If we do not label the Macintosh hardware/software model as a "monopoly", then we should not label the iPod as such either.
Well, there's a fundamental difference in that the Mac "monopoly" is actually in competition with Windows and the rest of the x86 market. Mac can't be a monopoly because it's part of a large market in which it holds a very "nichey" share.
The iPod, on the other hand, is a dominating presence in the portable digital music market that marginalizes offerings from other big companies like Sony, Dell and Creative. That device could indeed be considered to have monopolistic advantages in its market.
I don't know the merits of this particular case (IANAL) but you can't compare Mac to iPod when trying to define a monopoly. It's good to remind people, also, that there's nothing illegal about having a monopoly unless you misuse it.
Barbie can be a "toy" as much as GI Joe can. I would consider the dividing line to be thus: If you put Barbie in her pink Corvette and race her around the living room, she's a "toy." If you put GI Joe in a pose and leave him on the mantle for display, he's a "doll"...
The worst part of this seemingly simple precaution is that broadband providers don't force the manufacturers of their hardware to provide DHCP/NAT right inside the "modems" they send out to their customers. Installation in such a situation would be no harder than a direct connection (just a matter of putting different numbers into the Windows network settings) and it would seem likely to save these ISPs a lot of money in terms of support. As far as I know, there's no reason this couldn't be done except that those hardware manufacturers want to be able to sell their router hardware separately.
This of course wouldn't be a replacement for a good firewall but according to everything I've read on the subject, NAT protection is more than enough to get a user through a Windows installation without getting "owned," allowing their first infection to occur when they open that e-mail attachment calling itself a free screensaver...
I never did find out if it was because it was too expensive an insurance or because they did not want donations from family members who may, technically, be disqualified by some of the newly discovered diseases but feel compelled to donate from family pressure.
I didn't get to high school until 1985 so I never got pitched on that kind of policy. I can tell you that the Red Cross, at least during the time I worked there and probably before, strongly discouraged "directed" donations (one friend or family member donating blood specifically intended for another friend or family member undergoing surgery). Over the years, they found that this type of donation tested out to be no safer - and often less safe - than taking blood out of the general donor community. They decided that it was exactly the pressure such as you describe that could result in someone donating blood despite having an illness or engaging in "unsafe" behavior. This is one of the key reasons that purely volunteer blood is preferable to that which someone has been paid to give. After all, few people are going to lie about their medical history in order to get a cookie and some orange juice.
You misunderstood the parent post. What he means is that if one is required to "give" (more like "trade") blood in order to have access to getting blood when needed in the future, the "donor" is more likely to donate despite potentially having bloodborne diseases (a point I mentioned in a reply above.
That said, I would expect there to be procedures in place where even an attempt at giving blood is considered to meet the requirement if the donor is deferred based on medical history.
That sounds like a good system, though having a relatively small population helps with the ability to administer plans like that. As it stands, the blood supply in the US does pretty well with mostly a voluntary donation system. In fact, one reason I was told that hospitals usually prefer donated blood over sold (or "compelled") blood is that the donation system removes [most of] the incentive for someone to donate despite having a bloodborne disease or engaging in high-risk behavior - meaning at higher than average risk for something like HIV or hepatitis and possibly being within the window of time where such a disease is undetectable but still transmissable.
I don't know about the "battlefield" situation, but the Red Cross has to charge hospitals (then billed to patients/insurance) for the blood they draw or they wouldn't be able to provide the blood at all.
I worked in American Red Cross Blood Services for seven years (1989-1996) and the blood people donate costs a lot of money to process and distribute. Testing (infectious diseases, blood type, etc.), processing (dividing the blood into its constituent parts - red blood cells, plasma, platelets, cryoprecipitate), storage and distribution all add costs to the process. That part of the American Red Cross doesn't sell blood to make a profit but rather has to do so in order to cover the costs of the operation.
One example: The department I worked in - covering a large number of hospitals' blood needs - had 8-10 people who were responsible for the clerical side of positive test notification, checking donors against a list of "deferred" donors, etc. That's 8-10 paid employees just for "paperwork" (most of which was federally mandated/regulated), never even laying hands on the blood products; imagine how many more were necessary to actually deal with the blood physically.
