I challenge anyone to name a single industry which doesn't conduct "studies" which favour itself. Nothing's as bad as the pharmaceutical industry. Or how about the world of financial analysis at the end of the 90's? Those were some pretty screwed up "studies".
And now we've got characters like David Lereah (head of the Association of Realtors) on TV everyday screeching "There is no housing bubble" (although he's sounding very depserate lately).
Using the media, the legal system, the court of public opinion, and analysis/forecasting is *how* business is done today. We live in 'spin land'. If you're going to start calling people whores than apparently we're living in one big giant brothel.
You "should read every single EULA" only if you believe that clicking on a big onscreen button market "I AGREE" constitutes a valid form of acceptance for a contract.
And even if you did believe such nonsense, what if someone else uses your machine and agrees to the EULA without your knowlege. Are you still bound?
These clever little lawyers have constructed this very large, very elaborate system designed to preserve ludicrous amounts of power on the publisher's side of the table. But the system is legally very grey in terms of legitimacy. I mean please: Mom and Pop end users with no legal knowlege "agreeing" with a "mouse click" to pages of complex contractual jargon?
Hah! I have always called BS on this and will continue to do so.
A defense could be as simple as: "I have a habit of clicking on whatever buttons appear on my screen. Was there some writing there? I don't know. I don't care. Its my computer, and the ActiveX control began downloading without my consent. Pthpth. And I don't understand any of this technical stuff anyway. What's software exactly? What's a Eula? It wasn't explained clearly enough."
Can you imagine if everything came with a nine page contract?
Running to legal-last-ditch resorts in an effort to preserve illogical business models is a losing game. What's incredible is how many losing games there are right now.
If industry groups are allowed to determine what constitutes acceptable use of Internet traffic, its not just IP blocking for phone users that's at stake. Hell, I'm sure the RIAA would love to just do away with music on the net altogether. (Not to mention the MPAA). Bible thumpers would love to put an end to porn. And old ink&paper publishers would love to get rid of the whole kit & kaboodle.
The point is that preventing certain communications because of corporate agendas or industry expedience is anti-competitive and is an effort to preserve business models that have been outmoded by the development of IP.
First off: By his own acknowledgement, a self-directed system of investment does nothing to resolve the financial problems facing social security.
Secondly: The problems facing social security are a direct result of decreases to taxes which require decreases in social spending.
Thirdly: Social Security is SUPPOSED to be money you can't fuck up. Its supposed to be money that isn't at risk. That's the definition of the word "SECURITY" you dumbass. If you turn it into "Risk Capital" you've got no security at all.
Do you also like the idea of homeless old people? Because if you get rid of social security that's EXACTLY what we'll have again. (Yes, its what we had before Social Security).
Once again the administration has fooled the gullible American public into believing that a correlation exists between his policy and some impending problem. World Trade Center get attacked? Let's invade Iraq. (total non sequitor). Social Security in Financial Jeopardy? Let's create private accounts. (and another non sequitor)
Want to control how your money is invested? Open a friggin e*trade account. Want to synthesize a bull market so you and your banker buddies can get rich? Flood the market with the biggest private investment in the history of the world.
The problem is that Credit Card companies, banks and anyone else whose revenue is generated by transaction volume have a vested interest in making transactions easier and more frequent.
As big a problem as fraud is, the reality is that there is far more to be gained from lowering barriers to credit card use than there are to raising barriers. The other sad corrolary is that the real losers when it comes to fraud are the consumers.
We have voluntarily traded security for convenience. Now it seems we want our cake too.
The first step in Dvorak's strategy is for Microsoft to build a separate 'commercial driver-layer' for Linux. His prediction: if Microsoft builds this 'essential' layer, a large portion of Linux revenues will go towards Microsoft and developers will therefore lose interest.
Let's put aside for a moment the fact that a major focus on Linux development would be disastrous for Microsoft (It would essentially encourage a mass migration from Windows servers), Dvorak makes some ridiculous blind leaps in assuming that an MS driver layer would [a] Become dominant (based upon what? Microsoft's proven ability to write superior code?) and [b] even if MS succeeded, that their success would cause the entire Linux world to pack up and go elsewhere.
Is Dvorak's supposition that all Linux development is driven merely by the desire to "not" give Microsoft any more cash? Funny, I thought it was to build a stable, faster, and open-sourced OS.
Developing yet another commercial add-on, hardly negates Linux's core mission and value. It would however negate the mission and core value of Windows Servers.
I say go for it Microsoft. Let's see who wins.
The last of the great Offline Content creators
on
Troika Games Closes
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I'm a huge fan of a fat manual.
This might be slightly O.T. but with the passing of Black Isle and now Troika, I can't help reflecting on the fact that both of these studios IMHO were the only ones out there that spent enormous time and energy in creating beautiful offline content to accompany their games.
