Yes, "traditional Western ethical standards" were in full force after 9/11/2001 - people lost their jobs for saying "unpatriotic" stuff, people were ordered out of malls for expressing their views with peace symbol T-shirts,...
then there are all the "no"-words you are supposed not to use etc.
By traditional Western ethical standards, censorship is common but not blatantly so.
Google's app was probably full of Googlish "we will scrape all info we can find on your device and send to or servers just in case" features that Google fans seem to find a shedload of excuses for.
Yeah, it's not like Microsoft explicitly aded code to DOS to prevent Lotus 123 from running under the motto "DOS ain't done until Lotus won't run". Oh wait, they did.
These days they stick to FUD instead of code, thankfully. Maye because they were one presidential election away from an antitrust conviction back when Bush Jr. came into the office?
Mobile platforms are a perfect market for small developers. Unfortunately they have no choice but to rely on Apple letting them include their software in the official application repository.
I am sure that would cause developers to shun the platform, or abandon it in droves for more open platforms like Windows or Android.
Oh, except the iPhone now has such a large user-base of people willing to pay for apps that they accept Apple's peculiarities as something they are willing to endure when the alternative is to try and find some way to get their apps sold to owners of those other devices. Without the ubiquitous iTunes and already established associated Store combo...
Funny you should mention Neverwinter Nights, since that particular game derives from a pay-per-minute server-hosted game way back in the day. I.e. the precursor to this service...
We are not whiners we are skeptics and we have every right to be that. Where are now the fans of the Phantom console who refuted any criticism of that business model and until the very last kept insisting that the download-only console would be the next big thing?
"In the video" is NOT proof. I searched ea.com for OnLive and got zilch. I would assume if EA was "on board" they would actually be willing to share that fact? I mean, is there any mention of it from non-OnLive sources?
But if I buy a game, I can play it hundreds of times without paying more. If I eat at a restaurant I pay for the food each time I eat. Analogy fail as expected, but let us continue down that road because it is a correct route.
Cloud services (currently) charge by resource usage (CPU, disk). So basically it would entail a business model where either that cost was factored into the price to the end user beased on a resource use (e.g. average play time) estimate, or actually passed on (which would entail "per hour" or pay-per-view gaming, a model that was popular with some games on Compuserve and the like back in the day).
Are people really willing to accept that?
Also, since the inputs and video pass over the broadband connection - even in highly compressed form - eventually a metered (capped) connection might run into its limits, especially if this catches on and everyone starts playing high-fps games over the service. So while those of us who stuck with our consoles and their shiny disks can continue to play, the OnLive customer suddenly is out of luck. How long before they cancel the subscription and the potential OnLive box is relegated to collecting dust?
It's not an assessment it is actual MATH. It does not add up. Unless you somehow manage to add "negative ping code" as some other fanciful dreamer once claimed to have written.
I think the requirement that Toonol is forgetting here is that these servers need to sit practically in a farm right next to your ISP so that there is the smallest lag possible.
Perhaps you can point to AT LEAST ONE court case where the creators or their representatives charged someone producing illegal copies with theft instead of the different legal concept of unauthorized copying?
Works were created before copyright, and will continue to be created after it goes away. The creative will want to create, the audience will want to consume.
What will not continue is a third party - the industries which live off pretending to add value/services for the actual creators but in effect inserting themselves as middlemen siphoning off what the customer pays before a fraction ends up in the artist's hands.
Open-source software is a good example. Everyone gets the source, and you make money from using it, or offering (not demanding) services associated with it. Much like you can cook your own dinner instead of going to a restaurant, the restaurant needs to provide an incentive for you to go there. Perceived added value.
As opposed to, say, relying on Mommy State to create laws that cushions your business model while at the same time letting you off the hook for anti-competitive practices (like the blatant price fixing that sees all CDs practically costing the same in a store, independent of production cost and volume) or distribution restrictions which divides markets along e.g. DVD region lines.