There are for-profit operations that provide blood products (most notably the places where you can sell your plasma) and they often do pay people for their blood. Of course, that cost gets passed on to the hospitals/patients as well...
They took it out because they believed few people cared about 480p, and removing it saved them some money on the units. Me, I never saw component cables at any B&M or Internet retailer - and I looked every time I found myself in a place selling Gamecubes. I couldn't even order them through my local game stores. Nintendo was willing to sell them to me via their online store but by the time I found that I was too irritated to want to give them the whole profit on the product. I can be a bit stiff-necked with businesses sometimes.:)
I'll plead "unwillful" ignorance on the PS2. I bought the component adapter but have never seen instructions as to enabling 480p output - any hints sent to my e-mail address would be much appreciated! I paid no attention to GT4 (went with Forza, partially because that was my grandparents' last name) so on the "no HD" score I was just out to lunch.
As for the Gamecube, I've never seen any indications of a 720p mode for any games. I'm well aware that the earlier versions of the Gamecube have a digital output (mine does) that permits 480p but, again, that's not an HD resolution and new Gamecube consoles don't even have that option.
What threw me more was mentioning how it was the most anticipated Zelda game since Ocarina. Despite the anti-cel-shaded/anti-young Link nonsense, Wind Waker had everyone and their mom geeking out over it and, as I recall, had more preorders than any other game before it.
I would think so since shareholders would be more willing to get rid of their shares for fear that the stock will take a tumble. Not to mention the fact that new ownership can take the "we didn't do it, we're cleaning it up" tack when dealing with the SEC and other government agencies.
Besides, with Bono on board, maybe we can finally get the oft-requested "GTA: Mogadishu"!
So if that's not a big fraud issue right now, what makes anyone think RFID will be a huge fraud problem in the future with an enormously higher barrier to entry?
Because geeks love thinking of ways to take advantage of systems, even if they would never do it themselves. Add "sticking it to the man" and the paranoia which comes built right into all RFID issues (and tags) and everybody on/. will try to think of a way to screw with the system.
First, one small note...Only 1/3 current/last-generation consoles can do HD resolutions (and only in a few games): Xbox. The other two can, in theory, output 480p but both require a particular console revision (for Gamecube the oldest units and for PS2 the newest) to do so, and 480p isn't defined as an HDTV resolution.
That said, I think you're absolutely right. PC folks talk a lot about how they've been playing in HD resolution for years but the real truth is that they can do so only a) by having an expensive video card that often costs as much by itself as a whole console and b) in "older" games because the newest games inevitably stress the video cards in such a way that you have to make concessions (turn down detail levels, turn off anti-aliasing, etc.) in order to run them at the highest resolutions.
For a short while in the late 90s I tried to stay on track with the latest and greatest video card technology so that my PC games would rock but I quickly tired of the treadmill. My last upgrade was from a 450-MHz K6-III to my current XP1500 and I'm still using the graphics card (G4MX420 - the worst of the Geforce 4 MX line) that came with it because my game money has gone for three consoles and a ****load of games for those. Had I tried to keep up with even the mid range of graphics technology I would have spent at least $600 since buying this PC and would probably have played fewer than 15 PC games.
I'll probably upgrade by the end of the year, and I might even get a nice graphics card this time around. That doesn't change, however, the fact that within a year the PC games coming out will probably force me to lower my resolution and detail levels while my Xbox 360 (not bought yet - waiting for a better slate of games) and PS3 will still be playing in 720p/1080i with default [console] settings...
There is no way to automatically schedule TV recording on 3rd party DVR boxes.
Well, damn! I need to get to a doctor then, because I've been having over five years of hallucinations that my Tivo (and before that my ReplayTV) has been automatically recording TV from Dish Network all this time.
The only thing I can't get my Tivo to record from cable/satellite is HD content. Apart from that, my "3rd party DVR" box does just fine.
Hehe. I've been playing Animal Crossing way too much for the last month and exclusively for the past week (I finally stumbled into a "perfect town" rating and now have to maintain the hell out of it). I think the DS is going to be my primary console until the X360 experiences a price drop and some good new games.:)
Load times might be the factor that keeps me from ever picking up a PSP despite being enamored of its gadgety goodness. I've been spoiled by all the years of Nintendo Gameboy/GBC/GBA/DS fun to put up with load screens on a portable.