Arcanum was a great game. And one of the reasons I have huge respect for Troika is that they didn't just stop there:
If anyone enjoyed the first two Zorks, I'd like to recommend the third installment in the trilogy. It doesn't have the extensive maps of the first two games, but the text descriptions are far more lush and many key questions about the history of the Great Underground Empire are finally answered.
Also, if you're sporting the Color Graphics Adapter (CGA) on your PC, descriptive text, dialogue text and user entered text are all color coded for ease of use!
The ramifications of free wi-fi are greater than just web access... The upshot is of course, free telephone service as well.
This IMHO is where the real problems are going to begin. The telco's aren't just going to lose their internet business over this, they'd lose their businesses.
Not that we'd be sorry to see them go, but it should be acknowleged that we're talking about more than web browsing here.
Assuming that this star was accellerated to this speed by slingshotting around a supermassive blackhole (like the one at the center of our galaxy): How long would it take at this speed to move from the center of the galaxy to the edge of the galaxy?
And more importantly, how much advance warning would we have if some star shot towards us from the center of our galaxy at a similar speed?
Someone please remind me why AOL bought Netscape again?
Does it strike anyone else as odd that AOL does almost everything they possibly can to *not* add market value to one of their best known brands?
You'd think with the amount of cash AOL has on hand, and with the entire marketplace suddenly beginning to question whether or not IE is worth the trouble... they'd slap some of the dust of Netscape and breathe some life into it. No?
The original atmosphere disappeared because the solar winds burned that atmosphere off. But you have to remember that the process of "losing" its atmosphere took billions of years.
I haven't RTFA but there have been many theories on the subject of using Martian ice to create a "stable" atmosphere. Even if it took only a mere 10000 years to burn off this time, it would still be enormously cool.
I personally wouldn't mind having a backup planet in case the dumbasses running this one accidentally obliterate it.
Well.. if upload bandwidth is the only thing keeping p2pstreaming technology (which is essentially free video-on-demand) from being mainstream, I'd have to say its only a matter of time...
First off, you're taking streaming to mean sequential songs or shows, whereas streaming simply means "you watch as you download" (typically with a slight buffer).
P2P streaming essentially offers video-on-demand (or audio on demand) while skirting bandwidth related expenses.
Secondly -- with regards to timeshifting being better than a broadcast (not that timeshifting doesn't rule) I'd have to say that I'd rather listen to a commercial free audio broadcast than timeshift my music. First off, timeshifting audio is a pain in the ass, and secondly -- a good commercial free music station (and I emphasize the word 'good') is how I learn about new music. I'd rather have the variety.
P2P streaming essentially restores the promise of what internet broadcasting originally set out to be. Granted, it has succeeded by skirting the law, but more importantly it has skirted the costs involved as well.
I'm not sure PodCasting is creditworthy when it comes to bringing back web broadcasting.
If any technology or trend is responsible for the rebirth of web broadcasting, it is undoubtedly P2P Streaming (like PeerCast.org).
I can't figure out why p2p streaming isn't getting more hype than it is. I downloaded my first P2P streaming client about a month ago, and was pretty amazed at both the quality and the possibilities.
Has anyone considered a lawsuit against the USPTO for issuing frivolous patents, hence necessitating enormous legal costs for the patent "infringers"?
It seems to me that the answer to all of these nightmare software patent cases stem from a single root-cause: The USPTO and its eager use of the "Patent Approved" stamp.
Furthermore, the USPTO has many internal processes which incentivize approval of patents. This culture of easy patenting costs small businesses and consumers billions -- and reduces natural competition.
Has anyone ever sued or thought of suing the USPTO?
I'm with you on the 'accounting fallacy' bit. Its pretty tough to call every downloaded track, a track that "would have sold". The RIAA is on crack when they make those kind of claims.
But there *is* an impact. It's not 100% as the RIAA suggests, and its not 0% as you suggest in your post. I'm not sure we'll ever have a good metric to assess this loss, but to say that it doesn't exist is as wrong as the RIAA's claim of 100% opportunity cost...
Slashdot Mirror
They keep kids from going outside and *really* committing violent acts.
So is *every* industry full of whores?
I challenge anyone to name a single industry which doesn't conduct "studies" which favour itself.
Nothing's as bad as the pharmaceutical industry. Or how about the world of financial analysis at the end of the 90's? Those were some pretty screwed up "studies".
And now we've got characters like David Lereah (head of the Association of Realtors) on TV everyday screeching "There is no housing bubble" (although he's sounding very depserate lately).
