Sigh. Microsoft just patented the concept of people leaving information about themselves for future generations. What's the catch? Oh, yeah "electronically". WTF is wrong with the patent office that they allow applicants to append whatever the prevalent technology of the day is, to the end of their patent application as a sign of originality.
The formula looks like this: [standard idea with which everyone is familiar] + ["The Web"] = [New Concept]
Obviously in this case we're talking about consumer electronics and not the web, but the point is the same. Microsoft just patented the "Time Capsule", in fact I'll be amazed if they don't call it the "Microsoft Time Capsule" in a fit of creative brilliance. Never mind that the idea is a standard part of cultural awareness, they've added something new and its -- yes -- today's standard technologies for data storage. Sure there are plenty of time capsules out there, but there's no prior art for this one because Microsoft was the first to marry all those 'pre-personal-computing' ideas with their obvious 'post-personal-computing' counterparts.
And with an army of lawyers, there's a whole lot of work out there applying that formula above to each and every concept on Earth.
I'm about to be bored watching this all happen again. Sorry if this sounds like flamebait, but it really isn't intended to be. Here's how I read this -- we've got very few new ideas. We've got RSS, aggregators, social networks and content and we've got endless permuations as always. In an effort to generate excitement (and VC) we're inventing new buzzwords and "paradigm shifts" as fast as we can say "Flooz". There's nothing "new" about aggregating various technologies or sources into a single offering. (Hello? This is Slashdot people!) If it makes anyone feel "2.0" to call combined technologies and different content-sources wrapped up in userfriendly packages with community features "mashups", then make yourselves delusionally happy. I'll wait for the "mashup" explanation right after you finish defining Web 2.0.
I think I'll recombine the same technologies next year and call it a "smoothie".
I haven't paid for music in almost 10 years... until this year: I've spent almost $700 on AllOfMP3.com
And all the evidence points to the fact that I'm not alone. AllOfMP3.com is making millions.
Illegal? Yes. Sure, whatever. So is Limewire. And there's no potential for revenue generation there.
Say what you will about AllOfMP3.com but there's a profound lesson there that the labels and the RIAA should learn from: They're getting people who don't spend money on music to spend money. That's huge.
When the "real, de-facto" option for consumers is free vs. DRM crippled -- they should be rejoicing the fact that there is, in fact a middle ground: DRM-free, high-quality music (not 128bit crap) at a price that makes sense given the lack of shipping, manufacturing and retail overhead.
I still contend that if the labels embraced the pricepoint and the formula they'd be making multiples over what they're making now.
The problem isn't piracy. The problem ultimately is greed.
Their business model is hilariously weak, and instead of adjusting to market forces like all other industries must do -- they're attempting to ram it down the throats of consumers.
> Finally, in Morrowind, you basically had the swampy bit, the ashy mountainous bit, and the rest all looked the same. In Oblivion, the different areas look very different. But the map and compass do give a very different experience, and exploration is no longer as important or fulfilling as it was in Morrowind."
Huh? Oblivion is one big forest rendered with SpeedTree. There's one little snowy area up north, and the rest of the game is completely homogenous.
Morrowind had giant mushrooms, floating jellyfish, ants that laid eggs in eggmines, wizards castles made of plants, propylon indexes, cantons, mongolian yurts, asian looking fishing villages, shipwrecks underwater, etc.
Oblivion gave us butterflies, deer and tudor houses.
Oblivion has NOTHING underwater.
While there were great additions in fighting, Oblivion destroyed the whole concept of RPG levelling with the auto-levelling world. ie: levelling has no point. So why even fight?
There's another answer, and people have talked about it for years now, although its never really caught on: P2P Casting....and there's absolutely no way in the world to stop it as long as its decentralized and headquartered (if its headquartered at all) from offshore.
Yes but that's Microsoft all over again. Google is "bundled" with the browser, and Google will expand into every possible area, re-creating all the best extensions until there are no more indie developers.
Movie studios do this kind of thing all the time. Frequently they give actors and directors "points on the back" which is supposed to mean a portion of "profit".
What the studios do is claim the film hasn't made any profit, and cite an enormous number of line items which cost the producers money.
What the studios have actually done is just shuffled money around: Spending in one place, and earning back somewhere else. Its an effort to avoid paying for those points.
There's a famous story of Forrest Gump which was smash hit, but supposedly never made any money because of creative financing. The studio got rich, and those with backend points never got a dime.
The audit Jackson wants to do would very likely trace those lost profits right back to the producers.
I'm a little concerned about Firefox 3's new direction as "Information Broker" -- especially after reading TFA.
It seems to me that what we're about to witness is the steady creep of corporate interest into the browser.