Conferences, classes, conventions, etc. He could even simply have personal friends who went to work for someone else. It's not that unusual for employees of competitors to talk to each other. Unless he actually revealed proprietary information, there wouldn't even be anything wrong with applying for a job at a competitor while still employed.
You're right about Forza (it's a hidden option), but I think the price disparity is made up for by the fact that AFAIK Forza is the only Xbox game with that feature and it's very unlikely that there will be another since the Xbox is on its last legs. Oh yeah, and you also need to have three copies of Forza Motorsport in addition to the Xboxes and TVs.
I should note that I meant to reply to this comment and apparently hit the wrong "reply to this." So, the "you" in the first sentence is actually in reference to MttJocy and not TubeSteak.:)
I agree about the talking in Animal Crossing being a pain (I won't be surprised if the sequel has something a lot more convenient, like PictoChat) but as far as the rest of your rant goes I think you're expecting too much.
First off, I certainly can't think about a better way to do kid protection than the code system. Personally, I think it works rather well in that I don't want to play with assholes. That said, I hope they take out the code system when it's not necessary (i.e., when there's no need for communication beyond the game - Tetris DS anyone?).
As for the number of games currently available for online play, it's a young service from a company that hasn't done anything this big online before. It's not like there's a lack of single-player games coming out (the DS has been ramping up and up since August) to keep the console useful offline, and I'm just as happy if they do it right instead of trying to add online play to everything.
Animal Crossing is a good example of doing it right in that they included special events and characters for online players (the three cats - Blanca, Kaitlyn and Katie), they're distributing messages and gifts from the company (fortunately, I didn't get their bugged red tulip but the coin was cool) and the bottle messages are pretty entertaining.
I think that everything is going just fine with Nintendo's online service so far. More games are on the way (at least three that I can think of off the top of my head), and I think we can expect more announcements for it at E3, not to mention the coming linkage with the Revolution. I'd be worried if we were at the end of the DS's life, but of course we're not.
I don't know where you get your information, but on a quick scan over at Game Rankings, I found 105 titles for the DS with at least one review and 92 titles for the PSP - even if Game Rankings' list is incomplete, one would have to believe the margin of error would at worst make the two consoles equal. Also, most DS games support local wireless as well; all of mine do.
Think about what you typed there. Drugs are extremely profitable but pirating software/movies is potentially even more so. The physical discs themselves cost pennies in bulk and the equipment to duplicate them (to the "quality" demanded by people who buy pirated stuff) is relatively cheap as well. Add in ancillary factors like the fact that people are less likely to turn a software pirate in to the police than a drug dealer (the former seeming pretty harmless while the latter is, at a minimum, impairing the health of the customers) and that all the materials required to run a software-pirating operation are perfectly legal on their own; these factors, and probably others, drop the cost of the illegal operation significantly when compared to drug dealing.
Now, I can't speak to the truth of whether terrorists are getting funding from software piracy, but it's no more ridiculous than any other for-profit criminal activity and, in fact, might be more lucrative than others given that the number of people willing to plunk down cash for cheap movies and games is much greater than that of people willing to inject themselves with heroin.
It's worth noting that Steam has nothing to do with Blizzard (your #5). Steam is brought to us by the good folks at Valve.
I would also mention that while I'm sure there are people stuck with monthly metered bandwidth, the vast majority of people are unlimited in terms of total downloads/uploads. Many get hosed by their ISPs where they limit the bandwidth (speed) available to certain applications/ports but that's another topic entirely.
I'm a Steam Hater from way back (and haven't played HL2 despite a strong desire to do so because I'm keeping my PC Steam-less) but I think the bandwidth issue isn't a strike against Steam - more likely, it's a good reason to switch ISPs.
But where's the benefit for Sony if they don't get a cut of the profits? I suppose they could make some money off these little widgets you're talking about but that's not the kind of market in which Sony would likely be interested, especially when the end result cuts into their sales in a market in which they already have a serious stake.
Slashdot Mirror
If we do not label the Macintosh hardware/software model as a "monopoly", then we should not label the iPod as such either.