The Chinese legal system said Akmal Shaikh should be killed for drug smuggling. Despite this use of the legal system there, Britain found it necessary to protest.
So why should others not protest if we consider a law to be wrongly applied?
How do you ensure the creator gets money for their work? When I enter a record store and buy a CD, I pay the store. Has the store already paid the artist? Will it pay the artist? Are there a load of other intermediaries that want their cut before any money trickle down to the creator?There is no way for me to know. I can just ASSUME that the store has the right to sell me the CD, and whomever it bought them from has the right to sell them to the store and so on.
(Though I seem to recall there was some brouhaha over Eminem music being sold in iTunes by a company which, it turned out, did not have the right to do so.)
Also, if one store charges $20 per CD and another sells the same CDs for $10, if I buy at the second store do I cheat the creator out of 50% of what they are entitled to? Or does the $10 difference go to the more expensive store and the artist not getting any of that anyway? Is there then any reason to shoose the former store?
And how do you feel about second-hand sales, legal by the First Sale doctrine? The artist sees no profit from that, only the agent that deals in the second-hand goods (e.g. buys cheap, sells not-as-cheap).
Solution: Go to concerts, or download then pay the artists directly.
First we need to exterminate the Catholics, apparently paedophiles the bunch of'em...
Oh, wait, it seems that instead, the acts of individuals or comparatively small groups are not characteristic of everyone who shares some label with them. Didn't you get the memo?
No wonder you are anonymous - and coward certainly fits the bill. Desire for murder is strong in you, yes? So you share at least one trait with the terrorists then.
I think Left Behind is based on the hypothesis that on Judgment Day, 144,000 will ascend to heaven, 144,000 sent to hell, and the rest remaining on Earth. Now, since these particular Christians have gotten into their heads that only Christianity provides ethics and morals, the idea is that after Rapture society will fall into barbaric chaos.
Po-tah-to, po-tay-to. Yes, the "murder" clause refers to people of the faith - nonbelievers being free game - but still, it has no place in modern society.
News media ALREADY exist at something's whim, that of newsworthy events; at least to the extent they themselves don't create them in order to sell. Ironically, they are themselves a third party between an occurence and the reader interested in it, and they will eventually be replaced by citizen journalism channeled through some future sequel to Twitter or the like. That will be then, sadly this is now.
They are, as you indicate, businesses: Their mission is to create income, it has not been to inform the public for decades now. But unlike successful businesses they are still mired in ancient trade guild/union thinking where the photographers, journalists and typesetters are kings of their turfs and set in their ways. And that is the part that really needs to die if they want to succeed: Blocking Google et al is just pouring gasoline on the fire that is consuming them.
The point is that for 99% of news sites out there, Goggle is the way (non-local) people find them. As in, visitors. Block them out and reduce your exposure, I am sure advertiser would flock to that idea.
Leaving out the middle man might sound fine in theory, but... would Coca-Cola sell as much of their products if people had to go to Atlanta, Georgia to buy them?
"High-quality reporting" will be there if there is a market for it, regardless of business model. But often it is the "citizen reporting" that drives news because they are there when it happens. In a world where everyone has a camera phone there really is no need to cater to a self-serving guild-like trade. CNN (with iReport) and BBC know this, Fox will learn the hard way.
Maybe the option was that Microsoft would pay the web designer customers the BILLIONS that special-case handling of the hill of poop called IE 6 inflicted upon them, and the setback to the web look that their feet-dragging in supporting CSS properly has caused...
Imagine if everyone used Paint instead of Photoshop? People already use it because they do not know of free, better-featured alternatives there either, but bitmap graphics software is not as important to world trade as the browser is.
Slashdot Mirror
But resistant to what? If the "M" does not exist, what does the "R" apply to?
Yes, "traditional Western ethical standards" were in full force after 9/11/2001 - people lost their jobs for saying "unpatriotic" stuff, people were ordered out of malls for expressing their views with peace symbol T-shirts, ...
then there are all the "no"-words you are supposed not to use etc.