Using the media, the legal system, the court of public opinion, and analysis/forecasting is *how* business is done today. We live in 'spin land'. If you're going to start calling people whores than apparently we're living in one big giant brothel.
Hey... how come I'm not getting laid?
You "should read every single EULA" only if you believe that clicking on a big onscreen button market "I AGREE" constitutes a valid form of acceptance for a contract.
And even if you did believe such nonsense, what if someone else uses your machine and agrees to the EULA without your knowlege. Are you still bound?
These clever little lawyers have constructed this very large, very elaborate system designed to preserve ludicrous amounts of power on the publisher's side of the table. But the system is legally very grey in terms of legitimacy. I mean please: Mom and Pop end users with no legal knowlege "agreeing" with a "mouse click" to pages of complex contractual jargon?
Hah! I have always called BS on this and will continue to do so.
A defense could be as simple as:
"I have a habit of clicking on whatever buttons appear on my screen. Was there some writing there? I don't know. I don't care. Its my computer, and the ActiveX control began downloading without my consent. Pthpth. And I don't understand any of this technical stuff anyway. What's software exactly? What's a Eula? It wasn't explained clearly enough."
Can you imagine if everything came with a nine page contract?
Running to legal-last-ditch resorts in an effort to preserve illogical business models is a losing game. What's incredible is how many losing games there are right now.
Once again the forces behind failed business models are resorting to their last option: force.
The bad news is, this is going to be a pain for everyone if they push this through.
The good news is: its a strategy that has never worked.
That's interesting...
What exactly, if you don't mind explaining, are the benefits and legal parameters of "common carrier" status?
If industry groups are allowed to determine what constitutes acceptable use of Internet traffic, its not just IP blocking for phone users that's at stake. Hell, I'm sure the RIAA would love to just do away with music on the net altogether. (Not to mention the MPAA). Bible thumpers would love to put an end to porn. And old ink&paper publishers would love to get rid of the whole kit & kaboodle.
The point is that preventing certain communications because of corporate agendas or industry expedience is anti-competitive and is an effort to preserve business models that have been outmoded by the development of IP.
This can not be allowed to happen.
On what planet is Darren a "supertalented director"?
Give me one example. "Pi"?
Pff.. Yawn.
YOU ARE A SUCKER.
S.U.C.K.E.R.
First off: By his own acknowledgement, a self-directed system of investment does nothing to resolve the financial problems facing social security.
Secondly: The problems facing social security are a direct result of decreases to taxes which require decreases in social spending.
Thirdly: Social Security is SUPPOSED to be money you can't fuck up. Its supposed to be money that isn't at risk. That's the definition of the word "SECURITY" you dumbass. If you turn it into "Risk Capital" you've got no security at all.
Do you also like the idea of homeless old people? Because if you get rid of social security that's EXACTLY what we'll have again. (Yes, its what we had before Social Security).
Once again the administration has fooled the gullible American public into believing that a correlation exists between his policy and some impending problem. World Trade Center get attacked? Let's invade Iraq. (total non sequitor). Social Security in Financial Jeopardy? Let's create private accounts. (and another non sequitor)
Want to control how your money is invested? Open a friggin e*trade account. Want to synthesize a bull market so you and your banker buddies can get rich? Flood the market with the biggest private investment in the history of the world.
I call bullshit. And so should you.
When will you dumbasses learn.
Uh... next time you call someone a whiner, try reading their post first.
My post was titled "The Problem isn't the Internet", and I pointed the finger at credit cards and gateways in general.
Your post on the other hand was redundant and didn't even make sense as response to mine. Go away.
Yeah... and by comparison, you also have almost no e-commerce.
The problem is that Credit Card companies, banks and anyone else whose revenue is generated by transaction volume have a vested interest in making transactions easier and more frequent.
As big a problem as fraud is, the reality is that there is far more to be gained from lowering barriers to credit card use than there are to raising barriers. The other sad corrolary is that the real losers when it comes to fraud are the consumers.
We have voluntarily traded security for convenience. Now it seems we want our cake too.
The first step in Dvorak's strategy is for Microsoft to build a separate 'commercial driver-layer' for Linux. His prediction: if Microsoft builds this 'essential' layer, a large portion of Linux revenues will go towards Microsoft and developers will therefore lose interest.
Let's put aside for a moment the fact that a major focus on Linux development would be disastrous for Microsoft (It would essentially encourage a mass migration from Windows servers), Dvorak makes some ridiculous blind leaps in assuming that an MS driver layer would [a] Become dominant (based upon what? Microsoft's proven ability to write superior code?) and [b] even if MS succeeded, that their success would cause the entire Linux world to pack up and go elsewhere.
Is Dvorak's supposition that all Linux development is driven merely by the desire to "not" give Microsoft any more cash? Funny, I thought it was to build a stable, faster, and open-sourced OS.