Well, there's a fundamental difference in that the Mac "monopoly" is actually in competition with Windows and the rest of the x86 market. Mac can't be a monopoly because it's part of a large market in which it holds a very "nichey" share.
The iPod, on the other hand, is a dominating presence in the portable digital music market that marginalizes offerings from other big companies like Sony, Dell and Creative. That device could indeed be considered to have monopolistic advantages in its market.
I don't know the merits of this particular case (IANAL) but you can't compare Mac to iPod when trying to define a monopoly. It's good to remind people, also, that there's nothing illegal about having a monopoly unless you misuse it.
Barbie can be a "toy" as much as GI Joe can. I would consider the dividing line to be thus: If you put Barbie in her pink Corvette and race her around the living room, she's a "toy." If you put GI Joe in a pose and leave him on the mantle for display, he's a "doll"...
The worst part of this seemingly simple precaution is that broadband providers don't force the manufacturers of their hardware to provide DHCP/NAT right inside the "modems" they send out to their customers. Installation in such a situation would be no harder than a direct connection (just a matter of putting different numbers into the Windows network settings) and it would seem likely to save these ISPs a lot of money in terms of support. As far as I know, there's no reason this couldn't be done except that those hardware manufacturers want to be able to sell their router hardware separately.
This of course wouldn't be a replacement for a good firewall but according to everything I've read on the subject, NAT protection is more than enough to get a user through a Windows installation without getting "owned," allowing their first infection to occur when they open that e-mail attachment calling itself a free screensaver...
I never did find out if it was because it was too expensive an insurance or because they did not want donations from family members who may, technically, be disqualified by some of the newly discovered diseases but feel compelled to donate from family pressure.
I didn't get to high school until 1985 so I never got pitched on that kind of policy. I can tell you that the Red Cross, at least during the time I worked there and probably before, strongly discouraged "directed" donations (one friend or family member donating blood specifically intended for another friend or family member undergoing surgery). Over the years, they found that this type of donation tested out to be no safer - and often less safe - than taking blood out of the general donor community. They decided that it was exactly the pressure such as you describe that could result in someone donating blood despite having an illness or engaging in "unsafe" behavior. This is one of the key reasons that purely volunteer blood is preferable to that which someone has been paid to give. After all, few people are going to lie about their medical history in order to get a cookie and some orange juice.
You misunderstood the parent post. What he means is that if one is required to "give" (more like "trade") blood in order to have access to getting blood when needed in the future, the "donor" is more likely to donate despite potentially having bloodborne diseases (a point I mentioned in a reply above.
That said, I would expect there to be procedures in place where even an attempt at giving blood is considered to meet the requirement if the donor is deferred based on medical history.
That sounds like a good system, though having a relatively small population helps with the ability to administer plans like that. As it stands, the blood supply in the US does pretty well with mostly a voluntary donation system. In fact, one reason I was told that hospitals usually prefer donated blood over sold (or "compelled") blood is that the donation system removes [most of] the incentive for someone to donate despite having a bloodborne disease or engaging in high-risk behavior - meaning at higher than average risk for something like HIV or hepatitis and possibly being within the window of time where such a disease is undetectable but still transmissable.
When did the world become so paranoid that everyone is a suspected pedophile?
About the same time it became so paranoid that every kid who plays videogames is a latent murderer.
I don't know about the "battlefield" situation, but the Red Cross has to charge hospitals (then billed to patients/insurance) for the blood they draw or they wouldn't be able to provide the blood at all.
I worked in American Red Cross Blood Services for seven years (1989-1996) and the blood people donate costs a lot of money to process and distribute. Testing (infectious diseases, blood type, etc.), processing (dividing the blood into its constituent parts - red blood cells, plasma, platelets, cryoprecipitate), storage and distribution all add costs to the process. That part of the American Red Cross doesn't sell blood to make a profit but rather has to do so in order to cover the costs of the operation.
One example: The department I worked in - covering a large number of hospitals' blood needs - had 8-10 people who were responsible for the clerical side of positive test notification, checking donors against a list of "deferred" donors, etc. That's 8-10 paid employees just for "paperwork" (most of which was federally mandated/regulated), never even laying hands on the blood products; imagine how many more were necessary to actually deal with the blood physically.