By traditional Western ethical standards, censorship is common but not blatantly so.
I mean, you can't make that shit up. Didn't they at least consider the acronym before deciding on a name?
Google's app was probably full of Googlish "we will scrape all info we can find on your device and send to or servers just in case" features that Google fans seem to find a shedload of excuses for.
Yeah, it's not like Microsoft explicitly aded code to DOS to prevent Lotus 123 from running under the motto "DOS ain't done until Lotus won't run". Oh wait, they did.
These days they stick to FUD instead of code, thankfully. Maye because they were one presidential election away from an antitrust conviction back when Bush Jr. came into the office?
Mobile platforms are a perfect market for small developers. Unfortunately they have no choice but to rely on Apple letting them include their software in the official application repository.
I am sure that would cause developers to shun the platform, or abandon it in droves for more open platforms like Windows or Android.
Oh, except the iPhone now has such a large user-base of people willing to pay for apps that they accept Apple's peculiarities as something they are willing to endure when the alternative is to try and find some way to get their apps sold to owners of those other devices. Without the ubiquitous iTunes and already established associated Store combo...
Funny you should mention Neverwinter Nights, since that particular game derives from a pay-per-minute server-hosted game way back in the day. I.e. the precursor to this service...
We are not whiners we are skeptics and we have every right to be that. Where are now the fans of the Phantom console who refuted any criticism of that business model and until the very last kept insisting that the download-only console would be the next big thing?
"In the video" is NOT proof. I searched ea.com for OnLive and got zilch. I would assume if EA was "on board" they would actually be willing to share that fact? I mean, is there any mention of it from non-OnLive sources?
Personal attacks as substitute for addressing healthy skepticism directed at the latest Infineon/Phantom equivalent? How sad.
I bet this service will run Duke Nukem Forever real fast like.
But if I buy a game, I can play it hundreds of times without paying more. If I eat at a restaurant I pay for the food each time I eat. Analogy fail as expected, but let us continue down that road because it is a correct route.
Cloud services (currently) charge by resource usage (CPU, disk). So basically it would entail a business model where either that cost was factored into the price to the end user beased on a resource use (e.g. average play time) estimate, or actually passed on (which would entail "per hour" or pay-per-view gaming, a model that was popular with some games on Compuserve and the like back in the day).
Are people really willing to accept that?
Also, since the inputs and video pass over the broadband connection - even in highly compressed form - eventually a metered (capped) connection might run into its limits, especially if this catches on and everyone starts playing high-fps games over the service. So while those of us who stuck with our consoles and their shiny disks can continue to play, the OnLive customer suddenly is out of luck. How long before they cancel the subscription and the potential OnLive box is relegated to collecting dust?
It's not an assessment it is actual MATH. It does not add up. Unless you somehow manage to add "negative ping code" as some other fanciful dreamer once claimed to have written.
I think the requirement that Toonol is forgetting here is that these servers need to sit practically in a farm right next to your ISP so that there is the smallest lag possible.
So, zero arguments left?
Perhaps you can point to AT LEAST ONE court case where the creators or their representatives charged someone producing illegal copies with theft instead of the different legal concept of unauthorized copying?
Works were created before copyright, and will continue to be created after it goes away. The creative will want to create, the audience will want to consume.
What will not continue is a third party - the industries which live off pretending to add value/services for the actual creators but in effect inserting themselves as middlemen siphoning off what the customer pays before a fraction ends up in the artist's hands.
Open-source software is a good example. Everyone gets the source, and you make money from using it, or offering (not demanding) services associated with it. Much like you can cook your own dinner instead of going to a restaurant, the restaurant needs to provide an incentive for you to go there. Perceived added value.
As opposed to, say, relying on Mommy State to create laws that cushions your business model while at the same time letting you off the hook for anti-competitive practices (like the blatant price fixing that sees all CDs practically costing the same in a store, independent of production cost and volume) or distribution restrictions which divides markets along e.g. DVD region lines.