Already, Mozilla makes millions from its partnership with Google (via the search box in the upper right). As information broker, I think we're going to see pre-selective integration with applications and web services. This is great for Amazon, Google, eBay, Yahoo!, etc.
So have we traded Microsoft for a handful of competing companies who sought to dethrone the former?
For a festival that's supposed to be "on the edge" this is turning into one enormous embarassment.
First off, its censorship, plain and simple.
Secondly, banning a game for being too violent removes all possibility that video games have the potential to make an artistic statement. Afterall, when Cronenberg makes a violent film the critical response always runs along the lines of: Yes, its violent, but its art. If videogames are not afforded the same latitude by the festival, then the festival is by nature denying their potential to be art. Needless to say -- this is a bizarre platform for a festival promoting the genre.
Thirdly, Slamdance is supposed to be "on the edge". Its supposed to be the festival that is what Sundance 'once was' -- before the big studios, corporate overlords and big brand sponsors stepped in. Banning a game whose subject matter runs contrary to family values is hardly...well.. "edgy".
What will be left in the wreckage of this festival (after all those with any artistic credibility leave) is a group of game-makers who:
a) Have no artistic credibility b) Are selfish c) Are morally high-handed sorts like the Christian Right and the Family Values crowd.
End Result?
All I can say is "nice festival guys". You could have become something important in the gaming world.
Anyone who stays in the festival should be profoundly embarrassed.
Secondary note: the respondent who said they found you pompous was led to that belief because the only reason for you to bring up that question ('cos it's redundant - I may have mentioned this before) is if you are so US-centric that you wonder about ANY event "How does this affect the US?". Rather narcissictic.
re-read my post. I made no US centric comments. I was trying to open up a conversation, not take a side.
Chill buddy.
Re:"Why is it so hard to make a good Trek game"?
on
Star Trek Legacy Review
·
· Score: 4, Funny
You haven't been watching Trek since TNG have you?
Last time I checked I was a consumer. I'm qualified to talk about anything I use or buy.
Not to mention the fact I work in product development. But that's not necessary to express one's personal experience or opinion on a product.
I tried it. I thought it sucked. I thought it sucked badly.
That's my opinion. I'm the consumer. I get to express my opinion.
Was the music someone else's? Actually I'm almost 100% sure that in the Welcome area the music is set by Linden, but I could be wrong. Either way -- first impressions were that the experience was weak.
Piss off. (A term with multiple meanings -- as determined by usage).
"Why is it so hard to make a good Trek game"?
on
Star Trek Legacy Review
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Because Trek is ultimately about dialogue and not action. Tension is created through plot devices and not physical violence.
And because Trek is about large (non-nimble) vessels.
Add fast action and its no longer "Trek". Keep it "Trek" and it's just not that fun as a video game.
I downloaded the client a few months back, created an avatar and wandered around:
I felt the experience was primitive, with sub-par graphics, a horrible UI and poor performance (I'm on a PC graphics workstation with a very fast connection -- that should easily have been able to handle it). The music was some sort of cheesy new-age MIDI composition, and the character models seemed like 1990's low-poly attempts at something stylisticly mid 1980's. The character interaction was poor, there were clipping issues and there was a poor response time with the environment.
I uninstalled the software within 1 hour.
I'll never log in to Second Life again, and I remain convinced that the contest to be the first to develop a compelling virtual community is still a wide-open race.
But in terms of statistics, I can assure you that Linden Labs still counts me as a "Resident".
Which begs the question: How representitive am I of Second Life residents in general?
Are all the "solid" areas of the 3d shape a roughly similar density of dark matter?
Seems to me there would be a wide range of density distributions. If so there must have been a human decision to decide which level of density constitutes matter vs. empty space in this 3d depiction. I wonder how the 3d shape would change if we arbitrarily moved this balance point of requisite density up or down the scale.
Slashdot Mirror
No seriously. CIO's can't do martini lunches.
Think that's a friviolous comment? You haven't worked around senior management.
Sigh. Microsoft just patented the concept of people leaving information about themselves for future generations.
What's the catch? Oh, yeah "electronically". WTF is wrong with the patent office that they allow applicants
to append whatever the prevalent technology of the day is, to the end of their patent application as a sign of
originality.
The formula looks like this: [standard idea with which everyone is familiar] + ["The Web"] = [New Concept]
Obviously in this case we're talking about consumer electronics and not the web, but the point is the same.