There are for-profit operations that provide blood products (most notably the places where you can sell your plasma) and they often do pay people for their blood. Of course, that cost gets passed on to the hospitals/patients as well...
They took it out because they believed few people cared about 480p, and removing it saved them some money on the units. Me, I never saw component cables at any B&M or Internet retailer - and I looked every time I found myself in a place selling Gamecubes. I couldn't even order them through my local game stores. Nintendo was willing to sell them to me via their online store but by the time I found that I was too irritated to want to give them the whole profit on the product. I can be a bit stiff-necked with businesses sometimes. :)
I'll plead "unwillful" ignorance on the PS2. I bought the component adapter but have never seen instructions as to enabling 480p output - any hints sent to my e-mail address would be much appreciated! I paid no attention to GT4 (went with Forza, partially because that was my grandparents' last name) so on the "no HD" score I was just out to lunch.
As for the Gamecube, I've never seen any indications of a 720p mode for any games. I'm well aware that the earlier versions of the Gamecube have a digital output (mine does) that permits 480p but, again, that's not an HD resolution and new Gamecube consoles don't even have that option.
What threw me more was mentioning how it was the most anticipated Zelda game since Ocarina. Despite the anti-cel-shaded/anti-young Link nonsense, Wind Waker had everyone and their mom geeking out over it and, as I recall, had more preorders than any other game before it.
I would think so since shareholders would be more willing to get rid of their shares for fear that the stock will take a tumble. Not to mention the fact that new ownership can take the "we didn't do it, we're cleaning it up" tack when dealing with the SEC and other government agencies.
Besides, with Bono on board, maybe we can finally get the oft-requested "GTA: Mogadishu"!
So if that's not a big fraud issue right now, what makes anyone think RFID will be a huge fraud problem in the future with an enormously higher barrier to entry?
/. will try to think of a way to screw with the system.
Because geeks love thinking of ways to take advantage of systems, even if they would never do it themselves. Add "sticking it to the man" and the paranoia which comes built right into all RFID issues (and tags) and everybody on
First, one small note...Only 1/3 current/last-generation consoles can do HD resolutions (and only in a few games): Xbox. The other two can, in theory, output 480p but both require a particular console revision (for Gamecube the oldest units and for PS2 the newest) to do so, and 480p isn't defined as an HDTV resolution.
That said, I think you're absolutely right. PC folks talk a lot about how they've been playing in HD resolution for years but the real truth is that they can do so only a) by having an expensive video card that often costs as much by itself as a whole console and b) in "older" games because the newest games inevitably stress the video cards in such a way that you have to make concessions (turn down detail levels, turn off anti-aliasing, etc.) in order to run them at the highest resolutions.
For a short while in the late 90s I tried to stay on track with the latest and greatest video card technology so that my PC games would rock but I quickly tired of the treadmill. My last upgrade was from a 450-MHz K6-III to my current XP1500 and I'm still using the graphics card (G4MX420 - the worst of the Geforce 4 MX line) that came with it because my game money has gone for three consoles and a ****load of games for those. Had I tried to keep up with even the mid range of graphics technology I would have spent at least $600 since buying this PC and would probably have played fewer than 15 PC games.
I'll probably upgrade by the end of the year, and I might even get a nice graphics card this time around. That doesn't change, however, the fact that within a year the PC games coming out will probably force me to lower my resolution and detail levels while my Xbox 360 (not bought yet - waiting for a better slate of games) and PS3 will still be playing in 720p/1080i with default [console] settings...
There is no way to automatically schedule TV recording on 3rd party DVR boxes.
Well, damn! I need to get to a doctor then, because I've been having over five years of hallucinations that my Tivo (and before that my ReplayTV) has been automatically recording TV from Dish Network all this time.
The only thing I can't get my Tivo to record from cable/satellite is HD content. Apart from that, my "3rd party DVR" box does just fine.