If you somehow manage to create an exact copy of the Ford Focus at negligible cost, feel free.
You are right it is not a valid analogy. Car analogies are never valid, it is a law of nature.
The Chinese legal system said Akmal Shaikh should be killed for drug smuggling. Despite this use of the legal system there, Britain found it necessary to protest.
So why should others not protest if we consider a law to be wrongly applied?
Downloads is far from the only target here.
How do you ensure the creator gets money for their work? When I enter a record store and buy a CD, I pay the store. Has the store already paid the artist? Will it pay the artist? Are there a load of other intermediaries that want their cut before any money trickle down to the creator?There is no way for me to know. I can just ASSUME that the store has the right to sell me the CD, and whomever it bought them from has the right to sell them to the store and so on.
(Though I seem to recall there was some brouhaha over Eminem music being sold in iTunes by a company which, it turned out, did not have the right to do so.)
Also, if one store charges $20 per CD and another sells the same CDs for $10, if I buy at the second store do I cheat the creator out of 50% of what they are entitled to? Or does the $10 difference go to the more expensive store and the artist not getting any of that anyway? Is there then any reason to shoose the former store?
And how do you feel about second-hand sales, legal by the First Sale doctrine? The artist sees no profit from that, only the agent that deals in the second-hand goods (e.g. buys cheap, sells not-as-cheap).
Solution: Go to concerts, or download then pay the artists directly.
First we need to exterminate the Catholics, apparently paedophiles the bunch of'em...
Oh, wait, it seems that instead, the acts of individuals or comparatively small groups are not characteristic of everyone who shares some label with them. Didn't you get the memo?
No wonder you are anonymous - and coward certainly fits the bill. Desire for murder is strong in you, yes? So you share at least one trait with the terrorists then.
Well I loled.
I think Left Behind is based on the hypothesis that on Judgment Day, 144,000 will ascend to heaven, 144,000 sent to hell, and the rest remaining on Earth. Now, since these particular Christians have gotten into their heads that only Christianity provides ethics and morals, the idea is that after Rapture society will fall into barbaric chaos.
Po-tah-to, po-tay-to. Yes, the "murder" clause refers to people of the faith - nonbelievers being free game - but still, it has no place in modern society.
News media ALREADY exist at something's whim, that of newsworthy events; at least to the extent they themselves don't create them in order to sell. Ironically, they are themselves a third party between an occurence and the reader interested in it, and they will eventually be replaced by citizen journalism channeled through some future sequel to Twitter or the like. That will be then, sadly this is now.
They are, as you indicate, businesses: Their mission is to create income, it has not been to inform the public for decades now. But unlike successful businesses they are still mired in ancient trade guild/union thinking where the photographers, journalists and typesetters are kings of their turfs and set in their ways. And that is the part that really needs to die if they want to succeed: Blocking Google et al is just pouring gasoline on the fire that is consuming them.
The point is that for 99% of news sites out there, Goggle is the way (non-local) people find them. As in, visitors. Block them out and reduce your exposure, I am sure advertiser would flock to that idea.
Leaving out the middle man might sound fine in theory, but... would Coca-Cola sell as much of their products if people had to go to Atlanta, Georgia to buy them?
"High-quality reporting" will be there if there is a market for it, regardless of business model. But often it is the "citizen reporting" that drives news because they are there when it happens. In a world where everyone has a camera phone there really is no need to cater to a self-serving guild-like trade. CNN (with iReport) and BBC know this, Fox will learn the hard way.
Who dies if someone has a gram of pot in their pocket? Victimless crimes and all that.
Maybe the option was that Microsoft would pay the web designer customers the BILLIONS that special-case handling of the hill of poop called IE 6 inflicted upon them, and the setback to the web look that their feet-dragging in supporting CSS properly has caused...
Imagine if everyone used Paint instead of Photoshop? People already use it because they do not know of free, better-featured alternatives there either, but bitmap graphics software is not as important to world trade as the browser is.
Modders, release your points.