Microsoft just patented the "Time Capsule", in fact I'll be amazed if they don't call it the "Microsoft Time Capsule"
in a fit of creative brilliance. Never mind that the idea is a standard part of cultural awareness, they've added something
new and its -- yes -- today's standard technologies for data storage. Sure there are plenty of time capsules out there,
but there's no prior art for this one because Microsoft was the first to marry all those 'pre-personal-computing' ideas
with their obvious 'post-personal-computing' counterparts.
And with an army of lawyers, there's a whole lot of work out there applying that formula above to each and every
concept on Earth.
I'm about to be bored watching this all happen again. Sorry if this sounds like flamebait, but it really isn't intended to be. Here's how I read this -- we've got very few new ideas. We've got RSS, aggregators, social networks and content and we've got endless permuations as always. In an effort to generate excitement (and VC) we're inventing new buzzwords and "paradigm shifts" as fast as we can say "Flooz". There's nothing "new" about aggregating various technologies or sources into a single offering. (Hello? This is Slashdot people!) If it makes anyone feel "2.0" to call combined technologies and different content-sources wrapped up in userfriendly packages with community features "mashups", then make yourselves delusionally happy. I'll wait for the "mashup" explanation right after you finish defining Web 2.0.
I think I'll recombine the same technologies next year and call it a "smoothie".
I've said it 1000 times but I'll say it again:
I haven't paid for music in almost 10 years... until this year: I've spent almost $700 on AllOfMP3.com
And all the evidence points to the fact that I'm not alone. AllOfMP3.com is making millions.
Illegal? Yes. Sure, whatever. So is Limewire. And there's no potential for revenue generation there.
Say what you will about AllOfMP3.com but there's a profound lesson there that the labels and the RIAA should learn from:
They're getting people who don't spend money on music to spend money. That's huge.
When the "real, de-facto" option for consumers is free vs. DRM crippled -- they should be rejoicing the fact that
there is, in fact a middle ground: DRM-free, high-quality music (not 128bit crap) at a price that
makes sense given the lack of shipping, manufacturing and retail overhead.
I still contend that if the labels embraced the pricepoint and the formula they'd be making multiples over
what they're making now.
The problem isn't piracy. The problem ultimately is greed.
Their business model is hilariously weak, and instead of adjusting to market forces like all other industries
must do -- they're attempting to ram it down the throats of consumers.
Good luck boys.
>
Finally, in Morrowind, you basically had the swampy bit, the ashy mountainous bit, and the rest all looked the same. In Oblivion, the different areas look very different. But the map and compass do give a very different experience, and exploration is no longer as important or fulfilling as it was in Morrowind."
Huh? Oblivion is one big forest rendered with SpeedTree. There's one little snowy area up north, and the rest of the game is completely homogenous.
Morrowind had giant mushrooms, floating jellyfish, ants that laid eggs in eggmines, wizards castles made of plants, propylon indexes, cantons, mongolian yurts, asian looking fishing villages, shipwrecks underwater, etc.
Oblivion gave us butterflies, deer and tudor houses.
Oblivion has NOTHING underwater.
While there were great additions in fighting, Oblivion destroyed the whole concept of RPG levelling with the auto-levelling world. ie: levelling has no point. So why even fight?
They'll make the modifications, and it will be back by the next election.
/.
Never let the truth get in the way of a sensational headline
See the irony?
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that your lame site is getting more traffic than its ever received in a single day.
Which means that you've just been depending on Google too heavily for too little in return.
Digg it. Sig it. Promote the hell out of it.
I'd say this is a non-story, but the irony is that it was ultimately a wonderful short term solution to the author's issue.
Google does *not* own the Internet unless you depend solely on Google.
There's another answer, and people have talked about it for years now, although its never ...and there's absolutely no way in the world to stop it as long as its decentralized
really caught on: P2P Casting.
and headquartered (if its headquartered at all) from offshore.
Its time.
Yes but that's Microsoft all over again. Google is "bundled" with the browser, and Google will expand into every possible area, re-creating all the best extensions until there are no more indie developers.
Movie studios do this kind of thing all the time. Frequently they give actors and directors "points on the back" which is supposed to mean a portion of "profit".
What the studios do is claim the film hasn't made any profit, and cite an enormous number of line items which cost the producers money.
What the studios have actually done is just shuffled money around: Spending in one place, and earning back somewhere else. Its an effort to avoid paying for those points.
There's a famous story of Forrest Gump which was smash hit, but supposedly never made any money because of creative financing. The studio got rich, and those with backend points never got a dime.
The audit Jackson wants to do would very likely trace those lost profits right back to the producers.
I'm a little concerned about Firefox 3's new direction as "Information Broker" -- especially after reading TFA.
It seems to me that what we're about to witness is the steady creep of corporate interest into the browser.