Hehe. I've been playing Animal Crossing way too much for the last month and exclusively for the past week (I finally stumbled into a "perfect town" rating and now have to maintain the hell out of it). I think the DS is going to be my primary console until the X360 experiences a price drop and some good new games. :)
Load times might be the factor that keeps me from ever picking up a PSP despite being enamored of its gadgety goodness. I've been spoiled by all the years of Nintendo Gameboy/GBC/GBA/DS fun to put up with load screens on a portable.
Conferences, classes, conventions, etc. He could even simply have personal friends who went to work for someone else. It's not that unusual for employees of competitors to talk to each other. Unless he actually revealed proprietary information, there wouldn't even be anything wrong with applying for a job at a competitor while still employed.
You're right about Forza (it's a hidden option), but I think the price disparity is made up for by the fact that AFAIK Forza is the only Xbox game with that feature and it's very unlikely that there will be another since the Xbox is on its last legs. Oh yeah, and you also need to have three copies of Forza Motorsport in addition to the Xboxes and TVs.
I should note that I meant to reply to this comment and apparently hit the wrong "reply to this." So, the "you" in the first sentence is actually in reference to MttJocy and not TubeSteak. :)
I agree about the talking in Animal Crossing being a pain (I won't be surprised if the sequel has something a lot more convenient, like PictoChat) but as far as the rest of your rant goes I think you're expecting too much.
First off, I certainly can't think about a better way to do kid protection than the code system. Personally, I think it works rather well in that I don't want to play with assholes. That said, I hope they take out the code system when it's not necessary (i.e., when there's no need for communication beyond the game - Tetris DS anyone?).
As for the number of games currently available for online play, it's a young service from a company that hasn't done anything this big online before. It's not like there's a lack of single-player games coming out (the DS has been ramping up and up since August) to keep the console useful offline, and I'm just as happy if they do it right instead of trying to add online play to everything.
Animal Crossing is a good example of doing it right in that they included special events and characters for online players (the three cats - Blanca, Kaitlyn and Katie), they're distributing messages and gifts from the company (fortunately, I didn't get their bugged red tulip but the coin was cool) and the bottle messages are pretty entertaining.
I think that everything is going just fine with Nintendo's online service so far. More games are on the way (at least three that I can think of off the top of my head), and I think we can expect more announcements for it at E3, not to mention the coming linkage with the Revolution. I'd be worried if we were at the end of the DS's life, but of course we're not.
I don't know where you get your information, but on a quick scan over at Game Rankings, I found 105 titles for the DS with at least one review and 92 titles for the PSP - even if Game Rankings' list is incomplete, one would have to believe the margin of error would at worst make the two consoles equal. Also, most DS games support local wireless as well; all of mine do.
Think about what you typed there. Drugs are extremely profitable but pirating software/movies is potentially even more so. The physical discs themselves cost pennies in bulk and the equipment to duplicate them (to the "quality" demanded by people who buy pirated stuff) is relatively cheap as well. Add in ancillary factors like the fact that people are less likely to turn a software pirate in to the police than a drug dealer (the former seeming pretty harmless while the latter is, at a minimum, impairing the health of the customers) and that all the materials required to run a software-pirating operation are perfectly legal on their own; these factors, and probably others, drop the cost of the illegal operation significantly when compared to drug dealing.
Now, I can't speak to the truth of whether terrorists are getting funding from software piracy, but it's no more ridiculous than any other for-profit criminal activity and, in fact, might be more lucrative than others given that the number of people willing to plunk down cash for cheap movies and games is much greater than that of people willing to inject themselves with heroin.
It's worth noting that Steam has nothing to do with Blizzard (your #5). Steam is brought to us by the good folks at Valve.
I would also mention that while I'm sure there are people stuck with monthly metered bandwidth, the vast majority of people are unlimited in terms of total downloads/uploads. Many get hosed by their ISPs where they limit the bandwidth (speed) available to certain applications/ports but that's another topic entirely.
I'm a Steam Hater from way back (and haven't played HL2 despite a strong desire to do so because I'm keeping my PC Steam-less) but I think the bandwidth issue isn't a strike against Steam - more likely, it's a good reason to switch ISPs.
But where's the benefit for Sony if they don't get a cut of the profits? I suppose they could make some money off these little widgets you're talking about but that's not the kind of market in which Sony would likely be interested, especially when the end result cuts into their sales in a market in which they already have a serious stake.