Developing yet another commercial add-on, hardly negates Linux's core mission and value. It would however negate the mission and core value of Windows Servers.
I say go for it Microsoft. Let's see who wins.
I'm a huge fan of a fat manual.
This might be slightly O.T. but with the passing of Black Isle and now Troika, I can't help reflecting on the fact that both of these studios IMHO were the only ones out there that spent enormous time and energy in creating beautiful offline content to accompany their games.
Arcanum was a great game. And one of the reasons I have huge respect for Troika is that they didn't just stop there:
That Arcanum manual was a work of art.
If anyone enjoyed the first two Zorks, I'd like to recommend the third installment in the trilogy. It doesn't have the extensive maps of the first two games, but the text descriptions are far more lush and many key questions about the history of the Great Underground Empire are finally answered.
Also, if you're sporting the Color Graphics Adapter (CGA) on your PC, descriptive text, dialogue text and user entered text are all color coded for ease of use!
What will they think of next?
The ramifications of free wi-fi are greater than just web access... The upshot is of course, free telephone service as well.
This IMHO is where the real problems are going to begin. The telco's aren't just going to lose their internet business over this, they'd lose their businesses.
Not that we'd be sorry to see them go, but it should be acknowleged that we're talking about more than web browsing here.
When did the plural of 'octopus' stop being
'octopi'?
Or did my skool learn me wrong?
Assuming that this star was accellerated to this speed by slingshotting around a supermassive blackhole (like the one at the center of our galaxy): How long would it take at this speed to move from the center of the galaxy to the edge of the galaxy?
And more importantly, how much advance warning would we have if some star shot towards us from the center of our galaxy at a similar speed?
Someone please remind me why AOL bought Netscape again?
Does it strike anyone else as odd that AOL does almost everything they possibly can to *not* add market value to one of their best known brands?
You'd think with the amount of cash AOL has on hand, and with the entire marketplace suddenly beginning to question whether or not IE is worth the trouble... they'd slap some of the dust of Netscape and breathe some life into it. No?
The original atmosphere disappeared because the solar winds burned that atmosphere off. But you have to remember that the process of "losing" its atmosphere took billions of years.
I haven't RTFA but there have been many theories on the subject of using Martian ice to create a "stable" atmosphere. Even if it took only a mere 10000 years to burn off this time, it would still be enormously cool.
I personally wouldn't mind having a backup planet in case the dumbasses running this one accidentally obliterate it.
Well.. if upload bandwidth is the only thing keeping p2pstreaming technology (which is essentially free video-on-demand) from being mainstream, I'd have to say its only a matter of time...
I'd have to respectfully disagree on two fronts.
First off, you're taking streaming to mean sequential songs or shows, whereas streaming simply means "you watch as you download" (typically with a slight buffer).
P2P streaming essentially offers video-on-demand (or audio on demand) while skirting bandwidth related expenses.
Secondly -- with regards to timeshifting being better than a broadcast (not that timeshifting doesn't rule) I'd have to say that I'd rather listen to a commercial free audio broadcast than timeshift my music. First off, timeshifting audio is a pain in the ass, and secondly -- a good commercial free music station (and I emphasize the word 'good') is how I learn about new music. I'd rather have the variety.
P2P streaming essentially restores the promise of what internet broadcasting originally set out to be. Granted, it has succeeded by skirting the law, but more importantly it has skirted the costs involved as well.
I'm not sure PodCasting is creditworthy when it comes to bringing back web broadcasting.
If any technology or trend is responsible for the rebirth of web broadcasting, it is undoubtedly P2P Streaming (like PeerCast.org).
I can't figure out why p2p streaming isn't getting more hype than it is. I downloaded my first P2P streaming client about a month ago, and was pretty amazed at both the quality and the possibilities.
Has anyone considered a lawsuit against the USPTO for issuing frivolous patents, hence necessitating enormous legal costs for the patent "infringers"?
It seems to me that the answer to all of these nightmare software patent cases stem from a single root-cause: The USPTO and its eager use of the "Patent Approved" stamp.
Furthermore, the USPTO has many internal processes which incentivize approval of patents. This culture of easy patenting costs small businesses and consumers billions -- and reduces natural competition.
Has anyone ever sued or thought of suing the USPTO?
Well, right AND wrong...
I'm with you on the 'accounting fallacy' bit. Its pretty tough to call every downloaded track, a track that "would have sold". The RIAA is on crack when they make those kind of claims.
But there *is* an impact. It's not 100% as the RIAA suggests, and its not 0% as you suggest in your post. I'm not sure we'll ever have a good metric to assess this loss, but to say that it doesn't exist is as wrong as the RIAA's claim of 100% opportunity cost...