Already, Mozilla makes millions from its partnership with Google (via the search box in the upper right).
As information broker, I think we're going to see pre-selective integration with applications and web services.
This is great for Amazon, Google, eBay, Yahoo!, etc.
So have we traded Microsoft for a handful of competing companies who sought to dethrone the former?
Just another step through the doorway to the dark side.
Apple is more Sony, and more Microsoft every day.
For a festival that's supposed to be "on the edge" this is turning into one enormous embarassment.
First off, its censorship, plain and simple.
Secondly, banning a game for being too violent removes all possibility that video games
have the potential to make an artistic statement. Afterall, when Cronenberg makes a violent film
the critical response always runs along the lines of: Yes, its violent, but its art.
If videogames are not afforded the same latitude by the festival, then the festival is by nature
denying their potential to be art. Needless to say -- this is a bizarre platform for a
festival promoting the genre.
Thirdly, Slamdance is supposed to be "on the edge". Its supposed to be the festival that
is what Sundance 'once was' -- before the big studios, corporate overlords and big brand
sponsors stepped in. Banning a game whose subject matter runs contrary to family values
is hardly
What will be left in the wreckage of this festival (after all those with any artistic
credibility leave) is a group of game-makers who:
a) Have no artistic credibility
b) Are selfish
c) Are morally high-handed sorts like the Christian Right and the Family Values crowd.
End Result?
All I can say is "nice festival guys". You could have become something important in the gaming world.
Anyone who stays in the festival should be profoundly embarrassed.
I sure wouldn't want to win this year.
Haven't poor Microsoft and Sony been vicimized enough?
How's a poor ruthless-megacorporation supposed to make a buck these days?
Really, are the interface and graphics engine different in different areas?
Should the Welcome Area be above criticism because there are other areas?
Enough, fanboy.
Microsoft has nothing to gain from PC gaming.
They have lots to gain from the death of PC gaming.
Why support it?
I'm looking at you Microsoft.
Secondary note: the respondent who said they found you pompous was led to that belief because the only reason for you to bring up that question ('cos it's redundant - I may have mentioned this before) is if you are so US-centric that you wonder about ANY event "How does this affect the US?". Rather narcissictic.
re-read my post. I made no US centric comments. I was trying to open up a conversation, not take a side.
Chill buddy.
You haven't been watching Trek since TNG have you?
Them's fightin words, son.
Last time I checked I was a consumer.
I'm qualified to talk about anything I use or buy.
Not to mention the fact I work in product development. But
that's not necessary to express one's personal experience
or opinion on a product.
I tried it. I thought it sucked. I thought it sucked badly.
That's my opinion. I'm the consumer. I get to express my opinion.
Was the music someone else's? Actually I'm almost 100% sure that
in the Welcome area the music is set by Linden, but I could be
wrong. Either way -- first impressions were that the
experience was weak.
Piss off. (A term with multiple meanings -- as determined by usage).
Because Trek is ultimately about dialogue and not action.
Tension is created through plot devices and not physical violence.
And because Trek is about large (non-nimble) vessels.
Add fast action and its no longer "Trek".
Keep it "Trek" and it's just not that fun as a video game.
Meh... If replacing the electronics inside a device counts as a demonstration that
the device is "unsafe", then can never be a "safe" device.
Its like taking a Volvo, swapping the accelerator with the brake, and then declaring
that Volvo's are inherently unsafe.
I still haven't seen evidence of the tamperer's acquiring possesion of credit
card info -- which is really the issue at hand.
I downloaded the client a few months back, created an avatar and wandered around:
I felt the experience was primitive, with sub-par graphics, a horrible UI and poor performance
(I'm on a PC graphics workstation with a very fast connection -- that should easily have been able
to handle it). The music was some sort of cheesy new-age MIDI composition, and the character
models seemed like 1990's low-poly attempts at something stylisticly mid 1980's. The character
interaction was poor, there were clipping issues and there was a poor response time with
the environment.
I uninstalled the software within 1 hour.
I'll never log in to Second Life again, and I remain convinced that the contest to be the first
to develop a compelling virtual community is still a wide-open race.
But in terms of statistics, I can assure you that Linden Labs still counts me as a "Resident".
Which begs the question: How representitive am I of Second Life residents in general?
Agreed. 2nd Life seems like a (barely) updated Alphaville.
Are all the "solid" areas of the 3d shape a roughly similar density of dark matter?
Seems to me there would be a wide range of density distributions. If so there must have been a human decision to decide
which level of density constitutes matter vs. empty space in this 3d depiction. I wonder how the 3d shape would change
if we arbitrarily moved this balance point of requisite density up or down the scale.