, its their right (though it'd be a bad move) and it's also their right to keep the rest of the profit. Now, chances are, the profits are probably in percentages and not flat dollar values and that's probably what is pissing the record labels off... Apple is selling them cheaply, so they're not making as much money. Apple isn't really making that much money off of iTunes either, so the labels shouldn't complain.
Freedom = dangerous. You will never be absolutely free and absolutely safe and secure. I'd rather be free than secure. The terrorists WANT this to become a police state. They WANT life to be miserable. By giving up our freedoms, the terrorists win. That's why people who try to justify giving up freedoms for more security are ignorant. By reacting to the terrorists, *YOU* are letting the terrorists take away our freedoms. *YOU* have already lost the war on terror. I'm still fighting and would appreciate it if you stopped trying to drag me down with you.
I shouldn't waste my time with this because I'm fairly certain its flamebait, but I'm bored, so I'll bite. There are things people want private that aren't actually illegal. If you had a crush on a friend and didn't want them to know, that's something you'd want to keep private, but its obviously not illegal. There are various things worth hiding that aren't illegal. Beyond that, its not a matter of if its worth hiding, its a matter that its your right to begin with. And with your second sentiment, thats the exact reason why you can't give up any privacy at all. It starts with a little bit and you keep on justifying losing a little bit more privacy in the name of security.
People actually really believe what you just stated (I'm under the assumption that you're brighter than that and just feel like annoying people). Its these people that don't deserve freedom OR privacy, to paraphrase Jefferson or Franklin or whoever made that statement.
When it comes to sensitive data and other's rights and privacy, the companies are expected to play the doubting thomas and hold out until they actually know for sure that they have to give in. Google didn't give in when the DoJ wanted information. They were officers of the law. They had official-looking documents. If they were tricked, they should still be sued because they didn't hold up their part of the bargain and follow rules. However, they could just sue in return those that tricked them. Your analogy is completely flawed and I'll give you a new one. A cop comes to your house, says he wants to search it. You stop him and say, "not without a warrant."
Until the telcos show that they were tricked, they should have NEVER gotten past that "not without a warrant" step.